Okay, here is what I got out of this week's reading:
The audience, no matter the level of education, can interpret a text based on his or her ability to relate to the text; but the reader should not pay much attention to the context or author of the text.
Do we interpret a text based on our personal background knowledge? Or, do we interpret the the text based on the author's time, place, knowledge, and identity? OR, do we interpret a text based solely on the words in the text? I seem to struggle with these questions. Does the interpretation change once the reader knows and understands who wrote the text and in what context? I started thinking about form, content, and context (again) and their relationship. Basically this is what I came up with:
Language determines the meaning, which in turn helps the interpretation in the readers' minds. Based on what the readers know of the language, interpretations vary. If the readers knows anything about the author, interpretations may change. If we only look at the words, language, and structure of the literature, we can criticize and analyze the literature without worrying about the meaning, because we are not interpreting the meaning. Then do interpretation and analysis/criticism mean the same thing? I thought about techniques I use to teach literature and determined that both can be accomplished, but interpretation and analysis/criticism are not the same thing. I think interpretation is looking at why something is said or written to find meaning, and analysis/criticism is how it is spoken or written to identify structure, form, and style. I do agree to analyze literature the author must be divorced from the text and the audience must look at the structure, form, and language. Interpretation and analysis can coexist because they are related, but not the same.
I really like what Culler has to say about literature and interpretation: "...one should seek ways of analyzing the work as an objective artifact" (100). If we treat literature as an 'artifact', then we must know from where and when it came. But to be objective, we must not have any preconceived notions about the artifact. This is nearly impossible because, as humans, we always bring what we know about something to the table. If we take the author and meaning away from the work, will the work have the same affect on us? The language should be doing the speaking, not the author; therefore, from where and when the artifact came should not matter. Poetry is a perfect example of this. Content in poetry can and should be immortal; the style, form, and language speaks to us without identification of the time, place, and poet; but once the poet is identified, then interpretation will probably change.
I think about the 'classics' we teach in high school; three examples would be: Fahrenheit 451, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Frankenstein. These three texts live on today because students can relate to them in the 21st century. Can they relate to them based solely on the language, structure, or form - analysis? Sure. Do the readers relate to the stories because of their interpretation of meaning? Absolutely. I see both sides of the argument because I have taught the arguments. To only look at language, form, and structure allows the reader to analyze style; to look at the meaning behind the words based on background knowledge and information gives way to personal interpretation. Connection to literature is vital to interpretation. Analysis does lead to interpretation when reading these texts. Once the author is added to the equation, then the text may become much more clear to the audience and the meaning probably will change.
Back to my original questions: do we interpret a text based on our background knowledge or the language and structure? This is a big shift from what the ancients believed, but it is still based on those beliefs. Eloquent language can move, influence, and educate any class because of its beauty. Literary criticism/analysis should be based on how the text relays information and not the meaning of what is being said - I agree with the readings in that regard; however, interpretation is a different category. It's similar to rhetoric - is it an art or is it a skill?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Isn't it interesting how a person can read the same book at different times in their lives, and enjoy it in different ways? This is what makes me think that we are always considering context, even when we think we are doing close reading. If language is a social construct, it makes sense that our interpretation and understanding of specific language would be different (in at least a small way) from any other time we encountered it.
ReplyDeleteDo you find this to be true with the literature you teach year after year? Do you find new things in it every time you read it again?
When I read this, I kept thinking back to last year when I taught "Pride and Prejudice" for the first time in senior English. For me, I couldn't imagine approaching this book without a knowledge of Jane Austen and the similarities between the book and her life. My students, on the other hand, were completely clueless about her. While I understand why Lydia running away with her lover is a big deal, the students struggled to grasp why sex out of marriage was such a big deal. I really think that we naturally interpret text based on our own experiences and background knowledge. Without the background knowledge of Austen, her most well known book is interpreted completely different by teenagers who are completely ignorant of the expectations and customs of the time.
ReplyDeleteA text must be analyzed according not to a READER'S knowledge, but according to knowledge available to the author at the time. I feel that can explain WHY a piece was written, but that, I feel is not what is important about a text. The "how" of a text will connect it to the world. How the text functions as a reflection of the world, how it is timeless, can be found in Structuralism.
ReplyDeleteI think that the nature of literary criticism shows that it doesn't take natural talent or technical skill to interpret a work, it just takes a voice. There will never be one definitive way to interpret literature; there will always be, however, attitudes to ascribe to each theory.
There will come a time when all of these ranges of background become important, but they may not necessarially be important right away. There are books that we have all read several times, and each time we find something new. Is it as exhilirating to find that new nugget as it is to read the novel for the first time? I think not. It's nice to know all of the background, but in the end, I still believe that, to an extent, ignorance is bliss.
ReplyDeleteIt's impossible for me as a reader to ignore what I know about a writer's life when I'm reading something. If I don't know anything about the writer, it doesn't take long to draw connotations based simply on the material in a literary piece. Writer's write about what they know. Even in genres such as science fiction or fantasy where a writer's imagination can run wild, it is still impossible to ignore such things as geographical and cultural markers.
ReplyDelete