When we were discussing “The Affective Fallacy” by Wimsatt and Beardsley in class yesterday, Karen raised the question that if we cannot base the meaning of the poem off of the intent of the poet, then is it completely legitimate to have a million different interpretations of a poem, and say that the poem really does mean what I think it means, and what someone else thinks it means, and so on and so forth?
One of the ways that Wimsatt and Beardsley would field this question would be to say that
“[t]he more specific the account of the emotion induced by a poem,
The more nearly it will be an account of the reasons for emotion, the
poem itself, and the more reliable it will be as an account of what the
poem is likely to induce in other—sufficiently informed—readers.
It will in fact supply the kind of information which will enable readers
to respond to the poem.” (NA 1398-1399)
So, according to Wimsatt and Beardsley, if a poem’s emotion is specific enough, then there really should be no problem in finding out what it means, if you are a “sufficiently informed reader,” that is. If the poem is good enough, it will give the reader the information they need to figure out what it means, and these interpretations will be similar to other readers’ interpretations.
We discussed this quotation in our small group, and we came to the agreement that Wimsatt and Beardsley would say that the form of the poem, even down to the way the words are situated on the page, will be enough for the reader to determine meaning. The concreteness of the poem will be how you find the meaning.
What strikes me is how Wimsatt and Beardsley describe the reader: “sufficiently informed” (NA 1399). Am I a sufficiently informed reader? I would certainly hope so, but, say, for instance, someone was reading a poem, and was not “sufficiently informed,” would their interpretation of the poem be illegitimate, even if they could properly justify their argument? And is poetry too high a form of reading to be read by everyone, informed or not? Someone can do their best to critically read, and perhaps not be “sufficiently informed,” so does that mean their response should not be taken into account?
2 comments:
You know, I was wondering the same thing about the whole "informed reader" business. Does one have to be well-versed in all of the most classic pieces of literature (and who's to say that pieces that even includes?) in order to be informed? Or is it more a matter of understanding the particular subject being discussed? Who gets to say what informed even means?
Reasons I'm not a Formalist, I suspect, haha.
Yeah, I agree with the Wims and the Beards. And what I /imagine/ they mean by "informed" reader, just from CONTEXT...I'm guessing they mean intelligent and artistically sensitive as opposed to not. Cuz a person who is not artistically sensitive really would get a well-written, consistent poem completely wrong. Like thinking that Lady Lazarus is actually about the biblical character Lazarus or something. So to put it in simpler terms, success of poem depends on how well poem is written and how well the reader can absorb and interpret through the medium of poetry.
And if they get poems wrong all the time they should have gotten frustrated enough by now to leave the scene and pick up something else.
Late night leaves me a tad sarcastic.
Post a Comment