Calle / Fiona:
A consequence of this view is that there is no such thing as a "right" or a "wrong" interpretation. There are interpretations that can be more or less strongly argued for or against, but that is not at all the same thing. There are also no such thing as an impossible interpretation. As soon as someone has interpreted a work in a certain way, that interpretation is obviously possible, and all that remains to do is to argue for or against it (or to ignore it, of course).
This last point is certainly true, but I still think it's impossible to take anything, including interpretations, totally free from context or value judgement. People make their interpretations for a variety of reasons from a variety of backgrounds, and unless they can somehow erase their minds totally prior to the interpretive act, this will inform their interpretation thereof.
I guess you could come up with some notion of implausible readings. How you'd judge implausible would be an interesting one.
Fiona:
At the risk of getting into philosophical areas here, also, this viewpoint has always struck me as very similar to that of Utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who argued that "poetry is as good as pushpin [a kind of eighteeth-century children's game, as I understand it]."
But Bentham isn't a relativist - he makes value judgements on, as you say, the utility of the activity. I thought that point was meant to be that he might argue, for example, that football is 'better' than opera (more people get pleasure from it, it makes more money as a business, etc. etc. etc.).
Basically, by this analysis a Mills and Boon romance is every bit as literarily valid as a Shakespeare play. Which is something I've never been able to accept--
I guess since I'm invariably looking at this from the perspective of how these things are received, the reception of a romance by its readership is as interesting to me as the reception of a Shakespeare play.
and frankly, very few English departments seem to be teaching First-Year Mills and Boon, despite the litcrit movement.
They do in third year sociology <g> 'Reading the Romance', by Janice Radway.
Um, there is no B7 content in this post.
I think Avon would like snooker. Because I do.
Una