Is there any such thing as an ‘incorrect’ interpretation of a literary text?

[The Unnamable]

I have been perusing the threads and come across a number of conflicting comments concerning this issue. Some claim that all interpretations are valid while others dismiss certain readings as ignorant and uninformed. What are your views?

So that I’m not accused of running away from the issue, let me say that I consider that some readings are indeed ignorant and uninformed.

[Virgil]

Here, Unnamable, we are in complete agreement. I'll get back to that other thread later. Hope you had a good time away.

[RobinHood3000]

I agree here. Although literary interpretation is naturally subjective when coming from extrapolation and conjecture, there are some interpretations that the author and every nuance of the text would categorically reject.

[A Hard Rain]

As rational men, we must be able to agree, as be able to disagree. If a critic does not distinguish between the reasoned statement of knowledge and his own mere opinion, he has nothing to back his argument but his own flat expression. With these expressions, communication would not be profitable if we are seeking something that would be rationally accepted as knowledge. With all our own opinions and none backed by common knowledge, no one would win an argument, we would all keep ours, and all be satisfied because we did not loose--that is, we would end up with holding the same opinions we started with.

However, if we are able to learn, if we hold the view that knowledge exists and is communicable through language, then, for the most part we can cover the gap of disagreement by either a miscommunication somewhere lodged in our medium of communication, in which, we would have a lack of meeting of minds; or the disagreements are real, and the genuine issues can be resolved--in the long run, of course--by appeals to fact and reason. We are saying, in short, that disagreements are arguable matters. And argument is empty unless it is undertaken on the supposition that there is attainable an understanding that, when attained by reason in the light of all the relevant evidence, resolves the original issues.

Basically, what it comes down to, is the defining of ones position, and if it is not defined by common precepts of knowledge, but rather only stated or unsupported by judgement, then the critism is worthless and can be thrown out. In our belief that what we speak of is actually understandable and that knowledge is transferable through our communications and not purely subjective, well, then, for the most part those arguments backed by like reason can be disputed through backed evidence of objective evidence that other reasonable men are likely to accept. Thus, we would say that there are, in fact, some interpretations or views of knowledge or information that are invalid.

[kaka]

The world is simpy littered with incorrect, poorly informed, crazy and dogmatic interpretations of literary texts - and of just about everything under the sun.

[emily655321]

Literary interpretation is somewhat akin to psychological evaluation; the more that is known about a person's background, social context, personal associations, etc., the closer one is likely to come to discovering the objective truth about their mind. There are times when—as is common in the instance of Shakespeare, for example,—it is difficult to speculate on the views or intentions of the author, because so little is known about them. In such an instance, it is common to have widely varying opinions as to their intent. The absence of concrete information about the author also leaves room for individuals to impose their own viewpoints onto the text. In this situation, a wider spectrum of interpretations may be accepted as plausible, because there is little evidence to refute them.

However, there are many instances when interpretations do not withstand informed scrutiny, and the probability of this is directly related to the amount of information available about the author and his work. It is also possible to eliminate theories based on anachronisms in the logic (e.g. a poem by Byron was intended as a love letter to Queen Victoria—don't worry, I haven't heard this one proposed).

Still, just because you don't find plausible the argument that, say, Shakespeare included at least one gay character in each of his plays as an homage to his homosexual lover (I have heard this one), it doesn't mean that it isn't a valid one; there is no way to disprove it.

[emily655321]

On a side note, I have heard people postulate the theory that just because an author didn't intend a work to say x, doesn't mean that using the work to uphold the theory of x is invalid. This sort of over-reading-between-the-lines has always irked me. Just because logic can be used to twist the words of an author, it certainly does not mean that it is okay to do so. In my mind, the meaning of a book goes only so far as the author's own intent. Beyond that, literary interpretations are only the unfounded fancy of the interpreter.

[The Unnamable]

Literary interpretation is somewhat akin to psychological evaluation; the more that is known about a person's background, social context, personal associations, etc., the closer one is likely to come to discovering the objective truth about their mind.

In what sense is there an ‘objective truth’ about someone’s mind? How is it discoverable?



Just because logic can be used to twist the words of an author, it certainly does not mean that it is okay to do so. In my mind, the meaning of a book goes only so far as the author's own intent. Beyond that, literary interpretations are only the unfounded fancy of the interpreter.
It might be worth looking at the ‘Language as Power’ thread. The idea that the original author of the work is the authority that decides meaning is a deeply problematic one. How can you ever know the author’s intent? What if he/she thought they were doing something very different from what they ‘really were’ doing?

[lavendar1]

The idea that the original author of the work is the authority that decides meaning is a deeply problematic one. How can you ever know the author’s intent? What if he/she thought they were doing something very different from what they ‘really were’ doing?

Flannery O'Connor once received a letter from a professor of English who (along with several colleagues and their respective classes), found after a week of debating 'several interpretations' of "A Good Man is Hard to Find," that none 'fully satisfied' them. After outlining their interpretations and stating he was convinced he and the readers had missed "something important which you intended us to grasp," the professor asked O'Connor to "comment on the interpretation" and on her "intention" in writing the story. Part of her response:

28 March 61

To a Professor of English

The interpretation of your ninety students and three teachers is fantastic and about as far from my intentions as it could get to be. If it were a legitimate interpretation, the story would be little more than a trick and its interest would be simply for abnormal psychology. I am not interested in abnormal psychology...

The meaning of a story should go on expanding for the reader the more he thinks about it, but meaning cannot be captured in an interpretation. If teachers are in the habit of approaching a story as is it were a research problem for which any answer is believable so long as it is not obvious, then I think students will never learn to enjoy fiction. Too much interpretation is certainly worse than too little and where feeling for a story is absent, theory will not supply it.

My tone is not meant to be obnoxious. I am in a state of shock.

Corker that she was, O'Connor obviously had a definite intention or purpose in writing "A Good Man is Hard to Find" -- and she believed she realized that purpose. Certainly as teachers, students, or readers of fiction we rarely have the opportunity to directly question authors about their purpose or to bounce off our own interpretations to see if we "got it right," but I think O'Connor's comments provide valuable and important insight on the whole notion of interpretation.

Sometimes I cringe when I hear all this talk about interpretation--and the 'right' and 'wrong' of it. While I value discussion of literature and the potential for finding meaning inherent in such discussion, analysis, interpretation, or whatever you want to call it, I find myself wondering why we sometimes find it so hard to just accept a piece of literature as a glimpse into our humanity instead of chewing it up so long it's like a stale piece of bubble gum.

