The Interpretation And Exploration Of Textual Meaning

If“the universe”is ruled out from“the theory of four elements”(i.e. the artist,the audience, the work, and the universe) proposed by M.H. Abrams, the study on therelationship among the other three will not only exert an important impact on theinterpretation and exploration of textual meaning, but also activate a brand-newthinking of artistic creation and reading.A three-interconnected-ring can be derived in that the artist, the work and theaudience are intersected with each other, with the three intersections and theircorresponding complements assigned with distinct meanings. The relationshipbetween the artist and the audience is the most complicated and intriguing one.Compared with the object—the work, the subjects—the artist and the audience, areequipped with a great amount of initiative, restricting the competition between the twosubjects only. The artist is not exactly an almighty navigator and the audience not asubmissive. The work is not the single source of meaning despite the fact thatlanguage is the root reason. Contrarily, its meaning is often determined by the artistand readers together. What kind of interpretation is suitable? And what kind isexcessive? On the one hand, the text is created by the writer, thus the core-mostmeaning can never be allowed to evade away from them. On the other, the audience,as the recipient, does not receive the text passively, but initiatively. The meaning ofthe work will be broadened and deepened under the consistent endeavors of thereaders, even though it cannot be finally ascertained. The creation of artist gives birthto the meaning of text, which is motivated to be reinterpreted by the audience, whilethe work itself assumes the role of objective condition for the process.Meanwhile,“anatman”writing and“anatta”reading has emerged in literature.The“anatman”writing may cause a more cultural“anatta”reading. Only if the writerhave a deeper observation and penetration of life can they manipulate their workssuccessfully. Consequently,“anatman”can be detected in“anatta”. Meanwhile, thereading of the readers has become a kind of recreation gradually; that is, and the artisthas withdrawn from their works, and readers has taken the way into the work. At thistime, readers leave their own world and get into auther’s world; hence, more meaningare derived. As a result, we find that there must be a“limit”in either literary creationor literary reading.“Anatman”writing is not real anatman, and it also cannot be muchmore. Such works like Robbe-Grillet’s, are hard to read, which actually lowers theirliterariness.“Anatta”reading is liable to be broadened under excessive interpretationand it is pathetic to see that literary works are abused to the terminus of pragmatismand utilitarianism.