Analysis of Percy Bysshe Shelleys A Defence of Poetry - Book Report/Review Example

Finding Literary Meaning in Texts Introduction There is no denying that literary text can be ambiguous and fraught with one paradox after another making it difficult to interpret and understand its meaning. Quite often the meaning can only be discovered by a close reading of the text. To this end literary theorists have devised certain methods for the interpretation of literary texts. Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry for instance takes the position that the author provides the best method for discovering the meaning of a literary text. (Shelley, 2001) Stanley Fish, however submits that the reader’s understanding of the text is the proper means by which to interpret a literary text. (Fish, 1980) The purpose of this paper is to examine these opposing theories with the goal of illustrating that Shelley’s approach is the most realistic since reader response is far too objective to provide a congruent method of understanding and interpreting literary texts. It will be argued that while reader response is to a certain degree essential, the author’s intended meaning plays a far more important role in the construction and deconstruction of any literary text. Interpreting Literary Texts Interpreting literary text is a purely subjective exercise which features a position put forth by an author and the individual reader’s response to it. As a result there are no universal codes nor is there a correct or incorrect formula by which to interpret literary texts. (Harker, 1989, 465-481) Percy Bysshe Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry postulates that that the key to interpreting or finding meaning in literary text requires a measure of objectivity in that the reader puts himself in the context of the text and by doing so is able to draw extraordinary meaning from that which appears to be ordinary. (Shelley, 2001, 796) Stanley Fish takes the position that literary interpretation is purely subjective as each reader’s response is directed by his or her specific experience and linguistic competence. (Fish, 1980) In other words, Shelley’s position requires the reader to take a purely subjective view of the literature while Fish’s position requires that the reader discern the literature from his or her own perspective. While both approaches require a subjective view they differ in the sense that Fish suggest that subjectivity originates from the author and Shelley suggests that subjectivity originates from the reader. In both cases the text will provide the material to be assessed with the result that there are literary criticism and interpretation requires three essential elements which are, the reader, the text and the author. As will be illustrated throughout this paper, the best starting point and perhaps the most significant source for understanding and/or interpreting literary text is with the author although the other two literary elements are also important. It is undoubtedly true that the three elements of author, reader and text function together to provide an adequate understanding and interpretation of literary texts. The interplay of these three elements is succinctly explained by Stanley Fish who suggests that each reader typically reads the same sentence with the result that each can come away with a vastly different interpretation. Fish explains that: “Either there is a literal meaning of the utterance and we should be able to say what it is, or there are as many meanings as there are readers and no one of them is literal. But the answer suggested by my little story is that the utterance has two literal meanings.” (Fish, 1980, 305-306) The text itself is manipulated by the author in such a way as to manipulate the reader on a subconscious level. In the process the context in which the sentence appears provides some constraints preventing vastly different literary interpretations. (Bagwell, 1983, 127-133) Therefore, while it is possible that each reader will come away with different interpretations of a particular text, they will likely agree in principle since the author has some measure of control over how his or her text will be received. At the end of the day a cursory reading will not provide meaningful interpretation of a text since the reader is required to interpret what the author is writing in the context in which he or she writes. To this end, plots, themes, symbolism, setting, style, characters, points of view and motifs are required to be understood for a close reading of any text if the reader is going to provide a meaningful interpretation of the literary text. (Axelord and Cooper, 1987, 557-570) By keeping these literary techniques in mind, the reader draws on the writer’s specific representation of the subject matter of the texts as well as the individual’s own views of that representation. Even identifying plots, themes, symbolism, setting, style, characters, points of view and motifs can be a tricky exercise in any literary work. Quite often the linguistic style is ambiguous and open to interpretation. (Altieri, 1981, 3) In this way the reader’s attention may be drawn to action, process and procedure. The literary act is best understood by reference to behavioural performances attributed to every day conduct. It often becomes necessary to interpret literary action in the context of how the average individual responds to new situations or pressure. (Altieri, 1981 10) It would therefore appear that an entirely subjective view of the text is not an altogether satisfactory means of interpreting literary texts. Although Shelley is predisposed to recommend a subjective interpretation of literary text he puts forth a concept which requires that the writer engage in what appears to be an objective approach to his work. He does so by proposing that the author represents societal norms. (Shelley, 2001) As David Perkins observes: “Shelley was mainly concerned to explain the moral (and this the social) function of poetry.”(Perkins, 1995, 1131) In fact Robert Hutchins nd Mortimer Adler put forth vastly similar views of Shelley’s A Defence of Poetry by suggesting that: “In A Defence of Poetry, [Shelley] attempts to prove that poets are philosophers; that they are the creators and protectors of moral and civil laws; and that if it were not for poets, scientists could not have developed either their theories or their inventions.”(Hutching and Adler, 1963, 214) In other words, Shelley’s approach to the literary artists at least requires an objective perspective since it imports the idea that the author represents what is or should be accepted as the norm with respect to law and morality. Law and morality are for the most part objective concepts and while they may have different meanings in different societies they are in principle the same on a universal level. Shelley’s approach to interpreting literary texts requires at least in part some resort to the authorship of the text and its subject matter. There is no escaping the fact that literary texts are not understood and interpreted by pure intuition. Literary texts begin with the author who invariably puts together constituents that are not obvious all at once. There are many factors operating to influence the author’s thought process and the manner in which he or she communicates those influences. For instance the times in which the author writes as well as cultural discourse are common influences. Perhaps more importantly, linguistics and how it is used by the author plays a pivotal role in interpreting literary texts. While reader response is by and large intuitive there is a subliminal feature at work. The feature is the author’s manipulation of the language used in the text. Christopher Brumfit and Ronald Carter explain that: “What is said is bound up very closely with how it is said, and students come to understand and appreciate this. Literary texts provide examples of language resources being used to the full, and the reader is placed in an active interactional role in working with and making sense of this language.”