In Textual Power, Robert Scholes spends a considerable amount of time discussing the power and relevance of the text. In particular, he decides to attack the idea that a text is nothing more than a result of the interpreter. He attributes this point of view and approach to Stanley Fish. In his argument, Scholes contends that the text’s contextual clues and its actual language serve to constrain meaning. Therefore, the free-for-all interpretations that have no basis in the text’s background and context can be judged as incorrect or invalid.

Scholes is advocating what most readers have done all along. My students and I use different contextual clues from within the text to derive meaning. It’s a constant struggle between our own experiences and the boundaries that the text presents. If we rely too heavily on one aspect, our view of the writing and its meaning becomes skewed. Like Scholes, most readers use more than a single approach to a given piece of writing. One of the major misconceptions in classes about literary theory is the tendency to isolate each school of thought. Naturally, a student leaves the classroom thinking that people read a text using a distinct literary theory such as New Criticism or New Historicism. This is rarely the case. While some readers advocate a particular theory, I have never met a fellow student or reader that completely adhered to a particular tract. The interaction between the text and the reader demands a number of different approaches. In some cases, a considerable amount of cultural knowledge is necessary. In other texts, a specific knowledge of a case or moment in time is helpful.

Shakespeare is a perfect example of a text that requires a little knowledge from a wide range of fields. The language requires the ability to appreciate rhyme schemes. Some of the references are based on historical events, so a cursory knowledge of “basic” history is equally helpful. Finally, a firm grounding in basic psychology or human nature can help illuminate some of the various motivations that each character brings to the action. Are all of these elements necessary? No. Are they extremely helpful to deciphering the text? Yes.

At some level, the text is communicating some essential message or truth. That explains the similar reactions that people have to an unknown text. While readers differ in their precise interpretations, the fact that most agree on a few basic concepts about a given text is an indicator of something within the text. To argue that interpretation is purely based on cultural influences is to deny the power and tools present in the text. Texts have meaning and value. Our view of the text may change, but some aspects and themes (good and evil) remain ever-present. I am reminded of that old saying about the journey being more important than the destination. In the case of literature, the process of discovery leads to critical thinking and deep learning. Losing site of that goal is a constant danger.

–Francois Guidry