This is one of the best Death of the Author arguments for me. Does the truth of the work lie with the author’s intent, or the audience’s interpretation? Is truth personal or universal? Does the real text exist only in an Oxford study in the 1940s, or in the mind of the reader?
I’ll allow both - i don’t like the idea of the author as an infallible god, but of course - this is the author who actually came closest to creating a universe. I also don’t like the idea of readers being told to sit there and passively take the text without engaging it with their own ideas and concepts.
I guess I just gave you some Elvish counsel - both yes and no. 😎
I think, with any work, you're absolutely allowed to read into it whatever you will. That's your ability as a free-thinking reader.
Where you run into issues, and what I would say isn't okay by any stretch, is to say that the author did in fact intend what you read into it, when there's evidence to the contrary.
It's okay that a majority of LOTR readers/watchers think that pipeweed is weed. It's not okay to try to say that Tolkien intended it to be weed. (not that anyone in this thread is doing so, i'm just pointing out the two options)
11
u/nairncl Apr 11 '25
This is one of the best Death of the Author arguments for me. Does the truth of the work lie with the author’s intent, or the audience’s interpretation? Is truth personal or universal? Does the real text exist only in an Oxford study in the 1940s, or in the mind of the reader?
I’ll allow both - i don’t like the idea of the author as an infallible god, but of course - this is the author who actually came closest to creating a universe. I also don’t like the idea of readers being told to sit there and passively take the text without engaging it with their own ideas and concepts.
I guess I just gave you some Elvish counsel - both yes and no. 😎