ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: ninwa on December 12, 2010, 02:33:08 pm
-
I've always thought this, but reading this article confirmed it for me.
Interesting snippets:
What probably pissed Bradbury off more than anything was that people completely disregarded his interpretation of his own book. In fact, when Bradbury was a guest lecturer in a class at UCLA, students flat-out told him to his face that he was mistaken and that his book is really about censorship. He walked out.
Machiavelli was the Stephen Colbert of the Renaissance.
(lol)
So he decided to write a book about a world that followed the laws of abstract mathematics, purely to point out the batshit lunacy of it. Things keep changing size and proportion before Alice's eyes, not because she's tripping on bad acid, but because the world is based on stupid postmodern algebra with shit like imaginary numbers that don't even make any sense god dammit.
Since the novel came out in the late 50s, everyone assumed he was describing the thought and feelings of that era, but the events of the novel took place almost a decade before. He wasn't even writing about the era he supposedly defined.
After Nietzsche died, Elisabeth inherited the rights to his works and went about diligently re-editing them with a "kill all the Jews" subtext. It didn't help that Nietzsche's thought-baton was then picked up by the philosopher Martin Heidegger -- you guessed it: Nazi.
Nietzsche actually hated anti-Semites, having refused to attend his sister's wedding because she was marrying a Nazi, and even wrote that "anti-Semites should be shot." We have his sister to thank for the "blond beast" confusion. She, Hitler and decades of disapproving philosophy students interpret this as an allusion to the Aryan race. In fact, Nietzsche was just describing lions.
I'd always wondered during my VCE whether George Orwell, Shakespeare etc. were rolling in their graves going "NO THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT DAMNIT ARGHHHH".
-
My school's literature class had the author of the text they were studying come in one day. They bombarded him with questions concerning their own interpretations, and he actually told them that he had never meant his writing to be interpreted in that way. Which is why I believe that VCE Literature (and to a lesser extent VCE English) is a subject that tests bull-shitting abilities more than anything else. Which, really, is a necessary life skill. :)
-
My school's literature class had the author of the text they were studying come in one day. They bombarded him with questions concerning their own interpretations, and he actually told them that he had never meant his writing to be interpreted in that way. Which is why I believe that VCE Literature (and to a lesser extent VCE English) is a subject that tests bull-shitting abilities more than anything else. Which, really, is a necessary life skill. :)
+1
-
My school's literature class had the author of the text they were studying come in one day. They bombarded him with questions concerning their own interpretations, and he actually told them that he had never meant his writing to be interpreted in that way. Which is why I believe that VCE Literature (and to a lesser extent VCE English) is a subject that tests bull-shitting abilities more than anything else. Which, really, is a necessary life skill. :)
+1
+2
VCE English is a wank.
Books and films were made to be enjoyed, not to be dissected to the point where they lose all meaning.
EngLang should just become the standard. At least it teaches you something useful like grammar.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VUV2Yl8gsI
We should take a note from this dude
-
My school's literature class had the author of the text they were studying come in one day. They bombarded him with questions concerning their own interpretations, and he actually told them that he had never meant his writing to be interpreted in that way. Which is why I believe that VCE Literature (and to a lesser extent VCE English) is a subject that tests bull-shitting abilities more than anything else. Which, really, is a necessary life skill. :)
+1
+2
VCE English is a wank.
Books and films were made to be enjoyed, not to be dissected to the point where they lose all meaning.
EngLang should just become the standard. At least it teaches you something useful like grammar.
This.
I enjoy reading. I do not enjoy dissection.
-
Same, that's why I have the entire Popular Penguins set but dont do lit
-
I think people obviously get interpretations very wrong (as in the above examples) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to any interpretation there's enough evidence for.
This is because if you're an author and you've written a book, you might not know the significance of it until later, or you may never realise the significance. Sometimes people other than the author can point it out because they can see the big picture a little more clearly. For instance, John Marsden has said that when he was writing the book 'So much to tell you', he didn't think that it related to his life and his relationship with his dad at all. Several years after its publication he realised that his biography did play an important part in the book. What I'm saying is that the author isn't always right in their interpretation of their own work.
