“What does Poe mean?"
“What
is Dickinson saying?”
“What’s Shakespeare’s purpose?”
“Is
that Plath’s intention?”
You’ve
heard it all your life in classrooms: questions that assume to speak for an
author, that imply that we can somehow discern what she or he Really meant, that urge that there is
some ultimate interpretation that will forever tie up the poem in a bow. It’s an antique way of speaking about
literature—patriarchal, limiting, and false.
It turns the class into a séance: “Put your hands on the table. We call on you, Will Shakespeare. Tell us what you want.” And the table
trembles under the note-taking that the teacher, as medium, channels from the ghost of William Shakespeare, entering the room.
Let’s
step back a moment to appreciate how intricate the process of literary
interpretation is, here analyzed into discrete, although non-definitive steps:
(1) We identify an experience as
coalescing into “object.”
(2) We reach out to touch it.
(3) We pick it up. It might be a
doorstop. It might be something to turn into
a Christmas tree. It might be a log for
the fire.
(4) But we identify it as book.
(5) We turn it this way and that. What
shall we do with it?
(6) We look at the ink marks.
(7) We identify a language. If it is Hebrew, we lay the book down with
the ruffly
edges to…What shall we call it? Our left.
…
And so on. All this happens intuitively, speedily for
most 21-year-olds. For a 2-month-old,
there will be a preliminary process of gumming, ripping, crumpling, throwing, and
growing into a 2-year old—who, by that time, might have learned to assume the
culturally-correct book reading position.
By
the time we come to call those marks words
on what we discern as page and
start to interpret it as poem, an
infinite series of sophisticated, enculturated, interpretive choices have been made. So why is it that we suddenly turn the
process into a supernatural mystery, a séance?
True,
we hope that by this time in the 21st century teachers will acknowledge
that interpretation is subjective. But they and their students continue to use
the discourse of divination and fortune-telling—to the extent that teachers
make-wrong any but their own “official version” of what, let’s say, Shakespeare
is saying. Why continue to commit this intentional
fallacy?
According to Britannica.com,
“Intentional fallacy,” is a “term used in 20th-century literary
criticism to describe the problem inherent in trying to judge a work of art by assuming
the intent or purpose of the artist who created it.” Shakespeare is dead, and
his gravestone curses anyone who would exhume his bones. We have found no personal records discoursing
on his plays and poems. You’d have to believe in Shakespearean witches and
ghosts to argue your teacher qua medium
knows what he meant. Prolific novelist Vladimir Nabokov said never to ask what
an author is trying to say—because (s)he already said it. And poet Robert Frost said “I own the first
reading. I’ll take a mortgage on the second.
The rest is up to you.”
More often that not, when readers,
critics, audiences voice an interpretation of my poetry, songs, essays, they
offer interpretations that I did not consciously work into my writing. I find them compelling. I am fascinated by
the plasticity of literature, mine and others’, to inspire vastly different,
and not infrequently contradictory readings.
And if there isn’t this plasticity, then the piece of work is not a
piece of literature. Creativity (discussed
in other posts on this blog) is a process of dipping into that 99% part of our
minds—intuitive, universal, visionary—which we share with all other human
beings. Memorable writing dips
into the greater mind where we all exist—the better the author, the more
intuitive her or his process. That’s why we look into the dictionary—a compendium
of shared meanings.
A séance is always a group activity,
often orchestrated by either a charlatan magician or an intuitively sensitive
actor. The pointer on the Ouija board
does not move without the participants relaxing into their 99% minds, by
believing that the process works. But
interpretation is just the Oui
(French for yes) ja (German for yes) credulity
of the participants—just as interpretation is a process by which we turn marks
on an object into lived experience and ideas.
And Shakespeare does not
exist without us picking up that object and naming it a soliloquy or enacting
it in a production. We are Shakespeare,
and it would be more appropriate to ask “How do I interpret these marks on a
page?” “What do I make of this?” "What do these words mean to me?" When we read, we're looking into a crystal ball: we see
ourselves.
Notice the language used
in your classrooms and how the teacher becomes the medium at the séance. Report
back here.
