One sole method of interpretation?

One sole method of interpretation?

So I’m kinda on an interpretation blog kick here. These are intriguing questions posed in class so I’m running with them!

Should all texts be interpreted using the same method?

First of all, what would the “same” method be? What would that even look like? Just look at all the literary theories that exist today and that we have looked at in class, I don’t think they would all be able to stick to just one sole method of interpretation. Could a Marxist, feminist, romantic, post-colonial, Christian method be taught? And I didn’t even mention all of them in that! I think one sole “same” method is impossible.

It is impossible for everyone to interpret a text the same way. Just refer to my previous post, all of come with our own set of experiences, assumptions, and background. We will each interpret a piece of literature differently because no two people are the same. In the human race there is nothing the “same.” Sure, there are commonalities, sure some people might see the same thing in a piece of literature and may agree at times, but on the whole, if we include everyone, there is no way that everyone can agree on one “same” method or treat every work of literature the “same.” That’s like… communism. And we all know how that works out in the end, haha.

Do many interpretations equal a flawed work of literature?

Do many interpretations equal a flawed work of literature?

When interpretations arrive at different meanings for a text, does this suggest that the meaning of the text is uncertain or that it has been read incorrectly by one or both parties?

When is a text NOT interpreted multiple ways? Has a work EVER been interpreted just one single way? I find this hard to believe that one interpretation exists for every piece of literature out there. When a text is interpreted multiple ways it is not because of a flaw in the work itself. It is rather a product of the diversity of the readers and their individual personal economy. Each reader brings something to the table based upon their own personal experience and background. And, as Professor Downing says, this is called hetereoglossia. Each person is going to gloss a piece of literature different; they will interpret it according to what goes on their minds. And therefore, since no two snowflakes are alike, and no two people are alike, it is impossible for all people to think the same thing about a work of literature. So let’s not bash the piece of literature itself, it is what it is, and it is up to us, as individual readers, to interpret it how we see fit- all infinite interpretations that there may be.

Interpretation limited to then or now?

Interpretation limited to then or now?

Is interpretation primarily designed to understand the meaning of a text in its original context, or to understand its meaning for us in the present?

My answer would be that it is a combination of both. Let’s take the Bible for example. The Bible was written hundreds and hundreds of years ago, the world today is not the world it was when the Bible was written. Therefore, it is important to realize and understand the world in the times in which the Bible was written. One must understand the context before applying it to modern day times such as the present. But just because the Bible is an ancient text does not mean that the principles and stories do not apply anymore. There is something universal in the meaning, something that is still applicable hundreds of years later even if we are now driving cars instead of riding donkeys. So it is a combination of both for any text, even if it is a novel written 50 years ago. One must know where the author is coming from at the time, but also say, “Okay, now what I can get from this today, right here and now?” Looking into the past can help explain things today. And just because a piece of literature is written generations ago doesn’t mean that it isn’t applicable today or that we can only interpret it within the era in which it was written. Great works of literature have a universal meaning and truth that can be interpreted generations and years later.

The “English” Department

The “English” Department

While reading the little biographical information right before the essay “On the Abolition of the English Department” by Ngugi, Liyong, and Oquor-Anyumba, I had an epiphany when I read these lines:

“… English was enmeshed with nationalism and designed to instill national pride- hence the subject was “English” rather than simply “literature”- particularly in the face of European conflicts (such as those leading up to World War I) and competition for colonies. Morever, the teaching of English language and literature was a prominent part of the administration of the British Empire in its many colonies around the globe- in India, Africa, and elsewhere” (2089-2090).

Wow. Suddenly it all made sense! I hadn’t ever really thought about the “English” major before, and the root of how it got its name. I always thought hey, English is the language and therefore the English major is the study of the language and literature in general. After reading those lines up there suddenly it did make sense, if it weren’t for England and their nationalism I would probably just be a Literature major. That’s funny to think about especially because I’m American. I didn’t think my major carried that much history with its name. It’s also intriguing to think that, especially in relation to the essay, that the English major could be seen as colonialism, especially in other countries. Is the English major really a form of colonialism, when all it is learning how to write, read, and critique language (specifically English) well? Is that a fair assertion?

Lots of intriguing stuff there, and I didn’t even get into the essay yet!

Authors should write for today or forever?

Authors should write for today or forever?

So I was browsing through some blogs and I stumbled upon a question that Anne Marie poses in one of her posts: “need a writer acquire some eternal value in order to be considered an author, or need he be simply/merely/only contextually relevant?”

I stopped after that question and thought. Does a writer need to be writing something with eternal value or can he just be writing something for the times to be considered an “author”?

My answer is this, it is a mixture of both. I think that a writer could/should write for the times, write about things that are relevant to him and to his audience. Now this doesn’t mean that it has to be about characters set in 2008, it could be a novel set years and years ago, but as long as the subject matter at its heart is relatable and relevant to today’s era, it can work. With that being said, with current relevancy helping a writer reach author status, I think that when a writer talks about things that matter, these things are ultimately universal and transcends time. So therefore, the subject matter is not only relevant to today’s generation but will be relevant in the generations to come. If it has a piece of truth that is good today, why wouldn’t it be good 200 years from now?

Binary oppositions

Binary oppositions

When I first heard this word I remember thinking what the heck is that? It sounds heavily intellectual, that maybe my poor brain would have trouble comprehending something so high and above me. When in class we started to name a few on the board, suddenly the concept didn’t look so bad. It wasn’t scary, it was easy.

After reading Maris’ blog, I realized she had it right, “binary oppositions” is just a glorified term for “antonyms.” I mean really, day/night, boy/girl, I realize that binary oppositions is all about defining one by relation to the other, but it’s the same stinking thing as an antonym! Maybe English major intellectuals needed to come up with a more intellectual sounding term to make things sound a bit better and even more scholarly, haha.

But the most interesting thing about these “binary oppositions” is the connotations they are inherent with each set. In class we classified the binary oppositions one as “man” and one as “woman.” It was interesting to see which words were classified with “man” and the others as “woman.” The words that went under the category of “man” were more positive words in their connotations, and the words that went under “woman” were more negative in their connotations. This was very intriguing to me, it is fascinating how a word has come to take on a connotation that may have nothing to do with its meaning. Let’s take day/night for example. One could say that day carries positive meanings, because it is light as opposed to the negative connotation of darkness that is involved with night. When in reality what makes the night any worse than day? Are they not just periods of normal natural occurrences? Is one more positive than the other?

All in all, binary oppositions, antonyms, whatever you want to call them are fascinating. It just goes to show how society has placed these connotations on language, and how sometimes we need one word in order to describe another. Because without day, how could we even know what night was?

Is authorship dependent on training?

Is authorship dependent on training?

This is a good question. Is one’s ability to write dependent on training and schooling?

Part of me would like to say that writers are just born writers. That they can’t learn how to write, but rather it is already instilled within them. As I started to write this blog I remembered something that I had read when looking into graduate schools for writing and I came across this statement from the University of Iowa in which they state what their philosophy is on the “learning” to write:

“Though we agree in part with the popular insistence that writing cannot be taught, we exist and proceed on the assumption that talent can be developed, and we see our possibilities and limitations as a school in that light. If one can "learn" to play the violin or to paint, one can "learn" to write, though no processes of externally induced training can ensure that one will do it well.”

I agree with this assertion by this school. I don’t think writing can be taught, but I think the skill that is inherent can be developed and this skill is developed through training and school work. The talent is there, now through class work the skill can be honed, challenged, stretched, molded and brought even more to life.