That's arguably the worst argument given that the author has no special authority over the interpretation of the work. Heinlein with his increasingly militaristic views wrote Starship Troopers as a sincere story, but Paul Verhoeven showed quite compellingly that it might make for better satire.

▲

falcor84 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's actually an ironic example, seeing how so many (maybe most) viewers took the intended satire at face value, essentially looping all the way back to Heinlein's intent.

▲

pessimizer 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The best satire is always convincing to its targets, because it doesn't misrepresent their positions. The Prince may be satire; who knows what was in Machiavelli's head.

	▲	username332211 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Doesn't the guy have another book - The Discourses on Livy, that confirms the general gist of The Prince? (i.e. autocracies are horrible, to be a successful autocrat you need to be brutal and ruthless)
	▲	FrustratedMonky 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Exactly. Even today, a lot of satire aimed at the 'right', viewed from the 'right's perspective is not realized as satire and is viewed like someone is trying to make a real point. They can't tell it is satire.

▲

BoingBoomTschak 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Didn't Verhoeven famously not read the book? Hard to call it "satire" then, "straw man" might be more accurate.