pynchon-l-digest V2 #1593

[Doug Millison]

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).


Can't deny there's a relative lack of information about Pynchon 
compared to some other authors, or that Pynchon has taken steps to 
keep personal information out of the public conversation.  And given 
the unconscious content of authorial intentions, yes, the process of 
arriving at any understand of them will to a certain degree be based 
on textual interpretation or speculation.  Of course textual 
interpretation, even when it focuses only on a text and ignores the 
author, is hardly an objective or exact science. But, I ask again, 
why would you -- as you seem to want to do, please correct me if I 
misinterpret -- want to exclude speculation about authorial 
intentions from consideration of a novel or other work of art? Why 
not permit that along with the other approaches that would consider 
only the text, or the other possible approaches I mentioned? What's 
gained by leaving the author out of the discussion about his books?

-- 
d  o  u  g    m  i  l  l  i  s  o  n  <http://www.online-journalist.com>