Artist view vs. Audience view

Post by **Endymion9** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 7:12 pm

Wasn't sure where to post this, since I want to talk about a more general theme than specific to one story or even one art form. But some discussion lately concerning the merits of the Last Chronicles (and I don't intend any spoilers or specific Last Chronicles discussion here) got me to thinking.

What's your opinion on canon/truth/the real intrepretation of an art form. Many on Kevin's Watch and on a Gene Wolfe forum try to discern the author's true intentions regarding character development. But while reading these discussions, I hark back to Bob Dylan's statements when asked about the meaning of his songs. Sometimes fan intrepretations were presented to him and he was asked to verify or discount these theories. He always said that he wasn't the one to make the final intrepretation, but each fan would decide for themself what his songs really meant to them.

I favor this opinion personally. For instance I pretend that there is only one Matrix movie (perfect film) and that the sequels never happened. The story was complete and satisfying. If I include the sequels it undoes and ruins a great story.

Dan Simmons Summer of Night I treat similarly. Although i don't hate or even dislike the sequal, A Winter Haunting, it is so different and attempts to revisit and change the audience's view on events that happened in the first book, so I treat it as a totally different story and can enjoy it that way.

I find that's what I want to do with the Last Chronicles also. The first two chronicles, like the original Matrix movie, seemed perfect and complete. I have enjoyed the Last Chronicles (the first two books much more than the third) but cannot connect it to the first two chronicles in my mind. To do so lessons them.

Post by **dANdeLION** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:25 pm

I feel either you or I have changed significantly by the time I read your 5th paragraph. While the first four paragraphs are fine, and may indeed be called a boon to their respective genres, the fifth paragraph just does not resonate with me. I have spent a good amount of time soul-searching, to see if you are to blame, or if I am, but all I come up with are more questions. Has too much time has passed, and you are no longer able to call up the energy you had in the first four? Have I moved on, and can no longer relate to your muse? Or, is it because you misspelled 'lessens'? The world may never know.

Post by **Orlion** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:09 pm

Incidently, the Bob Dylan view seems to be Donaldson's approach as well. But I think this depends on whether the art uses symbols or analogy. Symbols can have multiple interpretations, so the audience's view becomes just as important as the Artist view. However, with analogy, the audience and artist view should be the same (if not, the artist sucks at his craft).

Post by **danlo** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:18 pm

It's tough to top the original. It's like Hyperion or Neverness/The Broken God-while the other three/two books could rival or surpass most sci-fi out there the first book(s) are simply unforgettable (and of course you can't have the remaining books, ala The Final Chronicles, without the the first one(s) establishing the universe...).

That kind of thing blew my mind (in reverse) when I talked to two people at the AATE reading in Albq. in October who were thoroughly enjoying The Final Chronicles without ever reading the first six books-SRD was enjoying that twist as well, until I opened my big fat mouth and said, "You know there are..."

Post by **Orlion** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:23 pm

danlo wrote:It's tough to top the original. It's like Hyperion or Neverness/The Broken God-while the other three/two books could rival or surpass most sci-fi out there the first book(s) are simply unforgettable (and of course you can have the remaining books without the the first one establishing the universe...)

Man, I have Endymion and The Rise of Endymion, but Hyperion and The Fall of Hyperion were so awesome, I'm not sure I could read anything by Simmons again without being deeply disappointed.

Post by **danlo** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:30 pm

Sorry, I was adding more while you were posting (I tend to do that). I forced myself, with duchy's help, to finish the last two and was pleasantly surprised with them (Hyperion books), but you're right Ilium fell flat on it's ass, whereas it could have been viewed as a decent, energetic attempt by some other author.

Post by **I'm Murrin** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:38 pm

It goes both ways, really. An artist puts their work out to the public, and they can't control what the public see in it no more than the public can influence what the artist intended when they created it. In that sense any interpretation is as valid as a person believes it to be.

