What do you think?
Rate this book
Interpretation & Overinterpretation
The limits of interpretation--what a text can actually be said to mean--are of double interest to a semiotician whose own novels' intriguing complexity has provoked his readers into intense speculation as to their meaning. Eco's illuminating and frequently hilarious discussion ranges from Dante to The Name of the Rose, Foucault's Pendulum, to Chomsky and Derrida, and bears all the hallmarks of his inimitable personal style. Three of the world's leading figures in philosophy, literary theory and criticism take up the challenge of entering into debate with Eco on the question of interpretation. Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler and Christine Brooke-Rose each add a distinctive perspective on this contentious topic, contributing to a unique exchange of ideas among some of the foremost and most exciting theorists in the field.
164 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
31 people are currently reading
1189 people want to read
About the author
Umberto Eco
942 books11.8k followersUmberto Eco was an Italian medievalist, philosopher, semiotician, novelist, cultural critic, and political and social commentator. In English, he is best known for his popular 1980 novel The Name of the Rose, a historical mystery combining semiotics in fiction with biblical analysis, medieval studies and literary theory, as well as Foucault's Pendulum, his 1988 novel which touches on similar themes.
Eco wrote prolifically throughout his life, with his output including children's books, translations from French and English, in addition to a twice-monthly newspaper column "La Bustina di Minerva" (Minerva's Matchbook) in the magazine L'Espresso beginning in 1985, with his last column (a critical appraisal of the Romantic paintings of Francesco Hayez) appearing 27 January 2016. At the time of his death, he was an Emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, where he taught for much of his life. In the 21st century, he has continued to gain recognition for his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", where Eco lists fourteen general properties he believes comprise fascist ideologies.
Eco wrote prolifically throughout his life, with his output including children's books, translations from French and English, in addition to a twice-monthly newspaper column "La Bustina di Minerva" (Minerva's Matchbook) in the magazine L'Espresso beginning in 1985, with his last column (a critical appraisal of the Romantic paintings of Francesco Hayez) appearing 27 January 2016. At the time of his death, he was an Emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, where he taught for much of his life. In the 21st century, he has continued to gain recognition for his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", where Eco lists fourteen general properties he believes comprise fascist ideologies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews
April 29, 2022
Umberto Eco, Italian novelist and intellectual, dies aged 84
in: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016...
---
You don’t have to be a psychologist, or a psychoanalyst, grappling with the sense of dreams, or any behavior, emotion, act, whatever, typical of your fellow man; or of yourself. The search for meaning can be extended to any text, or image, or set of symbols. Or signs.
Take the so-recent case of this ongoing “operation” within USA territory: “Jade Helm 15”. A military training scheduled for two months in 10 states. Voices have been raised up trying to find the MEANING for this unprecedented event. Adding to civilian concerns (security, stress on the elder population…) some* have seen “beyond” the symbols involved.
Many are those getting worried, despite all the positive messages being displayed on the media. Like: “it will be good for the economy….all blank ammunition being used…no explosives…”.
What interpretations for those symbols used? For those “arm-bands” which “define” the operation?
Some are defending these almost apocalyptic scenarios of an “economic collapse” pending and similarities to Hitler’s time: martial law is upcoming. Others predict guns confiscation, and the UN stepping in. Some see “occult meanings”. But yet, those occult meanings are not told. You’ve got to decipher it. Some see Texas threatened. Others are suspicious about the concomitant movement of the Russian Navy Armada “Liberation Exercise” into the Gulf of Mexico.
...
Are these people exaggerating? OVERINTERPRETING the signs? What is the real meaning (if any) for the above mentioned operation? Just drills?
...
...
The book at stake has three essays by Umberto Eco that deal with those questions (suggested previously): are there limits to interpretation? What are the authors’ intentions? Can over-reading be pinpointed/identified? Is it interpretation a finite (terminable) process or, otherwise, an interminable one?
Eco’s position may be summed up in some lines.
(1) There is a dialectics between the rights of the reader/interpreter and the rights of the texts. But paramount: is the ACTIVE ROLE of the interpreter (check on the prophetic work of 1957 “La hora del lector”, by J. M. Castillet; and Opera aperta by Eco, in 1962). As Todorov said: “the author brings words” the “reader brings sense”. The problem arises when the sense is occult, you may wonder.
-What was the “original intention” of the author? That would be equivalent to say: if you find the “original intention” than your interpretation is “valid”. Maybe.
(2) Historically (regarding Western Thought), Eco sees major determinants in the interpretation “démarche”. First and foremost the Greek Rationalism. Very much like the search for the Logic. “Knowledge [search for the Truth] meant understanding the causes”.
But in the West we also had Irrationalism (see Goethe, Nietzsche…). Jung said that the Divine Image at a certain point became “too familiar” and lost its mystery. “The truth is something we have been living with from the beginning of time, except we have forgotten it”.
But then we had, also, the Hermetic Tradition. That may hinder the interpretation process, if it postulates “everything is secret, hermetic”. How do you get the “gnosis” (Knowledge)? And not, simply, the “aisthesis” (perception) or the “doxa” (opinion)?
Eco satirizes within this vein about “The syndrome of the secret”, as a heritage of these Gnostic and Hermetic traditions. It’s almost funny reading about the examples given by Eco on the Bible misinterpretation, and especially in the case of Jack the Ripper; one who “needed Medical care”.
(3) So, reader (and interpreter) you’re kind of demolished by these prior lines. Eco nevertheless, points some guidelines as a way out: the real reader is one who understands that the text secret is its “emptiness”. [-are you boggled??]
The best attitude, when interpreting, would be that of the slave (not the master’s one). Therefore: “Let us first rank with the slave”. “The message can mean everything”.
(4) The Eco’s essay on “over interpretation” is, again, a source of smiles. Pardon me.
He ponders at length on the work of Rossetti who claimed Dante to be a Freemason, a Templar etc. That essay offers some principles of Hermetic Semiosis, that may help anyone trying to understand the limits within which a reasonable interpretation may occur. Otherwise, you’re over interpreting. Beware of The Followers of the Veil: Eco has seen those in “the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy”, but also in Rabelais, Joyce and Virgil.
(true, Borges' hand)
As a personal note I would like to say that this Eco view (establishing some limits to the interpretation) does not coincide with the Borges’ view. Namely, on his definition of a classic. ” A classic is “as if in its pages all was deliberate fatal, deep and like cosmos and CAPABLE OF ENDLESS INTERPRETATIONS”. [Check on the “I king”: the 64 hexagrams allow for MANY MEANINGS].
(5) Finally, and away from this book.
In 2011, a propos his book “The Prague Cemetery”, Eco was interviewed at his home, midst the thousands of books that compose his personal library. He complained about a (“stupid”) reviewer of the book saying something like: if you keep saying all is a forgery (check on the Protocols of Sion) there is no truth at all [“since you’re showing everything is false there’s no longer a truth”]. Eco, slightly infuriated, took a (drastic?) example to make his point: if you tell me this is a forgery of the Gioconda (Mona Lisa) painting, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a true one; “YOU HAVE TO ASSUME” there’s a true one in the Louvre (Museum).
True, truth is something we assume exists. Our (slave-readers) démarche is to find it.
Someday, maybe, I will comment on the essays by Rorty and the others.
Thus far: TRULY excellent, Eco.
Meanwhile, I can hardly wait for August. Then, JadeHelmet Helm in full swing. And the Prophets of Doom, what about them?
I assure you something, things, then, will take a NEW MEANING.
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRB05...
UPDATE
Jade Helm 15 is past; no martial law or FEMA camp implemented; Texas still holding. ERGO: OVERINTERPRETATION.
-Really?
in: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016...
---
You don’t have to be a psychologist, or a psychoanalyst, grappling with the sense of dreams, or any behavior, emotion, act, whatever, typical of your fellow man; or of yourself. The search for meaning can be extended to any text, or image, or set of symbols. Or signs.
Take the so-recent case of this ongoing “operation” within USA territory: “Jade Helm 15”. A military training scheduled for two months in 10 states. Voices have been raised up trying to find the MEANING for this unprecedented event. Adding to civilian concerns (security, stress on the elder population…) some* have seen “beyond” the symbols involved.
Many are those getting worried, despite all the positive messages being displayed on the media. Like: “it will be good for the economy….all blank ammunition being used…no explosives…”.
What interpretations for those symbols used? For those “arm-bands” which “define” the operation?
Some are defending these almost apocalyptic scenarios of an “economic collapse” pending and similarities to Hitler’s time: martial law is upcoming. Others predict guns confiscation, and the UN stepping in. Some see “occult meanings”. But yet, those occult meanings are not told. You’ve got to decipher it. Some see Texas threatened. Others are suspicious about the concomitant movement of the Russian Navy Armada “Liberation Exercise” into the Gulf of Mexico.
...
Are these people exaggerating? OVERINTERPRETING the signs? What is the real meaning (if any) for the above mentioned operation? Just drills?
...
...
The book at stake has three essays by Umberto Eco that deal with those questions (suggested previously): are there limits to interpretation? What are the authors’ intentions? Can over-reading be pinpointed/identified? Is it interpretation a finite (terminable) process or, otherwise, an interminable one?
“In 1957 J. M. Castillet wrote a book entitled La hora del lector (The time of the reader). He was a prophet, indeed. In 1962 I wrote my Opera aperta. In that book I advocated the active role of the interpreter in the reading of texts endowed with aesthetic value.”
Eco’s position may be summed up in some lines.
(1) There is a dialectics between the rights of the reader/interpreter and the rights of the texts. But paramount: is the ACTIVE ROLE of the interpreter (check on the prophetic work of 1957 “La hora del lector”, by J. M. Castillet; and Opera aperta by Eco, in 1962). As Todorov said: “the author brings words” the “reader brings sense”. The problem arises when the sense is occult, you may wonder.
-What was the “original intention” of the author? That would be equivalent to say: if you find the “original intention” than your interpretation is “valid”. Maybe.
(2) Historically (regarding Western Thought), Eco sees major determinants in the interpretation “démarche”. First and foremost the Greek Rationalism. Very much like the search for the Logic. “Knowledge [search for the Truth] meant understanding the causes”.
But in the West we also had Irrationalism (see Goethe, Nietzsche…). Jung said that the Divine Image at a certain point became “too familiar” and lost its mystery. “The truth is something we have been living with from the beginning of time, except we have forgotten it”.
But then we had, also, the Hermetic Tradition. That may hinder the interpretation process, if it postulates “everything is secret, hermetic”. How do you get the “gnosis” (Knowledge)? And not, simply, the “aisthesis” (perception) or the “doxa” (opinion)?
Eco satirizes within this vein about “The syndrome of the secret”, as a heritage of these Gnostic and Hermetic traditions. It’s almost funny reading about the examples given by Eco on the Bible misinterpretation, and especially in the case of Jack the Ripper; one who “needed Medical care”.
(3) So, reader (and interpreter) you’re kind of demolished by these prior lines. Eco nevertheless, points some guidelines as a way out: the real reader is one who understands that the text secret is its “emptiness”. [-are you boggled??]
The best attitude, when interpreting, would be that of the slave (not the master’s one). Therefore: “Let us first rank with the slave”. “The message can mean everything”.
(4) The Eco’s essay on “over interpretation” is, again, a source of smiles. Pardon me.
He ponders at length on the work of Rossetti who claimed Dante to be a Freemason, a Templar etc. That essay offers some principles of Hermetic Semiosis, that may help anyone trying to understand the limits within which a reasonable interpretation may occur. Otherwise, you’re over interpreting. Beware of The Followers of the Veil: Eco has seen those in “the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy”, but also in Rabelais, Joyce and Virgil.
(true, Borges' hand)
As a personal note I would like to say that this Eco view (establishing some limits to the interpretation) does not coincide with the Borges’ view. Namely, on his definition of a classic. ” A classic is “as if in its pages all was deliberate fatal, deep and like cosmos and CAPABLE OF ENDLESS INTERPRETATIONS”. [Check on the “I king”: the 64 hexagrams allow for MANY MEANINGS].
(5) Finally, and away from this book.
In 2011, a propos his book “The Prague Cemetery”, Eco was interviewed at his home, midst the thousands of books that compose his personal library. He complained about a (“stupid”) reviewer of the book saying something like: if you keep saying all is a forgery (check on the Protocols of Sion) there is no truth at all [“since you’re showing everything is false there’s no longer a truth”]. Eco, slightly infuriated, took a (drastic?) example to make his point: if you tell me this is a forgery of the Gioconda (Mona Lisa) painting, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a true one; “YOU HAVE TO ASSUME” there’s a true one in the Louvre (Museum).
True, truth is something we assume exists. Our (slave-readers) démarche is to find it.
Someday, maybe, I will comment on the essays by Rorty and the others.
Thus far: TRULY excellent, Eco.
Meanwhile, I can hardly wait for August. Then, Jade
I assure you something, things, then, will take a NEW MEANING.
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRB05...
UPDATE
Jade Helm 15 is past; no martial law or FEMA camp implemented; Texas still holding. ERGO: OVERINTERPRETATION.
-Really?
February 5, 2025
" تفسیر خود نیازی به دفاع ندارد، همیشه با ماست، اما مانند بیشتر فعالیتهای فکری تفسیر فقط وقتی در حد افراط است جذاب است. تفسیر ملایم، که نوعی اجماع به وجود میآورد، گرچه ممکن است در برخی شرایط ارزش داشته باشد، اما چندان جالب نیست."
November 12, 2016
I haven't read the book yet but I'm giving it 5 stars because Eco looks smashing on the cover.
OK: dope. It's basically the transcript of a conference on the possible limits of interpretation - on whether, basically, when you read a book and try to interpret it you can go batshit crazy or have to stick to some form of human decency. Some scholars advocate limitation, some see books as things to be used rather than interpreted, and some are clearly just happy they have access to the mid-conference buffet.
The introduction makes it clear that the debate was quite heated, and the book becomes an immensely entertaining read if you imagine what was going on while the ideas were discussed.
"... Hermetic semiosis goes too far precisely in the practices of suspicious interpretation, according to principles of facility which appear in all the texts of this tradition."
"GO HOME YOU WOP!"
"LET HIM TALK! LET HIM TALK!"
"NO, HE'S CRAZY!"
OK: dope. It's basically the transcript of a conference on the possible limits of interpretation - on whether, basically, when you read a book and try to interpret it you can go batshit crazy or have to stick to some form of human decency. Some scholars advocate limitation, some see books as things to be used rather than interpreted, and some are clearly just happy they have access to the mid-conference buffet.
The introduction makes it clear that the debate was quite heated, and the book becomes an immensely entertaining read if you imagine what was going on while the ideas were discussed.
"... Hermetic semiosis goes too far precisely in the practices of suspicious interpretation, according to principles of facility which appear in all the texts of this tradition."
"GO HOME YOU WOP!"
"LET HIM TALK! LET HIM TALK!"
"NO, HE'S CRAZY!"
Read
May 15, 2023مجموعهی سه درسگفتار که در آن اکو دیدگاههای خودش را در مورد مسئلهی تفسیر بیان میکنه.
.
یک: تفسیر و تاریخ
اکو توضیح میده که تفسیر چگونه متولد شده، آنهم در جهانی تحت تاثیر منطق یونان باستان. بعد در مورد فرهنگ هرمسی (چیزی شبیه به عرفان و اعتقاد به اینکه در هر متنی، زیرمتنی وجود دارد که به سادگی قابل آشکار شدن نیست) حرف میزنه که به موازات فرهنگ یونانی رشد کرده (جالبه که این توضیحات یهجورائی به فهم آونگ فوکو هم کمک میکنه)، فرهنگی که کاملاً در تضاد با عقلگرائی یونانی بوده که در آن، اصول اینهمانی، عدم تناقض و طرد شق میانه، نفی میشوند (وقتی که این مجموعه دوباره در دورهی رنسانس منتشر شد، الگوی هرمسی بخش بزرگی از فرهنگ مدرن را، از جادو تا علم، تغذیه کرد). او به این اصل هرمنوتیکی مدرن مهم که خواننده مجاز به ارائهی هر تفسیری ست و میتواند کاملاً مجزا با هدف نویسنده و کتاب پیش برود (و تا بینهایت ادامه دهد) حمله میکنه («چیزی به نام معنای حقیقی متن وجود ندارد»، ایدهای هرمسی است.) و میان «قصد نویسنده» و «قصد خواننده»، مفهومی به اسم «قصد متن» را مطرح میکنه.
-خوانندهی واقعی کسیست که میفهمد راز متن عبارت است از تهی بودن آن-
.
دو: بیشتفسیر متون
اکو با مثالهائی به خصوص با ارجاع به دانته و تفسیرهایی که از آثارش صورت گرفته مسئلهی بیشتفسیر رو میشکافه. «به محض اینکه یک متن برای فرهنگی خاص «مقدس» میشود، در معرض آن فرایند خوانش توأم با سوءظن و در نتیجه در معرض آن چیزی قرار میگیرد که بیتردید افراط در تفسیر است.»
از مفهومی به اسم ایزوتوپی کمک میگیره: مجموعهای از مقولات معنایی متکثر که خوانش یکنواخت از یک داستان را ممکن میکند
در اینجا اکو مفاهیمِ خوانندهی تجربی/خوانندهی الگو و مولف تجربی/مولف الگو را مطرح میکند: متن ابزاریست برای تولید خوانندهی الگوی خودش. من تکرار میکنم این خواننده، خوانندهای نیست که «تنها حدس درست» را میزند. متن میتواند خوانندهای الگو را پیشبینی کند که حق دارد حدسهایی نامتناهی بزن��. خوانندهی تجربی فقط کنشگریست که دربارهی نوع خوانندهی الگو که متن فرض کرده است حدسهایی میزند. از آنجا که قصد متن اساساً تولید خوانندهای الگوست که بتواند حدسهایی دربارهی متن بزند، ابتکار عمل خوانندهی الگو عبارت است از فهم و درکِ مولف الگو که مولف تجربی نیست و در نهایت با قصد متن مرتبط است.
در انتها اکو با ارجاع به این ایدهی آگوستین: «هر تفسیری از بخش خاصی از یک متن میتواند پذیرفته شود اگر بخشِ دیگری از همان متن آن را تأیید کند و باید رد شود اگر بخشِ دیگری از همان متن آن را به چالش بکشد. به این معنا، انسجامِ متنیِ درونی، رانههای خواننده را کنترل میکند، رانههایی که در غیر این صورت کنترل ناپذیر هستند.» مفهوم قصد اثر را شرح میدهد.
-ابتکار عمل خواننده عبارت است از حدسزنی دربارهی قصد متن.-
.
سه: بین مولف و متن
وقتی متن نه برای گیرندهای واحد، بلکه برای جماعتی از خوانندگان تولید میشود، مولف میداند که او را مطابق با مقاصدش تفسیر نخواهند کرد، بلکه مطابق با راهبردِ پیچیدهای از تعاملها تفسیر خواهند کرد که مستلزم خوانندگان نیز هست، همراه با توانشِ آنها (شناخت خواننده از جهان) در زبان که گنجینهای اجتماعیست. مراد من از گنجینهی اجتماعی نه تنها زبانی مشخص بهعنوان مجموعهای از قواعد دستوریست، بلکه کل دایرهالمعارفی را هم مراد میکنم که کنشهای آن زبان تحقق بخشیدهاند، یعنی قراردادهای فرهنگی که آن زبان تولید کرده است و خودِ تاریخِ تفسیرهای گذشته از بسیاری از متون، از جمله متنی که خواننده در جریان خوانشِ آن است.
کنش خواننده باید همهی این مولفهها را در نظر بگیرد، حتی اگر نامحتمل باشد که خوانندهای واحد بر همهی آنها مسلط باشد. به همبن سبب، هر کنش خوانش عمل متقابل دشواری ست بینِ توانش خواننده و آن نوع توانش که یک متن فرض میگیرد تا به شیوهای صرفهجویانه خوانده شود. هارتمن در کتاباش نقادی در برهوت، تحلیل باریک بینانهای از شعر وردزورث، «همچون ابر به تنهائی پرسه میزنم» ارائه کرده است. به یاد دارم که در سال 1985 و در طی مباحثهای در دانشگاه نورث وسترن، به هارتمن گفتم که او واساختگرائی معتدل است زیرا او بندِ «شاعر نتوان بود مگر شاد [gay]» را آنطور نخوانده است که یک خوانندهی معاصر میخواند اگر این بند در مجلهی پِلیبوی میآمد. به بیان دیگر، خوانندهی حساس و مسئول، مکلف نیست دربارهی چیزی نظرورزی کند که هنگام نوشتن آن بند در سرُ وردزورث رخ داده است، اما این وظیفه را دارد که وضعیتِ نظامِ لغوی را در زمان وردزورث در نظر بگیرد. در آن زمان واژهی gay هیچ معنای ضمنی جنسیای نداشت، و اذعان به این نکته به معنای تعامل با گنجینهای فرهنگی و اجتماعیست.
یقیناً من میتوانم متن وردزورث را برای نقیضه به کار ببرم، برای نشان دادن اینکه چگونه متن میتواند در نسبت با چارچوب فرهنگی متفاوت خوانده شود، یا برای اهداف کاملاً شخصی (میتوانم یک متن را بخوانم تا از آن برای تاملات خودم الهام بگیرم)، اما اگر بخواهم متن وردزورث را تفسیر کنم باید پسزمینهی فرهنگی و زبانی او را لحاظ کنم.
ولی اکو دلمشغول مفهوم مولف تجربی و نقش آن است. در این قسمت او توضیحاتی در مورد تفاسیر آثار خودش ارائه میده؛ از بحثهائی که در تفاسیر آثارش مطرح شدهاند و اکو اونها رو بیارتباط به اثر خودش میدونه تا بحثهائی که بعدها فهمیده که به گونهای درناخودآگاهاش بوده و پس از خواندن تفسیر به علتاش پی برده و از این بحث به مولف تجربی میپردازه، که برای کسانی که «آنک نام گل» (قضیهی آغشتهشدن کتاب به سم) و «آونگ فوکو» (علت نامگذاری اسم آمپارو، دوستدختر برزیلی کازئوبون) را خواندهاند به شدت جذاب خواهد بود
-زندگی مولفان تجربی از جهتی خاص درک ناشدنیتر از متنهایشان است. بین سرگذشتِ اسرارآمیزِ تولید متنی و انحرافِ کنترل ناپذیر خوانشهای آتیِ آن، متن به ما هو متن هنوز نمایانگرِ حضوری دلگرم کننده است، نقطهای که میتوانیم به آن بچسبیم-
.
پینوشت یک: شیوهی نگارش اکو شبیه به یک دانشمنده تا یک رماننویس. با دقت و کاملاً واضح مفاهیم مد نظرش رو توضیح میده و پله به پله بحث رو جلو میبره. علاوه بر اون ترجمه بسیار خوبه و لذت خوندن اکو رو دوچندان میکنه
.
پینوشت دو: دمت گرم که رفتی از رشت اینو برام گرفتی و آوردی. ممنون بهخاطر سنگی که در من انداختی دیوانه؛ به خاطر اندوهِ دایرهدایره و چیزهای دیگر...
.
یک: تفسیر و تاریخ
اکو توضیح میده که تفسیر چگونه متولد شده، آنهم در جهانی تحت تاثیر منطق یونان باستان. بعد در مورد فرهنگ هرمسی (چیزی شبیه به عرفان و اعتقاد به اینکه در هر متنی، زیرمتنی وجود دارد که به سادگی قابل آشکار شدن نیست) حرف میزنه که به موازات فرهنگ یونانی رشد کرده (جالبه که این توضیحات یهجورائی به فهم آونگ فوکو هم کمک میکنه)، فرهنگی که کاملاً در تضاد با عقلگرائی یونانی بوده که در آن، اصول اینهمانی، عدم تناقض و طرد شق میانه، نفی میشوند (وقتی که این مجموعه دوباره در دورهی رنسانس منتشر شد، الگوی هرمسی بخش بزرگی از فرهنگ مدرن را، از جادو تا علم، تغذیه کرد). او به این اصل هرمنوتیکی مدرن مهم که خواننده مجاز به ارائهی هر تفسیری ست و میتواند کاملاً مجزا با هدف نویسنده و کتاب پیش برود (و تا بینهایت ادامه دهد) حمله میکنه («چیزی به نام معنای حقیقی متن وجود ندارد»، ایدهای هرمسی است.) و میان «قصد نویسنده» و «قصد خواننده»، مفهومی به اسم «قصد متن» را مطرح میکنه.
-خوانندهی واقعی کسیست که میفهمد راز متن عبارت است از تهی بودن آن-
.
دو: بیشتفسیر متون
اکو با مثالهائی به خصوص با ارجاع به دانته و تفسیرهایی که از آثارش صورت گرفته مسئلهی بیشتفسیر رو میشکافه. «به محض اینکه یک متن برای فرهنگی خاص «مقدس» میشود، در معرض آن فرایند خوانش توأم با سوءظن و در نتیجه در معرض آن چیزی قرار میگیرد که بیتردید افراط در تفسیر است.»
از مفهومی به اسم ایزوتوپی کمک میگیره: مجموعهای از مقولات معنایی متکثر که خوانش یکنواخت از یک داستان را ممکن میکند
در اینجا اکو مفاهیمِ خوانندهی تجربی/خوانندهی الگو و مولف تجربی/مولف الگو را مطرح میکند: متن ابزاریست برای تولید خوانندهی الگوی خودش. من تکرار میکنم این خواننده، خوانندهای نیست که «تنها حدس درست» را میزند. متن میتواند خوانندهای الگو را پیشبینی کند که حق دارد حدسهایی نامتناهی بزن��. خوانندهی تجربی فقط کنشگریست که دربارهی نوع خوانندهی الگو که متن فرض کرده است حدسهایی میزند. از آنجا که قصد متن اساساً تولید خوانندهای الگوست که بتواند حدسهایی دربارهی متن بزند، ابتکار عمل خوانندهی الگو عبارت است از فهم و درکِ مولف الگو که مولف تجربی نیست و در نهایت با قصد متن مرتبط است.
در انتها اکو با ارجاع به این ایدهی آگوستین: «هر تفسیری از بخش خاصی از یک متن میتواند پذیرفته شود اگر بخشِ دیگری از همان متن آن را تأیید کند و باید رد شود اگر بخشِ دیگری از همان متن آن را به چالش بکشد. به این معنا، انسجامِ متنیِ درونی، رانههای خواننده را کنترل میکند، رانههایی که در غیر این صورت کنترل ناپذیر هستند.» مفهوم قصد اثر را شرح میدهد.
-ابتکار عمل خواننده عبارت است از حدسزنی دربارهی قصد متن.-
.
سه: بین مولف و متن
وقتی متن نه برای گیرندهای واحد، بلکه برای جماعتی از خوانندگان تولید میشود، مولف میداند که او را مطابق با مقاصدش تفسیر نخواهند کرد، بلکه مطابق با راهبردِ پیچیدهای از تعاملها تفسیر خواهند کرد که مستلزم خوانندگان نیز هست، همراه با توانشِ آنها (شناخت خواننده از جهان) در زبان که گنجینهای اجتماعیست. مراد من از گنجینهی اجتماعی نه تنها زبانی مشخص بهعنوان مجموعهای از قواعد دستوریست، بلکه کل دایرهالمعارفی را هم مراد میکنم که کنشهای آن زبان تحقق بخشیدهاند، یعنی قراردادهای فرهنگی که آن زبان تولید کرده است و خودِ تاریخِ تفسیرهای گذشته از بسیاری از متون، از جمله متنی که خواننده در جریان خوانشِ آن است.
کنش خواننده باید همهی این مولفهها را در نظر بگیرد، حتی اگر نامحتمل باشد که خوانندهای واحد بر همهی آنها مسلط باشد. به همبن سبب، هر کنش خوانش عمل متقابل دشواری ست بینِ توانش خواننده و آن نوع توانش که یک متن فرض میگیرد تا به شیوهای صرفهجویانه خوانده شود. هارتمن در کتاباش نقادی در برهوت، تحلیل باریک بینانهای از شعر وردزورث، «همچون ابر به تنهائی پرسه میزنم» ارائه کرده است. به یاد دارم که در سال 1985 و در طی مباحثهای در دانشگاه نورث وسترن، به هارتمن گفتم که او واساختگرائی معتدل است زیرا او بندِ «شاعر نتوان بود مگر شاد [gay]» را آنطور نخوانده است که یک خوانندهی معاصر میخواند اگر این بند در مجلهی پِلیبوی میآمد. به بیان دیگر، خوانندهی حساس و مسئول، مکلف نیست دربارهی چیزی نظرورزی کند که هنگام نوشتن آن بند در سرُ وردزورث رخ داده است، اما این وظیفه را دارد که وضعیتِ نظامِ لغوی را در زمان وردزورث در نظر بگیرد. در آن زمان واژهی gay هیچ معنای ضمنی جنسیای نداشت، و اذعان به این نکته به معنای تعامل با گنجینهای فرهنگی و اجتماعیست.
یقیناً من میتوانم متن وردزورث را برای نقیضه به کار ببرم، برای نشان دادن اینکه چگونه متن میتواند در نسبت با چارچوب فرهنگی متفاوت خوانده شود، یا برای اهداف کاملاً شخصی (میتوانم یک متن را بخوانم تا از آن برای تاملات خودم الهام بگیرم)، اما اگر بخواهم متن وردزورث را تفسیر کنم باید پسزمینهی فرهنگی و زبانی او را لحاظ کنم.
ولی اکو دلمشغول مفهوم مولف تجربی و نقش آن است. در این قسمت او توضیحاتی در مورد تفاسیر آثار خودش ارائه میده؛ از بحثهائی که در تفاسیر آثارش مطرح شدهاند و اکو اونها رو بیارتباط به اثر خودش میدونه تا بحثهائی که بعدها فهمیده که به گونهای درناخودآگاهاش بوده و پس از خواندن تفسیر به علتاش پی برده و از این بحث به مولف تجربی میپردازه، که برای کسانی که «آنک نام گل» (قضیهی آغشتهشدن کتاب به سم) و «آونگ فوکو» (علت نامگذاری اسم آمپارو، دوستدختر برزیلی کازئوبون) را خواندهاند به شدت جذاب خواهد بود
-زندگی مولفان تجربی از جهتی خاص درک ناشدنیتر از متنهایشان است. بین سرگذشتِ اسرارآمیزِ تولید متنی و انحرافِ کنترل ناپذیر خوانشهای آتیِ آن، متن به ما هو متن هنوز نمایانگرِ حضوری دلگرم کننده است، نقطهای که میتوانیم به آن بچسبیم-
.
پینوشت یک: شیوهی نگارش اکو شبیه به یک دانشمنده تا یک رماننویس. با دقت و کاملاً واضح مفاهیم مد نظرش رو توضیح میده و پله به پله بحث رو جلو میبره. علاوه بر اون ترجمه بسیار خوبه و لذت خوندن اکو رو دوچندان میکنه
.
پینوشت دو: دمت گرم که رفتی از رشت اینو برام گرفتی و آوردی. ممنون بهخاطر سنگی که در من انداختی دیوانه؛ به خاطر اندوهِ دایرهدایره و چیزهای دیگر...
April 2, 2021
سه درسگفتار پیرامون خوانش ،درک و تفسیر متون از پراگماتیسم بزرگ ادبیات،استاد گرانقدر اومبرتو اکو فقید.
کاش غالب مفسرین دینی هم نگاهی حتی گذرا به این کتاب میانداختند.
تحقیقا این اثر را بعد از خواندن رمان آنک نام گل از همین نویسنده بخوانید چرا که درس گفتار پایانی ممکن است داستان کتاب را لوث کند.
کاش غالب مفسرین دینی هم نگاهی حتی گذرا به این کتاب میانداختند.
تحقیقا این اثر را بعد از خواندن رمان آنک نام گل از همین نویسنده بخوانید چرا که درس گفتار پایانی ممکن است داستان کتاب را لوث کند.
January 5, 2017
يتميز هذا الكتاب بأنه تضمن مجموعة من الآراء حول تأويل النصوص، بينما يذهب المؤلف الرئيسي إيكو إلى أن هناك حدودا للتأويل -رغم سيميائته- هناك من يدافع عن التأويل المفرط.
الكتاب مكتوب بلغة فلسفية معقدة بعض الشيء مع إيراد أمثلة من الأدب الأوربي، زال من صعوبتها الترجمة؛ والتي لأجلها نقص الكتاب نجمة.
قد يكون كتاب دور القارئ لايكو ألطف من هذا، لا أعلم، سأجرب لاحقا بإذن الله
الكتاب مكتوب بلغة فلسفية معقدة بعض الشيء مع إيراد أمثلة من الأدب الأوربي، زال من صعوبتها الترجمة؛ والتي لأجلها نقص الكتاب نجمة.
قد يكون كتاب دور القارئ لايكو ألطف من هذا، لا أعلم، سأجرب لاحقا بإذن الله
February 14, 2021
I’ve read this book before, before my Goodreads habit, and I’ve come to this book once again but this time I feel I understand it better. actually, I read this book after trying to deal with “of grammatology” of Jacques Derrida (yes, of course I barely understood it).
so while deridda claims that meaning out of text is unstable and perhaps endless, here comes Eco, demanding from us to straight up and bring us back to our senses. of course there is meaning, of course it can be multidimensional but no, it can’t be just ‘anything’. in that sense, eco is giving us the ‘Antidote’ to Derrida and post-structuralist french thinking all together (and don’t get me wrong, I love Barthes, Derrida, and the whole gang).
what strikes me most about this book is how unlike his contemporaries, eco is very coherent, articulated, and explains himself and his claim with such intelligence and grace in a way that makes you want to look up the works he refers to and keep on learning. Eco’s knowledge is of course a treasure, yet he gives you a hand to join and learn rather than talk abstractly about complicated philosophy in a language that is inaccessible outside the academy. that’s some huge refreshing change from the french school of thinking that came to symbolize structuralism and post-structuralism.
so while deridda claims that meaning out of text is unstable and perhaps endless, here comes Eco, demanding from us to straight up and bring us back to our senses. of course there is meaning, of course it can be multidimensional but no, it can’t be just ‘anything’. in that sense, eco is giving us the ‘Antidote’ to Derrida and post-structuralist french thinking all together (and don’t get me wrong, I love Barthes, Derrida, and the whole gang).
what strikes me most about this book is how unlike his contemporaries, eco is very coherent, articulated, and explains himself and his claim with such intelligence and grace in a way that makes you want to look up the works he refers to and keep on learning. Eco’s knowledge is of course a treasure, yet he gives you a hand to join and learn rather than talk abstractly about complicated philosophy in a language that is inaccessible outside the academy. that’s some huge refreshing change from the french school of thinking that came to symbolize structuralism and post-structuralism.
October 22, 2016
What a relief - a book in literary studies that was easy and enjoyable to read! So it is possible. I liked the way the book was constructed, first three essays of Eco's building an argument that there are limits to literary interpretation, and then three essays from three other auhtors, arguing abit differently each from their own angle. And finally, Eco's final words responding to one of them. Also, as mentioned, big plus for the language and logic, demonstrating that it is not necesary to get lost in words in argumentation, but that it is possible to provide solid, scientific viewpoint in a way that can be understood in one reading.
October 22, 2023
Przez takie książki wątpię w mój byt na tych studiach
November 21, 2018
Lá na época em que este livro foi escrito, Umberto Eco estava preocupado com a superinterpretação, principalmente as realizadas em seus livros O Nome da Rosa e O Pêndulo de Foucault. Ele dizia que os leitores (que, infelizmente acabavam não sendo os seus leitores-modelo), encontravam significados em seu texto que não estavam lá, ou, pelo menos não na sua intencionalidade. Assim, ele criou alguns textos deste livro. Ele compreendeu que a interpretação, ou ainda, a compreensão de um texto não está apenas nas mãos do autor. O texto pode ser compreendido através do sentido do autor, do sentido do leitor e do sentido da obra em si. Aquilo que excede estas três instâncias, Eco chamou de superinterpretação. Contudo, a obra também traz textos de pessoas que discordavam de Eco e não eram somente a favor da superinterpretação, como eram contrários à maneira como Eco trabalhava as suas teorias: estruturando-as em esquemas, algo muito característico dos primeiros anos da semiótica. É irônico que os semioticistas estavam preocupados com compreensão e supercompreensão de textos quando, hoje, estamos vivendo a plena era da subcompreensão de textos em que as inúmeras gerações de preguiçosos "só a cabecinha" adoram criticar qualquer enunciado, sem buscar um contexto. Ou ainda sequer buscar textos próximos que auxiliem numa tradução/decodificação mais "correta" das intenções do autor e da obra, uma vez que a instância do leitor já vem comprometida com preconceitos que ele próprio se recusa a abandonar, sem nem se dar ao luxo de ler ao menos o subtítulo de um enunciado nas redes sociais ou de "ler" as imagens que os acompanham.
September 30, 2024
Já passou da hora de atualizarem a definição de "erudição" no dicionário para "Umberto Eco". O cara era uma enciclopédia ambulante.
June 21, 2020
Valery'nin "il n'y pas de vrai sens d'un texte" yani "metnin kesin bir anlamı yoktur" ifadesine karşı çıktım, ancak bir metnin birçok anlamı olabileceği ifadesini kabul ediyorum; ben bir metnin her anlamı olabileceği ifadesini yadsıyorum.
Umberto Eco'nun bu sözleri Yorum ve Aşırı Yorum'da anlatmak istediğini özetliyor. Bir metin üzerinde sonsuzca fikir yürütmemeliyiz (bu aşırı yorumdur), metnin bağlamını dikkate alarak yorum yapmak durumundayız (bu yorumdur).
Benim aklıma gelen yalnızca edebi metinler olmadı; film okuması yaparken, insanların sözlerini analiz ederken, kutsal metinleri incelerken de yaptığımız yorumlarda derin simgeler arayışına girerek, kelimeleri evirip çevirerek, gizli atıflar olduğunu düşünerek ucu açık yorumlar yapabiliriz. Yapılabilecek yorumların sonu yoktur. Ancak bu bizi metnin anlatmak istediğinden çoğunlukla uzaklaştırır.
Durum buyken yine de sonsuzca yapılan aşırı yorumlar bizi heyecanlandırır. En çok bu yorumları dinlemeyi severiz. Saklanmış gizlerin açığa çıkma fikri her zaman itidalli yapılan bir yorumdan daha ilgi çekici gelir. Ve bu sayede belki de gerçekten yazarın bile bilmeden bilinçaltını kağıda döktüğü gizleri keşfederiz. Oysa itidalli yorum buna izin vermez. Buna ancak aşırı yorum sayesinde ulaşabiliriz.
Yorum ve Aşırı Yorum "Bir metin nasıl okunmalı ve okunmamalı?" üzerinde düşündürüyor.
Umberto Eco'nun bu sözleri Yorum ve Aşırı Yorum'da anlatmak istediğini özetliyor. Bir metin üzerinde sonsuzca fikir yürütmemeliyiz (bu aşırı yorumdur), metnin bağlamını dikkate alarak yorum yapmak durumundayız (bu yorumdur).
Benim aklıma gelen yalnızca edebi metinler olmadı; film okuması yaparken, insanların sözlerini analiz ederken, kutsal metinleri incelerken de yaptığımız yorumlarda derin simgeler arayışına girerek, kelimeleri evirip çevirerek, gizli atıflar olduğunu düşünerek ucu açık yorumlar yapabiliriz. Yapılabilecek yorumların sonu yoktur. Ancak bu bizi metnin anlatmak istediğinden çoğunlukla uzaklaştırır.
Durum buyken yine de sonsuzca yapılan aşırı yorumlar bizi heyecanlandırır. En çok bu yorumları dinlemeyi severiz. Saklanmış gizlerin açığa çıkma fikri her zaman itidalli yapılan bir yorumdan daha ilgi çekici gelir. Ve bu sayede belki de gerçekten yazarın bile bilmeden bilinçaltını kağıda döktüğü gizleri keşfederiz. Oysa itidalli yorum buna izin vermez. Buna ancak aşırı yorum sayesinde ulaşabiliriz.
Yorum ve Aşırı Yorum "Bir metin nasıl okunmalı ve okunmamalı?" üzerinde düşündürüyor.
August 21, 2025
In other words, I distrust both the structuralist idea that knowing more about ‘textual mechanisms’ is essential for literary criticism and the post-structuralist idea that detecting the presence, or the subversion, of metaphysical hierarchies is essential. Knowing about mechanisms of textual production or about metaphysics can, to be sure, sometimes be useful. Having read Eco, or having read Derrida, will often give you something interesting to say about a text which you could not otherwise have said. But it brings you no closer to what is really going on in the text than having read Marx, Freud, Matthew Arnold or F.R. Leavis. Each of these supplementary readings simply gives you one more context in which you can place the text – one more grid you can place on top of it or one more paradigm to which to juxtapose it. Neither piece of knowledge tells you anything about the nature of texts or the nature of reading. For neither has a nature.
I absolutely adored the way these lectures were spaced out. We start with Eco and Rorty (quotation above), the two "pragmatics" if you will, and then get a rebuttal from Culler and Brooke-Rose (the two that I myself am much more lenient towards). As a fellow pragmatism hater, it was interesting to see the defense of the movement and the criticisms of "overinterperation," something that I'm very much guilty of. I did find points that I agree with in the first half, which only proves that you should always seek out different opinions in literature, even if you do not necessarily side with them. I think the best section was definitely Culler's though (quotation below), and having read The Satanic Verses, Brooke-Rose's section was especially interesting to me. Those two really did a good job in highlighting the deficient parts of the pragmatism argument. The argument-reply style really reinvigorated my love for literary theory, and it reminded me how interesting it can be. Only thing I'd criticize is that I did find Eco's final reply a bit lacking, but that may be because I find the argument as a whole a bit disagreeable. Overall, it was a very enlightening and well written debate.
What is confusing in literary studies is that many people are in fact attempting to analyse aspects of the language, the system, the subroutines of literature if you will, while presenting what they are doing as an interpretation of the literary works. It may therefore seem that, as Rorty might put it, they are just using literary works to tell stories about the myriad problems of human existence. Such uses of literary works may, on occasion, involve little concern with or investigation of how these works function, but most of the time such concern and such investigation is in fact crucial to the project, even if it is not stressed in the interpretive narrative. But the point is that the attempt to understand how literature works is a valid intellectual pursuit, though not of interest to everyone, like the attempt to understand the structure of natural languages or the properties of computer programs. And the idea of literary study as a discipline is precisely the attempt to develop a systematic understanding of the semiotic mechanisms of literature, the various strategies of its forms.
What is missing from Rorty’s response, therefore, is any sense that literary studies might consist of more than loving and responding to characters and themes in literary works.
I absolutely adored the way these lectures were spaced out. We start with Eco and Rorty (quotation above), the two "pragmatics" if you will, and then get a rebuttal from Culler and Brooke-Rose (the two that I myself am much more lenient towards). As a fellow pragmatism hater, it was interesting to see the defense of the movement and the criticisms of "overinterperation," something that I'm very much guilty of. I did find points that I agree with in the first half, which only proves that you should always seek out different opinions in literature, even if you do not necessarily side with them. I think the best section was definitely Culler's though (quotation below), and having read The Satanic Verses, Brooke-Rose's section was especially interesting to me. Those two really did a good job in highlighting the deficient parts of the pragmatism argument. The argument-reply style really reinvigorated my love for literary theory, and it reminded me how interesting it can be. Only thing I'd criticize is that I did find Eco's final reply a bit lacking, but that may be because I find the argument as a whole a bit disagreeable. Overall, it was a very enlightening and well written debate.
What is confusing in literary studies is that many people are in fact attempting to analyse aspects of the language, the system, the subroutines of literature if you will, while presenting what they are doing as an interpretation of the literary works. It may therefore seem that, as Rorty might put it, they are just using literary works to tell stories about the myriad problems of human existence. Such uses of literary works may, on occasion, involve little concern with or investigation of how these works function, but most of the time such concern and such investigation is in fact crucial to the project, even if it is not stressed in the interpretive narrative. But the point is that the attempt to understand how literature works is a valid intellectual pursuit, though not of interest to everyone, like the attempt to understand the structure of natural languages or the properties of computer programs. And the idea of literary study as a discipline is precisely the attempt to develop a systematic understanding of the semiotic mechanisms of literature, the various strategies of its forms.
What is missing from Rorty’s response, therefore, is any sense that literary studies might consist of more than loving and responding to characters and themes in literary works.
February 1, 2024
Eco'nun yorum ve aşırı yorum konusunda görüşlerini belirttiği konferans metni. ondan sonra konuşan üç katılımcının daha görüşlerine yer veriliyor. Bana göre Jonathan Culler'ın görüşleri daha ikna edici.
Read
January 10, 2022mam ogromną nadzieję, że to moje ostatnie spotkanie z eco i teorią literatury
September 20, 2022
"Bir metnin kesin bir anlamı yoktur." s. 45
May 23, 2025
ایدههای جالب و هیجانانگیز راجع به نقد ادبی. اومبرتو اکو همیشه معرکه است.
October 12, 2025
Pogadali, pogadali, powymieniali się opiniami na temat interpretacji i tyle by z tego było.
November 8, 2023
poetyka jest jakaś szalona 😭😭😭
February 13, 2017
Sinema dersleri olmasaydı, belki de hiç tanımayacak, tanısam da herhangi bir yazarın kitabını okuduğum gibi okurdum Umberto Eco'yu; dehâsı bambaşka. Eco, sıradan bir roman tadında roman, okutmaz okuruna. Onun kendisi bir "örnek" okurdur ve okurunuda öyle görmek istiyor sanırım. Anlatı tarzıyla, Eco-Roman okutturduğunu her bölüm sezinletiyor -Gülün Adı, Prag Mezarlığı- okuruna.
...
Yorum ve Aşırı Yorum'da da yazar Tanner Konferansında muhataplarına sağlam bir ders vermiş. Edebiyatta ya da bir metne altyordama yapacaksanız Eco'ya ve onun göstergebilim okumalarına/kodlarına sırt dönemezsiniz.
Eğer sadece, bir okursanız ben metni -hikâye- okur geçerim, benin işim, çok satan, romatik kurgu diyorsanız hiç oralı olmayın. Zira kitap başından sonuna kadar, sadece ilgilisine hitap etmekte, öyle yerler geliyor ki " ne dedi ya " diyerek geri dönüyorsunuz -ben döndüm-
Aklıma takılan en önemli şeyse kendisine pragmatist diyen, filozof bay Richard Rorty, o zor okunan eleştiri bölümü oldu, bir pratik düşünce adamı ne yazmış
-efendim- çok 'pragmatist' olmuş! Sonra ki yazılardan edebiyat kuramcısı Jonathan Culler'inde çok yoğun, gene sadece ilgilisine hitap etmekte.
Rose'nin bahsettiği Pakistanlı yazarın adını unuttum, ama Şeytan Ayetleri, adlı kitabını okuma listeme ekledim:)
Son olarak, Eco mutlaka okunması gereken bir yazar, bir sosyal bilimci; ayrıca ağır bir okuma yapmak istemiyorsanız, Anlatı Ormanlarında Altı Gezinti, adlı kitabının dilinin çok daha akıcı olduğunu düşünüyorum, ilginizi çekebilir.
...
Yorum ve Aşırı Yorum'da da yazar Tanner Konferansında muhataplarına sağlam bir ders vermiş. Edebiyatta ya da bir metne altyordama yapacaksanız Eco'ya ve onun göstergebilim okumalarına/kodlarına sırt dönemezsiniz.
Eğer sadece, bir okursanız ben metni -hikâye- okur geçerim, benin işim, çok satan, romatik kurgu diyorsanız hiç oralı olmayın. Zira kitap başından sonuna kadar, sadece ilgilisine hitap etmekte, öyle yerler geliyor ki " ne dedi ya " diyerek geri dönüyorsunuz -ben döndüm-
Aklıma takılan en önemli şeyse kendisine pragmatist diyen, filozof bay Richard Rorty, o zor okunan eleştiri bölümü oldu, bir pratik düşünce adamı ne yazmış
-efendim- çok 'pragmatist' olmuş! Sonra ki yazılardan edebiyat kuramcısı Jonathan Culler'inde çok yoğun, gene sadece ilgilisine hitap etmekte.
Rose'nin bahsettiği Pakistanlı yazarın adını unuttum, ama Şeytan Ayetleri, adlı kitabını okuma listeme ekledim:)
Son olarak, Eco mutlaka okunması gereken bir yazar, bir sosyal bilimci; ayrıca ağır bir okuma yapmak istemiyorsanız, Anlatı Ormanlarında Altı Gezinti, adlı kitabının dilinin çok daha akıcı olduğunu düşünüyorum, ilginizi çekebilir.
February 19, 2024
Collected here are three lectures held by Umberto Eco followed by three replies of and a reply to the replies by Eco.
What is really beautiful about this is that the way they are presenting their views you tend to agree. Of course, this means, as Eco said at the end, where everyone is right everyone is wrong.
So this is not so much a debate where you learn about and adopt a piece of new knowledge but rather a lesson in the beauty (and also the futility) of academic discussion.
The first lecture by Umberto Eco is by far the best. It is a sparkling rhetoric masterpiece. To an extent that it can be read almost as a parody. He quotes or mentions Castillet, Peirce, Lichtenberg, Böhme, Todorow, Jack the Ripper, Luke, Cooper, Laing, Guattari, Popper (and himself) within the first five paragraphs. His other lectures are comparatively boring with lots of examples of interpretations of his own work.
What is a text? Can I interpret a text independent of the intention of the writer?
Rorty in his reply talks about Eco’s novel about Foucault’s pendulum and explains how he read that as a parody on structuralism. He as a pragmatist was pleased with that but in the end is not sure that his interpretation was the right one. He thinks there is only the usage. And a text is not some mythical entity that is different from a mountain or a quark. The main point of Eco seems to be, yes there can be all kinds of interpretations but that does not mean that anything goes.
Excellent reading.
What is really beautiful about this is that the way they are presenting their views you tend to agree. Of course, this means, as Eco said at the end, where everyone is right everyone is wrong.
So this is not so much a debate where you learn about and adopt a piece of new knowledge but rather a lesson in the beauty (and also the futility) of academic discussion.
The first lecture by Umberto Eco is by far the best. It is a sparkling rhetoric masterpiece. To an extent that it can be read almost as a parody. He quotes or mentions Castillet, Peirce, Lichtenberg, Böhme, Todorow, Jack the Ripper, Luke, Cooper, Laing, Guattari, Popper (and himself) within the first five paragraphs. His other lectures are comparatively boring with lots of examples of interpretations of his own work.
What is a text? Can I interpret a text independent of the intention of the writer?
Rorty in his reply talks about Eco’s novel about Foucault’s pendulum and explains how he read that as a parody on structuralism. He as a pragmatist was pleased with that but in the end is not sure that his interpretation was the right one. He thinks there is only the usage. And a text is not some mythical entity that is different from a mountain or a quark. The main point of Eco seems to be, yes there can be all kinds of interpretations but that does not mean that anything goes.
Excellent reading.
September 18, 2012
Interpretare un testo: l'intenzione dell'autore, la libertà del lettore e altro
Botta e risposta tra Eco, Rorty e Culler sull'interpretazione di un testo.
Culler sostiene la tesi decostruzionista: il lettore ha diritto di trovare nel testo tutto quello che gli pare, al di là delle intenzioni dell'autore. Del resto, dopo la pubblicazione, il libro non è più del suo autore ma di chi lo compra, quindi ognuno ci faccia quel che vuole.
Eco sostiene che c'è un limite alla libertà d'interpretazione del lettore e suggerisce l'esistenza di una "intentio testis". Il vincolo interpretativo non è dato dall'intenzione dell'autore (spesso imperscrutabile), quanto nel buon senso: un serial killer non può trovare nel "Piccolo principe" un'interpretazione che lo instighi a commettere omicidi.
Rorty sostiene che tutto ciò non è interessante. Il valore di un testo sta in quanto riesce a mettere in moto i neuroni, in quali e quanti collegamenti ad altri testi riesce a suggerire.
Botta e risposta tra Eco, Rorty e Culler sull'interpretazione di un testo.
Culler sostiene la tesi decostruzionista: il lettore ha diritto di trovare nel testo tutto quello che gli pare, al di là delle intenzioni dell'autore. Del resto, dopo la pubblicazione, il libro non è più del suo autore ma di chi lo compra, quindi ognuno ci faccia quel che vuole.
Eco sostiene che c'è un limite alla libertà d'interpretazione del lettore e suggerisce l'esistenza di una "intentio testis". Il vincolo interpretativo non è dato dall'intenzione dell'autore (spesso imperscrutabile), quanto nel buon senso: un serial killer non può trovare nel "Piccolo principe" un'interpretazione che lo instighi a commettere omicidi.
Rorty sostiene che tutto ciò non è interessante. Il valore di un testo sta in quanto riesce a mettere in moto i neuroni, in quali e quanti collegamenti ad altri testi riesce a suggerire.
December 15, 2023
Interesting book from Umberto Eco about as it says in the title interpreting things, and sometimes over interpreting things. Literary criticism from an Italian genius. Here are the best bits:
Western thought of ideas of 'secret' meanings, encoded in language in ways which escape the attention of all but the initiated few.
American philosophers like William James and John Dewey, in which we are enjoined rather to think of our concepts as tools we employ for certain purposes rather than as bits of a jig-saw which represent How the World Really Is.
Lionel Trilling observed that since my own interests lead me to see literary situations as cultural situations, and cultural situations as great elaborate fights about "moral issues, and moral issues as having something to do with gratuitously chosen images of personal being, and images of personal being as having something to do with literary style, I felt free to begin with what for me was a first concern, the animus of the author, the objects of his will, the things he wants or wants to have happen
Some contemporary theories of criticism assert that the only reliable reading of a text is a misreading, that the only existence of a text is given by the chain of responses it elicits, and that, as maliciously suggested by Todorov (quoting Lichtenberg à propos of Boehme), a text is only a picnic where the author brings the words and the readers bring the sense.
