[pdkl95]

> I don't claim to know the author's intent

What so many comments about this memo don't seem to understand is that it it isn't possible to derive the author's intent from the text of their work. The intent of the author isn't included when the reader interprets their work, because the author isn't there[1] to explain their intent. The reader only sees the work.

As you said, intent doesn't matter. When authoring a work, it's important to consider how the work might be interpreted.

[1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor (apologies for using a tvtropes link. It was better than Google's other suggestions)

[zbyte64]

One of his recommendations was to emphasize intent over unintended offenses.

[throwawayjava]

>> The intent of the author isn't included when the reader interprets their work, because the author isn't there[1] to explain their intent

This is not a recommendation, and it is not a value judgement. It's just a reality.

[wry_discontent]

This could be overcome by and large with a modicum of research and critical thinking.

[throwawayjava]

> ...a modicum of research and critical thinking.

You're assuming that each piece of text has only a single possible interpretation when "research and critical thinking" are applied to its interpretation.

This is so far from the truth I'm not really sure what to say.

For the current topic, see e.g., https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-bio... You'd be hard pressed -- or perhaps simply obstinate -- to claim this piece is devoid of "research" or "critical thinking".

Beyond the current topic, your opinion becomes so obviously false I really don't know what to even say. As a base-line example, let's take any pair of 5-4 SCOTUS opinions on a constitutional matter. I suppose it's possible that half of the supreme court justices (and often slightly different halves) are routinely incapable of critical thinking of research to the text of laws and of the consitution. But that seems like an exceptionally arrogant explanation.

Believing "only my reading of the text is possible if you're remotely capable of research and critical thinking" is, for an author, an extraordinarily enormous mistake.

[pdkl95]

No, it can't. This is a fundamental limit of language, because language itself - which you're using to accomplish your research - requires using imperfect symbols.

If you don't mind 100% spoilers for Davey Wreden's game "The Beginner's Guide", I highly recommend watching "The Artist is Absent"[1]. It's a surprisingly good introduction to semiotics, death of the author, and enunciation theory, which together explain why you can interpret the narrator of a work, which should never be confused with the author.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N6y6LEwsKc