Camille vs. Jim, round Three :)

Jim Rovira (jrovira@juno.com)
Fri, 11 Sep 1998 18:59:35 -0700

>Well, it depends on what you mean by `get to'. Of course, we can never
>*truly* know a writer by their writings. But `intentions' is 
>different.
>Intentions are plain mechanical, e.g. JDS said `I always write stories
>about very young people', by that we can infer that he therefore 
>writes
>*for* young or slightly older people, and right there we have his 
>intention
>worked out for us. So the question with the Glasses is, when it comes 
>down
>to it : did he mean them to be a mystery or not?  
>

UGH.  Yes, language is ambigious, especially when we're talking about the
reading process :)  I don't see a qualitative difference between "getting
to" the author and his or her "intentions."  Either way, you infer
something about the author's character, personality, or thinking through
their text.  What I've been trying to say is that:

1.  These inferences tell us nothing about the meaning of the text.

2.  They're always speculative.

So what if he meant them to be a mystery?  That's the point.  What we
have is a particular text and any guesses about Salinger's thoughts about
the text are really meaningless.  He meant to write about very young
people.  How we get from there to "he intended to write 'for' very older
people" is a real mystery to me.  I suppose we could say he intended to
write for "older people" because he published in magazines that older
people read--the New Yorker, etc.  Now, how this sheds light on the
meaning of his works, well....?

>True. But it's a lot of fun finding clues. I feel the fragmentary 
>nature of
>the Glass stories may indicate something larger.
>

If all you want to do is have fun with the text and play around in it in
your own little world, well, shoot.  Fine.  I wouldn't want to spoil
that.  :)  But if you want to convince anyone of the validity of your
ideas, it'll take something a bit more coherent.  That's all.

>> - and really tells us nothing about the meaning of the text.
>
>Again, I'm not sure that's right. What about works that were never 
>meant to
>be published, like a lot of Emily Dickinson's poems, for example? 
>Obviously
>if she knew they were going to be published she would have written 
>them
>with a different intention and thus the poems themselves would have 
>been a
>lot different.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?  Give me ONE reason to believe that.  Please.
Something that makes sense, something substantial and
reasoned...Anything.  Just not these claims with no support.  Something
better than begging the question.  Anything.  I'm desperate here :)

Can't you see how saying someone "would have written something
differently" is such pure conjecture it's not worth talking about?  

I'll bet Emily would have written differently if she were born a man or
with six arms.  But, what's the point?

>
>> When I said your original post had intentionalist presuppositions 
>behind
>> it--
>
>What exactly are `intentionalist presuppositions' ? I can't tell you
>whether I am an intentionalist or not until I know what one is!
>

Then why did you disagree with me so vocally when I said so?

>Don't you think that going to the trouble of finding quotes from 
>e-mails I
>sent several months ago means I am very firm and convinced on my 
>stance and
>totally understand what I think??
>

No, it just means that you're just as anal retentive about your e-mail as
I am :)  When you make contradictory statements from one post to the
next, that means you don't really understand what you're saying.  Or that
you haven't given me a complete, or coherent, presentation of your
thinking.

>> See, the word "intent" means, in this dicussion,
>> what the author thought his text meant while he wrote it, or what he
>> wanted it to mean before he wrote it.  Sometimes the authors 
>themselves
>> don't even know this--does that mean the text is meaningless?
>
>No, not at all. By intent I just mean the overall effect the writer 
>wished
>to achieve. 

Ok.  Let's suppose the writer intended to achieve a specific
effect--horror, for example.  He wants us to be scared poopless when we
read his works.  This can be conscious or unconscious, to me it makes no
difference.  This doesn't mean he actually acheived his intent.  We are
still left with a text that means what it means and does what it does
regardless of what the author wanted it to do.  

What you are saying is all part of authorial intent--that the ideas the
author had about his text are somehow relevant to the meaning of the text
itself.

>> Sometimes
>> the author's view of the text changes over time, does that mean the
>> meaning of the text changes too?
>
>*No*, because, because because the
>meaning of a text ALWAYS changes ... have you ever written a story you
>thought was your absolute best, then picked it up a few years later 
>and
>thought it sucked? That's a change of meaning right there.

It's a change in my opinion of the text, not a change in the text itself.
 If I write a story today about lost love that I think is great, then ten
years later think sucks, the story is still about lost love.    

This is kind of the crux of our disagreement here.  On one side you seem
to be arguing that what the author thinks about his or her text should
impact our understanding of the text itself, on the other hand you seem
to be placing all the meaning of the text in the reader.  

>> 
>> What's really odd about your muddy brand of intentionalism is that 
>most
>> intentionalists believe texts only have one meaning, while you do 
>not.  --Jim
>
>Well there you have it. The proof that I am not an intentionalist. 
>Whatever
>that is. 
>

I am not **this.**

I do not know what **this** is.

eh, something seem wrong to you here? :)  Maybe I have a reason to think
you're contradicting yourself?

>> What people really mean by authorial intent is historical 
>information, or
>> some kind of cultural/linguistic info, or something about other 
>texts the
>> authors have read or written. --Jim

>No, this isn't really what I meant at all. When you're talking about
>writing you're talkinga bout this:
>
>                
> WRITER ------>CREATION<------ READER
>
>Where both parties are integral to the creation of the text. And in 
>this
>diagram, `INTENTION' would go just under that first arrow there. It 
>hasn't
>got anything to do with the reader. It's one of the few things that
>actually comes with the text, part of its emotional baggage if you 
>like, or
>far more correctly, part of its mechanics.
>

That's just it, Camille.  I don't think intention "comes" along with the
text.  All we have is text and readers.  The author doesn't exist once
the thing is on paper.  We almost never know what the author thought
about his or her text while they were writing it, and the few times we do
know, so what?  I still have to read and decipher the thing for myself,
based upon my knowledge of literature and language.

I'll read what authors say about their works seeing them as a very
informed reader.  That's about as far as I go. 

>  
>> Now, you can say, "But see, you still need to know Salinger intended 
>to
>> express his buddhism through 'Teddy'"  
>
>You don't *need* to know necessarily. It just adds another layer of
>meaning. You don't *need* to know any writer's intention. It's just 
>helpful
>sometimes, and interesting to think about.
>

Thanks for finally saying that.  Yes, it is interesting.  When I studied
Joyce's Portrait I studied a lot of biographical info.  People in Dublin
used to read his work to find themselves or their friends in it--"Let's
see who James is writing about now" :)  Yes, this is fun.  But no, this
tells us absolutely nothing about the text :)

>
>That's what I'm SAYING here. And you accuse me of not listening hard
>enough! Obviously, as I said, a character, as I reiterated, does not, 
>as I
>followed on, exist as a flesh and blood person. BUT the fact that a) 
>we
>talk of them as if they were real and b) they take on a different 
>`life'
>outside their texts DOES mean that we reanimate them in a certain way. 

Please, Camille.  No, I never thought you believed that fictional
characters somehow exist as flesh and blood people. That is silly beyond
belief :)  

I disagree that we 'reanimate them' in Any way.  That's all.  

>They
>exist as part of all of us, thus they do live in a way. Back to the 
>text
>thingy.
>

You have an interesting definition of life.  When Woody Allen was asked
if he sought immortality through his work he said, "I'd rather be
immortal by not dying."

Get the point?

Jim

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]