An Author's Intent

[checkers65477.livejournal.com]

I asked this in Chatzy, and the folks there assured me it wasn't complete gibberish, so I will ask it here.   I began thinking about this after Rowana's question #3 in this post.
 

My question has to do with Voice, and the author's intent, and how all narrarators are, to some degree, unreliable. We see a book's world as filtered through its narrarator, so we see the action of the book through a lens that may or may not be accurate. In some cases, does that mean we can never be certain of anything, especially if the narrators are characters such as Gen or Costis?  Once an author finishes a book, is there any canon or absolute truth?  Or does the story then belong to the readers? 

These books fool us--what can we believe? We are fooled, even deceived, but not in a way that's unfair. What we believe to be true changes as events and emotions are revealed to us. We like to be fooled; we like having to figure things out. But, at some point, can we believe that certain things are canon and are true?

I thought this out after Really Articulate Anon Person's comment to Jade's post.  RAAP interprets the kiss between Gen and Irene as Gen showing ownership, and that he wants their relationship to be more intimate. If the author says the kiss was, "not a kiss between strangers, not even a kiss between a bride and a groom..." but "was a kiss between a man and his wife," can the reader convincingly argue that they aren't living as husband and wife? If so, what's the point of that line? If Gen leapt backward "like a startled deer" and says Irene scared the hell out of him, can we still interpret that to mean he wasn't frightened, but was playing at some other game? It is Gen, after all.    I don't mean to pick on RAAP but that's the example that came to mind.  And somehow this came back around to the consummation question. :)

Is there any "truth" in an author's writing, or are readers free to interpret things in any way they like? Of course, no one can stop us from interpretation; that is the fun and joy we find in reading. 

Comments

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Such good questions, and good insights. I hope you won't mind if I link to it elsewhere.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the kind words. By all means, link to it. But that makes me wish I'd fixed my typos. Let me repost it, and you can link to that.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I've linked to the whole discussion, so they will see the kickoff post as well as your repost. Thanks!

[checkers65477.livejournal.com]

We're happy to have the link and very glad you are here. :)

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Thank you! *g*

[willow-41z.livejournal.com]

"Or does the story then belong to the readers?"

When I visited Brown, I sat in on an English class, and afterwards I asked the TA if it was a legitimate form of literary inquiry to put so much weight on the meaning of something that the author might have selected completely at random (in this case, Tim O'Brien's use of the word "Things" in The Things They Carried). One of her points was that after a story is released into the world, it belongs to the readers, and some authors later say "I never thought of that interpretation but I really like it!"

So then, what weight does an author's interpretation carry? Should it be that if he/she knows things go a certain way, even if it's not been published, that's canon, but if not any interpretation is valid? But most authors know a lot more about their worlds than they publish. And we'd have to keep the canon open and the fanon consequently restricted because there would always be the possibility that they would publish more, or even after their death that papers could be discovered (i. e. Tolkien). And why does it look like there's a giant cockroach on the other side of my water glass? That's kind of weird.

I don't know if I've addressed your question or not, but I feel like I've just rambled, or restated it. Of course there is an answer to whether Gen and Irene have slept together at that point in the book. So if Ms. Turner knows, is her answer automatically canon if she doesn't tell us?

[avian-xj.livejournal.com]

I think we like to be fooled, but only to a certain extent. It was an awesome plot twist to find that Gen was actually the Thief of Eddis even though we weren't suspecting him to be anything other than what we were led to believe, but that's different than suddenly finding at the end of the book that Gen is actually a wizard from an alternate universe who has brainwashed everyone into thinking magic doesn't exist so he can rule the world... that wouldn't make any sense to us. We want to be fooled logically. We want the secrets we've missed out on to make sense and to make us think.

Hm... i should read the whole post before i start talking. That's what i was saying above. We want to be fooled in a way that is fair. I think it's up to the writer and his or her writing ability to make sure we, as readers, see the filtering as fair. It's a fine line to balance on, but it is part of what makes us love a book so much. I think, after one thing has been twisted, and we have seen that it is not what it first appeared but actually is something else, we can believe that is true. But I really don't know. Maybe that thing or person could be another something else... and it could still make sense. It depends on how well written it is and on the judgment of the author.

