As I read through this week\u2019s posts so far, I started to feel a bit like the odd woman out. I did NOT love Crosman\u2019s article. For me, the most troubling aspect of this article was Crosman\u2019s tone and obvious disdain for Hirsch\u2019s perspective. Isn\u2019t it odd that Crosman (so intent on pluralism) penned an article that is at times arrogant, \u201chipper than thou,\u201d and decidedly firm in its own correctness? Is it just me, or could this article be subtitled \u201cWhy E.D. Hirsch is a Giant Fascist\u201d?<\/p>\n
Granted, I haven\u2019t read Hirsch\u2019s writings on the topic of interpretation and where meaning lies. And true, Crosman\u2019s discussion of Hirsch\u2019s terminology (for example, \u201cverbal meaning vs. \u201csignificance\u201d) reveals an overemphasis on semantics–though not necessarily the \u201ccontradiction\u201d claimed by Crosman (151).<\/p>\n
The specific section of Crosman\u2019s analysis that most bothered me was his insistence that Hirsch\u2019s perspective was the literary equivalent of Hobbes\u2019s Leviathan<\/em>. This analogy follows a short passage in which Hirsch comments on the development of modern approaches to interpretation:<\/p>\n When critics deliberately banished the original author, they themselves usurped his place, and this led unerringly to some of our present-day theoretical confusions. Where before there had been but one author, there now arose a multiplicity of them, each carrying as much authority as the next\u2026.If a theorist wants to save the idea of validity, he has to save the author as well. (Hirsch 5-6, quoted in Crosman 157).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, this passage strikes me<\/em> as an entirely logical way to approach literature. Sure, Hirsch uses the language of politics\u2014but is that not appropriate to a discussion of interpretive \u201cauthority\u201d? More importantly, would any of us argue that the author isn\u2019t an authority on what he or she intended?<\/p>\n Crosman takes Hirsch\u2019s political language and runs with it. In Hirsch\u2019s world, asserts Crosman, \u201cmeaning is either singular or absolute, or it does not exist (the author = the king)\u201d (157). This statement is inflammatory not only because it misrepresents Hirsch\u2019s comments, but also because it alludes to a political text that is commonly read as a justification for absolute, ruthless, dictatorial rule.<\/p>\n But Crosman does not stop there. He continues to portray Hirsch and his ilk as the old guard, wary of \u201cignorant\u201d and \u201carrogant\u201d usurpers of authority\u2014and not just of the literary kind. According to Crosman, Hirsch longs for a world in which there is only ever one Truth, a world in which \u201cdecent [decent!!!] regard for hierarchy and order is maintained and the state is at peace\u201d (158). As a writer concerned with words, meaning, and connotations, Crosman clearly knows what he\u2019s doing here. He might as well have called Hirsch a \u201csquare.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite Crosman\u2019s insinuations and exaggerations, Hirsch\u2019s perspectives on interpretation struck me as entirely appropriate and well-suited to most poetry written before the 20th<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n By Crosman\u2019s own admission, \u201cthe convention that authors make meaning arose from a desire to think of truth as single and univocal\u201d (161). For much of history, this was the main frame through which scholars in all fields perceived the world. Most poems were <\/em>written with a specific plan, purpose, or with \u201cphilosophy\u201d in mind. Would anyone honestly argue that there are multiple valid <\/em>interpretations to a poem like Jonson\u2019s \u201cOn My First Son\u201d or Dryden\u2019s \u201cSong for St. Cecilia\u2019s Day\u201d?<\/p>\n Despite what I\u2019ve written above, I do not completely reject critical theories that locate meaning with the reader. I especially liked Crosman\u2019s point that \u201cauthors make meaning\u2026in the sense that we all do\u2014as interpreters, as readers\u201d (162). Likewise, the final stretch of Crosman\u2019s argument against Hirsch (during which he drives home the point that \u201cwe make the author\u2019s meaning!\u201d) is very compelling.<\/p>\n In a larger, more philosophical sense, Crosman is also entirely correct that we live in an era in which few people except or believe in one singular truth or authority\u2014in anything, never mind literature.<\/p>\n It makes sense, therefore to read most modern poetry with a pluralistic approach. I\u2019d even venture to say that it should be applied (sparingly) to older texts. That being said, those who overuse such tactics run the risk of missing out on interesting and pertinent historical and biographical factors that can bring a deeper understanding to most texts.<\/p>\n Then again, maybe I\u2019m just a square.<\/p>\n Sara<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As I read through this week\u2019s posts so far, I started to feel a bit like the odd woman out. I did NOT love Crosman\u2019s article. For me, the most troubling aspect of this article was Crosman\u2019s tone and obvious disdain for Hirsch\u2019s perspective. Isn\u2019t it odd that Crosman (so intent on pluralism) penned an […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[34,35,38,37,36],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.samplereality.com\/gmu\/spring2008\/610\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.samplereality.com\/gmu\/spring2008\/610\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.samplereality.com\/gmu\/spring2008\/610\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.samplereality.com\/gmu\/spring2008\/610\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.samplereality.com\/gmu\/spring2008\/610\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.samplereality.com\/gmu\/spring2008\/610\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.samplereality.com\/gmu\/spring2008\/610\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.samplereality.com\/gmu\/spring2008\/610\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.samplereality.com\/gmu\/spring2008\/610\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}