Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9343266">It hasn't been thoroughly rejected. At least Death of the Author is not without critics. And there are lots of people who reject the idea. There are also lots of adherents to it. But again, I am not saying there is one true meaning (as I said we can find other meanings than the intended meaning in a work) just that the author's intent, the context of their times, those are relevant to understanding its meaning IMO. I never said anything the author says about their work automatically means it's an accurate assessment of the meaning. I said in my previous posts, we have to evaluate the words of the author. I don't read Harry Potter (just never had any interest in it) so I can't comment on this particular question. But I would say it is a bit like Greedo shot first according to Lucas. Yes Lucas' intent matters a lot. But I am very skeptical of his claim based on my memories of seeing earlier versions and how radically it changes the character of Han to have him only shoot after he has been fired upon by a mobster. So I don't disagree that an author simply saying something means we have to interpret that as the true meaning. Authors lie, they misremember, they change their mind, etc. We have to use our judgement in evaluating their words I agree 100%. My argument has never been that authors are infallible when it comes to the meaning of their works. And I never said it can be proven. But it not being a certainty doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get close to their true intention and consider all the various reasons and arguments we can. It is a bit like looking at a historical document. You never have 100% certainty about the past, but you try to reconstruct the details of the past as accurately as you can based on the evidence you have (you don't throw up your hands and say 'history is whatever people want it to be'). I would invite you to look at my words on this. I can't speak to what others have claimed. My only points regarding the figure have been 1) it is a bit silly to act like there has been this mystery around the gender this whole time and 2) I think implying that is the case, does somewhat insult elmore's talents as an artist as I think he used his skills to convey the gender he wanted quite wellNone of that means I am opposed to them swapping the gender with the new figuring. They can do whatever they want with a new model. Again, it isn't dead. Plenty of people subscribe to the view that the author's intent, life and the context of their times are primary concerns for understanding the text. And even if we disagree on that, even if I am in a minority of 5% of people on that front (which I do not believe I am), that doesn't mean you have good people on one side and bad people on the other. We are talking about how we interpret art and text. There was a paper called Death of the Author written in 1967. That didn't resolve anything. It is just one writer's idea that some people have adopted. But it has been pushed back against. You are framing this like people are crazy if they don't subscribe to it and that just isn't true. This isn't like refusing to believe in evolution or plate tectonics</blockquote>

Verification