‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

***Mister Underhill*** · 08-03-2005, 10:59 AM

As a writer -- and indeed just as a person going around in the world -- this attitude of complete interpretive "freedom" sort of bums me out. I picture a reader -- or just some dude that I'm trying to communicate with -- with arms crossed and an arrogant smirk on his face, saying, "You say what you have to say, then I'll decide what I want it to mean." I'd prefer a sincere attempt at understanding.

How annoyed do any of us here get when someone misunderstands -- or deliberately distorts -- the meaning and intention of one of our posts? And now I hear that the author's interpretation of his own post is only as valid as any other reader's?

"No, what I meant was--"
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

In any confrontation between a reader's interpretation and an author's intention, the author has the authority, the right, sometimes even the obligation to clarify his meaning. It reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall where the guy is pontificating about Marshall McLuhan, and Alvy goes, "Well, that's funny, I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here." Well, I happen to have Professor Tolkien right here to tell you that he didn't write an allegory of WWII. Can't we just take him at his word?

08-03-2005, 10:59 AM	#11
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,744	As a writer -- and indeed just as a person going around in the world -- this attitude of complete interpretive "freedom" sort of bums me out. I picture a reader -- or just some dude that I'm trying to communicate with -- with arms crossed and an arrogant smirk on his face, saying, "You say what you have to say, then I'll decide what I want it to mean." I'd prefer a sincere attempt at understanding. How annoyed do any of us here get when someone misunderstands -- or deliberately distorts -- the meaning and intention of one of our posts? And now I hear that the author's interpretation of his own post is only as valid as any other reader's? "No, what I meant was--" "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" In any confrontation between a reader's interpretation and an author's intention, the author has the authority, the right, sometimes even the obligation to clarify his meaning. It reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall where the guy is pontificating about Marshall McLuhan, and Alvy goes, "Well, that's funny, I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here." Well, I happen to have Professor Tolkien right here to tell you that he didn't write an allegory of WWII. Can't we just take him at his word?