on New Criticim and Reader Response

Apparently I agree with Stanley Fish because i think it is impossible to look at a text without bringing in your personal feelings or meanings. No reader can totally seperate themselves from their own knowledge and background and other readings that they have done. This is why new Criticism sucks, because I don't think someone can truly do it. Some New Critic might read a text a certain way and say they got the meaning completely from the text, but in some instances they wouldn't be able to get that meaning without reading other texts or relying on their own experiences. For example, T.S. Eliot intersperses so many latin phrases and allusions to other classical works in his poems, one cannot understand the poem simply by itself without understanding those other works, which completely debunks New Criticism in my opinion.

I was under the impression that Dr. Sexson quoted that Donne poem in its entirety today, which was why I was so confused that it could be about a dissolving marriage based on those short lines. Incorrect. I looked it up and there's a lot more to the poem and after reading more of it it does become apparent that it is about a couple splitting up. However, if we truly don't believe that an author's intent should matter, why can't it be about death or something else besides desertion? A few posts ago I mentioned that we can discover the author's intent because it is often times the most obvious one. This poem proves my point. Donne intended for it to be about a break up. By saying that it isn't about death and that it's about a break up, we have unintentionally proved my point.