Whether the writer's intent should be part of a critical analysis of the work?

[shadowkat]

As an aside, I keep having people I have never heard of friending me on Facebook. Is this common? Why would you friend someone on Facebook, you don't know? LJ is different - that's blogs you read. Unless of course, you think they are someone else? Also why would you want to friend 347 people? How do you keep track of everyone?

Should go to bed, tis late and must get up at 6 am to go to work tomorrow. But my brain is busy thinking deep thoughts again on this bitterly cold night. Not inside, outside. Inside toasty, and a bit on the dry side - even with radiators that hiss and spit in the background.

While thumbing through an entertainment mag as I half-watched the news tonight, I hit upon an article about the new TV show Dollhouse - with a summary statement by the co-creators of the series, Joss Whedon and Eliza Dusku, which said - the series is about identity particulary in this age of information overload, with ipods, media saturation, internet blogs, and so many venues telling us who we are, what we should be, and how we are perceived. Actually that's my summary, this is the exact quote:

Dusku credits a four-hour lunch with Whedon in creating DOLLHOUSE, 'We talked about life and what was in the forefront of our minds in terms of what's going on in the media, the world, politics, the Internet, everything."

"Everybody is questioning their identity, the meaning of who they are,"Whedon says. "Are they a good person? What are they doing with their lives? How can they sum themselves up?"

It hit me reading this bit - that this may be why I've been so fascinated by Whedon's writing, the concept of identity, and how it gets mixed up with how we think we are percieved by others - or another way of putting it, what we see reflected back at us.

But this is not what's been tossing about in my brain tonight and I'm not even sure I can convey it well here in this measley blog. Words aren't after all always interpreted the way we intend, not always through any fault of our own.

I think that sentence above may be the key to what's been nagging at the back of my brain for some time. This tendency to misconstrue or misinterpret what we see or read. To make assumptions and adhere to those assumptions without looking at all the information. It's the flaw, I believe in the analysis, what makes the analysis slippery and questionable.

Example - years ago, I wrote a short story for a creative writing course in college. It was called Just a Bunch of Ants - and was written in the point of view of a young, lonely, frustrated art student yearning for his girlfriend. I based the character and voice on a bunch of letters I'd received from my brother. Where he jokingly tells me that he's so lonely he's writing notes to his trash can. In the story the art student has a shaved head and so does his girlfriend. I don't explain why. The class read the letter and according to the rules, I was not to say a word until they finished discussing the story and what they believed it meant.

The teacher thought it was about a survivor of a holocaust, dying of radiation poisoning. That, my teacher told us explained the bald heads and the notes to the trashcan.

Other's thought the main character had cancer or was just insane.

While a few, about a handful, figured out it was about a lonely, somewhat eccentric, art student yearning for his girlfriend and frustrated with his life.

All caught the abject lonliness, the internal struggle for identity, and the battle against a world that lacks meaning or purpose - but they didn't really understand the story - they were too busy making assumptions.

When I told them what the story was about, what my intent was - I was told that it did not matter by my teacher. Who was a bit ruffled by the fact that he'd gotten it all wrong.
He said if the plot and intent is not clear to the reader or audience, then the writer has failed. A friend of mine who was taking the class with me at the time and obsessed with Samuel Beckett's plays, specifically End-Game, vehmently disagreed - stating just because he didn't get it, did not mean I had failed. Why couldn't it be the simple story of someone who was struggling for meaning? Was it my fault they'd complicated it? Or my fault that the story wasn't the one they wanted or needed it to be?

I guess it depends on how we view stories. Are they a conversation between the reader and the writer? The writer telling us something from their perspective, sharing with us how they see the world, what is bugging them, and who they are? Is the story they are sharing about them or is it about us? I wonder sometimes if we can seperate the two - take ourselves out of the equation. Try to see the story from the writer's perspective, see what they are telling us.
Without superimposing our desires, fantasies, dreams, nightmares upon it?

Another interesting tid-bit about that creative writing class - I wrote over 20 stories for that class. I submitted numerous ones to literary publications at the school. But only one was I told by my instructor to submitt to a contest. A contest that was judged by middle-aged male and female professors. The story I submitted was about a middle-aged man struggling with what to do with his mother who was currently in a nursing home. It was in his point of view and took place on an airplane, about ten-fifteen pages in length if that. In the story an annoying, elderly passenger who resembles his mother, sits next to him, and suffers an attack, getting violently sick - much like his own mother is sick. She's not his mother, but he is struggling with the guilt. Because he's not taking care of her, he is far away, taking care of his own life. I wrote the first draft while suffering an 105 degree fever. OF the stories I wanted published, that was my least favorite and it was the hardest one to share with my family - because I'd based the tale on my own father. My intent was to discuss the complexity of how people feel about their family members, about illness. The complicated emotion. This story was more successful than Just A Bunch of Ants - because it made sense to those judging it. It fit within their framework. They identified with the main character and had experienced or were experiencing that character's anguish. Just A Bunch of Ants did not make sense to them - it was about a 18 year old art student, alone, and frustrated - farther away. Who cursed and used foul language. And was angry at the world. Just A Bunch of Ants pushed my teacher's buttons or it was a story that by itself, without the nuclear holocaust, etc - was uninteresting.

In school, when I was taught how to do literary analysis - you are taught by the way, you don't just wake up one morning and do it - I was told that you should try to figure out authorial intent, as well as what it meant to you. One is subjective and one objective analysis. The second in some respects is far harder and requires greater skill, because you are attempting to get inside someone else's head - someone you don't know. But by understanding the author, the work itself often makes more sense. I'm not sure you can fully understand Faulkner's Sound & The Fury by the way - if you did not know about the loss of his child and his own grief. And Anne Rice's Interview with a Vampire takes on a whole new meaning when you find out about the child she lost and obsessed over. Same deal with Joss Whedon - it helps to know when watching Buffy, that Whedon originally wrote the story for his activist mother, who died of Cancer before the TV series aired. OR that he has written in numerous interviews that he is fascinated with the conflict about an individual's identity and society's view of what that identity should be. Also the fact that Whedon himself is a white guy, who went to prep/boarding schools, and is the child of an activist and literary mother and a television writer father. These facts do provide insight to his work. Just as the fact that James Joyce was Irish, poor, and had the majority of his later transcripts typed by French Nuns who couldn't speak English - is critical to understanding his work. He wrote about Dublin. He often wrote in Gallic and English. He had a love for the rhythm of language.

