I originally wrote the Gulliver’s Travels essay that I posted on Monday for an essay contest. As I was writing the essay, I read some of the winning pieces from past years that the sponsor had posted on the contest’s website. They were all well-written, but I was struck with the disparity of opinions about a single work of literature.
For example, the year that analysis of some aspect of Oscar Wilde’s A Portrait of Dorian Gray was the essay topic, several of the prize-winning authors presented entirely different opinions about Wilde’s characters and his motives for writing. In particular, their analyses of Lord Henry, one of the prominent characters in Dorian, show substantial difference of opinion.
One essay reads, “Henry attracts people with his wit and joie de vivre in a Victorian era that seems dull and confining by contrast, and encourages old friends and new acquaintances alike to pursue their passions, enjoy their lives and consider boredom their worst enemy…Advising friends to forget their worries and indulge themselves, Henry encourages people to enjoy the present.”
Another writer declares, “At the opposite end dances Lord Henry with all his charisma and cynicism, sense and sensuality. His disregard for any standard or convention which impedes the immediate gratification of his senses gives rise to a dangerous new philosophy that alarms poor Basil even as it seduces an impressionable Dorian…Wilde condemns a life governed by the senses…The object of any soul in crisis is not to become like Basil and barricade one’s goodness from the world, nor like Harry and tumble recklessly in the shifting currents of one’s desires…”
In the mind of one author and amateur literary analyst, Lord Henry is an example of the liberated soul. To another, he serves as a warning against excessive sensual indulgence. In Dorian, Lord Henry is an enigmatic, complex character, so the difference in opinion isn’t surprising. What is a little bit surprising is the assurance of each author that he or she is correct. It seems like the writers made certain generalizations and assumptions because, in their minds, they were obvious. However, these kinds of assumptions are anything but obvious.
It makes me wonder how much of literary analysis is just subjective interpretation of someone else’s thoughts values and how much is actually reliable. A lot about literary analysis is objective; that’s indisputable (well…not if you’re a deconstructionist). However, I suspect that much of what we think we know about a book, or a poem, or a song reflects what is true about our worldviews and opinions, rather than what is true about the intent of the author. What I think is true about Oscar Wilde’s Lord Henry is not necessarily what my sister thinks, and though both of us understand Wilde’s intent to a degree, much of the “analysis” we could present to support our opinions would only reveal what we believe, not necessarily what Wilde intended to communicate.
Difference of opinion is healthy. It’s good for various interpretations of literature and other forms of fine art to exist. At least, it’s good as long as we recognize that interpretations are just interpretations, not necessarily truisms. I think the mark of a qualified literary analyst would be scrupulous differentiation between objective analysis and mere opinion. Both are valuable, but they shouldn’t be confused.
This whole idea brings to mind many more questions.
- Do we need to distinguish between the objective and subjective in biblical interpretation?
- How would we do that?
- To what extent is it possible to rid oneself of bias?
- If you could be totally unbiased, would you want to be? After all, aren’t our opinions tied up very closely with our personalities?
Interesting. I really don’t know. Still, I’m pretty sure opinions masquerading as objective analysis are not helpful. After all, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
1 comments:
Difference of opinion is, as you noted, vital. If nothing else, it curtails the prideful certainty of the analyst, which might otherwise degenerate into a know-it-all attitude.
The problem with biblical interpretation, though, is that one person can be absolutely positive that a given passage means one thing, and will defend that one interpretation with their terminal breath, because they believe that it is a fundamental point of their faith, on which they must not compromise. Another person, on the other hand, might think that interpretation to be utter dross. In dealing with something as important as holy writ, or even writ considered by only one of these hypothetical readers to be holy, people tend to cling to absolutism. They must be correct, because this is the very heart of where they stand, and to give any ground is to betray their faith - at least to them, it would be. Pure objectivity is hard to find when interpreting the Bible, as many passages can be taken as allegories or what have you. There will also be many who are unwilling to compromise in the least on their interpretations of any given verse. The need for distinction, though, is certainly present. The alterenative is absolute dogma, which would encourage legalism and absolute religious authority. We have had enough trouble with these things to know that this is not a place where we wish to go.
As for ridding the self of bias - good luck. As humans, that pretty much isn't going to happen. The closest we can come to eliminating bias is being very, very open to different analyses of a given piece or passage.
Post a Comment