tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post113214733165871480..comments2024-03-28T11:03:41.050-05:00Comments on Unlocked Wordhoard: Intentionally OmittedDr. Richard Scott Nokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1132661491836499742005-11-22T06:11:00.000-06:002005-11-22T06:11:00.000-06:00Further to the above: Speculation on intent is int...Further to the above: Speculation on intent is interesting but it seems it can only result in projection. <BR/><BR/>An example: the 'Leonardo da Vinci was gay' angle (proposed by Sigmund Freud in 1910). It's enticing (the sodomy charges, the male nudes etc.) but ultimately has more to with Freud (why, he must have been gay!!! - it's very trappy this intent lark....) and the 20th century, than Leonardo. <BR/><BR/>A linear (enlightenment-edified, as it were) view of history - in which new things about the past are 'discovered' all the time is perhaps the cause? <BR/><BR/>The critics ego (erm, thanks Sigmund) is also rather important to the whole enterprise (critic as detective genius etc.)<BR/><BR/>As well as that, it is undeniably fun!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1132594808533945662005-11-21T11:40:00.000-06:002005-11-21T11:40:00.000-06:00Wow. I'm coming into this discussion late, but I'...Wow. I'm coming into this discussion late, but I'm surpried to see the consensus concerning intent. I do not travel in literary circles, but I'll throw in my two cents. Although it may be the case that it is difficult to determine the author's intent, it does not follow that such a project is impossible, nor does it follow that the author's intent is irrelevant (a strong claim probably not intended by Nokes). Can't we infer something about intent from examining the original context/audience? It seems odd to say that intent changes over time -- the question is, "What was the intent when this work was written?" Perhaps, as in the Narnia case, there simply is no answer to the question, "What was his intended ordering?" It does not follow from this that he had no important intentions.<BR/><BR/>I find that, in general, epistemological concerns often result in unwarranted skepticism and even worse, metaphysical conclusions. (I'm venting here.) Just because we can't have Cartesian certainty about a matter doesn't mean there is no truth about that matter. We should apporach each work on a case-by-sace basis, asking what we can discern about intent, rather than embracing a paradigm that dismisses such concerns altogether.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14316937277548018841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1132237245463624282005-11-17T08:20:00.000-06:002005-11-17T08:20:00.000-06:00The lack of an known author hasn't stopped medieva...The lack of an known author hasn't stopped medievalists speculating on intent (e.g: 'The author wants to show his audience that killing is bad' or 'The Beowulf Poet wants to demonstrate the characteristics of the ideal warrior') <BR/><BR/>The (mistaken?) assumption is that language is in some way in the service of the author where the opposite may be the case. <BR/><BR/>Another possible stance is that language is not 'representative' of our thought in the way we might like to think - hence speculation on intent is subjective, in that it depends heavily on the critic, and likely to be redundant.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps: 'It is not we who play with words, but the nature of language plays with us' (Heidegger)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1132231633599306452005-11-17T06:47:00.000-06:002005-11-17T06:47:00.000-06:00D'oh! What a faux pas!D'oh! What a faux pas!Dr. Richard Scott Nokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01348275071082514870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1132199582619420132005-11-16T21:53:00.000-06:002005-11-16T21:53:00.000-06:00The second and lesser point, though, is that Tolki...<I><B>The second and lesser point, though, is that Tolkien intended his work for non-philogists, a claim that I'll grant for the sake of argument. The next question should be, do we care?</I></B><BR/><BR/>Actually, I am the One Ring site poster you refer to as making that interesting post (thank you, by the way). But my point has been misunderstood: I said Tolkien put the word ("weapontake") there for his reader. I did <I>not</I> say he put it there for non-philologists. Philologists can also be readers and therefore, the word is there for them as well as any other reader. No reader can completely separate his personal training, experience, or worldview from his reader-self. We are all personal in our reading, aren't we?<BR/><BR/>However, he did not simply place the word there for the few philologists who would read it. The word is purposely used and any reader can get the gist of it in context. The word was placed there for the <I>reader</I>, or why write anything except a personal diary? Words in a book are read by readers.<BR/><BR/>And completely off topic, but just so you know when you drop by the One Ring reading room (and I sincerely hope you do more often)-I am a fanGIRL.<BR/><BR/>:-)<BR/><BR/>a.s.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1132179104478038972005-11-16T16:11:00.000-06:002005-11-16T16:11:00.000-06:00I think that's a fascinating point, about the lack...I think that's a fascinating point, about the lack of "authors" and therefore all debate about their "intent", in non-modern literature. I myself am certainly not "trained" in this matter, but I find these arguments fascinating, especially when I have just read and publicly commented on some piece of critical tripe about an author whose intent I had believed I understood. Thanks for explaining some of the underlying issues and questions!<BR/><BR/>Anyway, you reminded me of an <A HREF="http://www.theonering.net/rumour_mill/rpg/viewer/readingroom/416C82710001E0A0.html" REL="nofollow">extended discussion on Derrida, deconstruction, and authorial intent</A> that took place on The One Ring last fall.<BR/><BR/>Hint: it's way too long to read all the posts, but the entire thread is reproduced at the bottom of each post's page. The active post you are reading is the non-underlined one in the outline. Some of the topic heads may give you a sense of how the discussion trended.squirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14280609151416389163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13713642.post-1132174656887955762005-11-16T14:57:00.000-06:002005-11-16T14:57:00.000-06:00And then, there's Milton, who first arranged Parad...And then, there's Milton, who first arranged <I>Paradise Lost</I> in 10 books (1667), then changed his mind and rearranged it into 12 books for the second edition (1674).<BR/><BR/>How are we <I>really</I> to read it?<BR/><BR/>Jeffery Hodges<BR/><BR/>* * *Horace Jeffery Hodgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16684513618463766017noreply@blogger.com