My atrociously drawn sketch displaying the visual mechanics and yada yada's of intentional fallacy. I'm very ecstatic about a job poorly done, but soon to be justified.
1. Without drawing too much inspiration from other sources or reiterating general knowledge, I suppose my personal definition of intentional fallacy is the way in which an author's misconstrued authority is undermined by the subjective power of words. Either to simplify or to give the definition dice a roll again, Intentional fallacy detaches penman from literary artifact as understanding and exploration derive from the beehive and not the bumblebee. I should have integrated a quote from the text in a smooth, articulate manner to enforce my knowledge with the academic beef. As an alternative, I shall nonchalantly, but very awkwardly stick a quote in the end here. right now. "The poet's aim must be judged at the moment of the creative act, that is to say, by the art of the poem itself".
2. The notebook imposter shaggy from scooby doo is holding up is not a depiction of toga rocking Adolf Hitler motivating a balloon wielding crowd. To clarify, it demonstrates nameless author rambling about the logistics of how his work functions the way it does, and why it does. Ever so gradually, his seemingly sacred text is slipping from an illuminated piece of parchment into the atmosphere. As free flowing words linger, net wielding human beings snatch as much content as possible to solidify meaning themselves.
3. Question number three screams "the floor is mine" as I lazily slouch in my bed pondering, trying to articulate my assessment of the piece as well as any questions I may or may not have. At the end of the day, I can vouch for the validity of intentional fallacy as significant. It isn't necessary for answers to be coddled and released by the birth mother of the final product. What "roses are red,violets are blue" means to John Smith doesn't mean the same for you or I. While I can argue that the creator of said poem or story would be the numero uno expert on underlying meaning, it isn't upheld by any set of rigid rules or laws. We're all individualized meat sacks wired with a plethora of varying thoughts and interpretations. It's plausible a portion of individualized meat sacks may be in concurrence with one another about what is and isn't meant, but who gives a hoot? The reader's job isn't to read and incessantly knock on the author's door pleading for answers and an autograph. The reader should read and analyze on his or her own volition without outside influence to wash over eggshell minds with biased tidal waves. As the wise sage Forrest Gump once said, "that's all I have to say about that". I'll cross my fingers and toes in hopes that my blog and the included picture don't funk out on me for whatever reason. If the gods of technology decide to bust my balls for shits and giggles, I will be very very butthurt.