View Single Post
Old July 10th, 2012 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keifer View Post
Actually it is right. It is not bizarre, but very common. It is called male narration and is one of the most common formats in narratives. Feminists thought enough of this to attack it for being the Male Must Conquer mentality. This format is what prompts the reactionary point of view known as anti-hero for which feminists championed when they first started publishing mostly under fake names to hide there gender. Later male writers such as Celine, Henry Miller adapted this anti-hero format. It is a water mark of modernists writing to reject the Male Conquering, the resolving of a problem through conquer mentality. The concept of focal point character as it relates to their resolving of life's problems is at the core of just about any narrative, even if it is a story about ironing clothes.
This is a song, not a novel. You're trying to force-fit some half-cocked literary theory where it doesn't go. Besides that, the songwriter is not trying to solve any problem, quite the opposite. He's pointing out the inevitability of things, no matter what he or anyone might have wanted.

Quote:
I did not say anything about unjust situations occurring in this story. If there is presence of unjust then it would come from the reader. I simply stated, and with accuracy, that christianity has a constant presence in this narration rather it is explicate in the lyrics or merely suggestive in presence.
There is a mention of god and an allusion to Sunday School; these serve purely to further his depicting himself as not being influenced by ordinary sources of conditioning and morality. There's no deeper meaning than that.

Quote:
That suggestion is implied in the title. How did Mama try? Through the doctrines of x-ianity. Did jesus change because of what the narrator did. No, but he had a role as a character and there for that representation is static and constant from beginning to end.
This is unintelligible. Jesus has nothing to do with this. The singer is making the point that he is immune to the ordinary social-moral influences of church and parents. That's all. They reason they couldn't influence him was because of his own nature. He merely points that out, and does not take a position that his actions that led him even to prison were good or bad. That is, if anything, a profoundly un or anti-christian theme, because the christian way would be to resolve the story with his repentance - which he manifestly does not do. You have no indication whatsoever that he regrets being in prison or would change his ways if he could.

Quote:
Your original POV was to engage us to pick apart this song, to deconstruct like the jew,
It's not deconstructing, that is a jew concept meant to compete with genuine analysis, which is what I offer. It stands to reason you a typical WN can't tell the difference and think critical thinking is perverse. That's why WN always lose to jews - they despise thinking. To a (removed to prevent crying), which will be a proxy for WN, thinking is like a sort of dirty trick. Only a low-down would resort to it.

Instead of passive-aggressive carping and veiled jew-calling, why don't you either admit I'm right or come up with something better?

Quote:
and find the prize that is hiding in your own mind and realm of interpretation. Well then, I deconstructed and broke down the parts and characters in manner that would be acceptable in the college environment. What special relation you have on a personal level with this narrative is that of your own. If there is some secret about this song that is going to save us all, some secret only you are privileged to, then please tell, do share. We are desperate.
I don't hold my interpretation out as personal at all, if you see the chat I posted. Quite the opposite. I believe interpretation of good art is much more of an objective matter than subjective, and that is decidedly the opposite of what is taught in many places. I believe my analysis is accurate, and it has nothing to do with me. The only thing I've said about my feelings is I think it's a great work of art. And most people agree with me, and that's one objective measure. But the interpretation of the meaning of the piece in my opinion, in this case, does not admit of multiple meanings; it is pretty straightforward, altho obviously beyond the ability of many to pick up.