a professor would be remiss in allowing a student to use numerology to show that he predicted Communism (to use a wacky example)

Even if the student can back up their wacky argument?

I disagree that postmodernism in any way promulgated the author intentionality school of analysis.

Postmodernism is like a secret code word that makes my brain explode, unable to parse either the sentence or the paragraph in which it appears.

Look! I can't even work out what I meant in that sentence! It's like kryptonite.

Once I'm in charge, I'm banning them outright.

Can you hurry up and get there? And ban colds too? I'm really tired of being stupid. To the point of tears, which is also the stupid talking.

My brain is on strike.

a professor would be remiss in allowing a student to use numerology to show that he predicted Communism (to use a wacky example)

Even if the student can back up their wacky argument?

I don't think the above can be backed up, no. Now, I think laxity in interpretation is okay in certain settings-- particularly if you're just trying to teach students how to analyze and write. But there is a point where that has to give way to rigor. It's not all relative, and students are being done a disservice to let them think that anything goes when it comes to interpretation.

Okay, so I just call the secretary for one of the deans. He's not in. I have a lengthy message. Not terribly complicated, just lengthy. I ask to be transferred to his voicemail. She says, I'll take a message. So, I give her the lengthy message. Then she says "would it be too much trouble for you to send that to me in an email." YES IT WOULD. If I wanted to send an email, I would have sent him one in the first damn place. What is WRONG with people?!?!?

Oh, and I disagree that postmodernism in any way promulgated the author intentionality school of analysis.

In retrospect, I'm not sure what I said was clear. When I said "myth of intentionality" I meant the idea that the authors intentions are irrelevant to a reading of a text. If the author says it's about A, but the text clearly says B, then B trumps A.

My problem is when whoever is analyzing sees C and gives that perogative over B, even if there's nothing in the text to support C either.

I also think knowing A can be interesting, but mainly in a "how well did the author express his intentions" sort of way. Where they fail to achieve their intent can be as interesting (or moreso) than when they succeed.

So, bon bon, are you saying as long as a theory holds up under scrutiny, with evidence, then that is a valid interpretation?

Also, went to the optometerist and had my eyes checked. I'm getting new glasses. The super cute pink frames, however did not work for me. Am sad now.

one pair I liked, but in pink.

I don't think the above can be backed up, no.

I thought libkitty was talking about an interpretation that could be backed up with the text -- her hesitation was in attributing intent to the author. Which is pretty much the line I'd draw if I were into crit.

So wacky sounding isn't the problem for me -- unsupportable by canon is.

Vortex, did you send it to her in e-mail?

The super cute pink frames, however did not work for me.

Why not.

ION, I'm miffed because Newbury comics didn't have the PROFIT dvds even though they are supposed to be out today. I hope they didn't get their release delayed.

It was nice to find out it wasn't quite as gross out as I feared, though.

My problem is when whoever is analyzing sees C and gives that perogative over B, even if there's nothing in the text to support C either.

This is just another way of saying an unsupported or bad analysis-- and everyone's against that.

So, bon bon, are you saying as long as a theory holds up under scrutiny, with evidence, then that is a valid interpretation?

I don't know if you're kidding or not, but no, that's not what I am suggesting.