Though I would give the most credence to what the author had in mind when they wrote a story, sometimes someone will come along with an alternative reading that highlights elements of the story that the author never intended but which allows it to be read in an equally meaningful way.

Post by **Endymion9** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:21 pm

danlo wrote:Sorry, I was adding more while you were posting (I tend to do that). I forced myself, with duchy's help, to finish the last two and was pleasantly surprised with them (Hyperion books), but you're right Ilium fell flat on it's ass, whereas it could have been viewed as a decent, energetic attempt by some other author.

I felt the same. Had some resistance to the Endymion books, but ended up really enjoying them. Enjoyed the novella? and some of Illium, but also felt like it fell very flat. Lots of promise not realized.

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:24 pm

Endymion9 wrote:I favor this opinion personally. For instance I pretend that there is only one Matrix movie (perfect film) and that the sequels never happened. The story was complete and satisfying. If I include the sequels it undoes and ruins a great story.

I won't argue with this. I still love Reloaded, because it's visually extraordinary. Even moreso than the original, because they had a greater variety of settings. But yeah, if they stopped at the first movie, they'd have achieved perfection.

Endymion9 wrote:I find that's what I want to do with the Last Chronicles also. The first two chronicles, like the original Matrix movie, seemed perfect and complete. I have enjoyed the Last Chronicles (the first two books much more than the third) but cannot connect it to the first two chronicles in my mind. To do so lessons them.

Again, I agree. Despite thinking the 1st & 2nd Chrons are, perhaps, the best things ever written, I just can't stand the Final Chrons, and have done no more than look at the cover on the shelf in B&N a few weeks ago. For me, Thomas Covenant ends with WGW.

As for your overall question, I think it's both. It's hardly possible to read a book without getting some of what the author way trying to say. But, also, we all interpret some things in our own ways. And that's cool.

___ wrote:I have spent a good amount of time soul-searching...

I'm sure the introspection you went through in that 1:13 between his post and yours was an experience you'll always treasure.

Post by **Endymion9** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:25 pm

Murrin wrote:It goes both ways, really. An artist puts their work out to the public, and they can't control what the public see in it no more than the public can influence what the artist intended when they created it. In that sense any interpretation is as valid as a person believes it to be.

Though I would give the most credence to what the author had in mind when they wrote a story, sometimes someone will come along with an alternative reading that highlights elements of the story that the author never intended but which allows it to be read in an equally meaningful way.

I guess what I've noticed with Donaldson's GI and with the Wolfe forums is that someone would put forward the way they saw the story, and a response would come back to the effect of no the author himself, outside of the story, has said that's not true. Whereas, I lean towards after the author has finished writing a story/book, I can intrepret it anyway I see it and no one can really tell me, oh no that's incorrect. Not even the author. The author can tell me the way his writing affected him, what was in his mind when he wrote it, etc. but once the written word is out there is stands alone. Now if he is still writing the series he can modify the next book to try to correct what he sees as misperceptions, but he can't really change the books that are already published or the reality that someone sees in them.

Post by **Endymion9** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:27 pm

___ wrote:I feel either you or I have changed significantly by the time I read your 5th paragraph. While the first four paragraphs are fine, and may indeed be called a boon to their respective genres, the fifth paragraph just does not resonate with me. I have spent a good amount of time soul-searching, to see if you are to blame, or if I am, but all I come up with are more questions. Has too much time has passed, and you are no longer able to call up the energy you had in the first four? Have I moved on, and can no longer relate to your muse? Or, is it because you misspelled 'lessens'? The world may never know.

