Popular in Arts and Humanities

Arts and Humanities

Titus Quinctius Flamininus’ “Italian triumph”

McGill University Michael Fronda

Arts and Humanities

Lincoln and the Jews

Brandeis University Jonathan Sarna

Arts and Humanities

Amputations and Convalescence

University of Western Australia Emily Brink

Art

Drawing on the past: Palladio, his precursors and knowledge of ancient architecture

University of Birmingham David Hemsoll

Art

Language, Sound, and Image in Wallace Berman’s Aleph, 1956–1966

University of San Diego Chelsea Behle Fralick

Arts and Humanities

Early Modern Natural Law Theories

University of Copenhagen Knud Haakonssen

Reading It Wrong

View more insights in Arts and Humanities - Books - Literature

View more figures from University of Oxford

View the page of Abigail Williams

Read the Study

Abigail Williams uses marginal marks to highlight the importance of flawed interpretation in understanding reading.

Image courtesy of interviewee. February 5, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

The speaker reflects on their experience teaching complex 18th-century satires and their evolving understanding of how these texts were engaged by historical readers. Initially, they emphasized the importance of reading footnotes to grasp the poems' meanings, only to discover that many 18th-century readers did not fully understand the texts either. This video video led to the realization that the literature from that era thrived on ambiguity and reader interaction, as understanding often relied on the readers filling in gaps of meaning rather than straightforward comprehension.

The speaker investigates historical marginalia, letters, and diaries as evidence of this lack of comprehension and the collaborative nature of reading at the time. They highlight that works like Alexander Pope's "The Dunciad" and Daniel Defoe's "The Shortest Way with the Dissenters" showcase a culture where misinterpretation was common, leading to significant consequences for authors. This video video uncertainty in understanding created a social dynamic akin to solving a puzzle together, rather than a simple, direct interpretation.

The speaker acknowledges a tension in contemporary literary criticism, where teachers and critics, aiming for authoritative interpretations, may overlook the inherent pleasure and creativity found in misunderstanding and exploring ambiguous texts. They advocate for embracing the "messiness" of literature and promoting a more relaxed approach to reading, encouraging students to enjoy the process of grappling with difficult texts rather than feeling pressured to arrive at correct interpretations. Ultimately, the speaker hopes that students can appreciate literature's complexity and unpredictability without the stress of needing to fully understand everything.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.405 --> 00:02.605
I started off being curious about this.

00:02.705 --> 00:05.445
So I spent many years teaching undergrads these really

00:05.445 --> 00:07.885
complex satires from the 18th century,

00:08.015 --> 00:10.045
which require a lot of knowledge to understand them.

00:10.045 --> 00:11.365
And I used to say to my students,

00:11.945 --> 00:13.085
if you read all the footnotes,

00:13.085 --> 00:15.485
then you'll understand what's going on in these poems.

00:15.505 --> 00:17.005
And then I started to look at the evidence

00:17.105 --> 00:20.605
of historical readers, readers from the 18th century

00:21.425 --> 00:22.925
and seeing that they just didn't know

00:22.925 --> 00:24.445
what those things meant half of the time.

00:24.585 --> 00:27.165
And that there was a kind of inaccuracy about the way I was

00:27.445 --> 00:30.205
teaching that they were, it was literature born out

00:30.205 --> 00:31.965
of muddling comprehen and in comprehension,

00:32.425 --> 00:33.565
rather than being something

00:33.565 --> 00:35.525
that will fully landed well in its own time.

00:36.035 --> 00:39.605
Like at some level it was, it was quite challenge to find,

00:39.885 --> 00:41.805
I was looking for evidence of historical readers

00:41.805 --> 00:44.805
who didn't understand, and literally no one writes in the

00:44.805 --> 00:46.805
margin of a book in the 18th century, God,

00:46.845 --> 00:49.165
I completely did not understand this, what's going on?

