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: firstname.lastname@example.org
Box 512 Med Cntr (804) 924-5261 msg BITNET: djm5g@virginia
C'ville VA 22908 (804) 296-7209 fax IBM US: usuvarg8