I guess it depends a lot on whether you allow...hmpfSeptember 13 2009, 23:26:05 UTC
emotional bias as evidence. So "we liked Gene and co. so much that it effectively made them real to us even if the text as much as stated that they weren't" can be evidence. It isn't in my book, obviously, because to me, the emotional effect of a text is too subjective to be considered 'hard' evidence. Hard textual evidence to me is the stuff that stays on the page no matter who reads it, and "this character feels real to me" isn't on the page (or on the digital audiovisual storage medium. ;-)) But I suppose if you're more postmodern in your inclinations, you could argue that the emotional effect is inseparable from other elements of a text, and therefore can be considered as evidence just as much as any other part of the text and the reader's interaction with and experience of the text.
But that way lies the total loss of limits of interpretation, which eventually makes communication impossible. I remain convinced that some things are more objectively factual than others, and some readings more factually supported than others. Even in a realm as 'non-factual' as fiction.
But that way lies the total loss of limits of interpretation, which eventually makes communication impossible. I remain convinced that some things are more objectively factual than others, and some readings more factually supported than others. Even in a realm as 'non-factual' as fiction.
Reply
Leave a comment