Jamie,
I’m sorry see my attempts at getting you to clarify your statements as logic-chopping and misrepresenting your position.
You say, “I do not believe that "there is an inherent ultimate single meaning in a poetic text". I have insistently stated this”, and then you qualify this by saying “that there are some approaches to reading a poem that are more convincing than others is not a contradiction”. How then do you “decide” the “convincingness” of these approaches to reading a poem? From what you say about Larkin, I assume you would not recourse to extra-textual sources and authorities, or even to the known facts of an author’s life and opinions. If you don’t recourse to any of these (and you are quite right not to) how then do you come to a conclusion about the strengths and merits of any particular interpretation as being valid over any other one?
The New Criticism, of course, would attempt this from only the text itself. But this assumes that both texts and readers are stable and autonomous rather than, as one critic (Terence Hawkes) calls them, “products of the unconscious process of signification”. He adds that to assume that texts and readers are stable and autonomous is to operate under the “ideology of liberal humanism”, which is a value-laden ideology (hence my comments regarding your value judgment statements, which reminded me of a liberal humanist position). He goes on to say critics (and presumably he also includes readers) should be allowed to create “the finished work by his reading of it” rather than remain “simply an inert consumer of a ‘ready-made’ product”.
You mention Frost’s 'Mending Wall' saying:
“If I claim that in Frost's 'Mending Wall' the opening line "Something there is that doesn't love a wall" refers to tortoises, and explain that I happen to know that tortoises are particularly averse to walls, then, in the absence of any evidence I can adduce from the poem, any reader will have a right to say I'm completely off my trolley. You may well support me by saying that it is my right to take anything I want from a poem, and I'm grateful for your support, but I don't think you should be encouraging me.”
Why would any reader have a right to say you are off your trolley? What business is it of theirs anyway? For me reading is a private act, almost like prayer. To be concerned with the adverse opinions of other private readers would not make sense. If someone can see a link to frogs in the Frost poem, why not let them have that privilege? Texts are never stable and constantly shifting, therefore, single and authoritative meanings and interpretations are difficult to argue for.
You say:
“But this is a detour which you have introduced now with the most bizarre explanation. When you read my remark: “It’s arguable that pretending every interpretation is equally valid is not just a dumbing-down of the art but also patronizing to those people whom the person who cries ‘elitist’ is meant to be defending.” Your response, instead of addressing the implications of my remark, is extraordinarily evasive: "To me, your conclusion that debating the problematic nature of poetic language is a “dumbing-down” of art and “patronizing” are value judgment statements." Not only evasive but a false and deliberately distorting account of what I wrote: "debating the problematic nature of poetic language" is not what I called "dumbing-down" and "patronizing" - I called your use of the term "elitist" potentially so.”
In this you say:
“debating the problematic nature of poetic language" is not what I called "dumbing-down" and "patronizing" - I called your use of the term "elitist" potentially so”.
I’m afraid this is not accurate. What you said was:
“It’s arguable that pretending every interpretation is equally valid is not just a dumbing-down of the art but also patronizing to those people whom the person who cries ‘elitist’ is meant to be defending.”
Here, you say: “pretending every interpretation is equally valid is not just a dumbing-down of the art but also patronizing”. In this, you are not responding to my saying that to stop people being allowed to interpret poems freely would be elitist, but to my saying that people should be allowed to interpret poems freely, and your response is that to allow this would be a “dumbing down” and “patronizing”. No doubt you will say this is also logic chopping and misrepresenting your position.
|