Intentional Fallacy
In literary theory and aesthetics, authorial intent refers to an author’s intent as it is encoded in their work. Authorial intentionalism is the hermeneutical view that an author’s intentions should constrain the ways in which a text is properly interpreted. Opponents, who dispute its hermeneutical importance, have labelled this position the Intentional Fallacy and count it among the informal fallacies.
There are in fact two types of Intentionalism: Actual Intentionalism and Hypothetical Intentionalism. Actual Intentionalism is the standard intentionalist view that the meaning of a work is dependent on authorial intent. Hypothetical Intentionalism is a more recent view; it views the meaning of a work as being what an ideal reader would hypothesize the writer’s intent to have been — for hypothetical intentionalism, it is ultimately the hypothesis of the reader, not the truth, that matters.
The intentional fallacy is a concept in literary criticism and aesthetics that argues against using an author’s intentions or external biographical information to interpret a literary work. Instead, the meaning of a text should be derived from the text itself, focusing on the work as a public, objective entity. This concept, developed by New Critics W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley, posits that an author’s thoughts are separate from the created work, and focusing on them leads to an incomplete or misleading understanding of the text.
Key Aspects of the Intentional Fallacy
Focus on the Text Itself
: The meaning of a literary work should be found in its words, structure, and allusions, rather than in external information.
Autonomy of the Work
: A literary work is considered a self-sufficient object, independent of its author’s biography or stated intentions.
Reader’s Role
: Readers construct meaning from the text, and their interpretations are valid because they are based on the work itself.
Rejection of Biography and Statements
: Information about the author, such as their personal beliefs or stated intentions in letters, is irrelevant to the critical interpretation of the text.
Distinction from the Affective Fallacy
: The intentional fallacy is different from the “affective fallacy,” which is a confusion between a text and its effect on the reader.
Why It’s a “Fallacy”
It is considered a logical flaw because it tries to derive a standard of criticism from the psychological origins of the poem, which are outside the poem itself.
It leads to a form of relativism, as authorial intentions can be difficult to determine and may not be representative of the final work.
For New Critics like William K. Wimsatt, the goal was to provide a definitive, objective interpretation of the text, and focusing on the author’s intent muddied this objective.