4 ms·

An author fully understands their own work the way a programmer knows about every bug in code they've written. This is why we have QA and literary critics.

manigandham 11y ago
I don't get that analogy... wouldn't that be an author has basic writing mistakes and this is why we have book editors? How do bugs/mistakes change the intent and meaning of the actual work by the person creating it? When I create a software program, I don't expect people to come along and point out that I'm actually creating it for different reasons or a different purpose.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  > When I create a software program, I don't expect people to come along and point out that I'm actually creating it for different reasons or a different purpose. You must be new. :) It happens all the time.
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  Have you ever heard of "talk to the duck"? It's the idea that you're so close to a problem and tied up in the details that you haven't stepped back to see the whole picture and truly understand what's going on. Or alternatively, have you ever been struggling with a concept and someone comes along and says "oh, you're building a [design pattern]" and suddenly it all makes sense? While I'm not sure I agree with the Tolkien assessment above, I understand the sentiment of being too close to one's work.
- scarecrowbob 11y ago
  "How do bugs/mistakes change the intent and meaning of the actual work by the person creating it?" Often a bug comes into being because our ability to translate our intents into language is limited by our perceptions. In code, this works out that we think we told the machine to do one thing, but in practice our instructions have side effects or unforeseen meanings in corner cases. In language, this could be seen in two way. On one hand, even the best of us can't grasp all the possible meanings of our language and stories, especially given the fact that they will be read in a future that might create a whole new context for those words. And, on the other hand, sometimes we are strangers to ourselves and are, to over simplify, acting on subconscious impulses that we don't fully understand.
  - manigandham 11y ago
    I see that as more the reader/user using the work and applying meaning to it by using it to relate to some other knowledge or experience in their life. Every reader can get a different meaning because of something specific to them, but I don't see how that would change the author's intentions. He/she can absolutely state exactly why they wrote something and what the meaning is, without contest. My point: meaning is subjective and we should leave it as such, ie: "I think this story is a nice fit for this scenario" instead of "the author meant this even though he clearly states he didnt."
jqjester 11y ago
Or perhaps an author fully understands their own work the same way a programmer knows how users will use their programs.

manigandham 11y ago

I don't get that analogy... wouldn't that be an author has basic writing mistakes and this is why we have book editors? How do bugs/mistakes change the intent and meaning of the actual work by the person creating it? When I create a software program, I don't expect people to come along and point out that I'm actually creating it for different reasons or a different purpose.

tedunangst 11y ago
> When I create a software program, I don't expect people to come along and point out that I'm actually creating it for different reasons or a different purpose. You must be new. :) It happens all the time.
caseysoftware 11y ago
Have you ever heard of "talk to the duck"? It's the idea that you're so close to a problem and tied up in the details that you haven't stepped back to see the whole picture and truly understand what's going on. Or alternatively, have you ever been struggling with a concept and someone comes along and says "oh, you're building a [design pattern]" and suddenly it all makes sense? While I'm not sure I agree with the Tolkien assessment above, I understand the sentiment of being too close to one's work.
scarecrowbob 11y ago
"How do bugs/mistakes change the intent and meaning of the actual work by the person creating it?" Often a bug comes into being because our ability to translate our intents into language is limited by our perceptions. In code, this works out that we think we told the machine to do one thing, but in practice our instructions have side effects or unforeseen meanings in corner cases. In language, this could be seen in two way. On one hand, even the best of us can't grasp all the possible meanings of our language and stories, especially given the fact that they will be read in a future that might create a whole new context for those words. And, on the other hand, sometimes we are strangers to ourselves and are, to over simplify, acting on subconscious impulses that we don't fully understand.
- manigandham 11y ago
  I see that as more the reader/user using the work and applying meaning to it by using it to relate to some other knowledge or experience in their life. Every reader can get a different meaning because of something specific to them, but I don't see how that would change the author's intentions. He/she can absolutely state exactly why they wrote something and what the meaning is, without contest. My point: meaning is subjective and we should leave it as such, ie: "I think this story is a nice fit for this scenario" instead of "the author meant this even though he clearly states he didnt."

jqjester 11y ago

Or perhaps an author fully understands their own work the same way a programmer knows how users will use their programs.