Poo-Poo to Author's Intent
Lomanno (lomanno@ix.netcom.com)
Sat, 21 Nov 1998 16:56:42 -0500
Michael wrote:
> How can you say the author is just a reader? That is saying that you are
> looking for messages that aren't there. The author creates the
> character and their actions and their reasons for their actions. The
> author knows what the character is feeling because he is the
> character(especially in jds case). I have not said you don't critizcize
> him frequently. If you read my previous messages you would see that I
> said that you separate the author from the works. Then you separarate
> the enjoyment of the works and the disecting of the works. Then you
> separate the author's message from your made up meanings. Then you
> separate the author as a person from the author as a semi-god. Then you
> demonize the author as a person, but worship the semi-god author. Can
> anyone understand what I said?
Did you ever write something and then go back and read it later, and see
some new meaning you didn't originally intend? That's what happens each
and every time a piece of writing gets read. New meanings emerge as the
written word and the reader's mind collide. Every time a word or
sentence is read, the reader brings to it a history, society, and
psychology (completely unintentionally) that had not been there before.
How can you say Franny has the exact same meaning for you as she does a
woman, or a non-American, or an African American? Each person brings his
or her own interpretations into everything they read. The "messages" and
"made up meanings" that you say aren't there are as clear as day to me.
Sure, the author creates the character's actions, but the MEANING of
those actions is completely open to interpretation, particularly in
Salinger's case.
Why did Seymour kill himself? I think we've been through pages and pages
of speculation on that point. So why have we gone through so much agony
amongst ourselves if all we had to do is ask Salinger himself? Do you
think he even knows? I don't. That's why he never told us in the story;
he wants us to find our own meanings. That's why it's a good story.
What's the fun of reading if you know there's only one set
interpretation? Why are you on this list if you don't care about the
readers' opinions? Why not just write Salinger instead?
Scottie wrote:
> Having had no contact with academic linguistics before joining
> mailing lists such as this one, I was bemused, amused, amazed by
> the evidently fashionable view that the interpretation of a text
> or the projection onto it of private fantasies by any jumped-up
> Tom, Dick or Harriet is potentially as valid as that intended by
> its author.
>
There seems to be an assumption by the two of you that the author knows
his "intention" at any given moment in a piece of writing. Have you ever
written anything? Do you know WHY you chose each and every word? Do you
know how to use words that have absolutely NO multiple meanings?
You said in your post the phrase: "Tom, Dick, or Harriet." What was your
"intention" by using this combination of words? Was it a word play of
"Tom, Dick, and Harry?" Were you trying to be politically correct by
including a woman's name? If so, why was she listed last? Why not
"Harriet, Dick, and Tom?" And what about "Dick?" Isn't that an obsene
word in today's society? It may offend some readers. And what about
someone unfamiliar with American lingo? They may not get your
"intention" at all.
Sure, this sounds a little extreme, but it goes on in our unconscious
every time we read. Words are REPRESENTATIONS; they are signs. They come
with them an infinite amount of baggage. And there's no way anyone can
say the author's supposed "intentions" are any more valid than the
reader's interpretation. There's just too much leeway in the meaning of
words. This view is not "fashionable;" it's undeniable.
--Kari