i thought the moral of shrew was 'domestic abuse rules'
That is the other moral and fuck that.
Or you can view it as her playing his game in public and thus ultimately exerting her agency by pretending not to have any. But that is kind of convoluted and I'm not sure Shakespeare would go there. Then again, the ring-swapping game in Merchant is a pretty bizarre expression of female agency...
I think guessing the author's intent is a pretty silly way to interpret literature
Right, because the author's intent has nothing to do with the meaning. It wasn't like he was trying to communicate something and we should try to figure out what.
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
But seriously, of course the author had an intent, he wasn't just a monkey with a quill making random scratches on a page. If he's a good writer, you'll be able to figure out what he was getting at based on what he wrote.
I think guessing the author's intent is a pretty silly way to interpret literature
Right, because the author's intent has nothing to do with the meaning. It wasn't like he was trying to communicate something and we should try to figure out what.
actually, yes. I don't think it's a good idea to try to understand literature by acting as though each work is a container into which the author has put certain meanings and it is our job to excavate just those and no others. I think it's perfectly possible that a work-- especially a great work, and we are talking about Shakespeare here-- could possess meanings the author in no way intended. and my attitude is: if it can be supported by the text, then I really don't care what shakespeare himself would have thought of it. why should I?
edit: I guess everyone else settled this while I was typing! hooray
redhead on
0
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
I think guessing the author's intent is a pretty silly way to interpret literature
Right, because the author's intent has nothing to do with the meaning. It wasn't like he was trying to communicate something and we should try to figure out what.
actually, yes. I don't think it's a good idea to try to understand literature by acting as though each work is a container into which the author has put certain meanings and it is our job to excavate just those and no others. I think it's perfectly possible that a work-- especially a great work, and we are talking about Shakespeare here-- could possess meanings the author in no way intended. and my attitude is: if it can be supported by the text, then I really don't care what shakespeare himself would have thought of it. why should I?
But seriously, of course the author had an intent, he wasn't just a monkey with a quill making random scratches on a page. If he's a good writer, you'll be able to figure out what he was getting at based on what he wrote.
Author's intent is all well and good, but it shouldn't be the biggest factor in criticizing one of their works. I mean, most authors intend to write a decent story and that is rarely ever the case.
I think guessing the author's intent is a pretty silly way to interpret literature
Right, because the author's intent has nothing to do with the meaning. It wasn't like he was trying to communicate something and we should try to figure out what.
actually, yes. I don't think it's a good idea to try to understand literature by acting as though each work is a container into which the author has put certain meanings and it is our job to excavate just those and no others. I think it's perfectly possible that a work-- especially a great work, and we are talking about Shakespeare here-- could possess meanings the author in no way intended. and my attitude is: if it can be supported by the text, then I really don't care what shakespeare himself would have thought of it. why should I?
Because the purpose of writing is communication of an intended message. I'm not saying you can ONLY look at meanings that were likely intended by the author, but to impose your own meanings on the work based on flimsy textual evidence is disingenuous and a bit egocentric.
I think guessing the author's intent is a pretty silly way to interpret literature
Right, because the author's intent has nothing to do with the meaning. It wasn't like he was trying to communicate something and we should try to figure out what.
actually, yes. I don't think it's a good idea to try to understand literature by acting as though each work is a container into which the author has put certain meanings and it is our job to excavate just those and no others. I think it's perfectly possible that a work-- especially a great work, and we are talking about Shakespeare here-- could possess meanings the author in no way intended. and my attitude is: if it can be supported by the text, then I really don't care what shakespeare himself would have thought of it. why should I?
Because the purpose of writing is communication of an intended message. I'm not saying you can ONLY look at meanings that were likely intended by the author, but to impose your own meanings on the work based on flimsy textual evidence is disingenuous and a bit egocentric.
to base anything on flimsy textual evidence is disingenuous and a bit egocentric and also fucking retarded
no matter what point I'm making in an essay I make sure there's at least three elements in the text to back it up
Titus Andronicus isn't that great
It has great lines but the whole plot is very confused
The Julie Taymor movie really cleans it up and makes it cohesive
what on earth are you talking about
titus captures tamora & sons, kills son, tamora vows revenge, tamora marries emperor and kills titus' family over the period of the play. emperor dies, titus makes tamora eat her sons in retaliation for them raping lavinia, and kills both her and the emperor. titus' brother ascends the throne.
