Friday, February 22, 2008
Mean(ing(s))
Suppose we had a single entity -- a poem, for example. That poem, while single, is also multiple. It is multiple in meanings. We would expect as many understandings of a good poem as there are readers of that poem. Does this mean that the poem can mean anything? No -- there are ways we can give a poem the wrong meaning. There is a mean of meanings that are well within the realm of what the poem can mean, though it may be no mean feat to determine that mean. We would expect the various meanings to have some element of similarity, though a new insight can shift the center of meaning for many. Just because there are some whose understandings of the poem belong in the long tail of strangeness, that does not mean there aren't better and worse ways of understanding what a poem means. The exception does not negate the rule. THe true meanings group among the mean.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
But don't the most profound, sensitive, definitive readings often come from readers of rare quality? Wouldn't it be just as likely that the mean of meanings would reflect the conventional, the commonplace, the banal?
Perhaps, to some degree. Remember, though, that there are two long tails. One is the long tail of ridiculous interpretations, while the other is the long tail of brilliance. The best scholars on on that tail, and should be looked to to help inform the mean. The mean should be more of a golden mean -- a mean of excellence. I would say that even the best interpretations should consider the insights from and obviousness of the conventional, the commonplace, and the banal, for those are equally true understandings of the poem as well. The mean I am talking about is that mean that results in a majority going, "Oh yeah! You're right! I do see that!"
Post a Comment