(urth) Wolfe being clear on 5HoC

[Adrian Robert]

On Sep 21, 2006, at 5:55 PM, Nathan Spears wrote:

> I think this sort of interpretation is diversionary at best.  If  
> what an author achieves is greater (or more significant) than what  
> he intended, then his skill as an author has failed him in some  
> way.  It may be interesting to look at what has "slipped out" but  
> it would certainly not merit devoted re-reading and analysis, in my  
> opinion.  If the author's insight into his own work is less  
> valuable than mine, then perhaps I should find someone else to read.

I recommend reading an excellent essay by Carl Jung on just this  
matter, entitled "On the Relation of Analytical Psychology to  
Poetry".  It can be found in some volumes excerpting his collected  
works.  He refutes this view on the basis of two ideas -- first, the  
writer is not operating in a vacuum, but is a conduit through which  
species- and culture-universal as well as individual experiences  
flow, and second, that what is accessible to conscious control and  
introspection can in no sense be said to make up the entire  
contribution to a creative work as complex as a poem, let alone a  
novel.  There are just too many aspects, too many details, too many  
dimensions to suppose that the author has consciously exerted control  
over every one of them -- yet they are affected and determined  
nonetheless by the author (and that which has influenced him or her).

I find this an insightful way to look at many art forms.  When you  
start thinking about works such as major films, for example, affected  
by many people, it leads to some interesting lines of thinking..