Is the author dead?

Yes and no. It's the readers who buy the books so yes, but it's what the author wanted to convey to propel him to write the book, so no.

If the author is alive then once his intentions are known then our preconceived notions can be erased.

The author would die if the reader held fast to their initial interpretation. But it is readers who keep the author alive, by refining their interpretation when:

1) they learn via interviews and other external sources about the author's intent,

2) they learn via biography the author's experience, and

3) they learn by further reading of the same author that author's tendencies and patterns of meaning.

I always found the concept rather insulting.

Perhaps it's because I'm a writer.

But if I write something, and you interpret it one way, and I say "oh, no, actually I meant this," and can explain what I actually intended to say, then it's rather stupid for someone to say I meant other than what I say I meant. Sure, a good writer will write in such a way that their meaning (if they have a concrete one in mind) isn't misinterpreted, and there are plenty of times where we don't say what we mean. But to consider an author's intentions irrelevant when interpreting their work, especially if they are on hand to explain themselves and willing to do so, has always been one of the more ludicrous things about literary criticism to me.

Bumping because I like philosophical debates.

Yes and no.

For the creative aspect, I feel the author maintains their meaning. No one can tell the author what s/he meant to say.

But as much as the reader should respect the author's intentions, the author needs to respect that the person reading (or seeing or hearing) what they put out is going to be bringing their own personal experience to the collective experience of "art".

If the author wanted that particular work to express something specific, they had better make that very clear or they have failed.

On the flip side, my favorite art is the kind that is open to interpretation and invites the viewer to participate, react, engage emotionally and ultimately make the work more than it was just by taking it in.

In the end, the only way an artist can have their art be taken for exactly what they intended is to keep it to themselves.

Then what is the point?

I think the true meaning and the readers interpretation are both important. I imagine either could be considered more important depending on the subject matter of the book though.

Yes and no. You certainly don't have to view something as black and white just how the author intended but you shouldn't pull out symbolism and stuff that the author had no way of ever even knowing about. So basically if it's symbolic it has to be intentional to really count IMO

I think it's 50/50. When I read a book I come up with my own conclusions and interpretations on what the piece means. If I'm really taken with a book I'll usually look up other peoples ideas on its meaning and then finally the author's true intentions.

I write quite a bit and I actually enjoy hearing peoples interpretations of some of my pieces. I welcome knowing what others take from them and what they got out of it vs. what I intended. On more than one occasion someones take on a piece of mine was far more interesting than what I had actually intended.

@racob7 said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS