Re: Poo-Poo to Author's Intent

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: NYTimes Piece (today)"
• Previous message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: The Mantra of Michael"
• Maybe in reply to: Lomanno: "Poo-Poo to Author's Intent"
• Next in thread: anonymous: "Re: Poo-Poo to Author's Intent"

> i know i said good bye and i swear this is it. but i had to respond.  
> No, i have never looked back on anything I wrote and decided that it had 
> different meaning.  The fun of reading is enjoying the story, the 
> lession is the meaning.  Oh, yeah, Salinger isn't exactly the most 
> responsive type.  He doesn't even give out an address to write to.  Your 
> view is fashionable today, maybe not fifty years ago, but today it is.  
> Look at modern art

Uhhmm ... doesn't `modern' *mean* `less than fifty years old' ???

Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest

• Next message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: NYTimes Piece (today)"
• Previous message: Camille Scaysbrook: "Re: The Mantra of Michael"
• Maybe in reply to: Lomanno: "Poo-Poo to Author's Intent"
• Next in thread: anonymous: "Re: Poo-Poo to Author's Intent"