Authorial Theory or

Authorial Intent
 The sky was a dark shade of
gray. The woman stepped
outside into the hazy night and
looked up. She knew the days
ahead would be long and grim.
She could feel it.
What does the gray sky
represent?
The answer to this question might
vary based on the reader's
interpretation. For example,
readers might claim that it
represents the serious situation
the character is in.
Others might think that because it
is gray and not pitch black, there is
still room for light and therefore
hope.
But what did the author intend it
to represent?
Is there a right or wrong answer?
When readers ask these questions,
they are reflecting on authorial
intent, the intention that the
author had for the meaning of the
text.
Authorial Intent Definition
 Authorial intent
is the way an author desires
readers to understand their work.
 When reading or analyzing a
text, it can be useful to reflect
on the authorial intent.
Authorial intent is the intention
behind the text.
In other words, it is the meaning
the author wants the reader to
get out of the work. Reflecting
on authorial intent can help
readers interpret a text.
Authorial Intent Examples
 Authorial intent looks different
with every text. However, readers
can use several strategies to try to
identify authorial intent and assess
if it's accurate or relevant. They can
reflect on elements of the text like
the following:
 Intended Audience
Recognizing an author’s
intended audience is a useful
first step in analyzing an
author’s intent. The intended
audience of a text is the
primary group of readers that
will read it.
 Intended Audience
For example, consider J.K
Rowling’s book Harry Potter
and the Sorcerer’s
Stone (1997). The book is about
an eleven-year-old boy who
finds out he is a wizard and
goes on a year of adventure at
a school for magic.
 Intended Audience
Although people of all ages
and backgrounds read this
text, the content and the
simplicity of the writing
suggest that Rowling aimed
the text at a youthful
audience.
 Intended Audience
Knowing this allows readers
to narrow down what
Rowling’s intent could have
been, such as entertaining
young people and teaching
them moral lessons.
 Tone
An author’s tone can also
be a key to understanding
their intent. In writing, the
tone is the mood or
attitude that a writer's
words convey.
 Tone
For example, writers can
use a serious tone or a
joyful tone. An author’s
word choice, sentence
structure, and subject
matter all contribute to
tone.
 Tone
Noting the tone of writing
can help readers
understand what a writer
wants a reader to get out
of a text.
 Tone
For instance, if a writer
uses a solemn tone when
writing about a recent
event, this suggests that
they want the reader to
take it seriously.
 Point of View
Sometimes, an author’s
point of view on a topic in
the text can inform the
reader about the intent of
the work.
 Point of View
An author's point of view
can be trickier to
determine in fiction
writing, but it is critical for
determining authorial
intent.
Authorial Intent Verbs
 Writers can use the following verbs
to describe authorial intent. They can
also prompt readers to consider
what authors are doing. For instance,
the word explain can encourage a
reader to consider what an author is
explaining in a text.
 Explain
Celebrate
Contrast
Defend
Highlight
Prove
Teach
Question
Warn
 For instance, a writer analyzing
authorial intent might write something
like this:

