50 Intriguing “Today I Learned” Facts That You Probably Didn’t Learn In School (New Pics)

Yes, but how does the "billion-dollar industry" represent your relationship with your Mom? Please cite three examples.

1) blue, 2) It’s really a commentary on the oppressive nature of social conformity that uses systematic and hierarchical defamiliarization of the subject and the same concurrent deviation and parallelism Simpson suggests can occur at different levels of language when semantic, lexical, and syntactic deviation collide to confirm Jakobson’s concept of literary function by encouraging the willing suspension of disbelief, and 3) blue. Hope that helps. :)

Thanks to the flashback to AP English ( Advanced Placement for non usa folks ).

Is it that the symbolism is, much like any art, what the observer imbues? I mean, every story has four sides, but his side, her side, the truth, and the interpretation of the recipient of the story (art, music, literature, courtroom drama)

The authors intention and interpretation is entirely irrelevant the momment they finish the work Literary analysis isn't about divining what the author wanted to do. Its about analysing what the text says. Something might exist in the text that the author didn't intend and vice versa People constantly add stuff in their work subconsciously or by accident, and often fail to establish what they did want to establish. To use the example of the blue door, that might indeed just pop into the authors head but why did that happen? Maybe the colour blue has a cultural or local association or you use it only for a single character etc the "English professors who would argue with the author about what the work really means" are doing. They are arguing about what the text says, because its all that the reader interfaces with. You don't have the author over your head Any meaning in a text is based on things supported by the text itself. The author saying x means/is y is meaningless

You may enjoy Semiotics and Thematics in Hermenuetics : Seung, T K:. I got to somewhere towards the back third of the book before I got where he was going. A future Ph.D in Rhetoric saw it sitting on my table and did the 'Oooo' thing, so it moved from my library to hers.

Have you never heard of the death of the author? His book was about cencorship because if you read the book those are the themes present, thats what the story is about etc Ofc an author can be wrong about their own book in this way. They wanted to get a message through and failed. Think of every time you wanted to say something and it came out wrong. That you had a different intent doesn't mean your words don't mean what they meant Same here. The book means what the book means, not what the author intended

I think this is a really arrogant point if view, but I'm not surprised. University professors, particularly in the Humanities, are some of the most arrogant creatures on Earth. However, they are also the most bitter, because most of them would like to be successful artists but they don't have what it takes. Whoever thinks they know more about a piece of art than the creators themselves is an absolute idiot. Even if a fancy theory says they are "intellectuals".

Its not about "professional intent". Its about the work itself For any interpretation to be valid it needs to be based on the text itself. Thats the only valid source of meaning Both aithorial intent and the authors understanding of their own work are 100% irrelevant. The reader is neither reading/analysing the authors intentions nor the authors understanding. They are reading the book. Thus whats valid is whats in the book itself Indeed what you present here would be the most detrimental to students forming their own opinions, just saying that only what the author explicitly intended is valid and anything else is wrong, even if those assertions contradict the work itself

Professorial. Not professional. If an educator has an agenda to promote their own interpretation of the work as correct to the detriment of students' own analysis, that is problematic.

Exactly. It's also problematic when an educator tries to force an ideology in every work, even when those books were written in a totally different historical context. If analysis enriches your comprehension of a book, great. Unfortunately, many educators want to force their point of view and despise the rest.

You can get whatever meaning you feel like, but that's just your subjective opinion. But you can't say the author intended to say something when the author says he meant something completely different. Good books have multiple meanings, and a different message depending on your own experiences, but that doesn't mean it's universal or valid for everybody else.

The point is that all are valid but not equally valid :)

True. Provided the observer/reader does not insist on telling the rest of us his/her interpretation is the only valid one because that's what the artist really meant, even if the artist says something different.

Hit the nail on the head. Thank you.

Symbolism either exists in the text or doesn't. Whether someone says it does or doesn't is irrelevant, and that includes the author The text is the final arbiter of what exists in it, and thats how you measure the validity of an interpretation, not by whatever the author says Do you really think authors can't create symbolism without intending to? Or fail to create it when they wanted to? The authors interpretation is no less subjective than anyone elses, the only objective thing are the words on the page, the patterns meanings messages they produce and support themselves

Generally in actual current literally analysis, you never even say "the author might mean". The author might as well not exist, because at that momment they truly don't for you. Only the text exists and you say "this means" or "the text says" etc. Only what's on the page is relevant, and thats what you base your interpretations on and how you measure validity. Nothing else

Again what you sre saying is blatantly wrong. Many interpretations are more valid than the authors provided theres more evidence for them in the text. And authors constantly imbue meaning by accident or fail at getting the meaning they wanted through. Authors generally absolutely dont know exactly what they are doing and why, at least not all of the time. That an interpretation supercedes the authors is an example of the latter. If the author was successful in getting across the themes they wanted, it wouldn't be possible for that to happen. If an author tells you the door is blue randomly and thats it, thats absolutely irrelevant to literary analysis, because the door being blue might hold special meaning in the text, be part of a pattern etc Do you really think one can't imbue meaning by accident, or subconsciously or fail at getting the message they wanted across? How can what the author says be relevant when the thing you come in contact with is the text.

There is no "more valid" interpretation. They're all valid. That's the problem you're failing to grasp. Teaching students that there are correct and incorrect interpretations of symbolism within a work and marking students' interpretations as incorrect because they do not match the author's, the teacher's, or the textbook manufacturer's is actively harmful in teaching literary analysis.

See you are describing actual analysis, wher the text is above all, while other ppl here are basically saying that "oh whatever the author says goes" even if the text says/implies/supports something else

In literary criticism, assumptions are always made about the author's intent. But, regardless of what people extract from the poem or other piece of writing, you don't get to tell the author what their own intent was. You are free to contribute the meaning you get from a piece because of your own experiences and observation, but there is no way you can know what the creator intended (unless they've explained it).