#intent vs interpretation

Once upon a time, authors were myths to me. Actors, creators of any sort, they were all strange figures I knew entirely by their works. They weren't people. I couldn't really fathom them as such. I knew nothing about them save the little blurb on the cover and that they had been part of something I thought was amazing. They were a label I looked for to tell if I'd enjoy something and nothing more.

But the information age was upon us. Suddenly it was much easier to find out things about people. When I got to be a bit older I realized the people behind the books were not magical writing robots (well, I'm not so sure about Stephen King) and I became curious about them.

One of my paradigm-shifter books was Ender's Game. As that book had impacted me so much, I looked up information on Orson Scott Card.

I was shocked.

Orson Scott Card had opinions that appalled me. I became angry, how dare he, how could I ever have read books by somebody who thought things like that? But I was torn, because I did love the Ender's Game series. How could I deny the impact those books left on me? Eventually I realized that I could separate the creator and the work in my head—I did not have to take them as a single unit. I also came to accept (hooray for growing older and more sensible) that people are complex creatures made of a mess of horrible and wonderful and everything-in-between traits which do not necessarily cancel each other out.

Years later, in college, I met Orson Scott Card in person. He gave a wonderful talk (which did not feature the things we disagreed on), he signed my book and our lives went on. He was just another person, flaws and all. I decided it was best if I never looked too closely at the authors of the things I loved in case I found myself in conflict again.

But the spread of information and the social connectivity of the internet kept on growing. Now I can follow actors and writers on twitter, stalk their blogs and tumblrs, look up details of their lives on wikipedia, find gossip and photos without even trying. The author is everywhere. I can read Neil Gaiman discuss catching mice or Snoop Dogg talk about his wife or any other number of mundane, they-have-actual-lives things.

I've stuck with my policy of non-involvement. There are occasional exceptions--Ursula Vernon I discovered first through her blog and kept reading because she has the magical ability to make anything funny (even getting an IUD put in.) I'm happy with this decision. As much as so-and-so may be a lovely person, I think I'm better off not knowing in case they aren't. They're all human, and as humans they will fuck up. In a way they are still those nearly-anonymous entities of my childhood because I've put effort into keeping them that way.

I think it is one reason I have little desire to talk about myself in these public blogging times—I want people to care about my work, not me, and judge it solely based on its own merits. The me that matters is already in the work. The me that picks my nose and sings along to Gangnam Style doesn't, shouldn't matter. Should it?

Death of the author and the relationship between author and work are complicated enough I will make a separate post.

View Post

I already discussed how these days, the author is everywhere as a person. But they're also everywhere as an author. DVDs come crammed with commentary, Youtube interviews abound, directors host "Ask Me Anything"s on Reddit, writers talk about their works and inspiration in their blogs—it's often quite easy to find out more about the work than presented in the work itself.

While I am far more likely to look at creator commentary than I am anything regarding their personal lives, I take it with a grain of salt. Sometimes they offer interesting insights; sometimes I wonder if we are talking about the same work. I have no desire to interact directly with the authors because there is too much chance of the humanness of the author affecting my views, like it did with Orson Scott Card.

The author and the reader are more closely connected now. It's easy to engage them on any number of websites and some even maintain much of their popularity by doing do. Readers are not as passive they used to be because of the greater connectivity of this modern age. Sometimes the readers even influence the author's work directly. This is a double-edged sword as arguments have broken out between fans and creators, especially on social media websites. One example is the increased presence of the fan favorite Derpy Doo in My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Derpy Doo grew from an animator's joke in the background to a minor character with a speaking line, which resulted in fan backlash when her speech was edited to be "less derpy."

These arguments usually happen when there's a communication gap—when the creator and the audience have different views of a work. The most extreme example I can think of is the fan campaign for Mass Effect 3's ending. Mass Effect is a series that built itself on taking the player character through a journey where actions affected outcomes. Events in the earlier installments of Mass Effect would change the next game. As a series that lauded player choice many fans (even those who were happy with most of Mass Effect 3), felt that the original three endings betrayed that emphasis on choice and were essentially the same ending with different colors. Retake Mass Effect was born. A massive charity campaign that raised $80k to Child's Play, a cupcake protest,questions of artist integrity, questions of who the story belongs to,controversy about the writers, protests to the FTC and BBB, and many suggestions on what they could do later, EA/Bioware responded to the fans and released a free update to the endings with more explanations and one more option added. Some fans were mollified, some were not because the choices were ultimately no different than the ones originally presented.

I think this is a display of the power of the reader. They are the ones with power, for better or for worse. In the end, does it matter that Ray Bradbury didn't mean Fahrenheit 451to be about censorship if that is how most people interpret his work, if that is how his work is remembered? Sure, JK Rowling can say that Dumbledore was gay and that's great, I was happy to hear that, but by not putting it in the books people are not forced to address it. As Edward Rothstein of the New York Times said, "Ms. Rowling may think of Dumbledore as gay, but there is no reason why anyone else should." The author's views can certainly enhance or enlighten, but it is the readers who shape the impact of the work. All the arguments in the world will not change the imprint left on the reader unless they want it to change.

And that’s a good thing.  Interpreting something gives it more value, more meaning to a reader. George R. R. Martin could argue with me until he's blue in the face that Brienne of Tarth from A Song of Ice and Fire isn't transgender and that will not change my opinion, because Brienne's story means more to me when I view it this way. What is writing's goal if not to evoke change, evoke emotion in the reader? I don't think these different interpretations should be viewed as stupid or wrong. I don't want to be somebody who devalues my reader's experience by saying, "what you feel or think about this is bad."

It's certainly frustrating for the creator when people do not share their opinion. Author commentary can help the reader and the creator be more in sync, but I think the important thing is to try to improve communication from the get-go. I believe this is one of the great values of peer review during the editing process. Bringing in others improves the final impression because their different experiences help alter that final impression sooner rather than later.

As a writer, I know this will be difficult to accept from the other side. I know somebody will view something differently than I intended because it's impossible to account for every variation that causes people to be different, to think differently. Somebody will miss the point by a mile , I could scream myself hoarse trying to convince them of my Great Vision, but would that really help anything? If anything I should state my intent and move on to something else rather than waste the energy there.

This is one reason that I believe that once I release something, it is no longer entirely mine. The reader has the power, and the reader will absorb and reshape my words into something with meaning for them. My goal is to do my best to communicate my core meaning to as many people as possible and be happy that my words have left their mark, however it manifested.

View Post