But, I often see in analysis - these items forgotten or overlooked. Critical reviews do this a lot, I think. Until they become or feel if you will excuse the term, like masturbation.
The critic indulging him or herself. Not all. I'm not saying that. Certainly not. Nor am I saying that I think you have to take authorial intent into consideration. But, to a degree, perhaps we should?

It's like having a conversation with someone - in which after a while you realize the other person is misinterpreting every word you say. Putting their own twist or meaning on your words. I've had these types of conversations with both Wales and my brother. As they have had with me. Where, we are reacting to what we think is being said, not listening and thinking about what is being said. I think this is true with stories too - the difference between the emotional reaction - which is vicerial and does not always have anything to do with the author's intent but our own perceptions or moods or what have you, and the thoughtful reaction. Right vs. Left brain if you will, although I don't believe it is nearly that cut and dried.

Anyhow it is late. Must sleep. Just letting this hang out there for whomever may pass it by, for the moment.

Comments

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of the posts on authorial intent on the old ATPo board - usually debates over whether it was important or not. I always took the side it was important. Not just what kind of background the writer has and how it influenced what they wrote--something they themselves might not be conscious of--but also their conscious intent in writing it. I believed this was crucial in understanding the work, mostly because, as a writer myself, I wanted people to understand what I am trying to say when I write; otherwise, why bother writing at all?

People who insist the meaning of a work is all relative to whomever is reading it drive me insane. Sure, we all get different things out of a story, that was one of the fascinating aspects of fandom. But in saying, in the final analysis, "what really happened in this scene," I am going to listen to what the writer has to say, not fan x or fan y.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of the posts on authorial intent on the old ATPo board - usually debates over whether it was important or not.

Yes, I remember those debates - and was thinking about some of them as I was writing the above. I think at the time, that I participated in them, but can't remember which side I took.

I always took the side it was important. Not just what kind of background the writer has and how it influenced what they wrote--something they themselves might not be conscious of--but also their conscious intent in writing it. I believed this was crucial in understanding the work, mostly because, as a writer myself, I wanted people to understand what I am trying to say when I write; otherwise, why bother writing at all?

Exactly.

It's not the background - I realized re-reading my post that I sort of stated that incorrectly. Because you are correct intent can often be separate from background. While background can provide insight into what the author's intent may have been - it does not always tell us what it is. In the case of Faulkner - literary scholars have had to relie greatly on his background to figure out what he may have intended, since he did not provide any other insight besides the text itself. Same deal with James Joyce - one had to relie on biographical bits. Joyce like Faulkner preferred to let their work speak for itself. They were a bit like Bernard Shaw in that way.

Whedon and tv writers - are bit different, they do want to explain their intent. OR attempt to in interviews. I think the reason is that their audience's views are accessible to them. They know what we think. And often get annoyed when our reaction is not what they anticipated. OR we do not view the story as they intended. Case in point - Whedon got very upset at the end of S6, defensive even, in interviews - when people misunderstood his intent regarding Tara's death in the show.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

People who insist the meaning of a work is all relative to whomever is reading it drive me insane. Sure, we all get different things out of a story, that was one of the fascinating aspects of fandom. But in saying, in the final analysis, "what really happened in this scene," I am going to listen to what the writer has to say, not fan x or fan y.

It's tricky though to know for certain what writer x had to say about the scene. Sometimes they tell you, assuming they even remember their intent.

I think - we have to look at both - what the writer intended and what we see in the scene. Not just one or the other. What I'm not sure about - is which should be given the greater weight - the fan/viewer's response to the scene or the writer's intent regardless of what the viewer saw?

To what degree is the writer responsible for the viewer's reaction? For communicating their intent to the viewer so that the viewer understands it? And to what extent is the viewer responsible for figuring out the writer's intent?

As a writer - I want the greater responsibility to be on the viewer. When people argue that we need to write more carefully - I argue that we should learn how to read more carefully.

But as a reader, I find myself agreeing with those who state that the responsibility is the writer's to communicate their idea in a clear enough fashion for the reader to understand it and their intent. If, as cactus watcher and other's point out - we don't get the writer's intent from the work - then the writer has failed.

This raises another question - how do we know whether we got the writer's intent? Unless they tell us?

With TV shows it's tough - because they are collaborations. There's more than one writer involved.
Not to mention actors, directors, etc. Each person may tell us what their intent was - but what if their intents conflict - are not in agreement? We saw this with contradictory interviews with Marsters, Espenson, Whedon, Gellar, Fury, and Noxon during S6. Do we pick the items that there is consensus and go with that? Majority wins approach? Or pick one commentator - Whedon and ignore the rest?

Same with viewers/fans - whose opinion is the correct one? The one we happen to agree with, the one that most closely fits what some or one of the creators states is so? All? Or none?

I don't know. I've been struggling with communication this week - so perhaps that's why I find myself puzzeling over this.

Because like you state above - I think if I can't communicate my views, thoughts, etc through my writing to someone else - what's the point?

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Readers' and viewers' interaction with a text is very different in the age of the internet and DVDs. We can get a running commentary from the writer about their intent as we go along, and don't have to wait for rare interviews or biographies. We can even interact with the writers themselves in ways people couldn't in the past. And the writers with us. It changes the whole ball game of literary interpretation.

[joe-sweden.livejournal.com]

We often know what the writer thinks about her/his work even before we've seen the work, too - spoilerish interviews and whatnot. So, absolutely, the writer's intent is ever more present.

I don't think that makes it any more or less valid, but it's definitely more a part of the experience, almost inescapable unless we're never to go on the internet or read another interview.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

He said if the plot and intent is not clear to the reader or audience, then the writer has failed.

He ignored, of course, the fact that (as you say) some of the students did get it! So who exactly has failed?

People who discuss this seem to take exclusive positions. I think that's wrong; I think a writing "means" both (1) what the author intended and (2) what the reader thinks of in reading it. The one approach I think is not valid is "This is what it would mean if I wrote it, so this is what the author means."

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Yes, I believe you are right - I think both need to be taken into consideration - the authorial intent and what the reader thinks of in reading it. I don't think reading is a passive experience. And I think the two are interacting. If we don't know what the reader thinks - we don't know if the author has communicated his intent. And if we don't know what the author has intended - we can't know if the intent has been communicated.