Dear Dr. Rich,
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that this blog post is very interesting because I can somehow relate to it. From as long as I remember, English teachers always ask us as students about “what does this mean” whenever we look at a literary work. School teachers are not the only ones that have this thought on their minds; some college professors do the same thing as well. For example, whenever we look at a literary work closely, professors always tend to either ask us in class or provide us with an assignment to write about “what was the author trying to say” or “what is the purpose of this text”. It always appeared that the teachers are forcing us all to come up with one common answer, which also must be of their choosing. I personally did not like that these teachers are narrowing our thought. There is never a one answer for a literary work. Everyone can interpret the work with their own perspective. It’s not the authors of the work wrote that they created this certain work for x and y reason. They themselves left it up to us to interpret it on our own. I was glad that I experienced some of this freedom in the Shakespeare class and now in the Emily Dickinson class. I love how we work in groups to look at a certain piece of work, it gives me the opportunity to listen to other people’s opinion and learn from it. Not only that, but I also love listening to the other groups interpretations. It is sometimes surprising because some people can interpret it in a way that no one could have ever thought about it.
Dr. Rich,
ReplyDeleteUsing the Ouija board as a physical séance really helped me understand the blog post at hand. I actually have played it before when I was young. Therefore I never really saw it the way you explain it. When playing it people do relax their minds, get away from technology and fully commit to this act of speaking to the dead. People give their all, highly believe in it. If you believe, doesn’t it come true? Or don’t you let it be true? You want it to be true so bad. Seeing that Oui means yes in French an ja meaning yes in German explains why we yes and yes want to believe in this silly gameboard.
So the question is, why can’t all believe in literature like we believe in a silly game that is supposed to peak to the dead. Why cannot one commit 99% to Shakespeare, Dickinson or Poe? People are afraid of this board but still play it. When people are afraid of literate they just close the book and never pick it up again. Older words, poems, novels, et al. we cannot live without, they speak to us, the sèance authors speak to us. That is so much cooler than checking out that Instagram post! As I reply to this blog post, I look around me, people glued to their phones. How about they close those and pick up a book that will help them further their education and learn about people older than themselves. People waste their times when indeed there is so much more to live for (no pun intended).
Thank you for deeper knowledge.
Always,
Anastasia Vazquez
Dr. Rich, you have given me such a deeper insight on this topic!! In all of my classes, current and past, my English professors always posed the question "What do you think ____ meant in this excerpt?" and so on. I've always found myself in that moment channeling deeper and deeper in the writings and their author to find the deeper meaning of his or her passage. Never would I have connected that moment as a "seance" when it pretty much is.
ReplyDeleteIn our Emily Dickinson course with you, Dr. Rich, I believe you lead us in a seance. Emily is such a woman of mystery that not one person can pinpoint or interpret what her poems or letters truly mean. I believe her poems don't necessarily have one meaning, but instead, have multiple meanings creating one beautiful art piece. That's what makes Emily Dickinson so amazing. Dr. Rich, you allow us to open ourselves up to different passage ways, and help guide us into our own mindfulness. Through reading Emily's biography, I am able to channel so many different parts of her as I'm reading her poems: "can she possibly be referring to this?", "even this can be meant for that," so on and so forth. I believe I'm living through the different dynamics with Emily Dickinson and that's pretty cool!
Dear Dr. Rich,
ReplyDeleteThis topic can be tricky, and we even had a heated class discussion on this topic. I have always been the type of student that wants to get the right answer even though I am creative. I have been willing to give up my creativity to get the right answer like a poem has only one interoperation. You have made me realize that I have been giving up my creativity and that now I tend to stop at the most logical explanation of a poem instead of delving in deeper. I learned in critical approaches that there are two styles of interoperation, the older one includes the author's life and politics while the newer one only looks at the work. Both of these methods are open to mistakes which is why both of them should be used together. This is exactly what we are doing in our class with Emily Dickenson poems. We are looking at her life and her words together without valuing one over the other. I like this way better than only using the first school of thought where we solely focus on the life of the author. I like the idea that ‘the rest is up to you’ because it gives you the freedom to find your own meaning in a work of literature instead of not truly connecting with it. I am finding it frustrating when reading Plato and other literary theorists because I want to know the right interoperation, but I should learn to cut myself more slake and focus on the main parts that I can understand.
