<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4ED5737D.7050303@gmail.com" type="cite"><br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">Dan'l
Danehy-Oakes wrote:
<br>
What do you mean by "wrong" and "misled?" These seem to
assume that
<br>
there is a True Interpretation and all others are wrong,
where I think
<br>
that texts in general and Wolfe's texts in particular are
polysemous
<br>
and subject to a multitude of (apparently) contradictory
<br>
interpretations, all based on the text.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:entonio@gmail.com">entonio@gmail.com</a> wrote:
<br>
It doesn't. 'X is wrong' is not the same as 'All but Y are
wrong'.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Perhaps, but if your method of proof is to assert that there is
an
<br>
alternate interpretation, then you aren't proving anything
except that
<br>
there is an alternate interpretation.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
António Marques wrote:<br>
It can become entangled, no? When you point out actual problems
with an interpretation and <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>then<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
people ask you for an alternative,</blockquote>
<br>
Unfortunately that is not the only way it happens. What very often
happens is that someone suggests an explanation of an occurrence
that is not explicitly declared or based on irony or allusion, and
someone else will respond with:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>"This explanation is a totally unsupported. The truth of
this event is clearly declared in text [James notes: although
actually only implied] by this flat half-blind reading of the
story that I follow. Thus, I have proved that my initial reading
is correct and not in need of enlightenment because I am eschewing
any high literary understanding of the events and other literary
voodoo."<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This person is not refuting an explanation AND THEN going on to
explain his alternate understanding. He refuting an explanation WITH
his alternate understanding.<br>
</body>
</html>