In Jorge Luis Borges's short story "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" we learn that Menard, the fictional 20th century writer of the eponymous title, immerses himself in the language and culture of 16th century Spain (pre-1602, to be precise), to the point where he writes a chapters of a book which are word-for-word identical parts of Don Quixote.

Yet the literary criticism of Borges's short story points out how the two texts have different messages.

For Cervantes, this is a book for the people, written in the language of the people.

For Menard, this is a book for specialists, who would understand the old Spanish language.

In the 20th century of Bertrand Russell and William James, the philosophical concepts that an educated writer like Menard would know are far different than 16th century Spain, so an expression like "history, the mother of truth" has different meanings.

Since you mention Homer, if I were to write of the wine-dark sea you would know I am referring to Homer. It brings along cultural connections, including its own Wikipedia page.

While when Homer uses it, it doesn't have those connections.

The idea that a text stands alone is a formalist style known as New Criticism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism .

> New Criticism developed as a reaction to the older philological and literary history schools of New England, which focused on the history and meaning of individual words and their relation to foreign and ancient languages, comparative sources, and the biographical circumstances of the authors, taking this approach under the influence of nineteenth-century German scholarship. The New Critics felt that this approach tended to distract from the text and meaning of a poem and entirely neglect its aesthetic qualities in favor of teaching about external factors. ...

> It was frequently alleged that the New Criticism treated literary texts as autonomous and divorced from historical context, and that its practitioners were "uninterested in the human meaning, the social function and effect of literature."

Borges's story is a commentary about this debate.

While the linked-to essay in the Chronicle made no mention of the long discussion of the relevant literary theories, seemingly insisting that analytical writing somehow stands outside that debate, by simply ignoring the debate.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One of my favorite New Criticism corollaries is that an author, after a work has been published, is not in a privileged position from which to speak on its meaning. Tolkien qua author is omnipotent. Tolkien qua post-publication commenter is another speaker, albeit a highly knowledgeable one. (Purposely picking an example where the author re-wrote his works after publication, e.g. retconning the Ring into The Hobbit.)

▲

Animats an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> One of my favorite New Criticism corollaries is that an author, after a work has been published, is not in a privileged position from which to speak on its meaning.

That's a line which was more appropriate in a era before the majority of novels had sequels. Now we read series where the plot extends across multiple books. Events in earlier books set up situations to be resolved in later books.

For a recent controversy in this area, ask Google "Is Dumbledore gay?"

	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> a line which was more appropriate in a era before the majority of novels had sequels Serialisation pre-dates the novel. There is a legitimate debate around the degree to which an author can amend canon with sequels. Various fandoms reject sequels in literature and film, as is their right. I think the broad consensus tends towards treating sequels as canon, however. > For a recent controversy in this area, ask Google "Is Dumbledore gay?" Did Rowling write a sequel with this? I thought it was scrawled into the margin of a screenplay. I think you have to reject the text of the books to argue Harry Potter is an alien. You don’t necessarily to accept or reject Dumbledore’s sexuality.

▲

eesmith 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Which leads to some very strange standardized test questions where the students are supposed to use close reading - a New Criticism approach - to infer the author's intent, when what they are actually supposed to do is infer what the test authors consider to be the author's intent.

https://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-writer-who-c...

> Back in 2017, Holbrook wrote an essay for Huffington Post entitled, "I Can't Answer These Texas Standardized Test Questions About My Own Poems." The writer had discovered that two of her poems were part of the Texas STAAR state assessment tests, and she was a bit startled to discover that she was unable to answer some of the questions.

> One reason was simple inaccuracy. One question asked why the poet had inserted a stanza break in a particular spot-- and then didn't insert a stanza break in the testing materials. But there was a second issue. Holbrook is a performance poet, and she had inserted the break at the point where, in live readings, she pauses. That choice was not one of the choices available on the test.

> In fact, much of Holbrook's issue with the questions was a sort of existential dilemma. Several questions asked, directly or indirectly, for the test taker to judge the author's intentions. The author knew some of her intentions, sort of remembered others, and had others that were layered and complex. But the manufacturers of the test--who had never asked her about any of this--provided only four choices that did not allow her to choose the answer that she knew to be correct.

This leads to questions like: Is the author more or less privileged than the test writers? Are the test writers more or less privileged than the students taking the test? If they are of equal privilege then how can there be a standardized test concerning the author's intent?

▲

lubujackson 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Such a rich response, much appreciated.