Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalwendė
Yes, a person has the right to privately retain their own meaning, but if it cannot be aired due to fear of rejection by the community, then what use is it?
|
Well, provided that it is genuinely and strongly held, then I would say that it is of great value to the individual. And anyway, if we all simply follow the consensus, then we will never learn anything new. Radical interpretations may alter the "consensus interpretation" (ie the interpretation shared by the majority of individual readers) and therefore be of great benefit to the "readership community".
I simply cannot see where them meaning of a text can exist save in the experience of the reader (or readers).
The text itself cannot provide meaning without interpretation, which takes place in the mind of the reader. And the author's intentions cannot be the only measure, since this would impose the "purposive domination of the author" and may deny applicability to the individual reader. In any event, the divination of the author's intention takes place in the mind of the reader too. This is why I see the "reader's experience" category as also being the "all of the above" category.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalwendė
Sorry, this must seem a little too much like the day job to you.
|
You mean this isn't my day job?
