Ouch, smouch, Mr. Underhill . "Critical theory' is such an easy target simply because it suggests something new or different to some readers. but I think you protest too much. I might rethink your claim that you are not thin-skinned when you invited me to discuss a Chandler essay. Perhaps I had better not reply about that.
With all due respect, my suggestion that there is no definitive interpretation of the Bible is not unfair; I was simply pointing to the best known and most read book in the history of the Western world to suggest something about how communities of readers combine to produce a sense of 'right' meaning. If this is true for a work which many believe to be the word of God, then how much more true must it be for the faulty 'making-creatures', as Tolkien described us, who struggle with their own creations.
This point about communities does not exclude individual interpretations, but rather suggests that how we each read a text has something to do with the presuppositions, conscious and unconscious, which inspires or motivates us as readers.
I think, in fact, that Helen has herself described this very point far better than I can when she wrote in post #153 in this thread:
Quote:
. I seldom enjoy the works of a writer who hails from a world-view primarily hostile to that which I hold dear; why would I *immerse* myself in the works of a writer if I didn't trust him/ her in the first place? ....
And if one is leery of the author's intentions in the first place, why read the book looking for deep meaning? If we trust our own interpretation so much more than the author's, why read his book instead of writing our own?
|
Sauce suggests that there is a psychological component in our reading which might account for some responses. To this (which I think we have not yet fully explored) I would again add the importance of the 'interpretive community' to which we belong.
We can, of course, question the world-views, as Helen expresses it, which seem to inspire different interpretations and we can ask just what the role is of this world view in helping to inspire the interpretation, most particularly when we turn to the text and examine other 'propositions' in it which contradict or limit or compromise the interpretion.
The point is not that 'anything goes' but rather that what matters is the engagement of the reader with the text rather than the mining of the text for an all-encompassing, totalising understanding. Just because 'meaning' is subject to parodoxes and indeterminacies doesn't mean
that we refuse to examine or compare interpretations. So, White Supremacists want to grab Tolkien for their own? An opportunity to engage them in discussion about their ideas through the text. And maybe, just maybe, the possibility also exists that we might learn something about Tolkien's text---not, I hasten to say that he was in any way part and parcel of their despicable world view but that we might come to understand more fully how LOTR works its magic and how we respond to it.
Edit: This, by the way, actually represents a current of thought in biblical studies today: the very confusions and inaccuracies and variations in how the ancient texts have survived for us to read represents the historical actuality which faith must grapple with. Seen in this light, the Bible (and by extension any other text, I would suggest) becomes an opportunity for each reader to contemplate how he or she comes to understand faith/the text. We read to learn more about who we are as readers, and as human beings. [end edit]
My apologies, also, if others have replied while I have taken so long to post this. I am under constant interruption here today but did not wish to leave Underhill's comments to me rudely unanswered.