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

[mrmorse.livejournal.com]

I mostly agree with you, but I think declarations of the author's intent can be useful for discussion. I also think it's entirely reasonable to decide that the author doesn't know what they're talking about. I'd go so far as the conclusion that a sequel by the original author is wrong and is therefore not canon in some cases.

Things get trickier when authors revise their works. If, for example, in the theatrical release of a movie it's unclear whether a character is a replicant, but in the director's cut it is clear that the character is, I don't think the director's claim that the character was always a replicant in the theatrical release necessarily carries weight. But any discussion of the issue then requires at least some justification of why one version of the work is preferred over the other. "Because the director is a moron" may well be sufficient justification.