Apropos of something, a collation and a coded hopefully not post-mortem

I’ve been reading a really interesting blog by a fan who is also (still) a professor, who participates heavily in discussions of Sherlock. I have not watched Sherlock after the first series, but though many of the details escape me, I know enough about the questions raised in this case, I think, to understand the fundamentals of the discussion, and it’s been really refreshing to encounter a kindred spirit and to realize I haven’t been alone in some of my experiences and perceptions. Serious balm for the soul. I need to clean up my RSS reader so I am putting this here for my reference. Some of the links in this post are to her blog, while others are to blogs of people interlinked to her through tumblr.

To wit:

On detailed kinds of readings. On the possibility of multiple co-existing readings, or why texts are not romans à clef. On why authorial intent is never the first or the last word in interpretation these days.

On the reflexive need to close out interpretations even when there is no affirmative argument and general agreement prevails about the action and no one needs protecting.

On common logical fallacies, how they play out in fandom, and why they should be avoided. I would add to this that some rely heavily on these fallacies because they don’t have better arguments at their disposal and others beat us over the head with them because they are fully aware how aggravating they are. Note — to say that an argument for an assertion relies on a fallacy is not to allege that the assertion is not true; it simply to point out that the argument stated is not a sufficiently good reason for believing the truth of the assertion. In other words, the assertion may still be true but we need a better argument.

On the need for good evidence for one’s arguments and the awareness that not all evidence is created equal: “faulty interpretation just makes our claims … look stupid.”

This link will probably be totally misunderstood, but the argument goes to explain why I behaved the way I did all last year. And here’s a lengthier discussion of similar issues that gets to emotion and fatigue. Both good fortifications for my position that make me feel less tired.

On the problem of people’s willingness to accept (or insistence on rejecting) certain kinds of evidence. [In my case, to remind readers, I was only ever interested in understanding how evidence actually works in either case (as with the structure of intuitive arguments and the sort of evidence that fits into them). To take apart how an argument functions is neither to agree nor to disagree with it.] Subsidiary to this point: one why making certain kinds of cases is exhausting.

On being attacked for defending my own position and my refusal to simply nod my head and say “you must be right” when someone ventures a different opinion. Disagreement on the basis of evidence does not constitute either closedmindedness or censorship on my part.

On the utter disutility of certain kinds of epithets, or the fact that your argumentation leaves me unconvinced does not make me politically suspect. Though most of that, I think, is baiting to keep me from getting where I want to go interpretively.

[comments closed, because (a) code and (b) who has the time but (c) fan journey reflections]

~ by Servetus on June 10, 2014.

%d bloggers like this: