Alright, now I'm digging in my heels.
A number of ya'll are continuing to insist this authorial intention jag. So here goes, one last kick at the can.
I'm arguing that we evaluate interpretations of artistic works according to how well they are supported by the work and how interesting they are.
But let me back up a bit.
Every sensory act we perform involves interpretation. I walk down the street and interpret the pattern of light on my retina to guide my course. Appreciation of an artistic work, therefore necessarily involves interpretation.
Even reading a story for no purpose other than entertainment involves interpretation. Interpreting a story as "pure entertainment" is as much an interpretation as writing an essay on how it reflects the moral struggle of all people. So whenever we read, we create an interpretation (possibly more than one) of the work.
Now we will from time to time encounter differing interpretations of the same work. They may be our own (perhaps created at different times -- say you read LotR at age 12 and then again at age 40 -- you'd probably interpret it differently) or they may be interpretations created by others. Some of these interpretations may contradict each other, and so we will need a way to choose between them if we want to have a consistent interpretation of the work (although certainly a work can contain inconsistent ideas within it -- but IF we want to present a consistent view, we'll have to find a way to choose between interpretations) (let's not get TOO post-modern, here).
How do we do this? I am suggesting that because an interpretation corresponds to a statement by the author is no reason to prefer it over other interpretations. The only meaningful way to determine which interpretations are better than others is by comparing them to the text, and comparing their intellectual content. Better supported ideas, more intelligent and interesting ideas, these are hallmarks of better interpretations.
We can most certainly use statements by the author to GENERATE interpretations. But to use them in choosing between interpretations is faulty logic, because such statements may or may not accurately reflect the text, and correspondence to the text is in all cases more important than correspondence to statements by the author. We may find that some authors are more reliable reporters on their own work, and therefore sometimes shortcut the process by listening to them. But if we were to find a contradiction between an author's statement and the text itself, we would of course prefer the text as a source of authority on itself. So we may as well start with the text, since in all cases we have to go back to it.
Now, if you're interested in unravelling some message the author has incorporated into the work, then sure, you'll probably want to start with the author's statements as to what message they included. This becomes one interpretation -- which may not be the best one. But to study art from the point of view of "how successfully did the author transmit a message" is to study essay-writing.
If
Animal Farm is nothing more than a furry version of the creation of Communist Russia, then it's just history. Or, more to the point, if we read it as such, then we're treating it as history and would almost certainly gain more from reading a good history book on the issue, where the names were correct and we weren't getting all caught up animal husbandry or whatnot. If we read it as a work of art, one that instead of having "a message", admits to a myriad of interpretations, ideas about tyranny and privilege and so on, then what we need to do is determine which of those interpretations (assuming some contradict each other) are better -- which, one more time, we do by comparing them to the text and by comparing their intellectual content.
And frankly, an interpretation of
Animal Farm to the effect that it is the story of the Russian Revolution doesn't carry a lot of intellectual content. It's not a very interesting thing to say. Even when said by George Orwell.
Now, you may say you're interested in the intention of the author, and that's FINE. In that case, by all means, you'll want to read the author's statements, compare them with the work (just to be sure, of course, or to see HOW they went about trying to do what they wanted to do), maybe read statements by people who knew the author, and so on. This is a fine and noble profession, and it's called biography. It can be fascinating and enlightening and worth spending time on indeed.
I have spent too much time going through the letters and journals of Lord Byron to consider it a worthless pasttime.
One of the upshots of all this is that statements about a work do not necessarily imply anything about the author. And when Mieville said what he said about Tolkien, I very much took him to mean the work, not the man. He considers LotR to glorify war, to celebrate class injustice and so on.
Now, I agree that his statements could have been read in either fashion. And as statements on Tolkien's actual beliefs, we of course turn to Tolkien's statements on the subjects at hand. But as interpretations of the book, we can only refute them by offering reasons within the text. Pointing to statements made by Tolkien about the text cannot refute interpretations that are based on the text itself. And frankly, I don't think it's necessary. I think the suggestion that LotR glorifies war is facile and demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the text.
Or possibly, a lack of familiarity with the terms "glorify" and "war".
Whew. Tired now.
