[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Now, as a parent, wouldn't you say that exerting an influence is a form of control? It may be control in a velvet glove, but it is still done to direct and to steer away from what is seen as the wrong path?

Influence, yes. A measure of control, yes. But absolute control, no (more's the pity ). But is the influence of one reader over another analagous to the parent/child relationship? It's possible, I suppose (for example where one reader is a parent and the other his or her child ), but it depends upon the individuals involved, their relationship to each other and, most likely, a variety of other factors.

Originally Posted by davem

You seem to be suggesting that this 'authorial intention' is something that can be divorced from the work itself - which is another way of denying the author's presence in the work.

Not at all. I am simply saying that it is up to the reader whether or not he accepts authorial intention (as far as he is aware of it) in his interpretation of the work. Of course, to the extent that such intention is intrinsic within the work, then he is bound to take it into account.

In your Tower example, a visitor may well accept that it was built for the specific purpose intended by the builder but, if they find that an alternative purpose suits them better, why should they not be entitled to use it for that alternative purpose?

Originally Posted by davem

If the Tower can be made to serve another purpose by someone else, fine, but they would not be using the Tower for the purpose for which it was built - & they should admit that, & not claim that they know the 'real' intention behind it.

We can never fully know the intentions of the author because we can never know his mind. But to the extent that he has stated his intentions, I see no reason to deny them and have never sought to suggest that we should. Although, as Bêthberry has said, we should acknowledge that the author's intentions will have changed over time.

The thing about your approach though is that it makes the later use of the 'Tower' by someone using it (or seeing it) as a castle equal to to that of the builder - it says that the builder (or writer) is no more important than the user (or reader).

Important to whom and in what regard? The fact that the builder built the tower is clearly very important to the subsequent user, since otherwise he would not be able to use it himself. The use to which the builder put it may also be important to him since it may assist him in deciding how to use it. Or it may be of little value, because he wants to use it for something entirely different. In either case, however, it is the use to which he ultimately puts it which will be of greatest importance to him. Otherwise, he would do something different with it.

Originally Posted by davem

The purpose of this thread is twofold - one, to see in how many ways we can all repeat ourselves, & two, to see how long we can keep it going.

Well, at least we can agree on the purpose of this thread.