So I was reading Hirsch in Keesey's Contexts for Criticism, and found his idea of textual meaning every insightful, I liked this quote,
One of the consequences arising from the view that a text is a piece of language - a purely public object - is the impossibility of defining in principle the nature of a correct interpretation. (19)
Now I see what the genetic theorists were looking to uncover in a sense. I mean text=language, right, which makes language a living thing in the way Eagleton was talking about tradion being alive. I mean its always evolving. So to read a work and really understand it, you must understand the language of the author. That could inclde the culture, ideals, and languge of the authors time. And from this it, language/text, will continually evolve. Which would make language/text a living thing. So you would have to have a nice firm grip on the text first to really be able to understand what it is saying. In a way thats real nice, but also couldn't it be said that depending on the reading you could either gain or lose something. It's like in class last night when there was mention of translation. couldn't you lose or gain depending on how well the translation is/was. I mean reguardless of how much you know about the author, if and when you go to read the work, you may or may not get the point depending upon the quality of the translation. Maybe, maybe not.