I would like to posit that there is a correct interpretation of a work of literature. The correct intepretation of a work of literature is that which the author intended to communicate to the extent that it is not contradicted by the denotation of the work.
For instance: I cannot write a work "The Cat is Red" and then maintain that the correct intepretation of the work is that the cat is not red. If my intention was to convey that the cat is not red and attempt to do so by writing "the cat is red" than there is no correct interpretation because my intent and the denotation was contradictory. I would also maintain that I would be an idiot, but that is of less relevance here.
This is not to say that we cannot interpret material that the author did not intend. There is great merit in recognizing implications that may have arisen by accident, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the work means what the author meant it to mean.
Nota Bene: this is not the product of long deliberation and is very open to comment and revision.
What, exactly, does the term 'correct interpretation' mean? Surely it does not mean the only interpretation with merit; if interpreting a work correctly means interpreting it according to the author's intentions, that would imply that other interpretations are worthless. This is clearly not the case, as stated in the post above. Alternate interpretations, particularly if they follow easily from the work and as such become popular amongst readers and society in general, can have great value.
ReplyDeletePerhaps 'correct' means 'best.' In this case, one must wonder why precisely the author's interpretation is the best. Possibly it is the most valid or truthful, but I am not certain why this would be the case either.
P.S. I also posted this on my blog if you'd rather read it there.