Passage
To consult diverse interpretations is beneficial, especially in literature purporting to speak to the fundaments of human experience. Reviewing alternative readings not only undermines complacency in scholarship, it reminds us that questions of meaning should seldom be viewed as settled but instead as suggestive of various avenues of discovery.Nevertheless, another pitfall lies at the opposite extreme. The fear of missing genuine interpretive possibilities may lead one to imagine more differences in readings than truly exist, obscuring a hidden homogeneity among seemingly divergent understandings. It has been said that to truly understand a people one must synthesize its stories; we must also acknowledge that to truly understand a story one must synthesize its interpretations.David McKee's deceptively rich Not Now, Bernard is an instructive example. The plot initially concerns the futile attempts of a child to gain his parents' attention, to which, no matter the circumstance, the busy adults invariably reply: "Not now, Bernard." The culmination of these encounters comes when Bernard informs them of a monster outside that wants to eat him, only to receive the same dismissive response. Bernard walks into the yard and approaches the monster, whereupon "The monster ate Bernard up, every bit."The reader's shock at this turn of events is only increased upon seeing the reaction of Bernard's parents, who are entirely unfazed. Indeed, they are entirely unaware. The monster enters the house, eats Bernard's dinner, breaks Bernard's toy, and even bites Bernard's father, all the while finding itself just as ignored as Bernard had been. Finally facing the indignity of being tucked into bed, the monster complains: "But I'm a monster," only to be told-naturally-"Not now, Bernard."Marina Warner views this delightfully savage story as informed by the same primal motivations which produced the carnivorous fiends of traditional fairy tales. Referencing the psychoanalytic theories of Melanie Klein, Warner writes: "the ogre who used to stalk children has now been internalized as the image of inner compulsions, especially greed and the ferocious survival instinct…. [I]t is the child who can be understood to be the potentially insatiable devourer, the possible monster of greed and gratification and excess." Bernard's parents "cannot tell the difference between a tiny tot and an angry beast because the two are all the same to them: that is how they see Bernard." Thus Warner casts McKee's tale as an incisive commentary on "parents who are so automatic in their oblivion-and rejection-that they do not notice when their child has been eaten."Intriguingly, writer Sheila Hancock assumes that Bernard's parents are not oblivious. On her interpretation no one has been eaten and replaced; rather, the monster is Bernard. It is worth noting that of the two lines spoken by the monster, the first is simply "ROAR," a bestial vocalization that makes little impression upon Bernard's mother ("Not now, Bernard"). The human-sounding "But I'm a monster" comes later, after a series of events in which the presence of a monster in the house has been treated as unremarkable. The apparent powerlessness of the monster to be perceived as anything but mundane suggests it could be merely the external manifestation of the child's frustrated psyche.Even so, Hancock's view would not completely absolve Bernard's parents, who consistently ignore their son even if they do not literally allow him to be devoured. Nor does the story lose its significance on Hancock's symbolic interpretation of events; rather, the latent psychological motivations identified by Warner would be just as operant. Hence, whether the monster is literal or metaphorical, these seemingly divergent interpretations in fact exhibit a clear and striking coherence.
-Literary scholarship has always included debate about how to conceive of the standard interpretation of a work. Which of the following conceptions most closely reflects the author's view in the passage?

