well, some authors do not like to be treated like that .:) Esp. if one writes more in an explanatory mode. I personally would not like anyone to project any arbitrary image into my writings. I recommend Umberto Eco, Interpretation and Overinterpretation, which revolves mostly on his own 'The name of rose'. Eco's thinking as well evolved from the 'death of the author' view (Roland Barthes) to a more moderate view which leaves open some moderate space to a projection of reader's intentions into the author's text (through intentio operis - or, the semantic intention of the work itself). Hope this is useful.

When I read literary works I just try to understand them. Am I trying to understand what the author intended to say? Maybe, but I don't usually have that explicitly in mind. I am concerned explicitly with what the work itself is saying to me as I read it. Sometimes it helps to read other works about the author's central concerns, and so on.

I think the idea of the "death of the author" has a certain point to it, but is overblown. I believe that no one but the actual author at the time a work was written could have written that particular work.

I recommend Umberto Eco, Interpretation and Overinterpretation, which revolves mostly on his own 'The name of rose'. — Drazen Pehar

Cool, thanks!

:up:

So stop making the author into a god.
* * *
Do you actually read things with that in mind? — frank

Well I believe this was part of the New Criticism from the '50s which focused on the forms of literature instead of the history of the author, etc. What comes to mind is Emerson's comment that people tend to dwell too much on the person of Jesus. I really liked the Anatomy of Criticism by Northrup Frye, which categorized the kinds of stories (tragedy, comedy, etc.) but with an emphasis on the criteria that makes a story part of that category of narratives. I find it similar to Wittgenstein and his ordinary criteria for the forms of activities like believing, thinking, pointing, intending, understanding, etc.

There are a lot of philosophers that speak through someone responding to them (Socrates) or as if not straight at you (Nietzsche, Wittgenstein) or as if they are channeling someone (later Heddeigger, Descartes). When I read philosophy I tend to focus on what my reactions to the text are and note those; also I try to leave off trying to assume I understand terms until I see the context and connections to the rest of the work; also, I think especially with philosophy, it is important to see it as a connection of texts critiquing each other and connected to the same endeavor.

really liked the Anatomy of Criticism by Northrup Frye, which categorized the kinds of stories (tragedy, comedy, etc.) but with an emphasis on the criteria that makes a story part of that category of narratives. — Antony Nickles

That sounds good. Thanks!