Doug Schutte & Mark Causey

• Introduction
• What is literary interpretation?
• Where does interpretation take place?
• When does literary interpretation occur?
• How does literary interpretation happen?
• Why bother with literary interpretation?
• Debates with the realm of literary interpretation
• Author’s Intention
• Subjectivity vs. Objectivity
• The One True Meaning of a Text
• Bibliography
• Links to Related Web Resources
• Meta-Narrative on Content and Form

At its very core, Literary Interpretation is a professional, practical, and perpetually open-ended conversation. It is at the center of all studies in the field of literature. Whether one seeks to specialize in "Minority Studies," "Feminist Studies," certain aspects of "Literary Theory," or "Textual Scholarship," the literary scholar must interpret. (For a comprehensive overview of each of these fields, see Marshall). It is therefore critical for the potential literary scholar to understand this portion of the profession. The following questions and answers should help to define "Literary Interpretation," and the "Current Debates" sections examines some of the most important debates going on within the realm of "Literary Interpretation," including subjectivity versus objectivity, the relevance of the author’s intention, and the possibility of multiple readings of texts. If nothing else, remember that when entering the field, and trying to join into the professional conversation, one cannot read all that is out there—there is simply too much. But one must be informed well enough to add something important to the conversation.

Interpretation is an event. Literary interpretation involves making a literary text "speak again" to an audience. Because literary texts are written documents, they cannot speak for themselves. In oral conversation there is a speaker and a listener, and the listener has the opportunity to question the speaker and to check his or her understanding of what is being said. This ability to question the speaker is not as immediately available to the reader of a written text. The interpreter is called upon to help bring forth the meaning of the text. "What is to be understood is already there, but is unable to speak for itself. Its message needs mediation through the interpreter's special knowledge and skill" (Marshall, 159).

Just as the interpretations of texts have changed over time, so, too, has the definition of what it means to interpret. OneLook Dictionaries describe this new way as such: "…postmodern discourse insists that interpretation is a relatively free process of producing meaning in cooperation with a text, rather than simply deriving it slavishly from a work to which one is chained." In the current role of interpretation, the choice of the word ‘text’ (rather than ‘work’) symbolizes the change of beliefs in regard to interpretation. Using ‘text’ has shifted the emphasis away from finding meaning in a text, and moved it to creating meaning in cooperation with a text. With this shift, the interpreter plays a much more integral part in the literary process, for she now creates meaning.

"An interpreter is someone who helps another understand the meaning of something" (Marshall, p. 159). The interpreter is expected to hold a greater level of knowledge of the subject he or she is interpreting. The interpreter becomes the mediator between the text and the audience. Interpreters give voice to a text that cannot speak for itself. As a literary interpreter, one becomes a part of a professional conversation that constantly changes and evolves, adapting to the current needs of society. Within the professional realm, interpreters responsibly look to literature for insight in the human condition.

To better understand literary interpretation, it may be helpful to examine other areas where interpretation takes place, for interpretation occurs in many areas of life outside of literature. Interpretation is, for example, a large part of both legal and religious activities.

In the courtroom the judge is called upon to interpret the written text of the law and apply it to a real situation. The judge becomes the interpreter, the law is the text, and the parties concerned become the audience. The law cannot speak for itself, but its meaning is relevant to the practical concerns of a present audience. The judge's interpretations of a given statute then goes on to set precedents that will affect the interpretations of other judges dealing with the same text.

In the religious practice of most of the major religions of the world, there is some text that is considered authoritative and sacred. It is the role of the priest/minister/shaman to interpret this text to the audience of the faithful. This is one of the central acts of the Judeo-Christian religions. The Protestant Reformation was in essence a battle of interpretations (and who had the right to be an interpreter). Many so-called "heretics" were burned at the stake in ages past because their interpretations of the Bible ran counter to the accepted interpretations of the church.

Literary interpretation essentially begins the moment an author publishes a book, for at that moment there is a need for someone to bridge the gap between the imaging audience created by the author, and the imagined voice of the author created by the audience. Thus literary interpretation will take place anytime there is a text, an audience, and an interpreter. Whenever meaning is not clear, whenever a text cannot speak to the audience, the audience needs an interpreter's knowledge of the subject to help elucidate the meaning. The text needs the interpreter because without her, it would no longer be able to speak to the audience. With an interpreter, a text can know an endless life. Once the interpreter is gone, however, the text dies with her.

Some quotes taken from Marshall:

"The need for interpreting arises when a text with which we find ourselves concerned resists immediate absorption into the ongoing stream of our practical life" (176).

"[I]nterpretation begins when a text appears to stand out from a background and invite commentary (166).

Literary interpretation is the activity of bringing forth the meaning of a text. It takes into consideration such things as the cultural and historical milieu of the text and how that particular text came to be (textual criticism). Literary criticism is also concerned with the intentions of the author and the various rhetorical moves the author makes within the text. Literary interpretation aims not so much at the one true meaning of a given text, but rather acknowledges a plurality of possible and persuasive readings. It is not a question of right or wrong interpretations, but of the more persuasive argument based on the textual evidence. The more persuasive argument is the one, which takes into account the most of the textual evidence (Boehm, see also Stierle).

