Undecidability

Friday in class we discussed the idea of "undecidability" in post-structuralism, particularly referring to Requelme's article. I wanted to know what everyone thought about this. Before discussing post-structuralism, on multiple occasions people have expressed the opinion that there is not a right answer or interpretation, that there can be multiple interpretations. Do you think this is the same idea expressed in post-structuralism? Our class seemed to end on the decision that "undecidability" implies that one interpretation can't be picked over another, that the reader reaches a point at which a decision can't be made. Does everyone agree? Is it possible to see ambiguity and yet still choose one interpretation over another?

Authorial Intent

I have lately been struggling a lot with what my exact views are pertaining to authorial intent. In viewing the other discussions on this blog so far, I was surprised that no one has yet talked about authorial intent seeing as it comes up in class quite often. Today, we were discussing the Joyce article and New Historicism and whether we thought that what author writes is intended or not. Many difficult questions came up in class in a very short time. For example, are selves entirely unified? If not (the conclusion that we seemed to come to in class), does this mean that what an author writes is also not unified? How much of what an author writes is intended and, leading from this, how much does authorial intent matter?

Before this class, I used to place a very high importance on authorial intent when analyzing literature. But now I am not so sure. For one thing, how do we know that information compiled about an author is true? What if we are given false information given by, say a neighbor of the author, and the neighbor just told false things about the author just to be in the news? Unless we were there while the author was writing a piece of literature, how can we truly know that the context that we are told that the literature was written in is really true? Ought we then to rely solely on the text and only what we think that the author is trying to say in it? On the other hand, everything that an author writes about is from their own personal experience and, if we know about, say the death of a family member of the author, this might have a huge impact on that person’s writing and I firmly believe that this is very central in understanding the author’s work.

Is anyone else confused or does anyone else have any “words of wisdom” as to how they determine how much value to attach to authorial intent? Sorry for the long post!

~ Kristen

Readers Make Meanings

Fish argues that “readers make meanings…and meanings make readers [because of socially constructed communities]” I am willing to agree that part of how we interpret a text emerges from the environment and social forces that continually change and evolve around and through us. If we are all part of various interpretive communities, it stands to reason large numbers can agree to certain interpretations of a text like James Joyce’s short stories tend to reflect the socio-political situation in Ireland.

However, no two people are part of exactly the same communities to the same involvement and extent. Because of this difference, there will always be part of us that is original and unlike any others. Fish is partially mistaken when he says “the self…is a social construct.” We are all social constructs to a certain extent but not completely. I refuse to believe that the only reason humans think the way they do is because of society’s standards—that seems like conceding too much control to something far larger and more capricious than the individual.

Opinions? Arguments?

Emily Franzen

Fish and "the self"

Fish's explanation of "self" in terms of interpreting texts just really rubbed me the wrong way. I want to know, what did everyone else think?

Fish basically argues that there is no independent self, because the self is a social construct that "does not exist apart from the communal or conventional categories of thought that enable its operations..." (Fish, 1029). He goes on to say that consequently, any meaning that an individual derives from a text is really just a result of the community, not the individual.

Now, I can't fault Fish for saying that people are greatly influenced by the society and/or communities that they are a part of. I think it would be hard to argue that everyone is completely independent. However, there is just something about his claims that really bugs me. Does that imply that there is no real self? That there is no individuality and everyone within a larger community will extract the same meaning from a particular text? How does he account for the differences in interpretations between fairly similar people- to the point that sometimes its hard to keep in mind that everyone even read the same thing?

I could keep going with questions, but I want to hear what everyone thinks, and if someone has a way to explain Fish in a way that doesn't bother me so much!

Reader-Response Theory

I have two questions that pertain to the Richter reading about Reader-Response Theory. In the section entitled "The Psychology and Sociology of the Audience," Richter explains the position of Louise Rosenblatt by saying, in the most basic of terms, that each reader brings something different to the text. Rosenblatt touches on something we talked about in class the other day: each reading of a text will be different because we are slightly different every time we read a text. This is a good point, just as his advice not to project anything onto the text. What I wonder, though, is if it is possible to have an "undistorted" view of a text? Is it possible to recognize our biases and curb them to get a totally unbias reading?

