Writer or Author?

I understand we will be talking about this in class tomorrow, but I wanted to get some thoughts out there before. In class there was a distinction made between writer and author, a distinction, to be candid, I do not fully understand. As such, my comments are, more so than usual, an invitation for correction. It seemed clear that the writer was the person, the individual who composed the work in question. This includes, naturally, all the boring details of biological and biographical information. The author, I was slightly unclear about. I understand that Nehemas spoke of a postulated author as a hypothetical version of the writer that possessed the answers to all possible questions regarding the text. Is this the sole meaning of author we are using? Corey suggests that the author means: "the intentional agent who at the time of writing the work, has the motive of communicating something specific through the literary work." This seems to be a perfectly reasonable definition of author, but I fail to see how it should be distinct from the writer.

It seems that the distinction between writer and author is rather contrived and unhelpful.

Infinity

There was some doubt as to whether or not there was an infinite number of descriptions of a pencil. This depends on a central question: Does an altered perspective, if there is no aesthetic difference, beget, necessarily, a distinct description? I think not. While the space around the pencil is infinitely divisible, the altered perspective of a fraction of a degree will not translate to a visible change. While we cognitively understand that we are viewing a different section of the pencil, we may not be able to articulate such a fine distinction in our actual description. Our senses are not so acutely honed; therefore, while there is an infinite number of perspectives from which descriptions and interpretations are begotten, there is a finite number of descriptions and interpretations.

Q&A 10 - Question 2: Contradiction

Does the nature of claims about literature differ in a significant enough manner to afford them the luxury of being able to accept contradictions, or are they held, also, to the logical restrictions of all other propositions?

Aristotle on non-contradiction: "It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect" (Metaphysics IV 3 1005b19-20). This is possibly the single most basic axiom of logic, and yet, it seems, interpretive pluralism denies this. According to the theory there is no one correct interpretation of a text and as such there can exist two contradictory interpretations that are equally correct? Either the nature of literary interpretation is significantly different than regular propositions, or interpretive pluralism is demonstrably false.

Is the nature of interpretation thus different?

Q&A 10 - Question 1: Interpretation

Must an interpretation attempt to explain the whole text or can an interpretation subsist merely on a selection from the text?

This question was begotten by a remarkable lack of clarification and specification as to what interpretation really is. More specifically, however, it was class discussion that really rendered necessary this inquiry. In objection to the hypothesis of an infinite number of perspectives from which to describe a pencil, someone said "well that would be describing a part of the pencil, not all of it." I wonder, though, if that is a reasonable distinction to make. If I were to say: "The cover of our textbook is teal." have I not described our textbook? Certainly a comprehensive description would go on to note that there are other colors, a certain number of pages...etc... The point is, though, that I did describe the textbook while describing only a part of it. Comprehensive interpretations may exist, though ambitious, but most interpretations are, I think, interpretations of parts of literary works.