As I was discussing with catcuswatcher above - who appears to take the opposite stance, I could be wrong about that, it may depend on if the writer is writing to "communicate" with the reader or merely to entertain the reader. As a writer - I don't really understand the point of writing if you do not wish to communicate something. But I've read books that appear to be only interested in entertaining me and the writer really has no other intent or if they do, they've no clue what it is.
While I don't understand that in writing, I admit that when I paint or knit or do pottery - I'm not interested in communicating, I just want to do it and create something pretty or cool. The two processes for me at least are different. So paintings for me - are things that give me pleasure, I don't really want to analyze them and don't care about intent. While words...are all about communication. But I've a friend who looks at paintings as communication - and does analyze them. She believes the artist's intent is vital to understanding the painting or artwork. I'm not sure she sees creating a piece of pottery or knitting or painting as something that one might do with no other purpose in mind but just to paint.

[cactuswatcher.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with your instructor about plot, but intent of the writer is a little difficult to pin down. Someone famous, perhaps George B. Shaw, told a fan who insisted on knowing what he meant in a particular passage, that once there were two who knew what he meant there, but now God only knew.

Yes, if you intend to write a story about the Holocaust and no one realizes it, that's not so good. But generally how each person enjoys something and what they get out of it is their own business, as long as they enjoy it. You tell your stories and as long as people enjoy reading them, the rest is gravy.

Everyone who writes seriously thinks they communicate perfectly. But that's not possible because the reader doesn't have the exact same mind set and experiences as the author. The same is true of teachers. I thought I was a great teacher in the beginning. I taught the first part of my first course in college in such a way that surely everyone would get A's on the first exam. When instead they got a normal spread from A's to D's my pride was hurt. But I did learn that all I could do was my best, and the students would have to do well or not depending on their work not mine.

Clarifications

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

As an aside, the problem with my laptop is I can't cut and past sufficiently on it. Will try, but it takes more time than with a desktop.

I think, from reading your post above, that you may have misread a few things in mine. Of course, I could be misreading you. Both have happened to me on numerous occassions - by that I mean, people have misread my post and I've misread their response. We read so quickly on the net, that we can often miss things, particularly if it's on a computer screen.

I'd agree with your instructor about plot, but intent of the writer is a little difficult to pin down.

Okay, not sure what you mean here. I think you are saying that you agree with the instructor's view that if the plot is not clear to the reader, that is the writer's fault? Am I correct?

On the other point? Yes, I agree the intent of a writer is a difficult thing to pin down, even when they tell us. Not helped by well, this interaction is ironically a perfect example of how easily we can misunderstand a writer's intent.

Yes, if you intend to write a story about the Holocaust and no one realizes it, that's not so good.

Okay - yes, of course, if you are writing a story about the Holocaust and no one realizes it - that's not good. But that was not what happened here.

Here - I'll reprint what I wrote above:
> Example - years ago, I wrote a short story for a creative writing course
> in college. It was called Just a Bunch of Ants - and was written in the
> point of view of a young, lonely, frustrated art student yearning for his
> girlfriend. I based the character and voice on a bunch of letters I'd
> received from my brother. Where he jokingly tells me that he's so lonely
> he's writing notes to his trash can. In the story the art student has a
> shaved head and so does his girlfriend. I don't explain why.

> The teacher thought it was about a survivor of a holocaust, dying of
> radiation poisoning. That, my teacher told us explained the bald heads
> and the notes to the trashcan.

I wrote a story about a lonely art student, in his pov, in his apartment, where he is talking about sending hair to his girlfriend, and how they are both without hair. I do not in any way describe a nuclear holocaust, radiation poisoning, or sickness.

Also most of the class did not see a nuclear holocaust victim. A portion thought cancer, insane and another portion thought lonely art student.

Re: Clarifications

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

But generally how each person enjoys something and what they get out of it is their own business, as long as they enjoy it. You tell your stories and as long as people enjoy reading them, the rest is gravy.

Depends on why you are writing the story. Or what your underlying purpose is. If you only write stories to entertain - than sure, that's true. But, not all stories are told for enjoyment or entertainment. The story I told above about my teacher wasn't meant for entertainment, after all. And, I left items out regarding the teacher and teaching. Because it was not a story about my teacher. The post really isn't about my teacher at all.

One of the items I left out of the story, because it was not relevant to my post but it is relevant to how you may have interpreted it - is that this was one of my favorite teachers. He encouraged my writing, helped it along, and challenged me to write better. He may well be one of the best writing instructors I've ever had. If the post were about him, it would have been different.

I picked his reaction to Just A Bunch of Ants and the other stories I'd written, merely as an example - because what I was attempting to demonstrate is how we project on to the work or read things into the work things, plots, views that simply may not be there, and do not always take the time to read it carefully, or think through our analysis of it logically or with an eye to intent. To add to what you say above, not only do we think we are the perfect writers - we also think we are the perfect readers or audience, we believe our perception is clear and precise and our ability to analyze unquestionable. It's not, of course. We screw up all the time. Often misreading or miswatching something. We also have a tendency to want to read more into a work of art than may actually be there or see a story that is not being told. We extrapolate from the work those items that we identify with, that we are interested in, or that upset us, often, and not always intentionally or even consciously, ignoring the rest.

To some extent reading more into a work of art is not a bad thing - as the writer of The Kite Runner said in an interview a while back - I'm not going to tell you what I meant by such and such metaphor - because if I told you I didn't mean anything, you'd get disappointed and I will have hurt your experience of the novel. But when you completely misread what the person is saying - then miscommunication and misunderstandings can be the results.

Unlike lj or that creative writing course - the writer doesn't get the chance to tell the reader - no I wasn't writing about a nuclear holocaust survivor. Or in your case, no - no one thought Just a Bunch of Ants was about "the Holocaust". They thought it was about "a nuclear holocaust" or perhaps nuclear disaster/WWIII would have been a better phrase - since a lot of people associate the word "holocaust" with WWII and nothing else. They thought nuclear disaster - based on the fact that the lead character was bald and sending his hair to his girlfriend. (Which I guess could have been interpreted in that manner, it was hard for the teacher or some of the students to imagine shaving their heads just for the hell of it. And yes, you could argue that I, as the writer, should have stated that he just shaved his head. But I knew the character wouldn't say that.)

My purpose for writing "Just A Bunch of Ants" was not to entertain the reader. My intent was to show a certain point of view, to get inside this character's head and take the reader with me. I didn't care if they enjoyed it. I don't write to entertain. While I occassionally read to be entertained, I usually want more than that from my books. I write to well communicate my ideas and thoughts. To share them.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I do think that a lot of people want to 'friend' people at facebook who have the interests as them (ie if you joined any groups, became a 'fan of' anything, or just expressed interest in a book/author) because they want to pretend they have a huge circle of friends....

