WK6DQ

Ch. 8 Author

-On page 108 there is a quote that states: The auctores produced a culture which reproduced their mandates; authors first produced themselves out of the alternative world-pictures they used to explain (and imaginatively inhabit) other lands. As for inhabiting other lands, previous in the chapter it is mentioned that every discipline in the trivium had their auctores, but what about these other lands that authors began to inhabit? Did these other lands' cultures not have their own auctores? Where these auctores' cultural mandates just dominated and forgotten?

- It is said by Pease on page 106 of our text that "Unlike other works referring to a writer's activity -- such as essayist, or poet, or dramatist -- the term 'author' raises questions about authority and whether the individual is the source or the effect of that authority." What kind of authority is this term calling into question? Is this authority not something that we as readers (or critics) are superscribing on to the author or is it inherently present in the action of writing a text? Furthermore, how do these other terms (i.e. essayist, poet, etc...) fall short of this expected authority? Do we not expect a poet to hold some authority over his work or the meaning present within?

- On page 109 Pease writes, "The author and the individual shared a tendency to become alienated from society once these collective social processes were fully materialized." At what point does the author become separated from their work? Can a text hold so much weight on its own that the author no longer holds a significant value to the understanding of a text?

Ch. 10 Intention

-On page 140, Stallman was quoted writing, "Once the work is produced it possesses objective status--it exists independently of the author and his declared intention." Can we even trust an author's "declared intention" in the first place? Does intention only apply to a certain genre of work--such as, is there an intention to be interpreted in a critical piece, which is usually thought to be pretty straightforward?

- In the chapter on Intention "idealist aesthetics" are brought into the discussion and how a piece of art has to "exist in the artists mind before he begins the physical act of creativity." This is definitely an idealist view of art, but is it not how the general population would view a creative work? Can meaning not be created as an artist is working on a piece? Also, what is the difference between motive and intention in regards to the creative process? Can an artist lack motive but still have intention, or vice versa?

//-// How does our cultural composition influence our idea of intention? For example, if a rich CEO writes an essay about the conditions of the poor in the United States, how would his status change our perceived intention?