I definitely side with Winsatt and Beardsley on this; like I said in an earlier post, there are a lot of writers who are completely immoral (cough, Bukowski, cough) but are excellent at what they do. In my opinion, literary criticism should focus on the success of a piece of writing in terms of its artfulness, not in terms of the author's inherent morality (or lack thereof).
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Intentional Fallacy- Refuting the Need for Author as 'Good Man'
In Winsatt and Beardsley's article "The Intentional Fallacy", the authors seem to negate Longinus' idea of the author as a 'good man', a moral character. They argue that "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art" (354). This goes against Longinus' claim that only a 'good man' can produce sublime art, or the trend in literary criticism to think that "'In order to judge the poet's performance, we must know what he intended'" (354). If the author's intent has no bearing on the sublimity of the work, then the author's morality really doesn't matter in literary criticism at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Longinus says that "Sublimity is the echo of a noble mind," and I think it should be taken as just that: an echo (Longinus 350). I agree that basing a text's success or level of sublimity on the goodness of it's author (or presenter)is a bit of a stretch. Allow me to stray away from literature and into film, namely classics such as "Going My Way," "The Bells of Saint Mary's" and "White Christmas." These films all star the legendary Bing Crosby and the roles he portrayed in these films ("White Christmas may be a bit of a stretch but it is a favorite of mine and I just feel dirty neglecting to mention it) could be considered successful and powerful, and maybe even sublime. Yet, the actor's troubled life reflects anything but nobility as he dealt with his own dependence on alcohol and later, marijuana. He was also alegedly (aleged because the stories are uncoroborated by his other children) abusive towards one of his sons. Yet, shady personal life aside, his presentation of these characters showed such power and love and offered a nudge in the 'good' direction, that it is difficult to argue the level of success.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that they are saying that the author doesn't matter at all, and I don't think that Longinus says a whole lot about the intention of the author. As a matter of fact, both articles talk about how an author must strive towards a "truth" (356 for Wimsatt and like half the article for Longinus). I think that Wimsatt and Beardsley are saying that we can not judge a poem based on what the author intended it to mean, or that the author should not even have an intended meaning. Longinus is simply reflecting on that which he thinks causes sublimity in the audience.
ReplyDelete