I don't understand it my own self....

Re: reading & understanding. I've heard people argue that author intent is of no more importance that the intent of an abstract artist; they claim that anything the viewer/reader reads into it is legitimate so long as the viewer/reader can argue their position using only things actually in the original work and not solely from their own pre-conceptions....
Certainly people have gotten advanced degrees by reading all kinds of stuff into Shakespeare & other greats....

Personally as a painter I accept that people will see what they want to see, I can only suggest things to them, but if they are blind to my images then I still don't want to prevent them from looking at my work... Often the person with the most 'baggage' influencing their understanding is the person who needs some artistic uplift the most.

In Eastern philosophy they say that knowledge is structured in consciousness, that is to say that you can only understand what you are ready to understand. A child will only see the world through a child's eyes.... and that is why rereading or rewatching something brilliant can be so rewarding: because the understanding is deeper and clearer. And of course the more layered and complicated, the more rewarding (no artists wants their work to be so childishly simple that everyone 'gets it' immediately, do they?).

But I know you weren't saying that someone CAN'T read without wising to know what the author meant, just that literary criticism should want to get to the intended meaning... and not just be self-indulgent (ie masturbation).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

because they want to pretend they have a huge circle of friends....

I see this a lot on social networking sites and business networking sites, as well as lj - this odd narcissitic desire to acquire as many people as possible - even if you don't know them. I got suckered into twice - once on linked-in by a supervisor, who told me to friend everyone in the world regardless of how well I knew them and once on lj - where I thought you should friend everyone who friended you and every lj that look interesting. (Not the best idea in the world - you end up getting a bit over-exposed that way, and also, like I said below - you can't keep track of the ones you want to without doing filters.)

Re: reading & understanding. I've heard people argue that author intent is of no more importance that the intent of an abstract artist; they claim that anything the viewer/reader reads into it is legitimate so long as the viewer/reader can argue their position using only things actually in the original work and not solely from their own pre-conceptions....

My brother has argued this perspective. And I've seen it a lot online. As well as in school. My brother believed at one point, not sure this is true now, that what the viewer/reader sees in the art is more interesting than the intent. The artist's job is to provide the viewer with something to "react" to. My brother was a conceptual artist with a heavy post-modernistic take on things. Or is that modernist? I get them confused.

Personally as a painter I accept that people will see what they want to see, I can only suggest things to them, but if they are blind to my images then I still don't want to prevent them from looking at my work... Often the person with the most 'baggage' influencing their understanding is the person who needs some artistic uplift the most.

I think, having done both painting and writing - that as a painter/drawer/potter/knitter - I was interested in communicating something to the viewer of my art. I just did it.
I wanted to "entertain" or provide "pleasure" or the uplift.
And it's what I want from the painting or craft. The pleasure.

But for writing - I desire the communication. It's interesting in my responses to both cactuswatcher and masq above - I wrote something similar to what I wrote in our discussion regarding reading - a while ago. Cactuswatcher is of the opinion that as long as you enjoy the story, what's it matter. The purpose is to be entertained. That's fine - if that is your intent. As a writer - I can tell you - that I don't care if people are entertained by what I've what written. It's not why I write.
I'm not interested in entertaining. Not that there's anything wrong with writing for that purpose. A lot of people do write just to entertain. And I admit, I've read books merely to be entertained. That's all I wanted. But most of the time - I read for something else. The communication of ideas. To fall into another mind. To maybe connect. It's the communication I'm looking for.

In Eastern philosophy they say that knowledge is structured in consciousness, that is to say that you can only understand what you are ready to understand.

I like this statement. I agree. I see this in a lot of stories - when we push to understand more than we are able - our brain shuts down, we get confused, or go crazy.

A child will only see the world through a child's eyes.... and that is why rereading or rewatching something brilliant can be so rewarding: because the understanding is deeper and clearer. And of course the more layered and complicated, the more rewarding (no artists wants their work to be so childishly simple that everyone 'gets it' immediately, do they?).

Yes. I think this is true. Even those who merely want to entertain or state that is all they want, want more...they want their work to have resonance, to hit emotions, to uplift or for someone to feel reassured. They want to connect - even if it is just with shared laughter.

But I know you weren't saying that someone CAN'T read without wising to know what the author meant, just that literary criticism should want to get to the intended meaning... and not just be self-indulgent (ie masturbation).

Yes. Exactly.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry you took last night's post down, it was definitely off-beat, but I could identify!

Although I go the other way, instead of ignoring Valentine's Day (w/my single status and feeling that relationships never work out and that I'm destined to die alone... ) instead I send out lots and lots of Valentines to friends and family, to remind me that even though no one is IN love with me, but still... I am loved (or at least liked... well, some people are willing to put up with me.).

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yeah, well...you know, typical second-quessing. Seemed great when I wrote it, next morning, I could see people reading it in a light - I really didn't intend.

I've been having foot in mouth disease this week apparently.

I'm feeling incredibly lonely and at the same time wish I could be a hermit and not have to deal with people for the next 24-48 hours. I may hibernate tomorrow.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

well I said I was sorry you took it down, but I wasn't really that surprised that you took it down...

And I can totally understand the need to hibernate, I've had a very social week this last week, and it was all very fun stuff w/dear friends, but I'm really wanting a chance to chill out and be alone now. However unlike you I actually count my time online as alone time. Posting online, like writing valentines, is a way for me to express stuff in my heart.... And reading stuff online is just me getting to relax and catch up, it isn't like my annoyance at telephones (God I hate telephones!) because I can take my time to respond, or not respond at all if I don't want.....

Anyway, have fun... take it easy. But I hope you know you are appreciated and loved by a lot of people. You may not be understood, but people can love without understanding...
oh, wait...
that gets back to the subject of this post doesn't it?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

oh wait...that gets back to the subject of this post doesn't it?

LOL!

Read some of the responses above. There is a really ironic interchange between me and catcuswatcher - which more or less is a metaphor for my last two phone conversations with Wales, and my week.

I think you can love without understanding. Just feeling unloved, which is weird, because I know rationally that's completely untrue. I just told a friend tonight about my 7 years of bad luck, but inserted in that - the people, including yourself, who reached out to me during that period. Who made it possible that I did not spend the night alone in the emergency room, and had someone pick me up from the hospital when I had an exam and my family could not be there to help.

