tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22992265.post5991161157580651637..comments2023-11-02T09:18:44.063-04:00Comments on Old English in New York: Is there a Methodology in this class?Mary Kate Hurleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14892991966276345782noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22992265.post-32818107891736325862010-09-06T20:00:29.095-04:002010-09-06T20:00:29.095-04:00I find your question interesting. The idea of ask...I find your question interesting. The idea of asking how the text makes its meaning rather than what it means... a completely new idea to consciously pursue.<br /><br />As an undergraduate, this is making my head spin. I'm looking back at previous papers and finding hints of this question in some of them, most obviously in the paper I did on Chaucer's <i>Merchant's Tale</i>. I think with a conscious effort at it, this question could be the cornerstone of very fruitful critiques on all sorts of texts.The Mad Dreamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10104841422695591759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22992265.post-64033323268964777832010-05-04T12:07:49.516-04:002010-05-04T12:07:49.516-04:00When I was younger I used to think there was an en...When I was younger I used to think there was an encyclopedia of symbolism somewhere that had every symbol established already, e.g. "green light at end of pier" equals "American dream." <br /><br />But as I wrote more fiction I discovered that other readers were interpreting my writing in ways I never imagined, e.g. "the mask" equals "dehumanization of character by the narrator." WHAT?!? <br /><br />Of course I realize that sometimes I too stretch the text to make it fit my idea of a worthy interpretation. In fact, I'm pretty sure we all use literature as a looking glass to study our own subconscious needs. <br /><br />And that's what it's for, at least partly, because the best literature helps us discover what it means to be human, not just what it means to be animal or logical or mortal, but all of those things at once. <br /><br />That's why literature is so powerful, because one reader can decide that wyrd is the onward rush of certain doom, and another can decide that it's liberation from the paralyzing weight of self-determination. And the whole story changes depending on how full is the flagon of mead.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705324643599500748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22992265.post-85105904894768126392010-01-29T12:23:06.315-05:002010-01-29T12:23:06.315-05:00If one's methodology includes an idea that com...If one's methodology includes an idea that communication is possible, then surely a well written piece of literature can communicate whatever 'allegory' becomes necessary to its meaning, which I believe is indeed ultimately the one that the author intends (though I think there is a legitimacy to what we bring to the text, if we keep that separate from the text itself). It will always be mixed up -- but if language accommodates itself to that mixing up, and if words are sufficient to make us think new thoughts, we can hope to apprehend a meaning outside of ourselves and what we bring to a text. I do believe the nature of language is such that it can convey not only meaning, but the necessary framework for apprehending it. Too often though, we aren't really listening -- we prefer our own interpretations, and the problem becomes a spiritual ('pride'? as referenced in the post) rather than a purely intellectual one?<br /><br />That's just the take of a housewife who doesn't understand all the technical jargon, but did enjoy the post -- as well as, poking around on your blog -- immensely. We have some favorite authors in common (& I deeply love Beowulf) Thanks.Heidihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06164206860431077787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22992265.post-83540666012113451232009-11-01T18:16:23.270-05:002009-11-01T18:16:23.270-05:00Everybody's got a methodology; the question is...Everybody's got a methodology; the question is just whether it's explicit or implicit (and please don't ask me to define mine!). A complete disavowal of methodology must be based on false consciousness, surely. The real motivation for the choices governing your reading remain obscure. "Empirical" interpretation requires a certain method and an awareness of the factors determining the outcome. (Natural scientists have painstakingly to document their methodology when conducting an experiment as well, even if it's just based on "seeing what's there").<br /><br />Now, Fish may be right in railing against that form of Deconstruction which ultimately has only itself as its goal: find the point where the text begins to unravel, pull, sit back with a smug look on your face. Such an approach is interesting in terms of what it reveals about language as such, but ultimately says nothing whatsoever about any individual literary text. As you put it: every text becomes an allegory of the deconstructibleness of language as such.<br /><br />But as long as deconstruction (or any other branch of criticism for that matter) remains less self-serving and actually concentrates on the text or texts at hand, it (they) can illuminate different facets of meaning which the others are blind to. The problem with rejecting them all and just "reading what it says" (quite apart from the fact that you don't just throw out 100 years' worth of literary criticism as useless and misleading) is that it falls prey to the very assumption it claims to identify in deconstruction, namely that its is the only correct/true/meaningful reading of the text. This, furthermore, is not something true deconstruction would ever subscribe to and hence this attitude is based on a fundamental "misreading" of a rival methodology.Kárihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06000804601372463795noreply@blogger.com