NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/folklore/urban/29332

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pitt.edu!seawasp
From: [e-mail] (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Professor has class unknowingly interpret a non-poem?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:45:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Lines: 31
Originator: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>One of my Profs told a story about a Professor somewhere who wanted to
>make a point to a class about how unreliable literary criticism is.
>The Prof asked his class to give their interpretations of a "poem"
>that was on the board.  After an hour of the students interpreting
>the meaning of the "poem" and coming to their various
>intellectual conclusions, the Prof revealed to the class that it
>wasn't really a poem at all but just a bunch of words and names that
>were left over from a class that had come before.
>Is this a UL or is it a true and cruel joke played by an actual Professor

    I've heard similiar stories... But no proof.

    However, your last line intrigues me. Why is it a "cruel" joke?

    Because the professor wasted the students' time? But that's
hardly cruel; heck, in a lot of classes, it's routine.

    Or because it shattered their illusions about literary
criticism?

    Personally, I think it's a marvelous joke. Especially if it
deflated some of the more pompous Lit students I've encountered.
When I was put into similiar situations (I.e., told to interpret
some particular story) I took great pride in defending the literal
interpretation (which, in the case of your exemplar, would mean
that I'd have looked at the board and said, "Gibberish")).


                Sea Wasp