The Wood Beyond The World Forum Not really to do with fantasy,..

So in my Critical Approaches to Literature class I took, I learned about the Author/Reader/Text triangle. I bet most of you are familiar with this already, but for anyone who isn't, this is theory about which if these three is all powerful/all important. When the author is at the top of the triangle, it means that the author has all the power over the text and the reader reading the text: the author puts a certain message in there, and certain feelings and messages are what the reader will receive, and the author has complete control of the text. With reader at the top of the triangle, it means the reader can basically manipulate the text to get whatever he/she wants out of it, despite anything the author might have intended. With the text at the top, it basically means that the author was just the means by which the text was created, and the text itself has supreme power. What i want to know is which of these three all of you think is all powerful. i'm on the side of the author, personally, but some people believe differently.

Quote:


Hey Andy, I'm not sure I agree with the theory of this one. If I had to choose I would say text, because it is the text that the reader deciphers to make sense of the story and it is the text that the writer gives meaning to. It is the point where the author and the reader meet, but like a window, neither the writer or the reader can ever touch directly but through the filter of the text.

Good points Rob...

Andy, the problem with theory's is they are just that...theory's.

Perhaps in non-fiction work, this theory is more pointed. But I think in Fictional work, this theory is limited.

IMHO...the fictional writer gives the text life, it is what they see, what they want to say, what they get from their characters, no matter the genre. Some writers go to great lengths to make their text have meaning, pointed messages or information, and to a specified audience. Some writers, prefer their text simply tell a story that's entertaining, no big mysteries or hidden messages. The text, while capable of having great meaning and impact, is nothing more or less than what the writer makes it. Period.

Once the text leaves the writers control...through publication or what have you, then the reader is controlled by the text...IMHO. I seriously doubt that there are many readers that control the text. Oh sure. Take a speech...give copies to ten different people, and your going to get ten different takes on what the speech really says. People read into things what they want to and the author can not control that.

But with fictional work, if the writer weaves their words sufficiently, then there is no reason for the reader to take away more than what the writer put into it. Oh yes, I know, even Shakesphere is still debated on what is and is not meant, but its fictional...who cares?

This is the writers ture legacy...they control the text, the text controls the reader, and the reader control the writer via what is publishable. The reader may control the buying dollars, but you know what...if all the Nora Roberts, Tom Clancys and Steven Kings stopped writing their style of stories tomorrow...the readers would turn to something else, thus opening a new style, a new wave, a new text form.

OK...rambling again...I now return you to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
Nick.

This is how academics make a living, guys. Seems a little fishy, doesn't it?

As an author of course I want to be in control, get MY message across to readers, etc. The trouble is, I never really feel that the story is entirely MY story. I really feel it belongs mostly the characters. But they're my characters, right? Well, that's what I think when I come up with their names and physical attributes, their ways of thinking and speaking -- except they continually surprise me. This gets very ontological, after awhile.

With respect to Nick, I think that readers do have a large element of control -- not just over what gets published and read, but what it means and the effect it has in the world.

The simplest plot-driven tale is probably not going to ever be very much out of the author's control. The only outside spin it can receive is a kind of sociological one -- what does it reflect about its historical and social setting. It seems to me that the more a writer infuses in the work -- the more in the way of theme, philosophy, social commentary, psychology -- the more control he gives to the text itself and to the reader. There's more to play with. A writer who regards his work as art as well as entertainment will add layers of motif or symbol -- even more Legos in the box.

I don't think there's one supreme element in the triangle -- it depends on the reader, the work, and the author. A naive reader won't control as much about a tale as a sophisticated one. A really open-minded writer won't have as much control as a writer who sticks to formula (but he'll write a richer book.) But as Rob said, the text is where it all takes place, whatever "it" is -- so maybe the text is the controlling element, after all.

That's all I'll say for the moment.

I find the reflections of Leah, Nick, and Rob regarding this academic theory insightful. I wouldn't argue with anything they've said. Here is my subjective view:

When you mention "all powerful TEXT," I immediately think of claims for the Bible or Koran: the authors claim to have served merely as the hands for a higher power. On further reflection, clearly the text is what survives the demise of the author. The text can affect countless individuals today or down through history. I think of Thoreau or Nagarjuna, and I have to say in the final analysis it is the existence of the text which is of most importance. In its highest form, TEXT is the Dharma, the truth regarding the laws of the cosmos laid down with the clarity to carry individuals through an evolution of consciousness.

