Academia - prone to overanalysis?

Post by **Faramond** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:31 pm

So wait ... is Sally the family cat, or is she a person?

Post by **yovargas** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:40 pm

One thing about satire is that it usually tries to be more absurd than what it's satirizing. Comparing the opening salvo to bt's, it is clear that this is not the case....

(:P)

Post by **baby tuckoo** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:26 pm

Faramond wrote:So wait ... is Sally the family cat, or is she a person?

The easy answer, Faramond, is "yes."

Such is the perpetual quandary of the descending generation.

After sufficient time with the text, a deep reader might eventually ask, "What, then, is Puff?"

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:35 pm

Puff, whose very name connotes all the attributes of a pernicious and demeaning femininity.

Post by **The One Ring** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:50 pm

yov wrote:One thing about satire is that it usually tries to be more absurd than what it's satirizing. Comparing the opening salvo to bt's, it is clear that this is not the case....

In this case it wasn't possible to be more absurd than the opening salvo. When that happens, a true comedian will understate his case.

b.t. wrote:"What, then, is Puff?"

To be truthful, I'd even forgotten about Sally, so long has it been since I learned to read. But I'm pretty sure I would have guessed that she was a hamster, and been soundly rapped by the teacher for using a two-syllable word in a one-syllable world.

Jnyusa

Post by **yovargas** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:06 pm

The One Ring wrote:
yov wrote:One thing about satire is that it usually tries to be more absurd than what it's satirizing. Comparing the opening salvo to bt's, it is clear that this is not the case....
In this case it wasn't possible to be more absurd than the opening salvo. When that happens, a true comedian will understate his case.

Oh, come now, surely he could have if he'd tried. I mean, he doesn't even have one measly reference to anal sex!

Post by **The One Ring** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:10 pm

You think!

But a good deconstructionist will find references to anal sex everywhere. Why is Sally drawn to describe the tail of the duck specifically, and not its feathers, eh?

Jn

Post by **Faramond** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:22 pm

Oh!

Sally is a duck. Now it all makes sense.

Post by **Crucifer** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:48 pm

I thought Sally was a person pretending to be a duck, used by the family as they will, for a small fee, and to satisfy sallys submissive side.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:59 pm

Post by **vison** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:08 pm

Oh.

My.

God.

*whimpers in agony*

Please.

Please.

No more.

Those readers scarred me for life.

For life.

See my brain?

See my brain seep dumb stuff?

Watch, Sally. I can make my hands red.

With your blood, Sally.

Bleed, Sally, bleed.

Post by **Alatar** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:08 pm

Now, that IS disturbing. Talk about your subtext...

ETA: I was referring to the subtext in the pic. Vison needs no subtext

Post by **baby tuckoo** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:18 pm

With all sub-text in the foreground, the ingenuous reader will focus on the ultra-feminine Puff's enthusiasm for Dick's angry upright toy. But that interpretation falls for the juke of the text and gives up the scene's biggest yardage: that white space between Sally's post-pubescent smile (on her pre-pubescent face) and Puff's vertical tail.

That disturbing white space carries more shade than a rain forest and stays with this reader long after the "big red boat" has been given away late Sunday afternoon at the driveway "estate sale."

Post by **vison** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:24 pm

*loses remaining mind*

*goes foaming-at-the-mouth bonkers*

*sits on the ground and picks up little sticks*

*drops little sticks*

Post by **The One Ring** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:28 pm

Yov, this is the part where you step up to the plate and give the pussycat any meaning that you like. If you can plump out your ascribed meanings to 200 pages or so, you will be awarded a Ph.D. in literature.

Jn

Post by **Crucifer** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 7:50 pm

See my big red boat...

Damn you Yov! You got it as a rank before me!

Post by **baby tuckoo** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:02 pm

At least it's not "See Dick run."

The expansionist geste being that Dick doesn't run. Dick barely functions even in his limited role as Puff's foil. In the same way that his persona is all foreground, his arch is all present. It is the Great American Character Flaw wrapped in one character whose past is forgotten and whose future is irrelevant.

Post by **axordil** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:49 pm

The One Ring wrote:Yov, this is the part where you step up to the plate and give the pussycat any meaning that you like. If you can plump out your ascribed meanings to 200 pages or so, you will be awarded a Ph.D. in literature.

Jn

You left out the part about grading the head of the department's papers for a couple of years.

Post by **The One Ring** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:01 pm

Shhhhh!

Tsk - you're not supposed to tell that part!

Jn

Post by **Túrin Turambar** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:49 pm

Jyn wrote: That being said, the syllabus with which Lord M. opened this thread continues to lol.

He had me with the title of the unit – ‘Homos on the range’.

BTW, I’ve never heard of Dick and Jane (is it distinctly American, perhaps? Or just way before my time?) so I don’t get the full force of bt’s analysis. Or perhaps I’m just so used to that sort of thing it doesn’t strike me as being absurd