Readership

[Tim Strzechowski]

> > From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> >
> I agree with you when you talk about "the endless possibilities of
> interpretation that a literary work offers", but I don't think "meaning"
is
> a fixed object or entity, either for the writer or the reader.

Okay, I guess I'm a bit confused, then, by your previous statement that
"There's no real difference between "get[ting] it" and having a
"'comprehensive' understanding" of a text. If
you don't have such an understanding - of a word, a phrase, a sentence, or a
whole book - then you just aren't "get[ting] it", in my opinion."  The
latter suggests (to me) that a "comprehensive understanding" of the text is
possible.  But your former statement suggests (again, to me) that . . . umm,
well, "'meaning' is [not] a fixed object or entity."  As I said, I'm a
little confused here.
http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l&month=0208&msg=69355&sort=date

>
> I think the author has an advantage of knowing her or his intentions
better
> than anyone else at the moment of composition, but I don't think that
means
> much in the long run, once the text is out there. (Cf. Wimsatt and
> Beardsley's "Intentional Fallacy") As you say, there can be unintended
> "meanings" which the writer was *never* aware of, there are always already
> traces of other "meanings" in the language she or he has used
(etymological
> and metaphorical connections, literary resonances etc), and the same
factors
> around social and cultural preconceptions apply to the author as they do
to
> the reader. And as McElroy wrote in his intro to _Lookout Cartridge_ in
the
> quote Otto posted, and as Pynchon himself writes in the _Slow Learner_
> 'Intro', there comes a point when, time and human memory being what they
> are, the writer of the text is just another reader himself or herself.
Text
> always is the product of an author who is human, and fallible, too. I
guess
> one point I'd make is that all of these ideas are present in Pynchon's
work,
> and are a part of what is being communicated to the reader.

I agree, and well said.  Although I would tend to stress that the author has
a slightly more discernible advantage over the reader in terms of meanings,
I do agree (as you know from my previous posts) that the author's work, once
"out there," is open to the interpretation of the masses. We have a slight
difference in the amount of stock we grant the author vs. the reader, it
seems.  That's healthy.
>
> I included the example of Dadaism and surrealists making "random" texts
> because that is the point I thought you were making with the anecdote
about
> Joyce. Tzara, Breton & co. were more deliberate about their "randomness"
(a
> paradox, for sure), where the "Come in" in FW was apparently accidental,
but
> it's the same thing. Once anyone (reader, professional critic, writer)
> starts thinking or writing about *why* something is in a text then they
are
> embarking upon an act of interpretation.

I see what you mean here, but by that logic, isn't the *entire* act of
writing an act of interpretation, since the author is making choices
(whether consciously or unconsciously) throughout the writing process?  And
if the entire writing process is indeed an act of interpretation, then who
better than the author him/herself to know why the finished product is as it
is? (Again, not that s/he knows *everything*, but has that advantage.)
>
> I'm not arguing that the reader or critic possesses a "complete
> understanding" either (cf. the "Affective Fallacy", ibid.). And I
certainly
> don't agree that just because someone is a "professional" that fact
> automatically qualifies their work as "better" than someone who isn't.

Agreed.

>
> Reading your later post I guess I don't really see the "creative" author
vs
> the "reactive" critic as such a complete or useful demarcation either,
> because the artist is always responding to things which are out there
> already too.

I'm not attempting to change your perceptions of the author/reader
relationship any more than I know you're not attempting to change mine, but
perhaps I can qualify my position a bit.

Both the author and the critic are involved in a creative process, but (for
me, at least) the creative process stems from different purposes. An author
brings to his creative process the bulk of his learning, reading,
experiences, etc. and creates anew. Sure, it's influences range from the
"baggage" the author possesses, but the new artistic artifact may entertain,
may instruct, may examine, may recount, or it may do all of these at various
times within the same text (as Pynchon's texts do).  But it is a *proactive
synthesis* of all that IS the author at that time in his life.

Criticism (again, for me) exists *because of* the author's work. And yes,
the critic brings to his creative process the reading, learning,
experiences, etc. to likewise create anew, BUT his purpose is ultimately
"reactionary" because it is a response to an existing artifact. Sure, the
critic may be questioning, or interpreting, or explaining, but it is most
often with the intention of gleaning meaning from another piece of writing,
in an effort to pass that meaning on to additional readers. While the
author's work is proactive, therefore, the critic's is reactive. At least
that's the distinction I was trying to make, and some may indeed find that
distinction useful.


I've enjoyed this discussion as well. Thank you, guys.

Tim