Re: no problem

WILL HOCHMAN (hochman@uscolo.edu)
Sun, 22 Nov 1998 12:53:22 -0700 (MST)

In 1949 Wimsatt and Beardsley wrote about "the affective fallacy"--arguing
that readers feelings obscure meaning...in their words, "The Affective
Fallacy is a confusion between the poem and its results...It begins by
trying to derive the standard of criticism from the pyshchological
effects of a poem and ends with in impressionism and relativism." 

New Critics loved this idea as a means to justify their "close
readings" but Reader Response critics loved it better,
though folks like Stanley Fish were openly directed at not what a poem
means, but what it does. And Louise Rosenblatt, before WWII was talking
about literature as a continuum where the reader's identity does indeed
create meaning from his or her identity in flux with text and author.

Deconstruction subverts most intention...I'm sorry but clinging to
authorial intention is like clinging to partiarchy IMHO, and perhaps even
more striking is that clinging to intention is religious...but maybe
scottie or another priest will say more of what is really meant by an
author's intention...ha, what a lovely pun for someone who I suspect is
among our list's most widely published authors, will