the author organized the words into that order so even if you take away something that they never could have expected or aimed for I think you still need to give some credit where it's due.

Words organized in a different order wouldn't have caused you to feel or think about that revelation

I think interpretation is vast for any grouping of words. That is why different songs and written stories hit people different ways. I think most times the writer is just trying to tell a story, the deeper meaning is a creation of scholars.

Would you have been able to feel that deep connection to some element of the story if the author didn't write it well or choose to include it in their story? I think what people often mean when they speak about an author's "genius" is not that the author was directly trying to invoke a particular idea or emotion or opinion but rather, to write their story in such a way that they tap into some level of Truth or Humanity that resonates through the words and into your heart or mind.

It comes through them and is passed on to you, the reader. They are like a conduit, they channel something deep, and then they manage to use written language to effectively allow readers to relate to those things. How you relate or which parts you relate to isn't as important as the fact that you were affected at all.

They don't know you (the general "you") because you are just one of the millions of possible readers they could have in mind when they wrote the story. Or maybe they wrote their stories only for themselves. That doesn't matter in the end. What they were trying to accomplish personally doesn't even matter. All that matters is people connect to those stories to a level beyond casual entertainment.

A book is only as good as its author. A book is only as great as its reader?

Is that anything?

Yes, there are books that express thoughts of such complexity that it is impossible think that the author accidentally jumbled the concepts together.

The book and the reader form a dialogue. If the product of this dialogue is a particularly significant, impactful meaning that the reader experiences, then credit is due to both the text and the reader for this mutually-constituted process of meaning-making.

The oft-cited Roland Barthes "Death of the Author" essay has influenced many critics to view the author's intentions as either 1) irrelevant when compared to the text itself or 2) existing as a particular vein of historicism which focuses on the author's background, life, and personal psychology as a means of interpretation. This interpretation, mind you, is not a privileged position, but one amongst a myriad that exist for each reader.

[removed]

Some authors are more perceptive or inventive than others.

To then also be able to put that into words takes considerable skill.

Otherwise we'd all be able to write and sell classics.

To read extra meaning into a poorly written book takes skill too I would suppose.

For example?

Sometimes the interpretations of works are over the top. That's true.

But in most cases there are a lot of "empty spaces" in books where the reader jumps in and forms his own interpretations - mainly based on life experiences. Take a book like Salinger's "The Catcher in the Rye" and you get very different interpretations. People who faced similar experiences like the protagonist Caulfield will see a deeper meaning in the plot line than someone else who just says "Okay, what's the big deal here?".

Interpretation is a multi-faceted topic, because some of it are just so abstract and extremely symbolic that they could only belong to the reader. But when the interpretation follows a methodical and systematic analysis thorough the book (or all of the books from an author), it could be attributed to the writer even if it wasn't consciously intended.

Why wouldn't you want to praise a book that gave you a personally relevant deep connection?

>Words organized in a different order wouldn't have caused you to feel or think about that revelation

Why not?

For example, if I am a staunch atheist and I have a tendency to notice and connect with anti-religious messages in books, isn't it likely that any such writing would elicit the same feelings regardless of how the words were organized? The book could be well written or poorly written, but either way I might connect with the anti-religious message because of my personal beliefs.

I completely agree with giving due credit for good writing, but if you took some deep meaning from the words which was not the intent of the writer then that doesn't necessarily make it good writing. If you had a profound epiphany as a result of reading the book, that doesn't necessarily make the book profound.

That's a good point. I like the idea of a mutual process of meaning-making between the book and the reader.

It's like the writing has unique value to each reader based on what each reader takes from it. It may be an objectively well written piece of work, but it's real value lies in the unique meaning each individual reader takes.

I think that some authors just write a story for us to find pleasure in, and because of our different perspective and empathy, we can draw out deeper meanings that might not have been in the story at all.

"isn't it likely that any such writing would elicit the same feelings regardless of how the words were organized?"

is this your experience with reading? Because it is as far opposite of mine as conceivable

>Would you have been able to feel that deep connection to some element of the story if the author didn't write it well or choose to include it in their story?

