Kathryn urged that we should continue to consider the role of the author

DDJ replied -

...

But this suggests that what the author intended the work to mean is the

only possible meaning << It doesn't though does it? It simply means that we are free to discuss anything that interests us.

The orthodoxy that the creator's intention has no provenance in the discussion of a work grew up in reaction to the somewhat philistine idea that only the creator's intention could be considered the 'truth' about a work. But like any orthodoxy it has become a strait-jacket., and should be cast off forthwith :-)

...

I believe it was Katherine Paterson who mentioned that it wasn't until she

was asked about the plot of one of her later works (#9 or #10 or thereabouts) that she suddenly realized she'd been writing the same core story time and again, even though the individual settings and circumstances varied widely. << A very interesting example, but one we would be prevented from discussing if we followed the prohibition on linking works with their authors. My reaction to the petty prohibitions of academics is 'I don't care'. 'Terry Nation intended Horizon as a critical commentary on British imperialism.' 'Literary criticism says we aren't allowed to discuss authorial intention' 'I don't care' Alison

********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.

www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************