You realize that "The sky is blue" as a text is so simple that a misreading is almost impossible.
You are accusing me of gross over-generalization, but I'll assume you have heard of reducing something to absurdity.
I did not think it was necessary to specify that I meant literature when we were discussing literature. We were discussing fantasy novels, not literature in general--but we were engaged in a discussion of literature. There seemed to be no need.
There are schools of thought that hold that there IS no single correct reading of a given text. You may disagree. In fact, I disagree. Umberto Eco said that novels are machines for generating interpretations. I think that some of these interpretations are more valid than others; however, we don't really have a basis for saying any of them are *wrong* other than the quality of our arguments for the ones we believe to be more valid.
As to my grammar: I know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar, thanks. "The sky isn't a damned text" is a perfectly grammatical sentence, even though I misread you. Perhaps not in freshman composition, but it's perfectly fine for adults.
I've answered the other charges. I'm reacting to Dmitri. His gender is not my priority. I mentioned it the first time in misguided shorthand. He followed up with what I feel are genuinely problematic answers. He posted about his penis and its opinions. I referred to the penis's opinion in frustration.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
asenathwaite
Re: hoo boy, this opens up a can of worms....
Date: 2010-05-06 12:29 am (UTC)You realize that "The sky is blue" as a text is so simple that a misreading is almost impossible.
You are accusing me of gross over-generalization, but I'll assume you have heard of reducing something to absurdity.
I did not think it was necessary to specify that I meant literature when we were discussing literature. We were discussing fantasy novels, not literature in general--but we were engaged in a discussion of literature. There seemed to be no need.
There are schools of thought that hold that there IS no single correct reading of a given text. You may disagree. In fact, I disagree. Umberto Eco said that novels are machines for generating interpretations. I think that some of these interpretations are more valid than others; however, we don't really have a basis for saying any of them are *wrong* other than the quality of our arguments for the ones we believe to be more valid.
As to my grammar: I know the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar, thanks. "The sky isn't a damned text" is a perfectly grammatical sentence, even though I misread you. Perhaps not in freshman composition, but it's perfectly fine for adults.
I've answered the other charges. I'm reacting to Dmitri. His gender is not my priority. I mentioned it the first time in misguided shorthand. He followed up with what I feel are genuinely problematic answers. He posted about his penis and its opinions. I referred to the penis's opinion in frustration.