Yes, I think you could read deeper meanings in a poorly written book, based on your own personal perspectives and beliefs. You could read a kids book and find a deep personal connection there, while the author intended to write a simple kids book.

The writing of a work may be objectively bad but you could still feel a strong connection with the message that is presented. If that feeling was something the author never intended, then that feeling is more a reflection on you than the author.

Yes. Similar concepts and themes will elicit similar feelings, irrespective of the specific words that are used.

Of course the quality of the writing between two works may differ but the feelings that I feel would be the same. That's more about me and my perspectives and beliefs as a reader, and not necessarily that the author intended to elicit that feeling.

It's true that there are many interpretations of all kinds of books which do not reflect the author's intentions. Doing this is fine so long as you evaluate these interpretations to see whether they are based on reality or not. The main point of books is to challenge you to think about different topics, and validating or dismissing our own interpretations of a text without thinking about them defies the point of reading.

If we do, however, want to get a better picture of a writer's intentions, historical, philosophical and social context are paramount. Understanding the beliefs of the author and the context within which he/she writes is the only way to get an idea of what their intentions are.

That's like saying a musician doesn't deserve praise for making you cry with a melody, because they didn't "intend" to make you reflect on your specific grief, a dead parent, for example. But that's missing the point. Think of it this way: they took you to that place through skill and talent, and you found something personal there. It's a collaboration right? Because words don't just exist on the page, they're brought to life through your perception, but it takes talent or skill to get you there.

On the cynical side, you could elicit "deep meaning" from a chocolate chip cookie recipe if you really wanted to. The cookie dough is my soul and each dark chip is mark on it, etc. But, that's more or less projecting your own interpretation completely outside of what the author intended. Maybe that's what you're talking about. But, that isn't how most literature works. Most authors intend to take you to a certain place, where you can elicit a specific type of meaning.

But, it really does take a genius level of talent to bring you to certain places. To say the deep meaning in Blood Meridian is just a coincidence or not intended by the author is naïve. Every single word is intentional. You might read something you think is inconsequential, but it's actually a reference or a revision to the literary canon. A new idea or a new way of looking at an old idea, symbolism, or metaphors with layers of meaning. That isn't an accident, that's talent.

>It may be an objectively well written piece of work, but it's real value lies in the unique meaning each individual reader takes.

Yes, but authors can intentionally take you to specific places of perception you haven't been or didn't know about, even if it's slightly different for everyone. It takes a perceptive reader, but it also takes skill and talent on the author's part.

I don't mean that the skill and talent of the musician or the writer should not be praised. They may very well be excellent in their craft.

What I mean is that often people will praise a piece of work for eliciting a certain feeling or making them think a certain way. They will talk about that feeling or perspective as an intentional choice that the author made, for which they ought to be praised. But if that was never the intent of the author, isn't that more from the reader's interpretation than from the author? It doesn't mean that the author is any less skilled as a writer but that particular feeling came from the reader, not the book.

For example, a feminist reader may praise a book for its portrayal of strong female characters. If the author never really intended to highlight strong female characters, isn't that unearned praise for the author?

>Yes, but authors can intentionally take you to specific places of perception you haven't been or didn't know about

Yes, they can. But doesn't necessarily mean that every feeling or perspective you take away from a book was the author's doing.

If I have a profound experience with a book but I have no idea if my understanding of the text is what the author intended, how can I praise the author for leading me to this profound experience?

I often found in school that the endless discussion of 'meaning' found in literature likely far exceeded the author's intentions. In fact such pointless debate and study amounted to just an academic circle jerk.

I am similar in that way (connecting to messages or themes because of the way I personally see the world regardless of "quality" of the writing) but even within those similar themes I find authors who handle them well and those who handle them poorly and when they are handled particularly well I'm usually left with something new I hadn't thought about. I tend to credit the author with helping me realize that new thing, no matter if it was super intended or not.

