Authors Intentions

Garreth said: >> ...I find it arrogant in the extreme not to acknowledge in some way the motivation that the playwright had for producing the play in the first place. There are several Shakespeare plays where his primary motivation in producing it was to please the ruling Monarch of the time. Now the knowledge of this fact may significantly alter our understanding of the play and how we may choose to re-mount it. Rather than see it as how the author intended (ie having a definite political context), we usually simply take all our contextual understanding off the page, from what the characters say. So for us to accurately acknowledge the author's motivation (which you say would be arrogant not to), requires a fair bit of extra information which might not always be available to us. And then even if we WERE knowledgeable about the motivation...do we create our present-day production as if we were trying to please Elizabeth the 1st, or do we translate that motivation to modern day so as to please Elizabeth the 2nd? Which way is more in keeping with Shakespeare's motivation? Informed or not, we are forced to make choices, which amounts to end-user interpretation. Garreth also said: >>...if you choose to ignore my intention in writing this then it was pointless writing it in the first place. That you took the time to express a point of view here and posit a valid argument implies that you believe there was a point to it all. You know you're possibly not going to be interpreted or understood by everyone, but by being as clear as you can be you probably feel that most people will 'get' you and so the point remains. You have no control over how people will take what you wrote, yet you wrote it anyway. I don't believe you would have done that if you thought it was truly pointless. So you wrote your thoughts about Shakespeare. And your intention was implied in your writing. And yet if people read my other response to your argument about Shakespeare and find merit in it, they would see the meaning in a rather different light, where your whole example can be turned around and used to dispute your point rather than support it. I chose to ignore your intention because I approached it from a position which suggests that your initial assumptions may be wrong and that the whole paradigm has shifted. This doesn't make what you wrote pointless, but it may change the meaning somewhat. It's simply my interpretation, but it's independent of what you wrote or your intention in writing it. I don't mean to say the message will always be interpreted in a way which contradicts how it was sent...in fact, I think this is rare. The meaning derived from what is written must always be supported. But that meaning is independent of your intention. Same message, slightly different meaning, it now becomes MY intention. And I become responsible if you dislike it. Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------