Paul J. Bodin writes:

>I would in any case urgently disagree with your blanket statement that
>"any methodology which denies authorial intent is wrong."  There are
>very important methods of literary investigation that do just that,
>and raise valid points.  The "intentional fallacy" is a notoriously
>debated point of critical investigation ...

Could you supply an example of a methodology which denies authorial intent
and raises valid points?  There is a difference between denying (that is
contradicting) authorial intent, and a methodology which is not dependant
upon authorial intent.  I would consider the latter, but I haven't seen a
case made for the former.

David John Marotta, Medical Center Computing, Stacey Hall
Univ of Virginia (804) 982-3718 wrk INTERNET: djm5g@virginia.edu
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg   BITNET: djm5g@virginia
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax   IBM US: usuvarg8