History Main / DeathOfTheAuthor

Although popular amongst {{Postmodern}} critics, this has some concrete modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and not necessarily consistent with what's written; unless the author or publisher [[OrwellianRetcon goes back and changes it]]. One critic's understanding of the author's background milieu or opinions is likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even [[ValuesDissonance anachronistic]] perspective on their own work. Or worse, if the author comes to [[CreatorBacklash reject their own work]] or express dissatisfaction with [[CanonDiscontinuity certain parts of the work]]. Hence, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" (Translation: "coulda, woulda, shoulda"). This is why some [[AuteurLicense auteur filmmakers]] oppose the notion of a [[LimitedSpecialDirectorsUltimateEdition Directors Cut]] on the grounds that the "real" film will always be the one people saw in cinemas in the year of release, not the ideal film in one's head.

Although popular amongst {{Postmodern}} critics, this has some concrete modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and not necessarily consistent with what's written; unless the author or publisher [[OrwellianRetcon goes back and changes it]]. One critic's understanding of the author's background milieu or opinions is likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work. Or worse, if the author comes to [[CreatorBacklash reject their own work]] or express dissatisfaction with [[CanonDiscontinuity certain parts of the work]]. Hence, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" (Translation: "coulda, woulda, shoulda"). This is why some [[AuteurLicense auteur filmmakers]] oppose the notion of a [[LimitedSpecialDirectorsUltimateEdition Directors Cut]] on the grounds that the "real" film will always be the one people saw in cinemas in the year of release, not the ideal film in one's head.

DeathOfTheAuthor is a concept from the field of literary criticism which holds that an author's intentions and biographical facts (politics, religion, etc) should hold no weight when coming to an interpretation of his or her writing; that is, that a writer's interpretation of his own work is no more valid than the interpretations of any of [[EpilepticTrees the readers]].

This is a given in works where the authors don't hold copyright and can be replaced, especially {{Shared Universe}}s; if a writer is fired and replaced by another, anything the old writer has stated in interviews can be (and often is) freely {{Jossed}} by the new writer. In the [[{{fandom}} fan community]], this has changed into the idea that something is only {{canon}} if it appears in the original source material, and thus any WordOfGod has no more weight to it than any piece of {{fanon}} cooked up by the fans.

Though some fans honestly hold this opinion, many only use this as an excuse to ignore any WordOfGod that they don't like. Some fans can even take this further, and use this to [[DisContinuity ignore parts of original source material]] that they don't like, per the {{SugarWiki/Fiction Identity Postulate}}. A recent example would be the many Harry Potter fans who ignored or even protested J. K. Rowling's comment that she thought of Dumbledore as gay.

This is a given in works where the authors don't hold copyright and can be replaced, especially {{Shared Universe}}s; if a writer is fired and replaced by another, anything the old writer has stated in interviews can be (and often is) freely {{Jossed}} by the new writer. In the [[{{fandom}} fan community]], this has changed into the idea that something is only {{canon}} if it appears in the original source material, and thus any WordOfGod has no more weight to it than any piece of {{fanon}} cooked up by the fans. Though some fans honestly hold this opinion, many only use this as an excuse to ignore any WordOfGod that they don't like. Some fans can even take this further, and use this to [[DisContinuity ignore parts of original source material]] that they don't like, per the {{SugarWiki/Fiction Identity Postulate}}. A recent example would be the many Harry Potter fans who ignored or even protested J. K. Rowling's comment that she thought of Dumbledore as gay.

This theme also appears in JorgeLuisBorges' ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'', an analysis of the work of an imaginary author. The text is about Pierre Menard, a 20th Century writer whose life project was to write ''Don Quixote'', not as a copy or as a remake of the original work, but as a book which would coincide, word by word, with Cervantes ''Quixote''. The narrator compares the both works under the light of the experiences of each author and, thus, an excerpt of Menard's gains an interpretation that is completely different from the interpretation of the exact same passage in Cervantes. This leads to absurd claims such as the identification of Nietzsche's influence on the ''Quixote''. The short story ends proposing that an exercise such as attributing ''The Imitation of Christ'' to JamesJoyce could impregnate the former with [[InTheOriginalKlingon new significance]]. As for the question of whether or not one should take this as a sharp irony, it is a matter of the reader's [[TheSimpsonsDidIt willingness of attributing]] ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'' to Borges.

