by nic » December 25th, 2005, 1:41 am
Bos said...
Can once read too much into interpreting a text? a text always has three levels of interpretation... 1) The meanings of the words, the symbols on the page. 2) What the author intends to communicate via those symbols. 3) The meaning communicated in the mind of the reader via those symbols.
Although I know what he's getting at, later he used this third point to demonstrate his "interpretation" of the Incredibles as a Christian story- which I thik is a fairly coherent use of that story as an illustration. It however does not follow from this layout of hte task of interpretation. Although reader centered approaches to texts have been popular at least since the onset of deconstruction and the use of the New Criticism in Literature departments, the basis of good writing and the assumption of the use of the symbols of language is that the meaning of level 2 & 3 are to be precisely the same.
Lewis, as a literary critic was no fan of the New Criticism and spoke against it on more than one occasion. But more than that he was one of the most ardent supporters of precise language for that reason.
I think the three levels of interpretation from the Patirstic writers (Chruch father from teh first 5 centuries) may be what B is looking for:
1. The Literal Meaning
2. The Typological Meaning
3. The Allegorical Meaning
There would be more room there for a more free associating, reader oriented approach, but even then the patristics did not engage in typology or allegory the same way someone like say, Philo did. The typology and Allegorical thinking of hte fathers was always inter-cannonical and Christ centered. So the inter-text drove the allegorizing of the specific smaller bits of text. So then if God is the big "A" author of scripture, it is still an author centered approach to interpreting the bible.
My Point: I think if we want to engage in the artistic endevor of enrichment by seeing different pieces of art as "christian" in the sense that they can be seen to illustrate a Christian Truth (Memento is my favorite), the I think Lewis would pleade with us to use a more precise english word for that endevor- like "illustration" or "that Memento is a "picture" of the christian doctrine of sin."
Once we say, "Memento can be interpreted as a Christian story" instead of "Memento can be re-told as a..."we are allowing interpretation to be legitimate when it likely has little to do with the definite content the text is artistically exploring. Once the object of that content (the "objective" meaning) turns to the subject, ie. the viewer (the "subjective" meaning) the authority of meaning turns from a definite source- the single creative author- to an infinite number of subjects. It may multiply people's artistic experiences, but it also democratizes interpretation, taking away its central fulcrum of authority- its ability to be a message from a source that is saying something definite to subjects.
This is most important for those who think the bible has an author who needs to retain the authority to say something definite and author driven.
Oh, and the statemetnt of Aslan after the table is broken is my favorite too. (Which is why I was pretty frustrated that the film changed the word "incantation" to "another interpretation"- a meditation on that script change will say everything about our culture and the caution I was trying to voice above)