[Virgil]

On a side note, I have heard people postulate the theory that just because an author didn't intend a work to say x, doesn't mean that using the work to uphold the theory of x is invalid. This sort of over-reading-between-the-lines has always irked me. Just because logic can be used to twist the words of an author, it certainly does not mean that it is okay to do so. In my mind, the meaning of a book goes only so far as the author's own intent. Beyond that, literary interpretations are only the unfounded fancy of the interpreter.
All right Emily. We agree.


The idea that the original author of the work is the authority that decides meaning is a deeply problematic one. How can you ever know the author’s intent?
Good point. But that doesn't mean the effort isn't worth the journey. An author (except perhaps in today's metafiction world) had an intent. Does anyone (other than a babbling idiot) sit down to write without an intent? I don't. Take Chaucer, for instance. Scholars immerse themselves in the history of his times, even the ideologies of his time, all the other works written in his time, all the works written by Chaucer, whatever biographical information is available. Through critical, objective (yes, I say that), scholarly exchanges over time, the critics who spend their lives studying Chaucer strive closer to his intent. Almost, let me use a math metaphor, asymtotically. Can they ever achieve it completely? Probably not, but so what? Is this medical science, where lives are at stake?

[IrishCanadian]

So i am an 18 year old student ... but I wright often .. and once in a while, when i do, I sometimes find an undertone that i did not intend while i wrote it ... or a fitting concept that happened to appear from the moving trail of the "art" rather than the seeming 'genious' of me the author. I wonder how often this is true for the literary geniouses that we talk about here.
In my case ... when this happens (as seldom as it is), I do not discourage people from reading into it "too much." Because it was the movment of the wrighting process that lead to such an artistic end. I know for a fact that many of the realist playwrights did this too. They would simply sit and write but not think ... thus creating the "realist" feel or unhindered (by art) tale of events that grows on its own. In such a way people like Samuel Becket and his colleagues became the tools of the written play ... not the other way around.
However! This is only seldom the case. If the author intends a certain concept to appear brilliently in his/her piece of literature then don't create new art in someone else's work ... thats just an insult to the brillience of the author ... and a stage a hope to eventually get to myself ... someday ... perhaps.

[Basil]

"Never trust the artist. Trust the tale. The proper function of a critic is to save the tale from the artist who created it."

D.H. Lawrence

[The Unnamable]

Sometimes I cringe when I hear all this talk about interpretation--and the 'right' and 'wrong' of it. While I value discussion of literature and the potential for finding meaning inherent in such discussion, analysis, interpretation, or whatever you want to call it, I find myself wondering why we sometimes find it so hard to just accept a piece of literature as a glimpse into our humanity instead of chewing it up so long it's like a stale piece of bubble gum.
Thanks for the extract. It’s worth considering.
I have a lot of sympathy with you here but I am also aware of the extent to which such an approach is no less ideological than all others. As soon as you see Literature as offering ‘a glimpse into our humanity’, you are suggesting that our humanity is something fixed and as you see it. The fact that you support your point by offering comments from the author is significant. Aren’t we still in the realm of ‘the author means this and here is my evidence' (which is more authoritative because it’s direct from the author)?
You also might like to have a look at the Language as Power thread.

I’ve already posted this but it’s relevant here and if you don’t know it already, it should appeal to you given what you say above.

Introduction to Poetry

I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide

or press an ear against its hive.

I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out,

or walk inside the poem's room
and feel the walls for a light switch.

I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author's name on the shore.

But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.

They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.

Billy Collins

[The Unnamable]

An author (except perhaps in today's metafiction world) had an intent. Does anyone (other than a babbling idiot) sit down to write without an intent? I don't. Take Chaucer, for instance. Scholars immerse themselves in the history of his times, even the ideologies of his time, all the other works written in his time, all the works written by Chaucer, whatever biographical information is available. Through critical, objective (yes, I say that), scholarly exchanges over time, the critics who spend their lives studying Chaucer strive closer to his intent. Almost, let me use a math metaphor, asymtotically. Can they ever achieve it completely? Probably not, but so what?
So for you Virgil, the business of the critic is to establish as closely and clearly as possible, the author’s intention when writing? If that’s what you enjoy, fine. The problem for me is that such an approach completely ignores the social context of meaning and reduces a complex, polysemic text to a (presumably) single intention. This would suggest that the most interesting thing about Chaucer is what he originally meant when he composed his work. I disagree and find far more of interest than that.


Is this medical science, where lives are at stake?
Not in the way you see it, but it is in the realm of the political and ideological, where human lives are at stake.

[lavendar1]

QUOTE -The Unnamable: As soon as you see Literature as offering ‘a glimpse into our humanity’, you are suggesting that our humanity is something fixed and as you see it.

Let me simply say this: Let each extract from fiction what they will or can -- based on their own experience and their own intellect. And after reading the 'best' fiction, each may either say "Aha!" or "Yes, I understand." Others may take from the reading that perhaps they are not alone in their feelings ...they will have solace that others, too, have "been there." And shouldn't that be enough?

I prefer to think of literature as something to enlighten me or entertain me rather than a dissection or a mathematical equation. (Hey, we all like different things...)

And Basil, I trust neither the artist nor the tale; I trust only myself.

[Virgil]

The problem for me is that such an approach completely ignores the social context of meaning and reduces a complex, polysemic text to a (presumably) single intention.
Why do you say that? "Completely ignores" is an overstatement. Of course it has a role in the understanding of a work. Any good work of art is probably of complex intention. Certainly of complex themes. A good work is going to be rich.


This would suggest that the most interesting thing about Chaucer is what he originally meant when he composed his work. I disagree and find far more of interest than that.
Interesting to whom? To he who projects into the text and perhaps to those who agree with that projection?


Not in the way you see it, but it is in the realm of the political and ideological, where human lives are at stake.
Oh, now I understand why you're so passionate on this issue. You're an ideologue, and I don't say that disparagingly. I can be an ideologue in other aspects of my life, such as politics and values, but I try to squelch it when it comes to literature. When I read a work, I try to put myself in the writer's shoes, from a point of view of craft. If you focus on the craft, I've always felt the intent becomes clearer and you put your personal biases at bay. I try to allow the author his donnee, as Henry James says it. Do you think you can actually change the world by the way you interpret a text?

