tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post3203350925697262608..comments2024-01-06T10:36:04.084-05:00Comments on A Commonplace Blog: Solipsism in interpretationD. G. Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-38028784053811864332009-08-03T13:49:52.096-04:002009-08-03T13:49:52.096-04:00Please help me. Where O where did I say that meani...Please help me. Where O where did I say that meaning is absolute?<br /><br />Literary texts that are ambiguous, in some or all of Empson’s famous seven types, are permanently ambiguous. Like Holden Caulfield, I might wish that I could phone up the author and ask what he meant. Even if he were still around to pick up the phone, however, he could only inform me of the text’s significance.<br /><br />On the other hand, some ambiguities are merely supposed so. Philological inquiry may disperse the supposition.<br /><br />Whatever the ambiguity of the notice <i>Dogs Must Be Carried On The Tube</i>, it does not refer to unattractive women, cowards, blackguards, metal supports for logs in a fireplace, or frankfurters—all of which are slang or alternate meanings of the word <i>dog</i>.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-54717282068078994972009-08-03T13:21:25.507-04:002009-08-03T13:21:25.507-04:00You have a faith in the transparency of language t...You have a faith in the transparency of language that I lack, D. G. How do you account for phrases of semantic uncertainty, for instance the typical notice you see on the London underground: 'Dogs Must Be Carried On The Tube'. It could equally mean a) if you have a dog you must carry it, and b) to get on the tube, you need to be carrying a dog. There is nothing within the sentence to indicate which is correct, and we would have to trust entirely to the sentence to deliver up its 'meaning'. <br /><br />And how would it work with poetry which courts internal linguistic ambiguity? <br /><br />I'm uncomfortable with the notion of meaning as an absolute, when language is not a realm of clear and instantly intelligible, unambiguous messages.litlovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10952927245186474480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-65286468502349054982009-08-03T07:58:00.509-04:002009-08-03T07:58:00.509-04:00How could changing your mind about something alrea...How could changing your mind about something already written and published change what it means? If you go back and <i>rewrite</i> it you can change its meaning. Otherwise what changes is its significance to you.<br /><br />Whether a text relates to an ism is clearly a question of significance, since it is relational. For Zola to describe his novels as examples of Naturalism is an account after-the-fact of their significance. On this question he has a little more (but not much more) authority than any other critic who comes to his novels after the fact of their writing.D. G. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-29389889243391565822009-08-03T07:43:27.547-04:002009-08-03T07:43:27.547-04:00I think you are going to have to explain this dist...I think you are going to have to explain this distinction between meaning and significance to me a little further. I presume both terms come from Hirsch's theory? (It's a theory I'm not familiar with). Only I know my own thoughts about something I've written change over time; so does 'meaning' therefore refer only to the meaning invested by the author at the time of writing, and from then on the author has a relation of significance to his writing, the same as any other reader? Or what if an author realises after years have passed what his text really 'means' - can he only ever be deluded by a change of mind? Or, is 'meaning' something wholly abstract and generally unknowable to all concerned, writer included, but which we may posit exists?<br /><br />I also wonder how this works in relation to some of the great intentional fallacies - Zola and Naturalism, for instance. Zola insisted his texts were examples of Naturalism, but if we follow Zola's written theory of Naturalism, it's clear that his novels fail to follow its principles. How can Zola be right as to the meaning of both his own fiction and his own theory, if there is a marked incompatibility between them at the point where they are intended to coincide?<br /><br />I'm just curious.litlovehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10952927245186474480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-84017713092349192462009-08-02T11:51:13.167-04:002009-08-02T11:51:13.167-04:00CORRECTION:
"dangerous distortions that can ...CORRECTION:<br /><br />"dangerous distortions that can when applying" should read "dangerous distortions that can happen when critics are applying"<br /><br />I regret the sloppy keyboarding error.R/Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791522136032565027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-90028523339860217672009-08-02T10:27:44.457-04:002009-08-02T10:27:44.457-04:00I could have read Cather's novel over a dozen ...I could have read Cather's novel over a dozen times (which I have actually done over the years) and never--I mean never--gone the direction of Seal's reading. I applaud your reasoned approach to his unreasonable distortion of a beautiful novel of faith (and not a homoerotic excoriation of priests on the western frontier in the 19th century). I particularly like the way you underscore the dangerous distortions that can when when applying fashionable contemporary literary theory to texts. I wonder, though, about how Seal will react to your correction. The exchange promises to be lively.R/Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07791522136032565027noreply@blogger.com