But then there is the AUTHOR, the seer whose vision is reflected in the text. His text will not survive long if it is not rich, and will affect few people, and those not very deeply. If the author has no message, then anyone reading him will find mere entertainment which, like a good laugh, is fleeting, but will not survive the mountains of richer stuff that will in time cover over fluff as sand covers over ancient empty tombs. At his greatest, I think of the author as I think of the Buddha: s/he has an insight which consumes her life in something greater than herself, she seeks to transfer this insight to others out of love, compassion, duty. The deeper the messages, the more clearly presented, then the more affected the worlds of readers. Therefore the author IS THE MAGIC, the essence expressed in the TEXT, and is thus INDISPENSABLE.

As to the READER, he is the seeker. For who but a seeker reads, even if in the beginning he seeks only to bypass boredom? Then he comes across something that catches his imagination and s/he is off, searching hither and yon for fulfillment. Of course every individual brings his own experience to the TEXT, and as Leah says, the richer the text the more leeway the reader has to interpret what s/he reads. In the case of scriptures and other great literature, centuries of argumentation across boundless space may ensue as the text affects human culture, activities, and eventually perhaps even the genetic structure as mind and with it body evolve. At his greatest, READER is the lover of the TEXT, the Sangha who sing the praises of the AUTHOR and vow to preserve and expound the TEXT down through the ages out of compassion for their fellows and in the knowledge that the text may provide cures for diseases of the body and the mind, and perhaps even liberation from every sort of suffering.

And Nick thinks he is rambling! But this piece should if nothing else convince you I have a high regard for the power of literature.

Oh, by the way. If my answer of the original question is not clear from the above reflections: I would stand the triangle on its point. At the twin peaks I would place AUTHOR/buddha and TEXT/dharma as coequal ALL POWERFULS. Alone at the bottom is the READER/sangha, the beneficiary of enlightened insight, or the victim of the not-so-enlightened author/text. Let authors do all they can to create text that does not waste readers' time. The only power the reader has is to love the author/text or not. That is, readers' have the power to put author/text at the center of their lives or, at the other end of the spectrum, to affirm the forgettable nature of the author/text.

Andy, thank you for the stimulating question. I would be interested in hearing more of what your professor said about each element.

academics :) i actually like this field (don't rotten-tomato me, guys). I like the theory that history is the "all-powerful" informer of the text/author/reader. Each author has a historical and cultural placement that determines certain conventions placed within the text itself as the text i used in creating what the author writes (some historical eras credit gods with authorship using authors -- as we know them -- as the pens who wrote on behalf of the gods). This leans toward both marxist and hegelian ideals: historical materialism and the german idealism of the Zeitgeist. These theories are a real aspect of life as we know it. I think it is important to kepe up on intellectual news (new and old).

I think the healthiest approach is to not pick one over the other, but to be familiar with the variety of interpretations that abound and to be familiar with how each argument fails and succeeds when put against certain other arguments. People can fight to the death for one base camp, but one Gemini doesn't make the whole zodiac (you know what i mean?).

So my advice would be to take the triangle and spin it until the lines obscure into a fuzzy circle. That's life: a cycle of indeterminate boundaries. :)

I honestly couldn't say any of those truly reign for me. The characters do seem to create themselves springing into my head with full personality etc and then wait around for years for me to find a suitable story for them. And true I do refuse to go against the grain of a story but likewise I do shape it to my whims just as it at times defies what I want to do. So if anything if I had to use the triangle bit I'd be more apt to do a slight rotation and just put the reader at the bottom with text and author sharing the top. Though even that is a rather bad representation for me.

Yeah, I don't think that any one point of the triangle is all powerful. But that's theory for you.
Adam, I like your answer. I hadn't really thought of history as being a factor, but you are absolutely right. Just look at any of the work of any famous writer from any time period...Dante, Aristotle, Thoreau, Shakespeare, even Tolkien and Steinbeck...history was obviously important in all of those.

