Barthes Schmarthes

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: john v. omlor: "Meaning, intentionality, and responsibility..."
• Previous message: Matt Kozusko: "Re: Camille vs. Jim, round Three :)"

	`...Why would we want stale texts that can only be truly 
	interpreted by the author himself? In this case, Salinger's 
	original intentions would be the only correct meaning of 
	his texts...'

	I guess I'm the only one around here with sufficient humility 
	to say, yes, this seems to me the best way of thinking about it. 
	I think we're ALL wrong & can only do our best to enter ever more 
	fully into the world which Salinger has - however imperfectly - 
	tried to transmit to us.  

	The fashionable alternative is of course flattering to the vanity of 
	hoi polloi - & no doubt reflects something of the Marxism which 
	still lingers like garlic after-breath in so many academic circles. 
	But I'm afraid it sadly isn't true.  Jack (or indeed Jill) is simply 
	NOT as good as his Master.  The cogency of so many recent 
	posts illustrates this all too vividly.

	(My apologies to Lomanno.  I presume her failure to add even 
	one little hint of a signature symbolises her position astride 
	the dead author.  `Suicide of the Poster' perhaps ?)

	Scottie B.

• Next message: john v. omlor: "Meaning, intentionality, and responsibility..."
• Previous message: Matt Kozusko: "Re: Camille vs. Jim, round Three :)"