This was passed on to me by a former Theories student:
> Hi Dr. Chapman!
>
> I saw this on the New York Times today. I thought it was amusing that a staunch
> reader-response critic would critique the truth produced by an interpretive community.
> http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/
I have to say, it really does seem like he's trying to say that Clinton is saying something very particular, quite apart from what everyone else thinks she said...can anyone see any way that he is being consistent with his reader-response self?
Wes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
His post is filled with phrases like "Of course, it didn’t come across that way and that’s her fault" which doesn't seem to mend well with his idea of reader-response communities. She had an idea of what she said, and so did everybody else. It seems like he is saying that she meant something different than what she said. But who is he to say that? Even if her use of the word vacuum was incorrect, in what context is he using to evaluate its correctness? Isn't he just judging it based on his own preconceived notions of "Hillary" ?
To an extent, I think some of Fish's preconceived notions of Hillary are, in fact, influencing his understanding of her "controversial" comments. If I can recall correctly, however (and I apologize for not remembering where I read this), Fish feels that a reader does not approach a text of any kind with complete subjectivity. Because we share an understanding of language and its mechanics, we can usually get a pretty solid idea of what someone really means. If we take English, for example, I think we can all agree that many words--depending on context, inflection, etc.--have several nuances. Thus, Fish may not know what Hillary really meant (and who does, except Hillary?), but he can always make inferences, based on his understanding of the language he shares with her.
I believe Fish tackles the issue of Clinton's so-called flub and presents it in an interesting way. Clinton merely answered the question she was given: Does it make sense to give illegal immigrants drivers licenses? Of course, her answer of 'yes' was taken out of context (as so much is in the world of politics). I think this actually has a lot to do with interpretive communities. Clinton knows what she was trying to say--that it does make sense to give illegal immigrants licenses in an attempt to bring them under state power instead of letting them drive illegally. All in all, she was trying to, as it seems, poke at the faulty immigration reform we are practicing. This was overlooked by others as something different because they have influences elsewhere, and also because the candidates are all part of the cut-throat political interpretive community. The mix of ideas/influences/etc. can affect how people perceive the meaning of Clinton's answer.
Post a Comment