‘One must be an inventor to read well. … There is then creative reading as well as creative writing’ (Emerson, R.W. (1893) The American Scholar, American Book Company, p. 29).
Emerson’s words are much like the creative writing he is describing, open to interpretation and capable of conveying multiple meanings. These have undoubtedly fluctuated since Emerson first uttered these words in 1893, and with the continual advancement of technology, the significance of Emerson’s words will continue to broaden, as it has done in recent times, with researchers acknowledging the creative process, as well as the final creation as creative. The definition of creativity is extremely broad, forcing us to speculate what Emerson would have considered creative in his era. Today creativity is experienced daily, by multiple signs, texts and advertisements, which all communicate meaning in creative ways. Meaning is often communicated through a variety of methods such as multimodality, different forms of communication in a single text, connotation, the meanings behind different images, paralanguage, features of spoken language combined with words, as well as other forms of defamiliarisation considered by Formalists to be inherent in creative texts. (Goodman, S., 2006 p.244-250). Many successfully interpret these, often unconsciously, yet we are not considered inventors, highlighting the question what is meant by the term creative reading?
Bignell suggests creative reading is a fundamental feature embedded in society, producing the basic unit of communication in semiotics, the study of how language and other communicative forms are used to portray social and cultural significance. According to Saussure the sign consists of a signifier, the visual image and a signified, the meaning implied by the visual imagery. Although Saussure states the sign is without significance as it is culturally imposed, Peirce highlights not all signs are arbitrary, further classifying iconic and indexical signs. Indexical signs demonstrate a causal relationship, which I believe closely resembles the same relationship of denotation and connotation often used in literature, poetry and advertisement to signify meaning. Bignell claims by classifying something, it is then inescapable of connotation, which he claims originate from our social experiences, suggesting creative reading has roots from social and cultural practices. (Bignell, J., 2002 p. 278-281). I believe although the denotation and connotations found in creative writing are far more complex than Pierce’s indexical signifier and signified example of smoke indicates fire, there is significant evidence to suggest connotations are ingrained in society, implying with adequate cultural and social knowledge, ‘ordinary’ readers would be able to read creatively.
Bakhtin’s heteroglossia theory adds support, claiming literature consists of recycled words and voices taken from our social and cultural understandings. For Bakhtin, nothing is new, it is simply rewritten, containing past, as well future associations, which stimulates creativity. (Bakhtin, M., 1981, p.435-441). However Cook argues that although words may consist of particular connotations, these are often numerous and loosely connected, resulting in various interpretations or confusion for the reader. (Cook, G., 2001, P.105 cited by Goodman, S., 2006 p. 253). Authors and advertisers frequently manipulate meaning by deviating away from the expected interpretation, to create humour or a memorable effect. However it could be precisely this ambiguity, which makes it creative reading, the author must challenge the reader’s pre existing knowledge, learned from society, to actively interact with the text, to establish the intended meaning.
I believe it is this consciously active interaction, which differentiates between the reading of everyday social signs and more intellectual creative reading. Goodman claims that narrative fiction often adopts multimodal approaches, combining images such as maps and pictures, forming juxtapositions between modes, enhancing, reinforcing and even contradicting, the reader’s experience, to engage them. Multimodality can emphasis meaning, connotations, characterisation and even give further insight of the author, by the selected choices. Often by imagining the images differently, or by focusing on what the author has not included, as opposed to what they have, can produce an entirely different meaning. (Goodman, S., 2006, p257-265). Gee argues due to semiotic domains, one or more modalities combined to communicate meaning, readers need to move beyond the literal meaning and focus on the undertone, what is being inferred, to have a greater understanding, (Gee, 2003, cited by Goodman, S., 2006 p268). Without this, individuals are unable to participate in a variety of social practices, including reading. This suggests the reader must apply some effort to interpret a text.
