RE: nice theory...
Sean Draine (seandr@microsoft.com)
Mon, 23 Nov 1998 18:27:55 -0800
Jim said of C.S. Lewis:
> He said, speaking as an author of fiction and not a critic, that the
> "meaning" of his works would only be completely evident after
> people have taken some time talking about them. He had his opinion, of
> course, but how accurate his opinion was could only be gauged by what
> intelligent readers had to say about his work. And yes, he did seem to
> distinguish between some types of readers and others.
This really doesn't contradict the notion that authorial intention is
central to intrepreting literature. It only suggests that literature may
reflect authorial intentions of which the author is not explicitly aware.
A critic's interpretation of prose is perhaps analogous to a psychoanalyst's
interpretation of a patient's dream. Depending upon his talent, the analyst
may or may not have a more acute understanding of the dream's meaning than
does the patient. However, the patient remains an essential reference point
for any interpretation of the dream.
-Sean
>
> On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 20:40:15 +0000 Scottie Bowman <rbowman@indigo.ie>
> writes:
> >
> > I wonder how many authors would, themselves, foreswear
> > the theory of intention ?
> >
> > About the same number, I suspect, as those who regard their
> > writing as an attempted '...communion between two thinking,
> > feeling human beings...'
> >
> > The same ones, presumably, who know '...what literature
> > should really be about...' [and who do not view it in that]
> > '...rather silly and competitive in a way that has nothing
> > to do with art...'
> >
> > Believe me. Damned few.
> >
> > Scottie B. the Patriarch
> >
> >
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at
http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]