With regards to this theory, I'm a bit confused as to its relevance in creative writing/Literature. In what instance is the author at the point of the triangle, in which instance is the text, and the same with the reader? Who decides? I�m not sure that this theory is relevant to creative writing.

Also it all seems a bit ambiguous. You say that when the Author is at the top -

the author puts a certain message in there, and certain feelings and messages are what the reader will receive, and the author has complete control of the text
----> But the Author can only put certain messages in there if s/he is competent in manipulating the text AND if the reader is open to pick up those messages.

With the Reader at the top -

it means the reader can basically manipulate the text to get whatever he/she wants out of it, despite anything the author might have intended
------> I do feel that the Author does not have overall control over what the Reader gains from the text as different Readers will see different things depending on their life experiences and knowledge. So this is applicable to all work.

And -

With the text at the top, it basically means that the author was just the means by which the text was created, and the text itself has supreme power.
------> But however powerful the words within the text seems, this is dependant on the writer�s ability to string words together is it not? And also how important the work is in the reader�s opinion.

It is all relative.

It seems to me that the Text triangle is most relevant to biblical/legal documents and such, the Author triangle most relevant to autobiographies and the Reader triangle most relevant to Newspapers, Mags, and Adverts etc.

In creative writing, all three aspects are tightly integrated, IMO. So in final response, Andy, I don�t think any are more important than the other.

Scribble

Ah, theory! One reason I avoided classes like that in university. I will now step onto my soap box and babble for a little while.

Personally, I do not think Homer, Shakespeare, Dickens, James Joyce, etc. sat about thinking about the triangle. I don't think they considered if they had the power over the text, etc. etc.

It may be the old fart in me, but this stuff gets me pissed off. To be able to survive, the academics find reasons for their existence. Art is to express one's self. When I start a story, I don't go in with an agenda, let alone a plan. I have an idea and it pours out. At times it feels as if I am channeling because I'll start writing stuff I didn't expect and then stop and go "where the f**k did that come from?"

I don't believe you can quantify art. We all approach our craft from different angles. But the key thing is we want to express ourselves. I know for me, I want to stand on my soap box and say things like "how can you think that way?"

Be it text, paint, clay or whatever, they are but our voice to express ourselves. A real artist does not think about it, they just do it. And all too often they find what they have is confining to truly, fully express themselves. Yet we muddle along. Then years late the fossilized teachers try to put "rules" on what the artist has done.

I want to share with you a case in point. When I was studying engineering at McGill, they decided we had to take some credits outside the field, specifically liberal arts. Which for me was fine.

There was a course on children's literature which caught my interest. The first couple of weeks, the material was fascinating. That was until we got onto the first case study.

The first story we "analyzed" was Little Red Riding Hood. With a puffed chest, in full confidence, the professor told the assembled students that the story was a metaphor for a young girl's menstrual cycle. As most of the students diligently wrote down her words of wisdom, I was stunned. All I could think of was "huh?"

Me being me, I jumped into the fray and raised my hand. When she called on me, I said that what she presented was an interesting theory but I didn't see it that way. I saw the story more as a cautionary tale about predators.

She told me I was wrong. Now keep in mind I am the only engineer in a class of art students. And everyone knew this, including the teacher. I tried to engage the professor in a discussion but I was dismissed. She brought up crap about literary analysis, etc. etc to bolster her point. The current research and analysis pointed to this is what the story was about.

Well, I was furious at being dismissed. So I point blank asked her "do you know what the author was trying to say?" Her response was based on the theory, yes. "So you don't know." I responded. The prof got flustered and I kept on with my point. "Do you have notes or journal entries or something from the author to confirm your theory?"

I won't belabour the point but she could not defend her position. We have no idea what the author originally thought of. But we have the theory. After that,I knew I was doomed to fail the course so I dropped out. There was no honest discussion or debate going to happen in this course. At the same time, I was just a knuckle-dragging engineer who was taking this course for an easy credit.

This and other things solidified my disgust for courses in writing, art, etc. They over-analyze, mentally masturbate and find reasons to explain things. Using theories. Writing is not physics. It is not chemistry. The minute you try to box in creativity you have killed it. In my humble opinion. I'll now step down from my soap box.