DOTA can be true under the following condition: all human communication is a text which must be analyzed only in itself, and not with respect to participants.
-
-
Show this thread
-
If you can have a conversation and learn about the person you're talking with, or understand a conversation better reliably bc you know the speakers, then you also have to accept knowing about an author affects the context of what they write
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I've always felt like DotA only makes sense in a "well, you can't go ask the author what they *meant* by [passage], you only have the text in front of you". Which breaks down a little when the author is on Twitter saying "I wrote [passage] because..."
-
Of course, contacting the Author wasn't impossible pre-internet, but stuff like Twitter has definitely eroded the barriers quite a lot.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I am a firm believer of the Death of the Author theory. I strongly believe that what the author tried to say, and what the work effectively says, are two entirely different things.
-
Therefore, we only need the author for additionnal context and nothing more when analizing a work of art. We can (and should) still shit on them and/or their work if they deserve it though.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think of it more like a game of telephone between author and reader. The author has a definite message they're trying to tell us, but they don't know how else it might be heard. And we readers get a good chunk of the intended message, but hear some bits differently.
-
And on both ends there are assumptions being made, about what audience will read it, and about what kind of person the author is and what we think they'd want to say.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.