tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post112268624327192129..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Recasting "The Lorax"; Or, The Triumph of the CritsDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1123046136023223742005-08-02T22:15:00.000-07:002005-08-02T22:15:00.000-07:00I was going to say that it sounds like a straightf...I was going to say that it sounds like a straightforward application of Kabbalistic techniques invented to help you see God everywhere. See, for example, Aleister Crowley's Kabbalistic <A HREF="http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys5/rhymes.htm" REL="nofollow">analysis</A> of nursery rhymes. I wonder, why do you call it a theory? You don't need to accept a particular doctrine to use the techniques, as these conservatives demonstrate once again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1123028954918038332005-08-02T17:29:00.000-07:002005-08-02T17:29:00.000-07:00Hmm...que weird. Yes, that is a mistake. But we co...Hmm...que weird. Yes, that is a mistake. But we could make all sorts of Freudian claims about what my subconscious is telling us ("Destroying marriage is just like destroying Alderaan! Moral catastrophe aaaaaaahhhh!!!"). In any event, It will be fixed momentarily.<BR/><BR/>And yes, textual indeterminancy has deep roots. Indeed, it goes back further than St. Augestine--Talmudic scholarship going back to around the First Century incorporates these ideals. For example, tradition has it that when asked to decide whether the competing interpretations of the Hillel and Shammai schools were correct, God was to have said "these and these [I.E., both] are the word of God". See also Suzanne Last Stone, In Pursuit of the Counter-Text: The Turn to the Jewish Legal Model in Contemporary American Legal Theory, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 813, 834-38 (1993).David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1123000055360261002005-08-02T09:27:00.000-07:002005-08-02T09:27:00.000-07:00One could also easily argue that the roots of such...One could also easily argue that the roots of such a technique of literary analysis lie not in postmodernism, but in Augustine. One text (for Augustine, the Bible) can have several true interpretations. Authorial intent is only one. I think that would be a position Bainbridge would be quite comfortable defending.<BR/><BR/>PS - I somehow doubt your "destruction of Alderaan" link was intended to take me to your "exclusive language of marriage" post.Randomscrubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16907420981269677826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1122746685498766372005-07-30T11:04:00.000-07:002005-07-30T11:04:00.000-07:00Alan: A cogent critique. I would say that Crits sh...Alan: A cogent critique. I would say that Crits should try and offer a multiplicity of perspectives so we see the "whole picture" (or at least, as much as possible), rather than elevate one over the other. As you know, Derrida believed that in order to eliminate hierarchies in writing (or at least move in that direction, I doubt he thought they could be wholly destroyed), first you had to INVERT the hierarchy, and then you could eliminate it. That's why you see crits focus so much on interps that seem to exclusively blame the West. I think it would be more powerful to fuse the stories together--take what we know from critical theory and add it in to our "standard" interpretation. But I'd agree, many are failing to do that (or at least aren't making it clear).<BR/><BR/>3of6: Glad you liked it. To be clear, I don't think that the said actions of racial minorities is "in the past," at least given what I see on my own campus.<BR/><BR/>And thanks for the "its" correction (this is SO revenge for my Huntington nitpick, right? :) )David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1122736795612747302005-07-30T08:19:00.000-07:002005-07-30T08:19:00.000-07:00Critical theory in the world of literature is fasc...Critical theory in the world of literature is fascinating. And fun (if you're a complete nerd like me). It's intellectually enthralling to go back to a text and "find" (really, invent) new meanings. The value of the new interpretation actually lies in the intellectual effort more than anything else, but it is a process that can expand the mind.<BR/><BR/>My problem with critical thinking (and I would assume most conservatives' problem--although I am not really a conservative) is when critical theory is applied outside the realm of academics and used in, for lack of a better word, the real world. It's one thing to find pro-property rights messages in The Lorax but it's a whole other thing to, say, reinterpret the motivations of terrorists.<BR/><BR/>Seuss's original intent is not of dire importance because it has no real consequence--the reinterpretation is just a game. But terrorism's original intent is vital and any reinterpretation would be much more than a game. Using the intellectual flexibilty of critical theory on the real world can lead otherwise intelligent people to believe interpretations that are mere inventions or even out-right lies.<BR/><BR/>The entire "we caused terrorism, we are wholly or mainly to blame" reasoning is, I think, the consequence of using criticial theory on the real world. It is a wholly argurable theory from an intellectual standpoint--but it is compelely wrong in that it disgards orginal intent in favor of a new (invented) interpretation.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, that's probably way off topic. I just thought I'd point out that the real problem with critical theory is not when it's used in literature, but when it's used on reality.Alan Stewart Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03478149013082945900noreply@blogger.com