Hard to argue with "the man with no name". <grin>

Post by **lurch** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:04 am

Well..there are parameters to Art. High Art reflects on the human condition of an era or moment. How an " artists" does it , expresses his/her Art,, is supposed to be of that era or moment...or even ahead of that era or moment ( avante guard). So..Donaldson's TC Chrons,,do they reflect on the human condition of modern man? I'd say so. As dissections and further discussions keep bringing up, remaining True to Your Self while the onslaught of distractions and persuasions surround you, is a despairing effort to say the least.. Staying in touch with ones humanity is painful..etc etc..The LC's have the added touch of Time's product..compassion/wisdom..or ..an answer waiting for the question to be asked. I have been and remain fascinated by the author's " play" of mystery in the LC's, something not evident in the first two. Taking the " Be True" of the first two Chrons and adding Mystery..illusion,,the Unknown,,etc..really opens up the genre of the Surreal..which Is All about personal identity..Who Am I?...

Therefore..how one " sees"..or interprets..or perceives..or understands ..the LC's and when complete, The Whole TCoTC,,will be a reflection of that individual at that time..a mirror held up to the reader. " We" are involved..part of..intimate..with the Mysteries of the LC's. Its like the author reaches out from the pages and pulls " us" into the structure of the telling. If this was a TV show,,it'd be called breaking the 4th wall.
how very Surreal..extra reality!!..Its more than what I think of the work. Its how I am pulled in..made to" feel"..get in touch with my feelings,,my humanity..AND YES..getting Upset with the lead character is Exactly The Point!..Its not the Lead Character,Its the GETTING UPSET that is Important!! I mean ..who wasn't upset with TC and his seemingly endless failings? Yet by the end ..it all came together and made sense. With the LC's ..the beauty..as Andre Breton put it..is Convulsive or it will not be at all. The readers touched nerves is their " humanity" and we are reminded of it with reading TCoTC. Now...what does that say about you or me or mankind..that still..right up to the latest headlines..we require ART to keep us in touch with our humanity,,rather than ART being some thing that is part of us. The Surreal.

Post by **dANdeLION** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:02 am

Fist and Faith wrote:
___ wrote:I have spent a good amount of time soul-searching...
I'm sure the introspection you went through in that 1:13 between his post and yours was an experience you'll always treasure.

Yes, it was, and I do.

Post by **Avatar** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:31 am

Murrin wrote:It goes both ways, really. An artist puts their work out to the public, and they can't control what the public see in it no more than the public can influence what the artist intended when they created it. In that sense any interpretation is as valid as a person believes it to be.

Though I would give the most credence to what the author had in mind when they wrote a story, sometimes someone will come along with an alternative reading that highlights elements of the story that the author never intended but which allows it to be read in an equally meaningful way.

Excellently said Murrin. I largely agree. In one sense, what anybody gets from it is up to them. However, when it comes to explaining it, I must put the author's own description of his intent ahead of the interpretations of readers.

--A

Post by **Cagliostro** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:31 pm

A little trailing away from the subject at hand, but related directly to Donaldson, it seems his technique has changed quite a bit, or maybe it is my perception of his technique. The first two Chronicles of Thomas Covenant seemed to go for the heart, and while they had something of a steady storyline (the second more than the first), the characters and the love of the Land is what really comes out.
Then came Mordant's Need, which seemed more story focused, yet still having good characters, and some heart. The Gap - a tightly honed story with some VERY interesting characters, but very little heart.
I think what might be putting Covenant fans off is Donaldson's change of concentration - the story is taking more of a front seat to the emotion. I think that might be the problem I'm having with it too, but I'm just starting AATE, so I can't say for sure. But so far, in the first Chronicles, I fell in love with the Land, and it was rich and vibrant and full o' love. In the second Chronicles, it was hurt, and so were its inhabitants, but you still loved the Land despite what it was going through. Now, it's kinda back to how it was before, but, and maybe this is just me, it just feels like it is just there instead of still being such a vivid character (

Spoiler

although we are finding out more of its history, which I am finding interesting

). Or maybe I'm just not reading it as carefully as I did the first two Chronicles. I guess I'll see as I continue reading.
But overall, it does seem like his writing has changed quite a bit since the first two, and I suspect the author would agree, although I wonder how he would respond to my position. Hmmm...maybe a question for Elohimfest?