I thought this month might be a good opportunity to try something a little different. Some might call it laziness, others wanton self indulgence; some might even be up in arms at what they see as poorly veiled megalomania. It's a little bit of all these things actually. I thought, despite the innumerable topics waiting patiently to be discussed this month, I would give you a glimpse of what my University course is like. I could have written something new, but this was already gathering dust on my hard drive. It's the second essay I produced for my Literature degree. It also holds the record for the best grade I have achieved thus far on this leg of my education, a reasonable, sensible and inoffensive 75%. The topic: the role of reader and writer. The subject matter: Henry James' malicious novella The Turn of the Screw. So, if you have the stomach for it, here is a fully referenced insight into how my brain functions behind the expression of doleful confusion. With some imagination I'm sure you will see how this could be interpreted as relevant...
In the relationship between author and reader, both parties fulfil roles crucial to the conception of meaning in the text. As the creator of the text itself the author assumes a position with considerable sway over this but the reader, subordinate in terms of influence as he or she may seem, still retains the final word on the subject. The text, upon its release to the reader, finds itself at the mercy of their perceptions. The reading of Henry James’ The Turn of the Screw, for example, inevitably places a considerable degree of responsibility on the observations and deductions of the reader. The very nature of the plot is that of uncertainty and ambiguity. As such it offers an ideal looking glass through which to view and understand the roles of both author and reader. The two can potentially be viewed together or individually as either a symbiotic literary relationship or as two separate entities with distinct roles.
The role of the author is to offer subject matter in a way that allows the reader to perceive it on their own terms. An effective author does not stifle the creativity of the reader or patronise them with explicit statements. Roland Barthes claimed in his essay ‘The Death of the Author’ that ‘the birth of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the Author’ (Barthes 1470). He believed that the presence or concept of an author in the reading process impressed upon the text limits and restrictions and encouraged readers to ‘disentangle’ the text rather than to ‘decipher’ it (1469). This is a valid point; intimate knowledge of the author can manipulate the reading of a text. Premeditated awareness of a certain author’s beliefs, faith or biographical detail can potentially highlight instances where the author has leaked into the text, subconsciously or otherwise. James, for instance, was no stranger to the kind of scene portrayed in his frame narrative, being a popular guest in any number of drawing rooms throughout London (James 11). However this detail does not influence the meaning of the story. It is merely that, a detail, a trivial piece of knowledge regarding setting. A reader of The Turn of the Screw will not draw any notion of powerful significance from this. Barthes maintains that the author and the text are separate or, at least, should be considered separately. The role of the author then is one removed from the meaning of the text. If the writer’s intention, ‘the “message” of the Author-God’ (1468) as Barthes phrases it, is removed then the reader’s role becomes purer. For Barthes the role of the author is simply to write, to produce the text. The author writes the text, but his relation to its meaning does not precede or proceed the reading process (1467). The author’s role in creating meaning is negligible as the text he or she creates is a ‘multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash’ (1468). Although to consider the author as a human existing before, after and during the flow of the text inescapably can lure the reader into certain restricting areas, it actually makes little sense to assume that an utter rejection of the author as an entity yields a purer, fuller interpretation of meaning. In The Turn of the Screw James writes as a character in the story. The recollection the reader is exposed to is the work of the narrator, a copy of the manuscript of the governess. The narrator is a fictional author within the story. To approach the text contained within the frame narrative without due consideration to the part of the fictional author would actually be restricting in itself. In considering the origins of a text we, as readers, can approach meaning from a human viewpoint, rather than from a scientifically analytical one. By doing this we can gain insight not only into aspects of the plot but also of characters, the governess being a prime example of this.
Even if we were to remove the author from the text their role is undeniably crucial. There could be no reading process, no opportunity for analysis or interpretation without the nurturing influence of the author. If a text were to make plain each and every aspect of its literary anatomy then it would be rendered meaningless. It would merely be an encyclopaedic collection of events without room for alternate readings. What the author must decide is which facts should be excluded and which facts will encourage an active role on the part of the reader. If the author carries this out well then it matters not whether they are included in derivation of meaning by the reader. The reality and depth of the text will still be evident without attaching explicit meaning to each and every action and event. Taking, as an example, the last words of Miles in The Turn of the Screw: ‘Peter Quint – you devil!’ (261) we are faced with a number of possible interpretations. James does not resolve the identity of the so called ‘devil’. It could refer to Peter Quint. It could just as easily be an attack on the governess. This omission of fact lends the scene a deeply disturbing air as the reader is, as at various points in the story, forced to consider what they believe to know and how they can really maintain these beliefs with any kind of certainty. Here the role of the author in generation of meaning is to encourage and nurture conflict in the mind of the reader. This conflict leads the reading of the text to encompass more possibilities so that each reader does not necessarily ascertain their own definitive version of events but appreciates the range of potential truths discovered. So the author provides the fuel for the reader to determine meaning in the text, a role including a certain level of interpretation for the author himself.
