While a work of literature have a literal meaning within its composition, there is often an expectation that there is another textual meaning to the work which is implied by the understanding of a work as being largely representative. When we think of works of literature, we think of the implied meanings or veiled symbolism which makes the work great, but is this necessary?
I think that, to some degree, a work of literature must have a textual meaning beyond the literal understanding of the sentences it contains. I think that this basic understanding of literature acknowledges that any particular work has an intended purpose; that every literary work has a message which the author is trying to communicate through his or her story. We often ask ourselves, or others, what we "took away" from a particular literary work, in essence what did it mean to us. This meaning which we seek within a literary work is essentially our understanding of the author's communicated message, and often that understanding is not explicitly stated within a work. If it were, than why not make the claim you are trying to make and be done with it? Is the formation of literature simply aesthetically oriented? It seems more likely that literature is constructed in such a manner as to communicate some form of understanding to the audience which they could not grasp absent the work.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Author vs. Writer
A good portion of our class discussions about interpretation have centered around the difference between the writer and the author in relation to a work. A writer is the actual individual who created the work, whereas the author is the particular state of mind of that writer when they composed the work. Thus, discerning the author is the much more prevalent endeavor when determining the meaning of a literary work. But this position is also fraught with some difficulty.
First of all, the actual person who wrote the novel should always be considered when one is attempting to interpret a work; while the writer's "state of mind" is important to understand, it is also important to understand the world of the writer and the experiences that he or she had through his or her life. Without any knowledge of the writer or the writer's environment, an understanding of his or her work would be woefully incomplete. Also, understanding the writer's state of mind (author) requires a certain amount of guesswork and postulation as Wollheim proposes. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that a writer might undergo several changes of "mind state" throughout the process of creating his or her work. Would this mean that a correct interpretation of a particular work would require the postulation of multiple authors in order to fully understand it? This is a position which I believe requires more defense, in regards to such an event.
First of all, the actual person who wrote the novel should always be considered when one is attempting to interpret a work; while the writer's "state of mind" is important to understand, it is also important to understand the world of the writer and the experiences that he or she had through his or her life. Without any knowledge of the writer or the writer's environment, an understanding of his or her work would be woefully incomplete. Also, understanding the writer's state of mind (author) requires a certain amount of guesswork and postulation as Wollheim proposes. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that a writer might undergo several changes of "mind state" throughout the process of creating his or her work. Would this mean that a correct interpretation of a particular work would require the postulation of multiple authors in order to fully understand it? This is a position which I believe requires more defense, in regards to such an event.
Interpretive Value (Q&A 2)
What value does an interpretation have if it does not correspond to the author’s intended message?
In the critical pluralism view of literature, there are many different and equally valid interpretations of a literary work. In Stecker's view, critical pluralism may lead to an "acceptable" interpretation of literature if it adheres to the text in some manner. Thus, the acceptability of an interpretation is confined to the work solely, and its strength is determined by the evidence the text provides for it. This would include interpretations of a work which may not correspond reasonably with the author's perceived intentions; an interpretation may still be valid even it uses a philosophical position that occurred after the author's time. The value of such an interpretation is inherent to the interpretation itself; if a particular "untrue" interpretation of a literary work somehow enriches one's perspective, than that is the value one gained from the interpretation.
In the critical pluralism view of literature, there are many different and equally valid interpretations of a literary work. In Stecker's view, critical pluralism may lead to an "acceptable" interpretation of literature if it adheres to the text in some manner. Thus, the acceptability of an interpretation is confined to the work solely, and its strength is determined by the evidence the text provides for it. This would include interpretations of a work which may not correspond reasonably with the author's perceived intentions; an interpretation may still be valid even it uses a philosophical position that occurred after the author's time. The value of such an interpretation is inherent to the interpretation itself; if a particular "untrue" interpretation of a literary work somehow enriches one's perspective, than that is the value one gained from the interpretation.
Discerning Difficulty? Q&A 1
Does the difficulty of discerning the author’s intentions render critical monism useless as an interpretation?
The theory of critical monism holds that there is one true, all encompassing interpretation of a literary work. Even if we stipulate that the critical monistic view can be reduced to an understanding of the author's intentions and environment, the difficulty of discerning the intentions with any certainty seems to be a rather difficult task. Furthermore, even if the task were undertaken and performed successfully, there is often no way to corroborate our interpretations and thereby remain open to question and criticism. What then is the value of such an endeavor?
Although we cannot be certain of an author's intention with a particular work, we can be certain that there is one. And if there is a particular message within the literary work, then it stands to reason that the message is discernible in some manner. Whether or not we can confirm the accuracy of our true interpretations is another matter fraught with more difficulty. However, it seems that the difficulty of interpreting a literary work with complete certitude does not preclude one from achieving it.
The theory of critical monism holds that there is one true, all encompassing interpretation of a literary work. Even if we stipulate that the critical monistic view can be reduced to an understanding of the author's intentions and environment, the difficulty of discerning the intentions with any certainty seems to be a rather difficult task. Furthermore, even if the task were undertaken and performed successfully, there is often no way to corroborate our interpretations and thereby remain open to question and criticism. What then is the value of such an endeavor?
Although we cannot be certain of an author's intention with a particular work, we can be certain that there is one. And if there is a particular message within the literary work, then it stands to reason that the message is discernible in some manner. Whether or not we can confirm the accuracy of our true interpretations is another matter fraught with more difficulty. However, it seems that the difficulty of interpreting a literary work with complete certitude does not preclude one from achieving it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)