Psychoanalytic literary criticism is just that as well, where it is, I think almost certainly mostly wrong. But nonetheless, pretty fucking interesting. It's almost like their obsession with this, their theoretical approach just gets them to do close, close readings that just by virtue of them being close readings. And you're squeezing out meaning in a way that could most definitely be like the author themselves might be like, what are you talking about? But there is value to that. And I think it just depends on what your analysis is trying to do. Like, I think that Freudian readings of Shakespearean plays are like super interesting. They don't even buy the psychology that Freud was saying
What’s the meaning of a work of art? Does the text mean just what the author intends it to mean? Does it matter what Kubrick and Arthur C. Clark thinks about the end of 2001? Or is the artist’s interpretation just one interpretation among many once the text is out in the world? We explore the question of authorial intent, and brace yourselves - this is just about as postmodern as David gets.
Plus – do we have what it takes to get an invite to the thought criminals club?
Links
The Party is Canceled [newyorker.com]
Was I Wrong About The Irishman? by Thomas Flight [youtube.com]
Authorial Intent [wikipedia.org]
Sponsored By: