11–17 of 17 posts
The proper term for those whom the author describes is subliterate. The author can't really help herself either, sad to say. Losing the Tiktok habit would be a good start. But I get that that is like asking my parents' generation not to smoke cigarettes, or mine not to moralize intolerably. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subliterate
> Taking the text at face value, Greg Heffley has an irony-tinged self awareness of his own shittiness. I'm not familiar with this book, but just the excerpts shown really mismatch the NYT quote in terms of their self-commentary. The blogpost supposes that Greg is aware he's being a twat, and so somewhat mocks himself for it through the drawings and diary entries. I can accept (and even find it obvious) this applying…
> I notice the word "literacy" thrown around a lot lately, in part by myself, but there's an inherent dishonesty to this. Language does not have absolute meaning, and you cannot read another person's mind. Just because you interpret literal works of art differently, I don't believe that necessarily qualifies you as illiterate. These are not the same qualities. I interpret critiques of this flavor and the "literacy" i…
The proper term for those whom the author describes is subliterate. The author can't really help herself either, sad to say. Losing the Tiktok habit would be a good start. But I get that that is like asking my parents' generation not to smoke cigarettes, or mine not to moralize intolerably. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subliterate
Indeed, literacy is is the ability to read, and reading is interpretation. Interpretation requires context - of the domain, the culture, and the text - and resolving possible competing interpretations using a combination of charity and probability. Even the concept of "literal meaning" is problematic, because words don't mean anything by themselves; they requires disambiguation and contextual resolution of meaning. So really all you can have are more or less competent readings.
Pedantry is, therefore, arguably subliterate.
The proper term for those whom the author describes is subliterate. The author can't really help herself either, sad to say. Losing the Tiktok habit would be a good start. But I get that that is like asking my parents' generation not to smoke cigarettes, or mine not to moralize intolerably. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subliterate
She’s describing something much more specific than subliteracy.
The proper term for those whom the author describes is subliterate. The author can't really help herself either, sad to say. Losing the Tiktok habit would be a good start. But I get that that is like asking my parents' generation not to smoke cigarettes, or mine not to moralize intolerably. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subliterate
> The proper term for those whom the author describes is subliterate. Indeed, literacy is is the ability to read , and reading is interpretation . Interpretation requires context - of the domain, the culture, and the text - and resolving possible competing interpretations using a combination of charity and probability. Even the concept of "literal meaning" is problematic, because words don't mean anything by themselv…
> So Greg might still be a twat, but the one thing that you actually can't accuse him of is obliviousness towards his own behaviour. I don't think so. The author of the blog projects their own view onto the situation. As they say, when they were a kid they took it at face value. So Greg could also draw the situation without inferring that he is being a twat.
I agree, the more likely psychology of the Greg character is that he doesn't understand the way he presents himself in the pictures damns his surface level framing. You can really go quite far with more sophisticated versions of this technique in fiction -- Ishiguro's Remains of the Day is my favorite example!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The proper term for those whom the author describes is subliterate. Indeed, literacy is is the ability to read , and reading is interpretation . Interpretation requires context - of the domain, the culture, and the text - and resolving possible competing interpretations using a combination of charity and probability. Even the concept of "literal meaning" is problematic, because words don't mean anything by themselv…
You have wholeheartedly defended literacy in this one specific example, on the basis that literacy in general is actually impossible. Now I really have seen everything.