You can have airtight logic and still be wrong, for example, if you start from some false assumptions.
And since the instructor went on to comment that it was clear the student hadn’t read any outside materials (which was meant as praise of course) we may have an idea as to why the student might have been the victim of some false assumptions.
Hrm. I still don’t see how you can have a good *literary *analysis that starts from a “false assumption,” when what you start from is the text itself. All of the analysis is then built off of that text.
You could if you don’t understand some of the background & terms used.
For example, stories of 75-150 years ago will talk about 2 people “making love”. In current language, that is pretty much an euphemism for sexual intercourse. But back then, it wasn’t – it referred to what we would call ‘flirting’ or ‘courting’ – much different meaning. If you didn’t understand that, your analysis of the text could be quite logically consistent, but way off base.
I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. You can say “This poem meant X” and get praised for original and logically consistent analysis but if the actual author is on record as stating, “I meant Y, not X, by this poem” then your interpretation of what the author meant is still wrong. If we’re talking about a generic interpretation of the poem independent of the author’s intent then maybe you are onto something, but if we are talking about what the author meant then not all logically consistent analysis meet this criteria.
Indeed. Back then, the euphamism for sexual intercourse was “Calvin Coolidging.”
They had to be silent to avoid scaring the horses, after all.
It’s entirely possible to get basic facts wrong about a story–say, in terms of events, characters, actions–and then go on (incorrectly) from there.
On another note: What do you folks think of the “FD” (failure with dishonesty) grade discussed here?:
Not true!
According to APAv6 you can plagarize yourself since a paper is supposed to be original research so it could be plagerism depending on the assignment.
Ahh, Coolidging with Irma Lou under a scratchy horsehair blanket, waving the ol’ college pennant (if ya geit mah drift) before the big game.
And, yes, we did frighten the horse once or thrice.
This is the thing with Chinese education system, even in Singapore. The exams reward you for memorization, and this is how we are taught. We learn mathematics through drilling, spelling through spelling tests, remember the periodic table and etc. Which may be why we tend to excel in engineering rather than the more creative industry.
Then what would William H. Tafting involve? I’m almost afraid to ask. - Og.
It means to get stuck in a bathtub.
Oh, and Teddy Roosevelting? That’s having sex with a large gay man.
So you really don’t want to be all Tafting in the middle of your Teddys or else you’ll frighten your Coolidges. Or, um, something like that.
Good point. (And a good example–I know exactly what you’re talking about.)
Actually, I’d disagree with that. Taking such a strict interpretation of the “meaning” of works of art (whether literature, music, poetry, sculpture, whatever) turns all criticism into, essentially, historical research. Ultimately, what the author intends is irrelevant; IMO, the best part of analysis and criticism is what it reveals about both our own society/culture and the society/culture of the author, as well as the connections between the two.
Example: In a creative writing course I took in high school, one of my poems was being discussed. One of the other students had a remarkable insight into the meaning of the poem–one that I never intended. However, I could very much see how he could reach such a conclusion. The poem became a lens through which his personal experience was focused. Therefore, his interpretation was just as valid as my original intention.
Well, but I think there’s an important distinction between what the poem itself means and what its author meant or intended to say by it (and I think Driver8 did make that distinction).
Good point. Of course, *then *we get into issues such as (a) can we take an author at their word about what they “meant” by a work and (b) should we ever even get into what the author meant vs. what the work means. 
That’s funny, given that in engineering school in Spain you’re pretty much not expected to memorize anything. For most exams you even get to bring in “cheat sheets” done to the professor’s specs (for example, “include the formulae and where to apply them, but no detailed application examples”); the “cheat sheet” may even be handed in for grading. The ones who have a reputation for memorizing the whole book and regurgitating it back are the Humanities folks, and specially the Law students (reputedly, they spend 8 months partying and missing class, followed by a month of cramming like crazy - yes, the reputation is exagerated, but they do most of their work right before exams).
I just got another one yesterday, from yet another sad case who was failing the class anyway. According to the progress report she had me fill out (before I found said paper), she’s failing everything she’s taking. The plagiarism doesn’t help.
If she were smart enough to pass, she wouldn’t be plagarizing in such a way as to get caught doing it.
Humm - not that I’m planning on doing this (I’d rather make extra $$ by cheating on my taxes), but I graduated a couple of years ago.
I wonder if my University could somehow take my degree away if I decided to sell old term papers on this site? I assume not, but I’m rather honest to a fault (well, except lying about cheating on my taxes) and I’m probably not a very good criminal/cheat.
