12/12/07
Legit Interpretations
We also discussed in class "What makes an interpretation legit?" In that class, many students mentioned certain interpretations that would be considered not valid (Example: "Darling buds of May" referring to BudLite, or The Dead referring to telephones) So if an interpretation can be considered invalid, then what makes an interpretation VALID? In my opinion, I think that textual evidence that links the interpretation to the text and functions with the text in one possibility. Another would be an interpretation that is linked to the social context of the time (which would exclude the BudLite theory). I think that an interpretation also should be a functioning interpretation (unlike, say, Fish's) in the fact that all elements of the interpretation fit together and work with one another. In other words, no explanation is left unexplained. I also think an interpretation is legit when it involves the reader and leaves room for debate and questioning (or even further possibilities for interpretations). Can anyone add to my list?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
MARY KATE POSTED THIS COMMENT!
"In other words, no explanation is left unexplained."
If this is so, I don't see how there would be room for debate. If one can explain every thing about a work in a cohesive manner in one interpretation, then it couldn't be assailed, because everything would be explicable.
The debate, then, I think, would come from interpreters using different theories to interpret a work (i.e. psychoanalytical, feminist, queer,). However, for these different-approach-inspired interpretations to be legit, they would have to be COMPLETELY cohesive--no explanation left unexplained--which I feel would be difficult: to approach a work from a theoretical viewpoint and have every single piece work toward that end. By your definition, then, legitimacy is an elusive prize.
Kyle
Post a Comment