Death of the Author- Ep. 62 of Intentionally Blank

Brandon Sanderson and Dan Wells go into the intricacies of “The Death of The Author” and their thoughts on where and when it is applicable.
/ sanderson
Can be listened to almost everywhere podcasts can be found.
Produced by Adam Horne
Sound engineering and editing by Daniel Thompson

[@TheBrock2525]

Brandon: "don't commit crimes" Dan: "don't TELL US you commited a crime" 😂😂

[@davidarmstrong3302]

Lawful Good, Chaotic Good.

[@mateodoris6856]

Shallan and Veil

[@kamille286]

I would say Radiant and Veil

[@Dragonswiftx]

Shallan is the Neutral Good.

[@CerebrumMortum]

actually, what dan said, is: " do not let us know that you have broken the law BECAUSE OF SOMETHING WE SAID".

[@bpj]

Dan Wells food heist's make me think he inspired Lift

[@Dara-is6fz]

Maybe the food heists were committed by Lift, and she just framed everyone else

[@masonwheeler6536]

@@Dara-is6fz Death of the Fourth Wall?

[@Mwezi828]

@@masonwheeler6536 "I accept that there will be meals I cannot steal"

[@AtaraxianWist]

@@Mwezi828 THESE WORDS ARE NOT ACCEPTED.

[@Mwezi828]

@@AtaraxianWist You’re right. I didn’t mean it.

[@danyf7429]

Lawful good Brandon: "If we run out of food heist, go and commit some for us would you? haha no, im just kidding, don't commit crimes please" Chaotic neutral Dan: "I mean... look, if you do, don't tell us. And know that if we're called to court, we'll testify against you immediately"

[@Beech27]

A not-mentioned and terribly important thing about *La mort de l'auteur* is that it’s a delightful pun in the original French, referencing the classic Arthurian tale.

[@natwon633]

I am honestly a big fan of these casual academic talks. Learning something new every time you bring one of those up.

[@keepperspective]

Ditto. More please 🙏

[@filyp1984]

You think this is academic? Lol

[@natwon633]

@@filyp1984 well suggest an alternative term then Mr Thesaurus. I think it a welcome breath of fresh air from the usual.

[@filyp1984]

@@natwon633 it's not academic. Nor intellectuel Most just... superfluous.

[@ConeTheBoss559]

​@@filyp1984 Discussing literary theories is not academic?

[@EbonPriest]

I had the honor to not only sit under a few seminars with Robert Jordan, but also was able to talk to him in great length on occasion, I can say that he definitely took in reader feedback in some of his alterations. Mr. Jordan is still one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people I have had the honor to meet and speak to.

[@filyp1984]

He was terrible at writing women. He did not compréhension female brainstorming and psych at all. I wondered how be was married so long...

[@isabelsedai]

@@filyp1984 as a woman I disagree. He writes women really well.

[@filyp1984]

@@isabelsedai hahaha you would. Go tuck at your braid.

[@robhurlocker7040]

I think "Death of the Author" is more concerned with the interpretation of a COMPLETED work - the author responding to fan feedback by modifying plans for an ONGOING series feels like a separate process entirely. The cosmere is still growing and developing in many ways, which opens the door for all of these beautiful interactions; but I think that "Death of the Author" as a concept tends to relate to completed works that land in the reader's lap. At that point, the story plays out on the stage of the reader's mind and rarely has any concern for authorial intent. I personally use the idea more often with poetic works, since poems tend to be so versatile in interpretation. If an author wrote something about the struggles of war, but a reader uses it to process their own grief after the death of a loved one, it's an entirely valid reading according to the concept of "Death of the Author".

[@feral_orc]

Death of the Author is a tool academics use to try to put their stamp of authority on anything. It's a disregard for intent. Interpretation is up to many people, as is what you associate with the story being told, but death of the author is a poor excuse to try to convince people intent is irrelevant.

[@robhurlocker7040]

@@feral_orc I don't believe intent is irrelevant. It's simply a separate sphere entirely from a reader's interpretation. I can simultaneously appreciate Textual Criticism and historical-grammatical approaches to reading a text (both of which highly privilege authorial intent) while also recognizing the value of a reader's interpretation that might take living text beyond the author's original intention. By means of an example, the U.S. Constitution is one where we see these interpretive methods both playing out quite regularly. It is helpful to recognize authorial intent (which was to exclude MANY from the political process), but it is also helpful to acknowledge how the concepts penned in the Constitution have been reinterpreted over time clearly exceeding the author's intentions. I believe that BOTH of these methodological conversations are worth having for different reasons.

[@feral_orc]

@@robhurlocker7040 I lost a lot of my last comment but basically, I agree that interpretations can change over time. I don't think that's what death of the author really means though, I see it more as a complete disregard for the author themselves.

[@robhurlocker7040]

@@feral_orc I think you're taking as personal what is really a neutral methodological approach. Scholars from various disciplines can hold BOTH methods as valid for their own goals. A reader can find meaning in a text beyond the original intention, because texts often have lifespans and audiences that extend beyond the author's own influence. I could in fact make your own point in reverse by highlighting the extensive traditions of biblical interpretation, for example. There are many who shout about authorial intent as a way to show a complete disregard for later interpreters who have valid points to make.

[@feral_orc]

@@robhurlocker7040 I'm not talking about using multiple approaches here, I'm talking about the concept "death of the author", which suggests that the ultimate meaning of a text can only be found by disregarding the authors background and status entirely. You're the one complicating this further, I'm trying to keep this on a single topic.

[@sirmarblecake9446]

"I have this bad taste in my mouth because of the dead" was not what I expected to hear today.

[@joelman1989]

With Sandersons example, I think what he adds whether by novella, or even just interview, can be interpreted as additional text. 50 years from now we may read an interview he did about the Cosmere and not have the context to fully understand it just as we would with a book written 50 years ago. So the intent problem never goes away unless the author is present at every instance and willing to interpret the text for you. Once we no longer have the Sando, we just have to rely on the text. Whether in a novel or not, it is all text.

[@paulcourtemanche3549]

Brandon’s “I’m an artiste” is hilarious.

[@su_shadow9326]

I want to live in a world where Brandon Sanderson or Dan Wells are required reading in high school/college.

[@McCainenl]

Barthes' theory of the readerly and writerly text is kind of the opposite of what our intrepid heroes explain here: it's the *writerly* text that has a multiplicity of possible meanings and where the reader is invited to be a kind of co-author of the text, and where readers' expectations are deliberately subverted in order to create a space of indeterminacy. The *readerly* text is the one that is straightforward and explicit, by comparison.

[@xompeii]

one of my favourite podcasts began it's descent into being canceled because the writer for it saw someone discussing the podcast with "death of the author" in mind, and assumed it was a death threat.

