Tuesday, February 3, 2015

"The Intentional Fallacy"

This article discusses whether the author’s intention is relevant to the author’s work. The author of this article writes the definition of intention as “corresponding to what the author intends”.

There were many different theories covered for both sides of the argument such as a quotation stating that “In order to judge the poet’s performance, we must know what he intended”. I would have to disagree with this statement. Although it may be convenient to be sure of what the author intends in their writing, it is much more interesting to read and either create an interpretation or try and hypothesize the intention of the author rather than having it spelled out. I guess the point is that if the author’s intention is spelled out at the top of the page, it takes away from the experience of reading.

The creative piece that I did reflects my ideas of the author’s intent. The words coming out from “the author’s” mouth are random words that I thought of and the second I thought of them I put them into the picture. This is how I write (with the exception of non-fiction or analysis). There may be many things that I “intend” to do with my writing but there are many things that just come out of my brain and directly onto the paper. Does this make the work not worth reading? I also made the point to make “the author” an anonymous silhouette because I believe that it is not always important to know the author to know that the writing is worth something. This could lead into ideas of, “is the work the author, or is the author the work?” Dramatics aside, the silhouette is meant to bring these questions up. 


  1. Hi Kelsie. Uh-oh. I really can't read most of this. Try editing to fix it. Google for help if you need it (for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwev1qwEp3o). Looks like the post might be great, but I can't give you credit for most of it, since I can't really read it!