the shadow the original content creator casts

[rthstewart]

So, I was going to post something exploring raykel's discussion earlier about adults playing with toys that are really intended for children. But before we do that, knitress wrote the following:

As someone who just stumbled into this, the whole ur doing it wrong thing seems very parallel to some of the debates in Lewis scholarship/'scholarship'/worship. Joy Gresham, Mrs. Moore, Lewis' lifelong friend Arthur Greeves.
I mean, if you're going to go on at huge length about what the original author would have wanted, shouldn't you, y'know, learn something about his actual life?

lady_songsmith and andi_horton have both said, oh yes, please share your reading list!

And so knitress has said she will post her reading list. This is an interesting exercise in a couple of respects.

• There are a lot of people in the Narnia fandom who assert that adhering to Lewis' intent is very important, so illuminating what Lewis did intend and separating that from what others think he intended is interesting. I know some of you know far more about Lewis' life and art than I do, so do share, if you are so inclined.
• Stepping back a few meters, some folks really like this sort of exercise at the more philosophical level -- who if anyone has the right to interpret something once it is freed into the wilds. Assuming we do understand the author and what he or she intended, what modicum of respect is owed the original creator? Or his or her designee or progeny? Gresham named Ramandu's Daughter Liliandil for the DT film. Rowling asked once that people not include underage sexual content in HP fic? Does any of that mean anything? Should it?
• Last, there is the frustration all authors feel when the reader doesn't get what you intended. Sometimes it's a flaw in the writing; sometimes though it probably doesn't matter how clear you are, right? The reader is going to take what the reader is going to take.

In response to the above, divining authorial intent isn't something I usually worry about. I take a plain language view to borrow from a canon of statutory construction -- if it's there on the page, literally or thematically, it's fair game.  I'm more interested in exploring what I and others think about their work, and the community that develops around that exploration then I am in understanding more of what the author thought about his or her work. People pull more than I intended out of my work all the time and frequently I have no greater intent than "Shiny! let's try that!" and "Gosh I love that line. Let me build 10,000 words to include it." Or, "fandom poke. poke. poke."

Admittedly, TSG Peter and I both share extreme ineptitude in the areas of philosophy, theology, and languages. Being a shallow sort, I do not usually ask the big questions. (Though when I told Clio that, she said that I may assert the absence of a rear view mirror and claim inability to think big thoughts but that's because I pour my philosophical musings into fic.)  I decline to speculate as that would call for introspection.

Comments

[snitchnipped.livejournal.com]

OK, I wrote this earlier in an internet black hole, but I can now post it... pardon if I seem to get off topic a bit. I haven't proofed since I wrote it several hours ago:

The last point is something that I'm always fascinated with.

IMO, there is something beautiful about the openness of interpretation in written works. Now, there are some authors out there that write things CHOCK full of details, leaving very little wiggle room on interpretation. But there are others who manage to catch things so simply and beautifully in few words, and I may be in the minority here, but Lewis has ALWAYS read that way to me.

This is somewhat a tangent, since I'm speaking of the theater world rather than just the literary one (OK, so it's an offshoot), but it's what I know and is still relevant, I think. Let's take Shakespeare. Pretty straight-forward stuff, huh? They even have lexicons published so people can get try to understand the exact meeting of the plays word. by. word. But imagine a world where we all see the same Hamlet, over and over again, with the same themes stressed time and time again. Sorry... boring. I've worked on and seen several productions, from period setting and costumes, to pre-war 1930s Denmark, to ultra modern with lucite thrones. And each and every time, I got something new out of it, different themes would be stressed while the more popular ones would fade into the background. But guess what? It's still the same story, each and every time. It's just an infinite way of approaching it. And that's just wonderful.

But Shakespeare is dead. He doesn't have a say anymore in how his work is interpreted. Live writers kinda somewhat do, and it's fascinating to see who is more hands-on and off on the matter.

Back to theater... I work primarily on new works, never have been interpreted before. There are some playwrights (such as the one I'm working with now) who are completely hands off. Though he's readily available if we have a question (or even a change request), he's avoiding any and all rehearsals. He did his party already, and now it's up to someone else to run with it.

