Authors Intentions

A novel author, in your example above, would say: "You suck", said Mike, despondently. So there is just as much scope to be prescriptive about meaning in writing a novel as there is for a playwright using stage directions, and I believe that by convention, novels give you far more information than play scripts do. However, it still all comes down to the way the reader (or the actor) interprets the word 'despondently'. My interpretation may well be different from yours. So I do agree that meaning comes partly from the recipient, not solely from the instigator. But it's a shared process. The more complicated a piece of communication is, the more opportunity there is for multiple differences of interpretation. And if that communication is passed through several links in the chain (author to director to actor to audience) then every link opens up a new opportunity for subtle reinterpretation. I understand an author desiring the message that they send to be received the way they intend it. But the reality is, it's never going to be guaranteed to happen that way. Unlike a novelist/reader relationship, a playwright knows that there is going to be a committee of people involved in the interpretation (director, actors, designers, etc), each potentially shattering the meaning before it reaches the audience. A director's job is to manage this committee and try to unify the interpretation so it shatters as little as possible...although this very act can not help but bend and shape the interpretation. A playwright who understands the form of the medium they are writing in ought to understand and accept that this process of interpretation is several steps removed from them. Good writing will have strong meaning, but it is always up for re-interpretation by the director and the actors. In a lot of cases, trying to be TOO prescriptive with the use of stage directions and dialogue-modifying statements is counter-productive. They'd be better off trusting the responsibility to the director to create an interpretation as they see fit. Theatre is a collaborative process. Beckett is always cited, but I honestly wonder if the way his letters have been interpreted by his estate is really what he intended, as a theatre practitioner? If so, then he has restricted a certain amount of growth his work may have achieved posthumously. His art has died with him. From what I have gleaned from internet articles on Barthe, his philosophy is easily applied to the dramatic arts, and in my opinion, should be. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------