Modernism [Was Re: Saussure...]
Dan'l DanehyOakes
>Mike, would you mind defining "validity" for those (all 1.7 of us (-:)
>who are joining this meta-thread without knowledge of its previous
>installments? I'm sure you must have hashed it out last fall or some
>time, but I forget what the conclusion was. What do you mean, when
>you say a reading is "just as valid"?
Well,
I've been staying out of this one, but i can't any longer. (Don' hit
me, Mike, i promise i'll be good:*)
To me:
The validity of an interpretation is really nothing more than how
interesting/pleasant/useful it makes the reading of a text. Thus,
yes, you can read ULYSSES as a cookbook or a history of the French
Revolution, but it won't be very interesting *or* useful in either
case, so it's not a very "valid" reading.
Note that a "valid" reading in this light is not based on authorial
intent -- except, of course, that it was that intent which created
the text in the first place. To read ULYSSES as a cookbook, or THE
JOY OF COOKING, for that matter, as the story of a June day in Dublin,
is not very valid solely because in neither case does that reading
interact with the text to produce pleasure or useful information for
the reader. For a reader who *does* find pleasure in such a reading,
of course, this statement is inoperative:*)
Let me, therefore, propose an amendment to Ian's original statement
(and my older one):
Any reading of a text, which, IN THE INTERACTION BETWEEN
READER AND TEXT, produces a significant degree of
pleasure or useful/interesting information, is equally
valid.
This includes, for example, readings of FINNEGANS WAKE as a hermetic
history of the conspiracies of Secret Masters who have ruled mankind
since the time of Atlantis... or DAVID COPPERFIELD as a protofeminist
text (actually, a good argument can be made for this one).
Ten billion sushi dinners cried out for vengeance.
-- Gaiman and Pratchett, GOOD OMENS
The Roach
Wade B. Komisar
>
>The validity of an interpretation is really nothing more than how
>interesting/pleasant/useful it makes the reading of a text. Thus,
>yes, you can read ULYSSES as a cookbook or a history of the French
>Revolution, but it won't be very interesting *or* useful in either
>case, so it's not a very "valid" reading.
>
>Note that a "valid" reading in this light is not based on authorial
>intent -- except, of course, that it was that intent which created
>the text in the first place. To read ULYSSES as a cookbook, or THE
>JOY OF COOKING, for that matter, as the story of a June day in Dublin,
>is not very valid solely because in neither case does that reading
>interact with the text to produce pleasure or useful information for
>the reader. For a reader who *does* find pleasure in such a reading,
>of course, this statement is inoperative:*)
>
While I agree with your views on the meaning of validity, I wouldn't
discount alternate readings of cookbooks all that quickly. Recently
my wife read a feminist discussion on cookbooks that traced different
editions of The Joy of Cooking, showing how the original, while less
explicit in measurements, included anecdotes and tandential remarks
that made the book an entertaining read. Later editions became more
"scientific," presenting recipies like chemical formulae, with turgid
and precise instructions, thus becoming more a reference book. The
article goes on to compare the role of women at the time of these
editions, arguing that the enertainment aspect of the original cookbook
appealed to the original audience, intellectually starved women. The
later editions were written for those cooks who were intellectually
challenged in other aspects of their lives, and only needed a cookbook
for the recipies, or for the "professional" housewife who couldn't
understand or appreciate literary recipies.
Although I only partially aggree with this thesis, it does provide a
"valid" example of how alternate readings of cookbooks may not only
be valid, but interesting as well.
k
--
Wade B. Komisar (wb...@Virginia.EDU)
Mike Godwin
>The validity of an interpretation is really nothing more than how
>interesting/pleasant/useful it makes the reading of a text. Thus,
>yes, you can read ULYSSES as a cookbook or a history of the French
>Revolution, but it won't be very interesting *or* useful in either
>case, so it's not a very "valid" reading.
>
>Note that a "valid" reading in this light is not based on authorial
>intent -- except, of course, that it was that intent which created
>the text in the first place. To read ULYSSES as a cookbook, or THE
>JOY OF COOKING, for that matter, as the story of a June day in Dublin,
>is not very valid solely because in neither case does that reading
>interact with the text to produce pleasure or useful information for
>the reader. For a reader who *does* find pleasure in such a reading,
>of course, this statement is inoperative:*)
I agree with everything Dan'l wrote above. He said what I wanted
to say more clearly than I did.
--Mike
--
Mike Godwin, | To see a world in a grain of sand
mnem...@eff.org | And heaven in a wild flower
(617) 864-1550 | Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
EFF, Cambridge, MA | And eternity in an hour