>For example, a feminist reader may praise a book for its portrayal of strong female characters. If the author never really intended to highlight strong female characters, isn't that unearned praise for the author?

That example doesn't really make sense. The author still wrote strong female characters, whether a feminist praises it or not.

[deleted]

>If I have a profound experience with a book but I have no idea if my understanding of the text is what the author intended, how can I praise the author for leading me to this profound experience?

You have to be more specific than that. Are you saying you found the meaning of life in a cupcake recipe? Or did you interpret Animal Farm slightly differently than most people. Because if an author aims to write something thought-provoking and it provokes your thoughts, I don't see how you wouldn't credit them.

The author may have simply written a strong character who happens to be female. The author may never have intended the character's gender to be a focal point but a feminist would praise the book as though the author intended to strengthen a female character. That would be false praise for the author.

Maybe my example doesn't make sense but the point I'm making is that for me to praise a book for presenting a concept or a perspective that was not the author's intent is unearned praise for the author.

Nothing wrong with praising the book, but for you to praise a book for some particular insight that you achieved is not necessarily a virtue of the book. The book may be excellent, but if the author never intended for you to achieve that particular insight that's more from you the reader than the author, regardless of how great the book is.

Is it not possible for people to read unique meanings in a particular text, beyond the general message?

Of course the general understanding of a book that everyone takes away is praiseworthy because that was the intent of the author. But that doesn't mean that every perspective I take away is the author's intent. If it wasn't the author's intent, I cannot solely credit them or the book for helping me reach that perspective.

The book was simply a means for me to bring to mind something that was already within me. Another book could also have done that. It's not a unique praiseworthy quality of that particular book.

That makes sense. I agree that well written works are more likely to elicit deeper meanings and a deeper connection than poorly written works.

What I don't get is why a particular book should be praised for some unique insight I got when that wasn't the intent of the author. The book was simply the means of getting me to that insight. Another book or movie or song lyric could also just as well have gotten me to that insight. So if that was not the intent of the author, then that particular book cannot be uniquely credited for helping me reach that particular insight.

>But when the interpretation follows a methodical and systematic analysis thorough the book (or all of the books from an author), it could be attributed to the writer even if it wasn't consciously intended.

But was it the book that got you to that particular interpretation or was it the systematic analysis? If the author simply meant to write a fun read with no expectation of deep analysis, then I would say it's your analysis that is creating that meaning for you from the text, not necessarily the text itself.

>The author may have simply written a strong character who happens to be female. The author may never have intended the character's gender to be a focal point but a feminist would praise the book as though the author intended to strengthen a female character. That would be false praise for the author.

The author is actually deserving of more praise in that example, because he wrote a strong female character subconsciously, and so he's naturally a feminist and his work is not contrived.

>Maybe my example doesn't make sense but the point I'm making is that for me to praise a book for presenting a concept or a perspective that was not the author's intent is unearned praise for the author.

You might've had this experience with a few books and are trying to extrapolate a universal theory. I can't think of any good examples of this, though.

I think it can be "uniquely credited" because another book or song lyric didn't get you to that insight. We live in time linearly, by necessity we have to experience something before or after something else. At that point it just seems like common courtesy to at least partly credit the author for some of that experience. People definitely can get carried away, turning the author into some holy person because of the experience you had reading their book isn't good. But when I look back at books or any work of art that I learned something from, I still appreciate that work (and by extension the creator) because of the path it put me on.

Sure it's all fundamentally chance, but it's like when you're hungry and you eat a pizza, that pizza did fill you up even though a hamburger would have done the same thing. It's not weird to credit the pizza in that situation.

Any specific examples?

No specific examples come to mind right now.

I'm speaking more generally of how people will often associate their own unique interpretation of a book with the book itself, as though that was the intended purpose of the book.

If it wasn't intended, isn't that more a reflection of the reader's own mind rather than the author's? To me it just seems wrong to praise the book or the author for helping me achieve that perspective when it was more a result of my own critical analysis.