[Milton-L] responses and intentionalism

[James Rovira]

James -- Isn't there another option too, though?  Can't we can have a
strong version of author-intentionalism that's merely descriptive and
doesn't lead to authoritative pronouncements upon -the- meaning of the
text?  We can value the author's opinion is valued as a member of the
reading community closest to the production of the text without
limiting that reading community to the only relevant one.

Jim R

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:44 PM, JD Fleming <jfleming at sfu.ca> wrote:
> Several things strike me. One: reader-response -- at least of Fish's kind -- is not alien to, but continuous with, a strong version of author-intentionalism. The theory offers claims, which can be quite detailed and authoritarian, about what experiences of the text the author means the reader to have.
>