(Replying to PARENT post)

How so? Crudely generalising; wouldn't engineering types be more susceptible to conclude that there is only one sanctioned way interpreting some text rather than someone with a humanities background? (I happen to be both. Poetry to me seems almost by definition something that will evoke different responses and insights for each reader.)
๐Ÿ‘คFreak_NL๐Ÿ•‘8y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

An engineer is unlikely to have spent a lot of time around humanities academia.

The university that I attended was going through a power struggle at the time that resulted in a feminist takeover of the English and other departments. In my case, a professor in a course required by the general education requirements took issue with an essay I was required to read in front of the class (which was a story about my families experiences as immigrants), shouted me down and said that I would fail the class and there was nothing that I could do to change that. That was putting my major's GPA requirements at risk, so I had to pursue action with the administration. That wasn't an uncommon event.

My takeaway is to STFU around these topics.

๐Ÿ‘คSpooky23๐Ÿ•‘8y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Spoken languages are inherently vague and open to interpretation and context. As an "engineering type", I would conclude that language is not a good mechanism for communicating concrete details without a lot of scaffolding around it to alleviate the ambiguity. Hence programming, mathematics, diagrams, etc.

On top of that, poems are meant to be "artsy". I.e. They specifically use certain words in odd ways as part of the artistry of it. It's actually a step in the opposite direction of what "engineering types" would want to do to language in order to make it less ambiguous.

๐Ÿ‘คzo1๐Ÿ•‘8y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

After failing an exam, I was told by an upperclassman that the secret to a good grade in humanities classes was regurgitating the opinions of the professor.

My solution to that was I never took another humanities class.

๐Ÿ‘คWalterBright๐Ÿ•‘8y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

There's a large debate in humanities about whether authorial intent matters which has been roiling for decades. I think it was either kicked off or summarized by an essay called "The Death of the Author."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

๐Ÿ‘คobstinate๐Ÿ•‘8y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Crudely generalising; wouldn't engineering types be more susceptible to conclude that there is only one sanctioned way interpreting some text rather than someone with a humanities background?

Sure, but only to the extent that phrasing around "interpreting text" implies that the meaning sought exists in the text, rather than the cascade reactions taking place in readers upon their careful observation of the piece.

๐Ÿ‘คforgottenpass๐Ÿ•‘8y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0