[The Unnamable]

And shouldn't that be enough?
For me, it pretty much is, although I do think there is also a lot to be gained from looking at the way Literature has been appropriated. I had a dreadful interview once for a teaching job where I was asked “What do you hope students take from your lessons?” I replied, “the knowledge that they’re not alone”, which obviously wasn’t the answer the interviewer wanted to hear as he continued with, “yes, yes, but what skills?”
I wasn’t disagreeing with you above – merely adding where my own thinking takes me.

[The Unnamable]

Interesting to whom?
To those who subscribe to your author centred approach.


To he who projects into the text and perhaps to those who agree with that projection?
You still insist on this nonsense. It has nothing to do with projecting into a text.


Oh, now I understand why you're so passionate on this issue. You're an ideologue, and I don't say that disparagingly.
Whether or not you say it disparagingly, your comment tells us more about you than me. You need a label to apply to me in order to understand and contain my points. Ideologue will suit as well as any other that helps you in the act of misrepresenting me.


I can be an ideologue in other aspects of my life, such as politics and values, but I try to squelch it when it comes to literature. When I read a work, I try to put myself in the writer's shoes, from a point of view of craft.
No serious writer of the past thirty years now believes this is possible. You are alone in assuming that anyone can distinguish between what the work means and what it means to me.


If you focus on the craft,
This is an ideological position. You are assuming that this single element can be extracted from a text in order to free that text from the material conditions of its creation and reception. It is becoming increasingly clear that you consider your methods as the proper way to read and everyone else’s as politically biased.


I've always felt the intent becomes clearer and you put your personal biases at bay.
Except in a very simple sense, this simply isn’t possible.

Do you think you can actually change the world by the way you interpret a text?
Of course I don’t. I haven’t been in the least bit successful in managing to get you to see anything that you didn’t see before.

[The Unnamable]

Interesting to whom? To he who projects into the text and perhaps to those who agree with that projection?
In spite of what WC Fields advises ("If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it."), I’ll try to explain my objection to your claim that theorists project meaning into texts and you simply interpret them.

Somewhere else on this stage on which I am strutting and fretting away my hour, I used the analogy of a building to show how the tools and materials we use affect what we construct. I considered it a fairly useful analogy, significantly added to by blp’s comment that “no matter what we're allowed to build and with whatever bricks, the ground was unstable and the building's eventually going to collapse into itself and this basic, inarguable truth is denied and marginalised at every stage of the building process.”

If we assume now that the house has been built and has become so popular that it is a sort of tourist attraction. A conversation strikes up between two visitors.
“Why did he make it like that?” asks one.

You and I, Virgil, would have very different answers to that question. You think that the shape, form, choice of furnishings, decoration and so on can all be adequately explained by establishing, through careful, objective analysis, what the house builder intended (assume that he is a ‘great’ house builder for a moment). My approach would be to consider as many variables as I could think of, which might have had an impact/effect on the finished product, of which ‘what he intended’ is but one. In a broad sense this would include things like the nature of the available materials.

In order to strengthen your argument, you might employ secondary sources like a letter the house builder had written to a friend, in which he expresses a preference for a particular colour that holds symbolic meaning for him (the same colour as has been used in the house), or even another house he's built. You might mention biographical details from his life: perhaps he often repeated as a child that one day he would live in a round house (assuming the finished house is spherical).

I might point out that other secondary sources tell us about the prevalent belief during the time the building was being constructed that people who live in yellow houses are happiest and so on.
We would both apply our own reading practices to arrive at our own interpretations.

My objection to your approach is not based on any belief that one is right and the other wrong. My point is that they are both equally biased, both informed by an ideological view of the world. The only way this isn’t true is if one view actually is ‘Truth’. I don’t believe mine is so that leaves yours. Unless it is actually objectively true to say that meaning is what we derive from the author’s intention, then your thinking so is just a theory and a theory that you apply in your reading of texts. I really cannot see that what you are doing is any different from what any theorist does.

No doubt Birnam Wood continues its advance. Still,

“Blow wind! Come wrack!
At least we’ll die with harness on our back.”

[emily655321]

Good God, this is turning into another "Language as Power" thread, otherwise known as "Unnamable Vs. The World." I'm opting out of this firefight.

*runs away*

[The Unnamable]

Good God, this is turning into another "Language as Power" thread, otherwise known as "Unnamable Vs. The World." I'm opting out of this firefight.

*runs away*

I’m sorry you feel like that. However, as you found it necessary to make the comments, I would appeciate it if you could explain them. How is it turning into a thread about Language as Power (except in the sense that every thread is about that)? The question I originally asked is, “Is there any such thing as an ‘incorrect’ interpretation of a literary text?” Inevitably such a question will generate discussion about authorial intention and issues of interpretation and subjectivity. What I am outlining just above tries to make clear to Virgil why I think that conventional approaches to literary criticism are no less biased than those of theorists. However, I thought it also challenges assumptions like the ones you hold, which I consider relevant to the issue. I might just have well posted after your first comments, “Good God, this is turning into another ‘objective truth’ thread, otherwise known as “Uncomprehending Vs The Initiated”. Secondly, in what way is it a ‘firefight’? I see no flame war. Or is that how you refer to any discussion that challenges your views? Finally, why are you opting out? Do you only ‘opt in’ when you feel that your opinions will be received only as you wish them to be? Surely you must expect scrutiny in a thread about the validity of differing interpretations?

[RobinHood3000]

I think she's drawing the parallel between the threads in that you're calling other people thickheaded, and she therefore doesn't like the argumentative stance that is being taken here. Her personal views have nothing to do with her displeasure with this thread--leave her alone.

[Taliesin]

And Basil, I trust neither the artist nor the tale; I trust only myself.
And we go even further in our mistrust, for we trust neither the artist, the tale, nor even lavender1. :p

But on the thread: well, we guess that there can't be any misrepresentations as such, in our opinion.
Imagine an infinite, universe. To say that one representation is truer than another is to say that one star is closer to the center than the other. However, some stars are closer to you than some others and some stars are closer to the authors star than anothers.
Of course, we might be totally wrong about this.