Classical rationalism identified barbarians with those who could not even speak properly (that is actually the etymology of barbaros- one who stutters).
Before the unknown, man's natural impulse to idealize and his natural fearfulness cooperate toward the same goal: to intensify the unknown through imagination, and to pay attention to it with an emphasis that is not usually accorded to patent reality.
To salvage the text - that is, to transform it from an illusion of meaning to the awareness that meaning is infinite - the reader must suspect that every line of it conceals another secret meaning; words, instead of saying, hide the untold; the glory of the reader is to discover that texts can say everything, except what their author wanted them to mean; as soon as a pretended meaning is allegedly discovered, we are sure that it is not the real one; the real one is the further one and so on and so forth; the hylics - the losers - are those who end the process by saying 'I understood'.
Before the un-known, man's natural impulse to idealize and his natural fearfulness cooperate toward the same goal: to intensify the unknown through imagination, and to pay attention to it with an emphasis that is not usually accorded to patent reality?
the glory of the reader is to discover that texts can say everything, except what their author wanted them to mean; as soon as a pretended meaning is allegedly discovered, we are sure that it is not the real one; the real one is the further one and so on and so forth; the hylics - the losers - are those who end the process by saying 'I understood'.
The justice of God has centuries at its disposal.
Helena, Costiucovic before translating to Russian, mostly the name of the rRose, wrote a long essay on it. 5 At a certain point she remarks that there exists a book by Emile Henroit (La rose de Bratislava,
1946) in which can be found the hunting of a mysterious manuscript and a final fire in a library. The story takes place in Prague, and at the beginning of my novel I mention Prague. Moreover, one of my librarians is named Berengar, and one of the librarians of Henroit was named Berngard Marre.
The supreme happiness lies in having what you have.
Oh my God. I knew that song very well, even though I did not remember a single word of it. It was sung, in the mid-fifties, by a girl with whom I was in love. She was Latin American, and very beautiful. She was not Brazilian, not Marxist, not black, not hysterical, as Amparo is, but it is clear that, when inventing a Latin American charming girl, I unconsciously thought of that other image of my youth, when I was the same age as Casaubon. I thought of that song, and in some way the name Amparo (that I had completely forgotten) transmigrated from my unconscious to the page. This story is entirely irrelevant for the interpretation of my text. As far as the text is concerned Amparo is Amparo is Amparo is Amparo.
Interpretation itself needs no defence; it is with us always, but like most intellectual activities, interpretation is interesting only when it is extreme. Moderate interpretation, which articulates a consensus, though it may have value in some circumstances, is of little interest.
All stories, he says, as intruding, author, are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been.
Sylvie by Gérard de Nerval and I was fascinated by it. During my life I have re-read it many times, and the fascination increased every time. When I read Proust's analysis I realized that the most mysterious feature of Sylvie was its ability to create a continuous 'fog effect', an 'effet de brouillard', by which we never exactly understand whether Nerval is speaking of the past or of the present, whether the Narrator is speaking about a factual or a remembered experience, and the readers are compelled to turn over the pages backwards to see where they are - their curiosity being always defeated.
Western thought of ideas of 'secret' meanings, encoded in language in ways which escape the attention of all but the initiated few.
American philosophers like William James and John Dewey, in which we are enjoined rather to think of our concepts as tools we employ for certain purposes rather than as bits of a jig-saw which represent How the World Really Is.
Lionel Trilling observed that since my own interests lead me to see literary situations as cultural situations, and cultural situations as great elaborate fights about "moral issues, and moral issues as having something to do with gratuitously chosen images of personal being, and images of personal being as having something to do with literary style, I felt free to begin with what for me was a first concern, the animus of the author, the objects of his will, the things he wants or wants to have happen
Some contemporary theories of criticism assert that the only reliable reading of a text is a misreading, that the only existence of a text is given by the chain of responses it elicits, and that, as maliciously suggested by Todorov (quoting Lichtenberg à propos of Boehme), a text is only a picnic where the author brings the words and the readers bring the sense.
Classical rationalism identified barbarians with those who could not even speak properly (that is actually the etymology of barbaros- one who stutters).
Before the unknown, man's natural impulse to idealize and his natural fearfulness cooperate toward the same goal: to intensify the unknown through imagination, and to pay attention to it with an emphasis that is not usually accorded to patent reality.
To salvage the text - that is, to transform it from an illusion of meaning to the awareness that meaning is infinite - the reader must suspect that every line of it conceals another secret meaning; words, instead of saying, hide the untold; the glory of the reader is to discover that texts can say everything, except what their author wanted them to mean; as soon as a pretended meaning is allegedly discovered, we are sure that it is not the real one; the real one is the further one and so on and so forth; the hylics - the losers - are those who end the process by saying 'I understood'.
Before the un-known, man's natural impulse to idealize and his natural fearfulness cooperate toward the same goal: to intensify the unknown through imagination, and to pay attention to it with an emphasis that is not usually accorded to patent reality?
the glory of the reader is to discover that texts can say everything, except what their author wanted them to mean; as soon as a pretended meaning is allegedly discovered, we are sure that it is not the real one; the real one is the further one and so on and so forth; the hylics - the losers - are those who end the process by saying 'I understood'.
The justice of God has centuries at its disposal.
Helena, Costiucovic before translating to Russian, mostly the name of the rRose, wrote a long essay on it. 5 At a certain point she remarks that there exists a book by Emile Henroit (La rose de Bratislava,
1946) in which can be found the hunting of a mysterious manuscript and a final fire in a library. The story takes place in Prague, and at the beginning of my novel I mention Prague. Moreover, one of my librarians is named Berengar, and one of the librarians of Henroit was named Berngard Marre.
The supreme happiness lies in having what you have.
Oh my God. I knew that song very well, even though I did not remember a single word of it. It was sung, in the mid-fifties, by a girl with whom I was in love. She was Latin American, and very beautiful. She was not Brazilian, not Marxist, not black, not hysterical, as Amparo is, but it is clear that, when inventing a Latin American charming girl, I unconsciously thought of that other image of my youth, when I was the same age as Casaubon. I thought of that song, and in some way the name Amparo (that I had completely forgotten) transmigrated from my unconscious to the page. This story is entirely irrelevant for the interpretation of my text. As far as the text is concerned Amparo is Amparo is Amparo is Amparo.
Interpretation itself needs no defence; it is with us always, but like most intellectual activities, interpretation is interesting only when it is extreme. Moderate interpretation, which articulates a consensus, though it may have value in some circumstances, is of little interest.
All stories, he says, as intruding, author, are haunted by the ghosts of the stories they might have been.
Sylvie by Gérard de Nerval and I was fascinated by it. During my life I have re-read it many times, and the fascination increased every time. When I read Proust's analysis I realized that the most mysterious feature of Sylvie was its ability to create a continuous 'fog effect', an 'effet de brouillard', by which we never exactly understand whether Nerval is speaking of the past or of the present, whether the Narrator is speaking about a factual or a remembered experience, and the readers are compelled to turn over the pages backwards to see where they are - their curiosity being always defeated.
November 11, 2024
Science-wars of the 90s within the humanities. Lectures and a textual debate between several authors on the topic of interpretation. Nice to see a book structured as a back-and-forth.
Eco strides the reasonable Aristotelian middle-ground between the chaotic free-play of interpretation and a rigid essentialist view. His general gist is presented more thoroughly in other books, such as the Role of the Reader which articulates the concepts of the open work, model reader/writer, codes and interpretants. For all of his retorical poise and confidence, as well as a patriarchal tone of reason, his position is a tenuous one, straddled between the artistic text being Open, but not Fully Open, reliant on a triangulation between the empirical text, reader and their horizon, and the intrepretative practices of the culture, language or community (or codes). Eco is at pains to show that some moves are simply not valid, some interpretation flows over into "use" (most likely with a connotation of ABuse) of a text.
Rorty is a nice contrast, if nothing else, advocating for a dissolution of the distinction between interpretation and (ab)use - all is use in the end. Truly we might as well turn to any other post-structuralist for a similar skepticism. Instead of essence and appearance, Deleuze affirms the all-encompassion of simulacra or appearance. Yet Rorty is completely nonchalant about interpretation and seemingly as such also incurious about the mechanisms behind actual interpretative processes, which is noted by the following essay by Culler. Yet, curiously, no one takes up Rorty's most interesting remark - which he leaves undeveloped here - that instead of interpretaton a text should be an encounter for the reader which precicely re-orients his interpretative practices (the Peirce'ian 'final interpretant'). This is a more interesting criteria than the simple pragmatic "use-value" that Rorty otherwise advocates for.
Culler's essay is actually the strongest of the bunch to me, so I'll spend more words on it. He is capable of prodding at the weak points of both Eco and Rorty - the first for undervaluing overinterpretation and not providing appropriate examples thereof (Culler actually rightly identifies Eco's examples as UNDERinterpretation); and the second for ignoring the study of established mechanisms of language and culture, that shape and ideologically constrain us, to favor of simple pleasant play. But art and interpretation is not just play, it's also a battleground with competing conceptual distinctions at stake. Culler also shows that neither of the previous authors really understand Derrida - Eco in particular making him into a straw-man of the ultimate "reader-response" theory.
Culler's own "middle-ground" between the middle ground is to re-orient the focus to processes of meaning-making rather than the delineation of correct or incorrect, under- or overinterpretation which result from the processes. This is a basic semiotic insight, which Eco should have heeded. This enables Culler to retain the basic and true triangulation (text-reader-code) that necessarily exists, while also considering that these co-ordinates can change and do change recursively in each act of meaning-making. Thus while at any given point in time there might exist interpretations that are less likely, given enough time for mutation, a new "species" of interpretation can evolve from previous configurations. A text is a living thing and each new reading, each new interpretative frame or grid and each intertextual link literally changes it - given enough time new norms and interpretations can emerge, new texts which enter the intertextual field retroactively re-organize the interpretative matrix (and to this argument you need not even turn to speculative philosophers necessarily, but even to the classic, Juri Lotman). At any given point the potential infinity of interpretation is not relevant, but given enough time it might be - the limits of meaning-making and language are not known in advance. Overinterpretation, then for Culler, can serve as a "laboratory" for the study of text - a way of exposing the potentials and potential mechanisms for meaning making even in advance of the interpretative community. Semiotics and literary studies - instead of faithfully re-producing the judgements of the community - ought to reveal new aspects of the text.
The contrast with this temporal-evolutionary view reveals how Eco, as any proper structuralist, needs to "freeze time" so that he can retain criteria for normative evaluation of interpretation. The titular normative dimension perhaps should be alien to semiotics anyway: one gets the sense that whats at stake here is "good" and "bad" interpretation which are not the purview of semiotics as a science, but rather judgements in and about literary criticism, despite Eco equating truth in any discourse with truth of literary interpretation in his unconvincing reply; the truth that semiotics aims at is not the truth of what the sign signifies, but HOW it signifies and in what conditions. It does so only in time, which explodes from underneath Eco's careful triangulation in an infinite semiosis, neither based on the whims of the reader, nor the homogenisation of all distinctions and codes in a random free play, but does put all of these elements irreversibly in motion.
Eco strides the reasonable Aristotelian middle-ground between the chaotic free-play of interpretation and a rigid essentialist view. His general gist is presented more thoroughly in other books, such as the Role of the Reader which articulates the concepts of the open work, model reader/writer, codes and interpretants. For all of his retorical poise and confidence, as well as a patriarchal tone of reason, his position is a tenuous one, straddled between the artistic text being Open, but not Fully Open, reliant on a triangulation between the empirical text, reader and their horizon, and the intrepretative practices of the culture, language or community (or codes). Eco is at pains to show that some moves are simply not valid, some interpretation flows over into "use" (most likely with a connotation of ABuse) of a text.
Rorty is a nice contrast, if nothing else, advocating for a dissolution of the distinction between interpretation and (ab)use - all is use in the end. Truly we might as well turn to any other post-structuralist for a similar skepticism. Instead of essence and appearance, Deleuze affirms the all-encompassion of simulacra or appearance. Yet Rorty is completely nonchalant about interpretation and seemingly as such also incurious about the mechanisms behind actual interpretative processes, which is noted by the following essay by Culler. Yet, curiously, no one takes up Rorty's most interesting remark - which he leaves undeveloped here - that instead of interpretaton a text should be an encounter for the reader which precicely re-orients his interpretative practices (the Peirce'ian 'final interpretant'). This is a more interesting criteria than the simple pragmatic "use-value" that Rorty otherwise advocates for.
Culler's essay is actually the strongest of the bunch to me, so I'll spend more words on it. He is capable of prodding at the weak points of both Eco and Rorty - the first for undervaluing overinterpretation and not providing appropriate examples thereof (Culler actually rightly identifies Eco's examples as UNDERinterpretation); and the second for ignoring the study of established mechanisms of language and culture, that shape and ideologically constrain us, to favor of simple pleasant play. But art and interpretation is not just play, it's also a battleground with competing conceptual distinctions at stake. Culler also shows that neither of the previous authors really understand Derrida - Eco in particular making him into a straw-man of the ultimate "reader-response" theory.
Culler's own "middle-ground" between the middle ground is to re-orient the focus to processes of meaning-making rather than the delineation of correct or incorrect, under- or overinterpretation which result from the processes. This is a basic semiotic insight, which Eco should have heeded. This enables Culler to retain the basic and true triangulation (text-reader-code) that necessarily exists, while also considering that these co-ordinates can change and do change recursively in each act of meaning-making. Thus while at any given point in time there might exist interpretations that are less likely, given enough time for mutation, a new "species" of interpretation can evolve from previous configurations. A text is a living thing and each new reading, each new interpretative frame or grid and each intertextual link literally changes it - given enough time new norms and interpretations can emerge, new texts which enter the intertextual field retroactively re-organize the interpretative matrix (and to this argument you need not even turn to speculative philosophers necessarily, but even to the classic, Juri Lotman). At any given point the potential infinity of interpretation is not relevant, but given enough time it might be - the limits of meaning-making and language are not known in advance. Overinterpretation, then for Culler, can serve as a "laboratory" for the study of text - a way of exposing the potentials and potential mechanisms for meaning making even in advance of the interpretative community. Semiotics and literary studies - instead of faithfully re-producing the judgements of the community - ought to reveal new aspects of the text.
The contrast with this temporal-evolutionary view reveals how Eco, as any proper structuralist, needs to "freeze time" so that he can retain criteria for normative evaluation of interpretation. The titular normative dimension perhaps should be alien to semiotics anyway: one gets the sense that whats at stake here is "good" and "bad" interpretation which are not the purview of semiotics as a science, but rather judgements in and about literary criticism, despite Eco equating truth in any discourse with truth of literary interpretation in his unconvincing reply; the truth that semiotics aims at is not the truth of what the sign signifies, but HOW it signifies and in what conditions. It does so only in time, which explodes from underneath Eco's careful triangulation in an infinite semiosis, neither based on the whims of the reader, nor the homogenisation of all distinctions and codes in a random free play, but does put all of these elements irreversibly in motion.
June 25, 2021
سخنرانی های جالبی درباره تفسیر، حد و مرز ان، رد و اثبات بیش تفسیر، سود و زیان آن، چرایی نقد ادبی... و مباحث جذاب دیگر.
نقد جاناتان کالر (فصل 5) و سخنان اخر اکو (فصل 6) درخشانند.
نقد جاناتان کالر (فصل 5) و سخنان اخر اکو (فصل 6) درخشانند.
June 2, 2025
Excellent set of lectures/essays on the topic of how to interpret meaning from text.
The ideas here are interesting and clear. It might be one of my favorite pieces of semiotics.
Eco discusses how there is more than one avenue to approach texts. Usually, he says, people look either for the Author's Meaning or for the Reader's Meaning, but there is a third path, which is the Text's Meaning. Even as he was building his case, I was nodding my head eagerly.
It's pretty common people will recite "death of the author" at you when discussing textual meaning. This is usually done dismissively. The person often wants to remove everything that would get in the way of their own interpretation. Eco suggests that just because the author should have little or no influence on the meaning of the text doesn't mean you get carte blanche to interpret it however you like.
There is, he says, no way to make rules for how a text should be interpreted, but there is, within the text itself, usually enough information to show how not to. And I think this distinction is incredibly important. If you follow the clues of the text like a detective, you are doing interpretation. But if you start making associations that have no "economy," as he puts it, then you are just bringing your own creations into the text, and that is overinterpretation.
For example, in Patch Adams, there's a famous scene where he wears a clown's nose. In the context of the movie, and with all of the other clues, it would be safe to assume the nose itself represents laughter or joy. It might be okay to assume that as a facial ornament, joy is something we can choose to wear, choose to put on. This might seem like a soft interpretation, but the text would point to it. However, an over-interpreter might point out that the clown nose is red, and red is the color of anger, the color of the bull's cape, and from there start thinking of a bunch of other associations. They may be onto something when they make associations with red, but not all associations are valid 100% of the time. Clown nose is red, and red means angry, so Patch Adams is mad? The text would not support Robin Williams as an angry clown just because his nose is red.
The third Eco lecture is probably the weakest, but no less fun. It talks about the extents to which the author should be involved in an interpretation. It makes its point fairly quickly, and then is mostly anecdotal examples. The examples are worthwhile if you've read Eco's novels, but as substance for the lecture it mostly fills time.
My personal idea on author involvement sits close to Eco's, although I think he leaves some room for clarity. Really, authorship is context. They say the author is dead, but we learn a lot from our dead. If I see the phrase "I am a homo" and it can either have been written by evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins or infamously gay comedian Bruce Vilanch, suddenly the author matters quite a bit. (Eco makes a similar example with the word "gay" in the essays.) Resistant folks may say, "well, the context of who those people are is different than them trying to assert their own meanings as author," to which I say that's true, but that's not what typically happens when people try to claim the death of the author. They typically resists all information about the author. "Who cares what Chuck Palahniuk is about, the movie speaks for itself!" But that's needlessly dismissive. If a text being made in 1939 Germany can be interpreted based on its temporal and spatial context, then so too can it be interpreted by the temporality and spatiality of its author. It's all context.
Eco does, however, move forward on this idea as the author-become-reader, and this is also very cool for me to see on paper as a person who often works this way himself. After the text is written, the author may read it and try to interpret it as a reader might, following the text. And, of course, the author has a sort of "creator's bias," but if they can read the text and point to ideas in it the same as the reader, why dismiss them? I often find myself chiming in on different interpretations of things I helped make. To me, my role as author is dead and gone, and now I'm just a reader who happens to have priveleged information regarding the creation process.
It's a great read, really... and I didn't even touch the stuff on hermeneutics!
The ideas here are interesting and clear. It might be one of my favorite pieces of semiotics.
Eco discusses how there is more than one avenue to approach texts. Usually, he says, people look either for the Author's Meaning or for the Reader's Meaning, but there is a third path, which is the Text's Meaning. Even as he was building his case, I was nodding my head eagerly.
It's pretty common people will recite "death of the author" at you when discussing textual meaning. This is usually done dismissively. The person often wants to remove everything that would get in the way of their own interpretation. Eco suggests that just because the author should have little or no influence on the meaning of the text doesn't mean you get carte blanche to interpret it however you like.
There is, he says, no way to make rules for how a text should be interpreted, but there is, within the text itself, usually enough information to show how not to. And I think this distinction is incredibly important. If you follow the clues of the text like a detective, you are doing interpretation. But if you start making associations that have no "economy," as he puts it, then you are just bringing your own creations into the text, and that is overinterpretation.
For example, in Patch Adams, there's a famous scene where he wears a clown's nose. In the context of the movie, and with all of the other clues, it would be safe to assume the nose itself represents laughter or joy. It might be okay to assume that as a facial ornament, joy is something we can choose to wear, choose to put on. This might seem like a soft interpretation, but the text would point to it. However, an over-interpreter might point out that the clown nose is red, and red is the color of anger, the color of the bull's cape, and from there start thinking of a bunch of other associations. They may be onto something when they make associations with red, but not all associations are valid 100% of the time. Clown nose is red, and red means angry, so Patch Adams is mad? The text would not support Robin Williams as an angry clown just because his nose is red.
The third Eco lecture is probably the weakest, but no less fun. It talks about the extents to which the author should be involved in an interpretation. It makes its point fairly quickly, and then is mostly anecdotal examples. The examples are worthwhile if you've read Eco's novels, but as substance for the lecture it mostly fills time.
My personal idea on author involvement sits close to Eco's, although I think he leaves some room for clarity. Really, authorship is context. They say the author is dead, but we learn a lot from our dead. If I see the phrase "I am a homo" and it can either have been written by evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins or infamously gay comedian Bruce Vilanch, suddenly the author matters quite a bit. (Eco makes a similar example with the word "gay" in the essays.) Resistant folks may say, "well, the context of who those people are is different than them trying to assert their own meanings as author," to which I say that's true, but that's not what typically happens when people try to claim the death of the author. They typically resists all information about the author. "Who cares what Chuck Palahniuk is about, the movie speaks for itself!" But that's needlessly dismissive. If a text being made in 1939 Germany can be interpreted based on its temporal and spatial context, then so too can it be interpreted by the temporality and spatiality of its author. It's all context.
Eco does, however, move forward on this idea as the author-become-reader, and this is also very cool for me to see on paper as a person who often works this way himself. After the text is written, the author may read it and try to interpret it as a reader might, following the text. And, of course, the author has a sort of "creator's bias," but if they can read the text and point to ideas in it the same as the reader, why dismiss them? I often find myself chiming in on different interpretations of things I helped make. To me, my role as author is dead and gone, and now I'm just a reader who happens to have priveleged information regarding the creation process.
It's a great read, really... and I didn't even touch the stuff on hermeneutics!