[@harveyweir8061]

I think you may want to retype this comment after you sober up

[@TheDiabeticGameMaster]

That is so sad and funny, lol

[@salvadorsalgado5212]

I think "Death of the author" was and still is an incredibly important theory/idea, but, was also a bit too extreme as a consequence of its time, when the pendulum sways too much to one side, it always causes an extreme reaction towards the opposite side. My way of viewing it nowadays is that it doesn't have to be one or the other, the borders between the two ideas aren't as denoted or as important as they made them to be back then. You can do both and they can ultimately be great experiences, and to me thats one of the many beautiful things about stories, when you write 1 book for example, you're also creating a thousand versions of it at the same time. There's just so many different ways to experience a story and connect to it, you can focus on having a personal experience at first, coming with your own interpretation, then talk with other people and discover their own wonderful and unique ways of viewing the story, which kind of unlocks a new way to read it or watch it. And then there's nothing stoping from trying to discover and fully comprehend the intention of the author in another read-through, even if they contradict your interpretation. And coming back to what i said about the borders between those ideas not being as important, who says that the author's intention, your's and other people's interpretations can't fuse together into another new way of appreciating the story? One that you can take into account one time and completely ignore the next time around. The truly important thing that should be remarked, is that there's no 1 true and definitive way of interacting with a story and that every other one is invalid, that's just stupid and lame. There's no reason to put a limit on how much fun you can have with a story.

[@hariman7727]

People can find meaning in a story beyond authorial intent, but that external meaning doesn't change that the book was written as what it is, and that the author's intent/the book itself defines itself. There's nothing actually socialist or fascist in Starship Troopers, so the claim that it's "Nazi propaganda" is a lie, especially when the book was written as a way to have a stable nationalist society WITHOUT becoming Fascist/Socialist.

[@andrewb4714]

Both sides of "death of the author" take things too far: the author's intentions DO matter, but those intentions also do NOT nullify your feelings about a book. The example I like to use is Lord of the Rings: Tolkien said explicitly it was not about either World War, and yet, are we wrong to say it has "applicability" (Tolkien's word) to the wars? Not at all. Ray Bradbury said Fahrenheit 451 was not about censorship--so are we wrong to say it has "applicability" to censorship? Not at all. But that doesn't change or reduce the authorial intention. They're just two different halves of interpreting a book (or movie, or song, or whatever), I think.

[@Trisjack20]

Well said

[@hariman7727]

Your feelings about a book do not change the intent, and do not change what's actually on the page. People can scream all they want that "Starship Troopers" is "fascist", but unless you define "fascist" as "Something I don't like" or "any government system that has any authority/nationalism/military respect" and NOT the actual definition of "Government control of the means of production via regulation/etc while still allowing private ownership", then the book isn't fascist at all. Starship Troopers is heavily nationalist and military supporting, but the actual N*zis seized control of production and implemented socialism, which is NOT what the society of Starship Troopers does at all. This confusion is caused by post WW2 socialists wanting to distance themselves from N*azis, and having to lie to do so.

[@ItMeansSun]

Absolutely with Dan's recommendation of Derry Girls though it needs to be said that it's not on BBC 4 but on "Channel 4" which is a different organisation entirely! Happy watching, everyone

[@bellyjellybean248]

Just listening, I totally thought it was "Dairy Girls" and was very confused lol

[@RandomGeko]

lol, I'm on an intentionally watching marathon and love it ❤️

[@pyredynasty]

As an author I have to believe in my own death. If something is neccesary to understand the book it needs to be in the book. That doesn't mean that you can't find further meaning beyond it by studying the author. It also means that the author is not the final word on the story, actually they are the opposite of that, the author is the first word on the story. In the strict academic sense it is just one of many approaches. Everyone in academia knows it's not the only, or even the "correct" approach. Even though it may seem like it from those deeply entrenched in the "death of the author" camp. They are merely playing their part as champions of it in the arena of ideas.

[@ThePhantomphan11]

I know you're both busy and I'd rather you would just spend all your time on SA5, but I love these episodes so much. I could listen to you both talking for 4 hrs a day most days. I really look forward to Wednesdays just for these 35 min episodes!

[@paulbrooks4395]

This comes up a lot in understanding Tolkien, since he only officially completed some works, and his son had to piece together letters and even notes in columns (or on the back of students' papers). I subscribe to "reasonable inference", when it comes to painting a complete picture with incomplete information. Later adaptations can also take advantage of our bodies of knowledge about an author or "unofficial" details of a body of works. I'd particularly like to hear what Kevin J Anderson has to say about his Dune books in light of this.

[@emejzink9000]

No one: Brandon saing "so" when every episode starts:

[@naastyaaaaaaaaa]

Your story about "The Dead" destroying student dreams reminded me of the time I got super excited to read Gogol's "Dead Souls" for school - only to find out the characters there were... yeah, dead inside too. Oh, it is also a paperwork term!

[@Pendragondnd]

I only took an intro to literary theory course in college, so most of what I'm talking about here I'm pulling from Idea Channel, and other video essayists, so I may be misunderstanding these terms, but. My understand of Death of the Author, was that it was about seeing the author as a separate text from their work itself. You could always take those texts and read them together, in the same way that you could also choose to bring in extra historical knowledge, extra cultural knowledge, any other kind of extra textual information into your reading, or you could not. I always enjoy a good authorial reading based video essay, as it tends to reveal a whole other side of the work that I may not have grasped on my own. (Looking at Preston Jacob's bringing things from GRRM's Thousand Worlds into his video essays on ASOIAF) However the point that makes Death of the Author really important to me, is that I'll get into discussions about how I read something into some work of art, and I'll have friends tell me "O well there's no way the author intended that", no argument as to why my reading is invalid, or some crucial detail I missed, just "There is a correct reading, and I don't think it would be that." Which I personally find to be infuriating.

[@VarionusNW]

I love the James Joyce tangent, Finnegans Wake is my favorite Joyce work and I am 100% convinced the entire thing is a deliberate middle finger to literary critics. It's also just beautiful to listen to. Like if you ever read it, read it out loud, and definitely listen to the clip that exists of Joyce reading an expert aloud. I think there is a tiny KZbin channel that has been slowly making an audiobook of the thing for a while now too.

[@watcherofwatchers]

As a reader, I MUCH prefer a writerly text. I really hate having to interpret other people's stories (in the way described in the podcast).

[@TheNinjaBees]

Eh it depends for me. Sometimes it works really well to have unexplained elements that you can theorize or interpret. I’ve only skimmed the book, but King’s the Mist is wonderful about this especially the movie’s ending I think. But also having a story build up and then pay off in a satisfying way that’s still grounded in the reality the story built up is often a better experience I find

[@hmmmooops]

If someone actually crimes because of what you said then you should definetely do an episode of INtentionally Blank in the courtroom and have the judge as a guest

[@Frogface91]

This was delightful 😊

[@kitoudark]

Picked up In the Shadows of Lightning after hearing you guys talk about it. Didn't realize that was the same author who did Powder Mage. Awesome!

