« And I don't mean the jeans. | Main | Mo pomo please. »

Again with Benito Cereno.

Wright, ''The New Psychoanalysis and Literary Criticism'' -- Jerz EL312 (Literary Criticism)

The question naturally arises why we should bother ourselves about unstable meanings. What do we gain from proving that an author is ambivalent, and he did not know he meant it when he said it? (Keesey 399)
I think this idea can really help/ add more to a reading. I think that there can be a lot learned from a text when this is applied to it. I think that it should be applied carefully, I mean couldn't one look into a text too much and could "find" whatever they really wanted just by over analyzing the text? This is where I tried to not read into it too much. It's that problem that could ruin a text. I was wondering if there is a point where you stop analyzing or is it just go till you can't find no more. Because couldn't you go till you found what you wanted to find even it it really isn't there?

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 23, 2007 12:18 PM.

The previous post in this blog was And I don't mean the jeans..

The next post in this blog is Mo pomo please..

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.