Pound vs. Eliot

[jdeirmend]

I don't understand why you have to lock yourself into one theory or 'perspective.' At times there may be a line, a stanza, a poem, and so on, which alludes to the writer's life, and is so obvious it would be stupid to ignore. Other times the writing has nothing to do with the author's life. Can we not address both in criticism?

For purposes of discussion, it would be useful to know who you're addressing. I see myself arguing for an inclusive way of reading.

Whether or not a portion of a work recognizably or obviously alludes to a writer's life, however, is almost besides the point. For it doesn't confirm or change the fact that his or her intention formed the work. You seem to recognize this in the second half of your post, when you address the "professors."

My thoughts on intentionality: I may intend to write about that night I walked alone in a dark street, and perhaps I somewhat do, but then I end up writing about rape. Does this mean that my intentions at one point have shifted or was it my 'intention' to write about rape all along without even realising it myself? My guess is that it is both, but what I'm trying to demonstrate is that the writer's intention is unknown to her (why did my intentions suddenly change? yes it is possible to say that a writer can know her intentions at a given point in time, but are these really her intentions when she has no authority over them, that they just suddenly appear and change without her even knowing why?) so intentionality is in fact a process of tracing back to before the 'intention' (what made me intend such and such?), a process which is only possible through the text -- the writer asks why he/she intended to intend because she sees the text as the only trace to intentionality, and the reader asks what the writer intended through the text because it is the only link to the writer, but both ask this question thinking that the text is a 'clue' which will lead to the real intention, but in fact we know that the text is just projecting intentionality. This is probably in lieu of poststructuralist thought, though i just made it up on the spot so I wouldn't know. So, the point is intentionality is not so linear, i.e., (I want to write 'cat') ---> (Cat) ---> ("Oh, the writer intended to write cat"). It's more like (I want to write 'cat') ---> (Cat) ---> (That's weird why did I write cat?). (Cat) ---> ("Oh, look the writer intended to write cat" If only I knew that she was questioning her own 'intentions', I would not be so quick to suggest that A) that that was indeed her intention, and B) that intentionality must exist objectively in the mind of the writer).

I think it's cool that you're asking these questions, but your thinking seems to get muddied up in loose associations and equivocations. I find it hard to follow, but would encourage you to keep at it.