Re: Mr. Antolini
Peggy F. Jean-Louis (pfj6868@is.nyu.edu)
Thu, 04 Dec 1997 20:26:15 -0500 (EST)
A few days ago, I read a post from someone who mentioned a former
Bananafish who had left the list because dicussing something that was so
personal to her had become too painful. At the time, I didn't really
understand what she meant by that, but after reading the post that follows
this comment, I am beginning to see what how that could have happened and
wonder if I shouldn't follow her example and end my brief association with
this list as well.
Peggy
>
> eh, what seemed to me to be happening in your post was not that you were
> taking out of the text things that were there, but importing life experiences
> into the text. A husband and wife kissing in public profusely yet staying in
> separate rooms in their home is in the text. The "meaning" of this pointing
> to homosexuality is not in the text--that comes from life experiences, and
> that can be valid or not valid as far as the text goes.
>
> That's why I said we had to look across several works to get the possible
> meaning "in this particular instance." I didn't mean that to apply across
> the boards. Since I think the message communicated in our text here is
> ambiguous, we may need to look beyond this one text.
>
> What your English teacher was describing was Reader Response theory, and not
> all hold to it. And even among RR critics, relatively few would say all
> readings of a text are equally valid. Not all readings of a text are equally
> valid, and just because we "see" something there that doesn't mean it's
> there. What we most often see is ourselves--that's why we read--but that may
> not necessarily be a commentary on the novel or story we are reading, but on
> ourselves...
>
> Jim
>