Re: Interpetation methods

[ANGLTRED@aol.com]

<< >If a writer (or listener) doesn't like the way a song is interpreted,
then
 >too bad...you can't control what others feel and think about a specific
song.  
  >>

Interpretation is a matter of both mind and heart or science and
spirituality, whatever you may call it.  The basic hermaneutical process is
to first get to the root of the author's meaning and the message he/she
consciously intented to relay.  That is *interpretation*, which is the part
of the process in which our mind's work takes precedence.  Then, we can
intelligently say "and this is what it means to me...", which is not
interpretation, but *application*--the part of the process where our heart's
work takes precedence.  

We can best apply a writer's words to our own lives and world views if we do
everything in our power to understand the writer's perspective.  By doing
this, we don't just jump right into the "what it means to me" discussion,
which can leave us moving within very narrow margins within which to apply
the words.  If we start with the writer's meaning and expand from there by
adding to it our own perspectives, it broadens our margins and allows us a
greater playing field for application.  If we begin with our own paradigms
and attempt to fit the writer's meaning into that, we're risking ending in a
jumbled up mess that doesn't make any sense, for the writer's paradigm may
not encompass any of our own at all.  

As for Kate saying that the meaning is up to each individual listener--I
don't agree with her philosophy toward textual criticism at all.  I do
understand how the application can be up to each individual, for that is a
highly subjective matter;  however, for Kate, or any other writer for that
matter, to maintain that they did not "mean" anything when they wrote, that
they did not have an intended message to their words, strikes me as quite
odd, perhaps pointing to a lack of confidence in their own opinions and
thoughts.  

So, how do we solve this dilemma?  Kate says "interpret it how you choose."
 But she obviously must have had some specific meaning in mind when she wrote
the words.  I mean, they were not merely strung together in random order, but
she chose each word for a specific reason, each having a particular semantic
range within her thought process.  So therefore, are we to follow Kate's
direction (which may not be the most authoritative, by the way, as
blasphemous as that may sound to some of you! ;-) and do with her words as we
please, or are we to be good stewards of the English language and attempt to
systematically interpret the meaning which she had in mind when she wrote and
then add to it our own personal application for that meaning?  It seems to me
the answer is clear, but then I'd be totally disregarding Kate's wishes.  I
can't help but wonder how much the author's own philosophy of literary
criticism actually determines the way we should approach criticism of their
particular literary material.  I lean toward the understanding that it
determines nothing at all.  

Anyway, just my two cents worth on the entire interpretation discussions
we've been recently experiencing again and which we have been discussing
regularly for at least the past year and a half since I've been
here...probably longer!  You'd think that by now we'd be moving on to some
sort of transcendant discussion.  We've hashed these same old things around
for so long and so thoroughly it seems!  But hey, it keeps me amused, just
the same.  :-)

~~~Sam