[Virgil]

I think she's drawing the parallel between the threads in that you're calling other people thickheaded, and she therefore doesn't like the argumentative stance that is being taken here. Her personal views have nothing to do with her displeasure with this thread--leave her alone.
wait, let me come to Unnamable's defense. I don't think (perhaps I ought to reread it before I comment, but I'm not going to) he called anybody names. At least I didn't get that impression. I think Emily is reacting to a philosophical/academic discussion from which she winces.

[RobinHood3000]

I might just have well posted after your first comments, “Good God, this is turning into another ‘objective truth’ thread, otherwise known as “Uncomprehending Vs The Initiated”.
This is what I was referring to.

[Virgil]

Well, he's a bit of a curmudgeon. He wouldn't be Unnameable if he didn't occaisionally get supercillious. ;)

[The Unnamable]

I think she's drawing the parallel between the threads in that you're calling other people thickheaded, and she therefore doesn't like the argumentative stance that is being taken here.
Robin, where have I called anyone ‘thickheaded’? I am asking questions pertinent to the issue. Is this not how we discuss such issues as were raised by the original question? What you have decided should be labelled ‘an argumentative stance’ does not appear so to me. I offer my thoughts and observations for the consideration and scrutiny of others. It’s perfectly acceptable if they disagree or ask me to clarify or they point out a flaw in my reasoning.


Her personal views have nothing to do with her displeasure with this thread.
I don’t know what you mean here. The post to which I replied (if that is the one you are referring to) makes displeasure with me very apparent. As someone who described himself as “obligated because my avatar is a superhero, and hence seeks to combat injustice anywhere,” are you not that bothered by your inconsistency? You didn’t offer your disapproval of emily655321’s post, which carried an implicit criticism of me. It’s a personal attack. Not that I was hurt or anything but I didn’t see you reaching for your bow.


Quote:
I might just have well posted after your first comments, “Good God, this is turning into another ‘objective truth’ thread, otherwise known as “Uncomprehending Vs The Initiated”.

This is what I was referring to.

This proves my point. Look at that sentence. Its point is that there is some kind of equivalence between it and the statement, “Good God, this is turning into another "Language as Power" thread, otherwise known as "Unnamable Vs. The World.” I should have written, “I might just as well have…” but the point is the same. That point is that I could just as easily characterise such positions as emily655321’s as indicative of the conflict between two unyielding opposites but I didn’t do so at the time. Much as you’d like to believe so (for reasons that are becoming more and more obvious), I was not calling anyone a ‘thickhead’.


You seem to find it necessary to follow me around this forum, seldom offering anything that contributes to the debate yet seizing upon every opportunity to characterise me as The Big Bad Wolf. I’m sorry that you feel “unqualified and inadequately educated to address” complex issues (those are your words, not mine by the way). However, I am sufficiently educated and can. I would therefore appreciate it if you allow me to do so without having to read your very apparent personal dislike every few posts.

[RobinHood3000]

"Following you around"? In case you hadn't noticed, I'd taken my leave of the "Language as Control" thread for some time now so that you could debate and argue in peace. I can only assume you hadn't noticed.

[PeterL]

The meaning of a story should go on expanding for the reader the more he thinks about it, but meaning cannot be captured in an interpretation. If teachers are in the habit of approaching a story as is it were a research problem for which any answer is believable so long as it is not obvious, then I think students will never learn to enjoy fiction. Too much interpretation is certainly worse than too little and where feeling for a story is absent, theory will not supply it.


Thanks for posting Flannery O'Connor's reply. I think that this paragraph says everything that anyone should know about the "correct interpretation" of fiction. In addition to an interpretation not capturing the meaning of a story, I think that it is impossible to capture the feeling for a story.

[bhekti]

I have been perusing the threads and come across a number of conflicting comments concerning this issue. Some claim that all interpretations are valid while others dismiss certain readings as ignorant and uninformed. What are your views?

So that I’m not accused of running away from the issue, let me say that I consider that some readings are indeed ignorant and uninformed.


I think interpretation cannot be judged in terms of correct/incorrect. We can use "uninformed", "complex", "confusing", "simple", "funny",..., but not correct/incorrect. Except, of course, there is an agreed standard of judgment.

[Billy Bilo]

I didn't read the other replies so as to avoid muddling my initial thoughts, depending on the form this question can have varying answers, a poem may reveal itself through its form and thus reveal its intention and allow a more concrete interpetation to take place, one seemingly valid. Yet a poem also works on the process of allusion which unless one reads widely and with the authors reading in mind a lot of us will likely miss.

'There are no facts, only interpetations' Nietzsche tells me and in literature it to me rings true, when Wilkie Collins is setting down some elements of his prose that matter in terms of the story in the Woman in White are there not likely times when he was merely writing in a dreamy state more likely to reveal his current fixation than any grand didactic tale bubbling beaneath the surface.

Thats my few cents.

[Molko]

Usually authors craft their text with a certain objective in mind. Hence, IMO not all interpretations can be considered as valid. If an author has a particular point he/she wishes to express, then of course any interpretation which deviates from it can be regarded as ignorant and uninformed.

[PeterL]

Usually authors craft their text with a certain objective in mind. Hence, IMO not all interpretations can be considered as valid. If an author has a particular point he/she wishes to express, then of course any interpretation which deviates from it can be regarded as ignorant and uninformed.

I appreciate your point, but there are a great many tropes that are common in literature, and authors sometimes insert them without being consciously aware that they are doing so. For example, I recently critiqued a short story that had as the central part of its plot little alien creatures that were kept as pets that injected RNA into beloved owners at the moment that the creatures were dying. The RNA allowed the owners to see things about people and situations that they couldn't before. To me it immediately looked like a retelling of the Christ story in a different form. The author replied to my critique that he hadn't noticed the similarity to Christ, until I pointed it out, but that metaphorical interpretation was contained in the text.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

The author replied to my critique that he hadn't noticed the similarity to Christ, until I pointed it out, but that metaphorical interpretation was contained in the text.

Really? I would claim that the interpretation was only in your reading, according to your personal experience and preconceptions, and not in the writer's mind when he wrote it. Of course, once you point out the allegory to the writer, he sees it and it colours his future interpretations of his own text.

As an example, think how hurt you feel when someone accuses you of being cruel when you make an innocent statement that is misinterpreted. Don't you apologise? Feel guilty about causing offence even though none was intended in any way? Promise yourself not to be so inensitive in future? When all along, the fault lay not with you, but with the misinterpreter.