[@sharky977]

Brian McClennan is great! Especially for a relatively new author

[@LMJeffJones]

Brandon talking about one of his readers interpreting his Elantris stuff with chronic pain reminds me years ago when starting Stormlight. Very early on I turned to my friend and was like “Yo, I’m pretty sure Renarin is gay.” As a gay man, I didn’t know if I was just seeing what I wanted to see, and I’m pretty sure that early on Brandon has said he didn’t consider Renarin to be gay until later. So that makes me wonder if maybe in the back of his mind, unconsciously he was writing Renarin that way.

[@raxdev4578]

I know I'm watching this podcast really late. However if it doesn't get buried in all your Comment emails I would be so curious to see a podcast talking about audio books and if you think that the voice actors that read them are more impactful than voice actors who are more calm. What I mean to say is I have consumed and purchased all the hardcover versions of Alcatraz versus the librarians, but when I reread them, the voice actor on the audiobooks (as a Latino man myself, it was great hearing his credit and voice!) Is all I can hear upon reading. He does such a magnificent job of creating the world, reading the jokes, and doing all the voices that it was fantastic!!! That being said, that has been the only audiobook other than the new Lord of the rings read by Andy serkis that I've been like, "this is the future of audiobooks." Hearing someone read me a story, with voices, with action, with tension has been amazing. Most other audiobooks that I've come across, and I haven't consumed any other Brandon Sanderson audiobooks so I could be wrong, have been the most moving and captivating. If you look at old recordings of Lord of the rings whether on KZbin or audiobooks, I feel like they're very reverent of the text and monotone, and the delivery is more let me give you the words via voice. The reader can add the flavor if they want to. There are pluses and minuses to both ways of doing audiobooks. It's like a movie or an interpretation of a movie, versus someone just reading the words off a page of a book. It would be fun to hear about both your opinions, as of mini section of the podcast. Or even as a whole podcast. I'm sure you're not lacking for ideas. Anyway, as many of the people here, I'm a huge fan of the both of you! So far I only own Brandon Sanderson books, but I'm almost done with Bastille, so I will be in need of Dan Wells' books, until the swag boxes come in in January, and Wax an Wayne 4/7, and Skyward 4, and Starlight 5.... I will be purchasing Dan Wells series in bulk very soon. Toodles!

[@masonwheeler6536]

Hearing Dan talk about Marcus makes me think of Steris from _Mistborn_ era 2. In the first book she was a really obnoxious character who was widely (though not universally) hated by fans. But in the second and third books she undergoes some significant character development and gets much better, to the point where I'm not sure there's anyone left who doesn't like her. I can't help but wonder if Brandon made the improvements to her based on the initial negative reaction to the character.

[@Trisjack20]

An absolutely possible process. Just for my two cents as it were, I think Steris book 1 included is just on a very effective arc. I have some people in my life who have elements of their character that match with some of Steris' traits. I can say that with both of these people (though different) I found their communication and social style jarring at first and found that as I understood them better over time and they became more familiar with me our relationship improved no end. I think Steris from book 1 is still demonstrably Steris from book 3, she has just had a change to be benefited by her character interactions and people understanding (and she them) much better. Wax from book 3 is still Wax from book 1 but he has grown and benefited from the impact of the other key characters Marassi, Steris and even the various Kandra characters (All in different ways). So while I am not against the idea than fan reaction informed the idea that he needed to make her more sympathetic/enjoyable, I actually think it was intentional from the get go and of course I find it feels very realistic. Just an opinion I thought you might find interesting.

[@narvuntien]

Nice chat. I mean I met Sanderson at Sci Fi convention, and had him personally try to sell me his book to me. I gave in later and loved the books. Ah I saw the jade war books in my local library I will pick them up next time I am there thank you for the recomendation

[@suf9045]

Love the fact that Derry Girls gets a shout out, an excellent show!

[@limerslimer]

the new bald spot centric thumbnail format goes incredibly hard. very brave

[@SpirusOfH]

The central question here is: "where or when does meaning occur?" I would argue that while the author's intent is what makes something 'art', **meaning** only ever occurs during the **interpretation** of said art. A book is essentially a form of asynchronistic communication between author and reader. And communication is a process in which a sender's intent is interpreted by a receiver. Now, that interpretation is obviously influenced by a shared understanding of who is during the communicating and we give a large amount of leniency in our interpretation because we understand the context. Simply put: we know that someone actually wrote this book, so we will read and interpret it in the context of 'this person writing this thing'. Death of the Author essentially says that is possible to create meaning through interpretation of a text, regardless of the author's intent - EVEN (and this is important) when that interpretation is in direct contradiction with the author's intent. So yes, while Brandon might intent for Investiture and the magic systems it fuels to be understood in a certain way, and while that might be relevant to **our** understanding of it, the actual understanding only ever happens when we receive and interpret the way he chooses to communicate this. That interpretation is based on a lot of things, all of which are unique to the individual recipient, and none of which is determined or controlled **directly** by Brandon, nor can it ever be.

[@davidpo5517]

I agree that the primary question is about meaning; however I disagree that meaning only occurs during interpretation. First off the idea that meaning is purely subjective and only comes from when ppl interpret the art is just existentialism, a philosophy that makes ppl feel better about nihilism by just not asking “why?” anymore. But mostly, I disagree because the first one to interpret the art-the first one to bring meaning to the art-is the artist, because they’re the first one to step back and experience it after it’s complete. They also bring meaning to it as they’re creating, and the meaning may change during the creation. So then the art would be shaped by the meaning already perceived. Perhaps you view all different potential meanings as equal, but there is a first meaning. That meaning should be primary unless there’s a purpose in replacing it beyond a spectator’s whims. The artist had to work to bring about the expression of his meaning. The viewer does not, they just cast their worldview on top of another’s work. Idk, I guess I just don’t find that very just.

[@Finn-xw4vn]

I agree with you, however I think there is still value in the original purpose of the author in creating the work. There is still a core "meaning" or idea in what the author wishes to portray. While the work itself lies in the intricate cultural contexts and can create meaning independent of the author's intent, the original purpose of the creation of the work is to communicate the ideas that the author intended to portray. That is not to say that alternative interpretations are wrong, but I would argue there is still some significance in the authors original conception of the work.

[@SpirusOfH]

​@@Finn-xw4vn you and @David Po both raise interesting points about art having an innate meaning that is created through the artist's own work with the text - and you view this as separate from (though not necessarily more important than) the meaning that the reader creates. I feel that the terms we use may cause a confusion in this regard: of course there is a meaning (i.e. purpose) behind creating art. We can all this original meaning 'encoding', the intended meaning that the author associates with what he has created and idealy wishes others to interpret as such. We can then call the readers' interpretation and understanding of a text 'decoding', which will be based on a lot of factors including their own experiences as well as their knowledge/understanding of the author's intentions. The sheer act of creating something, encoding it with the purpose of being understood a certain way or simply to express yourself, is not enough to create what I would call "meaning" in this context (1). Meaning, in my opinion, when it comes to the interpretation of art, happens between two or more people (2). It is the imperfect consensus reached between what a sender thinks, how they express that thought, and how a receiver interprets that expression. That is not to say that an intent doesn't exist removed with the interpretation, but neither the intent (encoding) nor the interpretation (decoding) on its own can be regarded as "meaning" being created - it is something that is created when those two meet. How much the author themself influences the individual's decoding is where concepts like Death of the Author comes into play. (1) Of course disregarding that books aren't created in a vacuum and that many people view, interpret, and shape the text before it is officially released. (2) If you want to be very philosophical you could argue that an author can be their own audience, but for the sake of how I understand semiotics, they can not be both sender and receiver.

