The Logic in Author's Intent
From Keesey's Contexts for Criticism article titled "Objective Interpretation":
"It is necessary to establish that the context invoked is the most probable context" (Hirsch 25).
I picked this quote because Hirsch found it important enough to italicize. According to him, it seems that in order to effectively do a criticism based on the author's intent, it is necessary to use logic. The critic needs to establish two or more ways a work can be read and then prove why one is most likely wrong and the other is most likely right based on context clues left by the author.
This technique, like any other, is not definate. I love to see all these authors squabble which way is the "best" way to critique a work. Honestly, they all seem to overlap somewhat. There does not have to be just ONE way to do a criticism. That is the purpose of this class: to be exposed to multiple ways of viewing a work and seeing which one best suits you. Epiphany recieved. Thanks Seton Hill!
Back to the main page!
This is interesing! After reading this text, I thought how people read and close read stories in different ways. I often wonder if an author made his story have multiple interpretations or if they just wanted one specific outcome. Since we are the critics of a work then we must try to determine the best possible solution of that story. In other words, the reader should try to find most of the research for that story and form an opinion or interpretation of the text. This can also be conducted in class when all of our classmates are talking about their interpretations of the text and then we try to bring all of the ideas together. Great quote!