Re: My problem, Dr Rovira ...

From: Jim Rovira <jrovira@drew.edu>
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 15:02:18 EDT

> Jim, sorry: I really, truly, am so sorry, for being so tardy. I shouldn't
> have. I have no idea what you'd been saying all along. I never read your
> mails in general and whatever little I ever do, is purely whatever little is
> quoted in other responses. So I did not know that you had already made what
> I perceived was my pathetic attempt at a weak witticism. But I've realised
> my folly, for since then I have actually been reading all your mails.

Here's a very, very good example of my words betraying my intent. I "meant" to
say I made the same weak witticism "years ago" when I said, "back in the day"
(meaning, back in the days when I myself thought authorial intent was the ground
of textual meaning).

You understood me to mean I'd made the same witticism on this list during the
discussion of this topic. I think that's a fair interpretation of my rather
unclear words.

So what we have here is my words not meaning what I intended them to mean.

> And to tell the truth, I am actually quite baffled now:
>
> > But rather than argue my intent vs. the acutal meaning of my words, don't
> you
> > think it'd be both more fair and productive to compare the ideas in my
> posts
> > with the ideas Foucault actually expressed?
>
> You mean your intent and what you call are 'ideas' in your posts are two
> different things?

Following the example made available by our own little discussion here, what I
mean is that we can't take for granted that the ideas in my head are
necessarily the same as the words I write. I'm an imperfect writer like all
writers.

This is just a very minor example of some of the problems with authorial intent.

Honestly, though, this discussion is a bit of an artificial testing ground for
intent. Remember I never denied that authors wrote with an intent in mind
(although sometimes they don't know precisely what it is). We can muddle
through the imperfections in our use of language on this list by asking for,
well, more language. I can say, "No, I didn't mean by that a statement I made
on this list, but a statement I made years ago." I'm here. You're here. We
can correct one another.

But we can't do that with Shakespeare, can we? Or even most authors who are
still alive. And when we can, can we be really sure they're being honest with
themselves and with us? So what does the idea of authorial intent gain us in
the long run?

> Let me not even get into what claim.I think I should now just leave for home
> with a new existential question. Many, actually. But only one mantra: no mo
> po mo.
>
> Sonny

Sonny, there was never any po mo here to begin with :). Thanks for the rare
time you've take reading and responding to my posts.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Oct 25 15:02:22 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 21:50:19 EDT