Comparing The Arguments Of Smith And Chidester

This dynamic between the arguments of Smith and Chidester is similar to the dynamic between the notions of authorial intent and reader-response, respectively. Authorial intent emphasizes the author as the guarantor of meaning. Here, the meaning of a work is determined by what the author intended for it to be. On the other hand, reader-response is the belief that the interpretation and meaning of a work should be determined by the audience, instead of the author. While both arguments are compelling, both of them have flaws. First, when it comes to authorial intent, authors Jeffery Nealon and Susan Giroux say, “…authors may or may not intend for you to perform a certain reading of their work (to ‘get’ a certain ‘point’ out of it), but there’s
If the reader is given full authority on the meaning of a work, then their interpretation of the work will take precedent over the facts and contexts that surround the work. In addition, when meaning is completely shifted to the reader, then the meaning of a work becomes too fluid. The meaning of the work changes from reader to reader. As a result, there is no longer an avenue for the meaning of the work to be questioned or examined. These examples show the implications of exclusively committing to either authorial intent or reader-response.
The same arguments and issues that are raised pertaining to literary works can also be applied to terms and definitions. Terms, such as religion, are not owned by one individual or group. Instead, the terms and their uses are shared throughout many different worldviews. This becomes apparent when authorial intent is attempted for definitions. Since the term religion can be given many different meanings, it is difficult, if not impossible, for one group (the scholars) to control its meaning. As a result, scholars cannot claim sole authority to the definition of
They say, “Reading or interpretation is not primarily a matter of forming or reinforcing personal opinions but rather a process of negotiation among contexts.” In other words, interpretation in literary works is not primarily delegated to defending a position. Neither the positions taken by the author, the positions of the participant, nor the context of these positions, should not be ignored. Instead, readings and interpretation should serve as a vehicle to create dialogue and compromise between multiple