I fucking hate literary theory
Jeremy1012
Posts: 7,170
I need to pluck 1000 more words out of nowhere on the following essay topic:
'A text means what its author meant when s/he wrote it’; ‘It is the reader, not the author, who determines a text’s meaning’. Which of these contrary claims do you find more convincing, and why? You should refer to one or more literary texts.
I have pretty much exhausted what I have to say. Oh, and it has to be related somehow to Frankenstein.
Any ideas? I'm looking at you Fins.
'A text means what its author meant when s/he wrote it’; ‘It is the reader, not the author, who determines a text’s meaning’. Which of these contrary claims do you find more convincing, and why? You should refer to one or more literary texts.
I have pretty much exhausted what I have to say. Oh, and it has to be related somehow to Frankenstein.
Any ideas? I'm looking at you Fins.
"I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
2003 ~ Toronto
2005 ~ London, Toronto
2006 ~ Toronto
2008 ~ Hartford, Mansfied I,
2009 ~ Toronto, Chicago I, Chicago II
2010 ~ Cleveland, Buffalo
2011 ~ Toronto I, Toronto II, Ottawa, Hamilton
2013 - London, Pittsburgh, Buffalo
http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/seminar/Fallacy.htm
http://www.michaelbryson.net/academic/wimsattbeardsley.html
http://social.chass.ncsu.edu/wyrick/debclass/whatis.htm
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dmiall/LiteraryReading/Readings/Fish_1980.htm
Try those links for starters.
thanks a lot.
This makes me miss college.
No problems. I'm not a big Fish fan, because just as language is arguably unstable inherently, so too, therefore, is the concept of the "community" as a signifier.
really? i loved that movie... when Man of the Hour comes on at the end i wept
Haha, I knew that was coming.
I argued that Fish was hypocritical because he suggests, by asserting that reader's interpretation determines meaning, that the words on the page do not point to meaning specifically and yet he is happy to allow the same words to point to exact meaning when describing the differences in interpretations. I can't quite work out why he thinks that the differences in interpretations can be viewed in one way but a novel is subject to the reader's interpretation. Can it not be that the interpretations are identical and we just interpret them differently?
In short, the bulk of my essay is "Fish is a wanker, here is why..."
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
That's why I'm giggin' again.
Fins will disagree obv
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
i love dostoevsky, even though im never sure how to spell the name. but yes, they became tiresome. i had to bust out my old paper writing skills for a class im taking now. the class was a perspective elective on ideas of justice in law and literature. i got to write 10 pages on king lear as a demonstration of the inevitable decay of a libertarian system. it was kinda fun, when you only have to do it once in 3-4 years plus, i wrote myself out of being a libertarian.
How are you finding Law?