The internet is weird. I've been able to tell people things on ATPO and on this lj - that I can't tell people in my real life. I don't know why. If it's because through writing - I feel freer somehow or if
the psuedoname provides me with a protective layer of plastic - so the reveal doesn't feel like a reveal?
Of course there are times, I think I've gone too far and I delete, feeling over-exposed. Because I write in here a bit like I talk - unedited and unproofed. And that's not always a good thing. Yet, I need to be able to do that. It makes me feel...safe and happy when I can. If that makes sense.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I agree that these kinds of biographical facts can add insight to a writer's work, but not in every case, or biographical elements may not be the most important key to interpreting a novel, TV show, etc. And not every critic has access to all the bio details of a particular author. And what are we to do in cases where the author is unknown? "Authorial intent" certainly existed, but since we have little or no specific info about who the author was, we can only focus on the text. Still doesn't mean that the text means whatever we want it to mean.

I think it depends on the author. This true for author's such as Shakespeare - we're not even completely sure if Shakespeare wrote all his plays or collaborated with others.

As masq points out above - today, writer's have access to their readers and vice versa. We live in the age of DVD commentary, blogs, and internet chat rooms. You can go online and find the writer who wrote a book you loved on Facebook or Livejournal or Blogger and ask them to explain themselves. Heck for TV - you can do it even more. Whedon has had chats with his fans on Whedonesque and appeared to explain his intent on numerous occassions. Not only that, but he provides in-depth commentary on DVD's and in interviews.

But for long-dead or hermit like authors, such as James Joyce, Cormac McCarthy, Jane Austen, Edith Wharton, Faulkner or Shakespeare - we are limited to the biographical information, textual analysis, and letters the writers themselves have written to others regarding their work. Then of course, we have to keep in mind the influence their editors had upon them - Raymond Carver's editor who was known for rewriting chunks of Carver's stories - is just one example.

So how do we know? How do we figure out intent? I think you are correct, we use textual analysis - but have to by the same token be sure not to superimpose what we think it should mean upon it, make it mean whatever we want it to mean.

Hard to do I think, but certainly possible. Harder still if you know little to nothing about the author and in some cases as you point out - the author is unknown. Does the intent behind the text in the later instance become whatever the reader wishes it to be? No, of course not. But how do we know we are correct in our analysis of it? Can we know?

[joe-sweden.livejournal.com]

Someone linked to this post as part of a discussion about season 8 of Buffy, hope you don't mind me butting in...

Are they a conversation between the reader and the writer? The writer telling us something from their perspective, sharing with us how they see the world, what is bugging them, and who they are?

This reminds me of a little rhyme, can't remember who taught it to me. Maybe my dad. Anyway:

"This is the creeda Jacques Derrida
There ain't no writer
And there ain't no reader, eder."

Now, I'm not a big fan of Derrida. But I'm definitely more towards the side of thinking that, once a text is out there, the author's intent doesn't really matter any more. I will read author's commentaries on these things, because it can help give insights. But I wouldn't take it as an authority. What's on the screen/on the page is what counts to me.

So, no, I don't think it's a communication between writer and reader. I don't think a writer's failed if the reader doesn't get what they intended out of the story.

I see stories as like diamonds - hold them up to the light, inspect them, and you can see all kinds of different angles. The diamond doesn't change, but our experience of it can be different.

That does'nt mean you should humpty dumpty your way through a reading of a text, "It means whatever I say it means" - more that analysis is a moveable feast, and if there's enough textual evidence for a reading, it's valid imo. Whatever the author may or may not have intended.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I don't mind at all. I'm actually really glad you did - because you hit on something that's been niggling at the back of my own brain regarding this issue.

On an art tour a while back, I looked at an abstract painting - that upon first glance looked like little more than a mess of paint on canvas. I didn't like it. The lecturer asked me to look closer, and to look at the title of the work, as well as the paintings surrounding it - she also told me a little bit about the artist. Then other people in the group began discussing it. Then she asked if the painting we were looking at accomplished the artist's purpose. Looking closer at it - and at the other paintings that surrounded it, as well as my comrades comments regarding them - I realized it was a forest - the slashes of black and green with red and brown - leaves and flowers. Within the flurry - I saw a body outlined by the slashes. And I realized what the artist was attempting to convey - the idea of hiding within the mess, the sexuality and violence of the forest. The body looked dead, then I realized no, it was alive, and in a sexual pose. It was an odd experience - a bit like looking at the diamond you mention above - I saw all sorts of angles. And when I talked to the other people on the art tour with me - they contributed their perspectives - so I saw even more. Until the painting was no longer just a mess of paint - but a moveable feast of images and ideas.

Even though, to a degree, the artist's background helped me appreciate her painting - I'm not sure what the author tells us in interviews or what we know about their background is necessarily vital to our understanding or appreciation of their work. It may enrich it, it may even confuse it, but vital? I agree with you there.

Also often what the writer tells us - is contradictory to what we've read, making us wonder if they even remember it. I'm not completely sure most writers know what they are intending when they write a story. I know I struggle with it - describing to others what my story is about or my intent in writing it is - feels a bit at times like nailing jello to a wall. In Whedon's interviews - he contradicts himself, and he does not seem to be certain either. Few are. James Joyce never knew and refused to answer the question. As have Cormac McCarthy and Mark Twain and Shakespeare. Preferring to leave such questions unanswered.

I remember having a similar argument on a Buffy fan discussion board - the ATPO Board years ago. I think the stance I took at one point was once the content is out there, away from the artist, in the public - it is no longer theirs. Everyone's brain is different. Our experiences are different. We will focus on different portions of it. Which is why - in some cases, such as the painting I discussed above or BTVS - it helps if you discuss it with people, particularly people who do not agree with you and may see things in a completely different way. It adds texture, provides another perspective.


TBC

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

That doesn't mean you should humpty dumpty your way through a readin of a text, "It means whatever I say it means"

Yes. I think that's what I've been wrestling with and was thinking in the post above.

A writer can at times, particularly in this day and age provide perspective. But, I'm not sure the writer is always the best judge of his/her own writing. Nor am I sure it's a good thing that we can read interviews with Marti, Joss, Fury, etc regarding what they intended or believe they intended. Particularly when it is a collaborative work. And their intentions as is true in most collaborations are at odds. Marti's take on S6 was not the same as Whedon's, Fury's, Espenson's or many others. So it is difficult to know what they were thinking or intended when they did it - add to that, the actors and others who were involved. In comics - you have artists, colorists, editors, etc. So getting at intent is a bit like hunting a needle in haystack - impossible.

