Authors Intentions

What you are emphasising then, Logos, is that whatever the original intent of this argument, we are rapidly branching out into different interpretations of its meaning, largely dependent on our own personal understandings of the words 'intent', 'motivation', 'style', 'subtext', 'context', 'meaning'....etc, etc ad infinitum! Even where we seem to agree, there is never an exact synchronity in what we believe others to mean, or how we ourselves are understood. . The Placebo version of 'Running Up That Hill' is not far different from Kate Bush's rendition, it's rhythmically similar and it's mainly the slower tempo that gives it the darker, more intense feel. I know of more varying examples with 'Wuthering Heights'. Kate Bush's version has pathos and a strong hint of madness. This, I take it, you would call her 'intent'. Albert Niland does an acoustic version which has all the pathos, softer and sadder, but I wouldn't attribute any madness. Probably still in keeping with the original. James Reyne did an acoustic version, almost the same as Albert Niland's, but his version sounds like a piss-take...JUST because it's James Reyne! The Puppini Sisters have two different tempo versions, where they are obviously far more focussed on making it fit their particular style (40's jazz a la the Andrews Sisters). No desperation in the performance, in fact it sounds fun. Still sounds like a love song, though. Still makes sense of the text. White Flag do a heavy rock, high energy version, which also still seems true to the text but probably has more anger and no pathos...is this still true to the intent? Mr Floppy does a techno dance version in a high pitched voice which probably doesn't care about any inherent meaning, but emphasises what a great and catchy melody it is. Perfect for the nightclub audience it is performed to. And the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain does a version which they are probably taking seriously, but just sounds like a comedy. Probably the furthest from the original intent, but for the comedy alone though, it's valid, entertaining, and worth listening to. Why is that a bad thing? But comparing songs IS a flawed analogy, because we are comparing all the new versions to the original PRODUCTION. By the time the original song was produced it had already been interpreted into form - no longer the original 'script' of words and notes - what we hear are the interpretations of the performer, musicians, arrangers, & recording engineers. If it so happens that the writer of the song was the performer, who saw the production through, then the whole process may have been one of unified intent. And sometimes that happens with a playwright, who sees their script through to production and so what we see is probably what they had in mind. But that's an assumption. Even the original production was probably a merging of creative interpretations. . You've said in an above thread that you don't agree when the creativity strays too far from the original text. Assuming we're not talking about changing the actual words of the text, I guess by 'creativity' you're referring to what we do to the text with 'style'? But by 'true to the original text' I'm still not certain we've defined 'true to the original intent'... Yes, a play had an original intention, which in so far as we understand it, we must try to take into consideration. The only question, which seems will divide us all forevermore into two camps, is whether, having recognised that original intention, we reproduce it as faithfully as we can; or still recognising it, we reinvent it with new intent. If intent is more important than style, the question still remains: whose intent? I think the end product must always be a synergy of TWO intentions. There is the playwright's intent in writing, and there is the director's intent in producing. Both of these intents must start independently and yet must merge to create the final product. No matter what the writer writes, they know it will be effected by the director's style in production. And no matter what the director intends, it will always be effected by and considered against what the author wrote. What we think of the results, how well they meld, is for the audience to decide, and must ultimately and simply come down to individual taste as to whether it's a good or bad result. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------