‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

This is fine - as long as they don't go on from there & claim that the meaning they find in the text is the author's.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by davem

If that reader says 'I know what the author meant but I don't like it & choose the text to mean something else.' I have no problem as such - I just don't think their choice is that relevant in a discussion of the text which seeks to understand what the author intended.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by davem

or in any attempt to understand what the story means.

Ah, therein lies the rub.

Authorial intention is not the decisive factor in determining the meaning of a story, but merely the starting point upon which the reader bases his or her individual interpretation. If you want to find some kind of objective meaning outside of individual interpretation then you have to try to look for some kind of consensus between individual readers. Generally, the consensus will be in line with authorial intent, because most readers will exercise the judgment and common sense that Squatter talked of, and will be naturally inclined to take on board authorial intent (to the extent that they are aware of it).

Originally Posted by davem

This may not be the author's intention at all, as it assumes that the author is offering a random collection of statements for the reader to give meaning to.

No, not a random collection of statements, but an ordered one which allows the reader (if he or she is so inclined) to apply a sensible interpretation (assuming that it is not the author's intention simply to write a load of gibberish ).