The Debate: To Interpret or Not to Interpret

Interpretation of literature always brings up good debates in our house. As an English major I have been taught to look for meanings found within the pages of a book, whether it be in circumstances of plot, dialogue or narration; it usually drives Zac crazy. He dislikes when people dissect and analyze literature; he claims that no clear evidence exists to support the idea of an author wanting his or her writing to be interpreted in various ways. Well, I just made a discovery that substantiates the process of interpreting literature.

I recently finished reading The Name of the Rose, by Umberto Eco (Harcourt Brace & Co., 1980). At the end of my book was a postscript written by the author, which describes everything from the meaning behind the title to his thoughts on writing a historical novel. Imagine my delight when upon barely starting into the postscript–in fact the beginning of the second paragraph–I read this statement: "A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations." Aha! Evidence that the author is expecting even encouraging interpretation of his writing. He continues:

Nothing is of greater consolation to the author of a novel than the discovery of readings he had not conceived but which are then prompted by his readers. When I wrote theoretical works, my attitude toward reviewers was judicial: Have they or have they not understood what I meant? With a novel, the situation is completely different. I am not saying that the author may not find a discovered reading perverse; but even if he does, he must remain silent, allow others to challenge it, text in hand. For that matter, the large majority of readings reveal effects of sense that one had not thought of. (506)

Let's review: although an author may not have intended a certain "reading" or interpretation of his work, he is not necessarily opposed to having the work interpreted in a variety of ways. I can accept that certain analyses push too far becoming "perverse" (as Eco puts it), but I still find it enjoyable and thought-provoking to hear different takes on readings. I will continue to read for enjoyment, but I will still read critically, searching for connotations, etc., that I can relate some significance to and further my connection to the literature I read.