"because there is no single correct reading of any given text."
The fuck there isn't.
"The sky is blue." has a single correct reading. If you think I meant that the sky is green, you are wrong. If you think I meant the sea is blue, you are wrong. If you think I meant gravity doesn't exist, you are wrong. Please go tell a physicist and a mathematician that there is "no single correct reading of any given text." And then duck behind something because blood is gonna shoot from their eyes.
Are there many writings which are open to interpretation? Absolutely. Is ALL text open for whatever interpretation a person wants to put on it? No. Your sweeping over-generalization kills your argument. And more importantly, just because someone decides to put their interpretation down on paper doesn't make them right. "Saying someone's wrong doesn't make it true"...neither does "saying someone is right." You seem to think this author is correct...and yet, you've never actually read the source material. How can you POSSIBLY judge whether or not her critique is valid by reading someone's out of context and conclusion driven summary? At least Loopback has actually read both the source material and the critique, which puts him in a far better spot than you for making a call on whether or not that critique is incorrect or not. You seem to be content with simply reading the critique and accepting the author's take as "right."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
asenathwaite
Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....
Date: 2010-05-05 11:13 pm (UTC)The fuck there isn't.
"The sky is blue." has a single correct reading. If you think I meant that the sky is green, you are wrong. If you think I meant the sea is blue, you are wrong. If you think I meant gravity doesn't exist, you are wrong. Please go tell a physicist and a mathematician that there is "no single correct reading of any given text." And then duck behind something because blood is gonna shoot from their eyes.
Are there many writings which are open to interpretation? Absolutely. Is ALL text open for whatever interpretation a person wants to put on it? No. Your sweeping over-generalization kills your argument. And more importantly, just because someone decides to put their interpretation down on paper doesn't make them right. "Saying someone's wrong doesn't make it true"...neither does "saying someone is right." You seem to think this author is correct...and yet, you've never actually read the source material. How can you POSSIBLY judge whether or not her critique is valid by reading someone's out of context and conclusion driven summary? At least Loopback has actually read both the source material and the critique, which puts him in a far better spot than you for making a call on whether or not that critique is incorrect or not. You seem to be content with simply reading the critique and accepting the author's take as "right."
~Aramada