Oh good grief.

[prog]

Whether it's Bradbury saying something cranky or Rowling saying something saucy, the author's interpretation of their own story or characters is worth no more than any other reader's take-away.

I mean, it's definitely worth talking about, and if you find yourself agreeing with the author about it, that's cool. But to then go on and say "Aha, this definitively means that Character X had Attribute Y", I say poopie upon you.

If I ever design a yuk-yuk T-shirt (besides the Volity ones) it will be themed around the slogan AUTHORIAL INTENT IS FOR SUCKERS or something.

Comments

[novalis.livejournal.com]

We can distinguish between interpretive statements about the meaning of the work (which is what the Bradbury thing was all about), and questions about characters and story.

Imagine that Rowling's response to the fan's question were to instead say, "You'll find out in my next short story, due to be published in F&SF next month." And the short story was about D/G. OK, so let's say it was a short-short story. Like a paragraph. And then imagine Rowling read it from the podium. Why should her phrasing of it as an answer to a question rather than a short story matter?

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Thanks, I was going to say the same thing (but probably less politely). I really think riding the authorial-intent hobbyhorse in this particular situation is just wrong.