Is there a ‘right’ way to interpret a text?

One of the pleasures of being an English Literature student is never really being ‘right’. Our essays are marked not on what we say but how well we say it. Interpreting a novel, play or poem is to look at the themes, language and context of it and put forward an idea of what it could mean. One can be wrong in the way they interpret a novel if they misunderstand the fundamental concepts of it or refuse to acknowledge parts of it that are needed to form a coherent interpretation. To be ‘right’ in English Literature is to present an interpretation among many other potential ‘rights’.

But a couple of weeks ago, both The Sun and The Times ran articles implying that they had the ‘right’ answer to what a novel was really all about. The Sun’s article was entitled: “FLAKENSTEINS Snowflake students claim Frankenstein’s monster was ‘misunderstood’ — and is in fact a VICTIM”. They proposed that students today are ridiculous for sympathizing with and claiming that the monster from Mary Shelley’s well know 1818 classic, Frankenstein, is anything but a murderer.

Interpretations can change over time, the figure of Frankenstein’s monster perhaps more so than others…

The article was met with a snowstorm of backlash from the accused ‘snowflakes’. Students took to twitter to point out that the whole purpose of the monster is that he is a morally ambiguous character, one in which there is no concrete interpretation.

The publications managed to shoot themselves in the foot by proving that interpretation can in fact be deemed ‘wrong’ when it is misinformed, as theirs’ clearly was. They misunderstood the power of literature: there is not just one path to walk down when exploring what a novel could possibly be saying.

Interpretations can change over time, the figure of Frankenstein’s monster perhaps more so than others. For years the monster was depicted on screens as nothing like the monster that Shelley originally wrote: brutal, wild, unable to communicate and unintelligent. Given that The Sun used an image from the 1931 film adaptation of the novel in their article, it appears that it is this interpretation of the character that the publication based their view of their monster – that it is nothing but a murderer.

The monster is more than just the simplistic brute projected on screen most of the time… 

Interpretation is therefore formed by the circumstances around us. The ‘Snowflake Students’ studying the original text would be able to see that the monster is more than just the simplistic brute projected on screen most of the time. The monster is an emotionally complicated and sentient being. Students studying the original work don’t ask whether the monster is good or evil as The Sun seems to have done but question to what extent the monster is both or neither and it is from this that their interpretation is formed.

Dr Marie Mulvey-Roberts, associate professor as the University of West England drew attention to this when she criticised the article: “I do feel that they [The Sun] are being disparaging towards students who look in depth at things and are dismissing them as bleeding-heart liberals who are not taking on board a lot of complex issues.

“What students who are taking a degree in the arts are avoiding is this reductionist view of the world where things are simply one thing or the other, so I think politically it is dangerous because it is kind of diminishing the value of education.”

The purpose of their article was really nothing to do with Shelley’s novel at all… 

Even though The Sun’s article was ultimately ridiculed for being misinformed, it still made me uncomfortable. This is because the writers took the power of interpretation and tried to appropriate it to fulfil their own agenda. The purpose of their article was really nothing to do with Shelley’s novel at all but to push the idea that millennials – or the so called ‘Snowflakes’ – are yet again being too sensitive and causing a fuss over nothing.

The Sun and The Times, in their blind quest to criticise the younger generation, failed to realise that the meaning behind a piece of literature does not fall neatly on one side of the fence because interpretation is a completely grey area.