I read this week that J.K. Rowling "outed" Albus Dumbledore - the Headmaster of the Hogwarts School. The guy is gay, according to the original intent of the author. Notice that I used the words "original intent"? I would guess that there would be quite a few Harry Potter fans that are going to have to revise the impressions that they formed while reading the books to adjust for Dumbledore's sexual preference.
But, is that really fair? Isn't the reader of a novel entitled to draw his own conclusions about what he reads, and choose an interpretation that is satisfying to him -- without being wedded to what the author thinks?
On the other hand, if my wife gives me a "To Do" list, I will admit that her original intent is far more important than my subjective interpretation.
So, what about laws, or our Constitution. It's a pretty difficult task to put law into the category of "novel" or "To Do" list. So, I would expect it to be equally difficult to justify a wholsale acceptance or rejection of the "intent" of the author. But, it makes me wonder whether our reaction to legislative or Constititional ambiguity with the mantra of "intent" is really a sound tool of analysis.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment