|
People still take death of the author seriously?
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:Do you need to know anything about Paul Verhoefen to realise that Robocop is a satire? Do you need to know anything about Jack Chick to realize that Dark Dungeons isn't a satire?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, essentially, because homosexuality as a concept capable of bearing a term like "homoeroticism" didn't exist until the middle of the 19th century, a paper on homoerotic elements in Arthuriana couldn't go any further back than Tennyson? I think this is patently absurd, to think that when a reader interprets Sir Lancelot being mistaken for a knight's wife and being embraced and kissed as a homoerotic moment, they are absolutely and totally wrong. I'm not aware of any living school of literary criticism that claims that a work cannot develop meaning beyond the intent of the artist. e: To expand, death of the author does not propose that the audience can find meaning in a work. This is a basic conceit of criticism itself. What death of the author proposes is that any meaning ascribed to a work by its author does not exist, because works have no author. It does not expand the pool of a work's possible meanings. It only limits it. The Larch fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, "The Larch", I am not writing words at schools of literary criticism, I am responding to a specific post that claims that to be anything other than superficial analysis must rely on the cultural context of the original text. That's not what the post said. Wait, hold on, I recognize this style of writing. Hi Effectronica.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 16:04
|
|