And then there's the case where the playwright insisted on being in in the room... and boy he would get so, so, so ANGRY when the director wanted to take it in one direction. "BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT!" I remember him near-screaming. But hello... it's what the director got out of it. How could the director (and the other people in the room supporting the director's choices) be the one in the wrong? This writer is NOT going to be present any other time this play would be produced. He cannot be assigning responsibility of interpretation on everyone else... it was his when he wrote it, is it not? If he wanted it done a certain way, then he could pull a Waiting for Godot and make sure that when someone gets the rights from Beckett's estate, then there must be a proscenium stage, there must be a tree, etc. etc. etc. And that's why people only need to see that play once.

And then there was the writer I worked with who knew he had control issues about his written work. It was a struggle to force himself out of rehearsal hall, but he knew it was for the best, and gave all of his trust in what was on the page and the producers. And he reaped a lot of benefits from it, too.... but still. It is out of his hands, especially now that the play is published. People will get out of it what they will, and that's that. As people will from Lewis' work.

Of course, I speak of all of this on the more literary front of things... the same cannot be applied to TV or film by any means. I would argue that the script in such cases are not as much as the source, but more of the tool of storytelling.

OK, I'll stop now.

[elouise82.livejournal.com]

"I would argue that the script in such cases are not as much as the source, but more of the tool of storytelling."

This. Yes. This is, I think, what every storyteller ought to strive for, and why the best stories are so rich. Because we, as storytellers, are mediums, not necessarily creators.

[rthstewart.livejournal.com]

"BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT!" is hilarious and sad. Your observation about Waiting For Godot is so damning really -- you only need to see it once. Of course the Tweet feed has been full of this lately with folks debating just this. Sometimes it is a matter of, well, editing and writing, for lack of a better term. I mean, if it's a boat, and if you meant boat, you'd better write boat, and readers keep thinking you've written about an airplane, maybe the writing needs to be clearer. It is hard to let something loose, free into the wild.

Which leads me to the world of derivative work and the "respect" owed the original creation. In theater, is there ever this debate by the production team or the critics afterward as to whether the play was true to the writer's intent? Does it matter? Do people care?

[knitress.livejournal.com]

For theater: sort of, I think. Plenty of discussion of whether a particular production of Shakespeare is illuminating or distracting/pushes too far. Although I don't know whether that's phrased in terms of authorial intent or in terms of some "faithful to the truth in the play". It's not a blanket "NOOOOOOOO!", of course.

D. would know way more than I do about this.

[rthstewart.livejournal.com]

D. would know way more than I do about this. Waiting for econopodder

[min023.livejournal.com]

Ok, musical theatre is more my area than straight drama, but from my personal experience, I haven't done one single production that has run completely according to script and score. There's always some tweaks and nips, and sometimes, some outright chunks chopped or changed. That's just how it is, though I'll be the first to admit that the endpoints are generally the same. Problem with intent? Not usually - that's just how it needs to be to get it on stage and working.

No idea whether that translates, but it's just a matter of adaptation, and surely all fic is in some way, shape or form, an adaptation of the original. I really don't understand why it's the cause of such angst. Preaching to the choir and all, but life's too short to get your blood pressure all wound up over this sort of thing. Oi!!!

[andi-horton.livejournal.com]

Ok, musical theatre is more my area than straight drama, but from my personal experience, I haven't done one single production that has run completely according to script and score.

That's what makes it so fun to watch! You're never watching quite the same show twice. I watched one performance of Wicked where a wand flew out of an actor's hand and went whipping across the stage. She incorporated the mistake into her lines and went on. It felt like a special treat just for us; something nobody else would get to see.

[snitchnipped.livejournal.com]

Yeah, sure they have the debate, mainly for the older material. It helps when you can bring a dramaturg on board, too! But I have seen many a stopped rehearsal as intent is debated/argued... especially between actor and director. ESPECIALLY then.

And, of course, critics LOVE jumping on the authorial intent train. Some of the big ones in my city ask for a copy of the script prior to seeing the show, so they can judge interpretation from there. And a lot of critics have their own agenda in the theater world, so of course they'll be nitpicking whatever they can...

But really? It all boils down to an individual's particular taste and what they want to get out of a production. Some like to leave the audience confused, others want everyone to walk out the theater of the same mind. Personally, I like the confusing ones... I worked on a Titus last year that had a ton of walk-outs mixed in with standing ovations on the same nights. It was pretty awesome.