Is an author's say the final word?

[kelby_lake]

This came out of a thread on an imdb forum about All About Eve. Apparantly Mankiewicz envisaged Eve as a lesbian- but that's not how I saw it when I watched it. I envisaged her more as attracted purely to power.

Is the author's say on the meaning the final word or is it open to interpretation?

[JCamilo]

Obviously not, authors have this tendecy to die before people stop reading or viewing his work, so unelss you believe in ghosts, He cannt even have the final word.

[LitNetIsGreat]

This came out of a thread on an imdb forum about All About Eve. Apparantly Mankiewicz envisaged Eve as a lesbian- but that's not how I saw it when I watched it. I envisaged her more as attracted purely to power.

Is the author's say on the meaning the final word or is it open to interpretation?

No, the author does not have the final say, categorically no. Unless something is obviously expressed within the text then the interpretation always lies with the reader, it has to. What the author has to say is of interest for sure, but the meaning will always lie with the reader/viewer etc.

[stlukesguild]

Certainly not. How many writers intended a book to be experienced as a deeply profound and moving expression on whatever only to discover the public perceived it as a pretentious and overwrought bit of drivel? As an artist, albeit a visual artist, I have long thought of my completed paintings as something akin to a child. Once they reach a certain point you can do no more and they have a life of their own. Picasso said something... somewhat similar: "A painting is never finished, it is only abandoned."

[dfloyd]

as a lesbian either. This was one of the better roles which George Sanders had. Sanders said that it was a good story, but wan't accepted by the public because there was no overiding love interest. Wasn't Mankiwiecz (?sp) the director that couldn't abide Scott Fitzgerald's screen plays?

[mayneverhave]

When the author makes any sort of comment or analytic remark about his/her work, it should be treated as just another bit of criticism and not given any special authority. So Shakespeare writing a commentary on his plays may be of a special interest, but not of a special authority.

The simple reason is: critics write criticism, authors write books. When an author writes criticism on his own work, he is acting like a critic, and his capacities as a critic may not be of the same standard as his capacities as an author. Very few writers managed to produce both a high level of creative work and a high level of critical work: TS Eliot comes to mind.

I always hear professional athletes reply to criticism of their play with: "You don't play [insert sport], so you don't know." The critic should very well respond: "You don't write criticism, so you don't know." Thus, when sports leagues give out prizes based on peer votes (as in other athletes voting for the league MVP), there's no particular reason to assume that the athletes in question have the capacity to choose the best player, especially when compared to professional sports writers or analysts. Why would you trust the opinion of someone who merely plays the game over someone who spends all of their professional time dissecting and analyzing it?

[JuniperWoolf]

Authors might not be consciously aware of their leanings and perceptions while they're writing. A good example is Milton's depiction of Satan. He could swear up and down that he wasn't trying to portray Satan as a sympathetic character in Paradise Lost, but there it is in writing.

[Heteronym]

Writers aren't the best judges of their own work. A writer by definition is just a person who writes. He never knows if he's writing great literature or trash.

There are so many circumstances that judge the artistic merit of a work that are beyond the control of a writer. Some works take decades or centuries to get the credit they deserve. Some remain obscure because they're out of print, or because of the writer's political beliefs, or because it's in a foreign language and no one has bothered to translate it to a language that will give it international recognition.

Then there are the aesthetic principles that change in every age, that decide the importance and insignificance of something.

Writers, of course, have the freedom to participate in this game, and they can leave their own impressions about what their work means. If it's argued persuasively enough it can even gain supporters. But in the end, it's just one voice amongst many.

[JBI]

Certainly not. How many writers intended a book to be experienced as a deeply profound and moving expression on whatever only to discover the public perceived it as a pretentious and overwrought bit of drivel? As an artist, albeit a visual artist, I have long thought of my completed paintings as something akin to a child. Once they reach a certain point you can do no more and they have a life of their own. Picasso said something... somewhat similar: "A painting is never finished, it is only abandoned."

Of course - but real criticism cannot go too far, like reading the holocaust in The Metamorphosis, or turning Frankenstein into some sort of woman's suffrage text - the amount of stretch is limited to a reasonable sphere if you are commenting for a real reason - the whole idea is that the author cannot control how it is read, and the text is discussed, not the author, yet the background is never ignored, as a "purely" personal reading without any grounding is just as silly and annoying as one that tries to read biography into every word.


The author is dead, but the text is still rooted in a sphere, which includes the author - it's just the author doesn't have the last say on the text once it is published, and one is able to say whatever they want without the author's approval. The problem is though this emerged out of a tradition of finding Freudian elements in everything, so it ends up bringing some wacky nonsense to the table.

