Where do you fall on that debate? Do you think that what the author says is the final unquestionable word? Or do you think his input is valuable, but no more valuable than another skilled analysis?

I definitely fall on the Death of the Author camp. On one hand, I think there's just no objectively correct interpretations in art, and on another, everyone brings biases into their interpretations, the author is no different. It can be mommy issues, racist views, hatred of dairy, a distrust for people with hats, whatever. Biases can be so ingrained that they end up in your work and you don't notice it, because to you they are just the way things are and not an intentional "running theme". That's why we need people on the outside looking in, providing other, equally valid, interpretations.

Started reading Barthes?

I don't think I entirely belong in one "camp" on this matter. I think it almost always depends on a particular case. For example, despite being an atheist I still love and enjoy C.S. Lewis' Narnia books and I'm not bothered by the christian themes, because they are just one facet of the books... except for the last novel, which is so preachy and heavy-handed, that unlike the previous ones there is nothing other than the authors preaching intentions there to see. Sometimes a work can be seen separate from the authors intentions, sometimes such separation is not possible. And then of course there are plenty of works not nearly meaningful enough for it to really matter, as the knowledge of the author's intention amounts little more than trivia (honestly, does anyone think that Verhoeven's "RoboCop is meant to be american jesus" idea contribtes anything to their experience watching the movie?)

Not really. It's just the usual reaction to people trying to shut down conversations online by saying the author has the final say, period. I was curious to see how many people actually fall on that camp.

I'm under the impression that most people aren't very rigorous in their assessment. I imagine most of the answers would be "Well, duh, if author says so, it is so", but those same people would call bullshit on authors when they say something they don't agree with.

No to both questions. If the author is dead, then I feel it doesn't matter what he says anymore. no one can hear him from his coffin anyway. "mmm-m-mmmm-MMMMM!", yeah whatever. Dead people should just shut up, the author should have spoken up when he was still among the living. Now it is too late.

I'm in the Charles Bukowski camp:

"When you're the writer, you're always the hero."

Whatever is either obvious or extremely likely in the work is the final say.

Sometimes, ambiguity can be resolved from recurring patterns and themes in the work pointing at an obvious direction (ex: based on the fact that the entire story was about a guy's delusions, I don't think he really flew off in Birdman).

If it can't be resolved, well, too bad. It will remain ambiguous. The writer should have been clearer when he/she wrote it and it is too late after the work is out there. For example, if J. K. Rowling wanted to make Dumbledore gay, she should have had the courage to explicitly make him gay (or at least give much stronger indications). As it is, unless she later makes him gay in a prequel, Dumbledore's sexual orientation is whatever the individual reader deems fit to decide.

Author has the final say*.




* So long as the quality and tone of the writing stays consistent. Retro-fitting bullshit or forcing the plot in an unnatural direction "cuz reasons" can screw off. If you have to retcon, clarify in interviews, or whatever you screwed up somewhere (either in the writing or in hamfistedly pushing for a different whatever).

I don't know anything about the "debate". Well, I probably don't purposely know anything about it.

It sounds to me this is about interpretation by the audience. In communication I think interpretation is always the listener's duty because the speaker can't think for someone else. Whatever the listener or audience determines is going to be based on the listener's (or audience's) abilities to understand in that moment of interpreting regardless of whatever the speaker is trying to say.

I think that's most obvious when speaker and listener are without a common language. I think that's least obvious when a common language is thought to exist even though words, phrases, idioms, and combination thereof will always have distinct meanings from person to person, and even for the same person at different points of time (f.e. next week, five minutes later, yesterday, etc.).

Considering conversations are about each person speaking and listening, communication is compounded by continuous misunderstandings.

So, it seems to me any interpretations is a revealing of the interpreter's thoughts (and in that particular moment), and not revealing of the "author" in any way other than coincidence (and non-confirmable).

In essence, it's blaming someone else for one's own feelings or thoughts. Or "crediting" someone else for inspiration. Whichever, it's the same coin. Either way, I think the observer is revealing their own blindness, their own weaknesses, at least for that very moment.

I'd say "it depends". As a case in point - Han definitely shot first. I don't give a crap what Lucas wants to do to change facts after the fact. :)

My master thesis in literature oh so long ago aimed at getting to know the author through interpretation of his works instead of understanding his ideas by digging through his biography. And lo and behold, it seemed to me that interpretation of this particular guy's work was, for over a hundred years, really screwed by looking at, in part fictionalized/sensationalized, biographic details. Which is still deep rooted in literature, I guess. My professors noted the absence of the traditional interpretatory dimension at length in their evaluation but were thankfully quick to appreciate what fresh and valid perspective I could offer because of it.

So in a sense I went a hardcore Author is Dead route there, but I still tried to find and debate authorial intent, which wouldn't have been to Barthes' liking I guess.

Many layers, it only depends on your current focus. A work is several things simultaneously. A good analogy is standard communication and its pitfalls.

The author's discourse has a conscious component and an unconscious component. So, what the work means (what did the author mean to express) is one valid question, answered by the author's explicit clarifications (at that time). What the work conveys is a different valid question, as all the unconscious psychological and cultural background of the author can show in the work even though the authour would deny it or would be shocked by it ("I didn't have any racist intent" for instance). Sometimes, with time and distance, the authors themselves can become aware of that element, and be poroud or embarrassed of it (francophone authors like Franquin and Hergé were annoyed in retrospect by the patronizing racism of their early works, of which they were unaware at the time). So there's what the work expresses objectively, independantly from intent.

And then there's the work's clumsiness. Like a badly constructed sentence can end up meaning something different from what it was supposed to express (without being even a freudian slip), a clumsy work can have unfortunate implications that the author didn't mean, or wouldn't represent their worldviews. Again, a matter of perspective : what the work ends up being objectively is different from what the work is to its author.

And then there's cultural reappropriation. As the public changes, the different lights stress different aspects of the work, making it a symbol of this or a symbol of that, changing its messages. Then the work, from that perspective, is what it is used for (a cautionary tale for what) in a given context, within the consensus of a given society. It can escape the intent of the author, but if you wish to describe what this work mean (to people, now), if that's what is relevant to your question, then that's what you have you tell about. For instance, "what Dracula is about" depends a lot on the society and epoch where it's read. A work can resonate with different things, and this be hijacked as the (positive or negative) illustration of varying things. Heck, "the Babadook" may very well become (durably reinterpreted as) a gay rights symbol due to a mere netflix label blunder.

These different answers don't contradict each others. There's simply many ways to ponder what a work is, and a work is always (functionally) many things simultaneously. Just like a word has many contextual meanings, or just like a situation can be defined very differently in accordance to the realities of each protagonist's perspective. Put dramatically : a work has different planes of existence, and a thorough description should account for them all, avoiding reduction to one of them.

I refuse to give a statement on the death of that author without my lawyer present!

The moment a work cannot be appreciated in any form other than that allowed by the author, it becomes a dead work itself. While absolutely yes, the author should have the right to say what the intention is, you can't ask for intent to entirely take the place of interpretation. The author, after all, is not themselves an omniscient perspective, able to divine what does and does not resonate with an audience with total accuracy.

Of course this isn't to say that authorial intent should be discard willy nilly or that authors should be mischaracterized. Simply that there's room at the table for different perspectives. Did anyone give a damn about what intentions George Lucas had with the numerous changes made throughout the years to Star Wars? Only the most ardent fanboys.

Just an aside, I love how George Lucas is the "whipping boy" whenever the topci of author/creator intent/changes comes up.