{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3721", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3721, "subject": "Get a bigger hamme", "messages": 6, "voices": 5, "first": "2002-12-28T22:56:39+00:00", "last": "2002-12-31T19:54:43+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2002-12-28T22:56:39+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Get a bigger hamme", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, 23 Dec 2002, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nI cannot agree. Authorial intent is not to be dismissed so casually.\nPropagandists of one stripe or another have historically cited respected,\neven revered, sources in support of their cause. The Bible is a good\nexample. Verses can be (and have been) quoted from it that would seem to\njustify a whole host of evils, from slavery to war to genocide. The Nazis\nquoted Nietzsche. Madison and Jefferson are often cited in church/state\ndebates by atheists and believers alike as authorities in support of\nopposing agenda. Authorial intent, where it can be discerned, has everything\nto do with it. Quotes out of context and those that are not representative\nof the whole distort the meaning of the work." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have to say that this cracks me up. The difference between a bunch of\nfolks sitting around talking about which interpretation of a story makes\nfor the most fun reading and the examples you cite is so vast, I feel like\nwe need totally different words to describe them.\n\nAuthorial intent matters when you care deeply about what the author was\ntrying to say. (e.g. biblical interpretation for Christians). You may\nhave a keen interest in what Wolfe was trying to do in the Short Sun\nbooks, but maybe Chris has a keen interest in coming up with what he\nthinks is a more fun reading.\n\nThe important part is that this is all for fun. We're not gonna use the\nresults to decide who lives and who dies.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Josh Geller", "address": "dclxvi at dclxvi.best.vwh.net" }, "date": "2002-12-28T23:03:37+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Get a bigger hamme", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Michael Straight wrote:\nAuthorial intent matters when you care deeply about what the author was\ntrying to say. (e.g. biblical interpretation for Christians). You may\nhave a keen interest in what Wolfe was trying to do in the Short Sun\nbooks, but maybe Chris has a keen interest in coming up with what he\nthinks is a more fun reading." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The important part is that this is all for fun." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For us, now." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " We're not gonna use the\nresults to decide who lives and who dies." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We're not. So far.\n\nHopefully no one ever will. But who can predict the future?\n\nGive it time: another Thirty Years War might be fought over the opinions\nexpressed on this list.\n\nNever understimate the power of human stupidity.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2002-12-31T07:38:41+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Get a bigger hamme", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Josh Geller wrote:\nThe important part is that this is all for fun.\n We're not gonna use the\nresults to decide who lives and who dies." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We're not. So far.\n\nHopefully no one ever will. But who can predict the future?\n\nGive it time: another Thirty Years War might be fought over the opinions\nexpressed on this list." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Um....well. Ok, even given that mind-bogglingly unlikely scenario, why\nwould it be more important that we talk about what Wolfe originally\nintended instead of about interpretations sompe people like better than\nhis original intent?\n\n-Rostrum" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Matthew Weber", "address": "mweber at library.berkeley.edu" }, "date": "2002-12-31T17:15:32+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Get a bigger hamme", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Josh Geller wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The important part is that this is all for fun.\n We're not gonna use the\nresults to decide who lives and who dies." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "We're not. So far.\n\nHopefully no one ever will. But who can predict the future?\n\nGive it time: another Thirty Years War might be fought over the opinions\nexpressed on this list." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Um....well. Ok, even given that mind-bogglingly unlikely scenario, why\nwould it be more important that we talk about what Wolfe originally\nintended instead of about interpretations sompe people like better than\nhis original intent?\n\n-Rostrum" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Assuming that \"original intent\" is a thing that can be known in the \nfirst place--even if the author's still alive, s/he may not tell the \ntruth, or may have forgotten, might think it unimportant, etc.\n\nThe New Criticism is an established literary fact, and kicking \nagainst it will prove to be more trouble than it's worth. Not to say \nthat authorial intent is unimportant, but it's not the Grail: nobody \nknows all the reasons why they do things (or psychotherapy wouldn't \nbe necessary). There's a lot in any author's work that they might \nnot have consciously put there; why not take the time to tease it out?\n\nPlease note that the New Crit is NOT a free pass to spin isogeses \nabout Severian as a drag queen, Herbert Hoover in disguise, or a \nFungi from Yuggoth.\n\n\n\nMatt\n\nThe fault is great in man or woman\nWho steals a goose from off a common;\nBut what can plead that man's excuse\nWho steals a common from a goose?\n\tThe Tickler Magazine, 1 Feb. 1821" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2002-12-31T17:57:21+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Get a bigger hamme", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is also the general feeling going into it (not to say that it is the \nsole reason behind what you term \"The New Criticism\") that the work should \nstand on its own; the roots of what is to be interpreted from the text \nshould be *in* the text (or, I suppose, body of texts) and if the author has \nanything further to say to explain what he meant, he should have somehow put \nthat in the text in the first place.