Live data from Hacker News

The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

wegotthiscovered.com

321–323 of 323 posts

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#321
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> also, like, when a creator tells you their work means a thing, just take them at their word. This is reductive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticism

explain

Literary theorists have been debating the nature of meaning within texts for well over a century. The matter is not settled.

You advocate a highly intentionalist interpretation of a work - the author says it means this, so that's what it means.

'jevoten and others in this thread advocate a more formalist interpretation - the meaning lies in what is written.

I drew your attention to a more reader-focused perspective - that meaning comes from the reader's experience of the work, not the work or the author.

To say "they would know" is to sidestep this entire discussion and suggest that there's some objectively correct way of interpreting a text and that correct way is intentionalism. This is reductive because it ignores the reality that many people (theorists and non-theorists) don't put a whole lot of stock in authorial intent.

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#322
post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

explain

Literary theorists have been debating the nature of meaning within texts for well over a century. The matter is not settled. You advocate a highly intentionalist interpretation of a work - the author says it means this, so that's what it means. 'jevoten and others in this thread advocate a more formalist interpretation - the meaning lies in what is written. I drew your attention to a more reader-focused perspective -…

maybe that's what you think you meant. but my experience of this thread is that you explained your original comment about how i should disregard explanations

Re: The Matrix Resurrections estimated to lose Warner Bros $100M

#323
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literary theorists have been debating the nature of meaning within texts for well over a century. The matter is not settled. You advocate a highly intentionalist interpretation of a work - the author says it means this, so that's what it means. 'jevoten and others in this thread advocate a more formalist interpretation - the meaning lies in what is written. I drew your attention to a more reader-focused perspective -…

maybe that's what you think you meant. but my experience of this thread is that you explained your original comment about how i should disregard explanations

I'm glad we agree.
Post reply on HN