[Milton-L] Should an Author's Intentions Matter?
jamesrovira at gmail.com
Sun Apr 5 20:28:10 EDT 2015
I'm very glad that Harold has finally been able to enter the discussion. As
he and John Leonard pointed out, Wimsatt and Beardsley -- and even others
such as Derrida -- don't deny the existence or fact of authorial intent, at
least not to my knowledge. They simply deny its relevance to any act of
interpretation carried out by a non-author, even if in the case of some New
Critics they are seeking to attach a single, stable meaning to a literary
text. It's simply not true that we need authorial intent to avoid
arbitrariness in interpretation.
Truthfully, I got over the need to depend upon authorial intent for textual
stability when I realized that intentionalist hermeneutic strategies
essentially reconstructed the author as a reader of his or her own text,
and then that such a reconstruction was probably equally valid for many
other readers living at the same time -- so intentionalist hermeneutics
result in a kind of historically-grounded or historically-specific
That's not to say that authorial intent isn't relevant at all. It is
relevant to literary history, to textual history, etc.
I think that distinctions that also need to be made is between the meaning
of a word in context, a sentence, a paragraph, and the entire work. These
are all interrelated, but difficulties and approaches vary greatly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Milton-L