Additionally, texts that were written ages ago will have relics from that era in them that the author wouldn't really have thought about including because it was so normal, but would now be quite significant for readers today and would warrant explanation. A really good example of this was The Crucible, which the author thought was about the Salem witch trials. But, as it was written in the time of McCarthyism, it has features of its context such as the fear of the unknown that was rampant at the time and people wouldn't necessarily have identified then that they could identify now.
-
My school's literature class had the author of the text they were studying come in one day. They bombarded him with questions concerning their own interpretations, and he actually told them that he had never meant his writing to be interpreted in that way. Which is why I believe that VCE Literature (and to a lesser extent VCE English) is a subject that tests bull-shitting abilities more than anything else. Which, really, is a necessary life skill. :)
+1
+2
VCE English is a wank.
Books and films were made to be enjoyed, not to be dissected to the point where they lose all meaning.
EngLang should just become the standard. At least it teaches you something useful like grammar.
Most of us have a fairly intuitive grasp of grammar because we grew up with our language system. Though grammar is quite an interesting topic, it's not necessary for a good grasp of the English language. People can function perfectly well and can display perfect grammar even if they don't know what a noun or a subject or an object or what an intransitive verb is. I think it only really becomes necessary to learn grammar when we are trying to learn other languages that we don't intuitively know.
-
I've been saying this to my english (and lit) teachers ever since I can remember.
-
I enjoy reading. I do not enjoy dissection.
+1
'tis why I avoid "high literature"
-
Actually, Machiavelli was totally just trolling. Far from being the spiritual patriarch of the Gambino crime family, he was a renowned proponent of free republics, as noted in a few obscure texts called everything else he ever wrote. The reason The Prince endured the ages while the rest of his philosophy gathered dust in the back of an old library warehouse is chiefly 1) it's really short, and 2) it angries up the blood. By far the best way to get a book on the best-seller list is to write something that pisses everyone off
This made me laugh, so did the picture of the guy from gran torino. I love this site
-
I think people obviously get interpretations very wrong (as in the above examples) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to any interpretation there's enough evidence for.
This is because if you're an author and you've written a book, you might not know the significance of it until later, or you may never realise the significance. Sometimes people other than the author can point it out because they can see the big picture a little more clearly. For instance, John Marsden has said that when he was writing the book 'So much to tell you', he didn't think that it related to his life and his relationship with his dad at all. Several years after its publication he realised that his biography did play an important part in the book. What I'm saying is that the author isn't always right in their interpretation of their own work.
Additionally, texts that were written ages ago will have relics from that era in them that the author wouldn't really have thought about including because it was so normal, but would now be quite significant for readers today and would warrant explanation. A really good example of this was The Crucible, which the author thought was about the Salem witch trials. But, as it was written in the time of McCarthyism, it has features of its context such as the fear of the unknown that was rampant at the time and people wouldn't necessarily have identified then that they could identify now.
This. I'm a firm believer in "death of the author" in regards to interpretation - it's not treating reading as "high literature", it's basically accepting that when people write things they don't always consciously realise what they're doing.
-
Reminds me of how Hitchcock helped his granddaughter with some homework which involved analysing one of his films; the h/w only got a 'C'.
-
I've been saying this to my english (and lit) teachers ever since I can remember.
-
I've been saying this to my english (and lit) teachers ever since I can remember.
This.
But an interpretation doesn't become invalid simply because it was not intended. If an interpretation is plausible (ie. strongly supported textually) then there's no real problem. Hasn't art always been about the meaning that one draws out from it themselves? As long as people don't try and claim that "OMG this is what the author meant" whenever they present their interpretation, and the interpretation itself isn't ridiculous, I don't have a problem with it.
Though I do agree that analysing texts significantly reduces my liking for the particular book/film, and that essay writing (in VCE Englishes at least) is really a measure of one's ability to 'bullshit'.
-
Though I do agree that analysing texts significantly reduces my liking for the particular book/film, and that essay writing (in VCE Englishes at least) is really a measure of one's ability to 'bullshit'.
I think the whole 'bullshitting' thing only applies to VCE literature; and even then it would depend on the text you're analysing: some are far more obvious in the ideas they put forward and point you in the right direction- that being said, you could still miss the point entirely. But it's definitely ridiculous to tell the author of the book that they're wrong; they wrote every word (most likely) and would have chosen said words to express their point. They can't be wrong.
