"Death of the Author" vs. "Word of God"

[Lone Wolf]

An art thread from me, for a change.

What degree of control an author has over the "canon" of his work? There are two opposing concepts on that issue, roughly described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod

Which of those you subscribe to?

Personally, I lean towards "the death of the author" concept. Once an author publishes the text, it ceases to belong only to him and starts to live independently of the author. I'd even say that if the author wants for us to know some trivia about a character, he should have published it in his work.

Which ones of these statements made (post-publlication, word-of-god style) by the author are to be accepted unquestionably in regards to literary analysis, and which can be challenged? (No one of these statements appeared in the text of the original work):

-Character X has blue eyes.
-Character X is very smart.
-Character X is morally justified in his actions.
-Villainous character Y actually redeemed himself while the events of my story took place, I just didn't write about it.
-The central theme of my story is censorship, and how it affects society.
-My story is perfect in every way.

 

[Phlegmak]

I think I take a middle ground between those two.

Regarding your statements, these should be accepted unquestionably:

-Character X has blue eyes.
-Character X is very smart.
-The central theme of my story is censorship, and how it affects society.

These statements can become ongoing debate.

-Character X is morally justified in his actions.
-Villanous character Y actually redeemed himself while the events of my story took place, I just didn't write about it.
-My story is perfect in every way.

I think a good example of this sort of stuff is Star Wars.

 

[Cutlass]

What matters is why, and to what extent, canon is important. If there's a set of books of the "shared universe" type, and the creator is an ongoing participant, than other contributors should stick to the author's canon. However, the lead author should also maintain creative control and be the editor of the other authors' work. In the Star Trek novels, there was never really any effort to maintain the canon of the series. All the varied authors pretty well went their own ways. And many of the books are less than they could be because of that. Many other series have canon only to the extent that the publisher/editor works to maintain it. So I don't know that your argument is so much "is one way better than the other?", as "how much control does the creator choose to exercise?".

But that's only for commercial work. And typically only for written commercial work. (Once a movie is made of it, all bets are off ) For non commercial work, like fan fiction, there is no enforcement of canon. And that often, but not always, leads to lower quality of writing. So I think a fan fic author should put an effort into following canon as if it is the word of god. As the original creator is not policing such work, it is up to the author to self police.

 

[Souron]

I generally subscribe to what you call "Death of the Author" with the corollary that the author is still the foremost expect on what he will publish in the future.

However, with science fiction and fantasy I would generally consider anything on the physics of the world in as "The Word of God".

Regarding your list, only "Villanous character Y actually redeemed himself while the events of my story took place, I just didn't write about it." hints at future writing, and therefore should be considered true. All the others can be questioned.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Regarding your statements, these should be accepted unquestionably:

...-Character X is very smart.

So, arguing like "well, X is certainly no idiot, but I don't see evidence of him being that smart in the text" should not be done? To me, that statement isn't that different from "X is justified in his actions" - one statement judges the quality of X's intelligence, the other - the quality of his morality.

-Villanous character Y actually redeemed himself while the events of my story took place, I just didn't write about it.

To clarify: it's a statement more of a fact, then of morality. Y switching sides is the main point here, not the redemptiveness of Y's actions.

 

[Phlegmak]

So, arguing like "well, X is certainly no idiot, but I don't see evidence of him being that smart in the text" should not be done? To me, that statement isn't that different from "X is justified in his actions" - one statement judges the quality of X's intelligence, the other - the quality of his morality.

I've changed my mind. Intelligence and the perception of being intelligent is too subjective.

 

[GinandTonic]

With regard to the events in the novel the author is god. With regard to what the book means, the author is dead.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The first thing to realize is that Roland Barthes is a pompous jerk who said crap that's wrong.

Now, I realize that there are myriad interpretations of books (or all works of art, for that matter), but to say that the author's purpose has no bearing at all is simply absurd.

 

[GinandTonic]

The first thing to realize is that Roland Barthes is a pompous jerk who said crap that's wrong.

Now, I realize that there are myriad interpretations of books (or all works of art, for that matter), but to say that the author's purpose has no bearing at all is simply absurd.

Well that was hyperbole as far as I understood it. Just as Baudrillard doesnt really believe the gulf war didnt happen. The key point is that once the author releases the text into the world he no longer has some mystical control of the meaning of the text. He can tell us what he wished to communicate, but he cannot tell us what the meaning is.

A comedian can tell us he didnt mean his joke to be racist, but what he intended is - while significant - in no way the be all and end all. Why would a comedians joke be any different from any other text?

 

[Heretic_Cata]

Diamond smuggling was a topic of great interest to author Ian Fleming. In 1957 Fleming wrote a non-fiction book on the subject, titled The Diamond Smugglers, which was published in the same format as his Bond novels and, as a result, is often erroneously listed as a Bond book.