In this essay, the author questions the

importance of considering authorial
intent in literary analysis.
Fallacy of Authorial Intent
 The word fallacy refers to a
false idea or belief. The phrase
“fallacy of authorial intent” thus
refers to authorial intent as a
false idea.
There is a lot of debate in literary
criticism about the relevance of
authorial intent. In 1946, literary
critics William Kurtz Wimsatt and
Monroe Curtis Beardsley wrote an
article called “The Intentional
Fallacy”
Claiming that it is a mistake to try to
understand an author’s intention
when analyzing a text. This idea
prompted a lot of debate among
literary critics..
In the essay, Wimsatt and Beardsley
outline three types of evidence that
readers use to find meaning in a
text.
 Type 1: Internal
Evidence
As the name suggests,
internal evidence comes from
within the text itself. It
consists of elements of
language in the poem, such
as syntax, tone, and
structure.
 Type 1: Internal
Evidence
For example, a reader
might point to a writer's
use of sarcasm to claim
that the writer is mocking
the topic.
 Type 1: Internal
Evidence
Wismatt and Beardsley
explained that internal evidence
is public, meaning that anyone
reading a text can access it. They
argued that using only internal
evidence in analysis ensures that
readers avoid the intentional
fallacy.
 Type 1: Internal
Evidence
This is because internal evidence
is concerned only with meaning
in the text itself, not with
readers' speculations about
what the author may have
intended based on
outside context.
 Type 2: External
Evidence
In contrast to internal evidence,
external evidence comes from
outside the text. It consists of
contextual elements, such as
where the author wrote the text
and what was going on during
that time.
 Type 2: External
Evidence
The main point of using
external evidence is to
determine what the author
intended to do in a text.
 Type 2: External
Evidence
Wistmatt and Beardsley explain that
using external evidence in analysis is
a problem. It is easy for readers to
incorrectly apply external evidence
to the meaning of a work. For
instance, imagine a reader knows
that a poet wrote a poem at the
time of their mother’s death.
 Type 2: External
Evidence
The reader might assume that some
words in the poem represent this
sad time for the poet when it may
not be the case. Wismatt and
Beadsely also warned against the
use of external evidence because it
is private and relies on what each
individual reader knows.
 Type 3: Intermediate
Evidence
Intermediate evidence is a bit
internal and a bit external. For
example, a reader might claim
that a poet uses a flower as a
symbol for fertility in a poem.
 Type 3: Intermediate
Evidence
They might claim this because the
poet used it like that in other
poems and because it functions
that way in the text itself. The use
of other poems as evidence is
external evidence; the mention of
how the symbol functions in the
poem is internal evidence.
 Type 3: Intermediate
Evidence
Wismatt and Beardsley
supported the use of
intermediate evidence more
than external evidence because
it still relies on the text itself, but
they remained wary of the
elements of external evidence
within it.
 Type 3: Intermediate
Evidence
Wismatt and Beardsley
supported the use of
intermediate evidence more
than external evidence because
it still relies on the text itself, but
they remained wary of the
elements of external evidence
within it.
Death of the Author
 Then in 1967, Roland Barthes
wrote the essay "The Death of
the Author." He posited that the
intentions of an author should
not be a part of literary
analysis.
 He suggested that readers have to
figuratively kill the author when
reading a text and only focus on what
it means to them. According to
Barthes, if a reader can use evidence
to support an interpretation of a text,
that interpretation can be valid.
 Barthes’ perspective has
become increasingly popular in
literary criticism. It is difficult to
pinpoint what an author's
intentions were, especially in an
old text.
 Writing off a reader’s
interpretation of a text because
the author did not deliberately
think of it also restricts readers'
critical thinking.
As long as a writer can support
their interpretation with
evidence from the text, their
ideas have the potential to
expand literary insights
Authorial Intent vs.
Reader Response
 The debate regarding the importance of
authorial intent centers around two
concepts: authorial intent and reader
response. In contrast to authorial intent,
reader response refers to the way a reader
interprets the work based on their
experience with it, regardless of what the
author intended the work to be about.
 For instance, for many years, scholars
have taught that Shakespeare intended
his tragic play Macbeth to be a warning
about the dangers of ambition. But
imagine a reader reads the play and thinks
that it is a testament to the power and the
importance of going after one wants, no
matter what the obstacles or the cost.
They could use evidence from the
play to support this claim, such as
the way Macbeth goes as far as
murder to achieve his goals. Some
might say that this is not the
meaning that Shakespeare
intended.
However, critics of authorial intent
would say that the reader's
interpretation is just as valid
because they used evidence from
the text to back it up.
Problems with Authorial Intent
Regardless of one’s side of the
authorial intent debate, there
are several problems with
authorial intent, including the
following:
1. It restricts possible interpretations
of a text.
2. It suggests that authors have the
power to limit the meaning of a text.
3. It reduces the possibilities for new
analyses.
4. It is difficult to identify.
 Despite these problems, understanding
authorial intent can sometimes be useful
when interpreting a text. Recognizing
authorial intent when studying a text in an
English class is also sometimes a necessity,
even if a student supports Barthes' point
of view.
Authorial Intent
Key Takeaways
 1. Authorial intent is
what an author
intends a reader to get
out of a text.
2. Readers can analyze
authorial intent by
analyzing an author’s
tone, point of view,
and intended
audience.
 3. The importance of
authorial intent is
controversial, and
scholars like Roland
Barthes argue that
readers should only focus
on supporting their own
interpretations.
4. Authorial intent has
several problems, like
how it restricts
interpretations and is
difficult to assess.
 5. Regardless of the
debate, authorial
intent can be useful
for understanding a
text and is sometimes
a necessity when
studying a text.
References
 1
William K. Wismatt and Monroe C.
Beardsley, “The Intentional Fallacy,” The
Verbal Icon, 1946.

2
Roland Barthes, “The Death of the
Author,” Aspen, 1967.