Also, through studying Poe in VCE english i've come to understand his work a lot better, and I get lost far less often. But I have a habit of reading a paragraph, then in my head, summing up what he meant in a sentence (I suck at understanding his language :P).
-
For me, there are definitely some books I would have lost patience with if I were reading it by myself, which I was lucky enough instead to be able to study. Some of my favourite books (like The Great Gatsby, for instance) are books I had to study at school or uni.
I don't understand what posters mean by the term 'bullshiting'. Is it saying things that aren't true? Because if you have enough evidence for your claims, I don't think 'bullshit' is a word you can reasonably apply to it. Is it making stuff up on the spot? Because again, if the evidence is there, what's so wrong with it? Why the negativity?
The reason why I liked Literature in school is because it gave you some freedom to respond to work by an author on a personal level. You didn't have to regurgitate a study guide, you were encouraged to come up with an interpretation from your own perspective. I think repeating in your essays whatever your English teacher told you to write a number of lessons ago is utter bullshit though. I don't see the point in study of that kind.
-
bullshitting seems to me to be like coming up with something persuasive or convincing with scant or even no evidence and with little in-depth reflection. rhetoric vs. dialectic, and therefore an art ;)
it might be true, and there might be evidence, but you're making it up on the spot, not reaching conclusions through careful analysis. as in "i bullshitted my way through philosophy this year".
-
My school's literature class had the author of the text they were studying come in one day. They bombarded him with questions concerning their own interpretations, and he actually told them that he had never meant his writing to be interpreted in that way. Which is why I believe that VCE Literature (and to a lesser extent VCE English) is a subject that tests bull-shitting abilities more than anything else. Which, really, is a necessary life skill. :)
HAHA win :D
-
This year in literature for our final analysis we had to study two texts and compare them. To prove the point that you can make shit up about anything I chose napoleon dynamite and "Oh The Places You'll See" By Dr Suess. I ended up getting an A for writing four pages of total BS.
-
That said, is the task to present the author's interpretation of the text?
I think it is your own personal response to the text, whilst maintaining an acknowledgement of the general perception of the text.
-
I've been saying this to my english (and lit) teachers ever since I can remember.
This.
But an interpretation doesn't become invalid simply because it was not intended. If an interpretation is plausible (ie. strongly supported textually) then there's no real problem. Hasn't art always been about the meaning that one draws out from it themselves? As long as people don't try and claim that "OMG this is what the author meant" whenever they present their interpretation, and the interpretation itself isn't ridiculous, I don't have a problem with it.
Though I do agree that analysing texts significantly reduces my liking for the particular book/film, and that essay writing (in VCE Englishes at least) is really a measure of one's ability to 'bullshit'.
Hehe, I agree and disagree with you :) I think the first point you made that "interpretation doesn't become invalid simply because it was not intended" is beautifully said. And ordinarily I would agree that over-reading and over-analysis of texts diminishes your appreciation and liking for them but in the case of 'A Man For All Seasons", my admiration for Bolt's work only increased when I noticed the intricate way in he embedded themes within his play. To the ordinary audience his devices would work subliminally much of the time, but to the scrutinising VCE student his devices are unveiled.
-
That said, is the task to present the author's interpretation of the text?
I think it is your own personal response to the text, whilst maintaining an acknowledgement of the general perception of the text.
Pretty much :) It's to analyse how the author constructs meaning for their audience and conveys certain ideas. And as you've said that requires personal opinion. Furthermore, students are encouraged to look at how it can be interpreted differently by various audiences so sometimes it's good to explore beyond personal opinion.
-
There's a quote in Hamlet which is quite relevant to this discussion:
"there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
A writer can create a character and through what his/her words and behaviour, each reader will interpret the character differently using his/her own personal values. A character is created not only by a writer's interpretation, but by the reader's as well.
Likewise, you may find someone likeable, whilst your friend may find the same person detestable.
-
There's a quote in Hamlet which is quite relevant to this discussion:
"there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
A writer can create a character and through what his/her words and behaviour, each reader will interpret the character differently using his/her own personal values. A character is created not only by a writer's interpretation, but by the reader's as well.
Likewise, you may find someone likeable, whilst your friend may find the same person detestable.
I like!
