Manifesto?

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> > Kneasy:
> > It's all down to reader perceptions, each is different to a greater
> > or lesser extent - and they mean bugger all without a confirmatory
> > nod from the author. 
> 
> I take it you're not of the "text takes on a life of its own 
> completely independent of what the author may have intended it to 
> mean" group of interpretation, then?  I'm not either.  Lots of people 
> out there are.  Deconstruction isn't totally dead, although Derrida 
> is.
> 

Kneasy:
Hells teeth, no.
Not in the way they mean anyway.
My opinions are regarded as primitive by some. Which is a bit
rich IMO, since I consider that most lit. crit. theory is a con perpetrated
by idle buggers who'd rather sit around thinking up terms like 'eiron' 
and 'Dianoia' than do an honest days work. It's medievalism all over
again - "OK lads, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
And don't forget, never describe the pin or define an angel; it'd
never do for the punters catch on that anybody can do this."

An author can't describe everything in sufficient detail for every
reader to form the same mental image of what is being portrayed.
IMO much of what we get out of a book depends on what we bring
to it - experiences, memories, beliefs, moods. We use these to
colour what the author presents to us. Since no two of us are
exactly the same there'll be differences of detail and of emphasis
in the images the book conjures up. Mostly there'll be a broad
agreement, but there'll never be total unanimity. (This is why
I  hate the films so much, they're stealing my visions and replacing
them with their own.) Sometimes the readers perceptions diverge 
sharply - Molly is a fair example. We've all read exactly the same 
words on the page but perceptions of Molly vary wildly. No matter
that some of the lit. crit. mob may say this proves something or
other, I don't think it does. The Molly character will continue to
act out her part according to the strictures imposed by the author.
To say that "the text takes on a life of its own" is not a valid
description of the varying perceptions that readers construct; IMO
it would be more accurate to say the reader has failed to fully
comprehend the author, aided and abetted by their own inclinations.

An illustration - a colour-blind man sees the world differently,
but he does not see 'truth' - because the filtering/transmission 
mechanism through which he views the world is faulty. Has what
he sees "taken on a life of its own" because it looks different? No,
I don't believe so; what he sees is a misrepresentation, an aberrant
image - and no matter that it may be interesting or informative, it's
wrong.

So it is with readers. The text, the story, will not change, but the
perceptions derived from it will. And their validity is questionable.
Authorial intention supercedes reader comprehension, just as
grass is green and not grey.

Mind you, that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't interpret authorial 
intention according to our every whim. 
That's what the site's about isn't it?
On the parts that Jo hasn't ruled on, anyway. It's a bit of a frost to
launch off into the wide blue yonder and get a response of "But Jo
says..." Huh. Why can't she keep these ex-cathedra dictats until
we've finished playing? She's spoiling the game.