Anyway, I was going to add an addendum to my first comment but got caught up watching the football game & also hoping the Yankees lost last night. But I was going to add that looking at what we read into a text can be helpful and valid, but it says way much more about us than it necessarily says about the work itself. So, looking at what we read into a text can help us understand what our presuppositions & biases are rather than saying that what we read into the text is an accurate reflection of what the text means.

But I think nowadays it seems much easier to simply focus on what I think a text means. And then we end up talking about various people’s readings of the text rather than the text itself. And we mistake eisegesis for real interpretive work. Which is why literary criticism is hard work, figuring out the difference between what a text says or means and what we think it says or means or would like it to mean.

A few things to put on the table, some of which are in agreement with what’s been said: We always put our personal stamp on a given interpretation. Looking at a book from a cultural studies perspective is valid, as long as it’s recognized as cultural studies and not literary interpretation. The conversation itself is fun, with all perspectives on board.

It is absolutely true that our choice of literary criticism ends up reflecting our point of view. I read iconologically, because I think that human beings know on four levels. Others are Reader Response critics, because they come from a more postmodern angle where absolutely certain knowledge of particular things is not possible. So it does come back to questions of epistemology: what can we know, and how can we know it? And we’ll usually disagree along these lines.

Literature in particular makes this interesting, because writers aren’t aware of all their biases when writing, nor are readers aware of all of their biases while reading. So the product itself and the act of understanding it is difficult!

But I also don’t throw my hands up in the air and say, “We can’t escape ourselves, so let’s give up on meaning!” To me, in the end, there is an actual goal to the interpretation process: we find the best meaning of a text. It’s not anywhere near that simple, but I do think it’s fair to say X is not a good interpretation because of reasons Y and Z. I also think there are times when we can say X and Y are both equally supportable interpretations.

Since, by profession and education (although I do and have read a lot), I am outside the lit crit crowd. I look at literary criticism as a kind of voyeuristic game. We can use any number of approaches, from Freudian, Maxist, Moralist, Mythic, Traditional and on and on, and all it does but portray our own pov. (My favorite game is Cognitive Scientific! Hilarious!) To me, none of these are right or wrong. I really don’t care about Mr. Bloom’s opinion.

Maybe because I am from music, I automatically accept other’s individual interpretations of an exposition. I assume, one will put their own personal stamp on a given interpretation. I can even enjoy and laugh with other’s impositions. Maybe – because I know they are not permanent. The work stands alone. And whatever we take out of it – or clothe it as – it’s a joy in the exercise.

I thought that what it was was stepping outside the prevailing culture’s accepted norms and seeing how those norms are reflected in the work. I think it was Dave who said that you could never entirely step outside of accepted norms, but one way of doing it would be to compare the social norms of the work to the social norms of another culture.

I think it would be interesting to read about interpretations or analyses of Harry Potter from other cultures. I guess we already have one example of that based on the Christian fundamentalist reading of the books as supporting devil worship. And I guess the Muslim fundamentalists might interpret it in a Satanic, not to mention licentiousness-promoting light. But I don’t think that’s where the social justice agenda is coming from. It’s more about looking at the work from the perspectives of minority groups within the dominant culture. And not necessarily minority groups – just other groups besides the one whose voice is most prominent.

I am not an expert in literary analysis, but my primitive understanding of the subject suggests that this kind of analysis is different and should be approached differently than the type of analysis which attempts to discern the author’s meaning.

So, for example, I wouldn’t argue that Harry is simultaneously Arthurian and a “Cinderfella” if I didn’t think the text supported it. I wouldn’t say, “Let’s read Harry as a Cinderella figure in order to deliberately feminize him so that we don’t have a male hero.”

It might not be happening in literary criticism as much as it feels to me like it is, having gone through the education program of a fairly radical graduate school.

eisegete: to place meaning on a text which is not originally or inherently present in the text itself

Travis, when you say that it is believed we should do that, who are you referring to? Is it a promininent or prevaling trend in literary criticism?

What does “just” or “fair” mean in this context? Supportive of cultural perspectives other than the one shared by the author and the majority of he readership? Reading from the perspective of a minority group?

Can you give some examples?

Would a feminist reading of HP come under that? An African-American reading? A transgendered reading? A Spanish-speaking people’s reading?

I’m trying to find time to do some work on the interplay between what we read into a text and trying to discern a meaning. George MacDonald and even Tolkien, for example, seemed to give some importance to what we read into a text.

But I think the key difference between what they were talking about was this: they recognized we all have different perspectives, backgrounds, abilities, etc. Today, it is believed that we should deliberately eisegete a text, creating radical readings for social purposes. In other words, we have to, quite deliberately, turn a text like Harry Potter into something we don’t actually believe it is in order to sustain a “just” or “fair” reading of a very popular cultural artifact.

I’m fine with those perspectives being part of the overall discussion. But I’ll be their debating partner, not their advocate.

I think WB is going overboard. That being said, what I love about your site is that it is fairly non-commercial. You’re not owned by WB and the comments on this site are free to exist. Wonderful! You’re kind of like the PBS of Potter websites.

I’m sure you guys have seen this before, but it really matched your talk about hero/heroine in a funny way – so here goes (it’s only part one);

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9onI92OxBHY

Liked your comments on Dracula. But then I probably didn’t need to tell you that since we’ve been in agreement before on it. But I did especially want to point out something you said about being able to “read stuff” into a text. I think it’s important to remember that all sorts of things can be read into a text & some of them might even be in there, but reading things into a text and actually figuring out the meaning of a text are two different things. I think we do entirely too much “reading into” texts nowadays as opposed to working to actually figure out their meaning in context, which is of course much harder work.

Anyway, great pubcast. Hope a lot of people find The Hogshead through it.

Oh, almost forgot about the story on the mom wanting to put on Harry Potter Halloween parties & charge tickets for it & Warner Brothers sending out a cease & desist order. I suppose while they’re within their legal rights to do so, I just don’t see the point of shutting down things that really can only bring them more advertising & business in the long run. I mean, it’s not like Warner Brothers is going to be throwing Potter themed Halloween parties so they can’t say they’re losing money on it except in a tangential way. But then again, I think copyright laws are totally out of whack & haven’t kept pace with reality but that’s just my opinion.