|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 28, 2014 16:35:04 GMT -5
To answer this I'd like to bring up Ray Bradbury and Fahrenheit 451. It's taught around the country as being a book about the evil's of censorship, and it's struck many chords with that interpretation. But Bradbury didn't intend it to be a book about the evils of censorship, he intended it to be a book about the evils of television, which went over most people's heads. Which interpretation matters more? The one that people saw and identified with, or the one that the author intended and almost no one got? Personally, I think both are valid, but I'd have to lean towards the former. The interpretation that matters most tends to be the one that resonates with the crowd, even if the author didn't intend for it to be the theme.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Aug 28, 2014 17:08:57 GMT -5
I think it does, although if a work is meant to be ambiguous or open-ended then we won't really know the artist's intention most of the time (see: Edgar Allan Poe). But let's not mince words here. Chase said Tony lived so he lived. That isn't interpretation, that's black and white fact. Although an amusing story I read once was Isaac Asimov (I think it was him) was in the back of a classroom when a professor was talking about what the message of one his works was. Asimov told him what it actually meant and the professor argued with him telling him how wrong he was. I'm not quite sure if that professor knew he was arguing with the creator of the work over its meaning, but it's a funny tale. From TVTropes.org:
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Aug 28, 2014 17:30:32 GMT -5
Oh, so the professor was both clueless AND arrogant.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 28, 2014 17:33:18 GMT -5
To answer this I'd like to bring up Ray Bradbury and Fahrenheit 451. It's taught around the country as being a book about the evil's of censorship, and it's struck many chords with that interpretation. But Bradbury didn't intend it to be a book about the evils of censorship, he intended it to be a book about the evils of television, which went over most people's heads. Which interpretation matters more? The one that people saw and identified with, or the one that the author intended and almost no one got? Personally, I think both are valid, but I'd have to lean towards the former. The interpretation that matters most tends to be the one that resonates with the crowd, even if the author didn't intend for it to be the theme. Again, Bradbury's intention is the reality. However, if people did not see that and saw a differing (and perhaps more logical) view, that's on Bradbury for not making it clearer. But still, it's his reality. He, and he alone, has say over what is intended. To me, that's the actual issue here. People cannot attempt to say an author is WRONG (so long as the ending is not left purposely ambiguous), because they are not the creator of that universe. However, they can definitely point to flaws and loopholes in a story. So, to the original David Chase point that spawned this whole debate: If Chase says Tony is alive, then he is. You don't get to choose to believe that he's not once that is revealed. You're simply a spectator in a world of his crafting. What he reveals happened, happened. And that's it. But you can absolutely state that another ending may have been better or more creative. Because reception is where you have the right to critique.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 28, 2014 18:24:40 GMT -5
]Again, Bradbury's intention is the reality. However, if people did not see that and saw a differing (and perhaps more logical) view, that's on Bradbury for not making it clearer. But still, it's his reality. He, and he alone, has say over what is intended. To me, that's the actual issue here. People cannot attempt to say an author is WRONG (so long as the ending is not left purposely ambiguous), because they are not the creator of that universe. However, they can definitely point to flaws and loopholes in a story. So, to the original David Chase point that spawned this whole debate: If Chase says Tony is alive, then he is. You don't get to choose to believe that he's not once that is revealed. You're simply a spectator in a world of his crafting. What he reveals happened, happened. And that's it. But you can absolutely state that another ending may have been better or more creative. Because reception is where you have the right to critique. I think the difference is between "headcanon" and art interpretation. As far as headcanon goes, you can't contradict what the writer writes, I agree with you on that. You can try to interpret what he writes, but you can't contradict what gets put on paper. Harry and Hermione didn't end up together, Tony didn't die at the end, Ellen Ripley isn't an acolyte of the space god Kryton sent to prepare humanity for the eventual cow uprising. But interpretation of art isn't the domain of a single person, it relies on the experiences of the reader, their environment, how they saw what they saw and how they apply it. You can't contradict what it says, but the creator can't say that what the work meant for you was wrong either. Art isn't only for the artist, but for the audience as well. It's meant to be consumed. If interpretation isn't allowed, then art ceases to have meaning as a concept. And this is good, because not everything a creator puts into a work is intentional, not everything that a creator says is really conscious effort. Some of it is as much a product of them and their time and things that they don't think about. You can't really say that people taking "censorship is evil" from Fahrenheit 451 are wrong, because censorship in that book is evil, even if Bradbury never intended that to be the primary message. The Jungle is as much a treatise against the horrible practices of the meat-packing industry as it was a Communist's plea against capitalism
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Aug 28, 2014 21:48:27 GMT -5
Chase at least didn't revise something already established, but added details previously unknown. The real problem, which really goes back to Lucas, is when a creator changes his mind on something years after the thing has been released and has been woven into the public consciousness and then expresses bewilderment when people don't enthusiastically embrace the changes. 1997 Lucas: This is how I originally envisioned these films.... 2004 Lucas: No, THIS is how I originally envisioned these films.... 2011 Lucas: No, Really, THIS is how I originally envisioned these films.....
