Possibly.

The Challenge of Objective Meaning in Literature

The core of the question lies in the debate surrounding the author's intent versus the reader's interpretation. Traditionally, literary criticism sought to uncover the author's intended meaning. However, the New Criticism movement, and later, post-structuralist thought, challenged this notion. Wimsatt and Beardsley’s concept of the ‘intentional fallacy’ (1946) argues that an author’s stated or inferred intention is irrelevant to the interpretation of the work. The text itself, they argue, is what matters. This immediately introduces the ‘possibility’ of multiple valid interpretations, as the author’s ‘true’ meaning becomes inaccessible or unimportant.

Reader-Response Theory and Subjective Interpretation

Further complicating the matter is Reader-Response Theory, pioneered by figures like Louise Rosenblatt (1938) and Wolfgang Iser (1978). This theory posits that meaning is not inherent in the text but is created in the transaction between the reader and the text. Each reader brings their own experiences, biases, and cultural context to the reading process, resulting in a unique interpretation. Therefore, a single, objective meaning is not only difficult to ascertain but arguably doesn’t exist. The ‘possibility’ of understanding a text fully is thus contingent on the reader’s perspective.

Modernist Literature and Deliberate Ambiguity

Modernist literature, characterized by fragmentation, stream of consciousness, and a rejection of traditional narrative structures, exemplifies this ambiguity. Consider James Joyce’s Ulysses (1922). The novel deliberately eschews a clear, linear narrative, presenting a complex and often bewildering portrayal of a single day in the life of Leopold Bloom. The meaning of Ulysses is not readily apparent; it is open to a multitude of interpretations, depending on the reader’s approach. Similarly, T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land (1922) employs allusions, fragmented imagery, and shifting perspectives, creating a sense of disorientation and uncertainty. The ‘possibility’ of a definitive interpretation is deliberately undermined by the text itself.

Counterarguments: Authorial Control and Historical Context

However, it’s crucial to acknowledge counterarguments. Some critics maintain that while interpretations may vary, the author still exerts a degree of control over the text. The author’s choices – language, structure, symbolism – are not random but are deliberate attempts to communicate something. Furthermore, understanding the historical and cultural context in which a work was created can shed light on its meaning. For example, understanding the social and political climate of post-World War I Europe is essential for interpreting The Waste Land. This suggests that a ‘possible’ understanding, grounded in historical and textual analysis, can be achieved, even if complete objectivity remains elusive.

The Role of Critical Consensus

Over time, critical consensus can emerge around certain interpretations of a literary work. While this doesn’t necessarily equate to objective truth, it suggests that some interpretations are more persuasive or well-supported than others. The ongoing scholarly debate surrounding Shakespeare’s plays, for instance, demonstrates how interpretations evolve and are refined through rigorous analysis. This ongoing dialogue highlights the ‘possibility’ of approaching a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the text, even if a final, definitive answer remains out of reach.