Summary
Rhetoric is in everything we see, and while our brains may ignore most of them, there are a few that catch our eye and stick with us forever. With analysis, we can see why and how this happens. Analyzing a text is like putting a puzzle together. We take pieces of the text and see how they relate to one another and how they fit into the meaning of the text as a whole. In order to analyze text, we have to use “lenses,” which allow us to see it in a different perspective. It’s like taking a puzzle piece and rotating it to see where it belongs in the puzzle. In the end, we get the final picture, or a full understanding of the author’s intentions. Sometimes, we can arrange the pieces in our own way to form a new picture, or a different interpretation of the text.
Response
I never realized how frequently I analyzed everything until now. Every time I looked at something with rhetoric, I was unaware that I was actually using the different types of lenses to find multiple interpretations. I find it fascinating how my own interpretation of something can be different than the creator’s original intention and someone else’s interpretation of it.
Question
If we know what the creator’s original interpretation of their own work is, then are all of the other varying interpretations still acceptable?
I don’t think any other interpretations should be accepted. Sometimes it’s just not that deep. If an author means one thing there should not be any other meanings to it.
I really liked how you summarized the text using the example of a puzzle. I thought hat was really well thought out and impressive how you compared the two.
The analogy of the puzzle to analyzing a text works really well here. I thought of the same analogy myself and the question you posed is funny and true. When analyzing a text we sometimes look for something that isn’t there or wasn’t intended.
I think it might depend on the way the text is interpreted by the reader. Different people can get different things out of the same text, regardless of what the author’s intent was. For example, the author could be conveying a certain side of an argument, while someone else could find reasons to refute such an argument from what was written.
I think that all interpretations are acceptable. The purpose of the author writing the topic is for it to be discussed and shared through all the interpretations. By sharing different ideas, it gets the conversation going about the author’s writing and intent, which is ultimately what the author wants.