![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Radical Interpretation of the Text
Oct. 26th, 2023 09:53 pmA post I read on DW last night - haunted me today. Social media does that occasionally, as did letters back in the day.
It was about interpreting text. The reason it haunts me - is well it occurred to me that I've been interpreting and analyzing and arguing over interpretations of text for over forty years, and do it for a living.
I'm a contract specialist - I debate contractual language with contractors daily, and interpret it for them.
Today, for example, we had a meeting in which we basically argued over contractual language with a construction contractor. We've been doing this for weeks now, and going in a circle. It can be very frustrating explaining to someone that their interpretation of the text is a) radical, b) their own isolated interpretation, and c) not proven by anything actually in the text. Not helped by cultural and language barriers. This requires a great deal of patience and stamina.
So if I get a little impatient with folks in fandoms, DW, or other social media regarding interpretations of text - that's probably why - I've been doing it at work all day long. I've had enough. Not always, but often.
Example from meeting?
( Read more... )
Sigh. This is unfortunately typical. I had a fight with a contractor once over whether the contract stated that he could only charge 5% on materials, and that bonds and insurance were inclusive of overhead. I underlined the text in the contract and highlighted it. And he kept telling me that this wasn't how he interpreted it. To wit - I stated, "look, you can't interpret it however you wish - the language states it clearly, a judge will not rule in your favor on this - and if you want to rally it up the flag pole, and further delay your payment - we can send it to legal." He caved.
I remember one time, I let the project team and the contractor yell at each other for two hours over lunch, while I ate my lunch (this was during the pandemic and we were working remotely and doing negotiations virtually on our computers via teams). They finally stopped. And I told them they could either go with what we had decided, or we could continue negotiating. They asked if they could have another meeting tomorrow. I said, no, I could go all night. They said - they were hungry, wasn't I hungry. No, I'd eaten my lunch while they were yelling at each other. Settle it at the negotiated amount. They caved. (They were really hungry.)
What haunted me from last night post (which shall remain nameless) is an English Lit Professor informed a student (the poster) that the following interpretation of Pride and Prejudice was a plausible interpretation of the text: "Elizabeth hated Darcy and only married him to save her family." Stating this was plausible, even if we may not like it.
Okay, it has been admittedly twenty years since I've read the book or fifteen years since I watched the film for that matter - but that is not a plausible interpretation of Pride and Prejudice. I'm beginning to wonder about some of these teachers. The former English Lit Major in me had a hissy fit. Pride and Prejudice is several things - a romance, a comedy of manners, and light satire - what is not is a tragedy or Thomas Hardy, Emily Bronte, or for that matter, Richardson, Thackery, etc.
I mentioned this to mother, who has read it far more recently. And has recently rewatched the film. She was appalled.
( Read more... )
* The Maine Shooting is horrible, and most likely the result of people twisting facts and information to promote their own perceptions of reality.
It was about interpreting text. The reason it haunts me - is well it occurred to me that I've been interpreting and analyzing and arguing over interpretations of text for over forty years, and do it for a living.
I'm a contract specialist - I debate contractual language with contractors daily, and interpret it for them.
Today, for example, we had a meeting in which we basically argued over contractual language with a construction contractor. We've been doing this for weeks now, and going in a circle. It can be very frustrating explaining to someone that their interpretation of the text is a) radical, b) their own isolated interpretation, and c) not proven by anything actually in the text. Not helped by cultural and language barriers. This requires a great deal of patience and stamina.
So if I get a little impatient with folks in fandoms, DW, or other social media regarding interpretations of text - that's probably why - I've been doing it at work all day long. I've had enough. Not always, but often.
Example from meeting?
( Read more... )
Sigh. This is unfortunately typical. I had a fight with a contractor once over whether the contract stated that he could only charge 5% on materials, and that bonds and insurance were inclusive of overhead. I underlined the text in the contract and highlighted it. And he kept telling me that this wasn't how he interpreted it. To wit - I stated, "look, you can't interpret it however you wish - the language states it clearly, a judge will not rule in your favor on this - and if you want to rally it up the flag pole, and further delay your payment - we can send it to legal." He caved.
I remember one time, I let the project team and the contractor yell at each other for two hours over lunch, while I ate my lunch (this was during the pandemic and we were working remotely and doing negotiations virtually on our computers via teams). They finally stopped. And I told them they could either go with what we had decided, or we could continue negotiating. They asked if they could have another meeting tomorrow. I said, no, I could go all night. They said - they were hungry, wasn't I hungry. No, I'd eaten my lunch while they were yelling at each other. Settle it at the negotiated amount. They caved. (They were really hungry.)
What haunted me from last night post (which shall remain nameless) is an English Lit Professor informed a student (the poster) that the following interpretation of Pride and Prejudice was a plausible interpretation of the text: "Elizabeth hated Darcy and only married him to save her family." Stating this was plausible, even if we may not like it.
Okay, it has been admittedly twenty years since I've read the book or fifteen years since I watched the film for that matter - but that is not a plausible interpretation of Pride and Prejudice. I'm beginning to wonder about some of these teachers. The former English Lit Major in me had a hissy fit. Pride and Prejudice is several things - a romance, a comedy of manners, and light satire - what is not is a tragedy or Thomas Hardy, Emily Bronte, or for that matter, Richardson, Thackery, etc.
I mentioned this to mother, who has read it far more recently. And has recently rewatched the film. She was appalled.
( Read more... )
* The Maine Shooting is horrible, and most likely the result of people twisting facts and information to promote their own perceptions of reality.
