Authors Intentions

I think we're getting tangled up in our analogies. And I'll restate that I don't think we are disagreement, we are just tripping up over our ways of describing a point of view. Okay . . . A) Sharing. I agree that 'sharing' can be used in many ways. I see you are using it in the context of a linear process to which people contribute, even though they may have nothing to do with each other. In your building example you said, "What I've created informs and influences what you have to do, but you're free to interpret your job as you see fit and I have no interest or control over how you do it". Okay, I'm happy with that. I had originally thought you were using it in the context of a mutually agreeable 'contract' ('we share our toys', which is how I mostly use it). You originally said, "So I do agree that meaning comes partly from the recipient, not solely from the instigator. But it's a shared process." I don't know what you mean by putting the 'but' in there. It confuses things, suggesting some kind of counter argument to the first sentence ('he was a good boy, but . . .'). As I reread, it strikes me that 'but it's a shared process' isn't even necessary, and you could have gone straight on to the next sentence, and we wouldn't have diverted many words arguing about just one (as I'm still doing). B) Building a house: I wasn't asserting that everyone shares in building a house. In fact, that was your analogy: "The end product house is the result of our shared efforts". I was countering this by asking, "And who planned the house-building and engaged the construction crew?" I then went on to say, "If we shared building a house, there would be a discussion and negotiation", meaning that if you and I were to build a house together (which is what I thought you meant when you said "Or if we shared building a house"), we would work out a plan of action between us (i.e. we would share the work (using 'share' how I would use it)). In any case, the building analogy, though kind of neat, has a major flaw, so we should put it aside. I like the idea of the playwright as the creator of the blueprint and so on. But there is a major difference. An architect does sometimes create designs for no-one in particular, but mostly they are commissioned by someone, such as the future home-owner, who then takes over the finished product. Consequently, the design is often a 'shared' process (my meaning), because owner and architect discuss what is wanted. A playwright does not usually discuss the writing of the play with the audience. So . . . back to discussions about intent, which I hope to address very briefly. I'll use your numbering 1 No, I'm not "trying to argue that the writer of a play, novel or song has to explicitly tell us how to recognise style". 2 No, I haven't "shot [my] own argument in the foot." 3 I'm aware of the background of Red Riding Hood. It's irrelevant to the point I was making. I could have inserted the name of any story read by kids. 4 You said, "I don't believe that a songwriter ever thinks we will have NO understanding unless it's first explained to us" and I agree. 5 Having gone through a couple of scripts quickly, I agree that most of the directions are functional. But not all. For example, In 'Oliver', the direction is "Mrs Sowerberry looks doubtful". The moment we get an adverb, we get a direction from the playwright about how to interpret a specific bit of the action. Now . . . just expanding on the brevity of some of the responses above; 1 A songwriter, an author and a playwright will create something (usually) with a specific thought in mind, i.e. the intent. 2 From what I said earlier: "Each of us is unique, having different cultural, social, racial, historical backgrounds. These elements provide the frame of reference by which we interpret the world around us. Consequently, each of us will interpret an event differently (though those differences may not be much)." 3 If it is important for the creator of the work that the intent be recognised by the recipient, then the creator needs to take steps to make that intent as visible as possible. 4 The creator can do this in various ways. For example, a songwriter can introduce and explain a song. 5 An author doesn't get up and explain the novel before it's read by the reader. The reader deduces intent from the body of the text. A play audience deduces intent from the performance. 6 A reader and a playgoer are in similar straits. How well they perceive the intent depends on how unambiguously it is conveyed through the medium. This is then down to the author's skill and the playwright's skill. 7 But, for the play, there is an intermediary in the person of the director. The director is privy to information the audience doesn't have: the assorted staging remarks that are part of the script. These therefore give the director (and cast and crew) additional information about intent, which can help the director in the role of conduit between writer and audience. 8 But fundamentally, for any medium, unless we are specifically told what the intent is, our interpretations are assumptions. They may be pretty good assumptions about which there may be little disagreement, but they still remain assumptions. And here I will make use of the point you made about songwriting: "The songwriter can have a 'hidden' intent which I may never have guessed otherwise". When I write songs they always have an intent, which is to get a particular thought expressed in some fashion. However, those thoughts are highly personal. Though I feel the need to express them, I do not want to embarrass myself (or others) by being explicit. The thoughts are therefore expressed in a highly obscure way, and unless I tell someone specifically, the real intent will remain invisible (which is what I want). But people will interpret the songs how they hear them. They will infer a meaning. Possibly (but hopefully not), they will infer the 'real' meaning. But they will never know whether they are right, because I won't tell them.