[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Here we have the idea that the reader's connections ("Only connect" Auden I think it was, said) in the process of reading reflects bad manners: we "don't shut up" ; we "listen only to ourselves", we don't want to hear anything which challenges us; we only want to hear what we already know; we walk away from difference.

Well, I'll see your Auden quote & raise you a Dante one: 'Look, & pass.' Does the artist have anything new to teach us? If so, we should try & experience the art in as 'unbiassed' a way as possible. I'd say that interpretation is what we do with that 'unknown quantity' not the unknown quantity itself. There is something 'objective & unknown' in the art, & that is the really valuable thing about it. My argument is not that spontaneous associations are 'wrong' in some way - they're inevitable - I'm saying that if you stop focussing on the art deliberately & follow your associations in spite of the art, you have broken the spell. Accept the fact of the association, but then put it aside for later - if you wish.

So, I had already considered that in some measure the good reader must begin with some kind of desire to attend to the text and even be willing to fall under its sway. Nor, I think, have my posts shown the kind of tendency suggested here, that of small minded refusal to listen to difference and new meaning. This state of respectful attention does not, as I said above, make the reader into a blank slate upon which the text writes. That, I argue, is a psychological and linguistic impossibility. Here is where our difference lies, not in any rudeness or insensitivity to the text, but in understanding the nature of reading.

Maybe we're back to the Freudian vs Jungian thing. Frued's approach in interpreting dreams or fantasies was what he called 'free association'. Basically, he believed the only way we could get to the truth about our own unconscious processes was to try & 'trick' it into revealing itself, by freely associating ideas to the events & symbols in our dreams & fantasies, because effectively they are 'allegories' which have to be interpreted. Jung, on the other hand, believed that far from trying to hide & conceal things from us, the unconscious is trying to reveal itself to us in the clearest & most simple way possible. So, Jung's approach was to always focus on the actual dream & avoid as far as possible running away from it.[/QUOTE]

So, my comparison of Shelob, for instance, was not an analytical imposition, but arose from the associations of the description Tolkien gave me. I can later 'step back' and ask if those associations were truly applicable, but I cannot deny their occuring as I read. This is the state of reading for us all. Once does not shut the door to keep the noise out, because in fact that noise is part and parcel of the language. Reading is not a process of inputing text and placing it in a holding pattern until some conclusion is reached and then interpreting. Reading is an always, ongoing process of interpretation.

This is what I'm arguing against: I'm not saying you should deny the association with Lilith that arose while you were reading - a Freudian would say you had discovered the 'real' meaning & value of the story for you in that association: You have 'discovered' your 'Lilith complex' or something. What I am saying is that Lilith does not belong in Middle earth, so you have introduced, by association, a distraction. A Jungian would probably ask you why you were 'running away' from Shelob - what is it about Shelob that you are trying to 'avoid'?

I'd say that, far from reading (or listening to a piece of music or looking at a painting) always being an ongoing 'process of interpretation' the 'process of interpretation' is an optional extra - not the Art itself - our response to which is 'experiential' (struggling to express what I mean here ). Interpretation is what we do with that experience (or perhaps what we do to it). The art exists 'objectively', our interpretation of it is subjective - or rather our interpretation of our experience of it is. Our experience is our primary response, not our interpretation. I'd say, therefore, that reading (etc) is an 'ongoing process of experiencing' & that the process of interpreting may or may not take place, & may, or may not, be 'ongoing'.

You make the assumption here that SW is only Luke's story, only personal, and that only the personal story can move us. This is like saying LotR is only Frodo's story. It is that, but much more. And with Luke. The personal is intimately connected with the cosmological, so there is no reason why viewers should, from this moment, not begin to piece together Lucas' frame of reference. They don't have to start here--like any good story, there are other points in SW where the reader can begin to understand how the historical events impact upon the personal--but it is available. To deny that is, once again, to posit the creation of meaning only after the fact rather than in process. It is also to make a claim about Luke's story as the only story.

Ok, But the story is focussed on Luke - Luke is like Frodo in that what happens to him is the core of the story. I was referring to the specific incident of Luke's return home to find his aunt & uncle dead. Plus, the film is called A New Hope, so I think the focus of that movie is meant to be Luke - but this is a small point.