This reminds me of the "Key to All Mythologies" endlessly labored over by the straitlaced and passionless Mr. Casaubon in George Eliot's Middlemarch. He buries himself alive in this wrongheaded effort while his beautiful young wife pines for the ennobling love she thought she would find in marriage. You won't find it in marriage to this awful nerd, Dorothea! Or any nerd who claims he, and only he, has all the answers.
Neither, obviously. I was just showing how Gaskell's approach can be applied to practically any text to elicit its supposed true meaning. What he's saying is ridiculous and arguably dangerous, essentially claiming there is little value to the surface meaning of words. One does not have to literally love one's neighbour, for example, even though that is the plain message of the Biblical text, because that's not the real meaning, according to Gaskell. One can justify anything that way.
Neither, obviously. I was just showing how Gaskell's approach can be applied to practically any text to elicit its supposed true meaning. What he's saying is ridiculous and arguably dangerous, essentially claiming there is little value to the surface meaning of words. One does not have to literally love one's neighbour, for example, even though that is the plain message of the Biblical text, because that's not the real meaning, according to Gaskell. One can justify anything that way.
Thanks, good spot. I wonder
Thanks, good spot. I wonder if Gaskell ever read Middlemarch and thought Casaubon was a great bloke.
This reminds me of the "Key
This reminds me of the "Key to All Mythologies" endlessly labored over by the straitlaced and passionless Mr. Casaubon in George Eliot's Middlemarch. He buries himself alive in this wrongheaded effort while his beautiful young wife pines for the ennobling love she thought she would find in marriage. You won't find it in marriage to this awful nerd, Dorothea! Or any nerd who claims he, and only he, has all the answers.
Thanks, good spot. I wonder
Thanks, good spot. I wonder if Gaskell ever read Middlemarch and thought Casaubon was a great bloke.
Neither, obviously. I was
Neither, obviously. I was just showing how Gaskell's approach can be applied to practically any text to elicit its supposed true meaning. What he's saying is ridiculous and arguably dangerous, essentially claiming there is little value to the surface meaning of words. One does not have to literally love one's neighbour, for example, even though that is the plain message of the Biblical text, because that's not the real meaning, according to Gaskell. One can justify anything that way.
Is a nursery rhyme considered
Is a nursery rhyme considered scripture or a sacred myth? .....
Neither, obviously. I was
Neither, obviously. I was just showing how Gaskell's approach can be applied to practically any text to elicit its supposed true meaning. What he's saying is ridiculous and arguably dangerous, essentially claiming there is little value to the surface meaning of words. One does not have to literally love one's neighbour, for example, even though that is the plain message of the Biblical text, because that's not the real meaning, according to Gaskell. One can justify anything that way.
I found this to be a useful
I found this to be a useful and succinct analysis and evaluation of Gaskell's Sacred Dictionary - and cleverly concluded - objectively.
Let's have a duel, now, when
Let's have a duel, now, when I count three.
What does that mean? Grab a
What does that mean? Grab a kazoo.
Let's have a duel, now, when
Let's have a duel, now, when I count three.
He's a nut, he's a cocoa-nut!
He's a nut, he's a cocoa-nut! That Gaskell needs therapy! Lie down on the couch.
What does that mean? Grab a
What does that mean? Grab a kazoo.
Let's have a duel, now, when
Let's have a duel, now, when I count three.