Friendly Letter To The Author: Fill & Download for Free

We’re actually experiencing a literary phenomenon that holds particular fascination to me: The Death of the Author. Or, rather, we’re seeing the clash between the “Word of God” camp and the “Death of the Author” camp.Because authors are responsible for the creation of new people, places, and things within the bounds of their story, they are sometimes thought of as “God”. Hypothetically, “God” has complete control and ultimate understanding of their creations. Thus, anything the author has to say about their creation is akin to the voice of God on high; thus they have spoken, thus it is.As an example, suppose that Shakespeare had left some stage directions stapled to the back of Hamlet, telling the actor precisely what Hamlet’s state of mind is throughout the play. Or, say Dante Alghieri wrote a letter explaining what he intended each symbol in Inferno to mean. Assuming it’s all verifiable, this may be considered “word of god”.In the other camp, we have the “Death of the Author”.In order to have Death of the Author, Word of God has to have been given. It is a denial of the omniscience of the creator, and gives greater consideration to the individual reader’s own interpretation.Supposing that a modern day actor finds Shakespeare’s stage notes, and decides that he prefers his own interpretation of Hamlet, or he feels Shakespeare’s interpretation doesn’t fit with his own character. Suppose that Dante’s friend, upon receiving the letter, feels that the symbols in Inferno mean something entirely different, or have multiple meanings. They have committed Death of the Author.On the one hand, Word of God can be incredibly useful in literary analysis. Knowing the author’s intentions when they created their work can help to guide your own understanding, and add to their creation.On the other hand, as many have answered here, once it’s published, it’s done. It’s not fair to retroactively try to make a work better than it is just by saying so. Oftentimes, it is more effective to let the readers study out problems and ideas for themselves.Frankly, I swing between the two on a case-by-case basis.Most writers, I feel, are very good about not giving out “Word of God” information indiscriminately. A writer who stayed silent on the topic of their bestselling novel, and then gave their thoughts and interpretations of it a few decades later, I would probably be inclined to believe.Other writers are so in tune with their work that they can almost be considered omniscient gods. I particularly think of J R R Tolkien, the grandfather of fantasy world building, who had the language down to the syllable, the geography down to the kilometer, and the timeline down to the week. Some of the things Tolkienites consider canon come from notes or letters, not to mention the multiple appendices he published. The key here is that Tolkien was clearly both knowledgeable and consistent, to the point where even in places where Tolkien wasn’t consistent, (such as with regards to the fates of certain characters,) it’s seen as a changing interpretation on the part of Tolkien.The place where Death of the Author kicks in, for me, is when the readers seem to show a better understanding of the text than the author.In my Shakespeare example, while it would be fascinating to know the Bard’s intentions, it would also be to the detriment of thousands of playgoers and stodgy Literature professors who had connected with the play and the character through their own interpretations. In many cases, the ambiguity, the “what if”, is better for the work and the reader than the concrete.In other cases, it becomes clear that authors are not God, and not omniscient; what they claim may actually contradict what they had written, or the fan interpretation may actually make more sense.J K Rowling is incredibly inconsistent in her claims.First of all, she is something of an oddity in the literary world, particularly in fantasy. Since Tolkien, world building has been the cornerstone of fantasy literature. Rowling admits to not being a fantasy reader, and it really shows. Her world building is subpar, but her characters are fantastic. (I personally think that it is this quality that made the books such a success.) Whenever she tries to add more information to the world of Harry Potter, her poor grasp of world building continues to show.She claims that she has never reread her own books. This really shows. For example, not long after publishing Deathly Hallows, she was giving a statement about the actions of Slytherins at the Battle of Hogwarts, and when the audience was confused, she realized that this was an entire event that she had never actually written.She has poor memory concerning the world she created and the events of her own books, to the point that several of her statements, particularly more recently, directly contradict her writing.Some of this may be to get publicity, some just because she has genuinely forgotten. Granted, most of her statements whilst she was still writing the series are pretty sound, though she still aggressively asserts her own (usually romanticized) interpretation of the characters over the readers’ interpretations.Either way, I committed Death of the Author a long time ago when it came to J K.The fact that Cursed Child so blatantly contradicts the events and rules of the original Harry Potter series means that it doesn’t matter if Rowling wrote the whole thing herself, we simply can’t consider it canon without breaking the rest of the universe.Thanks for the A2A!

Firstly, there are really two possibilities with regard to the authorship of the letter to the Hebrews: either Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews as the earliest Church Fathers believed, or someone else wrote it.Regardless, the author did not include their own name in the letter, so does not self identify.I do not find this fact to be in any way unusual or uncommon.These kinds of letters of the first century were not written like we write personal letters today and do not follow the socially determined structure for personal or even formal letters we all learned during grade school: date (sometimes place of writing), salutation & greeting, body of the letter, closing with a personal benediction, usually our signature, any post script (P.S.).In the Hellenistic time frame, letters might be similar, especially if they were from a family member or close friend, but depending upon purpose, they may be written with more or less formality. They may have been designed to teach, admonish, instruct, or provide essential information rather than be “simple communications” between close friends or family. The structures for each of these forms were often different, but rarely did a letter of rhetoric or of instruction or teaching include much (or any) personal information regarding the writer.We have thousands of letters of this time period in scriptoria around the world that have preserved these ancient writings. We have formal rhetorical teachings, personal letters, requests for funding, and even shopping lists sent to others so a particular job or planned event can move forward or take place. Literacy was far higher then than many people today seem to understand. Only rarely do we find the author self identifying in these ancient letters. The one who carried the letter would know from whom it came; the letter did not include an envelope with a return address as we might use today. The person(s) receiving the letter at the time would know from whom the letter came—and so would those with whom the original recipient(s) shared such letters. (…and that’s why we tend to trust the earliest sources regarding provenance of such writings rather than later historians who must lean on tertiary or more removed evidence to determine authorship.)Different times. Different conventions.But another question comes from yours: What impact does it have on you if we were to definitively find that Paul was not the author of the Letter to the Hebrews? Does this letter say or mean less if Paul was not the author or if we Find that we may never learn the name of the author?EDIT: A number of folks are using comments below my answer to tell me (and Quorans who read comments) who they think the author of Hebrews is. You’ll note I made no claim stating certainty of the authorship and tried to make the point that authorship may be much less an issue than some people make it.But…If a person has such a claim of certainty and evidence to support that claim, regardless of who they believe the author of Hebrews to be, they should construct an answer to help the OP (and the rest of us who have looked at this question of authorship). If anyone has anything new—that has not been offered and argued since the time of Origen in the mid-100s CE/AD—then a separate answer revealing such new evidence would be exciting and certainly welcome! Even a new synthesis and analysis of existing information and evidence would be quite welcome! Please share with us, but put it into a separate cogent answer.

It will help the Mail as it proves she gossips and does not keep things private.the case is built around privacy and piblishing something that isn't in the public eye. By allowing Finding Freedom to be published most of what she complained about being revealed is in the book. Therefore if she wrote a letter to her father sge shouldn't have told anyone and if she did they should have been sworn to secrecy. What she says is , that she openly spoke her letter to at least five friends, those friends ganged together to go to the papers. What they said defamed the reputation of Megan's father as he had not revealed the letter or its contents. He only revealed what the letter actually said to defend himself against 5 anonymous people who must have been told by Meghan. The book shows that even though she did not write the book , she did have a lot of input. Some of the stories about conversations with certain people could only have come from the people having the conversation, I am sure that no one in the royal family spoke to the author but Meghan has as they are best friends.