By: Kathleen Conaty
Dr. Rich,
ReplyDeleteThis blog post called out a lot of what I have witnessed in the English courses I have taken. Professors are always asking students “What does it all mean?”, which is a logical question to ask when reading and analyzing literature. However, I feel like Professors push the importance of what renowned English scholars believe it to be, rather than acknowledging a student’s interpretation of the text. I also feel that Professors sometimes get carried away with meaning and symbolism. For example, I was scrolling on social media when I saw a post that related to meaning and how teachers become too involved. It talked about how a possible line in a text could say “and the curtains were blue” and the teacher would dive in immediately and explain that the curtains were blue because it represented the main character’s depression. Well, what if the curtains were just blue?
This method of finding what the meaning is problematic to me because I feel that it is important to look into a text using different lenses. However, I also feel that some individuals (some teachers that I have had) get carried away with finding out the meaning and eventually lose sight of what the words are actually saying.
What I love about our Emily Dickinson class is that this never happens. I feel that everyone does such a good job of close reading that they present different ideas of the text that I never thought about. In return, I can really see how that individual came to that conclusion because they back up their interpretation with so much evidence. I especially like how you, Dr. Rich, do not shut down a student’s personal interpretation of the text and instead you add to it with more information. There is no pushing of ideas onto us by what a philosopher or an English scholar said. We are valid in expressing our own ideas and that is what makes a good English course.
-Alison S.
Dr.Rich,I appreciate this blog very much mainly because I have grappled so much with the the idea that a work of literature somehow has to be interpreted,packaged and tied in a bow.In a typical classroom setting students are represented from different culture and will use prior knowledge and experiences in order to interpret text.I am always grateful and appreciative of the work you do with all students and help to enhance and broaden an interpretation I believe that is what needs to be accomplished in studying and appreciating any work of 'Art'.
ReplyDeleteNicole Diefenbacher
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this blog post because in the beginning of the semester, I had a hard time understanding Emily. And it frustrates me for awhile because of the way I was initially taught to read poetry was to analyze it for the “one true meaning” that my teachers wanted us so desperately to find.
I remember being annoyed because I would listen to my classmates talk so eloquently about Emily Dickinson and it was hard for me to understand her work as well as others sometimes, I think in part because of the language used. And it bothers me because I try very hard to connect with the work and sometimes it just like there’s nothing there for me.
In your class, however, I have learned that is is okay to not “get it” all the time. And that no one but Emily Dickinson really knows what Emily Dickinson meant and for that reason however we may interpret a piece, there is no right or wrong way to do so.
I appreciate the fact that you mentioned how by us asking what the author meant we are speaking in past tense. Though at times some of the readings which we are viewing the author might have written it years in advance or the author might have passed away, the reading is still alive and depending on when we are viewing it or how often we have viewed it the writing might be new to us or someone else. As a reader I enjoy reading some writings multiple times because each time I view the authors piece I often find myself viewing the art in a different manner or I might catch on to something that I didn’t catch on to the first two times of reading the art.
ReplyDeleteWhen viewing Shakespeare’s work I often have to catch myself because instead of focusing on the knowledge I am receiving from the work I often find myself stopping and trying to figure out what Shakespeare is trying to say to me in his work. Prior to taking this course I wouldn’t have put much thought in the term “Intentional Fallacies,” because this is what I often use in order to help myself piece together what is being said in the text but I must admit that there is a huge difference when relying on your own interpretation of the text than trying to interpret what the author was trying to say. It is so interesting because this way of thinking is often not taught in school and we are taught to almost turn off our creative thinking after middle school and focus more towards what the author is getting at instead of bringing differences in thinking to the table.
I had a professor at Kean who made us read poems throughout his American Literature course. He would assign a poem and then make us write a poem on what was supposed to be a subjective paper. I went home read the poem, brainstormed what it meant to me, wrote the paper, submitted it, and got a C. His note under the "C" that he gave me was that my interpretation was wrong. I never understood how he can ask for an opinion and grade it and say it is wrong. Of all the poems we read that semester he talked about the meanings as if he had written them in his basement a year prior. There was no room for growth and individuality with interpretations in that classroom. Unfortunately, most professors we met have that same standard of teaching - minus the subjective paper. Most teachers tell you exactly what they want.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though as if we are taught to read it in the way as if searching for a definitive answer. We all want answers and to know exactly what something means. No one likes to be left curious. Sometimes thinking you figured out the dark secret makes you feel like "Ok, I know what this means, next poem". In high school, we are taught to read and comprehend. How can we read AND comprehend poems that are written so complex. It is going against everything we have learned since we were enrolled in school.