Needless to say, many writers don't especially like this. Margaret Atwood famously remarked that if the Death of the Author theory became prevalent, then "we [writers] are all in trouble". JRRTolkien, while acknowledging the influence of his experiences on his works (''TheLordOfTheRings''), denied that he had written allegory, insisting that his works simply had {{Applicability}}; this arguably makes him an early supporter of the DeathOfTheAuthor, since pointless speculations about an author's allegorical ''intent'' are exactly what the concept seeks to avoid, in favor of analyzing the "applicability" of the text itself. It has been joked (with delicious irony) that Roland Barthes, who actually wrote the TropeNamer essay, has probably had to say "No, that's not what I meant at all!" at least ''once'' while discussing it.

Although popular amongst {{Postmodern}} critics, this has some concrete modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and not necessarily consistent with what's written; unless the author or publisher [[OrwellianRetcon goes back and changes it]]. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's background milieu are likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work. Or worse, if the author comes to [[CreatorBacklash reject their own work]] or express dissatisfaction with [[CanonDiscontinuity certain parts of the work]]. Hence, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" (Translation: "coulda, woulda, shoulda"). This is why some [[AuteurLicense auteur filmmakers]] oppose the notion of a [[LimitedSpecialDirectorsUltimateEdition Directors Cut]] on the grounds that the "real" film will always be the one people saw in cinemas in the year of release, not the ideal film in one's head.

Although popular amongst {{Postmodern}} critics, this has some concrete modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and not necessarily consistent with what's written; unless the author or publisher [[OrwellianRetcon goes back and changes it]]. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's background milieu are likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work. Or worse, if the author comes to [[CreatorBacklash reject their own work]] or express dissatisfaction with [[CanonDiscontinuity certain parts of the work]]. Hence, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" (Translation: "coulda, woulda, shoulda").

Although popular in the {{Postmodern}} era, this has some modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and not necessarily consistent with what's written; unless the author or publisher [[OrwellianRetcon goes back and changes it]]. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's background and milieu are likely to be just as accurate as another's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work. Or worse, if the author comes to [[CreatorBacklash reject their own work]] or express dissatisfaction with [[CanonDiscontinuity certain parts of the work]]. Hence, "the perfect is the enemy of the good" (Translation: "coulda, woulda, shoulda").

This is a given in works where the authors don't hold copyright and can be replaced, especially {{Shared Universe}}s; if a writer is fired and replaced by another, anything the old writer has stated in interviews can be (and often is) freely {{Jossed}} by the new writer.

In the fan community this has changed into the idea that something is only {{canon}} if it appears in the original source material, and thus any WordOfGod has no more weight to it than any piece of {{fanon}} cooked up by the fans. Though some fans honestly hold this opinion, many only use this as an excuse to ignore any WordOfGod that they don't like. Some fans can even take this further, and use this to [[DisContinuity ignore parts of original source material]] that they don't like, per the {{SugarWiki/Fiction Identity Postulate}}. A recent example would be the many Harry Potter fans who ignored or even protested J. K. Rowling's comment that she thought of Dumbledore as gay.

This theme also appears in JorgeLuisBorges' ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'', an analysis of the work of an imaginary author. The text is about Pierre Menard, a 20th Century writer whose life project was to write ''Don Quixote'', not as a copy or as a remake of the original work, but as a book which would coincide, word by word, with Cervantes ''Quixote''. The narrator compares the both works under the light of the experiences of each author and, thus, an excerpt of Menard's gains an interpretation that is completely different from the interpretation of the exact same passage in Cervantes. This leads to absurd claims such as the identification of Nietzsche's influence on the ''Quixote''. The short story ends proposing that an exercise such as attributing ''The Imitation of Christ'' to James Joyce could [[InTheOriginalKlingon impregnate the former]] with new significance. As for the question of whether or not one should take this as a sharp irony, it is a matter of the reader's [[TheSimpsonsDidIt willingness of attributing]] ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'' to Borges.