As Dr. Karen Hadley said in an interview with her, the professional interpreter is better informed than the average reader. This information can come from a variety of contexts: Social, Cultural, Historical, Temporal, Linguistic, Economic, or Psychoanalytic, to name a few.

As Ricouer states, "The right of the reader and the right of the text converge in an important struggle that generates the whole dynamic of interpretation." Right in the middle of this is the professional institution of interpreters.

Why bother with literary interpretation?

In the Socratic dialogue Protagoras, Plato compares interpreters to "vulgar people who bring in 'flute-girls' to entertain at a party, whereas properly educated people know how to entertain one another with their own conversation" (Marshall, 165). To Socrates the endless puzzling over the meaning of a text proves inconclusive and unreliable. Socrates distrusted writing. So, if we can never arrive at the one true meaning for all time of a text, why bother? Humans by nature must interpret. We must find meaning. We find in texts of all sorts of things that speak to our human condition; things that impel, command, and comfort us.

One of the big debates in interpretation theory is the question of authorial intention (Rosebury). How much of an author's intention can we know? Does authorial intention even matter? Deconstructionists have declared the death of the author. Other schools maintain that some knowledge of the author's intent is crucial to interpreting a text. Knowing whether an author intended a piece to be ironic, comic, or polemic will help affect the way one approaches the text. Some interpretive theories privilege the role of the reader and his/her responses to the text over the author and his/her intentions. There is also the possibility that an author's intentions for a piece can fail. "We also want to know whether what he said was what he meant" (Stecker). If one wishes to best interpret, a middle ground must be struck. While it is clearly impossible to know completely the author’s intention (for even the author may not know that), we must also realize that the text is something created by the author, and there are certain intentions of authors that have substantial impacts on texts.

Another issue in interpretive theory is the issue of subjectivity versus objectivity. (For in depth reading on this, see Currie and Stecker. Currie writes that only a low degree of objectivity can be achieved in interpretation. Stecker rebuts Currie’s piece, and argues that high level of objectivity can be attained. Also see Ricoeur). Can interpretation be objective (i.e. empirically defensible) or is it always finally a matter of individual taste? How many valid interpretations are possible for any given text? Can we agree on the criteria for interpretive validity? These are just some of the current debates and issues in the field of literary interpretation, and once again a middle ground must be looked for if one is to successfully interpret.

As a professional interpreter, private readings serve little purpose—it is the job of the interpreter to make the text speak to many, not to simply relate personally with the text. While the professional interpreter cannot fully separate herself from the text that she is interpreting (for she is human), the professional community to which she belongs will serve to objectify her readings of texts. Thus interpretation can be both subjective and objective.

To believe that this is the ultimate goal of interpretation is to be gravely mistaken. There is no such thing as the one true meaning of a text. It simply does not exist. If there could be one true meaning, the meaning would have to be so transparent that there would never have been a need for interpretation at all. In addition, very few authors have only one aim when writing, so how could an interpreter find only one true meaning? It is impossible. The interpreter must realize that she is not trying to solve a riddle, but rather to add something new to an academic conversation that has been going on for centuries.

Boehm, Beth. Personal Interview. 5 Oct., 1998.

Currie, Gregory. "Interpretation and Objectivity." Mind 102 (1993): 413 - 428.

Hadley, Karen. Personal Interview. 20 Oct., 1998.

Marshall, Donald G. "Literary Interpretation." Introduction to Scholarship in Modern Languages and Literatures. Ed. Joseph Gibaldi. New York: MLA, 1992. 159 - 182.

Ricoeur, Paul. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian UP, 1976.

Rosebury, Brian. "Irrecoverable Intentions and Literary Interpretation." British Journal of Aesthetics 37.1 (1997): 15 - 30.

Stecker, Robert. "Objectivity and Interpretation." Philosophy and Literature 19.1 (1995): 48 - 59.

Stierle, Karlheinz. "Interpretations of Responsibility and Responsibilities of Interpretation." New Literary History 25.4 (1994): 853 - 867.

Vattimo, Gianni. Beyond Interpretation: The Meaning of Hermeneutics for Philosophy. Trans. David Webb. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1997.

On-line Literary Resources: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Lit/

The International Association for Philosophy and Literature: http://www.sunysb.edu/iapl/index.html

Related English 601 sites:

• Literary theory
• Feminism and gender studies

This document has been created in the question and debate format because this format seems to deal most efficiently with issues that an undergraduate or first-year graduate would want to know about literary interpretation. The material is high-minded without the language being so exclusive as to alienate prospective students, and so it seems that anyone with an interest in literature and interpretation would find this piece most helpful. While the "What/When/Who/Why/How" format is fairly standard, it also serves as the best avenue in which to explore the main points on literary interpretation. This format is popular for a reason—it asks the main questions to get at the most important answers.

Paragraphs have been laid out in standard web format, which is to skip a line between paragraphs and not indent. For easy access, a table of contents has been placed at the beginning that lists each section. With this option, an interested party can either scroll down through the complete document, or they can click on one of the points in the table of contents, which will take them directly to the desired section. Also, critics' names are linked to that author’s bibliography entry located at the end of the document. Thus if a student wishes to investigate further a quote or point in this report, she can simply click on the name and will instantly have the bibliographic information.