I think that is part of our liking to be fooled. We get to a point where we start looking for clues and trying to see the twist coming. In the end we will either be told, in one way or another, what the truth is, or we will be given the freedom to interpret it for ourselves. If we are not shown the truth behind it and interpret it one way, another interpretation is not wrong. The author's intent is not canon unless he or she tells us it is a fact. We can guess at an author's intent all we like, but it shouldn't drive us mad. I don't think, if it is an extremely or even not so important matter, we will be left without and answer without reason. Perhaps the author does just want us to think about that for ourselves?

Exactly. you answered your own question, "no one can stop us from interpretation; that is the fun and joy we find in reading."

enough of my ramblings now :)

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Avian, I think you put that very well.

I would add that we are fooled because we make assumptions. Gen is known as a liar, but he rarely, if ever, lies to the reader. We just choose how to interpret things based on our own assumptions -- exactly the way some of the other characters in the books do. That's why it's so much fun to go back later, in the light of what we've learned, and reinterpret the things we read before.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I think it all depends what literary game we are playing at any given time.

If we are examining the text to satisfy ourselves as to "what really happened" in that fictional situation, we are free to interpret the words as we wish.

If we are spinning fantasies or writing fanfic, we are free to imagine what might be happening and embroider as we wish.

If we are engaged in a literary discussion about the characters and events, we are still free to interpret however we wish, but we should be ready to back up our comments with textual evidence, citations, and logical trains of thought.

If a book is well written - and we know these books are extraordinarily well written! - the author's words will lead us to the fictional truth, however indirectly.

It's not like a mathematical equation, but if we interpret according to the author's intent, we will know when we're on the right track because different bits of action and other passages will then make more sense, rather than less, fitting into the whole like a jigsaw puzzle.

It's all words. The "truth" is what is there on the page. Our interpretation illustrates that truth, and if we're lucky and we do it right, will even illuminate it.

[rowana.livejournal.com]

I think that you've put it wonderfully, fajrdrako.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

I am firmly on the side of the author's - ummmm, authority - here. Of course, as you said, we can interpret to our heart's content, but ultimately the author is the person who created the characters and the story and should have the final say. I've read too many dissections or vivisections of books in which the person discussing the book is stretching things far past what I think they would bear, or what the author intended. It especially irks me when the critic in question starts in on "subconsciously" the author did this or that or the other; and it irks me even more especially when the author has denied any such intention. To me that is the critic trying to steal the book.

In short: if the author has left something open to interpretation, we can interpret. If not, not.

[checkers65477.livejournal.com]

Well said, Leslie.

[rowana.livejournal.com]

These books fool us--what can we believe? We are fooled, even deceived, but not in a way that's unfair. What we believe to be true changes as events and emotions are revealed to us. We like to be fooled; we like having to figure things out. But, at some point, can we believe that certain things are canon and are true?

When I think back to a lot of the discussion on the books that's taken place, a lot of what we do is try to interpret thingsin different ways, and find what is probably the most correct interpretation - or what the author intended a particular action, event, object or emotion to convey. I think that Megan leaves a lot of this open to the reader, and forces you to think about things, in a way. But I think it's made very clear to the reader which parts are absolute, and 'true'. And I think fajrdrako's put it very well when she says "we will know when we're on the right track because different bits of action and other passages will then make more sense, rather than less, fitting into the whole like a jigsaw puzzle."

I think that with unreliable narrators, we have to accept everything they tell us as being the truth, because it would probably skew the story otherwise, and assume that the only 'lies' taking place are tose of omission.

