LotR (was Re: reviews (but not of MC))
hannibal at thegates.fsbusiness.co.uk
Fri Dec 12 16:14:20 EST 2003
> If the only point of reading were to determine what an author meant, what
> or she was thinking or intending in writing a book, it could just as well
> served by asking the writer to tell you. And, in fact, this would be the
> only way you could truly know authorial intent. It would also mean that
> personal reaction you had to a book would be wrong, because it was not
> intended by the author. It would mean any new insight not specifically
> written into the book was invalid. And yes, this is a dramatically
> overstated point, but this is what seeking authorial intent means to me--a
> single-lane highway with all the exits clearly marked.
I don't think a respect for authorial intention necessarily implies such a
readerly strait-jacket as this picture suggests.
For a start, not all intentions are that well defined: my intentions are
often pretty vague, anyway! Even if they weren't, I can imagine
intentionally writing a piece which permitted a *range* of interpretations.
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj