Author, Reader, or Text? (aka Canonicity Slapdown 2005)

[davem]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I'm not saying that it is objectively wrong (although I do not preclude the possibility). It is sufficient for me that it is the standard of the society within which I live, and one which I agree with and adhere to.

No. It does not necessarily follow. When an individual behaves in a way which impacts upon others within society, society necessarily has the right to determine whether such behaviour is right or wrong. It has (and can have) no such right to judge in the case of a personally held interpretation of a work of fiction.

What I am saying is that the only way that a work of fiction can have any meaning is by reference to its meaning to an individual reader. A degree of objectivity may be acheived where there is some consensus. But it can never be universally applicable. Societal standards are, however, universally applicable, either because they are enshrined within laws or because it is the consensus of society that all members should abide by them.

But where does that leave Nazi Germany, Afghanistan under the Taliban, etc?

Can we judge those societies as 'wrong' according to some objective standard, or are we merely imposing our own subjective values on them?

As to books - why cannot a book teach the reader a new 'meaning' or way of thinking - one they did not have before? We can't assume the reader is the whole source of what they find in a book.