Re: Authors, critics, readers...

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Melissa Hohauser-Thatcher: "new subscriber"
• Previous message: Matt Kozusko: "Sokal"
• Maybe in reply to: Abra: "Authors, critics, readers..."
• Next in thread: Thor Cameron: "Re: Authors, critics, readers..."

I agree with Camille's crit of hamilton but have to at least suggest that
his research effort was credible and thorough (I've read Hamilton's
reserach materials in an archive).  However, Hamilton's frustrated
biographer approach gets tired quickly, since most readers of Salinger
know better than to stress biographical approaches...and of course this
links to authorial intention since knowing about the author's life
supports interpetive strategies using intention (perhaps...).  I have to
respectfully disagree with our scottie's intention flag waving though...or
at least qualify a bit of our discussion but I'm not certain of subject
headings and apologize for confusion and for loving this one best...but
anyway, scottie's post ("nice thoery..." i think) confuses the
compositional energy of authorial intention with the process of readers
making meaning.  I think it's pretty true that most authors (our beloeved
Ern Malley aside) need a fire in their belly to write--intended meaning
is a quite likely compositional fuel...and wanting to sense success, most
authors are likely to "target" intended meangings in their writing
processes.  How readers negotiate these intentions seems to me to be very
secondary in how I make meaning of literature, but now how I write...will

• Next message: Melissa Hohauser-Thatcher: "new subscriber"
• Previous message: Matt Kozusko: "Sokal"
• Maybe in reply to: Abra: "Authors, critics, readers..."
• Next in thread: Thor Cameron: "Re: Authors, critics, readers..."