Secondly, I just want to hear the opinions of others on David Bleich's theory. He claims that our social setting plays a part in our interpretation, or our vocalized interpretation, of a text. Bleich says that readers will keep quiet those things that are irrelevant to others and the aim of the class. I do not know if this is necessarily true because I think most people would agree that they have used the "But that is what I get from the text" excuse at one point in time, especially in the case that others do not agree. What are your thoughts?

Analyzing Characters

Today in class we talked about how there are different things psychoanalytic critics can attempt to analyze, one of these being the characters. There was some discussion about whether or not characters can be analyzed, and whether or not when we do analyze them, we're really analyzing the author.
i have mixed feelings about this. i do definitely think characters can and should be analyzed; that not everything has to come back to the author. but at the same time, i don't know that authors always intend for their characters to be analyzed in the ways we do, especially authors who don't subscribe to psychoanalysis. To me though, this doesn't necessarily mean that analysis of characters is "wrong." If a critic believes that their school of thought actually can be used to understand and interpret the actions of people in the real world, then i feel that they can interpret characters' actions in the same way, without having to consider the author.
any thoughts?

-Amy

Terms and Theory

Something that continues to come up in class is people either asking or arguing “Well, then what is the true meaning of _______?” We have had this discussion about the terms theory, theme, structure, symbolism, etc. It seems to be an emerging pattern—particularly in the two class periods we spent on Brook’s Irony as a Principal of Structure. Sure, we seemed to come to a general conclusion about what Brooks determined to be the meanings of the terms “irony” and “structure” and their interdependence in a literary aspect. But, just because we believe that we have found what Brooks thinks these terms mean, do we really believe this to be the true meanings of the terms universally? Well, of course not.

So what I wonder is, what are we seeking when we theorize the meanings of these basic literary terms that are the foundation on which most literary theory is based? Do we seek a true meaning (if anyone believes that one can actually be found) or a common understanding of the terms in general or for each theorist we happen to analyze?

preconceived ideas

Emily asks, "who’s to say preconceived ideas are a bad thing? These ideas make up who we are, and can make a text more meaningful."

This makes sense to me; it would surely be impossible to come to a text with NO relevant preconceived ideas, and if we did, we would presumably be so stumped by the text that it would essentially meaningless.

But it's easy to imagine preconceived ideas which do interfere with a reasonable interpretation. I'm reminded of the Kit Ramsay character (played by Eddie Murphy) in _Bowfinger_, who counts the number of Ks in scripts; if the total number is divisible by 3, then that's a sign that the script is racist (because the script contains lots of KKKs).

So what counts as a "legitimate" preconceived idea to bring to a text, and what counts as an illegitimate one?

Wes

Barry Theories

I agree with what a few people said in class: "Text contains meaning within itself." There are aspects out of just the text that need to be analyzed. James Joyce's "The Dead" wouldn't have the same, deep impacts (albeit perhaps different reactions) from readers if we did not have the socio-political element. There's more to study than just the text. No writer is completely free from their environments or their society. Not even Thoreau.

Now, I have a question.

Professor Chapman talked a lot about text having "the same meaning" when it was written as it does today. Why do they need to have the "same" meaning? Isn't that it has meaning enough? Even in the time period texts were written in, they would have garnered varying meanings from varying readers. But perhaps that's oversimplifying it.

What do you think?

~Emily~

some questions

You're welcome to write about anything you want, of course, but if you're stuck for a topic, here's one we could start with.

In class today we talked about some of Barry's "ten tenets for liberal humanism" (17-20). There's plenty more to be said about those--go for it! Or you might share your thoughts on one of Barry's five "recurring ideas in critical theory" (34-36) if you want to take on the other side.

Wes Chapman