Sean said: <<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. Jim replied: >You can only really say that from a position of a psychoanalytic >interpretation of literature. People who say, "The meaning of a piece of >literature is the author's probable intent" mean, "conscious intent." Nonsense. I'm no advocate of psychoanalysis (as applied to literature or dreams), and yet I *can* really say that the author's unconscious "thoughts" can be relevant to understanding his work. There is a difference between "unconscious" and Freud's "subconscious". The former includes implicit assumptions inherited from culture, semantic connections or constraints inherent to a particular language, and all of the impulses and emotions people experience without fully understanding. Certianly these things play a role in shaping what happens when an author applies pen to paper. 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>> ___________________________________________________________________ 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]