Re: I'm not `versus' anyone!/ Jim

Jim Rovira (jrovira@juno.com)
Sat, 12 Sep 1998 17:49:27 -0700 

On Sat, 12 Sep 1998 14:39:11 +1000 Camille Scaysbrook
<verona_beach@geocities.com> writes:
>As you can see by my subject line, I'd rather this be seen as a 
>discussion
>than some sparring match. Flamewars are one thing I have absolutely no
>interest in getting involved in and if anyone sees this turning in to 
>one,
>feel free to tell us to shut up. I'm almost to the point where I'll 
>happily
>shut up anyway, it's getting kind of dull and I've come to realise in
>situations like this that one side is never going to get the other 
>side to
>understand anyway.
>

Ugh, Lord, Camille, when did I say I was espousing a flame war?  We have
different opinions and are arguing with each other.   It's a discussion. 
Doesn't get any deeper than that :)

>No ... but he tried to. Just because a person doesn't get blown up 
>when
>they cross a field doesn't mean there's no land mines planted in that
>field. It's the intent, and intent - unlike communication - is a one 
>sided
>thing, a signal going outwards that may or may not reach its target.
>

Right.  That was part of my point.  Therefore, intent is really
meaningless when it comes to interpreting literature.  Either the bomb
went off or it didn't.

>That pretty much sums up my position. Intention is part of the 
>mechanics
>behind a story. 

Ok.  So you ARE an intentionalist to some degree :)  

heh (had to throw that in)

How do you Know the author's intent, Camille?  How much did Shakespeare
ever talk about his intent for his plays?  All we have are his texts. 
That's all we can work with.  We don't have Shakespeare's ideas, we don't
have his words about his words (which we would have to make sense of
anyhow), all we have is what he's written.  And our knowledge of the
language governing it.

A study of, say, the social climate, its philosophy, or its politics is
what people do when they try to get to the author's "intent."  But they
aren't reading the author's mind.  What they are really studying is the
reading community the author wrote for, and interpreting the text within
the context of that community.  THAT is a worthwhile task.  But it has
nothing to do with understanding what was on the author's mind when he
wrote. 

>> 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."  
>
>There's an enormous difference; literally chalk and cheese. It's the
>difference between the spanner and the bolt. `getting to' the author 
>is, if
>we accept the metaphor of the landmines I made, part of the process of
>interpretation, which is on the complete opposite arm of the equation.
>

You're defining your terms to suit your argument.  These phrases are
pretty ambiguous in and of themselves.  But however you word it, you are
making the meaning of a text to some degree dependent upon what we know
of the author, that's what I disagreed with all along.

>> 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.
>
>But how can that be? Take Seymour for example. Buddy describes himself 
>and
>Seymour as being fairly ugly guys in S:AI. But JDS intends us to like 
>Buddy
>and Seymour.

STOP!  How do you know that?  How do you know JDS intends us to like
Buddy and Seymour?  I don't disagree, but the How thing is what I want to
know...

>So he makes their ugliness seem almost like a virtue. If 
>JDS
>had wanted us to hate Buddy and Seymour he would have described them 
>in
>totally different terms. The characters would have been exactly the 
>same,
>but the author's intent in portraying them for us would have been
>different. 

Are you sure you're not projecting your psychology onto JDS?  How could
JDS create the "same" characters and give us different feelings about
them?    

It's just like the argument I always have with people about
>Courtney Love. I think she's courageous, dynamic and intelligent. 
>Other
>people think she's a loud mouthed twit. We're both talking about the 
>same
>person, we just want to persuade people to interpret her in the way we 
>see
>her. And *that* is intention.

