Intentional Fallacy? (was Re: answering jody again)

[davemarc]

Writes Jody

> I hate to be a johnny one note, but I would ask again: Given the author's
> very overt acts to deny "us" with any personal information, and his
> reticence, except the few examples we're all familiar with, regarding his
> personal views, how can knowledge of authorial intention be based on
> anything more than textual interpretation or speculation (Jules
> notwithstanding).
>
>From the context of the above statement, it seems to me that "textural
interpretation or speculation" is thought to be a pretty slim basis for
judging authorial intent.  But to me, it's not *necessarily* that slim.  In
many respects, the act of reading is entirely about "textural interpretation
or speculation."  Just because one's idea of authorial intent *might* be
wrong doesn't mean it *is* wrong, etc.

d.