But through logical textual analysis, and an analysis of the writer's other works - you can figure out what the writer may be trying to do. You may also be able to figure out where the story is going and why it is going in the direction it is. What themes are being expressed and why they are being addressed.

I think most writers, the one's who aren't merely trying to entertain, get money and get hugs, are telling their stories to work out issues or questions in their own heads that they don't know the answers to. It's why I wrote my post above. I didn't know what the answer was.

It's why I think we communicate - to solve problems to figure out things, because we can't see all the angles of the diamond by ourselves. The issues raised in Buffy - I think are meant to be shared. I think that's why they are being raised by the writer, because I don't think the writer knows the answers and is working them out by writing them. I don't know if that's true - I just know that this is one of many reasons I'm driven to write. And I'm guessing from reading interviews with Whedon and others such as the writer behind BattleStar Galatica - that they also write to work out these issues, to explore them, and understand them.

[joe-sweden.livejournal.com]

Until the painting was no longer just a mess of paint - but a moveable feast of images and ideas.

That process of shifting perception of art you describe, I think I might go so far as to say that that’s one of the main purposes of art for me. I was going to say *the* point but then I thought of about three others :D (including: to make us/me feel something powerful, to offer emblems of ourselves that we can relate to and that mirror or somehow tell us things about our own lives, to teach us something about the world....and then I’m sure there are more).

But, back to shifting perceptions. It’s not a matter of a piece of art (or a story, or whatever) changing its meaning to a radically different meaning. Sometimes it just gains new layers the longer you look at it, though I think I do also completely change my mind about what something means – usually through discussion, though sometimes from reading something the creator’s said, or merely by going back to something after a break.

Even though, to a degree, the artist's background helped me appreciate her painting - I'm not sure what the author tells us in interviews or what we know about their background is necessarily vital to our understanding or appreciation of their work. It may enrich it, it may even confuse it, but vital? I agree with you there.
Yes, I think they’re one weapon in an arsenal of interpretation (not sure why I’m going for the violent metaphor there. Probably too much Buffy.). Discussion’s another. And then there’s going for walks and mulling things over. People don’t give walking enough credit as an analytical tool.

Also often what the writer tells us - is contradictory to what we've read, making us wonder if they even remember it.
I’m particularly put in mind of one season 6 Buffy commentary (I can’t remember which) in which the writers were miserembering details.
And, a separate point perhaps - I imagine, in a TV show, where there are numerous creators, some of them would disagree as to the interpretation of a particular scene, character, storyline etc.

I'm not completely sure most writers know what they are intending when they write a story.

Me either. Some may have a very clear idea of what they’re setting out to do. Some may work more intuitively. But even writers who have a very clear idea of what all the parts of their work should mean, what it should all add up to... well, it won’t always add up to what they intend. Everyone has their own set of associations, their own intellectual world. So something that means X to person A because of association Y might mean Z to person B because of association K. That’s getting too much like maths for comfort.

Do people use K as a letter standing in for an unknown quantity? I feel they should.

Anyway, yes, in short – some writers don’t set out to write with a particular meaning/message in mind. And those who do don’t always put it down on the page in a way that would mean the same to someone else. I think you probably said it already by talking about people having different experiences! But I said it with more words. (Do I get a cookie?)

James Joyce never knew and refused to answer the question.

Clever boy. :D

I remember having a similar argument on a Buffy fan discussion board - the ATPO Board years ago. I think the stance I took at one point was once the content is out there, away from the artist, in the public - it is no longer theirs.

I agree. A lot, in fact – it makes me quite cross when people say that the author gets to decide what something means just because they’re the author. Sure, they own the copyright, but they don’t “own” the meaning in the sense of having any control over it once it’s out there.

TBC

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oooh a lot of great points here. I agree. You are hitting a lot of things that have been bugging me about authorial intent and analysis that either completely ignores it or looks at the text purely from a reactive stance. And saying them very well.

Also I love your icon. But then I'm a BSG and Starbuck fan.

that mirror or somehow tell us things about our own lives, to teach us something about the world....and then I’m sure there are more).

I think you are correct. On the mirror bit - this can at times get in the way of a lot of good analysis. People often will get caught up in the aspects of the text that either mirror their lives or reflect aspects of their experience that they'd rather forget. For example - in Buffy, I have a friend who could not bear Lies My Parents Told Me because she closely identified with Robin Wood's loss of Nikki Wood. How that was handled was a bit like sandpaper across a wound. I, on the other hand, struggled with the character of Robin Wood - because his behavior as an employer towards Buffy reflected a bad job situation. While aspects of what we both saw in the series were valid, our focus was too narrow and because of the emotional impact of the content - how it made us feel, we were unable to see the other angles.

though I think I do also completely change my mind about what something means – usually through discussion, though sometimes from reading something the creator’s said, or merely by going back to something after a break.

A good friend of mine said recently that going online and discussing Buffy on a fan board or with others - provides more insight. We can't see the whole story by ourselves. We are limited by our own perception of it.

I also agree about changing one's mind about things. I've done it many times myself. I am admittedly stubborn and a bit opinionated. But I try to stay open and work hard to read views that I disagree with, sometimes vehemently so.

I changed my mind about the Seventh Season of Buffy. On the first two watchings, I found it clunky with huge plot gaps. The third viewing and reading some new takes on the season, changed my mind. That season is now arguably among my favorites. It's ambiguous in places. And deals with some complex and unanswerable questions regarding leadership, power, and friendship, not to mention gender politics.

And then there’s going for walks and mulling things over. People don’t give walking enough credit as an analytical tool.

I do my best thinking taking long walks. As a writer - walks often help my work out story problems. And at work - I take long walks at lunch - they work out stress and help me figure out solutions to problems.

I’m particularly put in mind of one season 6 Buffy commentary (I can’t remember which) in which the writers were miserembering details.

Ah yes. I remember that as well. Can't remember what it was though. But I remember laughing, because it is so true. I don't remember what I write half the time.

TBC

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Me either. Some may have a very clear idea of what they’re setting out to do. Some may work more intuitively.

I think Whedon has admitted that he is an intuitive writer. So am I, which may explain why I like him. Intiutive writers tend to be more interested in exploring characters and less into plot. Whedon often will team up with good plotters to counter-act that problem. Because plot is important. And knowing where you are going is as well.

That said, I think Whedon does know the end of his story, he just doesn't know the middle. I can relate to that.