Additionally, an aborted commissioned novel, Per Fine Ounce by author Geoffrey Jenkins was to be the first James Bond continuation novel. The book was completed circa 1966, but was never published. Claims have been made, notably by Andy Lane and Paul Simpson in their book The Bond Files, that the subject of Per Fine Ounce dealt with diamond smuggling.

 

[GinandTonic]

Diamond smuggling was a topic of great interest to author Ian Fleming. In 1957 Fleming wrote a non-fiction book on the subject, titled The Diamond Smugglers, which was published in the same format as his Bond novels and, as a result, is often erroneously listed as a Bond book.

Additionally, an aborted commissioned novel, Per Fine Ounce by author Geoffrey Jenkins was to be the first James Bond continuation novel. The book was completed circa 1966, but was never published. Claims have been made, notably by Andy Lane and Paul Simpson in their book The Bond Files, that the subject of Per Fine Ounce dealt with diamond smuggling.

Which is about the factual specifics of a created universe but not about the meanings attributed to a text.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Any Dune fans want to weigh in on this? It's a topic tailor-made for the schism between the Orthodox Herbertarians (only Frank Herbert's Original Six novels are canon) and the nuDune fans who don't mind the contradictory, aimless, Star Wars-esque ripoff crap that Kevin J. Anderson produces.

My position is that unless new material enhances the quality of the old, the original author's dictates are canon.

So for Dune: Paul was born on CALADAN, not Kaitain. He did not have adventures off-world before the events of Dune. Duncan Idaho's first battle fought under Duke Leto's command was on Grumman. And the Original Series was written by Frank Herbert; it was NOT propaganda put out by Princess Irulan!

A series like Star Trek is iffier: Naturally, TOS is canon. Parts of the other series can be considered canon where they don't significantly contradict TOS. Since the "Enterprise" series contradicts canon by even existing, naturally that series is pretty much ignorable (with the exception of Porthos, since he's an adorable little mutt).

I'm not up on the minutiae of changes in the Star Wars universe. However, any official changes sanctioned by Lucas have to be accepted to some extent. After all, he's still alive and legally and creatively able to change whatever he wishes.

Regarding shared universes: The one with which I'm most familiar is C.J. Cherryh's "Merovingen Nights" series. The authors involved in that series managed for the most part to keep plot points and characterizations consistent, which makes for a highly enjoyable read for the majority of the stories and books. There are some jarring inconsistencies, though.

 

[warpus]

Canon Shmanon.

I read the books, watch the tv shows, enjoy what I enjoy, and dislike what I dislike.

People concerned about canon are whiny fanboys.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Canon Shmanon.

I read the books, watch the tv shows, enjoy what I enjoy, and dislike what I dislike.

People concerned about canon are whiny fanboys.

Well, you are entitled to like whatever you want, but please don't insult those of us who think it's disrespectful to trash somebody else's work and then call the people who object "talifans."

 

[Lone Wolf]

Regarding your statements, these should be accepted unquestionably:

...The central theme of my story is censorship, and how it affects society.

Again, I can see that statement open to debate. "But in the story, censorship was clearly a secondary theme. Character X once mentioned that he can't publish his views because of censorship, but that's the only time anything connected to censorship was mentioned in 300-page novel. The majority of it was filled with describing the romantic relationship between X and Z. Clearly, the love between X and Z is the more important theme in the work". That statement means that the author clearly intended his work to be about censorship, but not that he succeeded in his intentions.

Regarding your statements, these should be accepted unquestionably:

-Character X has blue eyes....

These statements can become ongoing debate.

-Villanous character Y actually redeemed himself while the events of my story took place, I just didn't write about it.

Both sentences are statements of the fact. So, you think that not every factual statement is to be accepted in analysis - the more the said statement influences the plot and the message of the work, the less right it has to be accepted, right?

The first thing to realize is that Roland Barthes is a pompous jerk who said crap that's wrong.

So, do you think that all my hypothetical statements in the OP are to be unquestionably accepted (excluding the "my work is perfect" one)?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, just that the idea that, as the author, you don't matter, is wrong.

 

[Lone Wolf]

No, just that the idea that, as the author, you don't matter, is wrong.

So most of my statements are debatable, but because they are authorial, they carry an extra weight?

 

[warpus]

Well, you are entitled to like whatever you want, but please don't insult those of us who think it's disrespectful to trash somebody else's work and then call the people who object "talifans."

Hey, I think it'd be disrespectful to trash somebody's work too.

But writing sequels, fanfic, derivative stories, alternate endings, parallel universe stuff, etc. that isn't trashin nothin!

I don't think there's anything wrong with having an emotional connection to a story, to characters, to a setting, or whatever.. I mean, we all experience that at times when we read a book, see a movie, or a play.

But to get so emotionally attached that you actually get MAD when somebody writes a story that is somehow related to something you are attached to emotionally? Oh no! That character had different coloured eyes in that other book! And he would have never went to that planet! THat is totally NOT LIKE HIM. Like, geez, chill out - if you don't like the story, you can just ignore it, and continue your emotional attachment to the other story, pretending that the sequel was never written or something.

