This work is the sole property of its writer, and it may not be reproduced, quoted, referenced, or otherwise alluded to without express written permission from its author. Any attempts to quote or alter this work in other texts without the author’s permission can and will result in persecution including, but not limited to, monetary fines, lawsuits, and banning of the offending party’s works in the Netherlands. Alternative interpretation of the words in this piece astray from what the author meant is thought-theft and punishable to the highest extent of the law. In addition, betraying the integrity of this piece by providing alternative viewpoints or perspectives on the issues inside it garners up to a $5000 fee or up to 1 year in prison. Alterations to this piece by the original author are valid canon and violations of the proceeding statements retroactively incur the penalties for any works that have taken liberties with the new content prior to its inclusion in the text.
Plays and stories are the brainchildren of the authors who create them. Once they are created, however, these works must stand on their own—and like children, they may go on to perform in ways that their parents find unexpected. George Bernard Shaw and Samuel Beckett have a gripe with this premise. Their respective works Pygmalion and Waiting for Godot open the door for literary debates the world over, but the authors themselves reject some of the most common theories in these debates. Their rejection, however, has no more weight than that of any other critic. Additionally, they argue against others’ staging choices—the claim is that the integrity of their texts, as dramas, relies not just the story as it is written. That integrity relies also on how it is performed, or how it is not performed.
English teachers give the author much authority when it comes to that authors’ pieces. Many are the horror stories from former high school students who spent months taking apart a text to analyze the author’s intent with symbolism. What the author meant is often considered as important as what the text says. The students who have been burdened with interpreting the author’s interpretation often turn to biographical information about authors in dissecting those authors’ pieces; they are not answering what does the piece say, but what does the author mean? An author’s statements on his intentions may change yearly. His original text, however, stands unaltered. Excluding the author’s intentions or personal life from the study of a piece leads to new perspectives on that piece; Oscar Wilde was involved with men, and his pieces reflect that. What new insights into the structure of his texts can we see when we move on from the obvious biographical angle and study instead how his use of parallels and repetition enhance his comedies—and make them more than just idle comedies?
The author is dead; long live the story.
Plays and stories are the brainchildren of the authors who create them. Once they are created, however, these works must stand on their own—and like children, they may go on to perform in ways that their parents find unexpected. George Bernard Shaw and Samuel Beckett have a gripe with this premise. Their respective works Pygmalion and Waiting for Godot open the door for literary debates the world over, but the authors themselves reject some of the most common theories in these debates. Their rejection, however, has no more weight than that of any other critic. Additionally, they argue against others’ staging choices—the claim is that the integrity of their texts, as dramas, relies not just the story as it is written. That integrity relies also on how it is performed, or how it is not performed.
English teachers give the author much authority when it comes to that authors’ pieces. Many are the horror stories from former high school students who spent months taking apart a text to analyze the author’s intent with symbolism. What the author meant is often considered as important as what the text says. The students who have been burdened with interpreting the author’s interpretation often turn to biographical information about authors in dissecting those authors’ pieces; they are not answering what does the piece say, but what does the author mean? An author’s statements on his intentions may change yearly. His original text, however, stands unaltered. Excluding the author’s intentions or personal life from the study of a piece leads to new perspectives on that piece; Oscar Wilde was involved with men, and his pieces reflect that. What new insights into the structure of his texts can we see when we move on from the obvious biographical angle and study instead how his use of parallels and repetition enhance his comedies—and make them more than just idle comedies?
The author is dead; long live the story.
Comments
Post a Comment