What is happening is not that the author is realising his 'subconscious' meaning, but rather that his view of his own work is being coloured by the interpretations that others put on it. Once it is written and he rereads it, he ceases to be the creator and becomes a part of the audience, as capable of reinterpreting the work as anyone. Even when, like in the innocent statement above, he knows what he meant, he is influenced by others opinions enough to start to think that he might have had an ulterior meaning, hidden even from himself.

Once words are written, they cease to be the property of the writer; they cease to hold precisely the meaning that he (or she) intended; they become public and take on as many meanings as there are readers. I know that when I reread this before posting, I will see things in it that weren't meant to be there when I wrote it. I'll change a few, be surprised by others but leave them in, delete others as being too trite for words. If I can't see excactly what I know I meant, what chance do you have?

[Molko]

Good point Xamonas :)

[PeterL]

Really? I would claim that the interpretation was only in your reading, according to your personal experience and preconceptions, and not in the writer's mind when he wrote it. Of course, once you point out the allegory to the writer, he sees it and it colours his future interpretations of his own text.

The parallel was there. I didn't insert it; I just pointed out that it was there. Whether he was conscious of it or not while writing, the parallel would also have existed in his mind, because human brains operate that way. People frequently use analogy to explain what is going on in the world, and it often provides a way to understand something.



As an example, think how hurt you feel when someone accuses you of being cruel when you make an innocent statement that is misinterpreted. Don't you apologise? Feel guilty about causing offence even though none was intended in any way? Promise yourself not to be so inensitive in future? When all along, the fault lay not with you, but with the misinterpreter.

While this is an analogy, it is for a different situation. Situations like this come in at least two varieties: misinterpretation and poor expression that leads to misinterpretation..



What is happening is not that the author is realising his 'subconscious' meaning, but rather that his view of his own work is being coloured by the interpretations that others put on it. Once it is written and he rereads it, he ceases to be the creator and becomes a part of the audience, as capable of reinterpreting the work as anyone. Even when, like in the innocent statement above, he knows what he meant, he is influenced by others opinions enough to start to think that he might have had an ulterior meaning, hidden even from himself.

I understand what you are saying, but it is my opinion that there aren't all that many things that people ever express. Consider how many times the Romeo and Juliet story has been written in some form. Essentially all of the themes and plots that people use are contained in the Enuma Elish (The Gilgamesh Epic), all of the literature since then is just another retelling of the same stories, and those same stories probably were in the oral tradition for a few hundred thousand years before that. I don't know why there are so few things that interest people.

In fact, Gilgamesh was a savior figure. He was the sone of a God who saved Urek.



Once words are written, they cease to be the property of the writer; they cease to hold precisely the meaning that he (or she) intended; they become public and take on as many meanings as there are readers. I know that when I reread this before posting, I will see things in it that weren't meant to be there when I wrote it. I'll change a few, be surprised by others but leave them in, delete others as being too trite for words. If I can't see excactly what I know I meant, what chance do you have?

Agreed, I am a perpetual editor. Sometimes people see some of the meanings that I put into written works, sometimes they don't, and sometimes (rarely) they see completely different things.

[The Unnamable]

The parallel was there. I didn't insert it; I just pointed out that it was there. Whether he was conscious of it or not while writing, the parallel would also have existed in his mind, because human brains operate that way. People frequently use analogy to explain what is going on in the world, and it often provides a way to understand something.
You aren’t going to let the Author die without a struggle, are you?
Firstly, where is the evidence for your claim about how the human brain works? I’m not actually sure what you mean about the way the brain operates. Could you explain?

Secondly, you appear still to be assuming that meaning is simply inserted into a text at the point of production. Obviously some meanings are but what about meanings that are generated subsequently? Are they all merely misreadings? Besides, how can we ever know what the author intended? I go back to something you said elsewhere:


The author is essential to any text. If the author writes something and readers understand it as meaning something else, then the author didn't make it clear and/or the readers were flawed.
I have a number of problems with your approach. Doesn’t it assume that language is simply a transparent medium through which we are able to see the writer’s mind, as if the act of reading involves recreating in our own mind the mental state of the writer? Doesn’t that make all Literature autobiography? Is this a fruitful way of reading fairy stories?

I don’t know what Shakespeare ‘intended’ when he wrote Hamlet. Nor, I believe, did Shakespeare. As Humpty Dumpty says about words, “They’ve a temper, some of them,”. Does Hamlet mean precisely no more nor less than Shakespeare intended it to mean? All I have of the man’s mind is the text, so why not just read that?



While this is an analogy, it is for a different situation.
Aren’t all analogies for a different situation? Isn’t that what makes them analogies?


Situations like this come in at least two varieties: misinterpretation and poor expression that leads to misinterpretation..
Shakespeare can’t have ‘meant’ nuclear war when he wrote King Lear but would a production that interpreted the play in this context be misinterpreting? For that matter, should all productions limit themselves to settings that were contemporary with Shakespeare? Is West Side Story a misinterpretation of Romeo and Juliet?


Essentially all of the themes and plots that people use are contained in the Enuma Elish (The Gilgamesh Epic), all of the literature since then is just another retelling of the same stories, and those same stories probably were in the oral tradition for a few hundred thousand years before that.
This is the structuralist position but goes back further than that. Vladimir Propp’s work on folk tales and Tzvetan Todorov’s analysis of the Decameron explore the idea you mention. The suggestion is that there are universal structures to which all myths can be reduced. However, I might have misconstrued – what do you mean by ‘same stories’?

[PeterL]

You aren’t going to let the Author die without a struggle, are you?
Firstly, where is the evidence for your claim about how the human brain works? I’m not actually sure what you mean about the way the brain operates. Could you explain?

The evidence of this is not in one place or easy to find, but metaphor and analogy parellels in meaning or in some other facet of expression. If you want to research cognition and memory you will find that it appears that the brain sets up a database of experience that is used to understand language.



Secondly, you appear still to be assuming that meaning is simply inserted into a text at the point of production. Obviously some meanings are but what about meanings that are generated subsequently? Are they all merely misreadings? Besides, how can we ever know what the author intended? I go back to something you said elsewhere:

This is a good question. And I don't know if there is any way to find the answer to when meaning is inserted into a work. The author certainly has some intention, and, in the case of living authors, we can ask. There are also unconscious insertions of meaning. Readers certainly also relate the work to their database of experience and see whatever parellels might exist. You might read "The Limits of Interpretation" by Eco for a better understanding of what I am trying to get at.



