/lit/ - Literature

>>15562168
>And yes, obviously you can hate an audience but love the author
His point was that neither the audience nor the author are relevant, and that it is the text, and the ideas contained therein, which stands alone.

>>15090583
>necessarily coincide
No. In fact it would be less incorrect to say intention and substance necessarily diverge to some degree, if only because language is not perfectly precise. And in any case, you should note that if what you'd written were true, it would imply that there existed no skill whatsoever in writing or in communication. The intention to communicate alone would be sufficient to have communicated well, because the intent would "necessarily coincide" with what was written, or said, or otherwise, regardless of the actual content. And in fact, rather ironically, if it were true that intention and substance "necessarily coincided," and that the author's intended meaning was all that a text could mean, the communication of meaning between persons would actually be rendered impossible, because, as it would be impossible to get at the meaning of a text without knowledge of the author's intent, all text would in turn necessarily cease to be a valid means of obtaining knowledge of authorial intent. Also take note that my intention all while writing this was to inform you as to the use of the Gram-Schmidt Process in linear algebra to orthonormalize a finite set of basis vectors.