Certainly, there are common and uncommon interpretations of a given work. And authors with talent and skill can usually create a work such that the common interpretations of that work jibe with his/her intentions. But the uncommon interpretations are just as valid (and occasionally more interesting).
Nah. While this wouldn't be wrong for certain works, and in the case for example, of a David Lynch movie, or a painting, I would totally get on board with that. But you possibly can't apply this for every work, firstly because all works aren't equally open to interpretation, and last but not least because there are wrong interpretations, as simple and evident as it is. If anyone's way of reading or understanding a work was as valid as the author's, it would be dramatic. Anyone would be able to say anything objectively wrong, pulling the "Death of the Author" card. And talking about that theory; in my opinion it's just vain inanity made-up by some arrogant professors, so full of themselves they thought their interpretation would be more exact than the author's themselves. It's not even intellectual onanism, that's just bullshit, at least when it's put on like that.
If I may throw in some formal logic to the discussion, the statement "the author's own interpretation is not the only correct one" (the core of the death of the author concept) is not logically equivalent to "all interpretations of a fictional work are equally valid". While I believe that no author can prescribe how their work should be interpreted, they have a lot of say in how it should not be read. There is a subtle difference there, but one that has a lot of power within the uncountably infinite set of semiotic interpretants.
Thanks for pointing this out. There is a degree of interpretation specific to each work. It doesn't make a wrong interpretation less legitimate nor less interesting, it just means that this is not what the author intended to convey.
last edited at Feb 15, 2017 11:37AM
