Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 13-17 Dec 2010 (1816-20)
Odin:
--- Quote from: someone1074 on 16 Dec 2010, 10:09 ---I glanced through that article but it seems to be that it would be more applicable to a body of work where the author is unable to provide any information on that work.
But I get the general point. Words can have different meanings so anyone can interpret them as they see fit. As a result, it's not right to say any one person's interpretation of a literary work is wrong, no matter what that interpretation is.
I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation (as does the author), but I guess it's nice in that this article can defend anyone's thoughts on any literary work.
EDIT: I will note that you say the environment is designed for such discussions, and I do agree, but we've seen that such talk is somewhat limited. The wildest interpretations have not been treated kindly here.
--- End quote ---
If the weather is as shitty as they claim on the news this coming Saturday, I'll have nothing better to do, so I'll take the time to go through and dig up the specific comic entries that formed my previous arguments about Marten's character and post them (with the extra-comic references to support my interpretations) since the entire contention people have with what I'm posting is that they just don't reach the same conclusion reading the same comic. If it ends up being sunny out, then I'll be out doing something fun, though.
--- Quote from: Superkid11 on 16 Dec 2010, 10:15 ---My only disappointment is that the burbon did not bring him closer to Z̥̗̤͆ͦ̔̋ͬa̲̱͔̎͂l͈̭͍̤̱̞̫̠͖͊ͫ͟g̼̝̃̉͒̓̚o̰͓̞̝͙͓̫̤̝̅̈́̊͆.
His only sanctuary.
--- End quote ---
Agreeing that this would have been far more amusing.
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 16 Dec 2010, 10:30 ---
--- Quote from: Odin on 16 Dec 2010, 09:54 ---Read this article (PDF) for a bit more clarity on why that particular argument is fallacious at best
--- End quote ---
But that article doesn't quite say it's fallacious at best; it presents a comparison and discussion of five or so different points of view on intentionalism, with a clear bias away from actual intentionalism. It is easy to see how authors can get annoyed at critics when they argue that their work has a different meaning from that they intended, and all the more so when they have been persuaded (as in this case) to explain what the intended meaning is.
--- End quote ---
Right, I said it is fallacious at best (given the environment this discussion is taking place in, this goes back to the Conduct thread and the other discussion we had about whether the expectation for people to not discuss meanings other than the author's intended one is unreasonable); the fact that you seem to have interpreted the post you quoted to mean that the article linked supported that stance illustrates my own argument quite nicely, though!
--- Quote ---When I started to study Physics at university, I discovered an alternative called Engineering Science, and changed to it. I did this because it was more closely concerned with the real world I live in. Similarly, I have little time for this kind of philosophical argument, which I regard rather as a modern-day equivalent of counting the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. You may see this as a failing in me - but I think it's not uncommon!
--- End quote ---
I'm usually the same way, when I'm discussing any topic other than a work of fiction, so it isn't a failing so much as a need to realize that the context for these types of discussions taking place here is actually 100% valid so long as people proposing interpretations are willing to enumerate the points leading up to their conclusions (which I plan to do Saturday at some point, probably late evening unless weather keeps me indoors all day).
Border Reiver:
--- Quote from: The Duke on 16 Dec 2010, 10:38 ---
--- Quote from: Skewbrow on 16 Dec 2010, 05:30 ---
--- Quote from: Border Reiver on 16 Dec 2010, 05:09 ---
--- Quote from: jeph on 16 Dec 2010, 02:14 ---*having said this, I am now guaranteed to plagiarize myself by accident sometime in the next year. Fuck.
--- End quote ---
Not sure if it is legally possible to plagarize yourself.
--- End quote ---
I'm afraid such unethical practices are not unheard of in the academiae. For the purpose of making your list of publications look longer than it actually is. I am uncertain as to whether it is illegal, i.e. whether you could be tried for that in a court of law, but it is most certainly frowned upon.
--- End quote ---
It has been brought to court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy), in one of the stupider things ever to occur in the judicial system, along with one of the most badass - Fogerty won the case by literally bringing a guitar to the witness stand.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the reminder of that - but, since the judge ruled that Mr. Fogerty was indeed drawing inspiration from himself and that this was perfectly permissable it ain't plagarism.
And as for padding your list of published works, that would be something completely different from plagarism (copying other's ideas without properly crediting them, theft for the literal minded).
someone1074:
Odin, I didn't mean to say that your interpretations are wild if that's how you took the end of my post there. I understand that you have your reasons for coming to the conclusions you did, hence the 'respectful' disagreement.
I'll admit, I'm curious to see more on that though, so here's hoping you find the time to elaborate.
galarant:
w00t Faye minus bra again!
I think Jeph is having too much fun drawing that :psyduck:
Kugai:
Owls??!
The Owls??
Why is it I suddenly have the theme from Twin Peaks running though my head.
"The Owls are not what they seem." :-D
And Braless Faye - Fanservice Rulz.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version