[lit-ideas] Intentional Fallacy, Not One
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 10:55:20 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 8/14/2013 5:27:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes in the "agree to disagree" post:
"Unfortunately the answer is rather involved and so cannot be given in
full here. Suffice it to say..."
that it should run along Popperian lines.
OTOH, needless to disimplicate (I find the phrase, "needless to say" in
need of correction) runs along Griceian lines.
"Why are we moved by Karenina's tears?" (strictly “Why should we be moved
by the fate of Anna Karenina?”) addresses aesthetics from H. P. Grice's
perspective starting with the slogan,
The intentionalist fallacy, not a fallacy.
Strictly,
the intentionalist 'fallacy', not one.
Cheers,
Speranza
----
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/289889/intentional-fallacy
intentional fallacy, term used in 20th-century literary criticism to
describe the problem inherent in trying to judge a work of art by assuming the
intent or purpose of the artist who created it.
Introduced by W.K. Wimsatt, Jr., and Monroe C. Beardsley in The Verbal
Icon (1954), the approach was a reaction to the popular belief that to know
what the author intended—what he had in mind at the time of writing—was to
know the correct interpretation of the work. Although a seductive topic for
conjecture and frequently a valid appraisal of a work of art, the
intentional fallacy forces the literary critic to assume the role of cultural
historian or that of a psychologist who must define the growth of a particular
artist’s vision in terms of his mental and physical state at the time of his
creative act.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
