SparkySywer said:
BedeHistory731 said:
What’s conveyed by the writing, cinematography, editing, and cultural context > authorial intent.
I don’t know how useful of an analytical tool this is, but if disagreement between the author and audience is a miscommunication, then we should analytically look at a work both for its intended message and its received message, which are coequal.
That makes sense, the idea of miscommunication that takes into account audience and author perception. I tend to put more weight on audience perception, since it says far more about the effect the work has rather than its intentions. Still, authorial intent is necessary for a comprehensive understanding. Even if it is just one voice among many commentators.
It’s probably my own experiences in fandoms that have me being initially dismissive of authorial intent, especially in fandoms where authors cling to a creator’s every word as gospel and beg for them to explain away all the sense of mystery and imagination in the worlds they’ve created. The creators’ words should be seen as fallible, ever-evolving, and constantly in conversation with public perception. What an author says on release day is likely to be different from what you say on a making-of documentary years later.