Question

Passage
To consult diverse interpretations is beneficial, especially in literature purporting to speak to the fundaments of human experience.  Reviewing alternative readings not only undermines complacency in scholarship, it reminds us that questions of meaning should seldom be viewed as settled but instead as suggestive of various avenues of discovery.Nevertheless, another pitfall lies at the opposite extreme.  The fear of missing genuine interpretive possibilities may lead one to imagine more differences in readings than truly exist, obscuring a hidden homogeneity among seemingly divergent understandings.  It has been said that to truly understand a people one must synthesize its stories; we must also acknowledge that to truly understand a story one must synthesize its interpretations.David McKee's deceptively rich Not Now, Bernard is an instructive example.  The plot initially concerns the futile attempts of a child to gain his parents' attention, to which, no matter the circumstance, the busy adults invariably reply: "Not now, Bernard."  The culmination of these encounters comes when Bernard informs them of a monster outside that wants to eat him, only to receive the same dismissive response.  Bernard walks into the yard and approaches the monster, whereupon "The monster ate Bernard up, every bit."The reader's shock at this turn of events is only increased upon seeing the reaction of Bernard's parents, who are entirely unfazed.  Indeed, they are entirely unaware.  The monster enters the house, eats Bernard's dinner, breaks Bernard's toy, and even bites Bernard's father, all the while finding itself just as ignored as Bernard had been.  Finally facing the indignity of being tucked into bed, the monster complains: "But I'm a monster," only to be told-naturally-"Not now, Bernard."Marina Warner views this delightfully savage story as informed by the same primal motivations which produced the carnivorous fiends of traditional fairy tales.  Referencing the psychoanalytic theories of Melanie Klein, Warner writes: "the ogre who used to stalk children has now been internalized as the image of inner compulsions, especially greed and the ferocious survival instinct….  [I]t is the child who can be understood to be the potentially insatiable devourer, the possible monster of greed and gratification and excess."  Bernard's parents "cannot tell the difference between a tiny tot and an angry beast because the two are all the same to them: that is how they see Bernard."  Thus Warner casts McKee's tale as an incisive commentary on "parents who are so automatic in their oblivion-and rejection-that they do not notice when their child has been eaten."Intriguingly, writer Sheila Hancock assumes that Bernard's parents are not oblivious.  On her interpretation no one has been eaten and replaced; rather, the monster is Bernard.  It is worth noting that of the two lines spoken by the monster, the first is simply "ROAR," a bestial vocalization that makes little impression upon Bernard's mother ("Not now, Bernard").  The human-sounding "But I'm a monster" comes later, after a series of events in which the presence of a monster in the house has been treated as unremarkable.  The apparent powerlessness of the monster to be perceived as anything but mundane suggests it could be merely the external manifestation of the child's frustrated psyche.Even so, Hancock's view would not completely absolve Bernard's parents, who consistently ignore their son even if they do not literally allow him to be devoured.  Nor does the story lose its significance on Hancock's symbolic interpretation of events; rather, the latent psychological motivations identified by Warner would be just as operant.  Hence, whether the monster is literal or metaphorical, these seemingly divergent interpretations in fact exhibit a clear and striking coherence.
-Literary scholarship has always included debate about how to conceive of the standard interpretation of a work.  Which of the following conceptions most closely reflects the author's view in the passage?

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The author states that "[t]o consult diverse interpretations is beneficial," explaining that "[r]eviewing alternative readings not only undermines complacency in scholarship, it reminds us that questions of meaning should seldom be viewed as settled but instead as suggestive of various avenues of discovery" (Paragraph 1). He or she further states that "to truly understand a story one must synthesize its interpretations" (Paragraph 2). Accordingly, the author portrays interpretation as an ongoing process in which different readings of a work could always affect the way in which that work is understood. Therefore, the author's view about the standard interpretation of a work is a developmental conception, where the standard interpretation is continually subject to revision. (Choice A) The author states that "to truly understand a story one must synthesize its interpretations" (Paragraph 2). Accordingly, he or she believes that readers should take multiple interpretations of a work into account, and that those differing interpretations contribute to determining how a work should ultimately be understood. The author does not suggest that the standard interpretation should simply be based on each reader's individual preference. (Choices C and D) In Paragraph 1, the author opposes "complacency in scholarship," arguing that "questions of meaning should seldom be viewed as settled but instead as suggestive of various avenues of discovery." Therefore, the author's view is not reflected in the idea that the standard interpretation of a work is determined by a majority consensus or by the most established scholars.

Passage To Consult Diverse Interpretations Is Beneficial, Especially in Literature Purporting