Interpretations, Authorial Intent, etc...

This post doesn't pertain to any specific author or work that we've discussed this week, but instead addresses an issue that I've noticed arise in every discussion forum over the last two weeks. This idea of interpreting the text, the author's intention, and all of that fun stuff. Being in English classes demands that we talk about these issues, but for me this has always been a pretty simple situation to work around.

It is self-evident to me that interpretation of a text should rely on the context in which it was written (everything from the state of the world to the socio-economic status of the author, and that author's personal and family history), the experiences which the reader brings to the text, and the larger issues which the story addresses, both directly or indirectly. The first part, context, has everything to do with the social, geo-political, and economic climate while the work was created. While more apparent in some works than others, it is rare to find works that exist completely outside of their environment. The second aspect, that of reader's experience, has been debated forever. I find it curious to believe that people assume they can completely remove themselves from their reading of a text, that they can look upon it with virgin eyes and a virgin mind. Our experience colors everything thing we see, from someone's words and actions in front of us to a fictional character's words and actions on the written page. An attempt at a "true reading" of a text by removing the emotional reactions to it is only making it more artificial. Finally, in reference to larger issues, I'm speaking mostly of critical techniques. We can view a work through a certain lens. Looking at a work this way might paint it into a certain corner, but at the same time it provides us with a fresh, new way to view something we might think we have all figured out.

Notice, I did not mention the author's intent as part of our interpretation of the story. The author's intent is his own, and while it might be useful as another way to view the text, this is usually not the case. Many authors have a much more minimal view of their work than critics do. They are often even annoyed by the process of analyzing their work. Creation is a very subconscious thing, so of course it is hard for them to see the true "meaning" of their work.

Not to mention, relying on the author's meaning is downright lazy from a critical standpoint. All intellectual engagement in the text is gone. Reading simply for recreation, this might be acceptable, but as a discipline it is baseless.