Eagleton - An interruption with commentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGBjSPz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjRaU8hRVJs

It is difficult to read Eagleton and be introduced to theories that are new to me and try to assimilate their meaning and the author's intent while simultaneously trying to avoid the biases contained in the commentary by Eagleton. Although the original texts may be dense, they are more pure. This example above shows how the original intent of the screenwriter, or at least the studio, can be subverted by presenting highlighted sections out of context. Without words, the first clip presents the author's message, to suggest that Joan Crawford is a victim. Of course, I am giving my interpretation to the script, but the author's intent seems to be clear. If you view the entire movie, which I am representing by the second clip there is a different mood, a different impression, and a different message that comes through. By having Eagleton introduce a theory, only to overlay his ideas of the shortcomings of the theory does not give me the opportunity to ingest the material and make my own assertions. I am sure, however, that I am shortchanging the graduate student by an implication that one cannot see that Eagleton is overlaying a Marxist philosophy onto his critique of early theorists.
Eagleton makes the point that Hirsch's attempt to safeguard the authorial intent of the text is parallel to the protection of material property. However, I argue that intellectual property has a meaning, a content, and a value of their own. As the reader searches to find meaning in the text, the reader has a choice: to discern what is the original intent of the author, as best as one can, or to establish what significance that piece of writing has for the reader. I am not sure that I am fully understanding what Eagleton is trying to say, but I am only offering my interpretation so far. I am only half-way through the reading; however, I have read this same selection as an undergraduate. The second time around, I am hoping that I come to the piece with more understanding. Eagleton also criticizes the idea of the meaning as a Platonic "ideal" which exists ina perfect state in the realm that exists before language. At this point in time, I think that I agree with Hesserl. The first video clip could be represented as the way that Joan Crawford would see the act of her mothering one of her adopted children. In her neurotic, or seemingly psychotic, break with reality, Crawford responds to her innate sense of mothering, most likely as this concept was imprinted on her. The second clip offers the same circumstances presented from the authorial ideal of the daughter. Here, the daughter offers her world mediated through the language of film. The emotions that are tied into the mother-daughter relationship in a dysfunctional family are clearly presented. It is difficult to see how changing social conditions would affect what the author's intention was.
I went searching for the clip of the "No more wire hangers!" scenes of the movie. At this point, I cannot even remember why, except that I felt it was reminiscent of the heavy-handed control that Eagleton offers up with his introductions to theory: No more transcendental philosophies! In the meantime, as I "surfed" the possible clips to use, I discovered an intentional misinterpretation of the original intent of the author. Does a fan of Joan Crawford have the right to offer the original intellectual property of the author as a statement that is in direct opposition to the original intent? I think not. Does a artist have the right to offer a distorted version as satire? Yes. The difference, I feel is in ignoring the author's intent and using the author's intent to make a point that is relevant.
I am sure that my opinions will change one hundred times over as I continue to read, but at this point, I feel that there are ideals and emotions that are intrinsic to the human condition. These exist apart from language, such as the fright or flight response. There are certain principles that exist without language. We can then interpret them by using language, but whatever words you use, the author has an intent that does exist in the fiber of his being, the framework of human existence, yes, the very soul of the individual that has a purity, an "ideal" if you will. Whatever significance this has for me is what I can choose to take away from the exposure to the text. (I guess that I am basically an Eiser reader response theory supporter.) If Shakespeare makes the point that overarching ambition can lead to the downfall of both the individual and the state, does it matter if I apply his meaning to Macbeth, Hitler, or Stalin?