An article I read in my philosophy of literature class, "Interpreting the Variorum" argues for the concept of interpretive communities. By this term, Fish means that there are communities that develop that interpret works based on their own cultural values and understandings. These interpretations are thus based on the individual's cultural background. As Fish argues, the skills that we use to interpret works are individually learned and developed as they are traits that are not inherently with us.
Reading The Things they Carried, I began to wonder about the connections between Fish's article and the novel. Identifying the idea of Reader-Response Theory and the strength we put into the belief that the readers hold, at least for Fish, all the power in determining the interpretation, the intentions of the author become minimal. Thus, the section where the narrator becomes angered at the "dumb cooze" for not understanding the story indicates the notion of the reader unable to understand love that comes out of war. The narrator and perhaps other soldiers would instantly see the love expressed in a heartbreaking way for Rat Kiley's friend that had just been killed. However, other upbringings and backgrounds witness the brutal nature of war and its inhuman effects. The duality of these interpretations depends on the cultural lifestyle that you have correspondingly experienced. Yet, according to Fish, the author must be prepared to understand that these interpretive communities will add interpretations that might go against his own intention in writing. In a sense, the intentions of O'Brien in writing seem to be disregarded compared with the larger truths in the writing.
One last point is the idea that certain interpretations of works are just plain wrong. A frequent idea that we pointed to in class was the concept of reading Lolita by Nabokov and instantly believing that the point of the novel was that 12 year old girls are attractive. This interpretation seems to just stray too far into error that it can be discounted based on the sheer idea that this interpretation strays so far away from any other interpretation. This example illustrates the dangers of letting the reader determine the meaning with interpretations that find no logical point. A parallel to this interpretation might be that war is fun and enjoyable after reading The Things they Carried. Authorial intent seems to find some ground to stand on when considering these blatantly false interpretations that would seem to grossly offend the original meaning of the text. However, if evidence is there and you could back up your point, the interpretation might be logical. There comes a point where infinite interpretations of a text do not seem likely and the reader would in fact include interpretations that have no backbone.
I really liked how you related the concept with the book and O'Brien's frustration with being unable to elicit the response he wanted from his story about the water buffalo. I do think it's kind of ironic in this context that O'Brien intentionally leaves so much to interpretation in the novel. In fact, the chapters such as "How to Tell a True War Story" and "Good Form" that are meant to clarify his intentions behind writing the book and are meant to be taken as a reading guide to the novel actually make it even fuzzier.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you have brought up the idea that some interpretations of an authors text, based on the emotions and the story that we take from it, can be wrong. I think during class discussions, where we dive into a story, it is easy to over analyze certain parts of an authors text. I myself have been guilty of this many times. I think it is important that we do keep the authors intent in mind to avoid this over analysis. If we just disregard what the author is trying to convey we will stray too far from its meaning and create the wrong interpretations that you have talked about.
ReplyDelete