 |
 |
I agree, Tim. For me, readers always come first, and what they bring to the meaning of a poem should not be curtailed by attempts at literary elitism to limit interpretation. To me, this is the exact opposite of what David says is an “arch-conservative act”. I think it very democratic. ------------------------Original Message-------------------------------- It might be 'important' from either the author's point of view (or not) or from another reader's (such as yourself) that reads it and, like the author (or not), deems it important too - but that's what it is, a shared belief in importance between two people (or however how many - it doesn't matter) - but this situation does not make it 'important' for a third person, who has no idea who Aphrodite or Zeus are. The reader will find their own importance (or not) in whatever is there. The notion of 'importance' cannot be carried over into another's experience simply because we wish it to be so. The problem is that this situation is always interpreted as a loss, as though such a reader is missing something out which could enrich their experience etc, but I just don't buy that because a. it leads to literary absolutism and b. it is a misrepresentation of the way language works. Who is to say that a reader who sees Tracy and Tony instead of Aphrodite and Zeus experiences less. And, O, many-toned, immortal Tracy Lend me they girdle. You can spare it for an hour or so Until Tony has got back his erection Someone who reads Aphrodite and Zeus knowing who and what they are might indeed have a rich experience, but it doesn't guarantee one, indeed it might be that the reader is jaded and tired of bloody classical refs and so gets next to nothing from it - the Tracy and Tony reader on the other hand might well have a much deeper experience. Tim A.