There has never been nor will there ever be a single interpretation of a text. In fact, I’m inclined to believe that no interpretation of any text will ever be a carbon copy of another. That’s the beauty of literature: a text is more than the words on each page.
As cliché as it sounds, a reader has the ability to read between the lines. This is where imagination comes into play. Using the text provided by the writer, a reader can, in turn, expand on ideas and plot. So, for example, in The Odyssey, a reader may come to the conclusion that Odysseus is a habitual liar by analyzing his storytelling scenes. The idea that Odysseus is an unreliable source of information is one of the most frequently discussed details of The Odyssey. However, Homer, the author, does not call Odysseus’s bluff outright.
The most interesting component of reader/writer relationship is the idea that the writer had no intention of a reader having a specific interpretation. So, to use the same example, Homer may not have wanted his readers to distrust Odysseus.
Still, the idea that art, even literature, is in the eye of the beholder is fascinating. It suggests that, regardless of intention, a writer can and often does influence a reader to draw from their own experience and make assumptions about a text. This, however, does make a writer’s task that much more complex. After all, they must take extra precautions to ensure that a reader does not come to a conclusion that they did not intend.
I like the point you made here that an author never knows how their audience will interpret the writing. Writers can only explain themselves to the point that their work makes sense to them, and are unable to foresee the way their readers will understand the story. In many ways, this unforeseeable future is exactly what makes one piece of writing so dynamic; every person who reads it will see it through their own lens, and therefore contribute a small piece of themself to it. This is what makes a classic; this is what makes a story that can outlive the period in which it was created, a certain openness that allows for the interpretation of a great many people.
ReplyDeleteI like the point you made here that an author never knows how their audience will interpret the writing. Writers can only explain themselves to the point that their work makes sense to them, and are unable to foresee the way their readers will understand the story. In many ways, this unforeseeable future is exactly what makes one piece of writing so dynamic; every person who reads it will see it through their own lens, and therefore contribute a small piece of themself to it. This is what makes a classic; this is what makes a story that can outlive the period in which it was created, a certain openness that allows for the interpretation of a great many people.
ReplyDelete