Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpM
In any event, I think that we have little to fear from non-sensical interpretations. Even if they are genuine, they will be unacceptable to most other readers and will therefore never form part of our general understanding of the work.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bethberry
What we can do to hold literary terrorists at bay is to describe the conditions for our interpretations rather than prescribe which meaning, without thought and consideration, is the solely acceptable one. That way, we make ourselves--and our beloved texts--less objects for attack or distortion.
|
But doesn't this just mean that we have passed 'control' out of the hands of both Author
and Reader? Who sets the conditions for interpretation? Is it a peer group of other readers? Or do we allow the professionals to set the boundaries? That suggests that instead of allowing meaning to lie within the experience of the reader and enabling true anarchy, the cognoscenti actually do not wish to relinquish control because said anarchy can also be risky.