People who get too emotionally attached to a story (the people I call fanboys) are likely exhibiting deeper emotional issues. I mean, they are emotionally attached to a vision that they have of an *imaginary Universe*! Which is alright by itself, I suppose.. but they rebel, scream, get mad, etc. at any other vision of that imaginary universe that might contradict what they are seeing in their heads! It's madness!

Chill out and enjoy the stories! That's all they are! Imaginary characters, in imaginary settings, doing imaginary stuff! Entertaining to read, and yeah they draw you in, and make you feel all sorts of stuff, and sitting down and mapping out the entire imaginary universe they are in is cool, and engaging, but to take it to the next level and start getting EMOTIONAL about other people's interpretation of that imaginary universe is taking it too far and something i will never understand.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Hey, I think it'd be disrespectful to trash somebody's work too.

But writing sequels, fanfic, derivative stories, alternate endings, parallel universe stuff, etc. that isn't trashin nothin!

I don't think there's anything wrong with having an emotional connection to a story, to characters, to a setting, or whatever.. I mean, we all experience that at times when we read a book, see a movie, or a play.

But to get so emotionally attached that you actually get MAD when somebody writes a story that is somehow related to something you are attached to emotionally? Oh no! That character had different coloured eyes in that other book! And he would have never went to that planet! THat is totally NOT LIKE HIM. Like, geez, chill out - if you don't like the story, you can just ignore it, and continue your emotional attachment to the other story, pretending that the sequel was never written or something.

People who get too emotionally attached to a story (the people I call fanboys) are likely exhibiting deeper emotional issues. I mean, they are emotionally attached to a vision that they have of an *imaginary Universe*! Which is alright by itself, I suppose.. but they rebel, scream, get mad, etc. at any other vision of that imaginary universe that might contradict what they are seeing in their heads! It's madness!

Chill out and enjoy the stories! That's all they are! Imaginary characters, in imaginary settings, doing imaginary stuff! Entertaining to read, and yeah they draw you in, and make you feel all sorts of stuff, and sitting down and mapping out the entire imaginary universe they are in is cool, and engaging, but to take it to the next level and start getting EMOTIONAL about other people's interpretation of that imaginary universe is taking it too far and something i will never understand.

Please understand, warpus, that in the case of the Dune series it goes far beyond anything as trivial as the color of a character's eyes.

You think I'm emotional about this? Check out the Amazon review pages for the Kevin J. Anderson/Brian Herbert Dune novels. You'll see a slew of 1-star reviews, many written by an individual from another forum who proudly calls himself a "professional KJA hater." I don't like the nuDune books, but I don't go as far as smearing Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert's family members and their non-Dune, non-writing related lives.

Do you really enjoy stories where an author blatantly insults his audience by not making the slightest effort to write a story that makes sense, plot-wise, character-wise, and that is respectful of the intended audience? I'm talking about authors who ignore fundamental plot points established decades ago, who deliberately dumb down their books for the current generation of "fanboys" that have been raised on videogames and have the attention span of a fruitfly (really; the chapters are really short and at least a quarter of these novels rehash stuff that happened only a few chapters before, let alone in the previous novel), and - to me this is one of the worst things - in a science fiction novel, the authors ignore basic science! Like... space has 3 dimensions, not two. Like... if you travel below the speed of light and don't take interdimensional shortcuts, you have to contend with the effects of relativity - except that in the nuDune novels dealing with the Butlerian Jihad (prior to spacefolding technology), all effects of relativity were totally ignored. To the reading audience that is scientifically literate, this is beyond insulting. Frank Herbert himself never assumed his audience was stupid; therefore, why should the authors who have taken on the self-appointed task of writing prequels, sequels, and interquels?

Also, please understand that in the science fiction community, there are those of us who attend conventions, book signings, etc. I never had the chance to meet Frank Herbert, but I have met numerous other SF authors. So for me, it's sometimes a bit more personal, whether or not I feel the author respects his/her audience.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Regarding your list, only "Villanous character Y actually redeemed himself while the events of my story took place, I just didn't write about it." hints at future writing, and therefore should be considered true. All the others can be questioned.

What if the author makes clear after that announcement that he isn't going to write any more?

Also, another suggestion: what if the author contradicts himself? Personally, I view the "important villainous character Y redeemed himself, but not on the page" statement as being contradictory too - if he actually redeemed himself, then it was important enough to be in the text.

What if the contradiction is direct? Character A had been described as being blue-eyed, yet the author says later that A once dated a boy who dropped her because he liked blue-eyed girls, and A's eye colour was green. Does that mean that

The author fails at memory, and A's eyes are blue in the end
The author fails at memory, and A's eyes are green in the end
A uses contact lenses to make her eyes seem blue?

What if all the Author's factual announcements are printed under the heading of "Some Facts about the Author's universe"? (printed form, but not "in-universe" form)? Do they become canon?

I am slowly confusing myself.