"Texts are certainly not available for innocent, unhistorical readings. Any reading must be made from a particular position, but is not reducible to that position." (Barker& Hulm 444)
Barker and Hulm are speaking here of using the autotelic, or single fixed meaning when reading a text. This quote I feel shows that though there should be a specific platform from which a critic takes his/her views this platform is not the only one in which the critic can take a stand. They go on to say how "different readings struggle with each other," but when all is said and done it is still the knowledge of the text which matters. Anyone can have an opinion, but without sufficient knowledge the historical redings can go awry.
Barker and HUlm are establishing that there can be a 'wrong' way to look at a text from an historical perspective. There are certain "constraints and resistances"(444) wehn reading a text. Some critcs, as we've read, seem to trya nd manipulate the text to fit in with their own political and historical views, this is not always possible if the historical view is not consistant with the true nature of history.
Comments (1)
I happen to believe that even the thought that there could only be one fixed point from which to read a text is silly. No matter what stance you take, you are in essance creating propoganda in an effort to manipulate others into agreeing with your personal view, or opinion, however you want to phrase it. What is scary is that the more intimate the knowledge the more powerful the propoganda, check out governments of all shapes and sizes for reference.
Posted by james lohr | April 23, 2009 3:23 PM
Posted on April 23, 2009 15:23