I think I've lost my ability to construct a coherent sentence. You know that Simpsons episode where Lisa thinks she's getting stupider as she gets older? That's how I feel. Or maybe it's just lack of sleep. (So, apologies in advance if this doesn't make sense.)
Anyway ... um, someone on Buffyology raised the question of how much influence we should give the author's intent when we're interpreting a work. I tried to post some thoughts there, but I tend to feel like a 3-year-old attempting to communicate with a bunch of rocket scientists when I'm on that list. So I thought about posting about it in a less-pressured environment (ie here). Although now it occurs to me that most of the people reading this are writers so they probably won't agree with what I say anyway.
The most heated (and fun) debate I've ever gotten into on BAPS (I love that list) was about the relevance of authorial intent. Some people were saying that, since ME says Spike couldn't be redeemed without a soul (which is debatable itself), we just have to agree. The author gets the final say; soulless redemptionists simply have to "give up" what they'd been arguing for the past year and a half. And that's just nonsense in my opinion. We saw Spike on a path toward redemption in seasons five and six. So what if Mutant Enemy didn't see it. David Fury can't even figure out what was going on in The Hunchback of Notre Dame; we're supposed to allow him to tell us what to think about our favorite TV show? I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned, once the text has been produced, the writer doesn't have any more say than anyone else; the readers' opinions are just as relevant, as long as they are supported by the text. Soulless redemptionist was clearly in the text as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not going to change my opinion because someone else tells me to.
Authorial Intent
Anyway ... um, someone on Buffyology raised the question of how much influence we should give the author's intent when we're interpreting a work. I tried to post some thoughts there, but I tend to feel like a 3-year-old attempting to communicate with a bunch of rocket scientists when I'm on that list. So I thought about posting about it in a less-pressured environment (ie here). Although now it occurs to me that most of the people reading this are writers so they probably won't agree with what I say anyway.
The most heated (and fun) debate I've ever gotten into on BAPS (I love that list) was about the relevance of authorial intent. Some people were saying that, since ME says Spike couldn't be redeemed without a soul (which is debatable itself), we just have to agree. The author gets the final say; soulless redemptionists simply have to "give up" what they'd been arguing for the past year and a half. And that's just nonsense in my opinion. We saw Spike on a path toward redemption in seasons five and six. So what if Mutant Enemy didn't see it. David Fury can't even figure out what was going on in The Hunchback of Notre Dame; we're supposed to allow him to tell us what to think about our favorite TV show? I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned, once the text has been produced, the writer doesn't have any more say than anyone else; the readers' opinions are just as relevant, as long as they are supported by the text. Soulless redemptionist was clearly in the text as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not going to change my opinion because someone else tells me to.