Reading Personal Imprints

From a discussion in LinkedIn

(Grace Conception says that "I tend to think that a wholly transparent historiography is not possible. For me, history or history writing is an interplay of the sources of history (archival records for instance) and the historian's interpretation of these sources, further elucidated in his or her construction of past events. I really think that in historical works, the historian, much like the writer of literary works, leaves her personal imprint")

—And I very much agree, Grace! Only, the kind of personal imprint that is left by the historian, and by the author of fiction, or the poet, is relative to the generic or discursive conventions which are used by the writer in question. Moreover, the kind of reading that is made of that imprint is also mediated by generic conventions. Autobiographical readings have been anathema to many schools of criticism, and I suppose that reading "personal imprints" in their works is not an approach that many historians tend to favour. But, as Plato said, we send our writings out into the world, and sometimes they meet unanticipated receivers... and unanticipated readings.

I suppose discussion of implied readers and ideal audiences might originate in that passage of Plato's Phaedrus:

Writing, you know, has this strange quality about it, which makes it really like painting: the painter's products stand before us quite as though they were alive; but if you question them, they maintain a solemn silence. So, too, with written words: you might think they spoke as though they made sense, but if you ask them anything about what they are saying, if you wish an explanation, they go on telling you the same thing, over and over forever. Once a thing is put in writing, it rolls about all over the place, falling into the hands of those who have no concern with it just as easily as under the notice of those who comprehend; it has no notion of whom to address or whom to avoid. And when it is ill-treated or abused as illegitimate, it always needs its father to help it, being quite unable to protect or help itself.
_____

Otro episodio interesante en la búsqueda del interlocutor ideal viene dado en la Teoría de los Sentimientos Morales de Adam Smith. El receptor ideal al que alude Smith es el que atiende a aquellos aspectos de nuestro discurso hacia los que nosotros le dirigimos la atención, y no nos rompe los marcos ni las presuposiciones al dirigir nuestra atención, o peor aún, la de otros, sobre algún aspecto de nuestro discurso que revela fallos lógicos, presuposiciones indeseables, o que nos desacredita de alguna manera. Estos lectores resistentes (que los llamaba Judith Fetterley) los anticipaba Smith cuando se refiere al contraste entre el receptor ideal de nuestro discurso, y el efectivo— Y los receptores resistentes son muy necesarios, claro, más que los meramente aquiescentes—pero qué molestos resultan a veces para el escritor. El escritor quiere o bien esconderse tras su texto, o (si emerge de él una imagen del escritor) que sea una imagen cuidada e idealizada—la imagen deseada, la del Autor Implícito. Quien hace surgir una imagen no controlada por el propio autor no puede esperar que el autor le dé la aprobación y bienvenida. Se la darán otros, en todo caso—como decía Genette al final de Figures III, "il y a toujours du monde à côté." Sería pretencioso pretender controlar la conversación de todo el mundo, aunque el tema de la misma seamos nosotros mismos.

Múltiples lectores implícitos

 

—oOo—