[stlukesguild]

I always hear professional athletes reply to criticism of their play with: "You don't play [insert sport], so you don't know." The critic should very well respond: "You don't write criticism, so you don't know." Thus, when sports leagues give out prizes based on peer votes (as in other athletes voting for the league MVP), there's no particular reason to assume that the athletes in question have the capacity to choose the best player, especially when compared to professional sports writers or analysts. Why would you trust the opinion of someone who merely plays the game over someone who spends all of their professional time dissecting and analyzing it?

God doesn't engage in theology?:sosp:

Of course - but real criticism cannot go too far, like reading the holocaust in The Metamorphosis, or turning Frankenstein into some sort of woman's suffrage text - the amount of stretch is limited to a reasonable sphere if you are commenting for a real reason - the whole idea is that the author cannot control how it is read, and the text is discussed, not the author, yet the background is never ignored, as a "purely" personal reading without any grounding is just as silly and annoying as one that tries to read biography into every word.

Certainly... and coming to a work of art merely as a means of reinforcing one's own pet projects is surely far from what I would think of as legitimate criticism or interpretation... and I greatly suspect that there have been more than a few academics who were far more interested in promoting their own theories... be it Marxism, Feminism, Freudianism, Socialism, Capitalism, etc... than they are in attempting to appreciate and interpret the work of a given writer/artist.

Authors might not be consciously aware of their leanings and perceptions while they're writing. A good example is Milton's depiction of Satan. He could swear up and down that he wasn't trying to portray Satan as a sympathetic character in Paradise Lost, but there it is in writing.

Is it? Or is that simply our post-Romantic interpretation? I suspect that Milton would have argued that yes Satan comes across as a noble and sympathetic being... but that is part of why he is so dangerous: his insidious ability to seduce.

[kelby_lake]

I think this critical comment is ridiculous:
'In his article, "The Imperial Votaress", Louis Montrose draws attention to male and female gender roles and norms present in the comedy in connection with Elizabethan culture. In reference to the triple wedding, he says, "The festive conclusion in A Midsummer Night's Dream depends upon the success of a process by which the feminine pride and power manifested in Amazon warriors, possessive mothers, unruly wives, and willful daughters are brought under the control of lords and husbands."[19] He says that the consummation of marriage is how power over a woman changes hands from father to husband. A connection between flowers and sexuality is drawn. The juice employed by Oberon can be seen as symbolizing menstrual blood as well as the sexual blood shed by virgins. While blood as a result of menstruation is representative of a woman's power, blood as a result of a first sexual encounter represents man's power over women.[20]'

This is why I avoid 'feminist' criticism.

[Kyriakos]

My view is that whereas the author has a very significant position to judge his/her own work, the work itself contains a lot more meaning and reflection on it than was ever conscious to the author, or to any other individual reader :)

[JBI]

I think this critical comment is ridiculous:
'In his article, "The Imperial Votaress", Louis Montrose draws attention to male and female gender roles and norms present in the comedy in connection with Elizabethan culture. In reference to the triple wedding, he says, "The festive conclusion in A Midsummer Night's Dream depends upon the success of a process by which the feminine pride and power manifested in Amazon warriors, possessive mothers, unruly wives, and willful daughters are brought under the control of lords and husbands."[19] He says that the consummation of marriage is how power over a woman changes hands from father to husband. A connection between flowers and sexuality is drawn. The juice employed by Oberon can be seen as symbolizing menstrual blood as well as the sexual blood shed by virgins. While blood as a result of menstruation is representative of a woman's power, blood as a result of a first sexual encounter represents man's power over women.[20]'

This is why I avoid 'feminist' criticism.

True, but that is an extreme case - there are groundings for feminist elements, and things that can be commented upon - the actual assumption of symbols within the text for radical things such as menstrual blood though is quite an extreme case - but one could take, for instance, the fight between the two girls as a statement and understand that under gender roles - there are always people who take things too far. Much of feminist criticism is actually well grounded and interesting - it's just that there are always third rate people, or people who become too absorbed in something and get carried away.

[IceM]

If the author was widely successful (from a canonical perspective), yes.

If not, no. It's always easy to give a favorable interpretation of a novel that doesn't sell.

[JCamilo]

When the author makes any sort of comment or analytic remark about his/her work, it should be treated as just another bit of criticism and not given any special authority. So Shakespeare writing a commentary on his plays may be of a special interest, but not of a special authority.

Allow me to disagree. Authors do have an special authority, in fact, if any, they are the authority. The reason why an author is not the final word in interpretation is quite simple: writing is not an interpretative act. The writer already know why he choose a technique, a form, the vocabulary. He does not need interpretation for this. Interpretation only happens when there is reading, and then, the figure of author is non-existent. The text is not being created. There is only readers. Simple as that. So, if Shakespeare came from his tomb and said : Look, those guys who put my plays together got it all wrong. Hamlet is a comedy. They put in the wrong order. This final scene is the final scene of the play, it is all fake and Ofelia is Hamlet crossed and to be or not to be is "to be Ofelia or not to be" It is all a Comedy! All the specialists of the world would have to swallow it and live happily that a mistake is also a valid reality.


