Re: Try listening to the real ideas and ignore vitriolic attacks

Robbie -- what happened to your other name? :). I kinda miss it.

As for this:

>But what people have been asking for, I think, in the authorial-intent
>debate and now in this resurgence of its leading characters, is an answer to
>the question: "Why should I believe this assertion?"
>
I assume the assertion is, "Authorial intent cannot defne textual meaning?"

I've offered quite a few specific answers to your question, actually,
even one recently, I think. They mostly revolve around the ideas that
texts are multivocal and not univocal, and that insisting on authorial
intent is to insist upon one meaning.

Of course, and we went over this ground before, an author can intend
multiple meanings within a text, but he/she cannot possibly intend all
possible meanings of a text, especially since some are mutually exclusive.

Responding to you and Daniel, yes, John O. did respond a few times with
specific content about the deconstruction issue. Not as much as I did,
though.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Mar 5 10:34:19 2003