It's a pain in the ass just to sort through the text
But I remember when I read it there were some plot points that were in an order that made a lot more sense in the movie
Also I feel like authoral intent has to be weighed along with other factors otherwise your interperatation
becomes in danger of floating away into masterbation land, where all stories are really about how you hate our dad
my problem with the authorial intent thing only comes up when people act like the only legitimate meanings are ones the author intended
but really no one did that here
I'm probably a little touchy about that as a result of taking too many junior college literature classes (one)
Well, in a way they are, but none of us are mind readers and we can't dig Shakespeare up and ask him.
So if you can justify your reading based on the text then unless it's totally outlandish then it very well could be an intended meaning.
In general I give awesome authors a ton of credit and assume that their works have many layers meant to be excavated.
if I'm reading this correctly, then I guess we really do disagree. I don't see why a certain type of reading should get extra legitimacy credit just because that's the one the author had in mind. if the text supports it, it's fine with me. even if we could dig shakespeare up and he said "no, guys, everything you've been saying about hamlet is bullshit; it was just an action movie to me"
that wouldn't make those interpretations any less meaningful, would it? so what's the problem?
Posts
and also being a dick is the perfect way to win a woman's heart
That is the other moral and fuck that.
Or you can view it as her playing his game in public and thus ultimately exerting her agency by pretending not to have any. But that is kind of convoluted and I'm not sure Shakespeare would go there. Then again, the ring-swapping game in Merchant is a pretty bizarre expression of female agency...
Thank you, I plan to rock the fuck out of it. And if I don't, who gives a shit, I already have my degree.
Right, because the author's intent has nothing to do with the meaning. It wasn't like he was trying to communicate something and we should try to figure out what.
it is
we're all grown-up lit majors here, none of us are doing that
we're not doing authorial intent, we're doing 'what does the text demonstrate and emphasize'
NO I AM FUCK YOU GUYS
I WRITE THINGS TO MAKE A POINT AND PEOPLE SHOULD FIGURE IT OUT BASED ON TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
EDIT: OK YES WHAT ORI SAID IN HIS EDIT IS WHAT I MEAN
I DID YES
GO TO BED
actually, yes. I don't think it's a good idea to try to understand literature by acting as though each work is a container into which the author has put certain meanings and it is our job to excavate just those and no others. I think it's perfectly possible that a work-- especially a great work, and we are talking about Shakespeare here-- could possess meanings the author in no way intended. and my attitude is: if it can be supported by the text, then I really don't care what shakespeare himself would have thought of it. why should I?
edit: I guess everyone else settled this while I was typing! hooray
NO FUCK YOU AND FUCK BARTHES
just a message for the lurkers out there.
actual analysis should be from the text and link back to the text full stop as little outside sources as possible
edit: yeah what Ori said
Because the purpose of writing is communication of an intended message. I'm not saying you can ONLY look at meanings that were likely intended by the author, but to impose your own meanings on the work based on flimsy textual evidence is disingenuous and a bit egocentric.
someone's been reading tradition and the individual talent!
to base anything on flimsy textual evidence is disingenuous and a bit egocentric and also fucking retarded
no matter what point I'm making in an essay I make sure there's at least three elements in the text to back it up
tOri: no just suffered through IB English
my problem with the authorial intent thing only comes up when people act like the only legitimate meanings are ones the author intended
but really no one did that here
I'm probably a little touchy about that as a result of taking too many junior college literature classes (one)
as in paragraph is metaphors example is animal metaphors and the purpose for them with at least three animal metaphors per purpose
Well, in a way they are, but none of us are mind readers and we can't dig Shakespeare up and ask him.
So if you can justify your reading based on the text then unless it's totally outlandish then it very well could be an intended meaning.
In general I give awesome authors a ton of credit and assume that their works have many layers meant to be excavated.
It's a pain in the ass just to sort through the text
But I remember when I read it there were some plot points that were in an order that made a lot more sense in the movie
Also I feel like authoral intent has to be weighed along with other factors otherwise your interperatation
becomes in danger of floating away into masterbation land, where all stories are really about how you hate our dad
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
he also said IB english.
I mean baring the time travel problem?
Shakespeare didn't know your dad you... STOP MAKING ME COME BACK HERE AND ARGUE
GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR
if I'm reading this correctly, then I guess we really do disagree. I don't see why a certain type of reading should get extra legitimacy credit just because that's the one the author had in mind. if the text supports it, it's fine with me. even if we could dig shakespeare up and he said "no, guys, everything you've been saying about hamlet is bullshit; it was just an action movie to me"
that wouldn't make those interpretations any less meaningful, would it? so what's the problem?