[MD] Step One

[david buchanan]

Mark said to dmb:
> 
> My opinion is that once a book is written in the fictional realm, the author
> releases himself from the character.  The reader then interprets the
> character as he sees fit.  In this way, a character continues to grow.  So,
> I suppose it doesn't really matter what RMP meant, he has no control over
> what the character becomes.  The character takes on a life of its own which
> is neither correct or incorrect.  One can read a book many different ways, I
> wish there weren't so many books to read!  I have returned to ZMM over the
> years for a reread, and find something new which jibes with what I have
> learned over that time.  Intentional or not, it doesn't really matter.  I
> love poetry for that reason, it always seems to fit the mood.

dmb says:
While it's certainly true that each reader brings something and there are many ways to interpret the text, the author's intended meaning is a very real factor too and every interpretation is constrained by the text to some extent. The writer and the reader are not the only factors but they practically define each other. Each function is literally meaningless without the other. 

The philosophy of art course I took was essentially a parade of mutually exclusive interpretive theories. Some said it was all about the author's intent. Some declared the death of the author and put the whole thing on the reader, although they were proud to have published such theories and didn't feel dead when they were cashing their royalty checks. Some said it was all about the cultural context or the means of material production. Commie Lit Crit, oh my! It was a frustrating semester because every theory seemed ridiculously narrow or myopic. I don't know how to add them all up in some grand synthesis but it seems pretty clear that they all make some important point. Each one can go into a toolbox. There are different kinds of books and different kinds of purposes for the reader, so why not have a diverse set of interpretive tools? And I want to use that analogy because interpretation is a skill and like the motorcycle mechanic, it demands a certain respect for the precision parts you're working on. 

Surely there are interpreters who are the literary equivalent of those careless mechanics who punched a hole through Pirsig's cover plate. The unskilled application of the wrong tool. Bam! Major damage. 


Not that you asked.


 




--------------------------------------------------------------
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:10 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hey Mark
> > Somebody asked Pirsig that same question. He said he was just going for a
> > name that suited the character and he thought of a lilac bush because of
> > it's aggressive beauty and unsubtle perfume. But he probably was exposed to
> > the concept of Lila as a cosmic dance or play when he studied in India and
> > words are just kind of magic sometimes. So even though the author did not
> > have a conscious intention to invoke that deeper meaning, I think it's there
> > anyway. People certainly WANT to read it that way and it makes a certain
> > amount of sense. On the other hand, that chick was total mess so maybe she's
> > mostly just Lila the bar lady, the one who wears too much bad perfume.
> >
> > dmb