I have a number of problems with your approach. Doesn’t it assume that language is simply a transparent medium through which we are able to see the writer’s mind, as if the act of reading involves recreating in our own mind the mental state of the writer? Doesn’t that make all Literature autobiography? Is this a fruitful way of reading fairy stories?

That is the ideal, that the reader be made to see the author's view that led to the writing. Of course, no author is good enough to get all readers to see that vision, and the mental database of experiences held by readers identical to that of the authors, so the work will have different correspondencs with reader and author. (see "Limits of Interpretation)
Most fairy stories are metaphorical or allegorical and are intended to teach something about the owrld in an indirect way.



I don’t know what Shakespeare ‘intended’ when he wrote Hamlet. Nor, I believe, did Shakespeare. As Humpty Dumpty says about words, “They’ve a temper, some of them,”. Does Hamlet mean precisely no more nor less than Shakespeare intended it to mean? All I have of the man’s mind is the text, so why not just read that?

I think that Shakespeare had a pretty damned good idea of what he was writing. He didn't know every parallel in meaning that every reader might find, but he knew what he was writing. Interpretation is finding the correspondence between a text and experiences that are recorded in your mind. If you have had no experiences that are parallel to what Shakespeare, then you will wonder what he was writing.



Aren’t all analogies for a different situation? Isn’t that what makes them analogies?

There are analogies that are parallel in meaning and ones that are skew.



Shakespeare can’t have ‘meant’ nuclear war when he wrote King Lear but would a production that interpreted the play in this context be misinterpreting? For that matter, should all productions limit themselves to settings that were contemporary with Shakespeare? Is West Side Story a misinterpretation of Romeo and Juliet?

Interpretation is finding paralle;s in image, phrase, meaning, structure, etc. If someone see a parallel between "King Lear" and nuclear war, then it is reasonable to conclude that there is a parallel in that person's mind. Whether that parallel is valid for anyone else might be questionable.

"West Side Story" is a retelling of an ancient story that probably is older than literature. There are clear parallels between it and "Romeo and Juliet".



This is the structuralist position but goes back further than that. Vladimir Propp’s work on folk tales and Tzvetan Todorov’s analysis of the Decameron explore the idea you mention. The suggestion is that there are universal structures to which all myths can be reduced. However, I might have misconstrued – what do you mean by ‘same stories’?

I meant exactly what you suggested, that there "are universal structures to which all myths can be reduced." It is my opinion, and I have haven't thought of a way to prove it or disprove it, that all human expression is driven by genetics/ biological necessities. The structuralist position (as I understand it) is that social organizations, etc. were established some tens of thousands of years ago and people live within those structures. I believe that the "structures" have developed over the last million years, as humans became humans rather than fancy apes.

[The Unnamable]

You might read "The Limits of Interpretation" by Eco for a better understanding of what I am trying to get at.
Eco is on the side of the postmodernists. He certainly wouldn’t agree with you about authorial intent and skill in expression being the determinants of meaning.


That is the ideal, that the reader be made to see the author's view that led to the writing.
Then the ideal doesn’t exist. Language is not a transparent medium for a one-to-one exchange of reality.


I think that Shakespeare had a pretty damned good idea of what he was writing. He didn't know every parallel in meaning that every reader might find, but he knew what he was writing. Interpretation is finding the correspondence between a text and experiences that are recorded in your mind. If you have had no experiences that are parallel to what Shakespeare, then you will wonder what he was writing.
I dispute this.

Firstly, when I said that Shakespeare didn’t know what he intended, I didn’t mean that he was sticking words together in a state of confusion, I meant that he didn’t understand himself totally to the point where he could understand every possible force shaping the work – none of us can. Nor could he transfer concept 100% into end product. There are always revisions, crossings out, redrafting etc. – we don’t even know which bits of the text were definitely by Shakespeare – the folio and quarto texts differ and there are no manuscripts. As WB Yeats wrote, “The painter’s brush consumes his dreams.”

The second part I find very puzzling. Are you saying that unless Shakespeare and I have experienced the same things, I will be unable to understand him? What sort of things? Murder, for instance? Does it also mean that Shakespeare could only write about what he had experienced? That would mean that in order to write Macbeth, Shakespeare must have killed a king, as well as women and children and that I will need to do the same to understand Macbeth. I haven’t by the way, in case anyone is wondering.

Finally, I notice you haven’t answered my question, “Does Hamlet mean precisely no more nor less than Shakespeare intended it to mean?”



There are analogies that are parallel in meaning and ones that are skew.
In other words, there are good and bad analogies.


"West Side Story" is a retelling of an ancient story that probably is older than literature. There are clear parallels between it and "Romeo and Juliet".
Yes, but is it a misinterpretation or not?


The structuralist position (as I understand it) is that social organizations, etc. were established some tens of thousands of years ago and people live within those structures.
No, this is not the structuralist position. If you want to know more about it, you could read the Language as Power thread. A lot of it is covered there.

[PeterL]

Eco is on the side of the postmodernists. He certainly wouldn’t agree with you about authorial intent and skill in expression being the determinants of meaning.

Eco's position is different from the positiions of most postmodernists. He does support authorial intent, at least as far as his works are concerned. Read "The Limits of Interpretation" and Interpretation and Overinterpretation".



Then the ideal doesn’t exist. Language is not a transparent medium for a one-to-one exchange of reality.

Do any ideals exist except as concepts?



I dispute this.

Firstly, when I said that Shakespeare didn’t know what he intended, I didn’t mean that he was sticking words together in a state of confusion, I meant that he didn’t understand himself totally to the point where he could understand every possible force shaping the work – none of us can. Nor could he transfer concept 100% into end product. There are always revisions, crossings out, redrafting etc. – we don’t even know which bits of the text were definitely by Shakespeare – the folio and quarto texts differ and there are no manuscripts. As WB Yeats wrote, “The painter’s brush consumes his dreams.”

The second part I find very puzzling. Are you saying that unless Shakespeare and I have experienced the same things, I will be unable to understand him? What sort of things? Murder, for instance? Does it also mean that Shakespeare could only write about what he had experienced? That would mean that in order to write Macbeth, Shakespeare must have killed a king, as well as women and children and that I will need to do the same to understand Macbeth. I haven’t by the way, in case anyone is wondering.

