/lit/ - Literature

>>3243868
Mine.

>>3243871

Seriously, how can these disputes be settled?

Not to mention it's possible to have interpretations of interpretations.

>>3243879
They can't.

>>3243888
Aside from an appeal to force. That's the only way that works. "Machiavelli was being ironic or I'll fucking kill your family" - "Ironic indeed."

>>3243888

Am I entitled to accept and reject interpretitions?

If a text can be (legitimately) interpreted in many ways, there is no "right" one.

If there is a "right" reading, then a text can't be (legitimately) interpreted in many ways.

Both those sentences are tautologies, or analytic propositions if you believe in those.

>still believing in arbitrary terms like "right" and "wrong"
>2012

shiggydiggy

There is no "right" or "wrong" answers in English literature, there is only a institutionalized complex of people who will who will nit-pick your work regardless of how well written or logically sound it is, unless of course, you kiss their ass publicly and exalt them in front of everyone.

>>3243907
There is neither entitlement nor non-entitlement.

>>3243912

Are you implying that he's wrong?

Through the most logically established framework until a more logically established framework comes along.

/thread

>>3243868

who's that girl?

>>3243941
Anne Hatahway or something. She's quite annoying. Team Emily all day.

>If a text can be interpreted in many ways, which of them is the "right" one?

>can be interpreted in many ways
>"right" one

That doesn't work together. They can be interpreted in many ways exactly because there is no right one. The idea that there is a right one is the usual stubborn almost theistic belief that there is an ultimate solid reality that you can observe from afar.

Text interpretation is discussion. You talk about it, you don't stamp it with a judgement.

>>3243868
le epik trole m8

Maybe an interpretation can be thought correct to the extent that it corroborates with a text or does not contradict a text.

So if I say that Lord of the Rings was an allegory concerning the skill of Korean Starcraft Players in 2012, you may say that there is nothing that corroborates that in the text. You may also note that Tolkien could have no knowledge of Starcraft because he wasn't alive for video games, so you must acknowledge that your interpretation disregards authorial intent also.

If I interpreted 1984 as a message of how rough it is to live in England, then you would be partially correct, because that is in fact part of the narrative. You wouldn't be wholly correct however because it misses out important themes in the novel.

But I think there's got to be some correctness about interpretations, otherwise saying something like 'Lord Of The Rings had some excellent 9/11 symbolism' would be true. And it is clearly not.

>>3243944
This is the "wrong" interpretation.

>>3243949
It's whatever the majority agrees is the right interpretation

>>3243949

>So if I say that Lord of the Rings was an allegory concerning the skill of Korean Starcraft Players in 2012, you may say that there is nothing that corroborates that in the text. You may also note that Tolkien could have no knowledge of Starcraft because he wasn't alive for video games, so you must acknowledge that your interpretation disregards authorial intent also.

All interpretation disregards authorial intent. If it didn't, we would just write out the authorial intent.

But my Totem saw the shame; from his ridgepole-shrine he came,
And he told me in a vision of the night: —
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
"And every single one of them is right!"


http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_neolithic.htm

>>3243949
>But I think there's got to be some correctness about interpretations, otherwise saying something like 'Lord Of The Rings had some excellent 9/11 symbolism' would be true. And it is clearly not.

Why is it 'clearly not' true? In the reader sees it and can point us to the reading in the text, how is it not true?

Idk mang but shouldn't authorial intent be considered the most authoritative?

>>3243973

Please go.

>>3243949
>implying contradicting a text or not is not also up for interpretation
>implying authorial intent
>implying "clearly not" is an argument
This is what the laymen actually think.

Pal, what you said made little sense. I guess it's your right to interpret texts as that, but don't get mad when you realize that's not how anyone does it for the past century or so. This "clearly not" is tough. If you want to connect LotR with 9/11 you can, as long as you have good arguments for. The reason you think you can't is because you still think interpreting is "what the author meant" and Tolkien couldn't be thinking about 9/11, but if you can make the anachronical analogy well, there is no reason to dismiss it. And again, you think you should dismiss it because there is a right interpretation, but no, we are not putting it on the level of "right" just because we accept it.

What you said is very off the track in every level, I think.

>>3243968
The principle of causality, I imagine.

>>3243980
A text doesn't have an opinion against being retrospectively interpreted from a time beyond when it what written. In fact that is what happens with all reading.

>>3243980

Please don't be vague.

>>3243973
You guys talk about this shit if you want, it's time to fap.

>>3243868
The one that furthers your goals i.e. passing an exam or gaining brownie points from contemporaries.

