I wrote:

<Well, literary criticism tends to be rather heedless of the author's conscious intentions. The usual procedure is to apply one or more of the existing critical approaches and see how much meaning a text yields when examined from that aspect. A good work of art should be able to snap the umbilical cord binding it to its author and exist in its own right.>

and Kathryne replied:

<Which is why I've never had much respect for Literary Criticism.>

Well, you obviously have more respect for it than I do. You write it with capital letters.

<What you're saying here seems to be that Literary Criticism wishes that works of art didn't have authors at all, or that who wrote it is irrelevant.>

No, what I'm saying is that it's irrelevant whether a certain idea entered a work of art consciously or unconsciously. To demonstrate that it's there I don't need the author's approval. All I need is to find enough evidence in the text. For instance, I advanced the theory that there is a tendency towards decentring morality, or good and evil, in B7, and I've supported it by finding consistency in some events and scenes in the series. If someone wanted to dispute my theory, he/she would also have to do it by quoting the series, not by quoting Nation's interviews.

I used the example of the 13th Warrior to show that there can even be a great discrepancy between the author's conscious and unconscious intentions. On the conscious level, it's a good action movie; on the subconscious level, it reveals irrational animosity towards the Earth Mother and everything she stands for. The collective unconscious which permeates the 13th Warrior could be the same collective unconscious responsible, for instance, for the reckless exploitation of the Amazon woods.

Do you need another example? I refer you to an excellent 'marxist' analysis of 'Deliverance' Neil wrote last winter (I hope Neil doesn't mind my taking the liberty): the way it reveals imperialist nostalgia by showing how the Liberator 'chaps' deal with the hairy primitives and help an ignorant native solve a technical problem, for which they're justly respected as gods. It is a layer of meaning which the authors probably weren't aware of when they created the episode, yet it's doubtlessly there.

You see, creative writing is dangerous. Everything you say can be used against you.

Compare it to dreaming: a dreamer doesn't have any impact on the meaning and message his dream conveys; yet it is his. When he wakes up, however, his interpretation of the dream is as valid as mine. His explanation of the dream may be helpful, but it can also be misleading. Consider this extract on Avon from an interview with Vere Lorimer:

'Unlike Blake, he was a man who would do nothing unless he felt there was something in it for him... Avon was forced into following Blake's path of attacking the Federation, due merely to circumstances beyond his control... the only reason for him promising Blake that he would fight Andromedan invasion force was not because he had a sudden attack of moral conscience, but he had no other option.'

This is an author's interpretation of his 'dream'; most of us, I believe, wouldn't agree with it. Don't you think our interpretation is as valid as his?

(Of course the dream analogy doesn't hold water completely. The creative impulse has to be consciously processed. But a good writer is in touch with his unconscious and creates a unified work of art; a bad one just tends to ride on the general current without really knowing what motivates him.)

<I lost all respect for Literary Criticism when I saw someone try to apply Freud to a work (in the name of Literary Criticism), and claim that it meant something.>

You mean like that phallic rocket?

Applying Freud's theories in literary analysis is a legitimate procedure. Although personally I prefer Jung.

N.