But even writers who have a very clear idea of what all the parts of their work should mean, what it should all add up to... well, it won’t always add up to what they intend. Everyone has their own set of associations, their own intellectual world. So something that means X to person A because of association Y might mean Z to person B because of association K. That’s getting too much like maths for comfort.

Your last line about math made me laugh. I feel much the same way. Although it makes me think more of logical reasoning.

And it is a great analogy. If you look at some of the responses above - each person picked up something different from my post. CactusWatcher focused on the teacher reference.
Masq - focused on writing as communication. Embers brought up painting and art. And maeuve rigan asked if you can really know authorial intent if the author is unknown. All their associations are based on their experiences. Read together - you get a klaidescope of views. And your comments sort of brought all of it into focus. I've seen the same marvelous thing happen with Buffy. One viewer will focus on Willow's story, another Xander's, another Spike's. You'll get people who hate Spike - who will provide one interpretation. And those who adore with another. Then those in between.

(Do I get a cookie?)

Hee, for this and the K comment certainly.

I agree. A lot, in fact – it makes me quite cross when people say that the author gets to decide what something means just because they’re the author.

Yes, I used to want to kick people on fanboards who would argue points by saying well Marti Noxon said in this interview that the characters are this. And quote it. So you are wrong.

Or they would go to the transcript and pick stage directions that aren't seen on-screen.

On TV - there's too many people involved. Fool For Love had three writers. Conversations with Dead People - five different writers. And that's not including everyone else.

In regards to novels and short stories - with just one writer?
Same thing applies. James Joyce said once in an interview that whatever the reader decided was his intent, that was it. He was most interested in what the reader got out of it. And I have to say that sometimes, as a writer, I'll like what someone else has seen in my story more than what I may have intended. I know Joss Whedon and his writers have stated this - sometimes they like what we think of the story more than what they thought about it. It's why they go online and chat with fans. It provides texture to the tale and gives it a life beyond the page. Each person that reads or watchs it, extends the life of the work - gives it a new and richer dimension.
I'm not sure art can exist in a vaccume, if it does it is rather uninteresting. I think we influence each other.

Sure, they own the copyright, but they don’t “own” the meaning in the sense of having any control over it once it’s out there.

Right. You can't copyright an idea or a plot or a meaning. Those can't be owned. The only thing that can be copyrighted is the expression of the idea. How you told it. To own more than that, would limit expression, and creativity.


TBC

[joe-sweden.livejournal.com]

Continued...

Which is why - in some cases, such as the painting I discussed above or BTVS - it helps if you discuss it with people, particularly people who do not agree with you and may see things in a completely different way. It adds texture, provides another perspective.

Discussions with people I disagree with, or at least who have a different perspective, is so valuable. Why I love the internet reason 2928739827398472. Though, that doesn’t work if I disagree with them about something silly and we get caught up in minutiae.

Particularly when it is a collaborative work. And their intentions as is true in most collaborations are at odds.
Ah, I hadn’t read this bit of your post when I was replying above. But yes, agree! And, in a TV show, it’s not just multiple writers, it’s all the other creators (actors, monster-making people, composer) who all add something to the pot.

But through logical textual analysis, and an analysis of the writer's other works - you can figure out what the writer may be trying to do. You may also be able to figure out where the story is going and why it is going in the direction it is. What themes are being expressed and why they are being addressed.

Perhaps authorial intent (stated authorial intent plus inferred authorial intent from getting an idea of “the sort of thing they do”) can be seen as a kind of archaeology. It provides us with possible insights and hints, but we’ll never truly know how to take it, what value to give it. In the archaeology example, we’re separated by time and cultural difference. With authorial intentions, the use/accuracy is limited by the fact that a) texts are polyvalent anyway so there so there is no one interpretation and b) the authors are distanced from their works, they aren’t the works themselves, they’re “outside” just like we are, looking in on the finished product. They know what went into the process, but the process and the product are separate.

I think most writers, the one's who aren't merely trying to entertain, get money and get hugs, are telling their stories to work out issues or questions in their own heads that they don't know the answers to.

Interesting way of putting it – writing as answering an amorphous question, I like it.
Actually, I’m going to go away and think about this, back later. :)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Discussions with people I disagree with, or at least who have a different perspective, is so valuable. Why I love the internet reason 2928739827398472. Though, that doesn’t work if I disagree with them about something silly and we get caught up in minutiae.

LOL! Yes, the minutiae/nitpicky arguments can be annoying. What's worse and this happens to me a lot - is when the two people having the discussion are arguing about whether an apple is better than the orange - which I guess is sort of like arguing about minutiae. Emotional arguements or when you are arguing about something in which you are emotionally invested in and cannot think about objectively - often go nowhere. As I discovered during the most recent election. I've learned for example - not to argue about Spike with someone who vicerally hates the character. We aren't going to get anywhere and will just go around in circles.



Perhaps authorial intent (stated authorial intent plus inferred authorial intent from getting an idea of “the sort of thing they do”) can be seen as a kind of archaeology. It provides us with possible insights and hints, but we’ll never truly know how to take it, what value to give it. In the archaeology example, we’re separated by time and cultural difference. With authorial intentions, the use/accuracy is limited by the fact that a) texts are polyvalent anyway so there so there is no one interpretation and b) the authors are distanced from their works, they aren’t the works themselves, they’re “outside” just like we are, looking in on the finished product. They know what went into the process, but the process and the product are separate.

Yes. This is very true. So much of what we think about intent is largely speculation. I have no way of knowing what Whedon and his writers intended when they sat in that room - or what the actors really thought when they acted the roles - I'm not in their heads. And I'll never know, even though I studied James Joyce and read two bio's on him, what he thought when he wrote his books.

Interesting way of putting it – writing as answering an amorphous question, I like it.

It's the reason I write most of the time. I write to figure things out, problems, issues, questions, why people do what they do. I have no way of knowing if this is why other's write - but I think it may be. Whedon seems to write largely for this reason. But I could be wrong about that.

[joe-sweden.livejournal.com]

Going back to something you said earlier that I’ve been ruminating on:

It's why I think we communicate - to solve problems to figure out things, because we can't see all the angles of the diamond by ourselves. The issues raised in Buffy - I think are meant to be shared. I think that's why they are being raised by the writer, because I don't think the writer knows the answers and is working them out by writing them. I don't know if that's true - I just know that this is one of many reasons I'm driven to write. And I'm guessing from reading interviews with Whedon and others such as the writer behind BattleStar Galatica - that they also write to work out these issues, to explore them, and understand them.