For a reader to understand exactly what Shakespeare, or any author, means and intends the reader would have to know everything the the author knows, especially what the author meant when writing the work. I don't disagree with you that "he didn’t understand himself totally to the point where he could understand every possible force shaping the work – none of us can," but any author has a pretty good idea what he is writing. Without knowing what Shakespeare intended we can't know whether he expressed what he intended to express. Without knowing for sure I feel confident that Shakespeare had a very good idea of what he was doing.



Finally, I notice you haven’t answered my question, “Does Hamlet mean precisely no more nor less than Shakespeare intended it to mean?”

Anything that one reads means to the reader exactly what the reader thinks it means. How that relates to the author's intent is open to question.



In other words, there are good and bad analogies.

I agree.



Yes, but is it a misinterpretation or not?

"West Side Story" was a reinterpretation of an ancient theme that also was expressed in "Romeo and Juliet."



No, this is not the structuralist position. If you want to know more about it, you could read the Language as Power thread. A lot of it is covered there.

Yes, it is structuralist, but it goes further than most structuralists. The structuralists largely built from Levy-Strauss, who wrote about structurals that developed less than 50,000 years ago.

[The Unnamable]

Eco's position is different from the positiions of most postmodernists. He does support authorial intent, at least as far as his works are concerned. Read "The Limits of Interpretation" and Interpretation and Overinterpretation".
Either we are at cross-purposes or we are referring to different people. Eco believes that authorial intention is a factor in what gets produced (which I don’t dispute) but not that it is the sole determinant of meaning. He’s a semiotician, remember. However many times you tell me to read ‘The Limits of Interpretation’, he still would not agree with you that author intention is the sole determinant of meaning.

“In my book The Limits Of Interpretation, an attack on some forms of literary criticism, I argue that every text is open to an infinite number of possible interpretations, yet there are certain limits.’ And the limits are imposed by empirical facts; an interpretation that does not fit the facts of a piece of writing cannot be accepted. 'Kant And The Platypus is the transposition of this problem from texts to reality,’ he adds.”

http://www.justbookreviews.net/Reading_reality.html

Yes, he differs from many modern theorists but nowhere near as fundamentally as you suggest. He says that there are limits; he doesn’t say that all interpretations are limited by the one transcendental signifier of The Author.


Do any ideals exist except as concepts?
That wasn’t my point.



For a reader to understand exactly what Shakespeare, or any author, means and intends the reader would have to know everything the the author knows, especially what the author meant when writing the work.
What are you saying here? – That none of us can ever understand anything? – None of us can ever know this either about ourselves or anyone else. So how do we generate meanings?



Without knowing what Shakespeare intended
Which we never can know.


we can't know whether he expressed what he intended to express.
It obviously can’t matter then because we still construct meanings with regard to Shakespeare’s texts. Shakespeare no longer exists. All we have of him is the texts.


Without knowing for sure I feel confident that Shakespeare had a very good idea of what he was doing.
Hunches are not evidence.



Anything that one reads means to the reader exactly what the reader thinks it means. How that relates to the author's intent is open to question.
Therefore, if the author’s intention (which we can never know) differs from the meaning a reader generates, that meaning is what, a misinterpretation? All meaning then must be misinterpretation. Is that your position?


Yes, it is structuralist, but it goes further than most structuralists. The structuralists largely built from Levy-Strauss, who wrote about structurals that developed less than 50,000 years ago.
No, they didn’t and he is considered to have made only a limited impact as a philosopher. He and Roman Jakobson could be said to have started an intellectual relationship out of which modern structuralism was to develop, but subsequent structuralists have not just added bits onto his work. Also, what about the work of poststructuralists? Claude Lévi-Strauss was Professor of Social Anthropology at the Collège de France. He considered that these structures were somehow present in the human brain itself. The whole point of structuralism is that the ‘I’ that does the thinking is not that of the individual subject. This subject therefore cannot be regarded as the source or end of meaning, which it is in your idea of authorial intention.

You say you agree with Lévi-Strauss’s idea "that there are universal structures to which all myths can be reduced." Subsequent theorists have challenged this. It is seen as fundamentally unhistorical and indicative of a quest for ‘Eternal Man’.

[PeterL]

Either we are at cross-purposes or we are referring to different people. Eco believes that authorial intention is a factor in what gets produced (which I don’t dispute) but not that it is the sole determinant of meaning. He’s a semiotician, remember. However many times you tell me to read ‘The Limits of Interpretation’, he still would not agree with you that author intention is the sole determinant of meaning.

“In my book The Limits Of Interpretation, an attack on some forms of literary criticism, I argue that every text is open to an infinite number of possible interpretations, yet there are certain limits.’ And the limits are imposed by empirical facts; an interpretation that does not fit the facts of a piece of writing cannot be accepted. 'Kant And The Platypus is the transposition of this problem from texts to reality,’ he adds.”

http://www.justbookreviews.net/Reading_reality.html

Yes, he differs from many modern theorists but nowhere near as fundamentally as you suggest. He says that there are limits; he doesn’t say that all interpretations are limited by the one transcendental signifier of The Author.


>> Eco believes that authorial intention is a factor in what gets produced (which I don’t dispute) but not that it is the sole determinant of meaning. He’s a semiotician, remember.<<

That was the point that I was trying to express, but because semiosis is unlimited, except but context, you didn't understand what I was trying to communicate. You were interpreting based on tyou personal encyclopedia, which seems to be very different from mine.




What are you saying here? – That none of us can ever understand anything? – None of us can ever know this either about ourselves or anyone else. So how do we generate meanings?

You might want to read "The Role of the Reader" also. As I wrote earlier, the only way that an author can transfer to the reader a perfect understanding of a work, is for the reader to have the same set of experiences and understanding; something that couldn't happen unless the reader was also the author. But perhaps you are right, and none of us can ever understand anything.



It obviously can’t matter then because we still construct meanings with regard to Shakespeare’s texts. Shakespeare no longer exists. All we have of him is the texts.

Obviously. People will interpret whatever they want in whatever way they want.



Therefore, if the author’s intention (which we can never know) differs from the meaning a reader generates, that meaning is what, a misinterpretation? All meaning then must be misinterpretation. Is that your position?

How do you define "misinterpretation"?



