The Frumious Bandersnatch

Oct. 3, 2011 at 12:55pm with 24,540 notes

Reblogged from dalelazarov

dalelazarov:

Dear http://7daystochangeyourlife.tumblr.com/ :
Let me do a close reading of your Tumblr post of this image to show you how literary analysis is not “making up random stuff”:The statement of this image is “literary analysis is spin”. What’s interesting is how much of it in itself is a fraudulent misrepresentation of scholarship that in itself is spin made up in order to score a point against English teachers in general.1) It uses a Venn Diagram with two sets to illustrate what appears to be a very small overlap between “what the author meant” and “what your English teacher thinks the author meant”. This is a made-up diagram as there is no possible way it was made with actual data; presenting this as a fact that can be representable in a Venn Diagram makes it even less credible a statement.2) By saying “authors”, the author of this image (and the person who posted it) assumes that all authors think that works have one meaning. This is not the case. Authors of poetic and complex narrative texts understand that a work has multiple layers of meaning AND work to sustain those meanings simultaneously. Just because you are cynical about scholarship in the humanities and/or can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. By distorting the authorial stance towards the meaning of texts as one that is standard for all authors, this diagram is not based in fact.3) Using the verb “thinks” already pushes the reading that English teachers in general and “yours” in particular is presenting a wild-ass guess in class. One of the hardest things that humanities teachers face is the cynical bias of students who prejudge scholarly analysis as all equally without value. Well, that’s not true. Serious literary scholars use their close reading, pattern recognition, research and documentation skills to back their analysis and, if they are good teachers, will teach you how to do it. In other words, yes, there are teachers who teach critical thinking about literary texts as “just make stuff up about what’s there”, but making it a blanket statement about all English teachers is a deeply unfair potshot that doesn’t stand up to close inspection. 4) The example used is descriptive without any implications. In other words, it’s been deliberately chosen to lack anything other than what it plainly states. It’s also taken out of its narrative or poetic context so the ONLY fair assessment that one can make is that it’s strictly literal, so the “teacher’s thinking” that follows it looks even more like spin.5) “Immense” could not possibly be proven with what’s provided and its exaggeration looks even more absurd in contrast with the banality of the “the curtains were blue”. This pushes the idea that what teachers think and/or say is not based on the text and just made up.6) “blue” = “depression” implies that the teacher very shallowly reads “color symbolizes emotional state” into the sentence. Authors who use color as symbolic features tell the reader to read color that way through its repeated usage; in other words, the author asks the reader to recognize the pattern of usage, either by carefully coding the use of color in the text with its use in the context of the work or by expecting its audience to have the cultural literacy to recognize that the author is alluding to how its culture assigns meaning to color in the text. Since there is no pattern to be recognized in one sentence, the person who made this diagram is pushing the interpretation that literary interpretation is about making stuff up. 7) “What the author meant” — really, I’d like to see your documentation for this statement. The fact that the author has no name really makes your claim lack credibility. If you want to make a fair argument, use a real sentence from a real author in at least the context of its paragraph and source the author’s statement about it.8) The “fucking” is there to underline the “the English teacher’s statement is made up spin” by escalating it to “fucking made up spin”.As an argument in favor of a cynical stance about scholarly analysis of texts, this fails to be credible because of its own transparent lack of foundation in fact. The whole point of teaching close reading of texts is so students develop the “pattern recognition” skills that transfer to any and all worthwhile disciplines outside the humanities. Without learning and applying these skills, you can never be a professional or scholar in any field of expertise. However, if you want to retain your cynical stance about critical thinking, feel free: there are plenty of jobs that do not require critical thinking, reading and writing.
Sincerely,
Dale Lazarov
http://www.dalelazarov.com/ (NSFW gay content in link!)

Dear http://7daystochangeyourlife.tumblr.com/ :

Let me do a close reading of your Tumblr post of this image to show you how literary analysis is not “making up random stuff”:

The statement of this image is “literary analysis is spin”. What’s interesting is how much of it in itself is a fraudulent misrepresentation of scholarship that in itself is spin made up in order to score a point against English teachers in general.

1) It uses a Venn Diagram with two sets to illustrate what appears to be a very small overlap between “what the author meant” and “what your English teacher thinks the author meant”. This is a made-up diagram as there is no possible way it was made with actual data; presenting this as a fact that can be representable in a Venn Diagram makes it even less credible a statement.

2) By saying “authors”, the author of this image (and the person who posted it) assumes that all authors think that works have one meaning. This is not the case. Authors of poetic and complex narrative texts understand that a work has multiple layers of meaning AND work to sustain those meanings simultaneously. Just because you are cynical about scholarship in the humanities and/or can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. By distorting the authorial stance towards the meaning of texts as one that is standard for all authors, this diagram is not based in fact.

3) Using the verb “thinks” already pushes the reading that English teachers in general and “yours” in particular is presenting a wild-ass guess in class. One of the hardest things that humanities teachers face is the cynical bias of students who prejudge scholarly analysis as all equally without value. Well, that’s not true. Serious literary scholars use their close reading, pattern recognition, research and documentation skills to back their analysis and, if they are good teachers, will teach you how to do it. In other words, yes, there are teachers who teach critical thinking about literary texts as “just make stuff up about what’s there”, but making it a blanket statement about all English teachers is a deeply unfair potshot that doesn’t stand up to close inspection.

4) The example used is descriptive without any implications. In other words, it’s been deliberately chosen to lack anything other than what it plainly states. It’s also taken out of its narrative or poetic context so the ONLY fair assessment that one can make is that it’s strictly literal, so the “teacher’s thinking” that follows it looks even more like spin.

5) “Immense” could not possibly be proven with what’s provided and its exaggeration looks even more absurd in contrast with the banality of the “the curtains were blue”. This pushes the idea that what teachers think and/or say is not based on the text and just made up.

6) “blue” = “depression” implies that the teacher very shallowly reads “color symbolizes emotional state” into the sentence. Authors who use color as symbolic features tell the reader to read color that way through its repeated usage; in other words, the author asks the reader to recognize the pattern of usage, either by carefully coding the use of color in the text with its use in the context of the work or by expecting its audience to have the cultural literacy to recognize that the author is alluding to how its culture assigns meaning to color in the text. Since there is no pattern to be recognized in one sentence, the person who made this diagram is pushing the interpretation that literary interpretation is about making stuff up.

7) “What the author meant” — really, I’d like to see your documentation for this statement. The fact that the author has no name really makes your claim lack credibility. If you want to make a fair argument, use a real sentence from a real author in at least the context of its paragraph and source the author’s statement about it.

8) The “fucking” is there to underline the “the English teacher’s statement is made up spin” by escalating it to “fucking made up spin”.

As an argument in favor of a cynical stance about scholarly analysis of texts, this fails to be credible because of its own transparent lack of foundation in fact. The whole point of teaching close reading of texts is so students develop the “pattern recognition” skills that transfer to any and all worthwhile disciplines outside the humanities. Without learning and applying these skills, you can never be a professional or scholar in any field of expertise.

However, if you want to retain your cynical stance about critical thinking, feel free: there are plenty of jobs that do not require critical thinking, reading and writing.

Sincerely,

Dale Lazarov

http://www.dalelazarov.com/ (NSFW gay content in link!)