It's totally difficult to comment because, oooobviously I haven't read it, so I mean, I can really only comment on the generalities. But I guess it's just that I like having things nailed down. To me, that makes things *more* interesting, because then I know it's *right*, and I'm more interested in accuracy than personal/subjective experiences, even mine. I mean, I am pretty hardcore that way, as you know.
(And, honestly, when people say things like "there's a conflict between what s/he wrote and what s/he said, and if s/he wanted to write that story s/he should have, but s/he didn't" I tend to get a little jasbdkjabdkad because s/he probably did, you just aren't experiencing it as s/he intended, which is completely different than s/he not writing what s/he meant to write.)
What I mean about 'not believing' - I was totally half-asleep when I wrote that, so like 'not believing' is not the right term but I just mean that while everyone does interpret things differently, I don't see that as a great thing. I mean, I wouldn't want to preserve it. To me it's an unfortunate flaw resulting from the differences in person-to-person perspective and experiences.
And the thing is, if I did embrace subjectivity, I could never enjoy discussing any work ever again, ever. Because as soon as I take the position that everyone's views are 'correct', discussion becomes pointless as I can't actually learn anything from it - all I can do is state my opinion and listen as they state theirs. I don't need to BE right (actually, I kind of like being wrong because if someone can prove I'm wrong, that means I just learned something new) but I need to have the possibility of being right or wrong. I need a standard to seek, otherwise I don't get anything out of it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-12-02 06:04 am (UTC)(And, honestly, when people say things like "there's a conflict between what s/he wrote and what s/he said, and if s/he wanted to write that story s/he should have, but s/he didn't" I tend to get a little jasbdkjabdkad because s/he probably did, you just aren't experiencing it as s/he intended, which is completely different than s/he not writing what s/he meant to write.)
What I mean about 'not believing' - I was totally half-asleep when I wrote that, so like 'not believing' is not the right term but I just mean that while everyone does interpret things differently, I don't see that as a great thing. I mean, I wouldn't want to preserve it. To me it's an unfortunate flaw resulting from the differences in person-to-person perspective and experiences.
And the thing is, if I did embrace subjectivity, I could never enjoy discussing any work ever again, ever. Because as soon as I take the position that everyone's views are 'correct', discussion becomes pointless as I can't actually learn anything from it - all I can do is state my opinion and listen as they state theirs. I don't need to BE right (actually, I kind of like being wrong because if someone can prove I'm wrong, that means I just learned something new) but I need to have the possibility of being right or wrong. I need a standard to seek, otherwise I don't get anything out of it.