I really enjoyed reading James Creech's "From Deconstruction" excerpt lambasting Barbara Johnson. It's not that I didn't take away anything constructive from Johnson's article; she lays out a solid and airtight argument regarding Claggart's character. But I agree with Creech when he says that she leaves no room for other interpretations.
One thing I think that Creech's article shows us is the different lenses and biases we all as readers and critics have. I recall that once Amanda pointed out the "Jemmy Legs" ejaculation excerpt, we tried to look for more homoeroticism. That's not to say that it isn't there in the text of Billy Budd! I just wish to point out what I understand Creech to be saying in his article; that if we come to a text with a certain expectation and the purpose to find that in the text, we are eliminating other potential venues of fruitful meaning and analysis. This vaguely reminds me of philosophical concept of 'synchronicity,' a Jungian term regarding the experience of two or more events that are unrelated but are seen to take place together in order to produce meaning. One example I'm familiar with is "The Dark Side of the Rainbow" where people sync up Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon album to the film version of The Wizard of Oz. The purpose of this is to see that the two mediums work together in tandem and the lyrics of the song often describe what is happening in the film. Some criticisms the Dark Side of the Rainbow has come across is that is the moments of synchronicity are overshadowed by the multiple and numerous instances where the music and film do not sync up and our brains discard information that does not fit with the pattern we have decided to see.
I'm not 100% well versed in Jungian theory, but if we take reading the text as an event and interpreting/analysing the text as a separate event, we can see how synchronicity can be applied to our studies. If we force a text into a certain argument or do not not consider the opposing side, then we fall into the fault of Barbara Johnson as Creech sees it; "Johnson acknowledged no other reason to read Melville's tale" (17). I'm primarily thinking of the ways academics sometimes do not consider that perhaps their argument is wrong, misinterpreted, or even other venues for meaning within the text.
I'm not an expert in Jungian theory either, but I think you make a good case for the applicability of synchronicity (or at least the theory of it) to literary studies and the criticism it produces. But, if synchronicity is the the pairing of two unrelated events (or texts, or whichever we're talking about if we stretch the term), then what are we saying is unrelated, a text and a theory? I think the beauty of theory is that each one brings out particular elements of a text, which provides a richness and a wider resonance for the reader. While I also agree with Creech in his reading of Johnson as both elusive and exclusive, I think that one of the great things about theory is that it can find many differnt labels for something seemingly abstract. I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say, what if Creech is guilty of forcing a text into a certain argument or not considering the opposing side (to borrow your phrasing)? Is there such a thing as a misreading of a text, or is that a subjective conclusion? Professor Goodwin has made the point that it's important for a theorist to decide where they stand on the reading of a text (that's not to say that Johnson has done so, as Creech has spotlighted her razzle-dazzle approach to writing)--to find the a full and rich meaning of a text (as Eve Sedgwick points out), which, subjectively, one may argue, a certain theoretical application renders over another. Maybe that's why the most "full" readings of texts employ not just one theory, but a mix of several.
ReplyDeleteOk, well, on the one hand, I want to say I agree with that. Both of you, multiple interpretations especially. But it is also important, I think, to consider an outsider perspective. This is what all the people who hate us critical theory people hate us for. They want solutions, yo. But what they see for us is indless inquiry into what looks to them like no solution, but only more questions. It ends up looking circular and illogical to the outsider. You get crap, cute, easy critique of Derrida or Butler from the likes of analytical philosophers. How do you test it? They ask. If there are endless numbers of ways of looking at it, how do you test any one theory and what is the standard for correct interpretation?
ReplyDeleteI am not advocating this.
I am trying to pinpoint the obvious difficulty in communication. I... believe in critical theory. But I also believe it is and ought to be testable. I also believe that multiple interpretations really only points to deeper problems of our own abilities of perception, our relationship to reality and it's knowability, and also of the overwhelming complexity of these ideas.
I don't know the solution for dealing with it, after all, I think the complaints are often definitionally anti intellectual and conservative in the worst sorts of ways. But there is a part of me that still feels like we ought to be able to make a clearer case. That if we could get people to listen, they would change their mind.
I mean, I did.