This theme also appears in JorgeLuisBorges' ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'', an analysis of the work of an imaginary author. The text is about Pierre Menard, a 20th Century writer whose life project was to write ''Don Quixote'', not as a copy or as a remake of the original work, but as a book which would coincide, word by word, with Cervantes ''Quixote''. The narrator compares the both works under the light of the experiences of each author and, thus, an excerpt of Menard's gains an interpretation that is completely different from the interpretation of the exact same passage in Cervantes. This leads to absurd claims such as the identification of Nietzsche's influence on the ''Quixote''. The short story ends proposing that an exercise such as attributing ''The Imitation of Christ'' to James Joyce could impregnate the former with new significance. As for the question of whether or not one should take this as a sharp irony, it is a matter of the reader's [[TheSimpsonsDidIt willingness of attributing]] ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'' [[InTheOriginalKlingon to Borges]].

Isaac Asimov has repeated in several places an anecdote based on this: he once sat in (in the back of a large lecture hall, so semi-anonymously) on a class where the topic of discussion was one of his own works. Afterward, he went up and introduced himself to the teacher, saying that he had found the teacher's interpretation of the story interesting, though it really wasn't what he had meant at all. The teacher's response was "Just because you wrote it, what makes you think you have the slightest idea what it's about?"

This theme also appears in Jorge Luis Borges' ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'', an analysis of the work of an imaginary author. The text is about Pierre Menard, a 20th Century writer whose life project was to write ''Don Quixote'', not as a copy or as a remake of the original work, but as a book which would coincide, word by word, with Cervantes ''Quixote''. The narrator compares the both works under the light of the experiences of each author and, thus, an excerpt of Menard's gains an interpretation that is completely different from the interpretation of the exact same passage in Cervantes. This leads to absurd claims such as the identification of Nietzsche's influence on the ''Quixote''. The short story ends proposing that an exercise such as attributing ''The Imitation of Christ'' to James Joyce could impregnate the former with new significance. As for the question of whether or not one should take this as a sharp irony, it is a matter of the reader's [[TheSimpsonsDidIt willingness of attributing]] ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'' to Borges.

This theme also appears in Jorge Luis Borges' ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'', an analysis of the work of an imaginary author. The text is about Pierre Menard, a 20th Century writer whose life project was to write ''Don Quixote'', not as a copy or as a remake of the original work, but as a book which would coincide, word by word, with Cervantes ''Quixote''. The narrator compares the both works under the light of the experiences of each author and, thus, an excerpt of Menard's gains an interpretation that is completely different from the interpretation of the exact same passage in Cervantes. This leads to absurd claims such as the identification of Nietzsche's influence on the ''Quixote''. The short story ends proposing that an exercise such as attributing ''The Imitation of Christ'' to James Joyce could impregnate the former with new significance. As for the question of whether or not one should take this as a sharp irony, it is a matter of the reader's willingness of attributing ''Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote'' to Borges.

Although popular in the {{Postmodern}} era, this has some modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and not necessarily consistent with what's written; unless the author adopts an OrwellianRetcon approach. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's background are likely to be just as accurate as another person's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work; or worse, if the author [[CreatorBacklash comes to reject their own work]] or demand changes later on.

Although popular in the {{Postmodern}} era, this has some modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and not necessarily consistent with what's written; unless the author adopts an OrwellianRetcon approach. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's worldview are likely to be just as accurate as another person's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work; or worse, if the author [[CreatorBacklash comes to reject their own work]] or demand changes later on.

Although popular in the {{Postmodern}} era, this has some modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author and we can only judge the work by [[AllThereInTheManual the work itself]]. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and not necessarily consistent with what's written; unless the author or publisher adopts an OrwellianRetcon approach. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's worldview are likely to be just as accurate as another person's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work; or worse, if the author [[CreatorBacklash comes to reject their own work]] or demand changes later on.

Although popular in the {{Postmodern}} era, this has some modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author and unless it is AllThereInTheManual, we can only judge the work by the work itself. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and not necessarily consistent with what's written; unless the author or fanbase adopts an OrwellianRetcon approach to the text, a la George Lucas. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's worldview are likely to be just as accurate as another person's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work; or worse, if the author [[CreatorBacklash comes to reject their own work]] or demand changes later on.

