::nods:: I am more of the reader response school of criticism, which probably does influence my relative proritizing. I'm interested in authorial intent, but I'm firmly of the belief that there's more to be found in any text than the author intentionally put there -- largely because of how very often hindsight or someone else has pointed out something I didn't consciously put into my own stuff.
Indeed, I think it is applicablity to more than was ever dreamt of by the author that keeps certain texts relevant long after their contemporaries.
For me it's not so much a question of *more* valid than the author's. It's more like... cloudwatching. I see a rabbit in the clouds, and the fact that the clouds didn't intentionally form into the shape of a rabbit doesn't mean the shape's not there now. It also doesn't mean you're wrong if you see a cat instead.
Not that that prevents me from thinking some readers must be smoking the good crack, or getting irritated with fanfic which seems to run directly counter to canon without even making an attempt to reconcile the two. I'm right there with you on "but then why are you bothering to call it fanfic?" although someone recently posted an essay about archetype v. character in fanfic to metablog that I think provides a partial answer.
Part of the reason I don't see a dividing line between discussion and fanfiction is that in general I think there are things that can be said in fiction (or in music, or in painting) that can't be said in prose. Or even if someone could, there are people who speak fiction who don't speak lit crit.
If we can't stand to lose those contributions to the general conversation (and we can't, hence why fiction is protected speech), I don't want to lose them from the specific conversation about a particular work of art, either. This is also why I support sampling and collage.
That's not to say I wouldn't be hurt if, as an author, I asked people not to and they did. But I'm sure I'd be hurt by bad reviews too. That doesn't mean I think people shouldn't ever write them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-20 08:17 am (UTC)Indeed, I think it is applicablity to more than was ever dreamt of by the author that keeps certain texts relevant long after their contemporaries.
For me it's not so much a question of *more* valid than the author's. It's more like... cloudwatching. I see a rabbit in the clouds, and the fact that the clouds didn't intentionally form into the shape of a rabbit doesn't mean the shape's not there now. It also doesn't mean you're wrong if you see a cat instead.
Not that that prevents me from thinking some readers must be smoking the good crack, or getting irritated with fanfic which seems to run directly counter to canon without even making an attempt to reconcile the two. I'm right there with you on "but then why are you bothering to call it fanfic?" although someone recently posted an essay about archetype v. character in fanfic to
Part of the reason I don't see a dividing line between discussion and fanfiction is that in general I think there are things that can be said in fiction (or in music, or in painting) that can't be said in prose. Or even if someone could, there are people who speak fiction who don't speak lit crit.
If we can't stand to lose those contributions to the general conversation (and we can't, hence why fiction is protected speech), I don't want to lose them from the specific conversation about a particular work of art, either. This is also why I support sampling and collage.
That's not to say I wouldn't be hurt if, as an author, I asked people not to and they did. But I'm sure I'd be hurt by bad reviews too. That doesn't mean I think people shouldn't ever write them.