Re: Before the Law

John O. said:
<< I say "possibilities" because I don't know how exactly I would defend
the slightly more definitive notion of "correct" in such a case as "Before
the Law." If you read my original post closely, you'll see that I spoke in
some detail of specific readings I felt were more and less valid and
productive, based, almost arbitrarily, on how much of the text one was able
to use to defend them and on how useful they were in any given discussion.
Personally, I have no real reason to want to speak of these in terms of
"correctness."
[. . .]
And I remind you that John G. was arguing that there was a "single, correct
reading." He was speaking of only one that was correct. I suspect he will
be unable to offer it to us or to prove to us that it is *the* "single,
correct reading." >>

I do think that I understand your offering of "multiple possibilities" in
opposition to John G.'s claim of "one correct" reading.

It seems to me, though, that there's nothing at all arbitrary about the
standard of voluminous textual use. You seem to hedge by calling it
"almost" arbitrary, and I wish you wouldn't because I'm afraid that vague
talk is the biggest obstacle in a discussion like this. I wonder very much
why one would think such a standard were arbitrary -- all the more baffling
to me that one would consider it "almost" arbitrary.

It seems to me that a reader who believes that the author's intent governs
all interpretation could do just as you do: offer several "possibilities,"
suggesting that they are more or less probably correct on the basis of
textual support, but always and out of principle maintaining a final
ignorance. I'm puzzled, though, why one who does not believe in the
governance of authorial intent would stop short of being correct. If the
author's intent doesn't amount to a whole Hell of a lot, and you have a
reasonable amount of textual support, you ought to be -- or so it seems to
me -- absolutely and utterly correct. I asked my original question to you
wondering upon what basis you could call a reading anything short of that,
by failure to meet what standard could you reduce it to a mere
"possibility."

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sat Mar 8 02:21:08 2003