>Hey Velociraptor and Kestrel:
>
>Sorry for the delay.  I have an excuse... was getting married this weekend
>(whee!  It's over!  and it went off hitchlessly!), so I was understandably
>distracted...
>
>>
>> Actually... you know, I think some of it comes from a more specific
>> education.
>
>Yes, but...literary criticism (the academic variety, in which I am trained)
is
>about language and how we achieve meaning in texts -- not just the words,
but
>the imagery inherent in the words, the cultural inheritance of reader and
>writer.
>
>> My problem comes in as... was it intended by the author? If it wasn't...
the
>> illustration is like the picture of the Madonna on the side of a barn.
You
>> may see it, but that doesn't mean it's really there. The Emperor's new
>> clothes.
>>
>
>If I worried about an author's intention every time I read a text, I'd be
>unable to comment on anything whose author is deceased.  That does not
work.
>
>Author's intentions are not the Be All and End All of meaning for a text.
Once
>a text is published and out there for public consumption, all of us who
read it
>bring our own spins and interpretations to a text.  A critic brings a lot
more
>stuff along for a reading, true, but we all interpret texts when we read.
The
>author cannot control the readings.
>
>A critic does not inject into a text meaning that is not there at all (and
if
>she does, she can and will be castigated for that), but rather picks apart
a
>text to find layers to the apparent meaning.  Just because someone does not
see
>what the critic does -- including the author - does not mean that what the
>critic sees is not there.  Nor does the author's (un)intentional meaning
take
>precedence over a critic's... though neither does the critic's take
precedence
>over the author.  This is one of the cruxes of post modernism -- that
authority
>is decentralized, that meaning is not a monolithic thing, to be set by one
>person or people.
>
>Particularly in our postmodern age, art of all sorts is horribly
>self-conscious.  Texts certainly are, with authors playing with conventions
and
>consciously applying postmodern theories to their work.  One can read a
>postmodern text without mediation, but one misses a great deal of what's
there.
>
>
>>
>> And I'm also aware that's just *some* critics... others would read it and
>> weigh it only for what's actually there, and skip the flashy display of
>> education for the sake of proving you're educated.
>
>Therein lies the rub... because I, Critic A, see something in the text and
>comment on it.  The author says it's not there, because she did not intend
it
>to be.  Now... is it in the text, or isn't it?  What in a text is heavily
>dependent on the reader, no?  And critics are also readers, no?
>
>
>> I can see it's usefulness, and see also that
>> some of them are more interested in their own verbal masturbation than
they
>> are the thing they're actually supposed to be critiquing.
>
>One can also note that authors, who are heavily invested in the text
itself,
>have a great deal to gain by castigating critics and hoarding the supposed
>authority over a text for themselves... mini-godhood.
>
>This is, admittedly, a sore spot with me.  Lit Crit is all about critical
>readings of texts and examining the ways texts achieve meaning.  That's not
>trivial, and it's not easy.  I don't care that the vast majority of the
>universe does not find it interesting, or even particularly useful -
because
>it's a niche field, and it's not practical in that 'will it earn money and
make
>material things' sort of way by which our society measures the worth of an
>endeavor.  I don't worry about that.  I do get tired of defending the
endeavor
>as worthwhile at all - because I think critical thinking is terribly
important,
>and I find it fascinating to dig and poke at a text to see what's happening
on
>as many layers as I can find.  I also get tired of the veiled assertion
that
>critics don't actually know anything (not saying I got any of that here,
but my
>gods and little fishes, I've heard it before).  We do. We know just as
much, if
>not more, about how texts work than the authors themselves sometimes.  But
>because it's academic knowledge, it's trivialized.
>
>The point (if there is one) is this: you may dislike what critics have to
say,
>you may think they are full of crap, and that's fine.  But it's not so fine
to
>insist that because someone (including the author) cannot see in the text
what
>the critic sees that the critic is, therefore wrong.
>
>-darkelf, stepping of the soapbox now
>
>=====
>Obsequium parit amicos; veritas parit odium.  - Cicero
>(Compliance produces friends; truth produces hate.)
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
>http://webhosting.yahoo.com/

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha