I had the pleasure of meeting Isaac Asimov at a SF Convention in Toronto back in the early 70's.
You bastAARd!
I always wanted to meet Asimov. Brilliant man, great writer, and Russian (at a time when there was a still a Cold War, making it noteworthy since he wrote in American English!).
The author of that poem was still alive, and so the student wrote to him, asking what his intention with the poem was, if there was an underlying metaphorical motif. The author replied something along the lines, "I just wanted to describe a spring morning."
The student presented his teacher with that letter. Her reaction? She scolded him for questioning her authority and tried to have him expelled from school. The F was not revoked.
And with good reason. (The F part, not the attempt at expulsion) Here's why.
(The Secret Master sits in his sturdy leather chair, dons his Formalist Criticism hat, and begins to pontificate...)
First, we have to remember one important thing in our writing. The author's intent does not mean anything if the words produced from an effort of writing do not reflect said author's intent. For example, John Milton's famous (or infamous, depending on what literary mood you're in)
Paradise Lost is an attempt (among many other things) to justify the ways of God to man. Milton says this himself. However, after you read
Paradise Lost, you might decide that the only true epic poem in the English language does
not justify the ways of God to man. You might even decide that Milton's lengthy poem exalts Satan as an epic hero. If you can justify this claim with words from the actual text (as some scholars have done), then Milton's intent is not important. He may have
tried to justify the ways of God to man, but his skills as a writer caused him to write words upon the page that produced a very different effect on the reader.
In my own work here on the forum, we can see this illustrated quite handidly. Since MrT brought it up, I will continue my illustration with Noble Lives. As MrT brought up, most of my readers have "missed the point" with what I am doing with Senor Kurtz. My intent is to have a Kurtz-like (as in Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now kind of Kurtz) figure, that we observe as he slowly sinks into depravity, and at the last second, he turns back from going over the edge. I have been building it up forever, slowly having Kurtz become a little more enigmatic and evil as time has gone on. At ths point in the story we are now, my clever readers can hopefully see the greed aspect to him now. However, the words I am putting upon the page, so to speak, have not adequately communicated all of this to the reader. This has become clear after a lengthy discussion in the thread. My
intent is to have Kurtz set up in this way. The effect produced, however, was not this. Thus, my intent did not match the effect of my use of language. My intent only matters in terms of my trying to achieve an effect on the reader. But once the words are on the page, if they have a different effect on the reader, then my intent makes little difference. It is the words upon the page that is important, unless you are workshopping a piece.
Now, a word of warning about metaphors and symbolism. Even if the author does a good job of writing, the audience might need a certain level of education or background to grasp the full effect. To borrow from Milton again, if you read
Paradise Lost, you will not get 90% of the literary effect of that work unless you have a firm background in classical Greek and Roman literature, a command of Spencer, Shakespeare, and Johnson, and a good command of Scripture. This would not be Milton's fault, as he expected anyone who read his works to have what we would today call a liberal arts education. (In fact, Milton would likely be mildly insulted if you read his work without that background. He would label you as an "unfit" audience for it. A cocky bastard that Milton was...)
Whew, did I ramble on. Ok, I am done pontificating. For the moment...
