Difference between revisions of "Talk:451: Impostor"
(Could the last panel be referring to imposter syndrome?) |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:I disagree. A 'paper' usually means an academic paper, not literary work. Then, the books part follows suit. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 06:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | :I disagree. A 'paper' usually means an academic paper, not literary work. Then, the books part follows suit. --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 06:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
:Could also be a reference to the Sokal Hoax...implying he did the same thing over and over but without the "reveal." {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.178}} | :Could also be a reference to the Sokal Hoax...implying he did the same thing over and over but without the "reveal." {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.178}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | Given the "Eight papers and two books" that the narrator has written on literary criticism, could this actually be talking about [[wikipedia:Imposter syndrome|imposter syndrome]], where the author ''believes'' that they're frauds and that they're not as good as people think they are, but in actual fact are knowledgable in their field? --[[User:Sophira|Sophira]] ([[User talk:Sophira|talk]]) 04:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:13, 23 November 2015
It could be that no one understands the literary criticism, even if they read it. The panel shows a student listening to Cueball. A fun, alternative explanation is that Cueball has found his real niche! A natural genius in literary criticism! (I know that's not what he's driving at. Stick with my first explanation.)Theo (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I know this is easy to find, but the wikipedia article on deconstruction is very relevant. There should be a link in the explanation. 108.162.219.7 01:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe the multiple issues listed in the Deconstruction Wikipedia article speak for themselves:
- This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
- This article contains too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclopedic entry. (February 2014)
- This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. (February 2014)
- This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (February 2014)
- This article's introduction may be too long for the overall article length. (February 2014)
- This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (February 2014)
- The neutrality of this article is disputed. (February 2014)
199.27.133.5 20:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that, on the literary criticism explanation, Randall wrote "Eight papers and two books and they haven't caught on" to mean that he talked about eight papers and two books, not that he has already had a literary criticism writing career consisting of eight written papers and two books and no one has noticed. 199.27.133.53 04:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. A 'paper' usually means an academic paper, not literary work. Then, the books part follows suit. --NeatNit (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Could also be a reference to the Sokal Hoax...implying he did the same thing over and over but without the "reveal." 108.162.238.178 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Given the "Eight papers and two books" that the narrator has written on literary criticism, could this actually be talking about imposter syndrome, where the author believes that they're frauds and that they're not as good as people think they are, but in actual fact are knowledgable in their field? --Sophira (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
