But the text is the object of literary analysis, and all of that extratextual information is not a part of it.
Isn't it, though? Isn't the text a product of the author's mind, and as such almsot impossible to analyse without understanding the author's intent and circumstances? To analyse the purpose of the text, isn't it analysing the purpose of the author?
I would not always understand Kafka, Strindberg, Almqvist, Mann, or Lagerlöf's (sorry for the German/Swedish slant, it's what I've been studying lately) works fully without knowing their intent, and I'd say it's an important part of some of their texts.
In more modern works it's even more relevant, since we're more immediately influenced by them, and often living in the society they describe. Analysing it doesn't mean agreeing with it, surely?
Re: Here via metafandom
Isn't it, though? Isn't the text a product of the author's mind, and as such almsot impossible to analyse without understanding the author's intent and circumstances? To analyse the purpose of the text, isn't it analysing the purpose of the author?
I would not always understand Kafka, Strindberg, Almqvist, Mann, or Lagerlöf's (sorry for the German/Swedish slant, it's what I've been studying lately) works fully without knowing their intent, and I'd say it's an important part of some of their texts.
In more modern works it's even more relevant, since we're more immediately influenced by them, and often living in the society they describe. Analysing it doesn't mean agreeing with it, surely?