On interpreting Richard Armitage

Since it’s come up, I’ll say a little about this theme. I didn’t feel the need to speak about this before, but perhaps it’s time. Readers should not understand this as me drawing a line in the sand. I’m still eager to hear everyone’s opinions, positive and negative. It seems, though, that I need to reiterate and expand upon my assumptions so that feelings don’t get hurt.

As a historian, I am a poststructuralist manqué. I have already stated in introducing myself that the main sources for this blog (me, Richard Armitage) are sources only of indeterminacy as far as I am concerned. I am not an extreme epistemological skeptic, so I will go only so far as to say that I assume that while Mr. Armitage and I may both exist, I believe that I can know nothing “real” about his existence. I accept the poststructuralist maxim that we cannot abstract ourselves from the world of signs in which we live, signs that determine both Mr. Armitage’s appearance and my interpretation of it.

What does this mean in practice?

I am writing this blog for me, and those people who want to talk to me as I am. I am not going to change my interpretive stance. I am not writing for money, publicity, or approval, though of course the latter is always gratifying! I may also be writing for Mr. Armitage, though I don’t pass on any of this stuff to him via his agents, don’t assume he is reading, and wouldn’t change what I write if I knew he were. If he is a system of signification in the sense that I believe him to be, that status would not change if I were to somehow meet him or be in contact with him in “real life”–it would only influence the properties of the system, not destroy it.

The blog title stands and readers should take it seriously, particularly the order of the names, which is explained in “About” on the sidebar. The reason for that title choice is that this blog offers my interpretation of information I receive and process about Richard Armitage. I am also very interested in others’ perspectives on my interpretations. Readers are invited to disagree but they should be civil and they should keep in mind that I have reasons for doing what I am doing that may not be susceptible to their criticisms.

I am not a historicist, here. I do not aim to aggregate all of the information disseminated about him in the media or provide a complete archive of his career. Many great sites already do that, and as I am a professional historicist, I respect the meticulous, hard work that goes into it and am grateful for those people’s efforts–I couldn’t do what I do if they didn’t do what they do–, but that is not my task. Neither will I discuss every moment of his career or everything about his life that makes it into the public domain. I only am interested in the things that interest me, from the perspectives that interest me. (There are also things about his life and career that interest me that I will not discuss on this blog. I don’t know what all of them are yet, but at least one is clear to me.) The sole purpose of this blog is to interpret Mr. Armitage in light of my own perspectives. Hence my frequent statement that this blog is only tangentially about Mr. Armitage. My primary stance is one of (drooling) fascination. My primary technique is critical textual and visual analysis. I am a skilled textual interpreter; I am learning about analyzing film and pictures.

Readers should be aware that I do not assume that anything Mr. Armitage says can be taken at face value. Some of his statements seem more plausible to me than others. At the same time, we should assume that he is not telling us everything that might be true about himself or his career. I assume that he has been learning over the years what it behooves him to say in particular situations, that in a publicity situation he has been advised what he can/can’t, or should/shouldn’t say, and that anything he says may or may not be true on the face of it. He may even have reasons to wish to mislead us. Similarly, I assume that interpretations of his career, his acting or his actions that are not articulated by him may also be plausible, depending on context. Moreover, I assume that in situations where we as consumers do not have all of the information about the context in which he was speaking, multiple misunderstandings occur that may or may not be susceptible to analysis.

Furthermore, I do not assume that Mr. Armitage is the sole authority on the meaning of his career or the interpretation of his roles. I have offered and will offer criticisms of his statements on his own acting.

Finally, I do not assume that Mr. Armitage or his work are perfect. I will offer criticisms as I see fit, and they will be respectful in line with my definition of respectfulness.

I may add to this from time to time if the need arises.

~ by Servetus on May 18, 2010.