Re: Before the Law

Jim says:
>Yes, Kafka probably did intend for "The Trial" to be an open ended work
>(I'd
>like you to tell me how you'd define authorial intent in this case).

I participated, and even while swiping a juvenile pun from another
listmember, encouraged this discussion with hopes of an explanation of
Derrida and deconstruction. For those viewers just tuning in, my lack of
familiarity with Derrida was evident in the remark "I have read his Greatest
Hits." Instead of modest attempts, appropriate for my level, I hit a solid
wall of orthodoxy.
But this result did not come as a suprise to me, as I have readily admitted
to being both a skeptic and a person biased on these topics (calling Derrida
a fat French fart may have been an indicator). So perhaps an elaboration was
considered futile by some...

Nonetheless, I go away learning at least one thing here. According to Omlor,
to know Derrida you have to experience Derrida, you can experience Derrida
only by reading Derrida and reading him closely.
Moreover, there is no definition of deconstructionism. These are my
impressions of this concept. Also, it was my mistake to try and "find"
deconstruction, apparently it is already there, in the text.
It just loves to happen.
That makes it's practitioners glorify their personal deconstruction
experiences. Furthermore, it is utter permissiveness. Deconstruction
emphasizes a type of freeply where a person can do whatever they want with
ANY word, oral or written.

Why is it problematic? One instance occured to me today as I heard the
Gordon Lightfoot Classic "If you could read my mind". But I will get to that
later. The problem I have with Derrida is, among other things, his
insistance that a word acquires value ONLY as a result of a chain of
possible substitutions, references. This is a dangerous precept. For
example, the United States Constitution can be interpreted to the meaning it
had when it was written, while others want it to be a living, thriving
instrument capable of dealing authoritatively with, say, electronic
wiretapping, something that was undreamed of when the Constitution was
written and thus undermines the intent of the document.

> >
> > No, denying authorial intent does _not_ mean that words are meaningless
> > or that they can be made to mean whatever the reader wants them to mean.
> > It just means that language is bigger than any one person using it.
> >
> > I never denied the existence of authorial intent either.

I've never heard you say that, andas you know, it would be unwise to do so.
Postructuralists do emphasize the use of language over the importance of an
author's intention. There is a line in the sand here.

> >some authors think one dimensionally about what their texts can mean,

I do feel Omlor's example of Kafka was apt here, if not for reasons he
particularly agrees with. The reason I say this is because The Trial, like
other works of Kafka I've read, is simply written. They employ an ordinary
vocabulary, and neither of his novels are encrypted in another. This is a
far cry from an author like Salinger.
I consider myself familiar with Salinger's works, this is more than I can
say for Kafka. As a reader, though, I find The Old Hermit can be a difficult
narrator, but his works are by no means as troublesome as Kafka's.
After reading Omlor's post, one interpretation of The Law is that, after the
legal, political and religious interpretations of the text, there is
language as a meaning.
Kafka, with characteristic toneless and monotonous language, is limiting
himself to the ordinary. While Salinger, with his detail, shoots for the
fantastic. The problem comes when we a read with a goal to explain
something about the world in a way Kafka, or Salinger cannot.
When does it end? Both authors elucidate the world AND meaning in very
powerful ways.
But a project, initiated by the likes of Derrida, commited to deciphering
meaning only reinforces a power someone like Derrida himself could never
express.
So, I do believe in a single, correct reading of the text. Call it a Western
tradition, label it ignomimy, refer to it as another signifier of a nacent
mind. But considering my position coming into this discussion, the authorial
intent/your mama debate has once again proved fruitful. With orthodoxy comes
commitment, this much is understood. Apparently, ALL meaning is found in
intertexuality.
Cantankerous sob that I am I still maintain that using tools like a "chain
of references" is the moral equilvalent of pissing on a dead author. But I
will end this by saying: Go For It. Play with that text. If you play long
enough, those apperceptions will keep you busy for a lifetime.
Many thanks to those who contributed to this thread. When a topic like this
comes up, I always write something and then read myself and realize how
sketchy my ideas are.
Maybe it's the senile dementia.
Or maybe its the spirits.
Either way, I appreciate the time and patience some have taken in dealing
with them.

Cordially,

John Gedsudski
Adjunct Professor of Sciolism
Northern Philisita Community College
501 Boorish Drive
NY,NY

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Mar 6 19:51:51 2003