>>3243983
Set/setting?

>>3243980
Interpreting is a two hand way. When you interpret something, you infer onto it. There's nothing wrong with it, exactly because it's impossible to do it in any other way.

When you are not accostumed to this whole thing it may appear that what the text is saying is clear and obvious and that you are just taking it. Reading is not a passive activity, things only make sense, because you are connecting the dots in your brain.

Causality has nothing on this. All reading is anachronical.

>>3243965

>All interpretation disregards authorial intent. If it didn't, we would just write out the authorial intent.

Are you sure? You've never seen any interpretation which looked at the authors wanted to say, or their personality as evidence for it?

>>3243968
>Why is it 'clearly not' true? In the reader sees it and can point us to the reading in the text, how is it not true?

The idea behind the example of interpreting LoTR as allegory for Starcraft, 9/11, or the 'pleasure of being cummed inside', is that there is nothing that the reader can point to in the text which will back up the interpretation.

Replace those with something more ridiculous and I'm interested to see how you argue that some interpretations aren't wrong.

>>3244012

>Are you sure? You've never seen any interpretation which looked at the authors wanted to say, or their personality as evidence for it?

Yeah, I've seen uninteresting readers try to shoehorn the authorial intent into their reading, but that's not accepting the authorial intent, it's using a source they misguidedly think has authority. If they accepted the authorial intent, there would be no reason to write anything else.

>The idea behind the example of interpreting LoTR as allegory for Starcraft, 9/11, or the 'pleasure of being cummed inside', is that there is nothing that the reader can point to in the text which will back up the interpretation.

How can you possibly know that?

>>3244020

>
Yeah, I've seen uninteresting readers try to shoehorn the authorial intent into their reading, but that's not accepting the authorial intent, it's using a source they misguidedly think has authority. If they accepted the authorial intent, there would be no reason to write anything else.

Okay, so they haven't accepted AI. They haven't disregarded it either though, because they're using it as a source.

>How can you possibly know that [LoTR is not an allegory for the skill of Korean Starcraft players in 2012, 9/11 or 'the pleasure of being cummed inside']?

What sections of the LoTR do you think describe or refer to these things?

>>3244031

>What sections of the LoTR do you think describe or refer to these things?

It's not my reading. Why are you asking me?

>>3244042
Because if you can't come up with an argument for why they may be considered a valid reading, then I think we should conclude that there are some interpretations that are incorrect in the definition I proposed : that the interpretation does not corroborate with, or explicitly contradict the source material.

>>3244047

What. I can't come up with reasons for lots of possibly valid readings. Why am I suddenly the arbiter for all readings?

An author otherwise known for filling his books with countless metaphors spends 5 pages describing a tree. In his mind, he did those only for the purpose of creating a beautiful imagery for the tree. But until the end of time, scholars will write about how this tree symbolizes something.

That is academia in a nutshell.

>>3244053

Are you 11?

>>3244012
>You've never seen any interpretation which looked at the authors wanted to say, or their personality as evidence for it?
I've seen bad ones. I've seen 18th century ones.

>The idea behind the example of interpreting LoTR as allegory for Starcraft, 9/11, or the 'pleasure of being cummed inside', is that there is nothing that the reader can point to in the text which will back up the interpretation.
Well, if the guy is interpreting in that way, he must have seen something of it in the text. Maybe you should ask him for where it is, not us, and maybe he will convince you or not. Either way, you cannot go accusing him of not interpreting it well, because he is merely telling you what he read. In the same way, what you think is just obvious in the text might not convince another person and he will think you are contradicting the text, that what you are saying has nothing to do with it and so on. What then? You'd get mad at him for it and call him stupid and blind?

I don't see how you can't get this different interpretation thing, it's very simple.

>>3244047
We cannot defend something you invented. It's not a valid reading because it's not even a reading yet, no here has read it that way. Point is that it doesn't mean someone can't.

>>3244054
Because you have realized how much bullshit critical analysis is based on.

>>3244059

lol, alright dude.

>>3244057
Can you explain what is wrong with what I wrote without resorting to ad hominem?

>>3244053

As a former English major?

That's about the size of it, all right.

>>3244066

No, I'm not falling for your juvenile troll. Please just go away until you actually know something about literature.

>>3244066
Not him but...

>In his mind, he did those only for the purpose of creating a beautiful imagery for the tree.
That doesn't matter the slightest. When your teacher is talking about what the tree symbolizes, he is not talking about what the author meant with it.

>But until the end of time, scholars will write about how this tree symbolizes something.
You may or may not buy what they talk about it. But you imply that what the author meant takes the scholars right to do it and that's just not how it is or should be anyway.

>>3243868
the authors

>>3244070
Yep, I'm an English major too.

>>3244075
So you support this "scholarly" tradition of walking into a cave without a flashlight, and claiming to be able to know the way perfectly through it, and to describe the cave accurately without light?

>>3244054
Okay, fair point. You may not have a reasonable explanation for why LoTR is an allegory for the skill of Korean Starcraft players in 2012, or the pleasure of being cummed inside. But perhaps someone eventually link Gandalf to the GSL and Frodo to the keyboard, battles to sex etc. We'll just have to suspend our disbelief about the subject.

But what's really being asked here is: Why should we view an interpretation that completely eschews corroboration with the text as valid?

>>3244060
>Well, if the guy is interpreting in that way, he must have seen something of it in the text. Maybe you should ask him for where it is, not us, and maybe he will convince you or not. Either way, you cannot go accusing him of not interpreting it well, because he is merely telling you what he read.

Let's assume that this guy is just bullshitting. He's lying about what he feels is his interpretation of the book. Coming up with it as he goes along. Maybe he hasn't even read the book. Why should we consider his opinion as any shade of 'correct'?

>>3244094

>But what's really being asked here is: Why should we view an interpretation that completely eschews corroboration with the text as valid?

We shouldn't. What the hell are you even trying to do? You're being really dishonest now. Why?

>>3244089
I don't see what you mean about your analogy because I don't see it in that way. What's your criticism exactly?

>>3244094
>Why should we view an interpretation that completely eschews corroboration with the text as valid?
Because who is to say when it doesn't go with the text? We do, you do, people do. You interpret his interpretation to be eschewed from the text. It's your interpretation against others. He may say the exactly same thing about what you think about the text. It's a discussion, not a search for a correct answer.

So the bad news is that your view is not right and theirs is not incorrect. The good news is that you are not wrong and their interpretation is not right either. You can't put it in those terms.

>He's lying about what he feels is his interpretation of the book.
Then that's part of your interpretation. How would you be able to tell if he is lying or if he really sees that but can't express himself well enough to convince you? You see, these things are taken for granted. We naturally think "this is bullshit" or "this is obvious" or "this guy is lying", but if you ought to take text interpretation seriously you have to get over this common sense and read it.

>Why should we consider his opinion as any shade of 'correct'?
Again, you shouldn't. It's not a matter of being correct. And if there is any good point for him to hold those interpretations, he is the one who has to defend it and he might even succeed and convince you.

>>3244089

cmon man have you not read the intentional fallacy or barthes

discussing authorial intent is utterly fruitless

>>3244125

I don't know if it's always fruitless, but there are usually more interesting things to talk about.

>>3244110
The original contention was:

>Maybe an interpretation can be thought correct to the extent that it corroborates with a text

So we are agreeing that if an interpretation links nothing in the text to its thesis, then it is incorrect? Accepting this, could you not say then that an interpretation that links more elements in the text to its thesis, is more correct?

>>3244111
So what I've gained from your post, and correct me if I'm wrong, that an interpretation doesn't have to link up AT ALL to the text. I can make up anything about a book I haven't read, and it's just as legitimate as a well thought out theory that meaningfully explains parts of the text. Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

>>3244131

>So we are agreeing that if an interpretation links nothing in the text to its thesis, then it is incorrect?

It's not an interpretation of the text if it links nothing to it.

>Accepting this, could you not say then that an interpretation that links more elements in the text to its thesis, is more correct?

No. There's no linear scale of correctness.

>>3244137
>It's not an interpretation of the text if it links nothing to it.

I say LoTR is about Korean E-sports. I say this is because Frodo resembles a popular player in behavior.

>>3244131
>So we are agreeing that if an interpretation links nothing in the text to its thesis, then it is incorrect?
Q: how could you tell if it links more or less to the text?
A: You interpret it to be so

>So what I've gained from your post
That's not my point at all. The point is that when you say something is legimitate or not, you are already interpreting a text, a different text, the other guy's interpretation.

It's not a matter of whether we agree or not with the reading. Suppose I see a film and I get X from it. Then some other guy gets Y from it. We talk, I say why I think X, he says why he thinks Y, we disagree, we agree in some points. I watch the movie again and I can't help but to understand the point of view of Y, so that was added to the way I saw the film. And then later I read that the director/writer intended Z, but I don't get how. I watch the film a third time and I don't see Z, but I see X+Y still. You can't help it.

I don't see how to relate LotR with 9/11, I don't feel it and I wouldn't know where to begin connecting the dots. Two towers?However, if someone says to me they read it to be so, I'd ask them "but how?" and they would explain to me and I may buy his explanation and go "wow, that really makes sense" or not and if not, calling it bullshit doesn't get nowhere, because the guy will still be seeing the way he saw it. I could explain to him why the connection is a stretch and he might read it differently the next time or not.

>>3244153

Okay.

>>3244158
So how can the interpretation be considered correct?

>>3244156
See what I'm getting at here is some interpretations represent the text better than others. You said:

> I could explain to him why the connection is a stretch and he might read it differently the next time or not.

Doesn't this imply that if some interpretations don't 'connect the dots' we should take them with more grains of salt than others? That because one represents the text well and the other not at all, we should consider one more correct than the other. That's all.

>>3244164

Because you're corroborating it with the text.

Are you saying Frodo isn't in the text?

>>3244156 here

Let me put it in a different way. I think two things are getting in the way.

1. There is no precise thing that you can objectively check to see if it works. The only thing that is precise are the words themselves (ie my edition of LotR is the same as yours, with the same disposition of pages and so on), but the meaning of each and every one of those words is not precise. Meaning is a relationship, you only understand the words you think you understand because you relate them to other times you saw them. Now imagine that for the whole theme of a book. Whatever emotions, thoughts, interpretations you have for a book, they are connected by your personal experience. And so what you took from the book, what you understood, what you think is obvious is not an actual thing, it's your relationship to it.

2. There is no "correct". You are still pressing on correct. Reading a text is not about finding out what the author meant, but what those words mean. And those words mean what you perceive them to mean. The reason we might get mad "how come this interpretation has as much space as this other one?!" is only there if we think the guy who did the interpretation was talking about what Tolkien meant or whatever. That's not the point.

>>3244164
Ask >>3244153 for what he saw instead. He said Frodo resembles a popular player in behavior, do you deny that? And why? Now you two can discuss it.

PS: Posting joyful gif as well. It really lightens things up in a discussion.

>>3243938

Why should it be the most logically established framework?

>>3244171
It's not that we should take them with more grains of salt than others, just that we can. The interpretation is not invalid, it's just something you disagree completely with. The reason we think one represents the other better is also a personal interpretation. That means that this "one represents better" is not a solid basis that people should follow and at the same time it means that this is your personal basis that you should follow. In other words, you either buy it or not, you see it or not and you can talk about what you see and what you don't see, but you are not really ever talking about what is there and what is not, because the only thing that is there is words on paper, light on a screen, paint on a canvas and the rest is up to your head.

>>3244173
Yeah, but it corroborates with almost nothing in the text and provides no reason for believing that Frodo symbolizes the Korean player.

If a text is correct to the extent it corroborates with the text then this interpretation is almost completely incorrect.

Anyway, I'm tired. I'm sorry if I've wasted your time or appeared confrontational anon. I just wanted to learn more. I'll think about the issue more and try to do unbiased evaluation.

>>3244179
>>3244193

Alright Anon. I see what you're saying. Thank you for your patient responses and attempts to explain. I'll think about the matter in more depth.

>mfw when I discuss interesting things with reasonable people on 4chan.

>>3243868
I know it's a troll, but it plays on the american slave mind tendency that needs to be told what's right by an authority figure, you can't make decitions for yourself and you can't take responsibility.Seriously you guys should look into that it's very notorious.

>>3244207

>almost nothing

Is not nothing.

>almost completely incorrect

Is not incorrect.

>>3243868

Have none of you taken a Lit Theory class?

I'm just curious, because a lot of these expressions here are covered by the material in that class.

>>3244207
He said he looked like the player in behavior. I don't know about Korean sports enough to defend or attack his interpretation.

I know other perspectives of LotR that show nothing of it though. You also don't have the Korean sports perspective.

As the other anon said: Okay.

>>3244217
No problem.

I blame the gifs for the nice time. We ought to do this more.

>>3244222
>America
>fans of authority

Uh, you do realize that's a distinctly un-American value? I mean, granted, we're not quite so fine an anti-authoritarian populace as, say, Greece (where absolutely no one pays taxes), but there's got to be limits.

The interpretation that can most plausibly be rooted in the historical context and thereby get back to the author's intention.

>>3244078
This.
/Thread
/Board
/Internet

>>3245165
We need to hold a seance.

>>3245165
Read the thread...

And read some books too.