In which we talk about talking

[Magus]

Hey, Pastor Fred helped me through a lot of tough times in juvenile detention center, and then my arraignment for murder, and then those years in jail, and then my arraignment for that second murder, and then he was even there for me when I broke out of prison and held his family at gunpoint in a stand-off with police. Through all of that, he never quit saying, "Listen, son, it's not too late to turn your life around. Unless you aim that shotgun at my face, in which case that sniper is going to blow your brains all over the wall. So what you should do is set it down and let's talk about what Jesus would do in this situation."

So if TWG is like Pastor Fred, then he is a great and godly man! Now excuse me, I think I heard some muffled voices outside the back door. They may be using the battering ram any second now, I have to move the couch into a more advantageous position for cover.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Your translation of my original statement is completely flawed and completely misrepresentive of my premises. Point further validated.

No that is exactly what you said. And your opinion on the matter means nothing to me.

[The Wandering God]

Originally Posted by The SSB Intern

TWG is like that youth pastor that refuses to give up on you even after your jackass friends convince you to take his car out for a joy ride and you crash it into a tree.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Krylo

No that is exactly what you said. And your opinion on the matter means nothing to me.

Death of the author leads invariably to dialogue/person specific readings. Point proved.
Unless you some kind of New Critic- but that would merely be you being so crazy as to project your own ideals onto a universal slate from which literature is drawn.

[Archbio]

Death of the author leads invariably to dialogue/person specific readings.

As opposed to the philosophy of criricism that results in everybody agreeing on a single interpretation.

The magical unicorn land school of criticism!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Death of the Author leads to the belief that is impossible for two people to have the same reading and that their different readings are equally valid.

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Death of the Author leads to the belief that is impossible for two people to have the same reading and that their different readings are equally valid.

What? I thought that it means that two different people can read something (Author and not-author) and HAVE different meanings from it. I always interpreted death of the author to mean, "Whatever you see there is really there, regardless of whether or not the author intended it", meaning that things can be interpreted however you want.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

Death of the author leads invariably to dialogue/person specific readings. Point proved.

I'm sorry, but your point has already been disproven when MM perfectly translated what you said. Any attempt to argue this point with me is wrong, as that your opinion, as author of the post, is invalid. It is only the intrepid critics and literary analysts which are capable of forming a true interpretation of your work.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

What? I thought that it means that two different people can read something (Author and not-author) and HAVE different meanings from it. I always interpreted death of the author to mean, "Whatever you see there is really there, regardless of whether or not the author intended it", meaning that things can be interpreted however you want.

Death of the author is inherentely tied up in the post-structural ideas that as readers of the text you are irrevocably seperated from the authour and thus cannot recreate his meaning- the author and the text are different identities and the text stands along. Further your reading is irrevocably seperated from the reading of others unless they shared the same dialogue as you. So the reader is empowered in his own reading of the text and indeed is limited by his own culture/mental states such that that is the only reading of the text that he can make- regardless of what others interpret into a text you cannot change your reading of it.
Not all "Death of the Author" meanings lead here, however. As I was getting at with my New Critic mention was that New Criticism still disempowers the author but does not empower the reader as such. In New Criticism there is really a "correct" reading of the text but this is seperate from the authors intentions/context. BUt those dudes are wacky.

Originally Posted by Krylo

I'm sorry, but your point has already been disproven when MM perfectly translated what you said. Any attempt to argue this point with me is wrong, as that your opinion, as author of the post, is invalid. It is only the intrepid critics and literary analysts which are capable of forming a true interpretation of your work.

But their own readings are conceptually limited by their arbitrary signifying systems and form classifications. My opinion as a reader of the text, not as the author, is equally valid as those of other readers and critics and I contend that the translation was inadequate. I approached the problem as a reader, not as an author.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

But their own readings are conceptually limited by their arbitrary signifying systems and form classifications. My opinion as a reader of the text, not as the author, is equally valid as those of other readers and critics and I contend that the translation was inadequate. I approached the problem as a reader, not as an author.

It is impossible to remove your authorial bias, and thus your attempts to persuade me that you have done such only serve to prove your intellectual dishonesty.