Although popular in the {{Postmodern}} era, this has some modernist thinking behind it as well, on the basis that the work is all that outlives the author and unless it is AllThereInTheManual, we can only judge the work by the work itself. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves, and not necessarily consistent with what's written; unless the author or fanbase adopts an OrwellianRetcon approach. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's worldview are likely to be just as accurate as another person's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work; or worse, if the author [[CreatorBacklash comes to reject their own work]] or demand changes later on.

Although popular as a {{Postmodern}} stance, this has some factual modernist thinking behind it, since the theory is that the work is all that outlives the author and unless it is AllThereInTheManual, we can only judge the work by the work itself. The author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves and not necessarily consistent with what's written, unless the author or fanbase adopts an OrwellianRetcon approach. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's worldview are likely to be just as accurate as another person's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work; or worse, if the author [[CreatorBacklash comes to reject their own work]] or demand changes later on.

Although popular as a {{Postmodern}} stance, this has some factual modernist thinking behind it, since the theory is that the work is all that outlives the author and unless it is AllThereInTheManual, we can only judge the work by the work itself, the author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves and not necessarily consistent with what's written, unless the author or fanbase adopts an OrwellianRetcon approach. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's worldview are likely to be just as accurate as another person's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work; or worse, if the author [[CreatorBacklash comes to reject their own work]] or demand changes later on.

Although popular as a {{Postmodern}} stance, this has some sound modernist thinking behind it, since the theory is that the work is all that outlives the author and unless it is AllThereInTheManual, we can only judge the work by the work itself, the author's later opinions being a form of criticism and analysis themselves and not necessarily consistent with what's written, unless the author or fanbase adopts an OrwellianRetcon approach. One person's well-informed opinions of the author's worldview are likely to be just as accurate as another person's, especially if the author has an idiosyncratic or even anachronistic perspective on their own work; or worse, if the author [[CreatorBacklash comes to reject their own work]] or demand changes later on.

In the fan community this has changed into the idea that something is only {{canon}} if it appears in the original source material, and thus any WordOfGod has no more weight to it than any piece of {{fanon}} cooked up by the fans. Though some fans honestly hold this opinion, many only use this as an excuse to ignore any WordOfGod that they don't like. Some fans can even take this further, and use this to [[DisContinuity ignore parts of original source material]] that they don't like, per the {{SugarWiki/Fiction Identity Postulate}}. A recent example would be the many Harry Potter fans who ignored or even protested J. K. Rowling's comment that she thought of Dumbledore as Gay.

(There is an echo of this concept in Asimov's short-short story "The Immortal Bard", in which WilliamShakespeare is brought into the present day and takes a college course about his writings. [[spoiler:He flunks.]])

->''"The critic on the morning paper said of my first play: "Inept." The critic on the afternoon paper said: "Drivel." Both reviews totally misunderstood the play. The critic on the morning paper said of my second play: "Pretentious." The critic on the afternoon paper said: "Abhorrent." Both reviews totally misunderstood the play. The critic on the morning paper said of my third play: "A Smash Hit!" The critic on the afternoon paper said: "A Triumph!" Both reviews totally misunderstood the play.''
->''They are now misunderstanding to my advantage. In the arts, that's known as success."''
-->--'''Jules Feiffer''' cartoon.

In the fan community this has changed into the idea that something is only {{canon}} if it appears in the original source material, and thus any WordOfGod has no more weight to it than any piece of {{fanon}} cooked up by the fans. Though some fans honestly hold this opinion, many only use this as an excuse to ignore any WordOfGod that they don't like. Some fans can even take this further, and use this to [[DisContinuity ignore parts of original source material]] that they don't like, per the {{SugarWiki/Fiction Identity Postulate}}.

Not to be confused with AuthorExistenceFailure, which covers the ''literal'' death of the author. Also note that, while this wiki is generally critical of the concept (we do, after all, use the phrase "WordOfGod" to indicate what the author says[[hottip:*:This phrase, while "tongue-in-cheek", is an apt summation of a point made by ''defenders'' of the concept, namely that an epistemology grounded in authorial intent is basically theological in structure]]), it is allowed in some subjects, and is actually encouraged in regard to UnfortunateImplications and DarthWiki/WarpThatAesop. Compare with {{Applicability}}. Somewhat related is WordOfDante, where {{Fanon}} is treated as {{Canon}} by many people despite it not being WordOfGod.