Current topic of debate in class: what decides the legitimacy of an interpretation? My response is also a question: who decides what decides the legitimacy of an interpretation, and how do we know their conclusion is in and of itself legitimate? Then again I tend towards devil's advocacy in any and all discussions.
One of the students in class told the story of a teacher who rejected her opinion as "wrong" on the basis of the established literary critics' response. I had much the same experience in junior English class. We had just laboured through Nabokov's definition, aka treatise, on what makes a good reader and a good writer, and our teacher had asked us whether or not we agreed. As this seemed an invitation to discussion, most of the class, their previous evenings spent bogged down with a close-written fifty pages of writer's idealism to which none present aspired, replied in the negative. You could almost see her bristle. Of course he was right...he was Nabokov, and besides, that was what the critics had decided. But Ms...excuse me, Dr. A, that's only our opinion. I don't care. That's what I say, and I'm the one standing at the front of the class. Dead silence.
I wondered later what she might have done had I pointed out that the decision of the esteemed critics was also only an opinion, however collaborative. Had my class of that day been sitting in their places, our decision would have been recorded and come down through the history of literature as the definitive judgement of Vladimir Nabokov's prescription for proper writing and appreciative reading. At 11 pm I doubt any of the class were inspired to emulate his instructions on the subject, and especially not for a woman who demanded her title of Doctor, though her Ph.D. was not in English, but in adolescent psychology. Many of us found this amusing. But the question still remains: what is legitimate? My personal opinion (legitimate? you tell me) is that there is no legitimate when it comes to interpretation. An author, when his great work is finished and lying on the slab, most likely hopes that his readers will draw something in particular from his words: an idea, an image, an inspiration, a moral realization. However, it is not up to him to control the manner in which this occurs. Because no two people's background, experience, memories, and character are the same, the personal edification that comes from reading a book is a unique and individual process. A simple description sparks different imaginations, memories, or other so-called "artistic renderings" in different minds. A scene can variously amuse, shock, disgust, inspire, frighten, cheer, bore, or teach. Therefore, with no base standard from which to dispense judgement, we cannot define any interpretation - opinion - as right or wrong. Far-fetched, perhaps, wishful thinking, but if in any way it can be supported with further evidence from the text, then it must be deemed a valid option for analysis and taken into consideration. If it cannot stand up to examination, then it may be discarded and further avenues explored. But what is key is that this is not a majority vote sort of process. An idea must be able to support itself with its own merit and its own proof. A two-to-one-you-lose conclusion is just sloppy and in reality concludes nothing, as the dissenter's point of view is merely overruled, not disproved.
One of the students in class told the story of a teacher who rejected her opinion as "wrong" on the basis of the established literary critics' response. I had much the same experience in junior English class. We had just laboured through Nabokov's definition, aka treatise, on what makes a good reader and a good writer, and our teacher had asked us whether or not we agreed. As this seemed an invitation to discussion, most of the class, their previous evenings spent bogged down with a close-written fifty pages of writer's idealism to which none present aspired, replied in the negative. You could almost see her bristle. Of course he was right...he was Nabokov, and besides, that was what the critics had decided. But Ms...excuse me, Dr. A, that's only our opinion. I don't care. That's what I say, and I'm the one standing at the front of the class. Dead silence.
I wondered later what she might have done had I pointed out that the decision of the esteemed critics was also only an opinion, however collaborative. Had my class of that day been sitting in their places, our decision would have been recorded and come down through the history of literature as the definitive judgement of Vladimir Nabokov's prescription for proper writing and appreciative reading. At 11 pm I doubt any of the class were inspired to emulate his instructions on the subject, and especially not for a woman who demanded her title of Doctor, though her Ph.D. was not in English, but in adolescent psychology. Many of us found this amusing. But the question still remains: what is legitimate? My personal opinion (legitimate? you tell me) is that there is no legitimate when it comes to interpretation. An author, when his great work is finished and lying on the slab, most likely hopes that his readers will draw something in particular from his words: an idea, an image, an inspiration, a moral realization. However, it is not up to him to control the manner in which this occurs. Because no two people's background, experience, memories, and character are the same, the personal edification that comes from reading a book is a unique and individual process. A simple description sparks different imaginations, memories, or other so-called "artistic renderings" in different minds. A scene can variously amuse, shock, disgust, inspire, frighten, cheer, bore, or teach. Therefore, with no base standard from which to dispense judgement, we cannot define any interpretation - opinion - as right or wrong. Far-fetched, perhaps, wishful thinking, but if in any way it can be supported with further evidence from the text, then it must be deemed a valid option for analysis and taken into consideration. If it cannot stand up to examination, then it may be discarded and further avenues explored. But what is key is that this is not a majority vote sort of process. An idea must be able to support itself with its own merit and its own proof. A two-to-one-you-lose conclusion is just sloppy and in reality concludes nothing, as the dissenter's point of view is merely overruled, not disproved.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home