( Christopher and Carter, 1986, 15) While it is obvious that reader response, literary text and author all work together to provide an accurate interpretation of the text, it is equally obvious from Brumfit and Carter’s notation that an accurate interpretation must begin with discerning the manner in which the author manipulates the language used in the text. Any meaningful approach to a literary text requires some understanding of the what the author intended to convey. That said, discerning the author’s intent is not enough by itself, but cannot be ignored. Quite often the author’s intention is not altogether clear and in those instances the text itself and reader response will arise to fill in the gaps. In looking to the author it may be necessary to look outside the text and learn more about the author and his or her particular style. It might also become necessary to learn about the times in which the literature was created and the sort of meaning commonly used in a particular time, genre or tradition. Moreover, it is often virtually impossible to distinguish the author from the reader since they both work together, although indirectly to give meaning to the text. It therefore becomes important to know how other readers and writers have come to interpret texts written in a particular time or tradition. Reading and writing are therefore parts of the same process. In this sense finding meaning in literary texts goes back to the author since reader response often influences the author. In creating literary texts the author has in mind the audience he or she is writing for and this will in many ways dictate the manner in which the text should be read, understood and interpreted. In other words non-scientific literary texts is created and conveyed by the author in such a way as to command aesthetic reading. Aesthetic reading and writing creates an emotional connection between the literary text and the reader. In this sense the reader brings with him or her personal feelings in the interpretive exercise, all of which are manipulated and controlled to a certain degree by the author. (Rosenblatt, 1995, 10-11) Even so there are those such as Stanley Fish who promote the theory that there is no singular mode of interpreting literature and much depends on individual reader responses. Along those lines, Pat Mora and James Welch explain that: “Reader response stresses the importance of the reader’s role in the interpreting texts. Rejecting the idea that there is a single, fixed meaning inherent in every literary work, this theory holds that the individual creates his or her own meaning through “transaction” with the text based on personal associations. Because all readers bring their own emotions, concerns, life experiences, and knowledge to their reading, each interpretation is subjective and unique”. (Mora and Welch, 2006, 1) The difficulty with the reader response theory is that it presupposes that the text lays bare and meaningless until such time as it is read, understood and interpreted by a reader. This can not be so since it was written with a specific audience, influence and meaning in mind. Since individuals approach interpretations from an intuitive standpoint there is a possibility for vastly different interpretations of a single text. At the end of the day a single text can be subject to so many different interpretations that it is rendered meaningless. There has to be a medium by which to reconcile these differences with the result that each interpretation can be connected in principle. The only viable means of achieving this objective is to take Shelley’s approach in which he suggests that the author represents the social and moral code of the times in which the text relates. Therefore, in the final analysis the author provides the core starting point with which the reader must draw his response in order to do justice to the spirit of the text. It therefore follows that reader response should be one of social accountability. The reader should approach the text with an open mind, keeping in mind that the text is prepared by a writer who represents social mores. Frank Kermode observes that: “...the most naive reading of a text, that treats it, for example as a transparent account of reality...is an interpretation.” (Kermode, 1979, 16) In other words, personal feelings and experiences are not determinative. The literary text is representative of a collective attitude rather than individual reflections. While individual experiences can help readers to identify with the text it is not a yard stick by which to measure it. In order to understand the text the reader must put his personal experiences aside and look at the text from a purely social and cultural perspective focusing largely on the times and tradition that the author wrote about. Conclusion The literary text itself begins in the mind of the author and cannot be appreciated without reference to the author. It becomes necessary to learn who the author is, his or her particular style of writing and the times and social norms that influenced his or her authorship. For instance a modern reader cannot possibly relate to Shakespeare’s Macbeth which was written several hundred years ago by drawing on his or her personal experiences. It will become necessary to draw on Elizabethan times and social norms existing at the time Shakespeare penned his play. This is the only satisfactory means of understanding Shakespeare and what he intended to convey to his audience at the time of writing. Only by learning about the author and the times in which he wrote that the reader can offer an effective response to Macbeth. The same logic applies to any meaningful interpretation of literary texts. Bibliography Alelrod, Rise B and Cooper, Charles, R. (1987) Literary Analysis. Reading, Critically, Writing Well: A Reader’s Guide. New York: St. Martin’s. Altieri, Charles. (1981) Act and Quality: A Theory of Literary Meaning and Humanistic Understanding. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press. Bagwell, Timothy. (1983) “Who’s Afraid of Stanley Fish?” Poetics Today. Vol. 4, No. 1, 127-133. Brumfit, Christopher and Carter, Ronald. (1986) Literature and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fish, Stanley. (1980) Is there a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harker, John. (1989) “Information Processing and the Reading of Literary Texts.” New Literary History. Vol. 20 No.2 465-481. Hutchins, Robert, M. And Adler, Mortimer (eds) (1963)“Gateway to the Great Books.” Critical Essays, Toronto: Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Vol. 5, 214. Kermode, Frank. (1979) The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative.” Harvard: Harvard University Press. Mora, Pat and Welch, James. (2006) “Reader Response: Theory Overview.” The Expanding Canon. Annerberg Media. Perkins, David. (ed) English Romantic Writers. Toronto: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Rosenblatt, Louise, M. (1995) Literature as Exploration. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. Shelley, Percy, Bysshe. (2001) “A Defence of Poetry.” Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. New York: W.W. Norton and Company The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Vol. 2 789-802. Read More