"Correct"Interpretations?

[LizzzyBF]

Do you think there is such thing as a 'correct' interpretation of a piece of literature? Are the author's intentions the only thing that matters?
A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine asked if the essay we were reading in English class was the 'correct interpretation' of the poem we were studying, and the idea has been bugging me ever since. The idea of having one (or even several) 'correct' interpretations just doesn't seem right to me. I see literature as being about the reader's interaction with the text, and obviously everyone has different experiences, and so everyone will see something different in the text.
These ideas are also coming from things that I thought when I read Thomas C. Foster's How to Read Literature Like a Professor. In the chapter on symbolism, he begins by saying that if a student asks if something is a symbol, he always says yes. When they ask what it's a symbol of, he asks what they think, because that's what it is - for them at least. So far, so good. But later, in a sort of 'intermission' chapter where the author addresses the reader's question about whether an author can really think about all the stuff he's been talking about at the same time, he says that they can and they do. I would say that they can, and sometimes they do, but even when they don't, we can still 'correctly' analyse these ideas/techniques/symbols/whatever, even if the author didn't put it there deliberately.

[JuniperWoolf]

Almost all texts can be interpreted in several ways (Heart of Darkness is a good example) but students do sometimes put forward some random, off-the-wall interpretations. I once heard a girl claim that to her, Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening was about the economy, and when we tried to prove her wrong she just said "well, that's what it means to me." Anyone can think up random meanings for anything, that's just lazy.

[MystyrMystyry]

Academically lit profs have largely agreed that authors aren't aware of everything that they include in their works - but they do know the main point because that is intentional. Avoidance of a cliche to describe something may lead them to an expression that says something more succinctly than they've realised, and it often happens.

The big one though is Farenheit 451, in which Bradbury's intended meaning was and is obscured (and dwarfed) by what people prefer it to be about.

[Drkshadow03]

The big one though is Farenheit 451, in which Bradbury's intended meaning was and is obscured (and dwarfed) by what people prefer it to be about.

Nah. Bradbury is actually a great example of why one needs to be careful about paying too much attention to what an author has to say about their own work. In his most recent interviews he claims the book is about the dumbing down of people from TV. Basically, the firemen are glorified garbage men. You can find a filmed interview of him discussing this interpretation on his website.

However, in the 70s he wrote a coda included in the back of many editions speaking about the book in relationship to censorship and the essay suggests he did see it as a work about censorship. Also on his website under his bio it says, "in 1953, Fahrenheit 451, which many consider to be Bradbury's masterpiece, a scathing indictment of censorship set in a future world where the written word is forbidden."

When I read the work, a long time ago, before I ever read Bradbury's interview I thought it was about both. The two interpretations aren't mutually exclusive.

[JCamilo]

The fact that there is correct interpretations does not exclude other interpretations to be equally as meaningful. Simple as that. You may discuss guys who contradict themselves, but if Dante says Beatrice represents philosophy, then that is it. She does. This does not stop you from thinking she represents the World Cup, but from you saying that she "obviously is the world cup" and pick hundred textual references about it or someone pointing how ridiculous that it is being nasty or something.

If literature was only about the reader, you will need only blank pages.

[togre]

Just gonna put down my own, unsourced opinions...

There certainly can be incorrect interpretations of a text. Yeah, some are the lazy work of students who don't put forth the effort, but I'd wager the most and worst are more scholarly people who are importing ideas that have no real existence in the text.

Since there are incorrect interpretations that implies there are correct ones too. And as much as I dislike multiple meanings, I'd say that for most writings there isn't one single meaning, deviation from which results in adding what's not there or leaving out something essential. I think we can discuss Shakespeare or Twain or whomever and hold differing opinions and both not be meatheads. Maybe I'm just in a positive mood, though, and its clouding my judgement.

[Seasider]

In my view there is no such thing as a correct interpretation of a literary text. Some interpretations may be considered superficial, others may be thought to be too wedded to a particular ideology, others may omit essential elements concerning the writer or the era or what have you. The list is endless. And all interpretations are produced by the unique life experiences of the reader which cannot be replicated exactly by anyone else
This might not be deemed a problem as far as most literature goes. Except
perhaps for the individual who presents his/her interpretation only to be found wanting by the tutor or the critics and awarded a poor grade or a poor review.

But there are other texts which are interpreted constantly and with very important repercussions both for individuals and society. There are too many prejudiced, incomplete and insufficiently thought out interpretations of The Bible which are used to criticise and stigmatise those whom these partial interpreters disapprove of. And I am led to believe that there similar examples of interpretation in other religions' Holy Books and Laws.
The danger is when a certain interpretation is promoted by people with power who will allow no other interpretation.

