*Note: I realize there may be 'holes' in my discussion and that some of the concepts are not very fully developed or adequately explained and defended but I feel that for this medium-- the blog-- it works as a useful discussion of the topic.*
Reading and Interpreting
As I was reading the Introduction to Kafka's "The Castle" I came across an interesting concept-- one I probably inherently know but never understood as written down into words. The author of the Intro., Irving Howe, makes a case for two different ways of understanding literature, reading and interpreting. For many of us, we consider the two different processes to be intertwined, which, I think they probably are. However, it is important to understand that they are not one and the same thing. Despite their overlap in practice each method does have its own unique eccentricities and definable characteristics. Placing emphasis on one or the other can, in some cases at least, give you two very different perspectives on the same text.
Not only do we confuse the two different acts we also assume that we know what reading is just from doing it, which gives us a feeling of what it is but not a verbal construction to judge it with. Try and define it into words and most peoples understanding of reading would probably become somewhat confused, lacking the conviction of understanding it outside of participating in the act of doing it. Throw interpreting into the mix by asking them to compare reading and interpreting by defining each term with the other in mind and the definitions would become even less stable. So, to provide some solid ground to get good footing on I'm going to base the following discussion on the quote that Irving Howe provides in "The Castle" Introduction; "A reading describes the text as scrupulously as possible, seeking to evoke its uniqueness; an interpretation transposes the text into a sequence of supplied meanings". Howe's definitions of reading and interpreting are especially applicable to the writing of Kafka and the placement of this assertion in an introduction to Kafka the reader needs to question if these are general definitions or just definitions specifically for Kafka scholars. I contend that these definitions are somewhat geared for Kafka but also hold up against any literature and perhaps against anything that can be "read" or "interpreted", which, according to the post-modern sway, is almost anything.
To get deeper into the conflict let's first address this definition of reading. To reiterate, Howe contends reading "describes the text as scrupulously as possible, seeking to evoke its uniqueness". For most of us, including some criticism camps concerned with reader response, reading is that feeling we ususally get from engaging in the general process of reading-- becoming immersed in the story and the special construction of events the author has put before us. To read is to trust the text and have the faith of the story; reading is like actually living the events somewhat void of criticisms that come from later reflection.
With reading somewhat under our belt now our focus can shift to interpreting. According to the Howe definition interpreting "transposes the text into a sequence of supplied meanings". Applying theory and various literary criticisms are all ways of interpreting. Juxtaposing the text with another system of meaning opens up the text for the interpreter. Interpreting makes the reader much less anxious with the "problems" a reader confronts. In some works, especially Kafka, the reader has to deal with problematic issues such as Gregor Samsa turning into a bug; we are tempted to focus on what turning into the bug could mean (alienation, disgust, loss of humanness) and rationalize the problem we have with a human being metamorphasizing into an insect. To interpret makes us more comfortable with the text by being able to prescribe concepts we are familiar and comfortable with to curb the anxiety of the unknowable.
Perhaps reading is like seeing the world as a metaphor while interpreting is understanding events like a simile. Adding the "like" or "as" (the simile) in understanding events establishes immediate distrust; the interpreter needs to grasp at external, familiar associations to most accurately pinpoint their cognitive location because of the lack of ability to completely trust in their initial feeling. Understanding the world without the "like" or "as" of the simile (the metaphor) revels in the faith of solid belief in a feeling and stance towards understanding that feeling. Consider reading as defined by pure-faith while interpreting is striving towards the same faith but encountering the world with an uncertainty similar to the lack of conviction as defined in the Uncertainty Principle-- we are unable to know both the speed and location of matter at the same time; to know any of this information we must interfere.
As I pursue understanding reading and interpreting most likely the question you the audience are begging me to address is this, "which is "better" (for lack of a more potent word), to read or to interpret?" This question, despite our feeling for it's necessity, is not a useful way of solving the problem. A better way to understand this issue is to ask "which method is better for what I am trying to accomplish?". Considering the ambitions of the reader allows the question to become much more answerable. For pure enjoyment most people would say to read is more enjoyable than interpreting but not everyone; some find the process of seeking connections between the text and the "supplied meanings" an enjoyable challenge. For scholars producing papers interpretation is the most employed method; again though, reading is not entirely absent from scholarly work. Possibly, in order to address whether to read or to interpret, the most basic question to ask is "how do I want the text to mean?".
The problems of whether to read or interpret does not only plague literature scholars but also the common pleasure reader. To the common reader, the process of interpreting can have it's positive and negative associations; A pleasure reader may say "I admire that interpretation of this book. It helps to broaden my understanding of it." However the opposite side may say "that interpretation was no where in this book. I don't see how you can read into information that wasn't written by the author. Doing that ruins the book by taking away from it." Who's right? Once again, I say both readers are right. Both reading and interpreting provide their own insights, neither of which is wrong, but only another perspective. In fact I would say that it is completely impossible (children, who greater posses the "suspension of disbelief" power, could be argued) to not engage in both, whether consciously or not. Only through vigorous involvement in and consideration of BOTH actions can the intellectual depth of the work-- and the reader-- be revealed.
