In contrast to [[bad readings treat texts like a symbolic formula to be worked out|bad readings which treat texts like a symbolic roman-a-clef]], good readings work from the premise that ==**novels and texts _tell_ you (often very explicitly!) what they mean.**== Put another way, literary texts (novels, movies, drama, poetry, etc.) will in _some way_ establish the terms according to which they should be interpreted. This is akin to how an academic writer (or any nonfiction writer) uses explicit [[subtle signals and metalanguage|metalanguage]] and more [[subtle signals and metalanguage#Subtle Signals|subtle signals]] in order to help a reader understand their meaning. The only difference is one of [[genre]]. For readers, interpretation still rests on generic familiarity: the more familiar you are with a genre and its conventions, the more skilled you are in "picking up on" those signals and moments when the text is telling you exactly how to approach it. **In novels, [[thematic repetition]] is a huge part of this.** These are moments, repeating throughout the narrative, when some thematic image is put front and centre. The more familiar you are with a genre, the better you get at noticing these moments. The framing of these moments — i.e., **the actual words the narrator uses** — is very important, and can be mined for clues about the larger significance. An implication of this idea is that the best literary readings are an *explication* of what was always-already there. They [[the best readings work from the inside-out, rather than the outside-in|work from the inside-out, rather than the outside-in]]. <hr> ### Examples Right now, the entirety of my [["symbolism'' in The Secret Agent]] note is very much about this idea. However, the "meaning" of the circles in the novel is, in particular, a good example of the text telling you explicitly what the meaning is: ![["symbolism'' in The Secret Agent#Circles]] For an external source/example, [[J. Hillis Miller]]'s entire body of work does this really well. He does "deconstruction," but he's never the one doing the deconstructing: he mostly just shows how different texts were always-already deconstructing _themselves_. I also think the [[Cleanth Brooks]] can do this well, even if I disagree with some of his broader claims (e.g., "organic unity") while agreeing with some of the specific stuff (e.g., the importance of paradox). <hr> ### Other thoughts / counterpoints? This idea is not to say that all [[literary criticism]] must concern itself with these moments where texts indicate how they should be interpretated. Indeed, a lot of criticism assumes that the reader is already familiar with the basics of how a text "wants" to be interpreted. There are other interesting things to say about a text's formal uniqueness or singularity. I think of this as [[focusing on what a text is ''doing'']]. Indeed, the counterargument to this idea is that the formal elements of a text are an extremely important factor in how it "wants" to be interpreted. [[form|Form]] is, by definition, not explicit (it's the thing that's _not_ the content), but it communicates nonetheless. It is an important part of the text's meaning, and in the case of literary texts, it's arguably the most important.[^most_important] [^most_important]: I get that is a much larger argument. Some day.