Interpretations – Creative Reading

The concept of Reader Response as a literary theory relies on personal interpretation of individual works. Rather than letting an already standing singular truth about a work dominate the reading of the work, reader response lets each reader bring their own vision of the work to a discussion, although it is made clear that vast departures from what is specified in the text are viewed as less credible or valued as an interpretation. This aspect of reader response sounds similar to productions of a literary text into some other medium. The idea of taking a novel and turning it into a play, musical or even movie seems to rely on reader response to keep the same story original across all mediums it put in as well as the different variation of those same mediums.

Taking a novel that has been adapted more than once such as It by Stephen King allows for wiggle room to be made in each interpretation of the same story. It was originally published in 1986 with a story following multiple characters across a large gap of time. In the original novel, as well as the television miniseries, the story jumps between the late 50s and early 80s for its setting. The recent film adaptation of the novel instead makes a clear two-part story, the first set in the late 80s with the later half set in the mid-2010s. While this change in setting is drastic as it pushes the events of the novel forward by roughly thirty years, the same basic story is told. Changing the setting proves to only be a stylistic choice made by the writer and director of the film for the sake of their own personal vision of the film as well as relatability to a modern-day audience.

Along with this the characters change slightly in appearance between the three versions of the story, for example Pennywise. In the original novel Pennywise is described more like a modern colorful clown that has been the norm for clowns throughout must of the last century. In the current film adaptation, he is seen in a more Victorian era outfit with muted colors and a large collar. The most color placed onto the character is on its head with red paint detailing on the face and bright orange hair. While this outward appearance is different from what Stephen King originally wrote, this again takes into account that reader response doesn’t rely on any one truth. The author only writes the book or work of literature and after that point it is up to each individual reader to make their own reality out of what is written, and it is expected to always have variation between readers. No one can limit the interpretations of each reader, or director of a film. No one person has a final say on what is “correct” for a work of literature, even if they are an instructor or even the author. The community as a whole can decide something is too far off from what is meant to be part of a story. This would be like if a film adaptation of It were to replace Pennywise or the actual Creature with more traditional killer with no cosmic horror qualities. This would sort of creative liberty would change the core of the story revolving around an intangible antagonist.

King, Stephen. It: a Novel. Scribner, 2019.

I find many aspects of New Criticism contradictory and un-objective, but what created the most conflict for me is the New Critic perspective on psychological, sociological, and philosophical parts of works. In Critical Theory Today, Lois Tyson describes this perspective: “…New Critics addressed these elements, but they did so for the purpose of examining how such elements operate to establish the texts’ theme… they aestheticized them” (142). To look at psychological, sociological, and philosophical parts of a work and disregard them or only look at them aesthetically seems disingenuous. True distance from those three areas is impossible for a human, who is made of subjectivity and bias, and more so for the specific group of humans – rich, white, educated, abled, cisgender, heterosexual men – who dominated this theory in its heyday.

T.S Eliot writes in “Tradition and the Individual Talent” that “the emotion of art is impersonal.” This ties into his commentary on the separation of the of the “personality” of the author, as he describes it, and the medium. This implies a vast distance between a poet and their writing. I understand him to mean that emotional distance is required to produce effective poetry, and I agree that some is useful. However, his description of the distance is too extreme. It is as if the poet is merely a robot that has no experiences, feelings, or thoughts that can – intentionally or unintentionally – influence the resulting poem. Or, those influences are irrelevant to the quality of the poem.

The New Critics reduce writing to the formal qualities, and Eliot furthers this notion of intratextual examination when he distances the author. Neither, however, are the problem inherit with this theory. Its claims of ‘single best interpretation’ and ‘objectivity’ create the issue. As I have touched above, there are alternatives to the rigidness of New Criticism, which can hold more weight based on the work.

Consider “On Being Brought from Africa to America” by Phillis Wheatley:

‘Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,

Taught my benighted soul to understand

That there’s a God, that there’s a Saviour too:

Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.

Some view our sable race with scornful eye,

“Their colour is a diabolic die.”

Remember, Christians, Negros, black as Cain,

May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.

A New Critic would talk about the organic unity in certain aspects in this poem (“Pagan” balancing “Saviour,” the contrast of a physical land and a soul). But they would be missing what I find of the utmost relevance, because context is required. It was written by an enslaved African woman in the United States at the beginning of the 19^th century. Phillis Wheatley was published by white people for white people, and her master encouraged her to write. She could neither cut herself off completely, because she had things she needed to say, nor directly convey what she needed to tell them. New Critics may say, “Well, we can aestheticize some of that from within the poem.” And to that, I say, if we do, we miss the integral part of this poem. This poem does not exist simply to be art. It is a message. In an elegant and poetic form, but the purpose is to convey a specific message in a non-threatening yet impactful way that comes directly from her personal circumstances. It is openly as Phillis Wheatley can say to that her enslavement is wrong: “Remember, Christians, Negros, black as Cain / May be refin’d, and join th’ angelic train.”

This portrait comes from one of Phillis Wheatley’s poetry books.

Works Cited

Eliot, T. S. “Tradition and the Individual Talent.” Poetry Foundation. 13 Oct. 2009. www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/69400/tradition-and-the-individual-talent. Accessed 6 Sept. 2019.

Moorhead, Scipio, Engraver. Phillis Wheatley, Negro servant to Mr. John Wheatley, of Boston. Retrieved from the Library of Congress. http://www.loc.gov/item/2002712199/. Accessed 6 Sept. 2019.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. 3^rded., Routledge, 2015.

Wheatley, Phillis. “On Being Brought from Africa to America.” Poetry Foundation. www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45465/on-being-brought-from-africa-to-america. Accessed 6 Sept. 2019.