Bladewing_The_Risen t1_j6k6h0o wrote on January 30, 2023 at 10:21 PM

Reply to comment by lucia-pacciola in The 10 Inalienable Rights of the Reader by swedish_librarian

To an extent.

We've all read Harry Potter, right? You don't get to say "Harry defeated Voldemort because love always conquers evil!" when the text explicitly says "Harry defeated Voldemort because Voldemort wasn't the true owner of the wand in his hand and the series established in the first book that wands choose their owners and don't work right for just anyone."

It's one thing to have your own interpretation when the text is intentionally vague, but if the text explicitly says something--or very obviously implies something--you don't just get to say, "Well that's what I think, so that's how it is."

That kind of attitude doesn't promote critical thinking or thoughtful analysis of evidence and I don't think it should be encouraged or supported.

lucia-pacciola t1_j6k8pk2 wrote on January 30, 2023 at 10:35 PM

Saying I think someone has the right to read a text for themselves, and decide for themselves what they think it means, is not the same as saying I think all interpretations are equally valid and correct.

There's also a huge difference between reading comprehension, where you correctly or incorrectly understand the explicit statements of the text, and interpretation, where you reach conclusions about the implicit themes and subtexts of the text.

PreciousRoi t1_j6kdiqh wrote on January 30, 2023 at 11:07 PM

No, but, the thing is, when you say that you think someone has the right to "read a text for themselves and decide for themselves what they think it means" someone might read that and interpret it AS "all interpretations are equally correct", and then they might go back and cite your statement as a support of their argument. There could be a huge difference between your ability to comprehend and interpret text and when which is appropriate to the needs of the moment at hand...someone else, later, might not. And you didn't even say that much, it was much shorter, just "The right to their own interpretation of the text".

They might just say "I have the right to my own truth, and see, this out-of-context statement completely supports my position". You can't control who is going to read a bare statement of apparent fact, about a "right" and interpret what you said in a different way than you actually meant it if you don't qualify your own statement. The added qualification and your clarification add to the quality of the discussion and 3rd party reader's understanding. It was a bit too simplistic, a bit too concise.

lucia-pacciola t1_j6kfw70 wrote on January 30, 2023 at 11:23 PM

Sorry, you've gone much farther up your own ass than I care to follow.

Bonezone420 t1_j6kdjnr wrote on January 30, 2023 at 11:07 PM

You're taking the text far too literally though, and kind of doing the opposite of critical thought. Like, even with a very basic surface level reading of Harry Potter: the main character literally would not be alive without the mysterious power of Love, therefore one can indeed come away with the read that love does indeed conquer evil in the end.

Bladewing_The_Risen t1_j6ku8kq wrote on January 31, 2023 at 1:06 AM

Bad example; sorry.

Let’s say someone said “Harry defeated Voldemort because Jesus was on his side.”

Sure, they could ramble for hours about how Harry is a Christ figure—or maybe Dumbledore and/or Snape are Christ figures who supported Harry—but at the end of the day, that’s explicitly not what happened. That’s them twisting a narrative to say what they wanted it to say and mean what they wanted it to mean. That’s not valid. That’s like saying “The United States Declaration of Independence says I have the right to own slaves because having other people do my work for me would allow me to pursue my happiness.” Like, sometimes your interpretation is just wrong.

Bonezone420 t1_j6ky0p4 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 1:34 AM

>Like, sometimes your interpretation is just wrong.

Is it though? If someone can provide examples from the text that the feel supports their interpretation convincingly enough; then how is it wrong? That is the entire purpose of analysis and examination of art. If you disagree you're free to try and argue why that can't be the case; but simply pointing at the text and saying "the text doesn't literally say this" is quite possibly the worst way to go about it - after all, Animal Farm is famously an allegory for the russian revolution; but while it's been a good while since I've read it, I don't think it gets too literal with it. If someone were to talk about their interpretation, would you point to the book and say that since it doesn't literally feature tsarists and communists - that because it's just about animals - their interpretation is wrong and invalid?

What about if I say that Harry Potter is actually about a determinism and how nothing matters and everything is determined at the moment of your birth; and the world merely happens to you?

Unusual-Yak-260 t1_j6lc3z2 wrote on January 31, 2023 at 3:20 AM

Harry didn't defeat Voldemort. Voldemort killed Harry and his horcrux in the forest. Neville rose up killing Nagini and ran Voldemort through with the sword of Gryffindor in the great hall. That's what happened and you can't convince me otherwise, no matter what the text says.