Sterling G. Bjorndahl answers:
>Deconstructionism, if I understand it
>correctly, claims that texts have no meaning, but readers create meaning.
>I think that these fit into your criteria "denies authorial intent and
>raises valid points." Although you might deny the "validity" of the points
>they raise, other scholars find them to be exciting methodologies.
I didn't claim that such methodologies didn't exist, I wanted to know who
on the list was advocating a methodology as valid which denied authorial
intent. If you personally do not want to give up on authorial intent as
a criteria for validity, then am I correct in assuming that you personally
do not find the results of such methodologies valid?
>These are the kinds of things one learns about when one gets an advanced
>degree in the area. I would encourage you all who have not already got one
>to do so. :-)
I learned *about* them, but even if some find numerology an exciting
methodology, we don't have to say it raises valid points. If
Deconstructionism claims that texts have no meaning then it can
raise no valid points about a text's meaning, only the subjective
responses that readers have. Readers create only the significance in
their only lives, not a text's meaning.
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