Readership

[jbor]

on 10/8/02 5:14 PM, Tim Strzechowski at dedalus204 at attbi.com wrote:

> 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'd agree that the entire act of writing is also an act of interpretation,
or series thereof and, conversely, I'd argue that all acts of interpretation
are also acts of writing. And, as I said before, I think the author
certainly understands what he or she is trying to do, or intending, better
than anyone else, at the time of writing. But as with those excerpts from
both Pynchon and McElroy where they step into the critic's or reader's role
at a later time in their lives to reflect on their own earlier work, it
seems to me that even these two authors are admitting that whatever
interpretive "advantage" they once might have had soon passes.

I guess the other point in this is that, whether or not the author does have
an advantage over the reader, he or she isn't participating in the act of
reading or, as here, the group discussion of the text. So, in purely
practical terms, there's only the text to go on. And, even allowing that the
author has an advantage over the reader, well, so what? That argument seemed
to me to be being used to close down other readers' attempts to engage with
and discuss the text. I agree with Monica's earlier point that there is a
real potential for mutuality and interpretive enrichment in an on-line forum
such as this one.

I think there are some modes of criticism which are at least as "proactive"
(eg. Marxist criticism, feminist criticism) as writing, and that there are
some modes of writing (eg. parody, travesty, formula genres) which are as
"reactive" as criticism, in the terms of the definitions you provide below.
And I think there are huge differences in the ways that both writers and
critics perceive what it is they are doing. But I do see the distinction you
are making. 

best

 
> 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.