The reader’s role in the reading of any text, and especially The Turn of the Screw, is to act as a canvas upon which the words can imprint meaning. As such, every reader of a given text will invariably be imprinted differently, however subtle these differences may be. What makes possible and defines these dissimilarities in the meaning of texts between readers is the distance existing between text and reader. Wolfgang Iser wrote in Prospecting: From Reader Response to Literary Anthropology that ‘The imbalance between text and reader . . . is undefined, and it is this very indeterminacy that increases the variety of communications possible’ (33). Iser’s idea of the distance between reader and text is exemplified in an arguably hyperbolic manner in The Turn of the Screw. James deliberately creates a considerable detachment between the reader and the text, a distance littered with barriers to understanding and deduction. The events of the novella are communicated to us through an unconventional narrative. The story is, at its basest definition, the experiences of the governess. Even using this as a marker, according to Iser, the reader is faced with a substantial breadth of separation. It is a fundamental part of ‘dyadic interaction’ that experience is a personal attribute and that ‘Contact therefore depends upon our continually filling in a central gap in our experience’ (32). In the case of the governess it is the role of the reader to actively attempt to bridge the gap created by the fact that these events were in the life of another human being. To complicate matters the governess’ account of her experience is filtered through other narrators. Her recollection of the events is recorded in a manuscript which is read by Douglas, as indicated in the frame narrative. Douglas is not the narrator however, and Douglas’ reading of the manuscript is relayed to us via a member of his audience. The reader must be responsible for bridging the gap not only between the text and his or her self but also the fictional distance between the characters, some of whom know each other purely through contact with a physical script. In this way a reader of The Turn of the Screw is as much a part of the story as the characters, at least in terms of approaching the ambiguous facts from a similar starting line. This factor in the reading process is implied when Douglas says ‘You’ll easily judge . . . you will’ (James 147). That the name, gender and indeed almost all detail of the narrator are exempt from the text invites the reader to fulfil this role. Douglas provokes an active role in the reading of the text, one where the reader must make decisions which influence the story to the core.
The sanity of the governess is a factor over which the decisions of the reader have great influence. The only evidence of the presence of the ghosts is the governess’ manuscript over which she has full control. There are instances when the reader must carefully assess the evidence provided thus far. One particular example finds Mrs Grose confronted with the governess’ claims of seeing the spectre of Miss Jessel. Unable to see the apparition herself she remarks: ‘What a dreadful turn, to be sure, Miss! Where on earth do you see anything?’ (239). Here is a formidable affront to what we, as readers, believe we know. It explicitly forces us to consider our own perceptions of the governess’ experience and to evaluate the means by which our observations have been shaped and in doing so heightens the sense of tension and sinister uncertainty which is the basis for the text. This may seem fairly concrete proof of the governess’ madness but dealing with aspects of the supernatural can offer the opportunity for readers to eschew the conventions of realism and rational possibility. Therefore even an event of such clarity catalyses the formation of myriad interpretations. The reader has been granted information, whether reliable or otherwise, and must now reach, to some extent, a conclusion. Iser supports this when he writes ‘In literary works . . . the message is transmitted in two ways, in that the reader “receives” it by composing it” (Iser 31).
The role of the reader then is to give human meaning to a text. In The Turn of the Screw, without reader interpretation, the story is a vague chronology of uncertain facts, truths and half truths all undistinguishable from each other. The act of the reader involving themselves with these uncertainties is what defines it. Iser summarised this process when he developed his approach towards the ‘text as a skeleton of “schematized aspects” that must be actualized or concretized by the reader’ (Herman 193). The new ‘concretized’ form of the text in the mind of the reader, replete with meaning, is a personal concept. It draws its life force not only from the text, from the recorded events themselves, but also from the active mind of the reader. The individual reader’s understanding and generation of meaning will inherit features and outlooks derived from personal experience and character. The reader will naturally and unavoidably incorporate these into their reading experience (Iser 32).
To conclude, without the contribution of both author and reader texts could have no meaning. Without the influence of the author there could not even be potential for meaning. Without the reader’s active contribution the possibilities for meaning would go unexplored. The author must actively seek to encourage the imagination of the reader with conflict and unresolved uncertainty. In this way the reader’s interpretation of meaning is richer and multi-layered, increasing the realism of the story and providing more opportunity for the reader to relate to the text. Clyde de L. Ryals captured this argument in his book A World of Possibilities when he wrote that the roles of the author and reader comprised of ‘the writer supplying what “true historical research would yield” and the reader bringing “a kindred openness, a kindred spirit of endeavour”’ (Ryals 22). Ryals goes on to say that “meaning is generated by both the author and the reader, who share in the moral responsibility of interpreting the fluid text” (22).
Barthes, Roland. ‘The Death of the Author’. Trans. Stephen Heath. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. London. W. W. Norton & Company, 2001. 1466 – 1470.
Herman, Luc. ‘Concepts of Realism’. Melton, Suffolk. Boydell & Brewer, 1996.
Iser, Wolfgang. ‘Prospecting: From Reader Response to Literary Anthropology’. Baltimore. John Hopkins University Press, 1989.
James, Henry. ‘The Turn of the Screw’. The Turn of the Screw and The Aspern Papers. Ed. Anthony Curtis. London. Penguin Books, 1986. 143 – 262.
Ryals, Clyde de L. ‘A World of Possibilities’. Ohio. Ohio State University Press, 1990.
No comments:
Post a Comment