Well, one of the other students pointed out that in the story, the friends had an opportunity to go beyond a casual relationship to something more meaningful and passed it up (in part because they knew they’d be saying goodbye, in part because they were somewhat immature). He interpreted not going to Utah as a metaphor for the failure to deepen the relationship.

This had nothing to do with my subconscious. The truth was both simpler and more shameful: The real reason they didn’t go to Utah, and thus for the title, was because the story was due and I hadn’t finished it!

His inferences were simple and logical.He supported his interpretation with evidence from the story itself. Therefore, I have a hard time saying he was wrong, just because it wasn’t what I had intended.

I would see interpretation as the attempt to seek accurate meaning from a text, period. IMO, meaning is independent of student reaction AND authorial intent – though I think both matter. Authorial intent matters because it shapes the work. Student reaction matters because we do not live in the same culture/environment that shaped the author, thus influencing the work.

…

It makes sense INSIDE my head. I promise. ;p

*grin*

Thanks for posing such an intriguing thought-poker!

I’m not sure I agree that there are many possible “correct” meanings. Correct in relation to what? If it’s in relation to the author’s intended meaning, then isn’t there only one correct interpretation–that which the author intended?

I’m having a hard time imagining a correct interpretation that doesn’t match what the author intended. Isn’t that called reading too much into the text? Maybe in some fiction or poetry, when an author is trying to create a more direct experience, interpreting is somewhat irrelevant, especially if the author herself isn’t aware of any conscious meaning.

But many authors (if not most) have an intentional message or purpose to their writing and they depend on intelligent readers to make sense of it. If the reader is diligent about understanding the author’s work, but interprets it differently than the author intended, isn’t it logical to say that either 1) the reader is not skilled enough to see the meaning, or 2) the author did not write well enough to get his or her meaning across? I find 1 or 2 more reasonable than saying the reader has discovered a meaning the author didn’t intend.

I’m sure an author’s subconscious has an effect on his writing, but I can’t imagine it to have such an impact that it would create an entirely different meaning from the author’s conscious intention.

I see interpretation as the attempt to seek accurate meaning from a text relative to the author’s intended meaning.

I worry that accepting several “correct” interpretations (as opposed to being open to several “possible” interpretations) encourages students to impose their own world view on everything they read, spinning it to fit their own meaning, rather than trying to understand someone else’s point of view.

Thanks again, and I look forward to your response.