I don't mind the unknown and the uncertainty of the poem meanings but it would be great to read a complex poem such as Emily's of a writer who is alive and able to tell us what inspired them to write it and what it means.
Dr. Rich,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate this post, because it reassures us that literature is still very much alive despite the dominant, blind, younger generations that keep reproducing. With that being said, yes I am concerned about the upcoming generations, especially those going into education. Scratch that - I am not only concerned - I am scared quite frankly. I am scared of what the younger, blind generations are capable of whether they go into teaching or not. Much of this new, modern teaching is so overrated. It is overrated, because so much of the old school, effective teaching is very much lost. As a future educator, how can we keep up original interpretation? We need to keep encouraging students to be proactive with their minds. When did teachers begin to discourage question asking? When did teachers become lazy? When did teachers decide to not dedicate their heart, souls, and guts to students? I am not trying to be dramatic. I am trying to be honest and passionate about what I need to feed my soul with. Assigning readings and worksheets about certain readings is not teaching. Actively reading a piece from Shakespeare together as a class for example, in my opinion is effective teaching. Is that old school? Yes, and it works. It will boost students' self-confidence and pride. To be successful, a student can be humble and kind. That has nothing to do with a healthy dose of confidence and pride, which a successful student must have. My soul will not rest until all education majors are aware that we need to encourage students to form their own opinions confidently when it comes to school.
Joseph patti
ReplyDeleteI always had trouble avoiding the “Shakespeare said this” mindset because been so drilled into me, so taking this class has been a very interesting experience unlearn this mindset. I do agree that we hold séance in a way and try to find what the author was speaking when text can be taken in on their own and thus be applied, change or even examined in such way that show broader truth then even what the original author may have attend. People will always look at the exact same thing and yet somehow come with as many varied ideas and thought on it. Literature and art are in the eye of the beholder and everyone has their own unique ideas on any given body of work.
Might I say, Dr. Rich: this is a challenging piece for me to comment on because I understand that each teacher teaches differently. Not one alike. Some traditionally teach, and I am sure very few untraditional like you. Without coming across as very judgmental, I will say that the language used in my classrooms is more of the typical academic standard, where the teaching methods are ordinary. No similar than being told "need to be more analytic in Analytical Writing About Literature or "you didn't stay focused on the text" such as in Shakespeare Survey.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, with such a striking blog post, piece of literature as this, I never thought about comparing my teachers to being mediums at a séance. By the time I came to mark words on what I had discerned as a page and start to interpret as a poem—"an infinite series of sophisticated, enculturated, interpretive choices made." I always felt that I was on point with the hard work I submitted and earned good grades.
Nor did I ever think of contrasting old-fashion, old-school teaching to the supernatural mystery, séance. Well, I guess the cliché—lyrics of Seasick Steve is accurate, "there must be something wrong with me…you can't teach an old dog new tricks". Not to mention, knowingly and unknowingly indulging in séances deriving from the supernatural realm of and any kind are not a part of my belief system.
Since middle school I have heard "what did the author really mean?" from my teachers. It has forced me into a particular way of thinking where I think only one answer is correct. If I received a low grade on a paper, I would always assume it was because I did not showcase what the author was really thinking, but rather what I was thinking. For some reason, what I thought was not "correct." Through your class I have learned to embrace how I analyze texts, so thank you!
ReplyDelete-
Jessica DeLuca
Being asked "what does the author mean," is quite possibly the most annoying thing I have ever heard. I have never learned anything important from these words. By being asked this question I often would be forced to think of some part of the play or story that I remembered and try to come up with a reasoning that was what I truly thought. In turn because it was not the teachers way of thinking I was often wrong. Teachers left no room for interpretation, however in your class you gave us wings to fly and let us land in a place that made us happy. For that I thank you!
ReplyDeleteDavid Rivera, Jr.