So I was reading Watson's little essay amd thought that the problem with intent, and it's place in this whole critism thing isn't if it's meaningful or not, that is in looking at the background, da, da, da, da nad all, when reading a specific work on it's own or not. Because I still feel that it might not be needed exclusively to get something out of the given text. Now in my own understanding of what this fine chap Watson was trying to say in his little essay, is that you might want to know a thing about what the author was trying to get across when you inject yourself into the text. Not literally, I mean when your reading and look at this work, whatever time period, and see/read it from the perspective of now. You can't and probably won't get it, since the writer wasn't writing for today, unless it's something new. The whole thing is like history class, in that the writer's audience says a lot about the authors intention. So I guess that it would be important to look not entirely from authors bio, but from the arena that he/she is writing for as well to find the meaning behind the authors intent. Or I could be completely wrong and there goes my whole understanding.