Re: theoretically speaking

Yeah, I can see that. It's just not original with the
post-structuralists, though. In other words, arguing with Derrida and
arguing against authorial intent as the ground of textual meaning at
least/ can be/ two different things. I'm trying to remember the
argument in "Death of the Author," though. Seems like it studied the
word "author" and its actual use, and pointed out it really had little
or nothing to do with a physical person, but referred to a legal entity,
or an abstraction linking several works, etc. It's a bit unclear in my
head right now because it's been a couple years. I'm pretty sure,
though, the argument proceeds on grounds pretty different from the
"intentional fallacy" description of the 1940s.

Jim

Matt Kozusko wrote:

>Jim--
>
>I think it's useful and productive to link death-of-the-author thinking
>with poststructuralism in general and with Derrida in particular.
>Authors are seen by poststructuralists (of which Barthes is one, in many
>ways) as metacenters that govern and limit meanings of texts. Authors
>are thus prime targets of decentering gestures characteristic of
>poststructuralism. Perhaps a simplification on several levels, but the
>connection is fairly obvious.
>
>
>James Rovira wrote:
>
>
>
>>[...] It's not a Derridean
>>or even relativist move. They just saw the author as more of a moving
>>target than the actual words on the page.
>>
>>
>
>--
>Il n'y a pas de hors texte,
>
>Matt
>-
>* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
>* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Mar 5 15:56:22 2003