No, they didn’t and he is considered to have made only a limited impact as a philosopher. He and Roman Jakobson could be said to have started an intellectual relationship out of which modern structuralism was to develop, but subsequent structuralists have not just added bits onto his work. Also, what about the work of poststructuralists? Claude Lévi-Strauss was Professor of Social Anthropology at the Collège de France. He considered that these structures were somehow present in the human brain itself. The whole point of structuralism is that the ‘I’ that does the thinking is not that of the individual subject. This subject therefore cannot be regarded as the source or end of meaning, which it is in your idea of authorial intention.

You say you agree with Lévi-Strauss’s idea "that there are universal structures to which all myths can be reduced." Subsequent theorists have challenged this. It is seen as fundamentally unhistorical and indicative of a quest for ‘Eternal Man’.

I will admit that I only know about this from secondary sources, and I don't plan to read the originals in the near future. From what I have read of the matter, they were guessing without having enough data. As additional data has become available in the last few decades, it appears that humans are geneticly programmed to do much of what we do, but many people try to deny that. The expressions of that programming is through myth and other forms.

[Basil]

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/Populism.htm): Which meaning is correct?

Quick, someone exhume the body of L. Frank Baum!

[Basil]

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~humcentr/wizard-of-oz-still-large.jpg
William Jennings Bryan, along with a dehumanized industrial worker and a wise but naive western farmer urge Dorothy to vote for the Populist party.

[gsingle33]

Many people seem to be ignoring the idea of applying a modern meaning to an older work of literature. If we only consider what the "author intended" then we cannot possibly apply 1984 to today's society under Bush, A Clockwork Orange to today's youth and ideas of rehabilitating them, or even something as simple as comparing the New Testament (if you view it as literature, that is) to The Matrix. The logical end to this line of thinking is that we cannot take any work out of its time and place because the author lived and composed it in only one time and one place. This seems to me an ridiculous concept that is reductive, where I would like to view anything beyond a Dan Brown book as expansive - moving outward from itself and the mind of one individual.

[PeterL]

Many people seem to be ignoring the idea of applying a modern meaning to an older work of literature. If we only consider what the "author intended" then we cannot possibly apply 1984 to today's society under Bush, A Clockwork Orange to today's youth and ideas of rehabilitating them, or even something as simple as comparing the New Testament (if you view it as literature, that is) to The Matrix. The logical end to this line of thinking is that we cannot take any work out of its time and place because the author lived and composed it in only one time and one place. This seems to me an ridiculous concept that is reductive, where I would like to view anything beyond a Dan Brown book as expansive - moving outward from itself and the mind of one individual.

I agree, strongly. If we only considered the author's intention, the Iliad would be meaningless today. We have to look at the basic themes that are in the work.

[A Hard Rain]

It is useful asking what the author was trying to do. We can approximate through the work, and the work alone (or other works it alludes to), what he was trying to do, and what he may not have been trying to do.

We cannot however, try to psychoanalyze Shakespeare. We cannot know Shakespeares mind. And it may very well be irrelevant to his works anyways.

Basil impressed me with his/her use of economy, quotes, and ironic quips in this discussion and i feel may have said more than many of you that worked hard on your long responses.

[Anthony Furze]

I have been teaching Eng Lit for 20 years now in a foreign country (Pakistan) and I ve found no problems with the childrens understanding of Orwell, Shakespeare, Dickens,etc.
Rather they can be very imaginative in their responses,seeing new meanings.

[The Unnamable]

I have been teaching Eng Lit for 20 years now in a foreign country (Pakistan) and I ve found no problems with the childrens understanding of Orwell, Shakespeare, Dickens,etc.
Rather they can be very imaginative in their responses,seeing new meanings.
I don’t think that the issue is about whether or not anyone ‘understands’ Orwell, Shakespeare or Dickens. It’s about how meanings are generated and become acceptable or unacceptable. What do you mean by ‘new meanings’? Do you mean different interpretations (and these are usually within a fairly strict discursive framework) or entirely new meanings? I’ve also taught Literature both in the UK and abroad and in seventeen years I have not seen any response to a text that was, in a profound sense, ‘new’. Given the nature of Literature teaching, that’s neither surprising nor a criticism of children. They are simply being asked to manipulate language in particular ways.

The battle for meanings has had a major effect on academic and artistic output. The postmodern period has seen the works of the former greatly outnumber those of the latter. Lyotard sees the postmodern era as one in which the legitimising ‘grand narratives’ are in crisis and in decline. The meanings we have long relied on are being replaced by an insistence on the ultimate indeterminacy of meaning. This has had two widely varying effects. It unleashed the imaginations of those who responded creatively to the idea that there are no totalising explanations (therefore they could express themselves without the usual limiting restraints). It also encouraged a pluralist view and has been used to reinforce the legitimacy of all responses to pretty much everything. If there is no ultimate meaning and all meanings are constructed, then all readings are to be respected. The word ‘wrong’ has become unacceptable so we now have to use phrases like ill informed. Is a view that considers Laertes as the most important character in Hamlet ‘wrong’, ‘ill informed’, ‘radical’, ‘refreshingly new’? I suppose it depends on how it’s expressed, which is why I said that students are simply being asked to manipulate language in particular ways.

I was interested in the way interpretations are offered on this site. They carry the assumption that they are highly personal readings that are the product of independent thought but rely on dominant reading practices and ideological assumptions which few appear prepared to question. This is usually demonstrated in the same paragraph that contains support for the belief that Literature enlightens us, makes us think and is both ennobling and apolitical.

[PeterL]

I was interested in the way interpretations are offered on this site. They carry the assumption that they are highly personal readings that are the product of independent thought but rely on dominant reading practices and ideological assumptions which few appear prepared to question. This is usually demonstrated in the same paragraph that contains support for the belief that Literature enlightens us, makes us think and is both ennobling and apolitical.

I have also found that interesting. It makes me wonder.

[gsingle33]

Postmodern thought has been taken too far. There must be a line drawn between "every reading is legitimate" and "there is a right and a wrong reading." Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to figure out where that line is. I did read somewhere that just because you cannot draw the line of where the light ends in a dark room, does not mean you cannot tell the difference between light and dark.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate some of the lines of thinking and artists that postmodernism has brought to us. I just think it has opened a pandora's box of sorts that the general public has, at times, used to delegitimize creative art and the artistic community has used to legitimize their personal thought that, literally, farting into a microphone is art. :confused: