[Sigia-l] Findability is dead, Long live ummm... Meaning?

[George Olsen]

On 3/28/03 4:38 PM, "Jim Kauffman" <jkauff at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Reader-Response theory is not very useful, because it makes a common-sense
> notion academic. 

To avoid a lengthy rehash of various literary theories, let me summarize
them as follows:

- Authors (in the broad sense) often, but not always, create their works
with an particular audience (persons) in mind.

- Authors often, but not always, choose their words carefully to convey
particular meanings. (As the Mark Twain saying goes, it's the difference
between "lightning" and "lightning bug.")  That said, authors inevitably
have a worldview that may consciously or unconsciously affect their work.

- The work itself can be observed separately from both the author's intent
and the audience's interpretation. Generally these observations aren't that
interesting -- it's stuff like word frequencies in a text, or that a C#
scale is used in a piece of music. But these characteristics have been used
to identify paintings based on brushstrokes and pigments, or to identify the
previously-anonymous author of "Primary Colors" by identifying a high
frequency of unique phrasings he used in that and other works.

- While the author may have a particular intent, audiences will make their
own interpretations. (This is the essence of "camp," for example, Ed Wood
thought he was making serious horror movies. Audiences laughed at their
ineptitude.) Incidentally, current brand strategy thinking recognizes that
no matter how much effort is spent on brand identity, ultimately brand is
defined in the eyes of the consumers.

- The audience's interpretation may be affected by who they believe the
author to be. Your reading of the "Baghdad Blogger" will undoubtedly differ
depending on whether you think he's a genuine Iraqi, a CIA psychological
operation, or just someone who enjoys spoofing the public.

The various lit-crit theories over the last century have generally focused
on one of these points, often to the exclusion of the others. As Jim says,
lit-crit theorists seem to have a talent for making common-sense notion
arcane. 

BTW, this model is also pretty close to one used by family therapists to
talk about interpersonal communications.

George