Does a story belong to its writer?

[Saint Jack]

OK, I've been thinking about this for some time, and I know that I'm going to have trouble putting this into words, but try and bear with me.

Do people think that it is valid if we find something in a piece of literature that the author never intended? If for example Shakespeare were to come back and tell us that certain meanings in his plays were completely different to what we pick up from them today, would we have been wrong to pick up the meanings we did?

I guess it comes down to how much ownership an author has over their work. Can what an author says after his work has been published change the meaning of his work or once it has been sent out into Literature Land, is it no longer the author's property, a story for us to make of it what we will?

Sorry if this topic has been done before, and I hope what I have said makes sense.

[Mark F.]

A story belongs to its author and he should probably have the final word. However, when one creates something he is bound to put something of himself in his work work without any intention. From the moment an author is published he is, and I believe this is the goal of any artist, making himself heard. By doing this he is asking people to read what he has written. Read doesn't just mean reading the words that make up sentences that in turn make up the story; it also means trying to understand what's between the words so I believe interpreting is a part of the reader's duty and that, although an author can disagree with what people think he meant he should consider the acuracy and the veracity of what these people are saying.

After all, as I said, the goal of any artist should be to be listened to, seen (...) so the least he can do in return to those help him achieve his goal is to be open to their interpretations of his work.

[Zippy]

Interesting. I asked a professor of literature a similar question fairly recently. He said that all texts are open to a variety of interpretations and that authors are frequently not aware of meanings when they write a piece. He cited as an example a fairly new author (sorry forgotten his name!) who was surprised at a critic's interpretation of his work as an allegory for the Vietnam war. The assumption is that once it's published, it belongs to the reader. While the author's interpretations are taken into account, he or she has to realise that people will find their own meanings in the text.

From a writer's perspective, the advice which is often given is to write the first draft with the door closed and the second with the door open. Once you show it to people or get it published, it no longer belongs to you (except in a legal sense).

In a way this disappoints me. We read a work by Shakespeare, listen to various interpretations and are awed by the writer's genius. How did they manage to create something with so many angles to it? So much depth? However, if the author was not conscious of these hidden meanings can we really call them a genius? Perhaps all art is is interpretation?

[Logos]

Hello Saint Jack, interesting topic!

I would say overall, for most of the fiction I've ever read, that indeed the author is basically provoking interpretation and thought to their work, they want people to `read between the lines' in most cases. I feel it is rare that characters and plot are to be taken literally.

Russian writers under Bolshevik censor used innuendo and metaphor to convey their ideas and philosophy.

The age-old theme in morality works of Everyman; or allegorical death theme or evil versus good is used over and over again.

Readers (hopefully) are going to be able to interpret these works as they applied to the current socio-political climate, but also to their own life and circumstance and I think these late authors would be very happy that people can `read into'what they were trying to put forth.

Zippy I feel that the more interpretation that a work of art inspires, the more valuable it is. Shakespeare is `art' in so much as it trancends time and change.

[Logos]

And to be a little technical here :) my understanding is that basically one cannot copyright a story `idea' but manifestations of said story can be copyrighted, or `owned'.

an interesting site:

"If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me." (http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html)

So, at least in the United States, derivative works, (stories written based on an already copyrighted work) are not legal, the author does own the original story, and one needs permission from that author to base further stories on it.

Unless you are making fun of it, `parody', or criticising it, that is allowed.

[PeterL]

Do people think that it is valid if we find something in a piece of literature that the author never intended?

I guess it comes down to how much ownership an author has over their work. Can what an author says after his work has been published change the meaning of his work or once it has been sent out into Literature Land, is it no longer the author's property, a story for us to make of it what we will?

I believe that it is often valid to see something in a work of literature that the author didn't intentionally include, but there are other works that are written with only one possible interpretation. There are people who impose their own ideas into a work of literature, even when there is nothing about that in the work. After an author has completed a work, the work stands on its own, and it is the responsibility of the reader to get from it whatever the reader can get.

For a thorough discussion of this matter, you might read "The Limits of Interpretation", "Interpretation and Overinterpretation", and "The Role of the Reader" by Umberto Eco.