So What Are You Trying to Say?
When I was a full-time student, that is, reader, one of the things that constantly spurred my thoughts and opinions was the analysis of the techniques by which [other] readers interpreted the texts they read. Ten or so years ago, I thought that deconstruction was the least meritorious branch of analysis, a sore thumb symptom of an overall discipline with nothing left to say about its canon, a methodology swung by those desperately grasping at any possible crutch to enable publication and potential tenure... But I have come to appreciate deconstruction since the term was appropriated to describe the re-imaginings of Alan Moore. In any case, there are other paradigms -- which may not even qualify as genuine techniques -- that have less worth than deconstruction for purposes of actually understanding a text rather than "teaching the conflicts" or otherwise linguistically masturbating for the entertainment of a relatively small audience*.
One man's opinion:
"queering" of text** <
post-colonial, militant feminist, or otherwise overtly political** [external] projections <
otherwise "deliberately misread" text <
deconstructed*** text <
"reader response" of text, generally <
"author's intent," whatever that is <
structural analysis <
"rhetoric" <
four corners content of text <
text as read in actual socio-historical context
Discuss.
LOVE
MIKE
* Irony of ironies.
** I hope I don't have to clarify this, but the ladder refers not to persons or positions but the value of overlaying specific sorts of political "deliberate misreads" onto text for purpose of conflict and discussion, such as "a straight reading of The Chronicles of Narnia is all well and good but what are the homoerotic Marxist implications of reading Aslan as a pederast?" or some such.
*** This does not include texts written as exercises in deconstruction, commentaries on the limits of genre, or re-imaginings and re-contextualizations of known quantities, of course, such as Supreme or The Last Temptation of Christ.
Magic Podcasts by me and BDM
One man's opinion:
"queering" of text** <
post-colonial, militant feminist, or otherwise overtly political** [external] projections <
otherwise "deliberately misread" text <
deconstructed*** text <
"reader response" of text, generally <
"author's intent," whatever that is <
structural analysis <
"rhetoric" <
four corners content of text <
text as read in actual socio-historical context
Discuss.
LOVE
MIKE
* Irony of ironies.
** I hope I don't have to clarify this, but the ladder refers not to persons or positions but the value of overlaying specific sorts of political "deliberate misreads" onto text for purpose of conflict and discussion, such as "a straight reading of The Chronicles of Narnia is all well and good but what are the homoerotic Marxist implications of reading Aslan as a pederast?" or some such.
*** This does not include texts written as exercises in deconstruction, commentaries on the limits of genre, or re-imaginings and re-contextualizations of known quantities, of course, such as Supreme or The Last Temptation of Christ.
Magic Podcasts by me and BDM