[@SpirusOfH]

@@davidpo5517 I don't think KZbin comments allow me to tag multiple people, but you and Finn both made similar points that I've tried to respond to above :)

[@feral_orc]

Yeah I disagree. If someone takes information from a piece of media out of context and uses that to explain their own idea of the story taking place, that doesn't mean anything. There's a huge difference between interpretation and intent. You compare it to a conversation, but don't acknowledge the author's own participation in that conversation. Brandon is literally there to clarify what he meant 95% of the time as well.

[@viv9037]

With how Brandon talks about stories, I am now convinced the character that is most like him is Wit/Hoid because he believes stories mean what you interpreted them to mean.

[@WhiteBread221]

As far as I’m aware, what Brandon was describing about adding outside information to the “canon” of the story via audience interactions, still fits within the death of the author because the information is supported by the text and can often be drawn out via reasonable inference. Death of the author applies more so to that something like the Dumbledore example, where there’s (effectively) no textual support and no reasonable extrapolation is likely to reach that conclusion.

[@indedgames4359]

However i aculy fibd she wrote him quit stereotypicle quirky gay the way he dresses and sometimes behaved etc. Qnd Not to forget the final book befor she revealed he Was gay quite literly poibts it out that he Was in love with Grindelwald .

[@c0horst]

Exactly. Imagine if 40 years from now, after the Cosmere was finished, Sanderson comes out and says "Kaladin was a robot from the future the entire time!" We'd all just shrug that off as insane (I hope) instead of taking it as canon.

[@WhiteBread221]

@@indedgames4359 I’m not sure which book you’re referring to and I haven’t seen the fantastic beast movies which came out after she said that

[@wynnefox]

My recent readthrough of Wheel of Time, I had it in the back of my head that Jordan served in Nam. There was a lot of context that had new light on it with that perspective. The refugees and the plight of soldiers, and so on stood out to me far more. Then things like The Ways made me think of the Veit Kong tunnels. With the dangers and traps, people getting suddenly buried alive in them, and so on. I wonder how much was him relating first and second hand experience of that into his book. I also find myself looking back on Harry Potter series, one that I have read many times, with new light with more I learned about Rowling. Her neo-liberal politics really show through in there. The main villain mutilating himself and changing his name, while the hero causes emotional damage to the villain by calling him by his birth name. How every woman that was antagonist, Rowling tends to make either masculine, fat, or both. In fact just about everyone that is fat is an antagonist....It really killed the whole story for me on one level as I cannot get this stuff out my head any more. Oddly enough, knowing more about Sanderson hasn't changed my views I got from his books. I some reason feel they are more detached from him, or as if he is exploring things outside of himself rather than using his own experiences to tell a story. Which isn't to say he is not doing that. But the fact he writes things like Athiests thinking so well for example. One of the things I like so much about Brlightsong was the whole concept of an "Athiest God." So while I am not keep on Sanderons' relations with the Mormon church or BYU, his writing seems to communicate an open respect and acceptance of views that are not his own and I respect and accept that in return.

[@kamerasengan]

So true about Rowling :/ Harry Potter was what got me into reading as a kid and means so much to me, but her view of the world is just really evident in a lot of what's actually in the books and it feels hard to divorce them from her, as much as I want to. I used to read the whole series once a year but I haven't done that in years at this point now. I always had a few problems with the books(almost all Slytherins being bad being a huge one) but it's just so much worse now tbh, after she's said all the stuff she has. I really respect Sanderson for being as open-minded as he is and really trying to listen to and seek out the viewpoints of people who think and live differently than he does. I think that's one of the most important qualities someone can have, and is both a big reason he's such a good writer and also why he seems like a pretty dang good person, as well. It makes me happy that he represents atheist characters pretty dang well, and also has started touching more and more on LGBT characters in his books, which I really appreciate and hope we see more of. give me my lesbian knights radiant couple sanderson ;-;

[@yudhajitmukherjee1440]

This was sooo much fun :-)

[@beauly9696]

Given all the talk Brandon does regarding book -> show/movie adaptations, I'd love to hear their thoughts on Sandman. To be honest it set the standard for adaptations for me, after GoT drove itself off a cliff once the source material ran out.

[@ericfrancis7816]

The canon vs fanon discussion reminded me of something. I had a friend back in the '90s who wrote fanfic based on Anne McCaffery's Dragonriders of Pern books. They had a really organized fandom, with people writing for specific weyrs (what the books called the "cities" where dragonriders and their dragons lived). Well, one writing weyr had Ruth, the lone white dragon in the series, mate with a golden queen dragon, and their clutch of eggs produced silver queen dragons (which didn't exist in canon). I seem to recall my friend saying that McCaffery actually issued a statement asking fan writers not to do that anymore, that silver dragons couldn't exist in her world. But in that one weyr, they continued to have their silver queens and the smaller, more agile dragons they gave birth to.

[@JohnnyValmaggia]

This podcast has done what my friend did with his dog. He could not come up with a name, and so when he had to call him, he did so using the same word he used for everyone else - Mole. Before he could come up with a real name, he realized the dog already had one.

[@sharky977]

My friend named their cat "TBD" or "To be determined" because he could never decide

[@Sykdude]

I just want you to know, I'm keeping Ray Bradbury on my bookshelf for all of the lil' Brandon Sandersons out there from now on.

[@Kabissz]

To quote a VERY exceptional scholar: "Intent matters..."

[@judeconnor-macintyre9874]

My favorite example of a author stepping in to talk about their work later is Anno the creator of Eva and Shin Godzilla talked about Eva which has a bunch of religious imagery (the "villains" are called Angels, when Angel's die they explode into a cross, there is a alien crucified in a government basement, the Dead Sea Scrolls are a important thing, and the Kabbalah is in the intro), he said that the religious imagery doesn't mean anything and he just thought it looked cool so he put it in.

