Why do you think it's impossible to know an author's intent? Many authors tells us what it is, sometimes in the very beginning of the story, depending on the work. In some cases, like Cervantes, it changed during the course of writing, but isn't knowing the original intent as well as the one that grew out of the writing both useful when analysing it?
I mean, it's not as if I'm saying that author's intent should take precedence over all other interpretations, or that it's always successful; it can give added insight, but it doesn't necessarily.
Believing one can actually discern the author's purpose often leads students to believe that anything they see in the text which might be interesting could only possibly be there because the author thought of it.
Not in my experience, but I'm a student and not a teacher. A part of our analysis is always about looking at what an author may have done unconsciously.
Moreover, it leads them to believe that interpretations which couldn't possibly have been by authorial intent (because of historical context, for example) are automatically invalid.
I suppose it would depend on the interpretation, but it seems self-evident that a text will have a different meaning if applied on a completely different era and society than that in which it was originally written. Knowing both should only enrich the experience of the text, I would think.
Looking at your examples, I think we probably use a very different model of analysis (and which level do you teach?). It's not so much that we use the author's intent as a tool, but rather another aspect to analyse. Sometimes it isn't discernible, but knowing it can shed light on certain choices in the text.
I don't teach my students to understand the purpose of the text, but the effect of it.
We study both. I suppose I just don't agree with the thought that a text can exist in a vacuum. Many works of fiction has grown out of conflict, experimentation, or the author's particular wish to make a statement. I don't see how ignoring that is useful.
what does it matter if the architect's purpose, or even the house's purpose, is that this room be a bedroom?
It matters if you want your bed to fit in it! Architects put different things in different rooms depending on what they plan them to be used for. Sometimes you disagree with the architects choices, but it's still useful to know where the main phone socket is located.
(Er, I hope I'm not sounding upset or aggressive here; tone is so hard to convey in long meta discussions. I'm just trying to have a nice discussion, that's all!)
Re: Here via metafandom
I mean, it's not as if I'm saying that author's intent should take precedence over all other interpretations, or that it's always successful; it can give added insight, but it doesn't necessarily.
Believing one can actually discern the author's purpose often leads students to believe that anything they see in the text which might be interesting could only possibly be there because the author thought of it.
Not in my experience, but I'm a student and not a teacher. A part of our analysis is always about looking at what an author may have done unconsciously.
Moreover, it leads them to believe that interpretations which couldn't possibly have been by authorial intent (because of historical context, for example) are automatically invalid.
I suppose it would depend on the interpretation, but it seems self-evident that a text will have a different meaning if applied on a completely different era and society than that in which it was originally written. Knowing both should only enrich the experience of the text, I would think.
Looking at your examples, I think we probably use a very different model of analysis (and which level do you teach?). It's not so much that we use the author's intent as a tool, but rather another aspect to analyse. Sometimes it isn't discernible, but knowing it can shed light on certain choices in the text.
I don't teach my students to understand the purpose of the text, but the effect of it.
We study both. I suppose I just don't agree with the thought that a text can exist in a vacuum. Many works of fiction has grown out of conflict, experimentation, or the author's particular wish to make a statement. I don't see how ignoring that is useful.
what does it matter if the architect's purpose, or even the house's purpose, is that this room be a bedroom?
It matters if you want your bed to fit in it! Architects put different things in different rooms depending on what they plan them to be used for. Sometimes you disagree with the architects choices, but it's still useful to know where the main phone socket is located.
(Er, I hope I'm not sounding upset or aggressive here; tone is so hard to convey in long meta discussions. I'm just trying to have a nice discussion, that's all!)