Jim's Problem with Authors [was: Re: Salinger's Problem with Westerners? or Re: Authorial Intent]

From: L. Manning Vines <lmanningvines@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 00:54:27 EDT

Jim says, "Just sit in a literature class where students are given a poem
and asked to describe what it means. If you have 30 students, you'll
probably get at least 25 different readings depending on the poem."

As someone who sits in round-table discussions concerning philosophy,
theology, literature, language, politics, mathematics, science, music, et
cetera with 12-20 people every day of the week, and as part of a small
community fervently dedicated to Conversation with a capital C, where such
discussions spring up even outside of class at every meal and party, I know
something about this.

And if you let those 30 students discuss the poem freely rather than just
describe what it means, if they go back and forth with one another for a few
hours, those 25 different readings usually evolve and coalesce and become
four or five. Sometimes one or two. And when this has happened, people
leave feeling like they've learned a lot more, and believing that they were
either dead-wrong with their first idea or else that it was grossly
simplified.

Also: "I said [. . .] that the author's intent [. . .] is only accessible
through the author's writing, so the real issue isn't trying to read the
author's mind (an impossible task), but to understand the author's writing
within a specific context (usually historical and cultural)."

I don't think anyone here suggested trying to read the author's mind, but,
rather, trying to read the author's book. You nod to this by saying that
the author's intent is only accessible through the author's writing, but you
bafflingly bring telepathy into the matter. This is entirely unnecessary.

I also think that the historical and cultural contexts you're harping on can
become helpful, but that they don't deserve the status you're giving them.
Reading an author within his own context is in most cases perfectly
sufficient, so long as we are sensitive readers who try not to push our
prejudices onto him. In other cases, reading an author within the context
of other authors contemporary or slightly older than him will do. If we
must go beyond that, it seems to me that we're probably approaching the
point of diminishing returns. Some small details might be illuminated by
archaeology or history textbooks, but they are usually small enough to be of
interest only to the serious hobbyist, and to make little difference to our
appreciation and understanding of the book.

Lao Tzu sings to me, transcending cultural and historical contexts. Readers
in his day or readers who are more familiar with the history of the far East
might pick out some extra details, but I think the core of his message or
beauty or intent (or whathaveyou) remains intact. This is generally so of
our Great writers. I do believe that sharing a common humanity provides the
most significant context. Other contexts are details, and while fun for
those who are interested, are not indispensable.

Also: "Is there any way you could ever know that your ideas are anywhere
near the author's ideas about his/her own text?

No."

How well do you know anything? This isn't unique to literature, but people
often treat it as if it were. A scientific theory can never be proven
either, only disproven. If it seems to work and doesn't get disproven for a
long time, people start to trust it more; but proof is an elusive thing.
Even in mathematics, where proof is more clear and distinct than other
fields, the proof of a proposition depends upon the postulates that came
before it. We can be pretty sure, but it's hard to say when we're sure
ENOUGH. Enough for what? is the question that always seems to follow.

Also: "But 500 years from now (or even 6 months from now), will this
discussion be that clear? Wouldn't uncovering that context be necessary to
get somewhere close to the meanings we both seem to see so clearly now?"

What you're suggesting is true but, it seems to me, exaggerated. The
subtlety of conversation and character that is as vivid as day to sensitive
modern readers of books millennia old is staggering. How do I know that I
understand it in a way that is similar to the author's own understanding?
Well, I suppose I don't. But neither do I know that I understand you in a
way similar to your own understanding, or that I understand a French
newspaper in a way similar to the understanding of a Frenchman, or that I
understand my local paper in a way similar to the understanding my neighbors
and the reporters. But the degree of sensibility is so great that I believe
it anyway.

I agree with the suggestion that we cannot summon the spirits of dead
authors to understand their books. I agree that no one can rightfully claim
special access to The True and Final Meaning and Intent of a book. But you
seem to be ignoring or actually denying implicitly something that is, I
think, important to acknowledge and remember. This is that books are
written by authors, and that the good authors actively and deliberately
inject meaning and substance into their books. It is indeed important to
look to the actual book for answers about itself, and looking away from the
book -- to telepathic understandings or to the further prejudice and
uncertainty of external sources -- colors our reading of it and comes
between us and the page. But the author can only be abstracted so far
before the book disappears with him. Without deliberate human intent,
intent which we listening humans can however imprecisely sense, a book is so
many arbitrarily arranged words.

-robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Fri Oct 25 00:55:20 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 21:50:18 EDT