April 25, 2020
The things that become certain throughout this book are 1) that meaning-making is still possibly the most eluding aspect of art, 2) that one must be obsessed with this in order to tackle it, 3) that not everyone is.
Eco’s proposition of an “intentio operis” (intention of a text) clearly points towards a greater understanding of what texts can do, and, ultimately, what are they. He defines this intention as a text proposing “a semiotic strategy”, and while he admits that identifying what the “good” interpretations are is tricky, he is certain that one can distinguish some of the “bad” ones. Furthermore, he remarks that an “intentio operis” can invite the reader to multiple, if not infinite, conjectures that are all “correct”.
Opposed to this view we find Rorty’s frankly oversimplifying notion on texts. He postulates that texts have no inherent code and that they are simply noise until an interpreter finds a coherence to it. While he raises some very interesting points about the way a critic can use texts for their purpose against letting the text use them to change their views, his stance is pretty much an opposition to the very nature of the debate. How can we discuss the manner in which texts produce meaning if we refuse to believe they can do so?
Culler’s views are more modern, akin to what many schools might teach nowadays. To put it bluntly (and oversimplifying it) is a kind of “anything might be useful, especially paranoia”. He proposes to refer to “overintepretation” as “underinterpretation”, as he sees it more as a partial act of interpreting a text that doesn’t necessarily connect all the dots, but nonetheless can reveal something interesting about the text or about how texts work. He therefore underlines the importance of interpretative frameworks that stray away from the guidelines proposed by the “intention operis”.
Brooke-Rose talks about palimpsest history which is indeed a very interesting topic but that begs the question: why was it included in the book despite being only tangentially related to the main topic at hand?
Lastly, Eco’s response still holds that while “…a text can have many senses” he “refuse[s] the statement that a text can have every sense.” Overall, the book proves to be fascinating and funny despite straying away from the original questions put forwards in Eco’s initial chapters. What the code that differentiates interpretation from overinterpretation is, will probably be a mystery for a very long time. Probably the biggest omission of the book is that Eco never explains whether what he calls overinterpretation can be useful interpretations of a text, but later in the response he suggests he does think so and has in fact “overinterpreted” texts many times. The usefulness and differences of interpretation and overinterpretation are one of the most interesting aspects of this debate, but unfortunately, while alluded to, they are never the central question.
Eco’s proposition of an “intentio operis” (intention of a text) clearly points towards a greater understanding of what texts can do, and, ultimately, what are they. He defines this intention as a text proposing “a semiotic strategy”, and while he admits that identifying what the “good” interpretations are is tricky, he is certain that one can distinguish some of the “bad” ones. Furthermore, he remarks that an “intentio operis” can invite the reader to multiple, if not infinite, conjectures that are all “correct”.
Opposed to this view we find Rorty’s frankly oversimplifying notion on texts. He postulates that texts have no inherent code and that they are simply noise until an interpreter finds a coherence to it. While he raises some very interesting points about the way a critic can use texts for their purpose against letting the text use them to change their views, his stance is pretty much an opposition to the very nature of the debate. How can we discuss the manner in which texts produce meaning if we refuse to believe they can do so?
Culler’s views are more modern, akin to what many schools might teach nowadays. To put it bluntly (and oversimplifying it) is a kind of “anything might be useful, especially paranoia”. He proposes to refer to “overintepretation” as “underinterpretation”, as he sees it more as a partial act of interpreting a text that doesn’t necessarily connect all the dots, but nonetheless can reveal something interesting about the text or about how texts work. He therefore underlines the importance of interpretative frameworks that stray away from the guidelines proposed by the “intention operis”.
Brooke-Rose talks about palimpsest history which is indeed a very interesting topic but that begs the question: why was it included in the book despite being only tangentially related to the main topic at hand?
Lastly, Eco’s response still holds that while “…a text can have many senses” he “refuse[s] the statement that a text can have every sense.” Overall, the book proves to be fascinating and funny despite straying away from the original questions put forwards in Eco’s initial chapters. What the code that differentiates interpretation from overinterpretation is, will probably be a mystery for a very long time. Probably the biggest omission of the book is that Eco never explains whether what he calls overinterpretation can be useful interpretations of a text, but later in the response he suggests he does think so and has in fact “overinterpreted” texts many times. The usefulness and differences of interpretation and overinterpretation are one of the most interesting aspects of this debate, but unfortunately, while alluded to, they are never the central question.
January 23, 2025
The variety of arguments made this an all-round good series of lectures/essays to read if you're interested in the messy world of interpretation.
Eco unsurprisingly had the most logical and sensical argument, in that interpretation is vast but not infinite. And he conveyed it well too. No pretentious vocabulary; clear and coherent.
I can't say the same about Rorty — both about his argument and ostentatious tone. His idea that people should enjoy literary texts without having to worry about digging deeper may at first seem like a comforting one, but it essentially denounces literature as a legitimate discipline. This of course rubbed me the wrong way. Though he did mention a few points that I personally would find useful when interpreting a text (the difference between a methodical and an emotional reading etc.).
I actually quite liked what Culler had to say. He touches on the issues with Pragmatism in relation with literature, something I appreciated after having read Rorty's lecture. I found myself agreeing with what he had to say — believing that to not restrict interpretations allows for them to cultivate the best insights into literature and language. However I think this principle can still be applied with Eco's argument while ensuring logic is maintained.
Finally there is Brook-Rose's lecture on palimpsest history. While reading I questioned whether the argument that was being made was focusing on interpretation as much as it should be. She essentially was stating how texts are closely linked with history, but how texts alternate history and its events to offer new perspectives and ideas. In terms of fictional texts, a lot of them just don't involve much history; they instead perhaps focus on the characters, or some other aspect, with no time period of when the story is set in mind. So it's confusing as to how the reader could apply her argument when interpreting a text.
What I did gain out of these lectures outweighed what I didn't — based on that logic, this was an overall good book. I think it would be worth checking it out, particularly Eco's lectures, as there is some valuable stuff if you are interested in gaining clarity on the perplexity of interpretation.
Eco unsurprisingly had the most logical and sensical argument, in that interpretation is vast but not infinite. And he conveyed it well too. No pretentious vocabulary; clear and coherent.
I can't say the same about Rorty — both about his argument and ostentatious tone. His idea that people should enjoy literary texts without having to worry about digging deeper may at first seem like a comforting one, but it essentially denounces literature as a legitimate discipline. This of course rubbed me the wrong way. Though he did mention a few points that I personally would find useful when interpreting a text (the difference between a methodical and an emotional reading etc.).
I actually quite liked what Culler had to say. He touches on the issues with Pragmatism in relation with literature, something I appreciated after having read Rorty's lecture. I found myself agreeing with what he had to say — believing that to not restrict interpretations allows for them to cultivate the best insights into literature and language. However I think this principle can still be applied with Eco's argument while ensuring logic is maintained.
Finally there is Brook-Rose's lecture on palimpsest history. While reading I questioned whether the argument that was being made was focusing on interpretation as much as it should be. She essentially was stating how texts are closely linked with history, but how texts alternate history and its events to offer new perspectives and ideas. In terms of fictional texts, a lot of them just don't involve much history; they instead perhaps focus on the characters, or some other aspect, with no time period of when the story is set in mind. So it's confusing as to how the reader could apply her argument when interpreting a text.
What I did gain out of these lectures outweighed what I didn't — based on that logic, this was an overall good book. I think it would be worth checking it out, particularly Eco's lectures, as there is some valuable stuff if you are interested in gaining clarity on the perplexity of interpretation.
October 13, 2019
The title corresponds to the theme proposed by Umberto Eco, as the main guest speaker, for lectures on literary criticism.The content, therefore, gathers the different presentations that the invited authors presented at this meeting "Tanner Conferences" in Cambridge, in 1990.They are Stefan Collini, Richard Rorty,Jonathan Culler and Christine Brooke-Rose,all of them, experts in literature. Some of the most interesting concepts when talking about interpretation and overinterpretation of texts, are the differentiation that Eco makes between "intention of the author", "intention of the reader" and "intention of the work" or the "history-palimpsest" that mentions Brooke-Rose.It´s very Interesting
El título corresponde al tema propuesto por Umberto Eco, como principal conferenciante invitado, para unas conferencias sobre crítica literaria.El contenido, por tanto, recoge las diferentes ponencias que los autores invitados expusieron en este encuentro "Conferencias Tanner" en Cambridge, en 1990.Ellos son Stefan Collini, Richard Rorty,Jonathan Culler y Christine Brooke-Rose,Todos ellos,expertos en Literatura. Algunos de los conceptos más interesantes al hablar de interpretación y sobreinterpretación de los textos, son la diferenciación que hace Eco entre "intención del autor","intención del lector" e "intención de la obra" o la "historia-palimpsesto" que menciona Brooke-Rose.Muy interesante.
El título corresponde al tema propuesto por Umberto Eco, como principal conferenciante invitado, para unas conferencias sobre crítica literaria.El contenido, por tanto, recoge las diferentes ponencias que los autores invitados expusieron en este encuentro "Conferencias Tanner" en Cambridge, en 1990.Ellos son Stefan Collini, Richard Rorty,Jonathan Culler y Christine Brooke-Rose,Todos ellos,expertos en Literatura. Algunos de los conceptos más interesantes al hablar de interpretación y sobreinterpretación de los textos, son la diferenciación que hace Eco entre "intención del autor","intención del lector" e "intención de la obra" o la "historia-palimpsesto" que menciona Brooke-Rose.Muy interesante.
August 4, 2020
In sum, it's a panel discussion on "how far someone may dissect a literary text before their interpretation counts as bogus"
The discussion seasoned with intimidating authors and titles, but quite straightforward even in Eco's part. He came up with a triadic distinction of the empirical author, empirical reader, and liminal author. This way he frames the process of reading and how the interpretation emerged. Also, when a reader having too much fun connecting the dots.
The rest of the panelists responded to eco, mostly. Rorty implies that text is like a tool-box, but a tool nevertheless. Culler went strong said that overinterpretation is a necessity as hard criticism which leads to discovery. He did give both Rorty and Eco a good run for their money. Meanwhile, Brooke is a good guy of the bunch.
It's a nice, warm, thought-provoking read to give yourself bountiful doubt on your own reading ability.
(It's recommended to standby with google for references)
The discussion seasoned with intimidating authors and titles, but quite straightforward even in Eco's part. He came up with a triadic distinction of the empirical author, empirical reader, and liminal author. This way he frames the process of reading and how the interpretation emerged. Also, when a reader having too much fun connecting the dots.
The rest of the panelists responded to eco, mostly. Rorty implies that text is like a tool-box, but a tool nevertheless. Culler went strong said that overinterpretation is a necessity as hard criticism which leads to discovery. He did give both Rorty and Eco a good run for their money. Meanwhile, Brooke is a good guy of the bunch.
It's a nice, warm, thought-provoking read to give yourself bountiful doubt on your own reading ability.
(It's recommended to standby with google for references)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 53 reviews