"As Hirsch says in Validity in Interpretation, the aim of interpretation is not certainly, but probability. This is the principle on which I base my argument".
Thank you Austin for showing me a outline to better understand Hirsch. So this is what Hirsch was trying to express. Got it. That whole probably, likely is not so simple. But it is once it gets closely examined to pull out the strongly relivent ideas to finally look at the authors intent on the work. I found that this essay really showed how when applying Hirsch, you must first do some close reading to uncover those ideas before you just suppose the authors intentions. Thank you Austin for breaking Hirsch for me.
Comments (2)
Yeah, I was glad that Austin referred to Hirsch, too. I understood more of what Hirsch was saying when it wasn't Hirsch saying it... odd.
And a big LOL to you for saying this: "Thank you Austin for breaking Hirsch." I just have this mental image of Austin actually breaking him à la WWF.
Posted by Karissa | February 12, 2007 2:03 PM
Posted on February 12, 2007 14:03
I agree with you both! Once I read Austin's essay I could understand what Hirsch was trying to say to us about historical criticism/authorial intent.
I also agree with you when you say that a close reading of the story/novel/poem is neccessary in order to even begin to find the authorial intent. I have a feeling that no matter what theory we are applying we are going to have to start with a close reading. That, I think, is why it has been drilled into us so much.
Posted by Tiffany | February 14, 2007 6:00 PM
Posted on February 14, 2007 18:00