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.

Why not.

The bridge didn't work right.

But I wouldn't mind ordering these because it looks like the bridge should be wide enough.

as long as a theory holds up under scrutiny, with evidence, then that is a valid interpretation

If you have evidence that holds up under scrutiny, isn't that the definition of the scientific process?

One of my favorite English profs once handed a paper back to me and said, "You know, I don't agree with a single thing you said here. But you backed it up, so you get an A."

Which goes a long way to explain why he was one of my favorite English profs.