Eagleton and Fish define a literary experience as the interaction between a reader and a text, however as we have already encountered the level of interaction a reader receives can be vastly different. (Eagleton, T., 1983, Fish, S., 1980, cited by Miall, D.S., and Kuiken, D., 1988, p.445). The reader is theorised into various types ranging from the Iser’s Implied reader, likely to interpret inferred meaning, to Kristeva’s and Said’s Resistant reader, who consciously or unconsciously reads against the intended meaning. Fish identifies the Informed reader, someone who reads a text and makes analysis based on their understanding, learnt from their position in society. (Iser, 1974, Kritsteva, 1986, Said, 1993, Fish, 1980 cited by Lillis, T., 2006, p.416). Similarities to Fish’s informed reader was found in a study focusing on expert readers. The study indicated reading is influenced by context, such as time and place. The study also suggested readers were influenced by the reading traditions from social communities, theoretical traditions and how texts can be read and awarded differently.
I believe the findings are compelling however the study focused on academics from universities and received criticism failing to focus on ‘ordinary’ readers. Miall and Kuiken also claim the expert readings are reliant on theory and produced no empirical evidence, confirmation based on observation. (Miall, D., S., and Kuiken, D., 1998, p. 443-450). Miall and Kuiken also conducted an empirical study into how ‘ordinary people engage with literary text. This study is a psycho-formalist approach, which aims to demonstrate how text formulates in reader’s minds. The results reveal ordinary readers’ are just as capable of acknowledging inherent literary features, although fewer, as expert readers, regardless of their previous education and experience. (Miall, D., S., and Kuiken, D., 1998, p. 443-450). The study implies readers have an instinctive capability of identifying creative language, however this maybe a consequence of Mill and Kuiken’s focus on an inherent and cognitive approach. Their approach fails to investigate any sociocultural influence, which I believe may explain how the novice readers were able to identify creative texts with little experience.
In contrast, Hall highlights an ethnographic study demonstrating how individuals interact with creative text in context. His findings concluded individuals use reading as a social activity in order to engage with others. He also discovered individual’s value a text more highly depending on how it relates to their lives at a precise moment. (Hall, G., cited by Lillis, T., 2006, p. 451-457). Hall’s research identifies a connection between what is read and the relevance a text holds to the reader’s experiences. Sperber and Wilson argue that a text must have optimum relevance for a reader to interact with the minimum effort for maximum cognitive effect. As literary texts contain little relevance, readers attach relevance to a text world, which Bex assumes will lead to enjoyment, stimulation or in order to escape reality. (Bex, T., 1996 p.390-395). However I believe with the broadening of the literature market to foreign authors writing about experiences often alien to some cultures, we enjoy them more.
Also I believe that not all literary texts are irrelevant, often individuals read narratives that inspire or highlight the moral values embedded in society such as love, good and evil. Ultimately it would depend on the individual reading and the socio, cultural and historical context, to determine whether a text is relevant or not.
The act of collaboration, such as the social activity of the book club, mentioned in Hall’s research, can also be seen as a creative act, an activity anticipated by Emerson. In addition, we can also analyse the reader and author relationship as collaborative. Lessing argues the relationship between writer and reader is a collaborative experience where meanings and values are exchanged. Lessing demonstrates that due to socio, cultural and historical contexts a text may be misunderstood, and only interpreted as intended by the author at an appropriate cultural and historical moment. This indicates reader’s, echoing Iser’s Implied reader are able to give authors further insight into a text, generating discussions of potential meanings, hidden to the author. Lessing highlights that without this collaboration and feedback, the text has failed. (Lessing, 1974, cited by Lillis, T., p.435-436).
Fish identifies reading as requiring a creative action from the reader in order to make meaning from the text. He argues the reader, and not the text gives meaning, influenced by the context of the activity. Readers must piece together the story in order to decipher meaning. He concludes that if readers interact actively and create meaning by interpreting. there is little doubt that the act of reading is creative. (Goodman, S., 2006, p.309). Pope supports this, arguing the reader is consciously aware of the specific linguistic decisions made by the writer. Whilst the individual reads they are constantly re-writing and analysing the content of the text, making comparisons of how it is or could have been different. (E301, CD-ROM Band 25: ‘Re-writing and re-reading’).
In contrast Cook argues meaning making lies in between the reader and the text in order to engage in schema refreshment, the production of new or pre-existing connections. Readers cannot make meaning only from the linguistic deviation in the text, as it is ultimately dependent on the willingness of the reader. Cook draws a comparison between Relevance theory, suggesting that in order to create schema refreshment the text must be removed from practical and social application, otherwise it acts as a resistance. It is important to remember this remains speculative theory, however, similarly to previous theories, there is a familiar notion of a willingness, or effort provided by the reader, differentiating the reading from the routine reading of social signs which we encounter in our everyday lives. If we were to consider this as creative reading, it would also suggest that ordinary’ readers, if willing, are capable of participation. (Cook, G., 1994, p.396-406).
