In the realm of literary analysis, one term stands prominently at the core of New Criticism: the intentional fallacy. Coined from an essay by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe C. Beardsley in 1946, this concept challenges the conventional link between a literary text and the intentions of its author. The essay’s aim? To detach the judgment of a literary work from the author's intention behind its creation.
Table of Contents
What is an Intentional Fallacy?
At the heart of this idea lies a fundamental belief that a poem, although often the focal point for New Critics (while recognizing its equal applicability to other genres), transcends the author's control or intention. It’s proposed that a literary piece operates autonomously, beyond the author's conscious will. Instead, it should be evaluated solely based on whether it effectively functions or not. New Critics propose focusing on the "dramatic speaker" within the text, rather than the author, as the key to understanding its essence.
This notion of an independent, self-sufficient "text itself," assuming its own meaning and value exclusively through its verbal structure, forms the crux of New Criticism's principles. They argue that this self-validating nature makes it the sole subject of legitimate literary analysis.
While the intentional fallacy has been under critical scrutiny since its inception, the discussions revolving around the author/text/reader relationship continue to command attention. Interestingly, the resurgence of these debates has arisen from the paradoxical yet significant connections between New Criticism and Deconstruction.
Deconstruction, with its focus on decentering the author and emphasizing textuality, seemingly aligns with the principles of the intentional fallacy. However, a significant divergence lies in deconstruction's premise of a text's perpetual reinterpretation during its reading—a concept that starkly contrasts with New Criticism's insistence on the fixed and determinate nature of the "text itself." New Criticism champions the idea that the text holds the ultimate authority in defining its own meaning.
Example of Intentional Fallacy
Imagine receiving a handwritten note from a friend. In this scenario, the note is the literary text, and your friend is the author. Now, according to the principles of the intentional fallacy, the meaning of the note shouldn't solely rely on what your friend intended to convey.
Instead of trying to decipher your friend's exact intentions behind each word or phrase, you might choose to focus on the content of the message itself. Maybe the note expresses emotions or conveys a particular idea. In this case, according to the intentional fallacy, the note's meaning should be interpreted based on how well it communicates those feelings or thoughts to you, regardless of whether your friend consciously meant to convey them.
💡So, in a nutshell, just as the meaning of the note isn't solely bound by what your friend intended, a literary work, according to the intentional fallacy, isn't limited to the author's intent but should be assessed by how effectively it communicates and resonates with its audience.
Conclusion
In essence, the intentional fallacy continues to be a pivotal point of contention, evoking deep discussions around the intricate relationship between authorial intent, the text's autonomy, and the reader's interpretation. Its relevance persists, weaving through ongoing dialogues that challenge and enrich our understanding of literary criticism.
