ITTOL - Lecture 4 - Configurative Reading
In this lecture Prof Fry compares Gadamer, Isler and Hirsch. Gadamer believes the reader must find common ground in the text if it is to be understood and that the reader must be pulled-up-short by the text in some manner if he is to recognize that the text is presenting him with something new or different. The main problem with Gadamer is the that he believes the gap between the reader and the text must be small; the reader's world must incorporate understood elements of the text's world or common ground is not possible and the gap cannot be leapt.
Isler takes a similar approach but he relishes much larger gaps; he is not concerned with the reader finding common ground with the text, he compares reading to an adventure and the wider the gap, the more the text violates the readers expectations, the more enjoyable the adventure.
Should note that Gadamer is concerned with both non-fiction and fiction while Isler is concerned only with fiction; however, I think that Gadamer's premise that common ground is needed might be stronger for non-fiction than fiction. For example, it is not uncommon for original discoveries in science to be discredited for years, if not decades, precisely because the author is proposing something outside the common arena. The irony is, Gadamer's approach serves to re-enforce this result or possibly, his approach is based on his observations of how texts are interpreted and so his theory encompasses and sustains an existing interpretive reality.
Isler is similar to Hirsch in that he separates the act of reading from the act of interpretation (what we construe from the reading); just as Hirsch separates meaning from significance.
I have a problem understanding a comment made by Prof. Fry's in relation to Hirsch's theory being "difficult intuitively to assent to". Hirsch is concerned with clearly separating the meaning of a text from its significance. Find out first what the text is saying and then make it significant however you like; which I read as, significance not meaning, is relative. For example, if the text is "Jack lit a match." the meaning isn't a problem, we know what it is to light a match. The significance; however, can vary widely according to the context supplied by the text, the author, the reader or any combination of the three. If I understand Hirsch correctly, I don't have any difficulty assenting to his premise; although I think it may be difficult, in practice, to establish a consensus on textual meaning using his approach. This may be the inherent problem in Hirsch's approach that causes Prof. Fry's intuitive difficulty. At the end of the lecture he says:
Isler takes a similar approach but he relishes much larger gaps; he is not concerned with the reader finding common ground with the text, he compares reading to an adventure and the wider the gap, the more the text violates the readers expectations, the more enjoyable the adventure.
Should note that Gadamer is concerned with both non-fiction and fiction while Isler is concerned only with fiction; however, I think that Gadamer's premise that common ground is needed might be stronger for non-fiction than fiction. For example, it is not uncommon for original discoveries in science to be discredited for years, if not decades, precisely because the author is proposing something outside the common arena. The irony is, Gadamer's approach serves to re-enforce this result or possibly, his approach is based on his observations of how texts are interpreted and so his theory encompasses and sustains an existing interpretive reality.
Isler is similar to Hirsch in that he separates the act of reading from the act of interpretation (what we construe from the reading); just as Hirsch separates meaning from significance.
I have a problem understanding a comment made by Prof. Fry's in relation to Hirsch's theory being "difficult intuitively to assent to". Hirsch is concerned with clearly separating the meaning of a text from its significance. Find out first what the text is saying and then make it significant however you like; which I read as, significance not meaning, is relative. For example, if the text is "Jack lit a match." the meaning isn't a problem, we know what it is to light a match. The significance; however, can vary widely according to the context supplied by the text, the author, the reader or any combination of the three. If I understand Hirsch correctly, I don't have any difficulty assenting to his premise; although I think it may be difficult, in practice, to establish a consensus on textual meaning using his approach. This may be the inherent problem in Hirsch's approach that causes Prof. Fry's intuitive difficulty. At the end of the lecture he says:
Evaluation would seem rather at a distance removed from simple considerations of how to read, but in fact I think we've shown that evaluation is in one way or another implicit in certain methodological premises as they establish themselves in the work of these various writers.In other words, Gadamer, Isler and Hirsch each have preconceptions which could affect the correct reading methodologies they propose.