LotR (was Re: reviews (but not of MC))
deborah at suberic.net
Sun Dec 14 01:29:06 EST 2003
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Robyn Starkey wrote:
|>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.
|Interesting word choice, Charlie. You "permit" your readers to interpret
|your works? Now we see the connection between "author" and "authority," or
|"ooh, what a giveaway," as Dennis from Monty Python and the Holy Grail says.
I don't think Charlie's words here say that *he* permits, but that his
piece does. Or rather, I don't know what he meant, but Grammar Girl
insists that's what he *said*. Which is fair -- as a non-authorial
intent person, I do think that a piece has to permit a reading, to an
extent. That is, I believe in misreadings.
Glory be to God for dappled things -- G. M. Hopkins
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