00:49.625 --> 00:52.045
So I was sort of looking for clues in the ways in which,

00:52.065 --> 00:53.765
but it was, a lot of it was to do with marginalia

00:54.225 --> 00:56.485
and to do with the stuff they wrote on the side

00:56.485 --> 01:00.045
of their books demonstrating that they either didn't know

01:00.145 --> 01:02.365
or had different ideas from one another about

01:02.995 --> 01:04.165
what the meaning was.

01:04.225 --> 01:06.965
And then I was interested in kind of letter and diary entry.

01:07.065 --> 01:09.485
So really piecing together a range of forms

01:09.505 --> 01:12.205
of archival evidence to work out,

01:12.345 --> 01:14.525
how this stuff had gone down in its own time.

01:15.465 --> 01:18.885
So what you find in the early 18th century is like lots

01:18.885 --> 01:20.965
of kind of satires and political pieces

01:21.425 --> 01:25.045
and sociable writing, which relies on,

01:25.385 --> 01:26.845
its reader, it's kind of interactive.

01:26.845 --> 01:28.325
It relies on the reader filling in,

01:28.325 --> 01:30.045
meaning like supplying names or,

01:30.625 --> 01:33.765
or working with something which is ironic to fill in

01:33.885 --> 01:35.965
what the actual intention of the piece is.

01:36.785 --> 01:39.005
And we have tended to assume that

01:39.005 --> 01:40.245
that was a completely straightforward

01:40.245 --> 01:41.765
and easy process for historical

01:41.765 --> 01:43.085
readers, that everyone got it.

01:43.145 --> 01:44.445
And they were just like, yes,

01:44.445 --> 01:45.965
they obviously mean the Duke of Devon show.

01:46.385 --> 01:50.125
But what I found out was that people didn't all

01:51.285 --> 01:53.925
recognize that and that part of the pleasure

01:54.065 --> 01:55.285
and the kind of joy

01:55.465 --> 01:57.285
and the creativity of lots of these works

01:57.985 --> 01:59.165
was this uncertainty

01:59.185 --> 02:02.045
and not knowing in historical readers a little bit.

02:02.045 --> 02:05.965
So it became a kind of, sociable exercise to share

02:05.965 --> 02:07.005
with your friends to go,

02:07.005 --> 02:08.205
what do you think he meant by that?

02:08.925 --> 02:11.685
A little bit like kind of watching a who done it together

02:11.985 --> 02:15.125
or a murder podcast, you know, that everyone kind

02:15.125 --> 02:18.725
of collaborates on on creating the right meaning rather than

02:18.725 --> 02:20.045
it being something which is straightforward

02:20.045 --> 02:21.245
and obvious in its own time.

02:21.905 --> 02:25.685
So Pope Alexander Pope's writing is a really good example of

02:25.685 --> 02:29.325
that because he's kind of obsessed with acts of reading

02:29.385 --> 02:31.685
and interpretation and in who can do it well

02:31.705 --> 02:32.845
and who doesn't do it well.

02:33.385 --> 02:35.925
And so his long four book poem, the Dance yet

02:36.505 --> 02:39.805
is really a kind of guessing game which pretends

02:39.805 --> 02:41.605
to give you information but then withholds it

02:41.945 --> 02:44.085
and comes with, its with a lot of kind of footnotes

02:44.085 --> 02:46.685
to help you to understand, but also to further muddle up

02:46.685 --> 02:48.725
that interpretive game.

02:49.185 --> 02:51.045
So the dance is something that when I teach it,

02:51.045 --> 02:52.405
my students's like, I just have no

02:52.405 --> 02:53.525
idea what's going on here.

02:53.545 --> 02:56.165
And I say, great, you're supposed to feel like that you're,

02:56.165 --> 02:57.565
he's trying to make you in some ways

02:57.565 --> 02:58.685
feel a bit like an idiot.

02:59.185 --> 03:01.405
So the dance had is a poem which in its sort

03:01.405 --> 03:04.365
of hyperreality creates that kind of effect.

