Ezra Pound and T.S. Elliot fighting in the captain's tower
Gosh, I'm really spamming my journal now, but today's Text and Culture class gave me so much to think about that I just have to get it out.
We were talking about Litterary history and if, why and how one should teach it. The discussion eventually turned to the subject of who has the right to interperate works of art, if any interpretaion is right or wrong, if the artist has the definite interpretation and if it is important to know what the artist meant to say.
I always feel so split when it comes to this. I usually claim that when I read/hear a piece of poetry I don't care that much about what it means as long as it sounds or looks good. I can appreciate a poem for its clever rhymes or the beauty of its words, without bothering so much about any deeper meaning. Bob Dylan is a great example of this: people always want to analyse him to pieces and come up with all these advanced theories, some of which are very believable and others which are more or less farfetched. Dylan himself have claimed on several occasions that he doesn't care that much about what the words mean, as long as they fit into the metre, but then again, making life difficult for journalists seems to have been a bit of a hobby of his. My point is, however, that the greatness of songs (or poems, if you like) like Mr Tambourine Man is their flow, their beautiful words and images and the brilliance of its rhymes. It may be about Bruce Langhorne, it may be about a drug dealer, I really don't care. It's just as beautiful either way.
Sometimes you can't help but putting a deeper meaning into it, though, and in that case I think it is important to differentiate between my own interpretation and the feelings and thoughts it awakens in me and what the author meant to say. If the author him-/herself has explicitly said what they wanted to convey with a certain piece, then that, in a way, is the 'true' meaning. But it doesn't stop the audience to say that 'I felt like this and this' or 'To me it symbolised that and that'. There are of course extreme cases, like George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, which were in the 1950's used as anti-socialist propaganda, while Orwell himself desperately tried to explain to the public that he himself was a socialist and that he actually tried to critisise the stalinism of the Soviet Union. This, I dare say, is indeed a misinterpretation which in itself might have been acceptable, but when it was used in public and people started to ascribe to the author certain oppinions which he did not really share, it is, if not misinterperated, then at least misused. The question is if this widespread missunderstanding was a failure on Orwell's part?
If the author, however, has not stated an explicit message he wants to convey with his work, then I dare say that there is no right and wrong, but simply each individual's own experience of the work in question. Is it then important to know the circumstances under which it was created? It will, surely, increase the understanding of the piece in a way, but does this sort of 'backround knowledge' increase the experience of reading it? It might, I say, and it might not. An otherwise incomprehensible piece might become clearer and in that way more easy to appreciate, but there is a danger of losing ones own interpretation and just go with the one commonly presented. There is also a risk of the background or the creator overshadowing the work.
An example of this is something I learned today about Lewis Carroll. I had heard from before that 'Alice' was indeed a real girl and one of Carroll's students, whom he used to take boating every Sunday. During these boat rides he supposedly told her the story of Alice in Wonderland and later he wrote it down. What I did not know is that Carroll was very fond of drawing and photographing young girls with more or less clothes on them. He himself claimed that this interest was strictly artistical and had nothing to do with sexuality, but the fact that he was never involved with any adult women and the theory that he asked to marry Alice when she was eleven years old have led many to the conclusion that he was a peadophile. Now, I did not like Alice in Wonderland even before I heard this, but if I had, it would have disturbed me greatly. Even now I know that if I were to read Alice again I would most certainly think of this and I would look at the story from a completely different angle. So sometimes maybe it's better not to know too much background.
Then again, when it comes to my dearest idols, I love knowing details about their lives and how and where they were when they wrote which songs, but this normally doesn't keep me from having my own interpretation of them. So I guess what I'm really trying to say is that it all depends on the circumstances. As with everything else. What is important, though, is to always remember to separate my own feelings and the author's, because even if the author might have the final say in what a text really means, they can never decide what I should feel. Just like I never can decide how they felt when they wrote it.
*
Hrm, yeah, sorry about that. I probably missed a lot of points and it turned out really long anyway. But it was a very interesting class. I also learned, and I will keep this short, I promise, that Shakespeare lived for two years with London's at that time most famous, flamboyant gay man and that love poems written by Shakespeare to this man have been found. Shakespeare then, of course, joined the theatre, where there were many gay men and where the concept of drag(queens) started (sort of). That made me happy:)
On a different note (though not really) I discussed Naruto slash with a boy in my class today:D
And now I'm going to bed.