And it always seems to end up back at the consumation question. I do hope there aren't any ten year olds lurking and paying too close attention here. :)

[tiloo.livejournal.com]

"Or does the story then belong to the readers?"
Being be I am a little bit of a skeptic on that. I think that there is a little truth in it belonging to the readers. But the book wouldn't even exist with out the author.
And there are little details that the author will not put into the book but they still know it. A reader might try and fill in the details but inless they fill it in correctly it wouldn't be the truth because it is the author's world.
I would like to pretend that I know everything about all the books I read but I don't, and only the author does. This is only my personal take.
...
... I don't think I would make a good critic I go to much by personal takes

[(Anonymous)]

As the RAAP in question, not to worry, I don't feel picked on. I am the one whose ideas about Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry Plantagenet were generally trashed awhile back. I guess the group generally doesn't share my somewhat less than romantic (sometimes called cynical) outlook.

But I would add that I didn't mean the kiss seeme like a sign of ownership on Gen's part. "Ownership" is a pretty toxic element to bring into marriage, although I know it happens all the time. I read that scene to be that he really was badly startled when Attolia touched his face, the kiss was one part apology to her, one part message to the court and even more part of the ongoing negotiation between them on what their marriage means and how they will work it out.

I'm a technological moron, so to identify myself, I will just sign,

-ELM-

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Hi, ELM, I'm a technological moron myself, so don't let that stop you from playing. And while I may not agree with you on the marriage issue, these books leave a lot of room for interpretation. I'm very interested in your (very well-phrased) opinions, and I think they are perfectly valid, so keep 'em coming!

[(Anonymous)]

Thanks.

And per your other post about marriage, I remember thinking the line about marriages breaking up over things like who puts the cap back on the toothpaste was a joke. Until....in our case it was whether one should squeeze the tube from the middle or the bottom.

But that was awhile ago, we now have kids, and thanks to them, the top is NEVER put back on the toothpase now, and it gets squeezed every-which-way. Just an example of who kids can help you see the bigger picture, eh?

[checkers65477.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with Philia, ELM, and was fascinated by your comments because they made me think of things I hadn't considered before. We get in a rut, sometimes, and discuss something into the ground without ever hearing a new viewpoint. It's invigorating to read comments that make you reconsider something you've taken for granted as being the "truth" only because it reflects your own viewpoint, or is what you want that "truth" to be. Sorry about misquoting your comments and inserting my own interpretation with the word ownership. As you say, it's not something that should be part of a healthy marriage, and I can't imagine Gen attempting to convince Irene of any ownership on his part, or of her allowing it. Sending a message to the court--now that I can see.

You've hit the nail on the head with your comment about the group, as a whole, having a overly-romantic view of the relationship between Gen and Irene. The romance is very subtle in the books, but that aspect appeals to many, and I'd have to include myself in that category.

Most of us have had a pet theory trashed here from time to time. Philia's comes to mind. :) I hope you enjoy the debating as much as I do and that you will continue to share your really articulately-worded opinions here. I'd love to hear your view on the author's intent vs reader's interpretation question.

[(Anonymous)]

As the RAAP in question, not to worry, I don't feel picked on. I am the one whose ideas about Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry Plantagenet were generally trashed awhile back. I guess the group generally doesn't share my somewhat less than romantic (sometimes called cynical) outlook.

But I would add that I didn't mean the kiss seemed like a sign of ownership on Gen's part. "Ownership" is a pretty toxic element to bring into marriage, although I know it happens all the time. I read that scene to be that he really was badly startled when Attolia touched his face, the kiss was one part apology to her, one part message to the court and even more part of the ongoing negotiation between them on what their marriage means and how they will work it out.

I'm a technological moron, so to identify myself, I will just sign,

-ELM-

[(Anonymous)]

As the RAAP in question, not to worry, I don't feel picked on. I'm the person whose comments about Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry Plantagenet were generally trashed awhile back. Generally, I guess the group does not share my less than romantic (frequently called cynical) outlook.

But I would add that I did not mean that the kiss seemed like a sign of ownership to me. "Ownership" is a pretty toxic element to bring into a marriage, although I know it happens all the time. I read that scene to mean that Gen was truly startled when Attolia touched his face. His kiss was one part apology to her, one part message to the court, and mostly part of the ongoing negotiation between the two of them about what their marriage is and how they will make it work.

I am a technological moron, so to identify myself, I will just sign,

-ELM-