[@GaviLazan]

I perceive the whole "death of the author" differently. I remember sitting in art history class in high school, and the teacher would show us some artwork and say "the artist meant to show X, and wanted to say Y..." All I could think was "yeah? Did you ask them? Did they write this somewhere?" I see DotA to mean that we aren't trying to extrapolate intent or meaning that is outside the realm of the book. We (the readers) make of it what we do. Brandon's example of the Cosmere seems to be "ok" and not related since this is in world intent. If it was "Brandon clearly intended for Allomancers to be a reference to some 17th century artwork which means that..." then we are in the creeping into where I see the whole author intent. Canonizing in world information (possibly even retcon) ✅ Inferring greater author intent and references to the real world ❌

[@hariman7727]

Sadly, in modern times, "Death of the Author" is used as justification to lie about what authors actually said/wanted said. The "Tolkien fans" who interpret allegory and worse into The Lord of the Rings are a prime example of this, because Tolkien HATED allegory, and wrote what he meant. He also very clearly showed and stated his inspirations, so there's only room to interpret if you ignore what he said

[@alcatrazqueeristan]

I was reading The Shattered Lense in preparation for Bastille and on page 64 Alcatraz says "[if life were fair] James Joyce's The Dead would totally be about zombies" just wanted to appreciate the timing of this episode w that lmaoo

[@llsilvertail561]

For me, "Death of the Author" has more to do with how a creator interacts with their work after it's been released to the world. (Yes, I'm aware the academic definition has more to do with interpreting a work without allowing the creator as a separate entity to bias that interpretation. I'm talking more about how it's understood colloquially.) I would be perfectly fine if, for an incomplete series, a creator used the next installments to change something in a previous work (for example, what Dan did with that one character he mentioned), or, even for a complete series, if the creator went back to the work itself and changed a specific part of it (for example, different editions of a book). The problems start when the creator attempts to remove previous versions it from circulation (for example, George Lucas and his whole deal with the originals), states something is canon to get "clout" without actually including it in a substantial way in any of the following works (for example, JKR's whole thing with never explicitly showing Dumbledore as gay), and/or insists they included something in the original text that was never actually there (for example, (again) JKR trying to say Hermione was always black even though it was clear that JKR had intended for her to be white when she first wrote them). Idk where I was going with this, but basically, if you're gonna make changes to something, make sure it's part of the actual works themselves and that the origins of the changed work are clear. Additional clarifications: I don't think there's anything wrong with, for example, Disney getting rid of its racist older cartoons (I do, however, have a problem with them trying to pretend it didn't happen). The difference between that and the first one is actively causes harm to minority communities. I also don't think there's anything wrong with, for example, Dan saying a character canonically has a tramp stamp but never referencing that in any of the works. The difference between that and the second one us intent. There's probably something for the third one, but I'm tired, my brain isn't working, and I'm falling asleep at my table.

[@Duiker36]

I feel like what you're going for is basically, "Own your work." If you put something out into the world, accept that you did so. You can have regrets and make apologies and suggest changes, but you don't get to take it back. You might get a chance to redo, like Neil Gaiman is getting to with Sandman, but even that is its own work and has to stand and face the world on its own, too.

[@xxchaosxx3076]

22:16 The internet has ruined me every time I hear that word I think of a completely different kind of literature.

[@clouddweller]

I hate that I know exactly what you’re talking about.

[@elcee8]

With fans firing the author (mentioned at 17:15), my first thought was of Hajime Isayama and the Attack on Titan fandom. The ending was so divisive, some these hardcore angry fans had to write their own ending called Attack on Titan no Requiem. Poor Isayama had death threats as well (i'm sure he's not the only author/mangaka, but this case sticks out in particular to me).

[@TheDiabeticGameMaster]

Same thing with Evangelion and a ton of other anime and projects. I'm super curious to eventually get to the ending myself. I wonder if it was "bad" in the same way as EVA where it just wasn't what people expected or wanted OR if it was more like GoT ending or the Fantastic Beasts movies where it was just a sudden veer into terrible and confusing writing heaped on top of confusing and terrible decisions. Have you read it? If so, what was your take?

[@kamerasengan]

@@TheDiabeticGameMaster not the person you asked but just to throw my take in here, imo it's not a *horrible* ending like the GoT one, but it felt very unsatisfying in the sense of like, there were so many amazing reveals and twists and those reveals showed such a deep level of foresight that I've hardly seen in fiction, some of the writing is just incredible and was so unbelievably hype reading as each chapter came out. Certain reveals absolutely blew my mind. And then after that, it just kinda.. petered out and ended in a relatively unsatisfying way. I don't hate the ending, I don't like the ending, I hardly remember it to be honest because it just felt.. bland, I guess. Which is disappointing since it was ramping up so hard and being so amazing. It's like in a Sanderson novel, the books really ramp up towards the end where you get the amazing twists and reveals and everything is starting to connect in this satisfying way, and then you get a satisfying conclusion at the end, generally speaking. But in AoT I just didn't feel satisfied by the end, I didn't feel impacted. If I remember right, the author said he really struggled on coming up with a good ending and drawing/writing the themes to the end he wanted, for which he apologized to his fans. To be clear, I don't blame him at all, he did amazing work for like a decade and the story is still really good, and he absolutely doesn't deserve the level of hate he gets. Being a mangaka is so difficult, and ending stories is an incredibly tricky business to get right, and there's always going to be someone who's unhappy with it. I don't even really know what I'd say for the author to have changed tbh, feel like the ending was about as good as you can get with everything before it. I've read some of AoT no Requiem and it's interesting, but also felt(from what little I did read, this was just the first chapter or two made, it was like a year ago) more cynical, and I don't think that's ultimately the message the author wanted to go for. On the plus side, it hasn't ruined my perception of it or put such a bad taste in my mouth(like GoT did) that I don't even want to revisit it. I planned on rewatching all of game of thrones after the final season before it went so poorly and just soured me on the idea. For AoT I'm definitely planning on going through the manga or anime again once it's all finished, because of my fuzzy memories on the end and going through it all chapter by chapter I feel like I don't have as solid a grasp on it as a whole. Curious to see if the ending is adjusted at all, I feel like it's an alright ending but maybe could use some more expanded on it, perhaps. Hoping the soon-to-come-out Bleach final season does the same thing.

[@elcee8]

@@TheDiabeticGameMaster Oh I watched Evangelion so long ago I don't recall the ending, and you're probably right. I don't watch a lot of anime but my brother does and he has the same opinion about endings of anime in general. but with AoT - yeah I have the manga. I was disappointed with the ending...but for different reasons than most people I've seen cited online. GoT ending and the last few seasons were just universally hated by fans. with AoT ending, the fandom seems very divided. I don't think it ruins the series for me personally. I really think everyone should experience the masterpiece of S3P2.

[@Trisjack20]

How depressing that there are people who behave in this fashion.

[@trogdoar149]

"Death of the Author" is important when looking at finished works. JK can say Hermione is black after the fact, but the text contradicts that. You can't just tack on shit after the books are done, the text speaks for itself. A finished work of Art simply is, and it is up to each individual to engage with it how they want to. Brandon clarifying things about a universe that isn't finished yet is totally different.

[@AtaraxianWist]

Even once the Cosmere is finished, so many fan questions are actually posed by the text, albeit indirectly, so Brandon's answers to those questions should still be considered when criticizing the text unless they directly contradict it.

