 |
 |
Dear all, New Criticism deals, at length, with what is called, in literary theory, the "intentional fallacy" (finding things in texts as if the author put them there intentionally). This led via various pathways, to various forms of Reception Aesthetics. The example of tendentious reading that Jerry provides can be dealt with by a reception approach - what any reader finds in their reading of a text is an interpretation of their reception of the text. Silly readings, brilliant readings - how to tell the difference? Stanley Fish answers by the notion of Convention - if I find things in Milton by following the accepted conventions of reading Milton, then that group of readers who follow that convention will possibly find my reading as useful. cheers keith >>> Jerry Diethelm <[log in to unmask]> 04/11/13 3:03 AM >>> A question about the meaning of a designed object: On 4/10/13 8:13 AM, "Charles Burnette" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > David and others interested in design objects > > In David Sless's paper 1) he writes "Anscombe*s profound insight of relevance > to communication was to realise that statements about an author*s intentions > are logically and empirically part of one*s reading of an author*s text, not > an intrinsic part of either the text or the author. " > > I agree with the first but not the last sentence, precisely because I take a > different position regarding an object of thought/communication. Re: the above discussion. If a contemporary reader had knowledge that Mary Shelley was pregnant when she wrote the novel Frankenstein, and still carried memories of the horrors of thalidomide, would that knowledge and remembered experience become part of the meaning of the novel? Jerry ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------