You're confused once again.  That is the intention of the reader, not the
author.  Courtney in this context would be the "author," while you and
your friends arguing about her are readers.  BTW--there's a British movie
out about Kurt and Courtney you may be interested in :)

>We take the author's intention through
>interpretation, the other half of the equation, and we run with it. 
>And
>*that* is where the idea of a character living out the confines of 
>their
>text comes along.
>

I'm sorry, I don't follow your reasoning at all here.  I think what's
really happening regarding the "character living outsidet he confines of
their text thing" is this:

1. Real people have an independent existence on their own, regardless of
what others say about them.

2.  But other people do "say" things about them, and that is part of how
we understand their existence.

Now, fictional characters are similar to real people in point two--that
other people talk about them and that's part of how we come to understand
them.  But in point one, their real existence is only in a text.  

>I reccommend you read Roland Barthes' `The Death of The Author'. Even 
>I
>don't agree with everything in it but it would give you an idea of 
>where
>I'm coming from.
> 

I've read Barthes.  

>> 2.  They're always speculative.
>
>Depends what you mean by `speculative'. To me the word implies that 
>there
>is a right or wrong, and when we're talking about interpretation we 
>can't
>use those words. There may be `valid or less valid' or `valuable or 
>less
>valuable' interpretations but you can never say straight out `no, 
>that's
>wrong'

No, speculative, if you pay close attention, has nothing to do with right
or wrong.  If we can narrow it down to "right" or "wrong" then we have
excluded the possibility of speculation.  "Valid or less valid" is a good
substitute for "speculative"  The point of something being "speculative"
is that it's sheer guesswork, thus probably wrong, but we don't know.  We
have no way of knowing.  

Again, it's like asking, "what would Emily Bronte have written if she
were born a man?"  It's a meaningless question.

>It also implies the supremacy of the author's interpretation, 
>which
>is another thing I don't agree with.

UGH.  But you make meaning dependent on it to a degree--here's what you
said above:

>Intention is part of the 
>mechanics
>behind a story. 

>
>Again, it's just a matter of delving into the mechanics; sorting the
>frisbees from the landmines; trying to guess what's between the 
>invisible
>parentheses on the webpage. And by doing this we're contributing to 
>the
>text of a story. I'm still not sure you understand what I mean by the
>`Text' so I'll explain it again. It's not only the book, but all the
>collective experiences of the book; those of the author, those of the
>readers and critics. 
>

I understand, Camille, but I disagree.  The "text" is just the book.

>> 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 didn't say/mean that. I meant `young people and slightly older 
>people'.

But you still don't explain yourself very well :)  How do you get from
point A to point B?

>Just in the same way that romance novels are written mainly for
>fortysomething housewives and so forth.

I do understand that specific types of literature are directed toward
specific markets.  We know who Romance is written for because we know who
buys it.  But I was questioning two things:

1. How do you know Salinger "intended" to write for that age group?  And
the quote you gave about him writing "about" very young people isn't
enough.  You didn't show me the connection.

2. And if we know that, how does it affect our reading of the text at
all?

>But it's *not* my own little world. That's the beauty of a Text - it's
>where a book or a movie or a song becomes *everybodys*. Everything 
>anyone
>has ever said about it, thought about it, written about it - it all 
>becomes
>a part of this big matrix called the Text.

No, I'm sorry, but I disagree.  Some things some people say about some
works of liteature are nonsense.  They shouldn't be associated with
anything but fantasy.

 And this includes the
>speculation - which I add, is serious. It's no game. It's no different 
>or
>less valid than trying to imagine exactly what Shakespeare's lost play
>Love's Labour's Won was about.

Camille--"imagine" is the key word here.  :)  You aren't saying anything
substantive. 

 And there's certain evidences that 
>could at
>least point us in the right direction. We *know* Salinger has written 
>other
>stories. All I'm doing is trying to search through the stories we have 
>for
>some idea of the directions his later stories may have taken. I don't 
>see
>anything bizzare or playful about that.
>

If you're doing it for play, fine.  But if you're doing it thinking
you're doing serious work, that's bizarre :)

>> HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?  Give me ONE reason to believe that.
>
>Okay. Here's two versions of a story:
>
>Today I went down to the shops. I saw Mr Smith there and I smiled at 
>him.
>But all the time I wanted to kill him for what he did to me. I wanted 
>to
>punch him till his teeth fell out of his head when he smiled back. 
>Then I
>went home, seething with rage.
>
>Today I went down to the shops. I saw Mr Smith there and I smiled at 
>him.
>He smiled back. Then I went home.
>
>The former is something that I wouldn't want publicised. No doubt Anne
>Frank wouldn't want the world to hear some of her declarations. I 
>write
>things in my own diary I don't want anyone else to know. On the other 
>hand,
>say I wrote a column in the newspaper about the same experience. I 
>would
>clean up my story, omit certain details, and so on. In the case of 
>Emily
>Dickinson, she wrote most of her poems by herself and for herself. She
>didn't seem to intend to publish any of them. And if she did, I'm sure 
>a
>lot of them would be a lot less private than they are.

assuming that Emily thinks and acts just like you.  Some people would say
only the first story of yours up above is publishable, while the second
isn't worth reading.

This is speculative.  You're projecting yourself onto other authors.

>
>> I'll bet Emily would have written differently if she were born a man 
>or
>> with six arms.  But, what's the point?
>
>You're missing my point (again). I'm not talking about `What if Emily 
>was
>an Inuit Eskimo, how would that have affected her writing'. No, I'm 
>going
>on facts : `Emily Dickinson did not *intend* for her work to be 
>published
>and I believe this is reflected in her work because it is intensely 
>private
>and intimate. If she *had* intended them for publication she would 
>have a)
>possibly chosen different topics, or b) discussed the topics she does 
>write
>about in a different way now that she's writing for a possible 
>audience of
>thousands.
>

Right.  We are still stuck with "possibly" and "possibles," and that's my
point :)  If she had written works "intended for publication" following
your reasoning, they probably wouldn't have been publishable :)

>> Can't you see how saying someone "would have written something
>> differently" is such pure conjecture it's not worth talking about?  
>
>*No*. Again, it's a question of intent. Salinger must be writing
>differently now because he doesn't have us looking over his shoulder. 

MUST is a strong word.  NOT EVERYONE THINkS THE SAME WAY :)  

>Ah. I've just realised what's happening here. You're mistaking my 
>intent.
>You're interpreting it wrongly. Now *this* is EXACTLY what my posts 
>are
>about! We're seeing it happen right before our very eyes! I haven't
>contradicted myself. It's just becuase you have mistaken your
>interpretation of my intent.

Nope.  I can misunderstand what you've written, and that's one thing.  I
didn't make any statements about your "intent"  I only wrote about what
you said.  If my interpretation of your e-mail doesn't line up with your
intent--that's one thing.  I will not make statements contradicting what
you say your intent was for your own words.  You own your intent.  But I
will make statements about what your text means--and that's what I was
doing.

>I can see how you think this, but let me explain. Communication is a 
>finite
>thing. A book is a finite thing. A *seed* is a finite thing. But all 
>of
>these things are packed with potentialities. A seed could die before 
>it
>even germinates. It could grow huge or wide, it could bear fruit, it 
>may
>not. All the writer gives us is a seed. He or she packs it with what 
>they
>believe is the right information and plants it in our minds. How it 
>grows
>from there is out of his or her hands. But the `DNA' of the story is
>unalterable - that is, the words we have before us and the mechanical
>structures formed with these words to produce meaning.
>

This is the closest you've come to making sense yet :)  Good for you :)  

But you see, in your analogy, "how it grows from there is out of his or
her hands"  That is my point all along.  "Intent" implies a continuing
influence of the author on his or her text.  I'm saying that the text
exists, and that continuing influence ceases to exist.

>> 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.  
>
>Yes - but his or her intentions *do*.
>

They exist only in the author's mind and we have no access to that.

>> 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.
>
>But what I'm talking about is the little tidbits the author inserted 
>in the
>text to assist you in doing this, and try and make your interpretation
>match theirs.
>

Those "little tidbits" the author may not be aware of himself :)  You may
want to read Umberto Eco's Six Walks in the Fictional Woods.  And pay
close attention to the distinction between the model author and the
empirical author.  What you've described is the role of the model author.

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]