Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9404715" data-attributes="member: 22779">That's kinda where you lose me though.  When an author claims that what was written means X, that's certainly one interpretation, but, since we also have to divorce the artist from the art, that means that the artists interpretation carries no more weight than anyone else's.  After all, the artist cannot be given both a privileged position - to be able to make definitive claims about meaning - while at the same time we separate the artist from what the artist has created.To put it another way, I'm very sure Lovecraft saw absolutely nothing wrong with what he was writing.  He wouldn't call it racist at all.  It was his truth.  He truly believed the things he was writing about.  He actually believed in ethnic cleansing and purity of race and whatnot and that sort of thing is found in his works.  If we separate the author from the work, the works are still racist AF.  But, you're saying that because Lovecraft believed the opposite of how someone would read his works, then they are wrong and he is right.In other words, you can't have it both ways.  You can't on one hand claim to be able to separate the work from their character while on the other hand insisting that we take that artist's words as being definitive interpretations of the work.</blockquote>