Intentional Fallacy

[kid-glove]

a) Should he write another book on what he intends to convey. If it were, then what does it say about the original book.

b) If it's a filmmaker, he leaves it to people gifted with words. He hopes there is enough in film to support the reading. Films are, in any case, meant to be visually consumed, a non-verbal experience.

[kid-glove]

For all its seriousness, this is insolvable. In that, it serves no purpose and there is no conclusion in horizon. We could go over million posts and still not find a resolution. Sheer impracticality of it.

Much rather postmodernist notion of insulating texts from its author.

Oh well,
W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R
W.O.R.K.S

[P_R]

a) Should he write another book on what he intends to convey. If it were, then what does it say about the original book.

I am ambivalent about this.
Whether follow-up means necessarily
At the risk of drawing a half-baked analogy - the author's frame of mind would be akin to that of the father of the bride.

b) If it's a filmmaker, he leaves it to people gifted with words. He hopes there is enough in film to support the reading. Films are, in any case, meant to be visually consumed, a non-verbal experience.

Invariably there will be

Jokes apart, I think the crux of the argument was in equa's post denying the 'democracy of readings' is still possible while allowing the possibility of readings beyond what the author 'intended'.

But your quote of an author relinquishing even his 'primacy' is carrying it a little too far IMO. Why would he do that ? I mean, what would such a man's 'motives for creation' be ? Am very curious.

[kid-glove]

I didn't word it the way I wanted to. It should read "there should be enough in film to warrant the reading". Or then it could be deemed ridiculous.

an author relinquishing even his 'primacy' is carrying it a little too far IMO

Author is relinquishing or the postmodern theorists? Authors aren't going to do that, are they?

Btw there is one author who came close to "relinquishing", Elmore Leonard in one of his 10 rules of writing, If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it. Of course, I liked couple of his books but I felt amused. That's taking it a bit far.

[kid-glove]

I am ambivalent about this.

I'm sure this discussion is very purposeful for debate and knowing where we stand, but at the end of it, I hope you find the necessary resolution. I really do.

denying the 'democracy of readings' is still possible

What purpose does that solve?

the preservation of elitism is at the core of this issue for me

"High standard".

[equanimus]

I'll return to this thread some time tomorrow. Feeling very sleepy now.

[P_R]

Author is relinquishing or the postmodern theorists? Authors aren't going to do that, are they?

The guy you quoted - reluctant to reveal his own interpretation (!) as it would be imposing - is essentially 'relinquishing' isn't he ?

[P_R]

denying the 'democracy of readings' is still possible

What purpose does that solve?

For one, it made me breathe slightly easier about the whole issue

As I mentioned earlier when I introspect (don't try this at home) one possible source of rage is the rise of 'ridiculous' readings and the half-baked creation that rely on these readings to supply 'meaning'.

But I must also say that these are not the only sources of frustration. :P

On an independent note - in addition to the examples due from equa which I hope he is considering giving (sincere-A kEttEnga ) - I reiterate my curiosity on how an author can be jubilant about facilitating readings other than his own. I don't mean it is impossible but I am just curious to know what that மனநிலை is.
Beholder's eye being the one that deserves the applause and all that.

[kid-glove]

Author is relinquishing or the postmodern theorists? Authors aren't going to do that, are they?

The guy you quoted - reluctant to reveal his own interpretation (!) as it would be imposing - is essentially 'relinquishing' isn't he ?

That's filmmaker Jarmusch. A filmmaker is more of a sculptor, a painter, a photographer - except 25 times a second. He's arranging them in a certain way, giving it a voice, and a background music. There is a marriage of many elements. It is not practical nor correct to impose the awry or far-fetched readings. And as Equa said, I have no problem if some of it incidentally happened, it wouldn't make the creation seem less worthy. A film should be experienced like how a sculpture or mural should be seen and perceived by the audience and not the artist. If the artist says here is a horse and there the swastika, and Wagner's distorted face towards the left, then this is not the medium for him. A film is inhibition of a world, and the audience looks and feels.

I find Leonard's rule of cleansing the writer's own sounds to be more problematic. Because to me, a writer writes and arranges words in certain way, wanting it to be "read" as he intended. But one problem I have with this fascist counter-measure to facilitate 'reading as intended' is in severely limiting the reader's capabilities. And in there lies the danger of being a limited medium. To me, books have always been a superior medium because of different visualizations generated.

Beholder's eye being the one that deserves the applause and all that.

Really?

[kid-glove]

Another Kalaignar I like:

Why I write, [/u]An excerpt:]Putting aside the need to earn a living, I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They exist in different degrees in every writer, and in any one writer the proportions will vary from time to time, according to the atmosphere in which he is living. They are:

(i) Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on the grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc., etc. It is humbug to pretend this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen — in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they almost abandon the sense of being individuals at all — and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, willful people who are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centered than journalists, though less interested in money.

(ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.

(iii) Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.

(iv) Political purpose. — Using the word ‘political’ in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other peoples’ idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

It can be seen how these various impulses must war against one another, and how they must fluctuate from person to person and from time to time.

That is pretty much exhaustive of, & what I think summarizes, the creative juices of an author.