The Interplay between Creation and Interpretation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4270979 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Wolfgang Iser (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1984 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 387 |
| Publication date | 1984-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | New Literary History (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0028-6087 • E-ISSN: 1080-661X |
| Publisher | JSTOR (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/468862 |
| OpenAlex | W2326553779 |
| Language | EN |
AT ACKLING the interrelationship between creation and interpretation turned out to be such a formidable task that it appears inappropriate to criticize the ideas advanced in these articles. There is a general trend to be observed in the current critical discussion-at least in the humanities-toward concentrating on showing up the shortcomings of positions put forward by the opponent, implying one has the answer which he, however, refrains from divulging. Instead of voicing disagreement with what has been suggested in these articles, I might more profitably trace the underlying trends concerning creation and interpretation and find out why it proves so hard to conceptualize the issue. What actually did these articles zero in on, and how do we account for the diversity of the conclusions provided? Are there common features to be discerned and, if so, what do they indicate? None of the participants actually advocated a strict separation between creation and interpretation. The intertwining of these two activities was more or less upheld by all of them, even at times to the degree of eliminating the distinction altogether. Yet whenever this happened, new distinctions began to emerge, irrespective of an allpervading reluctance to pinpoint the resulting difference. Rather, creation was cast as an interpretive endeavor, and interpretation at times elevated to a creative act. This very interchange of attributes, however, could become meaningful only if some notion persisted as to what might distinguish the two concepts from one another. And yet, natural though this may seem, the very distinction either eluded or defied conceptualization. Norman Holland was inclined to make the distinction collapse in favor of what he calls the identity-feedback picture which appears to govern both interpretation and creation. As the two are so alike, he maintains we could use the same words for them. Still, he bases his umbrella concept on findings in Frost, who set up the world in paired
Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy) · Linguistics · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Philosophy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|