Radical Interpretation of the Text
Oct. 26th, 2023 09:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatA 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?
Project Team: So while we have no issues with you as a contractor, we need to determine that you understand that per our contract, you will be working nights.
Contractor: No, it states in the contract that it is only required for the Ticket Office, other areas can be days.
Project Team: No, it states in the contract under working hours - that the majority of the time will be working nights.
Contractor: We interpreted it as being day for everything but the Ticket Office and the Staircase.
Project Team: We have operational issues, we can't have you working during the day - we need you to work during nights.
Me: Okay, regardless, do you have enough in your amount - a contigency - to work nights? At premium time?
Contractor: No.
Project Team: Can you do it as straight time?
Contractor: No. And it should be days. We structured a competive bid based on what it states in the drawings.
Me: The working hours language in the contract governs over the drawings, and the drawings do not state working hours.
Project Team: And the working hours clearly stated nights.
Contractor: Not based on our interpretation of the contract and drawings.
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.
"But she didn't have to save her family, her family was fine. She didn't have to marry him at all."
What happened was Lizzie had turned down Darcy, then she had the opportunity to learn more about him. She'd turned down his proposal - mainly because he was insulting in how he proposed, and Mr. Wickham, who had enthralled her - told her horrible things about him. But she was able to learn how wrong she was about him, and that Wickham was a villain, and a louse, and had tried to seduce Darcy's ward, and had almost succeeded in absconding with her - and ruining her. Then, Wickham takes off of with Lizzie's sister, and they fear will ruin her and the other sister's chances. Darcy intervenes and forces Wickham to marry her sister. And all is well. He doesn't do it to force Lizzie into marriage - nor does he force her. She's not considered a great match for him - his Great Aunt wants him to marry someone else - and warns Lizzie to stay away from him. The combination of the Aunt warning her off him, his fantastic estate, what he does for her sister, and his own chivalrous behavior towards her - changes her mind. And she becomes enamored of him - and accepts his proposal - when he provides it a second time.
That's the plot. Like it or not. That is the plot. It's not open to interpretation - it's pretty straight forward. It's kind of like stating that Laurie jilted Joe, in Little Women, and Joe was really in love with him and Bess married Laurie to hurt Joe. That did not happen.
That is what we call a radical interpretation of the text.
I see this happen all the time. And I wondered how people did this? Now I know.
I get that you may not like how the author wrote the story - but that does not mean you can rewrite it in your head to fit your own world view and expect people to validate it. That tells me - more about you than the text that you read. And, it's not a flattering reveal.
It's kind of like saying 2+2=5, when in actuality it equals 4. There's just certain things that are fact. And are not open to interpretation. If a contract states working hours are from 12:30 am to 8:30 am, then that's what it states. If a text states that Joe jilted Laurie - then Joe jilted Laurie. Or if a television series dialogue states - Spike got his soul for Buffy, he wasn't tricked into it, he wasn't trying to get his chip taken out, but he got his soul for her - than that is fact. You can't twist into what you want. It doesn't work that way.
It scares me that people think they can do that. It's how we got Trump. And he does it all the time. There's a huge difference between questioning things, thinking critically, and twisting facts to fit how you personally wish to perceive reality.
* 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?
Project Team: So while we have no issues with you as a contractor, we need to determine that you understand that per our contract, you will be working nights.
Contractor: No, it states in the contract that it is only required for the Ticket Office, other areas can be days.
Project Team: No, it states in the contract under working hours - that the majority of the time will be working nights.
Contractor: We interpreted it as being day for everything but the Ticket Office and the Staircase.
Project Team: We have operational issues, we can't have you working during the day - we need you to work during nights.
Me: Okay, regardless, do you have enough in your amount - a contigency - to work nights? At premium time?
Contractor: No.
Project Team: Can you do it as straight time?
Contractor: No. And it should be days. We structured a competive bid based on what it states in the drawings.
Me: The working hours language in the contract governs over the drawings, and the drawings do not state working hours.
Project Team: And the working hours clearly stated nights.
Contractor: Not based on our interpretation of the contract and drawings.
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.
"But she didn't have to save her family, her family was fine. She didn't have to marry him at all."
What happened was Lizzie had turned down Darcy, then she had the opportunity to learn more about him. She'd turned down his proposal - mainly because he was insulting in how he proposed, and Mr. Wickham, who had enthralled her - told her horrible things about him. But she was able to learn how wrong she was about him, and that Wickham was a villain, and a louse, and had tried to seduce Darcy's ward, and had almost succeeded in absconding with her - and ruining her. Then, Wickham takes off of with Lizzie's sister, and they fear will ruin her and the other sister's chances. Darcy intervenes and forces Wickham to marry her sister. And all is well. He doesn't do it to force Lizzie into marriage - nor does he force her. She's not considered a great match for him - his Great Aunt wants him to marry someone else - and warns Lizzie to stay away from him. The combination of the Aunt warning her off him, his fantastic estate, what he does for her sister, and his own chivalrous behavior towards her - changes her mind. And she becomes enamored of him - and accepts his proposal - when he provides it a second time.
That's the plot. Like it or not. That is the plot. It's not open to interpretation - it's pretty straight forward. It's kind of like stating that Laurie jilted Joe, in Little Women, and Joe was really in love with him and Bess married Laurie to hurt Joe. That did not happen.
That is what we call a radical interpretation of the text.
I see this happen all the time. And I wondered how people did this? Now I know.
I get that you may not like how the author wrote the story - but that does not mean you can rewrite it in your head to fit your own world view and expect people to validate it. That tells me - more about you than the text that you read. And, it's not a flattering reveal.
It's kind of like saying 2+2=5, when in actuality it equals 4. There's just certain things that are fact. And are not open to interpretation. If a contract states working hours are from 12:30 am to 8:30 am, then that's what it states. If a text states that Joe jilted Laurie - then Joe jilted Laurie. Or if a television series dialogue states - Spike got his soul for Buffy, he wasn't tricked into it, he wasn't trying to get his chip taken out, but he got his soul for her - than that is fact. You can't twist into what you want. It doesn't work that way.
It scares me that people think they can do that. It's how we got Trump. And he does it all the time. There's a huge difference between questioning things, thinking critically, and twisting facts to fit how you personally wish to perceive reality.
* The Maine Shooting is horrible, and most likely the result of people twisting facts and information to promote their own perceptions of reality.