On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: >> At a number of points, this steps squarely into a decades-long debate >> in literary studies about the nature of reading and of interpretation. >> This is a debate that is still - perhaps permanently -unsettled. >> However the view Wikipedia is taking - that there is some core of >> knowledge that is "descriptive" as opposed to "interpretive" - is >> decades out of the realm of accepted. It's a discredited view. > > Could you explain the nature of this debate? While there is certainly > a grey area between "descriptive" and "interpretive" I think the basic > plot elements of a novel aren't generally open to interpretation > (there will be exceptions for certain parts of certain novels, and > those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis).
<snip> I think Phil means the debate over authorial intentionality (and related topics): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intentionality Though he might have meant other aspects of that debate. Other articles that might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader-response_criticism I could go on... Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
