Author, Reader, or Text? (aka Canonicity Slapdown 2005)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Where's the middle-ground -- the collaboration between author and reader?

Quite right. It's a flawed poll without this option. Care to start another, Fordim?

Edit: I can't begin to understand how anyone can think that "analysis" is the extent of the collaboration between author and reader.

Edit2: Okay, since Fordim has explicated choice #4 to include the collaboration between author and reader, thus including the sense of wonder and enchantment, that's how I'll vote. I just wish the option didn't read quite so dunderheaded compared to the rest of them.

[Lhunardawen]

Maybe we should all just vote for option 4, so Fordim would fail in his diabolical quest.

But you voted already, didn't you?

Oh.

[Bêthberry]

Oh, I never take Fordim at his word.

For instance, this little poll does seem to have drawn out many another Downer who never ventured into either the Enchantment thread or the Canonicity thread. Now, there's a democracy of entanglement if ever there was one.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill
Where's the middle-ground -- the collaboration between author and reader?

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Quite right. It's a flawed poll without this option.

On the contrary, there is no collaboration per se between author and reader, unless it is carried on solely within the reader's mind, some sort of necromancy in calling forth an absent human being.

Or perhaps necromancy is not the most applicable metaphor. Mayhap a better one is that of a performance art, with the reader taking the place of the performer rather than member of the audience, who but listens.

Indeedy, perhaps we can take this in a new direction which memory tells me was not examined on either of those two threads: we can even take Estelyn's discussion about music and the Music and apply it here.

Estelyn on musical interpretation

which was inspired by davem's post:

davem on performance

The ball's in other courts now, I believe.

[The Saucepan Man]

It's a no brainer really.

Some have questioned why there is not an "all of the above" category. This was my initial reaction too.

But then I realised that there is. It is that the meaning may be found in the experience of the reader. This covers each of the other categories and more.

The readers' views on the author's intentions, how the text should be analysed and interpreted, his or her enjoyment of it etc all fall within his or her experience of the book. If we feel compelled to divine the author's intentions, then that falls within our experience of the book. If we simply enjoy it as a darn good read, then that too is within our experience of it. Since our experience of the book as readers is dictated by and also dictates our approach to it, this in turn defines its meaning to us as individuals (which, of course, may change over time).

Simply put, a book can have no meaning save by reference to its effect on the individual. There can be no objective meaning which sits apart from the reader's experience. Of course, a group of individuals may share similar experiences of a book and may therefore agree on certain aspects of what it means. But no one individual reader's experience will ever be compeltely identical to another's, and so a book can never have one unified, objective meaning.

But what of the author, you may ask. What about the meaning that he or she intended? Well, the author is but an individual too, and so his or her intended meaning will simply fall within his or her individual experience. Provided that he or she is sufficiently skilled at communicating that intended meaning, then it may well form a part of many readers' experience too. But that will not necessarily be the case, certainly not with every reader.

And so I have voted, rather predictably, for the experience of the reader.

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Simply put, a book can have no meaning save by reference to its effect on the individual. There can be no objective meaning which sits apart from the reader's experience. Of course, a group of individuals may share similar experiences of a book and may therefore agree on certain aspects of what it means. But no one individual reader's experience will ever be compeltely identical to another's, and so a book can never have one unified, objective meaning.

Does this only apply to fiction, or are non-fiction books also included - say maths texts, or books on quantum theory? In fact, is it limited only to what we read, or does it extend to movies - & beyond to our everyday lives?

Observer created universe - or solipsism?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Does this only apply to fiction, or are non-fiction books also included - say maths texts, or books on quantum theory? In fact, is it limited only to what we read, or does it extend to movies - & beyond to our everyday lives?

Arguably, all of the above. But I'll restrict myself to works of fiction (in whatever medium) for now, as that is all the poll requires of me.

[Lalwendë]

Just a little something to stir the pot...

I'm not arguing against the 'experience of the reader', but something which makes me not want to side wholly with it is that the reader can quite easily misinterpret the text. If meaning is wholly with the reader then presumably the reader can say/do exactly what he or she likes and then say "I read it in a book" - if someone else points out that said book did actually support their opinion/action then that reader can logically counter by saying "well that's my experience".

Of course, this doesn't really matter all that much when it comes to discussing Tolkien beyond the possibility that it might give a few 'Downers increased blood pressure, but it can matter a lot. What if someone interprets their particular sacred text to mean that they ought to carry out a destructive act? Clearly it does matter in that case. So, why is it OK to do this with LotR but not with a sacred text? Are there limits? Or would it be equally as acceptable to do this where there may be bloody consequences?

I do think that it is important that different interpretations are allowed to exist for any text. In the case of Christianity I much prefer that there are many and varied ways of interpreting that text as we all experience life in different ways and this also stirs debate. But it cannot be denied that they do cause conflict.

I am stirring it a bit, yes...