mcgann
week 7: degree
“What learned people would choose is better than what the ignorant would choose.” – from the silva rhetoricae website.
to what degree does the reader determine the meaning of a text? mcgann states that, “to find flesh and blood is the ultimate purpose of reading, and its sophisticated partner, interpretation.” mcgann does not believe that even an active reader can “discover a document’s significant details and track them to their complete meaning.” according to him — and i do agree — interpretation (which is what happens after you read something) is a social act. social, political, and institutional frames of reference have an influence on an individual’s life. it molds their perspective, which can significantly impact how they interpret texts when they read them.
however, i don’t think that this means that a reader cannot make meaning out of a text. it could be argued that their interpretation is slanted, perhaps even misconstrued to some degree by misinformation, but does that negate the value of that interpretation to the reader? does the reader’s interpretation of a text, outside of academia, belong exclusively to them? i make that differentiation because it seems like once you publish an interpretation you make you interpretation public, and at this point it is the public (audience) who determines the value of that interpretation.
i’ll end with this: it has been hard for me at times to make flesh and blood out of a few of the readings in this nicholls book. i have to unpack the meaning, which takes time and energy, and leaves me wondering if i really know what the authors are talking about.
