Saturday, October 15, 2011
Differences among readers within texts
As I was finishing up my SCD #2, I came to the realization that we put ourselves into texts. Now, I know we talked about this is class, but it never truly resonated with me until a bit ago. An epiphany struck. The reason two people cannot seem to read a text with the same quality of understanding is simple: they aren't the same person. We can both understand an idea, but we'll inevitably see it in at least one different way, and as Derrida claimed, that one difference is what makes language so convoluted. Each word represents something, which represents something else. If each reader originally interprets that specific word differently, then the rest of their signifiers will signify completely different concepts. This seems so simple to me now when last week it just wasn't resonating whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Do you think that by putting ourselves into texts we have a better chance of understanding what the author is trying to say? This might go along with Ong's concept of fictionalization of the author/audience; I have been thinking about this whole concept after finishing up my second SCD, and I wonder if the only way that any form of "true communication" can occur is if the author fictionalizes him/herself to cater to an audience that is also fictionalized. In doing this, the two parties would somewhat meet in the middle to share a pseudo-truth. This is maybe an overly-romantic view of literature, but it might function well in the attempt to define critical theory.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn, I think you've made an important realization and that this theory can be seen quite clearly throughout Persepolis in regards to the idea of truth and how it can be contorted based on the role of perspectivism. Because Satrapi’s art style throughout the novel is undoubtedly simple, it significantly adds to the telling and interpretation of her story. As McCloud mentions in “The Vocabulary of Comics,” “by stripping down an image to its essential ‘meaning’ an artist can amplify that meaning in away that realistic art can’t” (McCloud 30). However, I feel she chooses this method to emphasize the child’s perspective of which it is told more so than to draw connections between Iran and the Western world. It is possible that Satrapi believes her simple, abstract style offers readers a window of invitation into her story, a window that strips away any confusion that could be garnered from the complexities of the tale she is to tell.
ReplyDeleteI feel that an example of this could be how Marji, the young narrator of the story, chooses to only include short and precise pieces of information through the form of vivid black and white drawings. What she shares is what she deems to be most important. Although the information is not always completely accurate, it is successful in delivering the events that impacted Marji’s life the most. The black and white can also serve as a symbol in the story. It would represent the clarity in which Marji see’s the events taking place. Even if the events occurring during the world at that time were deemed more important by society, because they did not result in a meaningful impact on Marji’s personal life, they were not included based on her understanding of the situation.
Kaitlyn, you mention that "each word represents something, which represents something else." But I would like to play around with that statement from Derrida's viewpoint. According to his Differance theory, words do not represent something, they simply represent what something is not. You do, however, make a claim that I think speaks to the inability of language to be an effective tool of communication. If an individuals references are different from the speakers, then a chain reaction is set off. This is especially true in relation to complex ideas that are not grounded in, as Locke would say, nature. Locke touches on this conflict of signification in his "Essay on Human Understanding" that I feel compliments your statements made in regards to signification. He focuses on mixed modes, asserting that "The names of mixed modes are, many of them, liable to great uncertainty and obscurity in their signification" (Locke 818). Why? He continues "Because of the great composition these complex ideas are made up of." So, according to Locke, the signification of complex ideas, words and mixed modes are imperfect due to the inevitable fact that every meaning within the "complex composition" of a particular sign can be interpreted differently.
ReplyDelete