*** However, I think at the same time, that a number of popular trends in academic thinking are faulty and send people down the wrong path. So I've built up a certain scepticism about them.***Then you'd be pleased to know that scepticism is WHAT WE DO in academia. We're taught a certain method, by which we really are critical of all texts and arguments (we see the benefits and even have our preferences among them, but we NEVER take them for undisputed truths).
***I think I follow you on what you are saying regarding the implied author within the text. The author writes and in writing he tells us "between the lines" in other words,***
No, HE doesn't tell us anything between the lines. He tells us the lines. We interpret both (some of the meanings between the lines can be attritbuted to the real author, some to the implied author).
***Ok, I see the model but still presage the real author. The implied author almost seems like annoying stuff the real author can't control, noise that can garble the message.***
It's not really a "negative" instance (it was never intended that way, anyway). It's just an instance in the text - almost grammatical, just at a higher level.
***As an author I might take noise into account but the implied author is so unconscious & implicit that how can I alter my message to make the noise more explicit? It's unconscious. That means I'm not aware of it!***
Well, if you look at the Maletzke model, you'll see that there are some noise sources influencing the reader, for example (his personality structure, his social environment etc.). Usually, ones takes these sources into account when one addresses the reader. It's a bit like what just happened in this thread earlier. I did not communicate some of my academic ideas to you properly because I failed to take into account that you were not an academic.
***Ironically, you're for the implied author but less for the implied narrative. Narrative is narrowly-defined so that imagery can contain aspects which are non-narrative. Ok, I'll bite. But then you turn around and say it's how authors use these non-narrative elements and make them symbolic or narrative that interests you.***
I'm afraid I have not heard the word 'implied narrative' before, so I'm not really sure what that means. However, I am of the opinion that SYMBOLS in film may be both narrative and non-narrative.
[Message edited by Thor on 08-02-2006]