03:04.425 --> 03:07.125
But another example would be,

03:08.865 --> 03:10.045
so a satire

03:10.045 --> 03:12.005
that Daniel the Foe wrote called The Shortest Way

03:12.005 --> 03:14.005
with the dissenters in which he

03:14.635 --> 03:18.445
vent wise is a really extreme position of, of,

03:18.665 --> 03:21.765
of an Anglican clergyman saying what we need to do is

03:21.765 --> 03:23.485
to exterminate dissenters

03:23.505 --> 03:25.405
or people from the kind of low church.

03:25.905 --> 03:28.445
And that was di deferment it ironically,

03:29.145 --> 03:30.965
but people who read it at the time

03:30.965 --> 03:32.205
thought that he meant it seriously.

03:32.585 --> 03:35.485
And so he was punished and put in the pilly for that

03:35.745 --> 03:38.165
and imprisoned because it was read

03:38.265 --> 03:40.085
as the exact reverse of what he'd intended.

03:40.305 --> 03:41.805
People didn't read it, ironically.

03:41.805 --> 03:43.245
They just thought he was being straight.

03:43.705 --> 03:46.605
And unless we understand this kind of culture of model

03:46.605 --> 03:48.445
and uncertainty, we can't really understand

03:48.505 --> 03:49.925
how this great kind of prose,

03:50.375 --> 03:52.045
prose writer managed to do that.

03:52.925 --> 03:55.965
I think we're supposed to see them as a game

03:56.585 --> 03:58.845
in which we apply a lot of them.

03:59.005 --> 04:00.925
I mean, sometimes that not giving

04:00.945 --> 04:02.725
of information is a form of gatekeeping.

04:02.915 --> 04:06.085
It's a way of kind of creating the impression of a kind

04:06.085 --> 04:07.845
of inner circle, even though such an

04:07.845 --> 04:08.965
inner circle might not exist.

04:08.985 --> 04:11.525
You know, like Jonathan Swift was, you know,

04:11.555 --> 04:13.365
very close friend of Alexander posts,

04:13.365 --> 04:14.565
but he didn't understand everything

04:14.565 --> 04:15.645
that was going on in the dance yet.

04:15.645 --> 04:18.085
And he said, listen, 20 miles from London,

04:18.305 --> 04:20.205
no one is gonna have a clue what's going on in your poem.

04:20.265 --> 04:22.885
So that inner circle that we are given the impression

04:22.885 --> 04:24.725
of believing is really quite small.

04:24.785 --> 04:28.245
But I think we're, so we're supposed to, you know,

04:28.265 --> 04:30.925
invest in this idea that there's a kind of, there's a kind

04:30.925 --> 04:32.685
of ingroup even when there might not be.

04:32.825 --> 04:35.125
But also that interpretation

04:35.185 --> 04:36.805
and meaning of collaborative activity

04:36.805 --> 04:38.405
between readers and authors.

04:38.865 --> 04:41.565
And that part of the ways in which you get reader engagement

04:41.565 --> 04:43.445
is making them do a bit of work in trying

04:43.445 --> 04:45.365
to work out what's going on within a text.

04:46.145 --> 04:47.925
The history of criticism is interesting

04:47.925 --> 04:51.845
because we tend, you know, many critics are teachers

04:51.865 --> 04:54.165
and they are editors and they are heavily invested in their

04:54.165 --> 04:56.165
own expertise and in getting things right.

04:56.345 --> 04:59.925
So even though we've had a whole kind of, you know,

04:59.995 --> 05:02.885
like way over half a century of kind of theory

05:03.225 --> 05:05.765
and moving away from authorial intention

05:06.105 --> 05:08.685
or from the idea that there is a fixed meaning, a lot

05:08.685 --> 05:11.485
of the ways in which we teach, these texts

05:11.485 --> 05:14.565
and many other texts is trying to shape an experience

05:14.585 --> 05:16.685
of good reading or correct interpretation.

