Search Results
6/21/2025, 9:25:04 AM
>>713240236
>If the author sufficiently communicated whatever it is he wanted to communicate,
The only reason you seethe and post "death of the author" in every single thread is because nobody agrees with your interpretations.
>Instead you go "THE AUTHOR SAYS THAT HE MEANT IT THIS WAY"
Yes, when someone asks "what did the author mean by x?" that's a valid response. Someone asking to be told what something means either isn't looking to argue in favor of their own interpretation or doing a poor job of setting it up.
>Which is why your absolutely boring practice of just trying to be absolutist by grabbing the word of god
You are wildly misinterpreting what I've said. My position is that the vast majority of the story's details were left intentionally vague by the others because this is meant to be a highly interpretive work. That doesn't mean that there aren't some fundamentals that they didn't make quite clear.
>>713240292
>Death of the Author as a theory is completely correct.
It's literally just a guy's opinion. I'm not even saying it's wrong, but you agreeing with it doesn't make it "correct." By your logic I could pick any of its criticisms and say they are completely correct and refute you. That would all be retarded.
>If the author sufficiently communicated whatever it is he wanted to communicate,
The only reason you seethe and post "death of the author" in every single thread is because nobody agrees with your interpretations.
>Instead you go "THE AUTHOR SAYS THAT HE MEANT IT THIS WAY"
Yes, when someone asks "what did the author mean by x?" that's a valid response. Someone asking to be told what something means either isn't looking to argue in favor of their own interpretation or doing a poor job of setting it up.
>Which is why your absolutely boring practice of just trying to be absolutist by grabbing the word of god
You are wildly misinterpreting what I've said. My position is that the vast majority of the story's details were left intentionally vague by the others because this is meant to be a highly interpretive work. That doesn't mean that there aren't some fundamentals that they didn't make quite clear.
>>713240292
>Death of the Author as a theory is completely correct.
It's literally just a guy's opinion. I'm not even saying it's wrong, but you agreeing with it doesn't make it "correct." By your logic I could pick any of its criticisms and say they are completely correct and refute you. That would all be retarded.
Page 1