> That's not at all what Barthes was saying; you've misunderstood him.
Thanks for misrepresenting me. Or willfully miunderstanding me. But hey. No qualms here.
Just that I never said:
> the idea that there is no subtext, that a text only communicates exactly what it lays out on the surface level.
Not sure though, what made you read that into my writing (and I am aware of the ironiy here). I actually read Barthes. And not only him. I actually used him and his ways of looking, together with thelikes of Genette and others when doing my thesis work (and before).
Because their depth and their way of looking at the depth within text was what fascinated me.
I always compared them to trying to understand the bones, the organs, the muscles and sinues of a text, compared to a surface level way we were taught in school. Combine that with a more culturally anthropologic way of looking at topics in literature and outside of it, more like Focault did (as an example) and my time in university was actually one that I cherrish deeply.
Edit:
> Your teachers weren't trying to get you to fix on the one perfect interpretation, because that idea (Barthes would agree) doesn't really make sense. Instead, they wanted you to interpret, explain, and justify in a complex and ambiguous space.
I have to disagree here. My university teachers mostly did. In school, my experience sadly was quite different. In school there was in most cases and with most teachers only one correct way of interpreting a work of literature. Regardless how well you argued your interpretation.
But I actually love the discussion. Thanks for engaging my opinion.