05:16.785 --> 05:20.965
So I'm also interested in what this means for, for teachers

05:21.025 --> 05:23.725
and for editors who have a kind of professional investment,

05:24.195 --> 05:25.725
both in what they do

05:25.725 --> 05:27.485
with historical texts when they edit them,

05:27.485 --> 05:28.885
write in explanatory footnotes.

05:28.885 --> 05:31.325
And when they teach 'em in the classroom into this idea

05:31.325 --> 05:33.485
of right reading, which doesn't allow a lot of space

05:33.905 --> 05:36.205
or doesn't allow a lot of space for mud and uncertainty.

05:36.685 --> 05:38.045
'cause what you're trying to do out is iron

05:38.105 --> 05:39.325
out mud and uncertainty.

05:40.025 --> 05:43.645
Um, and it also doesn't really recognize

05:43.645 --> 05:45.445
that there might be something fun and engaging

05:45.505 --> 05:49.845
and purposeful and creative about, about, this kind

05:49.845 --> 05:51.165
of getting it wrong dynamic.

05:51.805 --> 05:53.845
I don't know, like I'm watching this TV series at the

05:53.845 --> 05:56.725
moment, which is leads you down a false alley every

05:57.195 --> 05:59.165
Episode, and you go all the way down there

05:59.185 --> 06:00.605
and you're like, it's not that.

06:00.635 --> 06:01.645
Okay, it must be something else.

06:01.705 --> 06:04.405
And there is something inherently pleasurable about

06:04.405 --> 06:07.125
that in narrative and in literature and in art forms.

06:07.785 --> 06:09.805
Uh, I think like quick shortcut

06:09.825 --> 06:12.325
to certain interpretation is not always what's desirable.

06:12.915 --> 06:16.485
What I really hope is that my students will forgive me

06:16.485 --> 06:18.285
for telling them the wrong thing all the time.

06:18.785 --> 06:22.805
And I hope that people will, stop seeing the literature

06:22.805 --> 06:24.605
of the past as something they've got to get right.

06:24.825 --> 06:28.765
And, and the bits that they don't understand that is part

06:28.765 --> 06:31.725
of the point that they are intended to feel like that,

06:32.225 --> 06:33.485
and that that's part of a game

06:33.865 --> 06:35.245
and it's not something to worry about.

06:35.345 --> 06:37.645
So to feel less stressed by that whole exchange.

00:00 - I started off being curious about this. So I spent many years teaching undergrads these really complex satires from the 18th century, which require a lot of knowledge to understand them. And I used to say to my students, if you read all the footnotes,

00:13 - then you'll understand what's going on in these poems. And then I started to look at the evidence of historical readers, readers from the 18th century and seeing that they just didn't know what those things meant half of the time. And that there was a kind of inaccuracy about the way I was teaching that they were, it was literature born out of muddling comprehen and in comprehension, rather than being something that will fully landed well in its own time.

00:36 - Like at some level it was, it was quite challenge to find, I was looking for evidence of historical readers who didn't understand, and literally no one writes in the margin of a book in the 18th century, God, I completely did not understand this, what's going on? So I was sort of looking for clues in the ways in which, but it was, a lot of it was to do with marginalia and to do with the stuff they wrote on the side of their books demonstrating that they either didn't know or had different ideas from one another about

01:02 - what the meaning was. And then I was interested in kind of letter and diary entry. So really piecing together a range of forms of archival evidence to work out, how this stuff had gone down in its own time. So what you find in the early 18th century is like lots of kind of satires and political pieces and sociable writing, which relies on, its reader, it's kind of interactive. It relies on the reader filling in,

01:28 - meaning like supplying names or, or working with something which is ironic to fill in what the actual intention of the piece is. And we have tended to assume that that was a completely straightforward and easy process for historical readers, that everyone got it. And they were just like, yes, they obviously mean the Duke of Devon show. But what I found out was that people didn't all

