Not believing in Death of the Author turns literary analysis into a game of who can dig up the most obscure letter/tweet.
>>25413052I don't get it.
>>25413052>turns literary analysis into a game of who can dig up the most obscure letter/tweetSounds fun.
>>25413052I think its important to at least be aware of authorial intent and also just what the culture around the author is at the time. It should not be the be all/end all of your analysis of a work but its something you should keep in mind even if its just to try and argue against it
If Death of the Author is true does then that means AI writing is literature
>>25413136Well, no, not really.
Without context, literally nothing makes sense. The author's intent, life, culture, etc., are all absolutely necessary to actually understand a text. If you don't care about understanding it, that's up to you I guess, but then you're just sitting around making up random shit with the text itself being ultimately irrelevant. It definitely isn't any kind of critique or analysis at that point. And everyone who pretends that it is should be punched in the face until they stop saying that. Unironically. No cap.
>The author's intent, life, culture, etc., are all absolutely necessary to actually understand a text.
>>25413052honestly even with my own work i prefer the death of the author approach>>25413136that’s at most context
>>25413149Gottem
>>25413171so for any work of literature you should research the author as much as possible prior to reading their book, or nothing will make sense?
>>25413052Believing in death of the author means that anyone can interpret the text however they want and no interpretation is better than the other.
>>25413339yeah, either everything makes 100% sense with perfect clarity and it's like you mind-melded with the author, or nothing makes any sense whatsoever and you're basically reading chicken scratches. you'll know when you've reached the former when the text starts reading like a language you understand.
>>25413177Why does he have testicles on his head? He must be a real man.
>>25413402...and that's supposed to be a bad thing?
>>25413149Yes obviously. Currently it is just shit
>>25413597You can't value all interpretations equally when the author had his own and there's no reason to disregard it.
DotA is only popular because it allows academics to either ignore the "problematic" politics of an author or to create readings of works that fit their ideology when biographical or contextual data would veto such readings.
>>25413639What does Defense of the Ancients have to do with literature?
>>25413402>Believing in death of the author means that anyone can interpret the text however they wantYes.>and no interpretation is better than the other.No. The interpretation must still be textually supported by the evidence.The problem with trying to source the author's life is that context and facts and evidence will inevitably be missing, and what evidence you do have may be incomplete or misleading.You could be having interpretations of an author's work go on for 40 years, and then suddenly you find evidence they were gay, or a Nazi, or both. What evidence might you find even later? All interpretations then become inherently suspect, or at a minimum incomplete, because you never know what evidence you may find later regarding an author's life or their outlook. And that's a good path to making interpreting feel pointless as an endeavor to engage in.
>>25413630This is actually an incredible point because your interpretion is a perfect example of something so retarded it should be dismissed.
all my author is ded or imprisond or worse cancels.
It's absurd to not believe it. Imagine Tom Clancy said his books were actually a commentary on militaristic powers overstepping their boundaries being harmful. You'd call bullshit even though he wrote it, because you can see the text clearly and it doesn't do what he was trying to do.
>>25413684The obvious thing to do is disregard this text as retarded but then we would be engaging in the same behavior therefore legitimizing it. Funny that.
>>25413690Another real life example is JK Rowling making up all this shit about her story after the fact to prosecute some bullshit culture war stuff.I do think with historical texts though to completely ignore the author and context forgoes so many interesting insights which the text may offer. Like sure you can interpret it however you want but if you're strictly going to impose views and ideas from your own background on the work why even bother reading at all.
>>25413149no one said it isnt. its just fucking shit. same as those smut bull rape novels that women read.
>>25413597You're saying that you don't think the text means anything. I mean, are you guys really this low iq? Are you legit this fucking stupid?
>>25413402Yes, and?Alain Robbe-Grillet once wrote in For a New Novel that the only wrong interpretation is the one that excavates the work to make it "intelligible". If you wanna learn more, the plagiarizing jewess susan sontag stole that idea for her essay Against Interpretation and made it digestible for the uneducated goy.
Death of the Author is only ever used when justifying crack ships.
>>25413794Doesn't mean the concept is false.
>>25413402welcome to the concept of synthesis, underage anon.
>>25413402Reee I must be right and there must be a correct answer I only engage in art through debate reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee >:,(
>>25413149AI is not literature
>>25413727ANy books made by AI are just books. It's not literature.