[@rmsgrey]

@@AtaraxianWist That gets a bit iffier. While production is ongoing, the author's opinions are relevant because they may be canonised by a later part of the work, or at least later works are going to be consistent with those opinions (to the extent that they're treated as fixed by the author - some authors revise their outlines heavily as they write, and for those authors, anything not yet published is just a theory). Once a canon is completed (or abandoned due to the author stopping writing for whatever reason), you have to consider what is and isn't part of the work. You can include the author's statements elsewhere as part of the work, or you can restrict it to the primary published novels, or you can say that the work you're interested in is a single novel, divorced from its context. Once you've decided what is and isn't part of the "work" - what is and isn't canon - then anything consistent with that canon is a valid interpretation, even if it's not consistent with other things which you've excluded from your canon. The novel in itself, the novel as part of a series, and the novel as part of the wider canon presented by the author are three different works (and each individual chapter of the novel can also be taken as a separate work) - not always a good work, particularly when you're taking a relatively small excerpt out of context, so there isn't always something there to be worth criticising, but, in general, a given piece of text often makes sense as part of multiple nested possible works.

[@Duiker36]

I mean, look at Tolkien's legendarium. The actual canon is unclear, since there are various criteria you can use: authored by Tolkien, published with Tolkien's approval, organized by Chris Tolkien, stated in LotR's appendices, etc. And then you have a lot of people who've gone through Tolkien's letters and use them as support for their views of the work. If you only consider LotR, then Gandalf's nature as a disguised Maia is not actually part of the text. And yet, this is commonly accepted as fact simply because it was the clear author intent based on stuff we know outside the three volumes. Like, Rowling's antics are dumb, but they're not dumb because she's tacking on new facts after publication. They're dumb because they make no sense, because they were conceived thoughtlessly. We only know about Tolkien's contradictory ideas because someone went through his notes posthumously and shared them with us. He wasn't ready to share them himself, and he knew it.

[@studiogimli7645]

thats not death of the author, that's just "i dont believe the author actually had that intention and is lying"

[@trogdoar149]

@@studiogimli7645 it was 100% not her intention because that isn't what she wrote lol. It completely contradicts her own work.

[@zenthepoet.]

Adoooonalsium

[@mariesia3449]

Good morning fellas! Wanted to know what you guys think of the new Sandman series on Netflix? Is that something you guys are into?

[@durgaprasad814]

Yes loved it

[@andsnpl]

I have only watched the first episode but I am super excited.

[@mariesia3449]

@@andsnpl I finished the entire series in one sitting 🤭. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[@andsnpl]

@@mariesia3449 it’s taking so much willpower to draw it out!

[@mariesia3449]

@@andsnpl you're better than me! Now I got nothing to watch 😂

[@strydyrhellzrydyr1345]

I want an episode... Where you guys talk about you guys siblings. Especially Dan, and hiw he became an author so quickly.. or suddenly

[@RandomGeko]

Next podcast: Death of the Audience Followed by: Death of the Critics

[@obviousalias132]

Since Brandon on his last stream talked about parodies like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Brandon should write a zombie novel that is a James Joyce pastiche. Titles like The Dead and Finnegan’s Wake are perfect for that already.

[@Frogface91]

Come to Wales! It's lovely!

[@salvadorsalgado5212]

I have no idea if that's the case but i think VPNs and Streaming services basically have an unspoken partnership that benefits both. Let's say Netflix has to pay to have the license of a show for a year, instead of paying to have the same show in 10 different regions, they can have a different show in each one, and you as a consumer just have to use a VPN to have access to all 10 without them having to pay a lot more to have every show in every region. If thats the case its just genius, and considering they haven't sued those VPN services i'm going to asume it is.

[@anewbimproves5622]

The downside is that the people who own the rights to the content can claim breach of contract in this situation. The streaming service paid for a licence for the content for one country and is profiting by allowing subscribers outside of the country to view it. Most streaming services, Netflix included, are in an arms race with the VPN providers. They try to block any IP address range associated with a VPN, and the VPN providers keep buying up new IP addresses so they can keep advertising this feature.

[@nikkola807]

I'm quite biased towards the core idea of the Death of the Author. I think that it's a given in literature classes (at least in where I'm from) to take into account the author first - learn their biography, their time period, the context, and only after that their work. That, coupled with the single-directional discussions about the meaning of the work and its intent as well as incredibly difficult books for the teenager, lead me to dislike any form of art analysis. That is, until years later I played the game named "The Beginner's Guide". Not only the game will be an interesting experience for some people, the analysis of the game is so fascinating that it may be very well considered the part of that game.

[@user-eq3nk4zy1v]

I just realized this podcast has been on for more then a year, and it feel like its only been around for around 6 months? Am I the only one who perceives time this way? Weird.

[@xxMordredxxx]

I would love to see you discuss Ms. Marvel! Great episode by the way!

[@alexp601]

Speaking of Irish shows/movies, I highly recommend the movie The Young Offenders (2018). Absolutely hilarious. They even made a TV series about it with the same cast

[@solfolgarait3745]

The story about Dan's brother was so funny 😂 i would’ve been so pissed too

[@rmsgrey]

Larry Niven described (and possibly still does) writing (hard) science fiction as a game played between the author and the fans - the author takes their turn when they write a book, trying to create a self-consistent, scientifically accurate (possibly with one or two wild cards allowed) narrative. The fans then get their turns where they try to poke holes in the science (accepting the wild cards as additional premises). If the author wants to take another turn, they have to write a sequel - so when Ringworld fans pointed out that a ringworld is unstable - the slightest nudge would send it on an inevitable spiral into the star (so to speak), Niven wrote Ringworld Engineers, in part to correct that error. It's not exactly "death of the author", but it's got an obvious parallel. More broadly, it illustrates an issue with trying to divorce a text from the author's intent and their contemporary context - what counts as part of the text? Without the sequel, Ringworld is flawed due to its engineering error; with the sequel, that error goes away. For the Cosmere as a whole, are Brandon's statements outside of the novels part of the text or not? If you include them, then you get a different work than if you exclude them, and each version can be criticised and explored in its own right.

[@dylanhaston7988]

super interesting talk, although I kind of tend to agree with barthes more than y’all, there’s a middle point in the smaller textual units of late stage capitalism and postmodern art production proposed by someone like deleuze that allows death of the author criticism to cover the ephemeral reach of the cosmere “oeuvre”. anything that crosses the radio waves has been reinscribed more than probably the initial runs of texts like ulysses and proust (who barthes starts with for the literary response to the photograph-cinema/film-digital media transitions). “gnu terry pratchett” as it were sort of questions the bounds of the textual criticism being bound to the published page as some end point of a recorded process of artistic production, although a lot of critics will ignore these units nonetheless, the fact remains that even a podcast has been mechanically reproduced (a la benjamin), and maybe can be engaged with on equal ground as texts published under the same uncertain economic conditions

[@MrNickmcc12345]

BRANDON I LOVE YOU.

