Talk:Authorial intentionality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article, as it stands, is not an encyclopedia article. It's more of a deconstructionist tract.
- By which, I presume you mean that it makes no gosh-darn sense? Anville 10:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
A more in-depth discussion of Wimsatt and Beardsley is warranted (I wish I was more qualified to carry it out)... in particular, it's important to acknowledge the historical modes of criticism they were reacting against. Another important note: Wimsatt and Beardsley, two of the leading critics of intentionality in interpretation, don't say it's "irrelevant" or "useless," as the article suggests. The intentionality debate, as they frame it, asks: "Should authorial intent be the authoritative interpretation of a text?" W & B's answer is, "No, authorial intent should just be one of a number of valid interpretations."