01:51 - recognize that and that part of the pleasure and the kind of joy and the creativity of lots of these works was this uncertainty and not knowing in historical readers a little bit. So it became a kind of, sociable exercise to share with your friends to go, what do you think he meant by that? A little bit like kind of watching a who done it together or a murder podcast, you know, that everyone kind

02:15 - of collaborates on on creating the right meaning rather than it being something which is straightforward and obvious in its own time. So Pope Alexander Pope's writing is a really good example of that because he's kind of obsessed with acts of reading and interpretation and in who can do it well and who doesn't do it well. And so his long four book poem, the Dance yet is really a kind of guessing game which pretends to give you information but then withholds it

02:41 - and comes with, its with a lot of kind of footnotes to help you to understand, but also to further muddle up that interpretive game. So the dance is something that when I teach it, my students's like, I just have no idea what's going on here. And I say, great, you're supposed to feel like that you're, he's trying to make you in some ways feel a bit like an idiot. So the dance had is a poem which in its sort

03:01 - of hyperreality creates that kind of effect. But another example would be, so a satire that Daniel the Foe wrote called The Shortest Way with the dissenters in which he vent wise is a really extreme position of, of, of an Anglican clergyman saying what we need to do is to exterminate dissenters or people from the kind of low church. And that was di deferment it ironically,

03:29 - but people who read it at the time thought that he meant it seriously. And so he was punished and put in the pilly for that and imprisoned because it was read as the exact reverse of what he'd intended. People didn't read it, ironically. They just thought he was being straight. And unless we understand this kind of culture of model and uncertainty, we can't really understand how this great kind of prose,

03:50 - prose writer managed to do that. I think we're supposed to see them as a game in which we apply a lot of them. I mean, sometimes that not giving of information is a form of gatekeeping. It's a way of kind of creating the impression of a kind of inner circle, even though such an inner circle might not exist. You know, like Jonathan Swift was, you know, very close friend of Alexander posts,

04:13 - but he didn't understand everything that was going on in the dance yet. And he said, listen, 20 miles from London, no one is gonna have a clue what's going on in your poem. So that inner circle that we are given the impression of believing is really quite small. But I think we're, so we're supposed to, you know, invest in this idea that there's a kind of, there's a kind of ingroup even when there might not be. But also that interpretation

04:35 - and meaning of collaborative activity between readers and authors. And that part of the ways in which you get reader engagement is making them do a bit of work in trying to work out what's going on within a text. The history of criticism is interesting because we tend, you know, many critics are teachers and they are editors and they are heavily invested in their own expertise and in getting things right. So even though we've had a whole kind of, you know,

04:59 - like way over half a century of kind of theory and moving away from authorial intention or from the idea that there is a fixed meaning, a lot of the ways in which we teach, these texts and many other texts is trying to shape an experience of good reading or correct interpretation. So I'm also interested in what this means for, for teachers and for editors who have a kind of professional investment, both in what they do with historical texts when they edit them,

05:27 - write in explanatory footnotes. And when they teach 'em in the classroom into this idea of right reading, which doesn't allow a lot of space or doesn't allow a lot of space for mud and uncertainty. 'cause what you're trying to do out is iron out mud and uncertainty. and it also doesn't really recognize that there might be something fun and engaging and purposeful and creative about, about, this kind of getting it wrong dynamic.

05:51 - I don't know, like I'm watching this TV series at the moment, which is leads you down a false alley every Episode, and you go all the way down there and you're like, it's not that. Okay, it must be something else. And there is something inherently pleasurable about that in narrative and in literature and in art forms. I think like quick shortcut to certain interpretation is not always what's desirable. What I really hope is that my students will forgive me

06:16 - for telling them the wrong thing all the time. And I hope that people will, stop seeing the literature of the past as something they've got to get right. And, and the bits that they don't understand that is part of the point that they are intended to feel like that, and that that's part of a game and it's not something to worry about. So to feel less stressed by that whole exchange.

Faculti AI can make mistakes