[@XAllelujahXxx]

I have a food history for you guys. It's a 2 step hoist really. I know a guy, who goes to the self serve check out and buys bok choy, by the kilo, he boys bok choy, heaps a week. But while he scans the Bok choy he also places pre work out containers underneath. So he scanning bok choy. Stealing pre work out. He then takes the pre workout mix and sells that to a local gym who re sell it. Then he takes all the bok choy and sells it to a rabbit breeder. So far it's been profitable venture. He rotates to diffrent shops for the hiest he does every 2 days.

[@CerebrumMortum]

"Caviar Robinhood" sounds like an *excellent* story idea. Maybe a Sanderson/Wells co-written short novella with a russian-esq ending? 10/10 would kickstart and read.

[@TheStarMachine2000]

I have always understood the death of the author to be when audience perception outweighs the author's desires. In the case of Harry Potter, that would be J.K. Rowling saying Dumbledore is gay, while not having anything to back it up.

[@francesccampos1343]

The problem with JK is that the way she said so seemed like a retcon made in order to get on the boat of this new wave of leftism where works can't be good if the don't have their identity and minority checks. That made her seem a sellout with things like saying Hermione could be black when in all the cover she herself approved she was white, and even Emma Watson's cast for the movies was validated by her. This even backfired to her since she turned out to be not radical enough and has been cancelled by the radical left fans for her political views. In my opinion, all this, including her initial attitude of retconning things is nothing but attention seeking and deviating the focus on the most important thing in a book, the actual story.

[@TheStarMachine2000]

@@francesccampos1343 very very true, but I was referring to the amount of people who ignored the retcons. I thought that "the death author" referee to audience vs author perceptions.

[@simoniel_l1646]

I had the same thing Brandon described with The Dead happen when I heard we were reading The Witch of Blackbird Pond. There was no magic or witches, just a girl moving from the Caribbean to live with family in Puritan society and an old lady that people said was a witch.

[@masonwheeler6536]

Just saw a new FOOD HEIST in the news, but KZbin doesn't like me pasting the link in here. You can find the story by Googling "man stole 7000 hams".

[@whereisawesomeness]

I do have an essay on that Barthes text due in less than 48 hours

[@pretends2know]

22:17 You forgot one of the most important questions: DID he actually turn into a bug?

[@maikenelissen3767]

You had to talk about THE BOOK, didn't you... We were on holiday in... Costa Rica or something and had bought an E-book reader. After some time I had gone through all of the books we had downloaded onto it and there was only one left - Metamorphosis. I didn't know that it had been preinstalled on the device. I thought my mom had downloaded it for me, and so I started to read. I was seven years old. I have never since been able to bring myself to read another book by Kafka. But my worst nightmare came true when my teacher announced that we would read Metamorphosis in class. (I didn't read it and luckily there wasn't ever a test, soo... Lucky me?)

[@wolfbro82]

Are there any interviews where Brandon talks about the GraphicAudio books? I would love to hear his opinion on the actors portrayals

[@rickpgriffin]

I've described using Death of the Author or not as whether or not an interpretation is useful. "Useful" might be an odd word when we're talking about, you know, fiction, but my go-to example is how Ray Bradbury said in interviews or letters that Fahrenheit 451 was about television. And people generally reject that, because like... certainly you can look at the text and it supports the author's intent, but the actual interpretation of the work concerning education and censorship in general is significantly more interesting than the author's interpretation of their own work. People also bring up the Dumbledore Is Gay thing because the author said so (and IMO, I actually took that from the text in book 7 but most people don't real between the lines as heavily as I do) with the problem being that this doesn't actually affect the text in any way, and being that, in time, all that will remain is the text (or would, in most cases, JK may be too famous for that now) if the text doesn't answer its own questions, we don't technically have to take the author's word for it. There's nothing stopping you. There's also the case of JRR Tolkien and whether or not balrogs have wings. He deliberately avoided answering this, and the text seems to be somewhat contradictory about this, so there's not really any way to 'settle' the discussion. That might seem odd, but then again there's no way to 'settle' the discussion about the themes of the books, either; you can always find some other framework or lens to view the text through, and that's probably why JRR was so adamantly against allegory. If a story is an allegory, it's only really about One Thing (how often is Animal Farm interpreted in different ways?), when a text is a lot of things to many different readers, so in that way, it also doesn't matter what JRR meant when he wrote the text. Because there's also a lot more that it CAN mean.

[@raphalguul]

Adding extratextual elements isn't really in conflict with the notion that the author is dead. You are creating additional texts and they, too, stand outside your auctorial intent. From the perspective of critical analysis, it doesn't really matter who created them either (for instance, you can use the bible as an extratextual reference point for your narrative). The authority of what constitutes a valid reference point and what doesn't can be transferred to the reader, as is the case with the notion of the author's death. This can be taken to an extreme where you may reject direct sequels or prequels by the same author because the connection between the two texts appears to be arbitrarily chosen (i.e. it is only a metatext in name, not in its nature). So I think ultimately, it's just a question of what you define as the texts you are evaluating. It doesn't have to be just one novel in a series and it can in fact include less "textual" elements (such as a companion podcast or a tv series). The point, though, is that only what is actually in those texts can be subject to criticism. The author's future comments on the story cannot be evaluated. In fact, the author's past comments may be discounted as not part of the texts that are relevant for interpretation (e.g. because they are at odds with was is actually in the text - if George Lucas suddenly says that the Jedi have been the villains all along, that may not really change our understanding of A New Hope). If the end of Fellowship of the Ring hints at a continuation, then its sequels are its metatexts. But the meaning of the first book on its own (for instance if the sequels are not published or never written) is still discernable without those metatexts and thus without any further interference by the author. But of course, if those metatexts exist, there can also be a reevaluation. But that is assuming the reader (not the author) accepts the metatexts as such. Either of those approaches, however, is possible without considering auctorial intent - the author can be dead and nothing changes about the approach.

[@joshuaholdsworth3897]

Another example of unintended pseudo representation from BrandoSando, like the Elantris chronic pain example, in my opinion is Mistborn. In my opinion I find Vin's character progression to work well as a trans allegory. At the beginning we have a functionally genderless/male seeming vin (in the way that her gender isn't particularly expressed) and then she learns femininity for her disguise. She grapples with how she likes the femininity but how it isn't quite her. Eventually she settles in a middle ground between feminine and assassin. I think it suits the series of discovery trans people have in their emotions and gender, specifically trans women and nonbinary folks. And of course, none of this is intentional

[@chardhrosreaper2307]

Concerning fan created fiction, I am interested in hearing thoughts about phenomena in the vein of Roddenberry's Star Trek. Vast fields full of fiction imagined & written by fans exist through generations. Accounts of showrunners include reviewing fan submissions & possibly placing them almost whole-cloth into entire episodes of the show that aired. So fan-created work becoming canon. Including the fans may be actually part of the author's intention to keep the work growing beyond the author's viewpoint. It is far from a regular occurrence, but is a corner-case of a evolving viewpoints. Thoughts on this type of situation are even more interesting for me than the very interesting example that is the fantastic splendour of Star Trek. The idea could also inclide situations where the rights are sold or continued beyond the author's intent, such as Disney purchasing Star Wars or Marvel. It could also inclide comics where characters & storylines end up in the hands of other authors, who might be fans or not.

