File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_1997/phillitcrit.9709, message 167


Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:46:54 -0400
From: Reg Lilly <rlilly-AT-scott.skidmore.edu>
Subject: Re: PLC: Intentional Fallacy


Willtreid-AT-aol.com wrote:
> 
> The bottom line is we don't have access to authorial intention, usually.
> Sometimes writers tell us what they think they were trying to do. However,
> those pronouncements should be taken with a grain. But it can be fun to
> rummage around the biography and in other works to see what light can be
> shone. There is no rule that says we can't play with putative and supposed
> intention.
> 
> Still having fun with fallacious reasoning,
> 
> William Reid
> Charlotte NC


Some time ago I was at a conference on Derrida that Derrida attended and,
graciously, he stood up and made some remarks about each paper.  There were
several occasions when he said "that's not what I meant when I wrote ...!"  Many
Derridians were shocked.  I wasn't, and I don't think he was being inconsistent
in saying such things.  Nor do I think it useless to ask him what he meant!
Rummaging Reg
rlilly-AT-scott.skidmore.edu

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005