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Aug 28, 2014 22:42:21 GMT -5
I think it does, although if a work is meant to be ambiguous or open-ended then we won't really know the artist's intention most of the time (see: Edgar Allan Poe). But let's not mince words here. Chase said Tony lived so he lived. That isn't interpretation, that's black and white fact. Although an amusing story I read once was Isaac Asimov (I think it was him) was in the back of a classroom when a professor was talking about what the message of one his works was. Asimov told him what it actually meant and the professor argued with him telling him how wrong he was. I'm not quite sure if that professor knew he was arguing with the creator of the work over its meaning, but it's a funny tale. From TVTropes.org: Reminds me of Back to School where Dangerfield actually hires Kurt Vonnegut to write his book-report and the professor says whomever he hired to write it knows nothing about Kurt Vonnegut. I've always find it funny how some will act like their conjecture on meaning is stone-cold fact.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Aug 28, 2014 22:59:30 GMT -5
So, to the original David Chase point that spawned this whole debate: If Chase says Tony is alive, then he is. You don't get to choose to believe that he's not once that is revealed. You're simply a spectator in a world of his crafting. What he reveals happened, happened. And that's it. But you can absolutely state that another ending may have been better or more creative. Because reception is where you have the right to critique. But that also ties into the instance for when it shouldn't matter how the artist interprets the art: How much time has passed before that reveal, and whether the artist changes their mind about it. Using a different example- for years, JK Rowling had said Harry and Ginny end up together. The ending had it happen in the story, and that anyone who thought Harry and Hermione end up together was delusional. Clearly, Harry and Ginny end up together. However- in the last few years, Rowling softened her stance and said it was very possible that Harry and Hermione could end up together. Does that mean that it's canon, officially, both Harry/Ginny and Hermione/Ron divorce and Harry and Hermione end up together? That's a little unreasonable to claim. It's the same issue with the David Chase point- if you're going to conclusively say a piece ended one specific way, you kind of need to stick with it. Using the David Chase example: If Chase says Tony is alive, he is. However, Chase has also said on many other occasions that Tony probably died when it happened, and had been on the case "Tony died"- and that is a problem: If David Chase continues flipflopping and every so often says "Nah, Tony totally died" or "Just kidding, he's alive"- then it would cease to matter how Chase interprets the ending.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Aug 29, 2014 7:01:19 GMT -5
One of the things I absolutely hated in school is when a teacher would TELL you what something means or symbolizes. Then you have to remember it and pretend to agree to it because you know there's gonna be questions on the test saying, "What does the rose symbolize?" and your answer would have to be "The loss of innocence in the time of war and an endless search for beauty in an ugly world." When you just KNOW the original writer was like, "I like roses... I'll put one here." QFT. as an english lit major I get really irritated when I think of how poetry always gets taught in high school like poetry is some puzzle to be solved.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,038
|
Post by Mozenrath on Aug 29, 2014 14:52:41 GMT -5
One of the things I absolutely hated in school is when a teacher would TELL you what something means or symbolizes. Then you have to remember it and pretend to agree to it because you know there's gonna be questions on the test saying, "What does the rose symbolize?" and your answer would have to be "The loss of innocence in the time of war and an endless search for beauty in an ugly world." When you just KNOW the original writer was like, "I like roses... I'll put one here." QFT. as an english lit major I get really irritated when I think of how poetry always gets taught in high school like poetry is some puzzle to be solved. Art can often be ambiguous, but it can be jarring to people to find out how pragmatic it can really be at times. Paul McCartney's quote about the Beatles comes to mind:
|
|