The idea of Buffy being intended to be a community activity, I like that – not only are the writers sharing ideas with us, there does seem an expectation that we’ll share them with one another (“in the chatty rooms”, as Angel said).

The self-awareness of BtVs and AtS mean they include the viewer in the text from the very beginning – as in, the text speaks to us as viewers by saying, “hey guys, look, you’re watching a TV show.” (EG with the play on genre expectations at the very beginning of Welcome to the Hellmouth, with the blonde girl being the villain, Darla) But also absorbing you in the story. All of which is very fertile ground for discussion, for unpicking things as a community.




And saying them very well.

I can’t remember if I said thanks already but…thanks! Forgive me if I reply to things twice/miss stuff out… I find livejournal comment bits really visually confusing!

Also I love your icon. But then I'm a BSG and Starbuck fan.

I’m so into BSG right now… getting more and more exciting as it rushes to the end. But I don’t want it to be over. But I’m glad they’re seemingly going out with a bang. Can’t wait til next ep.

On the mirror bit - this can at times get in the way of a lot of good analysis. People often will get caught up in the aspects of the text that either mirror their lives or reflect aspects of their experience that they'd rather forget.

Yes, there is an extent to which we try to FORCE art to imitate life, our lives, which distorts art. Though I suppose sometimes relating to a particular element of a story can help bring out various meanings – as in, you relate to one bit, and that draws you to inspect that part of the story closer, and once you’re up close, you might actually see details you would’ve missed otherwise. Can’t actually think of any examples right now but…maybe?

A good friend of mine said recently that going online and discussing Buffy on a fan board or with others - provides more insight. We can't see the whole story by ourselves. We are limited by our own perception of it.

Very much so. Don’t have anything to add but…yes.

I also agree about changing one's mind about things. I've done it many times myself. I am admittedly stubborn and a bit opinionated. But I try to stay open and work hard to read views that I disagree with, sometimes vehemently so.

Once I’m in a corner, I do tend to dig in. But sometimes, in the right kind of argument, I will be coaxed out.

I changed my mind about the Seventh Season of Buffy. On the first two watchings, I found it clunky with huge plot gaps. The third viewing and reading some new takes on the season, changed my mind. That season is now arguably among my favorites. It's ambiguous in places. And deals with some complex and unanswerable questions regarding leadership, power, and friendship, not to mention gender politics.

Interesting. I still don’t like season 7, but…. Do you have any posts dissecting it and why you like it anywhere? I’d be very interested to see what you think makes it good.

TBC

[joe-sweden.livejournal.com]

I do my best thinking taking long walks. As a writer - walks often help my work out story problems. And at work - I take long walks at lunch - they work out stress and help me figure out solutions to problems.

I love it. I think one of the reasons I loved Lord of the Rings so much as a kid was they did a lot of walking as part of the plot. Or perhaps the reason I liked walking was down to LoTR? Chicken, egg…

I don't remember what I write half the time.

…which definitely reinforces the “we don’t own our own work once it’s out there” point of view. I had a tutor once whose mantra was: “kill your babies.” Not getting too attached to a piece of work, or to a particular element of a story, can often lead to the best stories, when you’re able to junk something because it isn’t working and not hang onto it just because it’s your own, your precious and you wantsss it (since I’m on a LoTR tip).



I think Whedon has admitted that he is an intuitive writer. So am I, which may explain why I like him. Intiutive writers tend to be more interested in exploring characters and less into plot. Whedon often will team up with good plotters to counter-act that problem. Because plot is important. And knowing where you are going is as well.

Yes – I think when Joss falls down it’s sometimes because he’s focusing too much on the “cry now” character moments and not enough on the overall structure. Most of the time this works out fine though I think, because the characters drive such a strong story.

A writer who’s awful in that regard is the guy who was doing doctor who (or possibly still is), Russell T Davies, who couldn’t structure a season if it bit him in the arse, and focuses too much on “wouldn’t it be cool if x happened?” Though I suppose the problem there is that he’s focusing neither on plot nor character, but rather on moments. I still love the new incarnation of Doctor Who, but I’m looking forward to the new showrunner, whose episodes have tended to be much better than RTD’s.

Actually, with the comics, I think Joss’s are often weaker issues. Loved Brian K Vaughn’s stuff (he’s generally very good, though Pride of Bagdhad was a little heavy handed, but Y Last Man is brilliant – and rather Buffy-like at times).

That said, I think Whedon does know the end of his story, he just doesn't know the middle. I can relate to that.

Yeah, getting from A to B can be the hard thing. Though I do personally find once I know the ending it becomes a lot easier to write. I’m rather bad in terms of knowing how to begin a story, but then having no clue where I’m going to end up and rambling until I get…somewhere.

[joe-sweden.livejournal.com]

Your last line about math made me laugh. I feel much the same way. Although it makes me think more of logical reasoning.

True. Logic is also evil (I mean formal logic). Anything that uses letters and numbers instead of words brings me out in a rash. (I gave up maths at 16 for a reason, and that reason is…maths is evil, language is king, and anyone who claims maths is a language should tell me how to swear in maths. A language without decent curse words is a language I don’t want any part of.)

And it is a great analogy. If you look at some of the responses above - each person picked up something different from my post.

Speaking of wood for the trees, I’ve been so focused on your responses to my responses that I haven’t read any of the others, must go and do so asap. Very curious to see what others have said and experience – as you say – the kaleidoscope of all those views.

Hee, for this and the K comment certainly.

Mmm, cookies :D


On TV - there's too many people involved. Fool For Love had three writers. Conversations with Dead People - five different writers. And that's not including everyone else.

Yes. I think it’s easy to forget that Joss is shorthand for “everyone who made this episode happen from a creative point of view – including the suits who wouldn’t allow stuff to happen and therefore forced the creative types to come up with new solutions.”


He was most interested in what the reader got out of it. And I have to say that sometimes, as a writer, I'll like what someone else has seen in my story more than what I may have intended.

Yes, that is a very satisfying thing. Though most of the time the stuff I write is just comedy/silliness so there aren’t all that many layers to be found. But when there are, I definitely appreciate people seeing nuances I hadn’t really intended. Though I must say, I do get peeved if they miss something I thought was really obvious (in a petulant way, I don’t actually get cross with them, I just have a secret wail).

I'm not sure art can exist in a vaccume, if it does it is rather uninteresting. I think we influence each other.

Perhaps certain sorts of art thrive in a vacuum (the very contemplative kind?) but others feed off feedback/influence. The Buffyverse is definitely a feedbackverse.