If, for example, an author says that a given subtext perceived by some readers was not intended by him/her, then I think it's disrespectful to insist that the author must have meant that subtext to be in there.
But someone would only do that (insist that the author *must* have meant a certain thing) if they were the type that believed that an author's intention trumps the reader's interpretation. Which I don't... so I wouldn't do that. I'm talking strictly about interpreting the characters' actions in their fictional world, and ignoring any meta information or appeals to authority.
(Subtext *often* exists unintentionally; to insist that subtext exists doesn't necessarily attribute any intentionality on the author's part.)
Perceptions do have a habit of shifting when you get new information, or simply when you've had time to reflect. For instance, you initially said "because I don't see why so many people read that *as* a rape scene," and now you're saying, "I don't think it's IMPOSSIBLE to read it and think, "hey, that might've been rape."
Let me clarify, just in case you think those two statements are somehow contradictory (because they aren't.)
As I said: I *don't* think it's impossible to read that issue, on its own, and come up with the interpretation, "that's rape." (As you point out, there's many different varieties of interpretations of *all* sorts of elements of canon that could influence one's reading.) However, I still don't see why *so many* people *do* see it that way-- since in my opinion, it is simply not the most obvious interpretation. It's a *possible* interpretation, yes-- it's not like you're saying something completely off-the-wall like "Well, I think that *really* Catalina is secretly a space alien working for Lex Luthor."
So yes, it's a possible interpretation, but IMHO *not* the most plausible one (unless you privilege the author's interpretation of the text) hence my original puzzlement as to why so many people seemed to be interpreting the story in that manner.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-11 08:49 am (UTC)But someone would only do that (insist that the author *must* have meant a certain thing) if they were the type that believed that an author's intention trumps the reader's interpretation. Which I don't... so I wouldn't do that. I'm talking strictly about interpreting the characters' actions in their fictional world, and ignoring any meta information or appeals to authority.
(Subtext *often* exists unintentionally; to insist that subtext exists doesn't necessarily attribute any intentionality on the author's part.)
Perceptions do have a habit of shifting when you get new information, or simply when you've had time to reflect. For instance, you initially said "because I don't see why so many people read that *as* a rape scene," and now you're saying, "I don't think it's IMPOSSIBLE to read it and think, "hey, that might've been rape."
Let me clarify, just in case you think those two statements are somehow contradictory (because they aren't.)
As I said: I *don't* think it's impossible to read that issue, on its own, and come up with the interpretation, "that's rape." (As you point out, there's many different varieties of interpretations of *all* sorts of elements of canon that could influence one's reading.) However, I still don't see why *so many* people *do* see it that way-- since in my opinion, it is simply not the most obvious interpretation. It's a *possible* interpretation, yes-- it's not like you're saying something completely off-the-wall like "Well, I think that *really* Catalina is secretly a space alien working for Lex Luthor."
So yes, it's a possible interpretation, but IMHO *not* the most plausible one (unless you privilege the author's interpretation of the text) hence my original puzzlement as to why so many people seemed to be interpreting the story in that manner.