The simple reason is: critics write criticism, authors write books. When an author writes criticism on his own work, he is acting like a critic, and his capacities as a critic may not be of the same standard as his capacities as an author. Very few writers managed to produce both a high level of creative work and a high level of critical work: TS Eliot comes to mind.

Many wrote considerable ammount of criticism. And right because critic is also an authoral process, they also produce a text is passive of interpretation. So, great authors, can write very convicing criticism, bad writers, no matter how good their knowledge, will not be very sucessfull if they write very baddly. A great author like Nabokov can be very convicing about how bad Dostoievisky is because he is very good to present his arguments (And since we can always find flaws if we look, it is not hard to say something negative about anyone). And frankly, there is no objetive form of writing which allows a single interpretation. That is why science works so much wiht mathematical formulas, they are the closest thing of objective language we have.

[minstrelbard]

The advantage the author has over the critic is that the author knows his intent. Whether or not he achieved his intent is another question, but at least he knows his intent. Critics don't even have that.

I'll concede that an author generally won't know everything about his own work. But critics don't, either. I confess that I do get annoyed with critics who claim to understand an author's work better than the author does (such critics exist; I've met a couple of them!) because they seem to think that authors are some kind of idiot savants who have no idea what they're doing and have to wait, like everyone else, for the all-knowing critics to patiently explain it all to them. I say that authors worthy of being read are usually pretty smart people who know what they're up to.

[blazeofglory]

In fact all I feel is that it is not the critics that create and what they do is make their opinions only. They do not originate new ideas; they read pieces of art and opinionate their own views on that and theirs is derivate and at times they become ugly and through their association with Medias they can disrepute the writer. Let the reader be the judge and not an institution of critics for their work is always injurious.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'll concede that an author generally won't know everything about his own work. But critics don't, either. I confess that I do get annoyed with critics who claim to understand an author's work better than the author does (such critics exist; I've met a couple of them!) because they seem to think that authors are some kind of idiot savants who have no idea what they're doing and have to wait, like everyone else, for the all-knowing critics to patiently explain it all to them. I say that authors worthy of being read are usually pretty smart people who know what they're up to.


Let the reader be the judge and not an institution of critics for their work is always injurious.

Ha, ha, I wondered when the attack on the ivory-towered critics would come - those evil critics whose job it is to tell us how to think!! How dare they?

Really for me, or for any student of literature, reading secondary criticism is an absolute essential part of study. Certainly in the field of criticism, as has been mentioned (in the field of anything perhaps?) there are eccentrics who take things, as it seems, too far. There are things that we won’t agree with, for sure, there are things that bend the readings to push a particular ideology (intentional or otherwise) but there is a lot of extremely interesting criticism out there which can certainly further the understanding and enjoyment of the primary text.

I fail to see how criticism is “always injurious” on any level. True criticism is nothing but arguments and debates – voices in discussion about a work. You can go around with fingers in your ears but it is only to your detriment.

[PeterL]

Is the author's say on the meaning the final word or is it open to interpretation?

Yes, one of the two or both. There are certain aspects of a work that only the author can know, but that doesn't stop readers from reading any old thing into it. Then there are works that are truly open to interpretation, while others point to a single interpretation.

[Heteronym]

I'll concede that an author generally won't know everything about his own work. But critics don't, either. I confess that I do get annoyed with critics who claim to understand an author's work better than the author does

I'm willing to believe that Mikhail Bakhtin knew more about Dostoyevsky's work than the Russian writer did. Emotional distance is necessary to understand things more clearly. A lifetime of studying a writer will inevitably lead to new insights about him.

[JCamilo]

The advantage the author has over the critic is that the author knows his intent. Whether or not he achieved his intent is another question, but at least he knows his intent. Critics don't even have that.

I would say that there is no advantage at all. Both do different works and knowing his intent is certainly a bless for you to create, but not exactly the best form to deal with the posterior cultural reaction of his work. Would Dante love to see his name linked to the aspects of Hell and not Heaven? The afore mentioned Milton, I can see him very upset with Lord Byron for being a Satan that was right (I never thought Milton was unware that his Lucifer was sympathetic, in fact, I think that is all Lucifer had because what always striked me more was that Lucifer is a Sophist, thus abble to convey, like politicians, the truth, with well-build and charming speeches. We should not forgot Lucifer is all the time wrong and lying.). Critics, specially those blessed with the distance of time, have the blessing of not being limited by the author's vision.

What we must keep in mind is that criticism is also a creative field.