Lawrence Douglas' The Catastrophist (Other Press) has been sitting on our inbound shelf for a little while and we've meant to check it out but we're even more inclined to do so now, based on this Chronicle of Higher Education essay in which Douglas experiences firsthand the effects of the literary theory he's been teaching the kiddies at Amherst.
My own position, hammered into my students' heads in the course of a term's immersion in thorny hermeneutics, is resolutely contrarian. It's not that I believe that intentionalism is wrong; I simply question its claim to be the best form of interpretation. "Of course the author's intentions are relevant," I tell my students, "but why should they monopolize the meanings of a text? Certainly a constitution or a poem or a novel should be able to support meanings other than those intended by its author."
Baffled, if not appalled, the students invariably respond, "But what if Coetzee were sitting right here in this room and said that our interpretation of one of his novels was complete hogwash — wouldn't we have to accept his opinion?"
"Not at all," I respond. "Artists are notoriously unreliable in what they say about their own work," and here I mention Bob Dylan's profound meditation on his lyrics — "I was just trying to make it rhyme" — a quip that itself may be apocryphal. "At best, an artist's statement about his text is just another text that requires interpretation."
Or so I thought until my last sabbatical, when I wrote a novel. I had wanted to try writing a novel for some time, and had a clear vision of the book I would write. Shortly before my first son was born, I suffered a rash of panic attacks. Although the decision whether to have children is one of life's gravest, few novels or films have examined it — except in the hackneyed "future father fears loss of freedom" treatment. So I believed that I had a fresh and important theme.
Read on to find out what happened next ...
Comments