The Cookie Fairy (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
alcesverdes) wrote2007-06-02 11:55 pm
alcesverdes) wrote2007-06-02 11:55 pm
Entry tags:
Bradbury and My Thoughts on Authorial Intent
Because I thought Nina could be interested: Bradbury, a man living in the creative and industrial center of reality TV and one-hour dramas, says [Fahrenheit 451] is, in fact, a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature.
That statement does provide a whole new reading to the text, and it makes a lot of sense, given that the television in the book's universe is described as walls, and the protagonist's wife (I'm sorry, I can't remember the names; it's been a while since I read it) is told to be um, detached from reality and so absorbed by what she calls her "family" (the characters on the screen) that she completely fails to see her husband's struggles. I gather that she was supposed to represent the majority of the society.
And, though I can draw parallels between that attitude and the people I see glued at the tv every morning and taking seriously the debates between Trejo, Maussan, and their respective goons (really, Mexican morning television is basically shit D:), I'm more of the opinion that an author can't set in stone how his works are going to be interpreted. Even if I like him. Even if I know where he's coming from, being a misunderstood writer myself. *cough*
(by the way, I am not saying that my work has the same quality that Mr. Bradbury's. Not at all. STOP LOOKING AT MY LIKE THAT! I just wanted to express some professional empathy, that's all. ;_;)
The point is that
1) Average Person is going to read a same text differently, and he's going to give it a different interpretation according to his own context. Not everyone is trained in literary criticism and, because of that tragic fate, the poor souls won't take into account, for example, the author's historical context.
2) even if you are trained, you can chose to not to take into account the author's historical context, send to hell the authorial intent, and interpret the text from your own particular way to see the world, if only because a) you can, b) you want to prove your own literary theory, c) others.
[Personally, if you're curious, I usually disrespectfully disregard authorial intent, though I cherish the historical context, because that certainly tends to explain an awful lot--yes, even more than the aforementioned authorial intent.]
I'm going to shut up now, because this got far geekier and longer that I had intended at first. XD
Also, because I really, really like this song:
That statement does provide a whole new reading to the text, and it makes a lot of sense, given that the television in the book's universe is described as walls, and the protagonist's wife (I'm sorry, I can't remember the names; it's been a while since I read it) is told to be um, detached from reality and so absorbed by what she calls her "family" (the characters on the screen) that she completely fails to see her husband's struggles. I gather that she was supposed to represent the majority of the society.
And, though I can draw parallels between that attitude and the people I see glued at the tv every morning and taking seriously the debates between Trejo, Maussan, and their respective goons (really, Mexican morning television is basically shit D:), I'm more of the opinion that an author can't set in stone how his works are going to be interpreted. Even if I like him. Even if I know where he's coming from, being a misunderstood writer myself. *cough*
(by the way, I am not saying that my work has the same quality that Mr. Bradbury's. Not at all. STOP LOOKING AT MY LIKE THAT! I just wanted to express some professional empathy, that's all. ;_;)
The point is that
1) Average Person is going to read a same text differently, and he's going to give it a different interpretation according to his own context. Not everyone is trained in literary criticism and, because of that tragic fate, the poor souls won't take into account, for example, the author's historical context.
2) even if you are trained, you can chose to not to take into account the author's historical context, send to hell the authorial intent, and interpret the text from your own particular way to see the world, if only because a) you can, b) you want to prove your own literary theory, c) others.
[Personally, if you're curious, I usually disrespectfully disregard authorial intent, though I cherish the historical context, because that certainly tends to explain an awful lot--yes, even more than the aforementioned authorial intent.]
I'm going to shut up now, because this got far geekier and longer that I had intended at first. XD
Also, because I really, really like this song:
no subject
I've enjoyed Ray Bradbury's "Martian Chronicles" and "Something Wicked This Way Comes", but I have not yet read "Fahrenheit 451 F". I'll give it a try soon.
no subject
*bows*
<I'll give it a try soon.
If you can, do it! It's quite good. :)
no subject
I mean, you can try to figure out what they wanted to say and how it related to the context, etc. In short, how it was written. Or you can analyze how it's read.
That said, I get sick of critics saying 'What X tried to say here was...'. No, you don't KNOW what they wanted to say. In fact, that's why I disregard authorial intent.
no subject
Yeah! You can go 'I _think_ X tried to say this', but also you have to remain open to other interpretations and not go around believing that yours is The One.
Unless you want to provide us with otf_w/fw_esp material. =DOther thing against authorial intent is the high probabilities for it to come out wrong. I mean, not just a matter of a faulty reading, but a crappy execution.
no subject
no subject
Yet, knowing my share of Self Righteous writers, I can say you can have lots and lots of fun once you learn to poke them appropriately. :3