![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2001: Re: Authorial Intention
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 03/08/01
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0546 Thursday, 8 March 2001
[1] From: Todd Lidh <tmlidh@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 07 Mar 2001 12:00:42 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 12.0536 Re: Authorial Intention
[2] From: Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date: Wednesday, 07 Mar 2001 17:59:37 -0800
Subj: Re: SHK 12.0536 Re: Authorial Intention
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Todd Lidh <tmlidh@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 07 Mar 2001 12:00:42 -0500
Subject: 12.0536 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment: Re: SHK 12.0536 Re: Authorial Intention
I might also mention Annabel Patterson's _Shakespeare and the Popular
Voice_ (1989). Her chapter entitled "Back by Popular Demand: The Two
Versions of _Henry V_" openly discusses the intentionality debate and
offers up a validation for arguing the author's role in composition.
She combines this with textual studies and audience-centered criticism
as well.
Todd M Lidh
Flagler College
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date: Wednesday, 07 Mar 2001 17:59:37 -0800
Subject: 12.0536 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment: Re: SHK 12.0536 Re: Authorial Intention
R. A. Cantrell notes:
>E.D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation. Northrop Frye, Anatomy of
>Criticism (I think the last word is right). I personally will not
>supply the proponents of the aforementioned "taboo" with the oxygen of
>attention. I should not like using a list like this to express personal
>disapprobation, but there is no language strong enought to express my
>attitude toward the againmentioned proponents. From whom have you
>learned? Is the time spent discussing theory well spent?
Well, if it leads us to this sort of apoplectic hate, probably not.
Peace,
Seán.
|
|
|||||