Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In 2017 Professor of Literature John Farrell published The Varieties of Authorial Intention. Joining other dissenting voices past and present, this work addressed what the author considered a key tenet of mid- to late 20th century literary criticism: that reference to authorial intention is out of bounds, literary works being constituted by the text alone. Hypertext fiction has its own complex relationship with the notion of intention. From earlier entanglement in post-structuralist approaches to network textuality and the potential for readers to evade authors via branching narratives, hypertext fiction emerged as a distinctive form of textuality that can express intention in unique and unexpected ways. How effectively do the three modes of authorial intention Farrell identifies - communicative, artistic, practical - map to hypertext fiction both past and future? Can this model - devised in the context of linear print writing - accommodate the unique form of textuality represented by hypertext, with its own affordances and opportunities to express intent?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sam Brooker (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: