Literary criticism and counterintelligence

[Mark Kohut]

One of the best general criticisms of 'the intentional fallacy', imho, is
that with the greatest writers, their texts because of their genius, does
mostly mean what it says---if by that one also means irony, intentional
paradox and indirection, etc. ..
'The intentional fallacy shows up inferior writers who want to have said,
pointed to, something that they did not find the words nor metaphors nor
symbolic images for. Who mix metaphors without purpose. Who do not
'control' the untoward meanings or resonances of their words.

or, for the unselfconscious, halfunconscious 'naturals' who tell one story
which is effectively another in meaning.
'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de
> wrote:

> Was Jesus James Angleton a paranoid reader?
>
> "The New Critics famously attacked the 'intentional fallacy,' arguing that
> the meaning of a text could not be identified with its author's intentions.
> They also put a high value on paradox, indirection, and all the many ways
> in which a written artifact does not mean what it seems to mean.
>
> In his rigorous questioning of Soviet defectors, Angleton was a New Critic
> par excellence."
>
> http://www.jeetheer.com/politics/cia.htm
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20160204/3274d86e/attachment.html>