-
There's a quote in Hamlet which is quite relevant to this discussion:
"there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so"
A writer can create a character and through what his/her words and behaviour, each reader will interpret the character differently using his/her own personal values. A character is created not only by a writer's interpretation, but by the reader's as well.
Likewise, you may find someone likeable, whilst your friend may find the same person detestable.
Beautiful, and spot-on.
-
(http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/39c04b93-1fae-4be5-93d6-d1c84eb43e9a.png)
-
(http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/39c04b93-1fae-4be5-93d6-d1c84eb43e9a.png)
Hahahahahahaha x 1000000
-
This is one of the reasons I'm dropping Lit in favour of English. If EngLang was offered at my school, I would definitely take it. Doing well in VCE English/Literature comes down to agreeing with your teacher's opinions in SACs, and BSing your way through the exam.
-
This is one of the reasons I'm dropping Lit in favour of English. If EngLang was offered at my school, I would definitely take it. Doing well in VCE English/Literature comes down to agreeing with your teacher's opinions in SACs, and BSing your way through the exam.
Your teacher must suck if you have to agree with them. Your opinion just needs to be credible.
And definitely not BSing your way through the exam! English teachers generally have a good bullshit detector.
-
^I agree
As long as your opinion is well justified and supported by textual evidence, I don't think the teacher can mark you down for that. I don't think that teacher is even qualified to teach Literature if he/she can't be open to new interpretations. Plus, aren't essays cross-marked so your interpretation could align with another teacher?
-
+1 to this whole thread!
I did unit 1 Lit, and hated it the whole time because we spent the entire lesson dissecting one sentence and getting 5 hidden meanings out of it!
-
I loved unit 3/4 Lit, was fun. My teacher asked for our interpretations as a class and pointed us towards certain interpretations instead of saying "this is what it is".
While a teacher shouldn't mark you down for not agreeing with them, that's not to say they can't- albeit unethically. Agreeing with them in SACs is of course a safer option, because if you can present it properly it'll probably show them that you have a good understanding of their view, which they most likely believe is right. And not all schools cross-mark SACs: my school only had one lit teacher.
I have to go back on when I considered lit as bullshitting; I don't see it to be much different from a text response in english. You're drawing meaning from the text and analyse it and present a view, and state what the author was trying to achieve. I think it's just because you have more freedom in literature.
-
I loved unit 3/4 Lit, was fun. My teacher asked for our interpretations as a class and pointed us towards certain interpretations instead of saying "this is what it is".
While a teacher shouldn't mark you down for not agreeing with them, that's not to say they can't- albeit unethically. Agreeing with them in SACs is of course a safer option, because if you can present it properly it'll probably show them that you have a good understanding of their view, which they most likely believe is right. And not all schools cross-mark SACs: my school only had one lit teacher.
I have to go back on when I considered lit as bullshitting; I don't see it to be much different from a text response in english. You're drawing meaning from the text and analyse it and present a view, and state what the author was trying to achieve. I think it's just because you have more freedom in literature.
But it's not necessarily safer if you don't hold that view because you might find it harder to present something that doesn't resound with you. Explaining something is usually easier if you believe it and fully comprehend it.
It's not even about presenting a "right" view - the view could be wrong (and the author could confirm this), but if it is reasonable and supported with significant textual evidence then it is okay. All of the English studies are much about exploring different interpretations of language.
Anyone that receives an unfair marking because they disagree with their teacher should challenge them. and not capitulate to a teacher that is not marking professionally.
-
A past member, who was similar to Chavi (and possibly went to his school), reckoned he got his 50 in English though eloquent bullshitting.
-
But it's not necessarily safer if you don't hold that view because you might find it harder to present something that doesn't resound with you. Explaining something is usually easier if you believe it and fully comprehend it.
It's not even about presenting a "right" view - the view could be wrong (and the author could confirm this), but if it is reasonable and supported with significant textual evidence then it is okay. All of the English studies are much about exploring different interpretations of language.
Anyone that receives an unfair marking because they disagree with their teacher should challenge them. and not capitulate to a teacher that is not marking professionally.
It could be unintentional bias. Also, when you get your mark back, your teacher wouldn't likely tell you "your ideas weren't the same as mine which is why I marked you down" and so it may be your expression, ideas only half formed or they may have missed the point.
