rthstewart (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rthstewart) wrote2012-01-15 05:10 pm
rthstewart) wrote2012-01-15 05:10 pm
the shadow the original content creator casts
So, I was going to post something exploring ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 soknitress has said she will post her reading list. This is an interesting exercise in a couple of respects.
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.
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.
no subject
no subject
I told someone today that I just feel more under siege than ever before. The loss of a couple of readers over recent chapters of AW really stings, still, in this case because I know they have not left the fandom, just me, so yeah, it IS personal. Then the usual steady stream of FB, commentary and PMs that use the word "uncomfortable," or mention nothing but the typo I missed two years ago, or that it's gotten dull and dry and whatnot and so I conclude that maybe it's a hint and I've overstayed the welcome. I know, DRAMA QUEEN. Ridiculous. Not even a First World Problem. So I did not commit pseudo-cide last night as I very much wished to and just soldiered on.
And I do hope you have some days of stress free goodness.
no subject
no subject