Mario wrote:
> "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)."
And Mark wrote:
> I agree with you here. Especially since declarations
about authorial
> intent are so often retro engneered from the
finished product.
Definitely. So much of what writers say about their work is
bullshit. Or at least highly suspect.
Like all those authors who claim they've never been edited,
or that they never revise. Or know where they're going when
they start a book. Or know how to spell cognac.
Oh, I'm sure it happens sometimes, but so much of it seems so
self- serving. Like those puffed up autobiographies that
would-be manly authors sometimes trot out to make themselves
seem like a cross between John Wayne and Hercules. Or author
photos where they pose with guns or pipes or dead animals or
in bomber jackets or biker gear. Talk about Tarzans on motor
scooters.
Or when they claim for themselves intentions attributed to
them after- the-fact by critics. A while back, a writer
defended/excused a work of his to me in almost exactly the
language, almost word-for-word, of a recent review of the
same work. Made me wonder if he wrote the review himself or
if he was in bed with the critic from the start. Or if he
hadn't a clue what his book might possibly be about until
somebody else told him.
I have no doubt writers (or at least the better ones) do have
certain intentions when writing a book beyond merely moving
units. Some carry it off, some don't. And some are subtle
about it (Hammett, say, or Chandler) , and some beat you over
the head with it (Spillane, Paretsky, say). In all cases, it
isn't merely the quality of the intentions that matter so
much as how well they're integrated into -- or allowed to
show through in -- the narrative.
But when an author stoops to sitting us down to tell us what
a book that's been out for a while is REALLY about, I usually
take it as a sign that either he's lying and hadn't
previously had a clue what his book was about until some
critic gave him an angle he could latch onto, or he simply
failed to get his intentions across in the first place.
They should have put all that work and effort into writing
the book, not trying to convince us after the fact.
Kevin Burton Smith www.thrillingdetective.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Nov 2007 EST