We were talking about Litterary history and if, why and how one should teach it. The discussion eventually turned to the subject of who has the right to interperate works of art, if any interpretaion is right or wrong, if the artist has the definite interpretation and if it is important to know what the artist meant to say.
I always feel so split when it comes to this. I usually claim that when I read/hear a piece of poetry I don't care that much about what it means as long as it sounds or looks good. I can appreciate a poem for its clever rhymes or the beauty of its words, without bothering so much about any deeper meaning. Bob Dylan is a great example of this: people always want to analyse him to pieces and come up with all these advanced theories, some of which are very believable and others which are more or less farfetched. Dylan himself have claimed on several occasions that he doesn't care that much about what the words mean, as long as they fit into the metre, but then again, making life difficult for journalists seems to have been a bit of a hobby of his. My point is, however, that the greatness of songs (or poems, if you like) like Mr Tambourine Man is their flow, their beautiful words and images and the brilliance of its rhymes. It may be about Bruce Langhorne, it may be about a drug dealer, I really don't care. It's just as beautiful either way.
Sometimes you can't help but putting a deeper meaning into it, though, and in that case I think it is important to differentiate between my own interpretation and the feelings and thoughts it awakens in me and what the author meant to say. If the author him-/herself has explicitly said what they wanted to convey with a certain piece, then that, in a way, is the 'true' meaning. But it doesn't stop the audience to say that 'I felt like this and this' or 'To me it symbolised that and that'. There are of course extreme cases, like George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, which were in the 1950's used as anti-socialist propaganda, while Orwell himself desperately tried to explain to the public that he himself was a socialist and that he actually tried to critisise the stalinism of the Soviet Union. This, I dare say, is indeed a misinterpretation which in itself might have been acceptable, but when it was used in public and people started to ascribe to the author certain oppinions which he did not really share, it is, if not misinterperated, then at least misused. The question is if this widespread missunderstanding was a failure on Orwell's part?
If the author, however, has not stated an explicit message he wants to convey with his work, then I dare say that there is no right and wrong, but simply each individual's own experience of the work in question. Is it then important to know the circumstances under which it was created? It will, surely, increase the understanding of the piece in a way, but does this sort of 'backround knowledge' increase the experience of reading it? It might, I say, and it might not. An otherwise incomprehensible piece might become clearer and in that way more easy to appreciate, but there is a danger of losing ones own interpretation and just go with the one commonly presented. There is also a risk of the background or the creator overshadowing the work.
An example of this is something I learned today about Lewis Carroll. I had heard from before that 'Alice' was indeed a real girl and one of Carroll's students, whom he used to take boating every Sunday. During these boat rides he supposedly told her the story of Alice in Wonderland and later he wrote it down. What I did not know is that Carroll was very fond of drawing and photographing young girls with more or less clothes on them. He himself claimed that this interest was strictly artistical and had nothing to do with sexuality, but the fact that he was never involved with any adult women and the theory that he asked to marry Alice when she was eleven years old have led many to the conclusion that he was a peadophile. Now, I did not like Alice in Wonderland even before I heard this, but if I had, it would have disturbed me greatly. Even now I know that if I were to read Alice again I would most certainly think of this and I would look at the story from a completely different angle. So sometimes maybe it's better not to know too much background.
Then again, when it comes to my dearest idols, I love knowing details about their lives and how and where they were when they wrote which songs, but this normally doesn't keep me from having my own interpretation of them. So I guess what I'm really trying to say is that it all depends on the circumstances. As with everything else. What is important, though, is to always remember to separate my own feelings and the author's, because even if the author might have the final say in what a text really means, they can never decide what I should feel. Just like I never can decide how they felt when they wrote it.
*
Hrm, yeah, sorry about that. I probably missed a lot of points and it turned out really long anyway. But it was a very interesting class. I also learned, and I will keep this short, I promise, that Shakespeare lived for two years with London's at that time most famous, flamboyant gay man and that love poems written by Shakespeare to this man have been found. Shakespeare then, of course, joined the theatre, where there were many gay men and where the concept of drag(queens) started (sort of). That made me happy:)
On a different note (though not really) I discussed Naruto slash with a boy in my class today:D
And now I'm going to bed.