[cafolini]

Do you think there is such thing as a 'correct' interpretation of a piece of literature? Are the author's intentions the only thing that matters?
A couple of weeks ago a friend of mine asked if the essay we were reading in English class was the 'correct interpretation' of the poem we were studying, and the idea has been bugging me ever since. The idea of having one (or even several) 'correct' interpretations just doesn't seem right to me. I see literature as being about the reader's interaction with the text, and obviously everyone has different experiences, and so everyone will see something different in the text.
These ideas are also coming from things that I thought when I read Thomas C. Foster's How to Read Literature Like a Professor. In the chapter on symbolism, he begins by saying that if a student asks if something is a symbol, he always says yes. When they ask what it's a symbol of, he asks what they think, because that's what it is - for them at least. So far, so good. But later, in a sort of 'intermission' chapter where the author addresses the reader's question about whether an author can really think about all the stuff he's been talking about at the same time, he says that they can and they do. I would say that they can, and sometimes they do, but even when they don't, we can still 'correctly' analyse these ideas/techniques/symbols/whatever, even if the author didn't put it there deliberately.

In the two-dimensions of existence or being, anything is interpretation, including the author who thinks he/she has an audience and is addressing it, is merely interpreting.
In the inorganic area, where there are three-dimensions, it is possible to reject interpretation up to a high probability.
However, when it comes to knowledge, it's a very long ways before anything gets philosophical except that overcome animal of the past called human who could hardly fear anything without panic and without writing a philosophy to be used as a straightjacket to protect from having to experience that fear of him being a matter of interpretation.

[JBI]

meh, the fundamental problem is the discussion of novels is merely a discussion of imaginary events with imaginary problems; exegesis is rather simple, so in order to
"add depth" to a rather simple genre of narrative, new methods beyond a fundamental level, as well as more terminology were added and invented, to allow the eye to see deeper into nothing.

For poetic readings, there is a similar trend, but ultimately, poetry is far more difficult to interpret as such, given that poems tend to not like to stand alone; one Sonnet by Shakespeare ultimately gestures to the whole cycle, one cycle ultimately gestures to the author's entire work, one poet's work gestures to the whole tradition; novels do something similar, but it is far harder to trace them, so critical readings ultimately focus on narratology.

As for close reading and being right or wrong; with poetry, it generally is both more interpretative, yet far closer and more exact a science. Narrative generally wobbles around too much, and it comes down to bogus ideas supported by semi-readings of a text.

That is generally why critics who only work with novels are the most tedious to read, and the ones most prone to ridiculous theory. Their job requires a far wider range of bogus vocabulary to find the original in the unoriginal.

Ultimately, being right or wrong does not matter to the personal reader, though it may help to be more informed to get the most out of the text. For the professional critic however, it means something else, and I would argue most "new" and "fresh" interpretations of novels tend to be in the "incorrect" camp.

As for author's intentions, that is only relevant to an extent, there comes a point where the author ceases to be an authority on how his/her text is interpreted. I believe if one doesn't totally hop the author, meaning one does not go out of their way to add an allegorical meaning not supported by history or the text (I think of interpretations of Caliban from the Tempest who has suffered much from post-colonial depiction, despite being a product of a more or less pre-colonial mentality) there isn't much problem.

Seriously though, if you really want to get a definition for a symbol, and how to read them, head to The Princeton Encyclopedia of Literary Terms, which is the best reference imaginable for literary terms and devices, or read the introduction to Arthur Symon's The Symbolist Movement in Literature.

As for how far to take things, well, metaphor seems limited slightly to the range of comparison. Metonymy is, however, limitless, so that the "palace walls" of Blake's London can at once be a reference to the crown, but also blow up into any form of institution - the range is limitless; the economy that sells slaves, the government, the parliament, the law.

Generally, do not worry too much, most people who interpret too deeply merely are just looking for something to say because they cannot find anything worth saying without overdoing things.

[PeterL]

The correct interpretation of a piece of creative literature is the interpretation that you, as a reader, like the best. Authors use symbols without being aware of it, and I have had authors thank me for pointing out things that they hadn't noticed, even though it was central to the story. There are some pieces of fiction that aremore open to interpretation than others. Detective stories are one sub-genre in which the story clearly points at a single interpretation.

[Arrowni]

If there was just one interpretation then it wouldn't really be an interpretation.

[cafolini]

The correct interpretation of a piece of creative literature is the interpretation that you, as a reader, like the best. Authors use symbols without being aware of it, and I have had authors thank me for pointing out things that they hadn't noticed, even though it was central to the story. There are some pieces of fiction that aremore open to interpretation than others. Detective stories are one sub-genre in which the story clearly points at a single interpretation.

:iagree: For any written or spoken literature whatsoever.