Re: RARA-AVIS: The definition of classics

From: jacquesdebierue (
Date: 04 Nov 2007

--- In, 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).



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Nov 2007 EST