Bear with me on this one
OK, I’m going to keep this one short (though I think “Miʃɛl Fuko (Part Two)” makes up for it in length and depth; if you missed that one, read it rather than this one). Today’s post gets a little bit into the “Intentional Fallacy,” but never mentions it (besides right back there). Like the title says, bear with me on this one. It’s a bit “out there,” but it’s kinda interesting to think about.
How does someone’s reading and analysis of Dr. Seuss’s Hop on Pop differ from their reading and analysis of Voltaire’s Candide?
Bear with me here.
There can be no universal way of reading and analyzing texts. Any system that attempts to do such fails, not just because comparing apples and oranges doesn’t really work out too well, but also in part because apples and oranges don’t try to achieve the same goals.
Hop on Pop is a kids’ book. It, along with other classics like Red Fish, Blue Fish and that Grinch book, do not aim to be great literature. They aim to entertain children. It could be argued that even Candide did not set out to be great literature, written instead as a commentary on Voltaire’s world and the philosophies and personalities which permeated it. But there is no criteria, no matter how broad, which can encompass what the two works try to do.
Summary of this post: Simple. There can be no universal rule by which to judge all works. Disagree? Leave a comment, I’m curious what you people think.
This is AndrewTheory, signing off.
(And yes, this one is only 281 words. I hope you can tell that I feel just plain awful about it. Oh, wait, here we go. We’re at 300 now.)
