apologies

Michael Straight · 18 Dec 2002, 14:35 · from urth-v0212.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: (urth) apologies
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:35:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <urth-v0212-2464 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0212/2464.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, maa32 wrote:

> Indeed, I have half a mind to say that perhaps we should all ignore it and
> take a New Critical approach, saying that "he changed his mind and it doe=
sn't
> affect the work of art." The other half of me, of course, believes that t=
he
> author always has authority ...

I always look at it like this: If you're having a discussion about what
the author intended, then a remark from the author can bring about a
conclusion to the argument.

You can always then turn to an argument about what the author *ought* to
have meant (i.e. that a different interpretation is better, more coherent,
etc.), but some people aren't interested in that type of discussion.

Neither interest nor lack of interest in whether a given interpretation
might be better than the author's intention should be labled as Right or
Wrong, unless you've discovered an objective aesthetic standard.  In which
case, please contact me right away.

-- Rostrum

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net