This is in response to the post just below mine about Zunshine, specifically Marcus’ response to Emily’s question. Marcus said, “My question is this: Zunshine notes that Woolf assumes that we will automatically read a character's body language as indicative of his thoughts and feelings because of our collective past history as readers. How do we know which readings are correct?”
This got me wondering why does a reading even have to be correct, especially a reading within the reader response theory? An interpretive meaning is derived based on those interpretive strategies and interpretive communities that the reader is a part of. There are many different communities; therefore many different readings can come from one specific text. What's wrong with that? As long as the reader is gaining something intellectually, or emotionally from that text, does it matter if it disagrees with another's interpretation?
I sometimes feel like we get too stuck on right and wrong, as well as determining which interpretive strategy is better, that we forget the main theories and ideas actually at hand. Isn’t that what is really important, or is determining the best interpretive strategy more important?
3 comments:
I agree with Kim to an extent, as I think a purpose of literature (for the reader)is to communicate knowledge and show varying perspectives of human nature and values. As a reader, I DO seek to gain something intellectually and/or emotionally from a text.
I also understand the frustration that Kim has with individuals getting "too stuck on right and wrong" and attempting to determine "which interpretive strategy is better." I cannot help but think, however, that someone like James Joyce would be none too pleased with the interpretation that "The Dead" is about telephones. That interpretation may not be completely wrong, but I would assume that it is not one of the better ones (due to context, perhaps).
To add to the question at hand, if we do not seek to determine the best interpretations/interpretive strategies, should we then assume that texts can have unlimited interpretations? I think many authors would strongly disagree with that idea.
I think saying that a text has absolutely unlimited interpretations is an over-statement, but I love Kim's idea that different readings are valid because they are significant to the reader. If we agree with Freud that literature is a form of catharsis and just getting your fantasies and emotions out of the way, then it is very important for the reader to interpret the text in such a way that it makes him most mentaly stable. This opens up the text to much wider interpretations and I think this is very positive. As long as the interpretation is not just an off the cuff statement like "the Dead is about telephones," the whole readership can learn something new about the text that they personally did not read but might be equally important.
What is the purpose of literature if a reading has no significance to the reader? None! Significance of literature to the reader is key—a concept both Kim and Sylvi touch upon. If reading “The Dead” as if it were about telephones makes that piece of literature important to a reader, then it is a viable interpretation. However, I would argue that more people would find that the significance of that they gleaned “intellectually or emotionally” by reading “The Dead” did not have to do with telephones. With this said, the problem then becomes that I am operating under the assumption that there is a social aspect to interpretation—an assumption that I am not sure is true.
But, no, I would definitely agree with Kim and say that a reading does not have to be “correct.” However, reading something a certain way might make it more significant to a greater number of people. I think that texts can have unlimited interpretations but some will be said to be “better” because they are more significant to a greater number of people. Keep in mind though that what we are discussing is under the assumption that authorial intent is not important to interpretation. I do not want to get into this argument here AGAIN but just thought that it is important to point out this unsaid assumption.
Therefore, back to about what Zunshine notes about Woolfe: Zunshine seems correct in her assumption that a reader will interpret body language, however, Zunshine does not try to argue that the reader will interpret the body language correctly which really does, to an extent, go along with what Kim was originally saying.
~ Kristen
Post a Comment