1 of 6 Seminar Leader: Sascha Klement Approaches To Criticism December 2010 It is impossible to say j st !

hat I mean"# $T% S% &liot' (ith re)erence to any T(* or more te+ts st died on this mod le, disc ss criticism#s response to the - estion o) meanin.% In the claim stated abo/e, &liot#s character 0r )roc1 ine+tricably lin1s meanin. !ith intent by e+pressin. his di))ic lty in the ali.nment o) the t!o% Thro .h the process o) lan. a.e, !hat 0r )roc1 intends to mean and !hat he ends p meanin. become separate thin.s% This is beca se lan. a.e ser/es as an intermediary bet!een the t!o, and lan. a.e e+ists not in the pri/ate sphere, b t in the p blic, renderin. the possibility o) /ario s interpretations possible% This be.s the - estion: can an a thor e/er say !hat he tr ly means2 The di))ic lty o) this can be e+pressed in e+plorin. the m ltiplicity o) meanin.s inherent in a sentence s ch as: the chic1en did not a.ree !ith me#3 this sentence, .i/en /ario s conte+ts, can lead to some /ery di))erent meanin.s% 4irstly, the sentence can be ta1en literally, denotin. an ar. ment !ith a common )armyard animal% 5o!e/er, lan. a.e has no! e/ol/ed to the sta.e !here !ords ha/e /ario s meanin.s, both literal and )i. rati/e% 4or instance, i) the sentence !ere ttered soon a)ter a meal, it co ld denote an illness possibly deri/ed )rom )ood poisonin.% *r i) the sentence !ere ttered in a school play.ro nd en/ironment, it co ld be translated into meanin. somethin. to the e))ect o) the co!ard !o ld not do as I said#% Dependin. on !here the sentence is heard, and in !hat conte+t, meanin. can be constr ed in m ltiple !ays% In Semiology and Rhetoric, 0a l de 6an .i/es a similar e+ample, that o) Archie 7 n1er, the main character )rom a pop lar American tele/ision series All in the Family% (hen as1ed i) he !ants his bo!lin. shoes laced o/er or laced nder, Archie replies 8(hat#s the di))erence29 meanin. 8I don#t .i/e a damn:9 $De 6an, 1;<0', ho!e/er his !i)e ta1es his sentence literally and be.ins to e+plain the di))erence bet!een lacin. o/er and lacin. nder bo!lin. shoes% Archie is sayin. !hat he means, b t d e to lan. a.e

2 of 6 bein. a p blic entity, !ith !ords ha/in. both literal and )i. rati/e meanin.s, the interpreter $the reader#', ta1es an entirely di))erent meanin. )rom it% So the problem does not lie in sayin. !hat one means, b t in enablin. others to understand !hat one means% De 6an concl des, 8the con) sion can only be cleared p by the inter/ention o) an e+tra=te+t al intention9 $1;<1 >my italics?'3 in the ori.inal a thor statin. !hat it is that he meant% 6eanin. is th s a stable entity, de)ined by the a thor#s intention% (itho t the a thor#s intention, some claim that a te+t is meanin.less% Knapp and 6ichaels ill strate this point !ell in their some!hat contro/ersial essay Against Theory% 5ere, they e+plore the di))ic lty in ima.inin. a case o) 8intentionless meanin.9 $2@A@'% They as1 the reader to ima.ine e+ample o) !al1in. across a beach and comin. across 8a c rio s se- ence o) s- i..les in the sand9 $2@A@', pon e+aminin. these, yo realise they )orm )o r, !ell str ct red, rhymin. lines B a stanCa o) a poem% This co ld be a case o) intentionless meanin. since 8yo reco.nise the !ritin. as !ritin., yo nderstand !hat the !ords mean: !itho t 1no!in. anythin. abo t the a thor:

!itho t thin1in. o) anyone#s intention9 $2@AD'% 5o!e/er, as yo are readin., a !a/e !ashes p and recedes, lea/in. in its !a1e a second stanCa beneath the )irst% This !arrants an e+planation B 8are the mar1s mere accidents, prod ced by the mechanical operation o) the !a/es on the sand $thro .h: erosion, percolation, etc%'2 *r is the sea ali/e:2 *r has (ords!orth, since his death, become a sort o) .eni s o) the shore29 $2@AD'% Any e+planation one arri/es at !o ld )all into one o) t!o cate.ories B that o) an a.ent capable o) intention $bein. the li/in. sea, or (ords!orth#s .host etc%' or that o) a mechanical process, bein. nintentional% I) the latter is the case B the te+t is /oid o) intention B then the mar1s are not !ords b t merely resemble !ords% Knapp and 6ichaels concl de: 8to depri/e them o) an a thor is to con/ert them into accidental li1enesses o) lan. a.e% They are not, a)ter all, an e+ample o) intentionless meanin.3 as soon as they become intentionless they become meanin.less as !ell9 $2@AE'% This is a /ery a thor=centric /ie! o) a te+t, !hich has been hi.hly contested by many, especially the Fe! Critics% It be.s the - estion: does a te+t need an a thor#s intention in order )or it

