Yeah, these are all valid concerns raised whenever the idea of authorial intent is abandoned. I think we need to think about what language is. It's a "shared" thing. It's both something we're given and something we in part affect by our use. There are a lot of people who go in the direction you fear--that a text is open to limitless interpretation, and readers can make anything they want out of any text. But, to me, this denies the "shared" nature of language. People who do so treat language as if they created it or owned it. We all own language collectively. And the meaning of language is dependent upon a collective agreement. I think most texts have a limited range of meanings dependent upon the language used. I think the limits of these meanings are broader for some works (say, Eliot's Waste Land or Joyce's Finnegan's Wake) than for others (a chemical equation). But I don't believe all texts are open to infinite interpretations, and I believe precious few, if any, texts are open to one and only one interpretation. Jim On Sun, 13 Sep 1998 01:13:21 +0100 oz <craig.king@cwcom.net> writes: >hello hello . . . > >i agree with matt kozusko's idea of the limits of being too reader >orientated as somehow effacing individualism at the same time as >it proposes to liberate it. > >it seems also that this can be taken to a worrying degree. what are >the limits of the reader to 'create' meaning from a written text? if >one accepts it fully the logic of the thing can be taken to an absurd >degree. if the reader creates all, effacing authorial intent, does >this >then open any, if not all, texts, be they novel or advertising copy, >to >infinite interpretation? this seems, to me, to drift off into >solipsistic >silliness, positioning the reader as not merely author but one- >degree-removed creator of fictions in the face of an aesthetic, >whether you think it's worthwhile or not. > >it seems to turn the reader into a character out of a philip k. dick >novel. you know, he reads a book and starts to draw certain ideas >out of it and before you know the interpretation is so far removed >from the intent that he's off in la la land. actually, if it was dick >it >wouldn't be a book but reality itself and there's an interesting if >complicated analogy there somewhere between >aesthetics/interpretation and reality/perception: subjectivity, >relativism, reality/realities. oh my, such a can of worms . . . > >i've played with it but there's a point here. on the other hand, one >could well create an interpretation of my text that reveals me to be >a vodka drinking prussian ballet dancer, deep at heart . . . > >late at night thoughts, > >craig king > >p.s: i actually prefer gin. preferably with a suggestion of vermouth, >one ice cube, lightly stirred (never shaken, oh my, no) and a spray >of citrus. you know, it was salinger that got me into martinis . . . >and introduced me to the words 'swizzle stick'. > _____________________________________________________________________ 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]