\n\nThere are plenty of arguments that can be made against this, and I won't \ndispute them. However, I suspect it's a sentiment that Wolfe himself shares. \nI've always gotten the feeling that he's been reluctant to answer these \nquestions about his work because he wants them to stand on their own, and \nthat he's made uncomfortable by the prospect of adding something that will \nalter or \"fix\" the reader's interpretation. This also helps account, I \nthink, for how upset he gets about even the smallest unintentional error \nthat he might make in the text (I seem to recall him talking about one in \nthe end of the Long Sun series, in the afterword or thereabouts...) - \nperhaps he doesn't feel that his word, after the fact, is in itself a \ncompletely adequate fix.\n\nTangentially, I tend to read what an author has to say about his work \nanyway. With Wolfe I find it rewarding. The worst experience I had with it, \nthough, was reading what Faulkner had to say about \"The Sound and the Fury\" \nand finding out that some of the things I found most masterful were in fact \ncompletely incidental, and that if he'd had his full way with the story (the \nprinter imposed certain limitations on him) I would have been keenly \ndisappointed with the result. Sometimes, you just don't want to know what \nthe author really meant." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Assuming that \"original intent\" is a thing that can be known in the first \nplace--even if the author's still alive, s/he may not tell the truth, or \nmay have forgotten, might think it unimportant, etc.\n\nThe New Criticism is an established literary fact, and kicking against it \nwill prove to be more trouble than it's worth. Not to say that authorial \nintent is unimportant, but it's not the Grail: nobody knows all the \nreasons why they do things (or psychotherapy wouldn't be necessary). \nThere's a lot in any author's work that they might not have consciously put \nthere; why not take the time to tease it out?\n\nPlease note that the New Crit is NOT a free pass to spin isogeses about \nSeverian as a drag queen, Herbert Hoover in disguise, or a Fungi from \nYuggoth.\n\n\n\nMatt\n\nThe fault is great in man or woman\nWho steals a goose from off a common;\nBut what can plead that man's excuse\nWho steals a common from a goose?\nThe Tickler Magazine, 1 Feb. 1821\n\n--" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Joe Cilluffo", "address": "cilluff1 at optonline.net" }, "date": "2002-12-31T19:54:43+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Get a bigger hamme", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Chris wrote:\n\n<<> There are plenty of arguments that can be made against this, and I won't" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "dispute them. However, I suspect it's a sentiment that Wolfe himself\nshares.\nI've always gotten the feeling that he's been reluctant to answer these\nquestions about his work because he wants them to stand on their own, and\nthat he's made uncomfortable by the prospect of adding something that will\nalter or \"fix\" the reader's interpretation.>>" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I seem to recall that UOTNS is an example of this, that his editor talked\nhim into the volume to explain the prior four books, and that GW acquiesced\nto this against his own judgment." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Tangentially, I tend to read what an author has to say about his work\nanyway. With Wolfe I find it rewarding. The worst experience I had with\nit,\nthough, was reading what Faulkner had to say about \"The Sound and the\nFury\"\nand finding out that some of the things I found most masterful were in\nfact\ncompletely incidental, and that if he'd had his full way with the story\n(the\nprinter imposed certain limitations on him) I would have been keenly\ndisappointed with the result. Sometimes, you just don't want to know what\nthe author really meant." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I tend to agree with Chris and those listmembers who have voiced similar\nfeelings that it depends on what you are reading the work for. If you are\nreading or analyzing for your personal enjoyment, then the author's \"true\"\nintent is irrelevant -- one of my favorite Yeats poems resonates with me\ndeeply on a personal level even though the genesis of the poem for Yeats\nhimself was civil unrest in his beloved Ireland.\n\nEven when you are analyzing a work, the author's intent isn't necessarily\nrelevant to a cogent or valid analysis. For example, it is possible to\nenjoy The Picture of Dorian Gray and to find textual support for the\nrespective superiority of each of Basil, Lord Henry and Dorian despite which\nof them Wilde himself thought and intended to be most admirable. Another\nfine example of how irrelevant authorial intent may sometimes be would be\npropagandistic works -- the filmakers who helmed Birth of a Nation or\nTriumph of the Will certainly intended them to portray the South and Nazi\nGermany respectively in great lights but that doesn't preclude analysts from\nholding them and saying \"see, here is a fine example of what was wrong the\nSouth,\" despite the fact that the authors intended them to be the opposite.\n\nHowever, one area in which you pretty much cannot ignore authorial intent is\nif you are trying to determine what \"really\" happened in a fictional work --\nif you are trying to determine whether Severian is really Jesus and GW says\n\"no, he's a Christian, but not Christ,\" if your concern is determining the\n\"truth\" of what \"really\" happened in the work the author is the only\npotentially valid source of truth. Two points here. First, if you are not\ntrying to determine what \"really\" happened then what the author intended is\nirrelevant. For example, if what you are interested in is whether Severian\n*can be viewed* as a Christ figure, then whether Gene Wolfe meant him to be\none is irrelevant. The difference being whether you are looking at the\nfictional universe in which the story takes place (is Severian Jesus?) or\nwhether you are just looking at the work from a literary standpoint (is\nSeverian a Christ figure). If literay analysis is what you are reading for\nthen whether the author intended something to be allegorical or humorous is\nirrelevant to whether something indeed serves as an allegory or source of\nhumor (hence all those awful sitcoms on TV...). The second point is that I\nsay the author is only a potentially valid source because it may be the case\nthat there is no ultimate source of the truth, even when considering the\nfictional universe, because at the time of putting pen to paper the author\nmay not have planned out the matter at issue, in which case he or she is\nmaking a guess just as much as you are. For example, would Severian have\nslept with Dorcas anyway if he had known who she was? Or are there any\npeople left on Lune during Severian's time or Typhon's reign? These are\nquestions about the fictional universe but which may not have an answer b/c\nGW never pondered them or never included them in the text (and anything not\nin the text, at least by reference or implication, for all intents and\npurposes does not exist).\n\nAnyway, that's my two cents.\n\nHappy New Year to all!\n\n- Joe a/k/a Shell" } ] } ] }