3 of 6 to be meanin.) l, or can meanin. instead deri/e )rom those !ho read it2 S rely i) yo read the mar1s in the sand, and concl ded they deri/ed )rom a nonintentional mechanical process, yo co ld still )ind them bea ti) l, belie/in. them to contain meanin. pertinent and appropriate to one#s li)e% I) somethin. a))ects the !ay yo thin1, then it has meanin. to yo , re.ardless o) !hether or not it !as created by chance thro .h intent% In The Critic as Artist, *scar (ilde states, 8the meanin. o) any bea ti) l thin. is, at least, as m ch in the so l o) him !ho loo1s at it as it !as in his so l !ho !ro .ht it9 $G01'% Hnder this contrastin. interpretation, the a thor can say !hat he means, b t this becomes irrele/ant since the reader, or e/en the te+t itsel), is .i/en priority% Ioland 7arthes ta1es the position that a te+t#s meanin. lies 8not in its ori.in b t in its destination9 $1;2D'% It matters not !here the te+t ori.inated, and nder !hat . ise3 instead !hat matters is !here it is enco ntered, and !hat it means to those !ho enco nter it% In )act 7arthes .oes as )ar as to say, 8to .i/e a te+t an A thor is to impose a limit on that te+t: to close the !ritin.9 $1;2D'% 7y this he means that i) one posits an objecti/e meanin. behind a te+t, be)ore it is e/en read, the te+t becomes ri.id and restricted% 7arthes belie/es that the a thor#s intention is not important, and thro .h this coins the phrase 8the death o) the A thor9 $1;2E'% (imsatt and 7eardsley ta1e this one step ) rther in their complementary essays 8The Intentional 4allacy9 and 8The A))ecti/e 4allacy9 in !hich they .o to /ario s len.ths to ar. e that neither the a thor nor the reader has a thority o/er the meanin. o) a te+t, the a thority lies instead in the te+t itsel)% (imsatt states: (e en- ire no! not abo t ori.ins, nor abo t e))ects, b t abo t the !or1 so )ar as it can be considered by itsel) as a body o) meanin.% Feither the - alities o) the a thor#s mind nor the e))ects o) a poem pon a reader#s mind sho ld be con) sed !ith the moral - ality o) the meanin. e+pressed by the poem itsel) $(imsatt, 8The Jerbal Icon: St dies in the 6eanin. o) 0oetry9, G<' They ar. e that a te+t simply means# in isolation, that it means !hat it al!ays has meant and !ill )ore/er ha/e the same, )i+ed meanin. $7elsey, 1G=A'%

4 of 6 The !ea1ness o) this theory is that it attempts to locate meanin. in one sin.le place, in the te+t itsel), and th s in lan. a.e% The problem is that lan. a.e, or the partic lar rele/ant disco rse !ithin lan. a.e, is not static, instead bein. perpet ally in process% There)ore it is impossible )or a te+t to ha/e a )i+ed meanin., since lan. a.e is constantly chan.in.% This can be applied to 0r )roc1#s assertion 8it is impossible to say j st !hat I mean"9 $&liot': an a thor !rites a te+t !ithin a speci)ic disco rse at a certain point in the de/elopment o) lan. a.e, and !hen he !rites the te+t, it /ery !ell co ld ha/e a speci)ic meanin. rele/ant to that o) the a thor#s intention% 5o!e/er, as lan. a.e e/ol/es, the same !ords may in)er di))erent connotations, and as a res lt it is impossible )or 0r )roc1#s meanin. to stay pertinent and rele/ant o/er time% As !e ha/e established so )ar, the a thor is not necessarily .ranted a thority o/er the meanin. o) his te+t% 5o!e/er, there is another iss e at hand, one that has been ta1en )or .ranted: !hether or not he has a thority o/er the creation o) his te+t% I) he does not, then s rely it is indeed impossible )or 0r )roc1 to say !hat he means% The do bt o/er !hether an a thor has a thority o/er his creation d!ells a.ain in the se o) lan. a.e% To !rite a te+t one m st o) co rse se lan. a.e, !hich e+ists in the p blic sphere, and as a)orementioned, lan. a.e is not static b t instead chan.es o/er time% The reason lan. a.e chan.es o/er time is that it is shaped by those !ho se it% There)ore in sin. lan. a.e, an a thor is not merely sayin. !hat he !ants to say, b t !hat he, and all the others be)ore him in the rele/ant disco rse ha/e said% 0r )roc1 cannot say !hat j st he himsel) means, beca se he is in)l enced by e/erythin. that came be)ore% As (imsatt and 7eardsley ar. e: 8the meanin. o) !ords is the history o) !ords: and the associations the !ord had )or >the a thor? are part o) the !ord#s history and meanin.%9 $The Intentional 4allacy, 12;A=@0'% Attached to this is also the problem o) in)l ence, it is impossible not to be in)l enced by precedin. ideas !ithin a rele/ant disco rse and there)ore no idea or intention can e/er be said to be !holly ori.inal, or ) lly the a thor#s o!n% Fo theoretical meanin. can e+ist in isolation since there is no nmediated e+perience o) the !orld $7elsey, @D', and as a res lt an a thor can ne/er e+press a ni- e

