11-14-2017, 11:40 AM
If you can forgive the wiki reference (I know, I know), I read this today and it intrigued me:
New Criticism, as espoused by Cleanth Brooks, W. K. Wimsatt, T. S. Eliot, and others, argued that authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley argue in their essay "The Intentional Fallacy" that "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art".[1] The author, they argue, cannot be reconstructed from a writing—the text is the primary source of meaning, and any details of the author's desires or life are secondary. Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that even details about the work's composition or the author's intended meaning and purpose that might be found in other documents such as journals or letters are "private or idiosyncratic; not a part of the work as a linguistic fact" and are thus secondary to the trained reader's rigorous engagement with the text itself.[1]
What do we think about the role of authorial intent for the meaning of poems? Seems like one's opinion on this matter would influence perceptions of the role of the poetry critic and what constitutes a valid read.
Do you think that's true?
P.S. You can also choose to answer stpm's superior question: "Should authorial intent be accounted for when evaluating the success or failure of a poem?"
New Criticism, as espoused by Cleanth Brooks, W. K. Wimsatt, T. S. Eliot, and others, argued that authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley argue in their essay "The Intentional Fallacy" that "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art".[1] The author, they argue, cannot be reconstructed from a writing—the text is the primary source of meaning, and any details of the author's desires or life are secondary. Wimsatt and Beardsley argue that even details about the work's composition or the author's intended meaning and purpose that might be found in other documents such as journals or letters are "private or idiosyncratic; not a part of the work as a linguistic fact" and are thus secondary to the trained reader's rigorous engagement with the text itself.[1]
What do we think about the role of authorial intent for the meaning of poems? Seems like one's opinion on this matter would influence perceptions of the role of the poetry critic and what constitutes a valid read.
Do you think that's true?
P.S. You can also choose to answer stpm's superior question: "Should authorial intent be accounted for when evaluating the success or failure of a poem?"