On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
At a number of
points, this steps squarely into a decades-long debate
in literary studies about the nature of reading and of interpretation.
This is a debate that is still - perhaps permanently -unsettled.
However the view Wikipedia is taking - that there is some core of
knowledge that is "descriptive" as opposed to "interpretive" - is
decades out of the realm of accepted. It's a discredited view.
Could you explain the nature of this debate? While there is certainly
a grey area between "descriptive" and "interpretive" I think the
basic
plot elements of a novel aren't generally open to interpretation
(there will be exceptions for certain parts of certain novels, and
those can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis).
<snip>
I think Phil means the debate over authorial intentionality (and
related topics):
Though he might have meant other aspects of that debate.
Other articles that might help: