Revisiting the Intentional Fallacy: Beyond the Author’s Mind
On the poem and you
(1)
Literary interpretation often hinges on a deceptively simple question: What does it mean? In a recent reading group, as we dissected Flann O'Brien's The Third Policeman, this question hung in the air, both an intellectual provocation and a philosophical quandary, absurd and profound.
For years, I had quietly abandoned the quest to divine an author’s precise intentions. The pursuit seemed not just futile but potentially destructive to the heart of the matter. As W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley argued in their groundbreaking 1946 essay The Intentional Fallacy, a work of art exists beyond the narrow confines of its creator’s original design. Once released into the world, it no longer belongs to its maker; it belongs to the language, the audience, and the interpretive act itself.
(2)
This fundamental critique of artistic interpretation finds its most articulate expression in Wimsatt's central claim. It’s elegant in its simplicity: a poem, a novel, a painting—these are autonomous entities. Their meaning is not reducible to an artist’s private motivations or historical moment. To fixate on what an author “meant to say” is to risk missing the rich, complex life of the artwork itself. The intentional fallacy suggests that, rather than searching for an author’s intent, we should focus on the internal evidence—the linguistic, structural, and thematic elements that shape the work’s effect.
Consider the metaphor Wimsatt uses: judging a poem is like judging a pudding or a machine. We do not evaluate a pudding based on the chef’s intent, nor do we judge a machine by the engineer’s private ambitions. We ask: Does it work? Does it function as an aesthetic object? A poem should not merely mean something; it should be something.
This perspective liberates both the artwork and its audience. No longer are we bound to the limited imagination of the creator. Instead, we engage with the work as a living entity—capable of meanings its author might never have conceived.
(3)
While this perspective offers a compelling framework for literary analysis, it is not without nuanced complications. Consider, for instance, poets like T.S. Eliot, whose work thrives on literary allusion. Eliot’s The Waste Land brims with references—Dante, Shakespeare, Wagner, Buddhist scripture—all woven into its intricate tapestry. If we ignore Eliot’s personal intent for the poem—something like a slouching, a mythical vision of the great western butterslide—do we also ignore the very material that gives his work depth?
Perhaps. Wimsatt and Beardsley acknowledge that historical and literary context can illuminate a text—but only when it enriches rather than constrains our interpretation. The Waste Land’s resonance is not dependent on our ability to reconstruct Eliot’s thoughts, emerging instead from the dynamic interplay of voices, echoes, and absences within the poem itself. Even Eliot, notoriously enigmatic about his own work, expressed skepticism about the usefulness of intention. “Genuine poetry can communicate before it is understood,” he wrote, suggesting that the real poem’s power lies beyond direct explication.
(4)
If Eliot complicates Wimsatt’s thesis, John Ashbery seems to confirm it. Ashbery’s poetry resists paraphrase, shunning any fixed meaning in favor of fluidity and ambiguity. Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror does not lend itself to a singular interpretation. Instead, the work invites the reader into a shifting landscape of thought and perception. As Ashbery himself put it, “The poem is you”—not the author, not some predetermined meaning, but the interaction between text and reader.
In this sense, Ashbery enacts the intentional fallacy in his poetics. His work acknowledges that meaning is not a preordained message but an experience—an ongoing act of reading and rereading. His poetry thrives on multiplicity, reflecting the impossibility of reducing literature to a singular authorial intent.
(5)
The implications of Wimsatt’s insight extend beyond traditional literary forms and feels particularly relevant in our age of algorithmic creativity. If an AI model generates a poem from vast literary corpora, does it become more or less meaningful? The Intentional Fallacy suggests that the origin is irrelevant; what matters is how the work functions as an independent entity.
The intentional fallacy suggests that the point of origin is less critical than the work's functional autonomy. An AI-generated text, like any artistic creation, must be evaluated on its own merits: Does it provoke emotion? Does it create meaning? Does it function as an aesthetic object? The absence of humanity does not inherently lessen the power of the work.
However, this technological context also exposes potential limitations in Wimsatt's framework. Traditional literary criticism assumes a human consciousness behind the text—a set of cultural, emotional, and experiential contexts that shape, even unconsciously, the work's creation. AI-generated texts, produced through statistical pattern recognition, challenge this assumption. They represent a form of creation fundamentally divorced from human intentionality, yet still potentially capable of producing meaningful aesthetic experiences.
The critical question becomes: Can a text generated without conscious intent achieve the same depth of meaning as one created through human creativity? While the answer isn’t clear, the intentional fallacy provides a useful lens. It reminds us that meaning emerges not from the source of creation, but from the reader's encounter with the text—whether that text originates from a human mind or an algorithmic process.
(6)
Beyond literary and technological domains, the rejection of authorial intent also has broader implications. In contemporary debates over problematic authors—whether we should read a writer whose personal beliefs are reprehensible—the intentional fallacy offers a way forward. If a work is independent of its creator, can it be appreciated on its own terms? Or does its meaning remain inseparable from its origins? It’s a kind of liberation.
Similarly, in legal and political contexts, disputes over constitutional interpretation echo this debate. Originalists argue that the meaning of a legal text should be anchored in the framers’ intent, while others contend that meaning evolves with the reader. The intentional fallacy suggests that texts—whether literary or legal—are living entities, shaped by their reception as much as by their creation.
My reading group’s question—“What is he trying to say?”—still hangs around. The better question might be: What does this work say to me? Art is not paraphrase but experience of a world to be explored in a different way by each reader, each heart, each mind.
In the end, Ashbery had it right: the poem is you. Not the author, not some cryptic intent, but the interplay between language and perception, between creation and experience. And in that space, meaning is never fixed—it is forever unfolding, alive to the possibilities of interpretation.