[@philippenachtergal6077]

36:10 I just discovered holmberg a few weeks ago. I found Star Mother and Star Father to be quite powerful myth creations. And yeah, romantic.

[@brocparker2426]

Brandon Sanderson: *writes thousands upon thousands of pages. Also Brandon Sanderson: If you just read my text, you don't get the whole story.

[@tyrannymisu]

@Adam are you able to upload the videos to Spotify as well?

[@frenchbaguetteoui]

Had no idea Derry Girls series 3 was out. That's what I got out of this episode.

[@rev.rachel]

Lol Brandon’s vendetta against Joyce is making me laugh. I deeply love Joyce because the idea of just screwing with critics for funsies is hilarious to me and 100% something I would do as an author.

[@dead_buttons]

Both the 'death of the author' and the 'writerly/readerly' concept hails from the French literary scholar Roland Barthes (1915-1980) and were vital to the development of post-structuralism.

[@hariman7727]

And post structuralism is basically now an excuse to ignore an author and then lie about what he said, and the same goes for Death of the Author.

[@obviousalias132]

Just some figures on Harry Potter fanfics: FFN has over 380K and AO3 has over 370K. I’m sure there’s a lot of overlap between the two but I’m not sure if the numbers include crossovers and mash ups.

[@Trisjack20]

What we can agree on is that it is enough than HP fan fiction is basically its own subsection of literature at this point. Off the scale!

[@masonwheeler6536]

The man behind the WoB phenomenon explains why Death of the Author doesn't really work. I love it! 😂

[@leonmayne797]

What is WoB?

[@masonwheeler6536]

@@leonmayne797 Words of Brandon. (ie. stuff he's said in response to fan questions about his stories.)

[@maahesghulainn9480]

What extra content is there that is important for his books not in the text? I haven't really searched anything up as I've always tried to avoid potential spoilers, but now I'm curious if there is some "collection" of things that Sanderson has posted that isn't in books.

[@Arttano]

I'm going to start with the disclaimer that I'm only an armchair enthusiast on this topic, so take everything with a hefty dose of salt. IMO, something foundational to the death of the author is a view of storytelling as collaborative. Because most media nowadays is made by many different people this makes not only determining intent difficult, but also simply determining who's the author. For example, how do/should we talk about authorial intent for a TV show? Is each writer the author, with their own intent? The director? The editor? The actors? Some amalgamation of all their own separate intents? This collaborative dynamic can even extend into books even though they have a clear author since their books are often a sort of dialogue with their own readers. Ultimately the death of the author is the conclusion that authorial intent is not a particularly useful tool in many cases and as such other factors should be used instead. Factors such as common interpretations or how it fits into broader social trends. It places the emphasis on what the audience takes from the piece instead of what the author wanted people to take away from it. With this understanding, things like your example of Robert Jordan modifying his story based off of audience interpretation becomes much more expected. If he intended X and the audience interpreted it as Y he now his to modify subsequent stories to adjust for their interpretation, thus collaborating with his readers. A major component of death of the author is the idea that the author's intent is really only one interpretation of the story amongst many and treating authorial intent as much more than that is, to be heavily reductive, the great man theory as applied to storytelling.

[@metumortis6323]

I personally wholly disagree with Death of the Author but I often see it misinterpreted as Cart Blanche for a consumer to declare their interpretation of a text to be accurate (or at least merited) regardless of whether said interpretation is supported by the text.

[@firefool125]

On a related note, how does one have enjoyable work while simultaneously preventing the formation of a personal fan base without being disengenuous?

[@Trisjack20]

I'm not recommending it but the way to do that is just not publish or share it. If you don't want to allow a fan base don't publish the work. A very sad state of affairs for all who could have benefited from it.

[@dylbarton]

One thing I didn't feel was covered very well was talking about "literature" and death of the author: It's one thing to say death of the author about Harry Potter and plot points, but that's very different than a work of writing they maybe doesn't even have a plot and is meant to persuade of something. If you read something and it convinces you to do X, even if there author wanted Y, then I think there is a lot more legitimacy to death of the author. Additionally, for example Brandon Sanderson vs JK Rowling: despite whatever moves limp into theaters, I think Rowling is very much done writing. Harry Potter is a finished work. The cosmere as a whole is very much not done, and I think intent matters much more in ongoing works. This plays into the reader feedback idea some.

[@Dienastyvids]

I always thought death of the author is more relevant to allegory and metaphor rather then direct plot. Think gatsby green light, doesnt matter what fitzgerald meant, what matters is how the reader interprets that based on their own experiences

[@parkernoyce4295]

Alright, you've convinced me, time for Jade War

[@gabal]

It's amazing. Author hasn't made me care for characters like Fonda Lee did in a long time.

[@IamMullet]

I used to be very against Death of the Author. But I think its important to have the authors perspective. It provides good insight into the context of the work and often the surrounding things that caused the work to be the way it is. That said I think Death of the Author is important because sometimes the author will say something that runs completely contrary to what is there in the text and you cannot just take the authors external input as word of god at that point.

[@hariman7727]

Before I watch this: Personally, "The Death Of The Author" only applies as far as reactions go. The work can have a different meaning **TO YOU**, but that doesn't change the work itself or the author's intent. This is especially true in this modern era where so much gets redefined so that activists can condemn their next target, instead of accepting that, yes Virginia, time does pass and the past was different from the present, so we can't judge the past by modern standards.

[@ryanratchford2530]

paratext / metatext about the work--i.e. author comments should be considered a part of the text to interoperate. IF we do Death of the author, we should interpret the main text and the other texts together just like we would include a book's sequels as part of the same "text" and conon / context to interpret

[@danielthornton2046]

I just finished the Partials Trilogy. Does anyone know why Dan is referring to Kira as Marisa?

[@sammantixgm]

Most likely combining Partials and Mirador sagas together. Both were quite lovely.

[@somebodywholikessongs1152]

I actually did forget to bring my book to... the places I go today.

[@jacquelinebryant2962]

Okay I am getting confused. Isn't Keira the main character of partials and Marisa is the main character of Ones and Zeros? Keira definitely has a whiny boyfriend named Marcus in book one.

[@TheReikoSeb]

Okay, good, I was confused by the main character name mentioned, too. I've read Partials but not Ones and Zeroes. Keira is the MC of Partials.

[@Trisjack20]

Looks like he just confused the names from the Partials and the mirador series.