A past member, who was similar to Chavi (and possibly went to his school), reckoned he got his 50 in English though eloquent bullshitting.
Plausible, but of course he could just be saying that.
-
Possible; humph revelled in self-deprecation regarding his English abilities, but was good enough to turn out [url=http://vce.atarnotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,6577.msg79566.html#msg79566]this quite decent essay
-
@ Spreadbury - Yes but they might say something like "Here, I'm not sure this is what (author) intended," or in some other way they'll intimate that you weren't aligning to their interpretation and therefore they penalised you. Also, do you see what I'm saying in my first point that "it's not necessarily safer if you don't hold that view because you might find it harder to present something that doesn't resound with you. Explaining something is usually easier if you believe it and fully comprehend it."
-
@ Spreadbury - Yes but they might say something like "Here, I'm not sure this is what (author) intended," or in some other way they'll intimate that you weren't aligning to their interpretation and therefore they penalised you. Also, do you see what I'm saying in my first point that "it's not necessarily safer if you don't hold that view because you might find it harder to present something that doesn't resound with you. Explaining something is usually easier if you believe it and fully comprehend it."
Yes I agree with that completely. But just because it isn't your interpretation doesn't mean that it's not comprehended, and you can't fluently express the point. Also, if you don't accept your teachers view, then you're being as narrow-minded as the teacher that marked you down.
-
Alright cool, I agree with you too in that just because it's not your interpretation doesn't mean that it's not comprehendible to you. What I meant was more that one way of thinking might be more vivid for a student because of their experiences in life and their different worldview that may lead to a more enthusiastic discussion if it is their own interpretation.
-
I remember in year 12 English I deliberately argued something against the teacher's view and still got a high mark for it. It's really about how you can draw from evidence to argue something, most English questions are deliberately phrased so that you can agree or disagree with the statement, which involves teasing out certain complexities and subtleties in the text.
-
My teacher liked it when his students went against what he taught in class. Sometimes after a SAC he would even say "someone wrote this on their SAC and it was an excellent interpretation, I'm not always right".
He was the most awesome teacher I've ever had. <3
-
My mom has enough degrees in literature to fill a room-(3 masters lit and a doc in linguistics)- and she said to me that in lit you can argue any point as long as you can provide the evidence- and more than one piece. She said you can eloquently BS only if the author is dead and buried- try not to do it with people who are still living. With Shakespeare and Dickens you can BS but it must sound damn good and you can quote any critic that supports what you say- although any out there theory is not a good idea as most angles on these have been throughly exhausted by critics and any unknown critics will be spotted a mile away- especially of you have a really young teacher (who can google it and find out- most old teachers are real googlers yet).
Just my 2 cents anyway...
-
Ninwa your teacher is the ' GR8 type' -rare species because most can't stand to be seen as wrong..
-
My mom has enough degrees in literature to fill a room-(3 masters lit and a doc in linguistics)
/offtopic
holy shit your mum is smart
and yes, that teacher made me love English, I've never had any teacher/lecturer since as good as he was
-
One time whilst in discussion about a prompt in class I suggested another facet which could be explored, which I assure you had ample supporting evidence. The teacher said "no, you can't argue that. I've already covered all of the paragraphs you can do." (or something to that effect).
Most fail thing he ever said xD
-
One time whilst in discussion about a prompt in class I suggested another facet which could be explored, which I assure you had ample supporting evidence. The teacher said "no, you can't argue that. I've already covered all of the paragraphs you can do." (or something to that effect).
Most fail thing he ever said xD
Hahaha yep I've had one like that. Made a suggestion after out class explored a topic, my teacher couldn't understand why on earth I would bother making a suggestion and don't just write the same essay as the other 23 kids...
-
Thankfully, all of my teachers in the last few years have been fairly open-minded in terms of interpretation... I don't think I've ever had the situation where I argued something, and the teacher said it wasn't allowed!
-
So he decided to write a book about a world that followed the laws of abstract mathematics, purely to point out the batshit lunacy of it. Things keep changing size and proportion before Alice's eyes, not because she's tripping on bad acid, but because the world is based on stupid postmodern algebra with shit like imaginary numbers that don't even make any sense god dammit.
I lol'd at this. When you look at this Maths for the first time it does look crazy!
Research Cantor and Cardinality. The whole concept of variations of infinity!