[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

interpretation assigns an external meaning to the text, it says "what the text is is not really the text, it's what i make of it", which usually tends to be some sort of normative discourse (psychoanalisis, marxism, feminism, frenchwankerianism, etc). sure, humpty dumpty could make the words mean what he wanted, but my point, ultimately, is that it is much more fun and enjoyable to read novels as novels, not as allegories that refer to some other "true" reality.

interpretation is fine when it is called for-- in translation, diplomacy, a bit of hermeneutics to aid reading. but interpretation is the lowest form of reading pleasure i can think of. it's almost a denial of reading itself. it says that the pleasure is elsewhere--not in the reading, but in the interpretation itself. which is, granted, what eggheads love to do--

Actually I quite enjoy reading novels and stories in an allegorical way, it allows me to find more depth and substance and in the end give the narratives that much more a personal sense of meaning and impact, rather than be just another means to an end, just another few hours to kill. But my bias is that I am an academic historian, and not only have I been trained to look at everything in the world in terms of meaning, symbolism, and causality, but I thoroughly enjoy it to the core of my being. I wouldn't read a novel anyother way, just look at my analysis of Sacrament, the novel I am currently engaged in.

taught in literature departments everywhere. can't the text exist for itself?

yes, but you should not be so constrictive in your art, so compartmental and orderly. Art is a language of personal expression, never forget that. People use art to express feelings and thoughts which perhaps may have otherwise been inexpressible. Language is deeply individualistic, you can't even try to limit it with legalism, that shit doesn't fly, and no artist would want to you be so Papist about things..

and maybe i misspoke when i said that is not what the author intended, because yes, the author puts a lot of things there completely unaware, but that doesn't mean that everything goes. like this: <<i see the blue color of this screen and i am reminded that chabib, coming from a people of the desert, must be fascinated by the ocean and wanted to give us the impression of being submerged underwater when we post in this here forum.... although this is more of a dark cerulean, which adds the vision of the "other" to this virtual batysphere where we delve into the abyss of the human mind>>

Regardless of is chabib had any such intentions about the color scheme, if individuals naturally feel and interpret that out of it, how are they wrong? Again, individual interpretation is not necessarily about trying to always find the author's intentions so much as to describe the individual reception and sincere feelings about a work of art. Art is democratic. Even Kurt Cobain rightfully said, "Its whatever you want it to mean."

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

always always never always. ok so power/control/orthodoxy? in which way? the orthodoxy, if anything, is to apply interpretations.

i don't deny people the pleasure of their fantasies but i do not agree that said fantasies are the meaning of the text or are even in the text.

I notice you keep criticizing only one of my interpretations, but have on several instances neglected any comments on my other interpretation of Rebecca and other characters representing the clash of the indigenous mind set and experience with that of the "modern", "Latin American" should i take it then that you don't disagree or shall I footnote some more for ya

Originally Posted by Glice

You're asking him to bore you so you can say it's boring.

Reading comes first, but how do we share books? In silence? In stolid regurgitation?

my point exactly.