Let's start with the basic assumptions that a person has read a book with attention and has mulled it over for a while.
Given those basics, can anyone's interpretation of the work be wrong? And if the meaning of the book is a form of truth, does this mean that there are multiple versions of the truth, all equally valid and all true at the same time, even if they are completely contradictory?
In part these questions arose from the context of some of the books that I have been reading. Jag alludes to it in a wonderful review of Vikram Seth's A Suitable Boy (accompanied by amazing before and after shots of the paperback that tells the story quite eloquently), this question around the fact "that there were an almost infinite number of situations in the narrative that made me wonder how a Western readership could comprehend it."
Many of the books I have been reading have been of cultures that are not the dominant one in the US. I have an intimate understanding of some of the cultures, and a better-than-the-average-American understanding of some of the others, and virtually no clue about yet another group.
When I read something from the latter category I am constantly aware that I have no way to judge its "authenticity" (hello briggy) and am most likely missing many implicit references; when reading a book from a former category I am aware that I am "getting" stuff that I don't think the guy next to me will.
And I think this makes a difference to someone's interpretation of a book, and can end up turning around a final opinion of the work. But still, each considered opinion is in its own way a co-existent parallel truth, is it not?
When I search for an annotated version of a work to help me understand the references, am I then altering my truth? Or more precisely, am I tampering with my truth? Or am I creating just yet another truth, which now co-exists with the truth of the first reading within me? Or am I destroying my original truth? And if it can be destroyed, was it ever truth in the first place?
Comments (5)
There is a school of thought which contends that there is no absolute meaning in language; the "sender" has one meaning and the "receiver" has another. There may be some truth to that, but I believe that the science of language can adequate define the precise meaning of words, perhaps also phrases and indeed, whole books.
But here is the problem. The admittedly-imperfect skill of the writer is involved in making the words convey his or her intentions; the reader must, through limited common experience, attempt to ascertain the writer's original intent through those words.
Posted by Chrysalis | February 25, 2005 9:23 AM
Posted on February 25, 2005 09:23
I often feel that way about poetry - if my interpretation is different from the poet's intended one and if so, whether I am enjoying the poem like it was meant to be enjoyed. But over time i've come to believe that there are no absolute interpretations. The poet himself/herself might look at their work many years after writing it, and take a different meaning out of it. The context is likely to change, shaped by the experiences the reader (and sometimes the author doubling up as the reader) is going through in life at that point. And there is nothing wrong with this. In fact this ability to adapt to different interpretations, this fluidity, if I may call it that, is what makes a work of art (a poem, a book, a painting, a sculpture..) that much more fascinating. Even after I understand it, I continue to think about it, seeking a new meaning out of it..
Sorry about the longish comment, got a li'l carried away :) Stumbled upon here from your comments on Sagnik's site, and boy am I glad I did. Wow! Your writing as well as your photographs are wonderful! Makes me not want to leave. If you won't mind, may I add you to my blogroll please?
Thank you for giving us a glimpse of your world..
Posted by Megha | February 25, 2005 12:30 PM
Posted on February 25, 2005 12:30
Chrys - But surely accurately conveying the meaning of an entire book, or even a phrase, is true only when we deal with "science," or fact, not art?
Megha - precisely. So context is an essential part of truth?
And please, don't worry about lengthy comments; I'm afraid I rather have a reputation for hijacking others' comment-areas for entire treatises of my own, which I later (lazily) rehash as posts on my own blog :-)
And no need to ask permission to blogroll as far as I am concerned. (Although I guess if the owner of the roll was espousing some cause or viewpoint with which I drastically disagreed that might change...)
Posted by Sivani | February 25, 2005 5:30 PM
Posted on February 25, 2005 17:30
I think the whole point of an interpretation is that it'll always differ from reader to reader in the same way that the book itself will phrase things differently depending on the author.
The Truth can be unachievable at times - My Truth is much easier to find.
Posted by Em² | February 25, 2005 10:21 PM
Posted on February 25, 2005 22:21
I go to a book club on occasion and thoroughly enjoy how one writing is refracted off of differenct personalities and differing experiences. There's the severely analytical lawyer; the good fairy lady, the social worker, etc. - we all have some point of view and get different meaning. Our discussion adds a whole new dimension to the author's writing and thus any writing read by many is a living thing. So, that which you write here in this blog, get assimilated into many other thought processes. Geeze, do I make any sense here?
Posted by Mary | February 26, 2005 12:26 PM
Posted on February 26, 2005 12:26