perception or idea% This idea o) meanin. is some!hat 5e.elian, since meanin. 8rests not in itsel)

5 of 6 b t in the relationship o) that thin. to other thin.s !ithin an all=encompassin., e/er=chan.in. !hole9 $5e.el, D;E'% The - estion o) meanin. is one that does not ha/e a concrete ans!er% 6ost reader=response theories dedicate their time to tellin. s !hat meanin. is not: )or 7arthes, meanin. is not rooted in the intention a thor and )or (imsatt and 7eardsley, nor is it rooted in the emotional response o) the reader% &liot#s character 0r )roc1 e+presses his di))ic lty in sayin. e+actly !hat he means, and he is ri.ht to do so% Thro .h the complications o) lan. a.e and interpretation, sayin. !hat one means, in order )or it to be de)initely nderstood by others, seems impossible% Ta1en to its e+treme, this co ld lead to the ma+im that no one e/er nderstands !hat yo mean, and there)ore all !ritin., and by lo.ic, all se o) lan. a.e, becomes ) tile% 5o!e/er, this pessimistic o tcome is clearly not the case% In an a thor creatin. a te+t, he is creatin. somethin. ne!, re.ardless o) ho! he is a))ected by those !ho come be)ore him% (hat he !rites has si.ni)icance to him, and ser/es a p rpose in relation to his intention% I) his intended meanin. has deep si.ni)icance )or him, he !ill hope others !ill bene)it )rom it, and they may /ery !ell do so, dependin. on the clarity o) e+pression% (hat criticism has made clear is simply that the reader does not ha e to adhere to the intended meanin. o) the a thor, and i) the te+t is read in a completely contrastin. conte+t, it co ld o))er a di))erent meanin. entirely%

(or1s Cited 7arthes, Ioland% 8The Death o) the A thor9 The !orton Anthology of Theory and Criticism Second "dition# &d% Jincent 7% Leitch, Fe! Kor1: Forton, 2010% 1;22= 1;2E% 0rint% 7elsey, Catherine% Critical $ractice% London: Io tled.e, 1AAE% 0rint% De 6an, 0a l% 8Semiolo.y and Ihetoric9 The !orton Anthology of Theory and Criticism Second "dition# &d% Jincent 7% Leitch, Fe! Kor1: Forton, 2010% 1;E1= 1;<G% 0rint% &liot, T% S% The %aste &and and 'ther $oems# London: 0en. in, 2002% 0rint% 5e.el, Leor. (ilhelm 4riedrich% 80henomenolo.y o) Spirit9 The !orton Anthology of Theory and

6 of 6 Criticism Second "dition# &d% Jincent 7% Leitch% Fe! Kor1: Forton, 2010% D;E=D@<% 0rint% Knapp, Ste/en and (alter 7enn 6ichaels% 8A.ainst Theory9 The !orton Anthology of Theory and Criticism Second "dition# &d% Jincent 7% Leitch% Fe! Kor1: Forton, 2010% 2@GG=2D0E% 0rint% (ilde, *scar% 8The Critic as Artist9 The !orton Anthology of Theory and Criticism Second "dition# &d% Jincent 7% Leitch, Fe! Kor1: Forton, 2010% <A@=G0<% 0rint% (imsatt, (illiam K % The (er)al *con+ Studies in the ,eaning of $oetry# London: 6eth en, 1A<0% 0rint% (imsatt, (illiam K and 6onroe C% 7eardsley% 8The Intentional 4allacy9 The !orton Anthology of Theory and Criticism Second "dition# &d% Jincent 7% Leitch% Fe! Kor1: Forton, 2010% 12;0=12@E% 0rint%