Kress’ framework highlights a shift in the way individuals are engaging with texts due to a broader variety of semiotic modes, the different resources available to display meaning, and media, giving greater significance to Emerson’s utterance. (Kress, 2002, p.2, cited by Goodman, S., 2006, p.303). Jewitt tells us of the affordances of interacting with texts as a CD-ROM. She informs us, the reader becomes a ‘producer’ of alternative meanings by experiencing the narrative in various orders, fully exploring the characters. Jewitt sees this interaction with a text more open than a traditional book, possibly prompting more individuals to engage with texts. (Jewitt, C., 2004, p.329-334).
Film producers make critical decisions on which scenes, music and shots to include in the final production, ultimately affecting the interpretation of the text by the viewer. Burns and Parker suggest that readers must actively interpret and connect the shots to decipher meaning.
(Burn, A., and Parker, D., cited by Goodman, S., 2006, p.313). When individuals construct meaning from multiple semiotic modes, reading as interpretations shifts to reading as design. Designers no longer recreate the same text, they produce a new creation, focusing on their own interpretation, or on occasions their misinterpretations. The same technique is used in other mediums such as comic books, websites and advertisements, indicating that as users of technology, or mentally editing texts in our minds we all have potential to be inventors. (Abbott, P., 2002 p.334-342). The production is also collaborative, involving numerous individuals such as editors, marketing and technical staff engaging in the creative process as well as the text. This suggests reading well, is not exclusive to readers or audiences, as Fish suggests, but is a vital function of the design process. (Goodman, S., 2006, p.313). Not only do we see how readers can be considered inventors but this also demonstrates a different method of creative reading, as produces must first read and interpret the text themselves.
Creative reading is conducted either by individuals or as a social activity inputting effort or a willingness to interpret hidden meanings, strongly influenced by time and place. Therefore as time continues, Emerson’s words broaden to consider individuals as inventors through the reinterpretation of texts cognitively, the collaboration process and with the advancement of technology, it produces a literary definition to the term inventor. However I believe the skill exists within ‘ordinary’ readers to read well, as it is a significant part of our interaction within society, learnt early to interpret signs, although to interpret literary texts requires greater conscious level of interaction.
Reference
- Goodman S., (2006), ‘Word and image, The art of English: literary creativity, E301 The art of English, Milton Keynes, The Open University, P.244-277
- Goodman S., (2006), ‘Literature and technology, The art of English: literary creativity, E301 The art of English, Milton Keynes, The Open University, P.299-328
- Lillis T., (2006), ‘Readers and writers’, The art of English: literary creativity, E301 The art of English, Milton Keynes, The Open University, P.414-442
- The Open University (2006), ‘ CD-ROM Band 25: ‘Re-writing and re-reading’), E301 The art of English literary creativity, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
- Bignell, J., (2002), ‘Reading A: Extracts from ‘Signs and myths’, ‘Media Semiotics: An Introduction, 2″ edn,’, Manchester/New York, P. 278-281
- Bakhtin, M., (1981), ‘Discourse in the novel’, The Dialogic Imagination, E301The art of English, everyday creativity, Milton Keynes, The Open University P.435-441
- Miall, D.S., and Kuiken, D., (1988), Reading A: “The form of reading Empirical studies of literariness’, Poetics, 25, P. 445
- Bex, T., (1996), ‘Reading A ‘Relevance and literature’, ‘Variety in Written English: Texts in Society-Society in Texts, Chapter 8, ‘, London, Routledge, P.390-395
- Cook, G., (1994), ‘Reading B ‘Schema theory and literature’, ‘Discourse and literature’, Oxford, P.396-406
- Jewitt, C., (2004), ‘Reading A: Extracts from ‘Multimodality and new communication technologies’, ‘Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis’, Washington DC, Georgetown, P.329-334
- Abbot, P., 2002, ‘Reading B: Extracts from ‘Adaptation across media’, ‘The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative, Chapter9’, Cambridge, P.342-349
