4 ms·
Did anyone else notice that Eco was bad at answering the guy's questions? When he asks him about Homer straying from poetry, Eco goes on about something else en
by coderdude 17y ago
Did anyone else notice that Eco was bad at answering the guy's questions? When he asks him about Homer straying from poetry, Eco goes on about something else entirely.
- davidw 17y agoIt's all just part of a day's work as a semiotician. "Well, see, this here defiency of language ain't aligned right with that there topos of the inexpressable. But I think I can fix 'er up real good with a few lists"
- gwern 17y agoI don't think so. The point was that the list may seem primitive and basic, but it's a sophisticated linguistic tool; much of poetry is like that. (Homer's epithets come to mind as seeming both basic - what could be more basic than just repeating from the same set of adjectives ? - but also is an important & sophisticated part of his poems.) (And with Eco, it doesn't matter if he strays. What, is the interviewer more insightful, interesting, and knowledgeable that we would prefer to hear what she has to say instead of Eco?)
- coderdude 17y agoI'm just saying that since this was an interview it would have been nice if Eco could have kept it coherent. As for the author, whether he is more insightful or not, I was interested in a direct answer to that question.
- misuba 17y agoThat's the job of the interviewer (and his/her editor).
- nazgulnarsil 17y agoall my favorite interviews involve the interviewee going on an interesting tangent.
- anigbrowl 17y agoI can't agree, although it's obviously not the direct answer you're expecting. In the example you gave, Eco's reply can be summarized as 'lists are as poetic as other rhetorical devices'. One might just as well argue that the interviewer is bad at understanding the answers (although in fairness, I think it more likely he deliberately adopted a Socratic approach and is playing the role of the skeptical reader).