--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, William Ahearn
<williamahearn@...> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I'm confused. I thought I was posting to
a
> mail group and not testifying before a
senate
> subcommittee. As far as I'm concerned, the above
is
> side-stepping the obvious on what would
be
> technicalities if they in fact were. Should the
above
> be applied to all posts, we wouldn't get very far.
So,
> I think my intention and depth was
obvious.
>
No, no. These are genuine questions. The reason I asked is
that the word "depth" does not convey a clear meaning to me
(in literary, or more generally, in artistic questions). And
my question about intention was serious, too. If one were to
judge a work based on the author's intention, who knows what
the results would be. In fact, there is one school of
criticism that uses authorial intention as its main tool. I
have always found it suspect (and impracticable, in most
cases, since one doesn't have access to the author).
Best,
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Nov 2007 EST