RE: nice theory...

Sean Draine (seandr@Exchange.Microsoft.com)
Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:28:46 -0800

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]