>>25413402is this the 60s? no one genuinely believes >all readings are equalthat's retarded. By definition the ones interpretting the text in hyper specific, convoluted, out of pocket ways are preferencing their own interpretations. You preference your own interpretation until such a time one you also prefer more than your own becomes available to you. The point of the idea of the death of the author is a poignant but somewhat incoherent one: we can ascribe pseudo-universal meaning to events, but we cannot cobble together an all encompassing one.The author is obviously not the last word of the text, and could never be. Your point should really be stated something like stupid takes are stupid takes, and even that is deflected by the inherent meaning of shitposts, word games, most of twitter, etc.
>>25413171lol say the formalists
>>25413052DOA was useful to put a stop to academics' tendency of constructing a persona for the author that agreed and confirmed their own motivated reading, but as a theory, if examined closely, it has too many cracks not to fall apart. You cannot really do hermeneutics without privileging the author, at least not if you don't want to concede that all readings are equally valid. You cannot appeal to textual evidence without textual intent because we're dealing with signs.
>>25413052It's curious how this nigga was a turbo leftist but developed a theory about how meaning belongs to the volk
>>25414087how is that curious? shit belonging to the people is literally the main point of marxism and socialism.
>>25414101Textual interpretation cannot belong to all people, because we have different languages and cultures. Barthes specifically takes a traditionalist approach to it.
>>25413052I still don't understand why Death of the Author is taken as maxim and the objective way to interact with art, and not an opinion in of itself.Often times championed because it's "subversive", and thus "higher thought".And I still don't understand what's the point of experiencing art if you can just interpret it however you want. What's the point of experiencing another's work if I can just determine it to be whatever I want? Wouldn't all art ultimately be in my head, and thus complete and unnecessary?It also implies that art is depersonalized and exists in a vacuum, detached from its creator and time. Doesn't that invalidate so much though? It also puts forth fake insight into the thoughts behind it and gives legitimacy to false analysis that are completely unfounded. Art is made by humans, humans can be blind or ignorant or deceitful even to their own works, but this idea that art is perfect is nonsense. As if art is somehow divine revelation manifesting itself into existence through the artist, and only YOU can decipher it. As if art is exclusive, and this exclusivity is conveniently given to you over the author and everyone else. And if the idea that all interpretations are equal then they are all worthless and wrong, because interpretation is pursuit of truth. Truth, detached from human capacity, cannot be different and infinite. And if "truth" is subjective, then it isn't truth, and more importantly what's the point of interpretation then? Most of the time it is used as lazy pseudointellectualism to justify whatever. A cheap debate tactic, rather than genuine analysis and examination. Disrespectful of art as a whole in my opinion.>I disagree with youI just Death of the Author'd you, you actually agree with me. As for>Not believing in Death of the Author turns literary analysis into a game of who can dig up the most obscure letter/tweet.How is that wrong though? Support for a theory is not inherently wrong. True that an author may not create a work to be always relevant or about their opinions or themselves, but neither is the opposite case in Death of the Author is true.
>>25413149AI is not an entity and as such doesn't write.
>>25413149no, because literature implies a hierarchy of human endeavor. AI copy bots will likely never have that. how could they? it takes growth. sure you could prompt to get certain results, i guess... itd be more interesting to invert the situation. can AI read literature and , given the death of the author, find profundity...but given that it just manages language models, nothing it ever says will have any meaning or authenticity. its always just mushed models. more like listening to a fortune teller than reading a novel.
I think the author has a responsibility not to elaborate on his work. You made something, let it stand. I think that's something you need to be able to do. To say "I wrote this, there it is, I said everything I have to say about it, in it." and not let yourself be baited into clarifying your intentions just because some people might not know what to make of it or read something unintended into it.
>>25414298i agree. but thats not really the death of the author situation.
>>25413052No it doesn't.Death Of The Author is one silly extreme, and games of digging up obscure letters is another silly extreme. Anything worthwhile takes place between them.
>>25414321like a sexy theory sandwich?
>>25414245>Wouldn't all art ultimately be in my headThat's the nature of reality itself.
if I don't like it that means it's shit
it's good when you use it to do a judo move and twist libtarded books into based ideas, it's bad when you use it to twist normal books into libtarded ideas
