Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue Orange" data-source="post: 9343267" data-attributes="member: 7025997">&quot;Death of the author&quot; appears to originate with Roland Barthes in 1967. You don't have to agree with him. And even if it's been &quot;thoroughly debunked&quot;, you can reject the debunking. It's not like gravity where you can do experiments to figure out what the real number is. I can approach Dante's Divine Comedy in the medieval fashion as a spiritual guide to know God better, and I might even get more out of it that way. It's an allegory to begin with; Dante said as much. Here's a brief overview of the debate:[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent[/URL]Now if you want to decide that you're going to side against Elmore because you want to open up who enjoys D&amp;D that's one thing, and I think most people here would agree with you. Many later authors would focus on the way power structures interact with interpretation (Foucault comes to mind, I think).&nbsp; But it's not like the sciences where there's an assumption of an 'objective reality' we can approach (though any scientist will tell you all models are false but some models are useful).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue Orange, post: 9343267, member: 7025997"] "Death of the author" appears to originate with Roland Barthes in 1967. You don't have to agree with him. And even if it's been "thoroughly debunked", you can reject the debunking. It's not like gravity where you can do experiments to figure out what the real number is. I can approach Dante's [I]Divine Comedy[/I] in the medieval fashion as a spiritual guide to know God better, and I might even get more out of it that way. It's an allegory to begin with; Dante said as much. Here's a brief overview of the debate: [URL unfurl="true"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent[/URL] Now if you want to decide that you're going to side against Elmore because you want to open up who enjoys D&D that's one thing, and I think most people here would agree with you. Many later authors would focus on the way power structures interact with interpretation (Foucault comes to mind, I think). But it's not like the sciences where there's an assumption of an 'objective reality' we can approach (though any scientist will tell you all models are false but some models are useful). [/QUOTE]

Verification