Get a bigger hammer

Chris · 23 Dec 2002, 17:35 · 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: "Chris" <rasputin_ at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) Get a bigger hammer
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 17:35:15 +0000
Message-ID: <urth-v0212-2521 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0212/2521.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Roy: I don't disagree with a lot of what you've said, so I won't go point b=
y=20
point. What I feel you've overlooked, though, is that I mentioned *two*=20
types of interpretation, of which you are looking at the second. The *first=
*=20
is the one that is concerned with authorial intent, and can be the source o=
f=20
misinterpretation of the author.

The second, as I presented it, should never be employed with *any*=20
pretension of being able to present what the author actually meant. It is=20
commonly used in cases where the text simply can't be "decoded" using the=20
material at hand. I see it often used with Wolfe - though quite often=20
incorrectly, where someone has conflated the two methods and, like you=20
describe, got it into their head that what they think sounds good *must* be=20
what Wolfe meant. But perhaps a better example of what I'm talking about=20
would be the Art of War, or even better the I Ching. These texts are=20
renowned for their ability to be interpreted distinctly out of context - an=
d=20
yet still yield readings that are often applicable to a vast variety of=20
things. The author's intent is cast aside quite early in that process.

Chris

(Point taken on the cheese)

>Chris wrote:
> >The second possibility is to, as a reader, come up with a reading of the
> >text that is as aesthetically pleasing (to you) as you can. In this sense
>we
> >are in some way pushing each other to come up with more beautiful
> >interpretations in consistency, form, and symmetry among other things -=20
>and
> >in this context, what the author *meant* has little if anything to do=20
>with
> >matters.
>
>I cannot agree. Authorial intent is not to be dismissed so casually.
>Propagandists of one stripe or another have historically cited respected,
>even revered, sources in support of their cause. The Bible is a good
>example. Verses can be (and have been) quoted from it that would seem to
>justify a whole host of evils, from slavery to war to genocide. The Nazis
>quoted Nietzsche.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.=20
http://join.msn.com/?page=3Dfeatures/featuredemail&xAPID=3D42&PS=3D47575&PI=
=3D7324&DI=3D7474&SU=3D=20
http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=3D1216hotmailtaglines_addphoto=
s_3mf

--=20

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