(no subject)
Nov. 26th, 2004 03:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
foi_nefasteI'm surrounded.
I'm reading essays about "differently coherent" books - Literature and Society. (see previous rant about this one.)
I'm reading about "platonic botanists" - British Enlightenment. (What the fuck?) Apparently something about the importance of Greek culture, but damned if I can see how the entire chapter on platonic botanists makes any sense at all, in context or not.
I'm reading more McKinnon - Women's Studies. There has never been a feminist who has made me grind my teeth this much. I mean it. Furthermore, last class was about sexuality being a social construct. Teeth-grinding, ahoy.
I'm being lectured about the difference between hypothetical, implied, and postulated authors in the science of interpretations. Also, about how presupposing authorial voice is one of the prime mistakes of interpretation. And the different between "utterer's meaning" and "word sequence meaning". Which, apparently, is of prime importance. And is where we should all start. Because literature is a science, ans should be treated as such. Of course. How could we ever think that books were meant to be, oh say, read and enjoyed, rather than torn to pieces because the supposed author is (possibly. maybe. perhaps) different from the implied author.
Have I mentioned how much I dislike postmodernism? I mean, dislike, hate, loathe, want to go back in time and smother a few select idiots in their cribs?
I'm reading essays about "differently coherent" books - Literature and Society. (see previous rant about this one.)
I'm reading about "platonic botanists" - British Enlightenment. (What the fuck?) Apparently something about the importance of Greek culture, but damned if I can see how the entire chapter on platonic botanists makes any sense at all, in context or not.
I'm reading more McKinnon - Women's Studies. There has never been a feminist who has made me grind my teeth this much. I mean it. Furthermore, last class was about sexuality being a social construct. Teeth-grinding, ahoy.
I'm being lectured about the difference between hypothetical, implied, and postulated authors in the science of interpretations. Also, about how presupposing authorial voice is one of the prime mistakes of interpretation. And the different between "utterer's meaning" and "word sequence meaning". Which, apparently, is of prime importance. And is where we should all start. Because literature is a science, ans should be treated as such. Of course. How could we ever think that books were meant to be, oh say, read and enjoyed, rather than torn to pieces because the supposed author is (possibly. maybe. perhaps) different from the implied author.
Have I mentioned how much I dislike postmodernism? I mean, dislike, hate, loathe, want to go back in time and smother a few select idiots in their cribs?
