RE: nice theory...

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Scottie Bowman: "but in practice..."
• Previous message: WILL HOCHMAN: "Re: new subscriber"

Uh, thanks, I guess.  I think it's nice, too.

Scottie Bowman wrote:

>     I wonder how many authors would, themselves, foreswear 
>     the theory of intention ?

I don't know, but it doesn't matter much, does it?  I mean, intentions
about intent would still be intentions, and authorial intentions are
what I'm denying the primacy of.

Authors have little control over how their work will be processed,
interpreted, or evaluated, whether they like it or not -- and I think
most writers are fully aware of this (if they don't like it, they can
always stop publishing, like somebody we all know).  No thoughtful
writer, however, would want to the reader to experience only what was
intended and nothing else, because you can't micro-manage reader
response.  Most writers I've studied just create the most vivid
characters and situations possible and then leave it up to the readers
to draw their own conclusions.  I don't know what else can be done.

>     About the same number, I suspect, as those who regard their
>     writing as an attempted '...communion between two thinking,
>     feeling human beings...'  

I honestly don't mean to be confrontational, but what do most writers
think writing is, if not this?

Jon

• Next message: Scottie Bowman: "but in practice..."
• Previous message: WILL HOCHMAN: "Re: new subscriber"