Funny Sayings, Funny Quotes and WE

I think
it has a million of meaning

PatheticPersonals.com | We has a several meaning

We has a several meaning

Inspired by my colleague(s)'s recently penned critical response to WE, I submit on this tenth day of Februaury, 2001, a modest and cursory critical response to his/her/their critical response for the perusal of the faculty of Arts, Letters, and WE at the virtual university of Jomannia.

Alexander Mann, Bloomington, IN

While my esteemed colleague(s) begin(s) his/her/their analytical journey by assuming a traditional critical stance, his/her/their points of arrival are not conclusive; moreover, they belie a method based less on rigorous socio-scientific inquiry than on highly subjective, even emotional interpretation which remains academically unsubstantiated and unsupportable.
Throughout the recorded critical discourse surrounding the anthropologically unprecedented set of problems presented by this document, scholars have all adopted the premise that a questionable command of English grammar coupled with a highly idiosyncratic manipulation of syntax lie at the foundation of the formal structure facilitating this document's unique poetics of comedy. Few scholars if any, however, have used this point of departure as a springboard for an indefensible series of non-linear extrapolations that can result in nothing more critically viable than a random value judgment about the intellectual capabilities and intelligent quotient(s) of the author(s), a conclusion which is exacerbated (rather than supported) by an assumption based solely on conjecture regarding his/her/their place of origin. My colleague(s) show(s) either an unwillingness or an inability to consider fundamental critical questions before adopting a controversial position that, though bolstered by personal conviction, lacks any real analytical substance; questions which have inspired entire studies in themselves, taken on by some of the most respected scholars in the field of WE (and here I refer to the ground-breaking work of Powell, Diller, and Toker), not the least problematic of which include:

- Is the author(s)'s apparent lack of written fluency in English a real or perceived characteristic of the text?

- If it is real, is this lack of fluency a natural result of insufficient educational opportunities or, assuming the opportunity existed, the result of a less than complete engagement on the part of the author[s] with the material and training offered?

- If this apparent lack of fluency is perceived, is it a construct manufactured by the author(s) in his/her/their attempt to give a system to the formal properties of the text that would provide a solid comedic vehicle for the poetics of the meta-text, or is it a result of circumstances surrounding the production of the text that had no direct relationship with either the author(s)'s training or his/her/their intent; e.g., inebriation, intoxication, or illness at the time of production, or a desire or material need to complete the text without sufficient opportunity for revision and/or proofreading?

These questions, as well as a host of others, must at least be addressed, if not briefly considered, in any critical approach to this document before inquiries into the author(s)'s assumed dearth of intelligence and hypothetically foreign cultural background become appropriate, much less necessary.
More troubling than the lack of a systematic approach of study regarding this document, however, is the complete absence of any relevant material (whether based on an informed observation of the primary source, or on a progression of philosophically biased hypotheses developed entirely internally by the critic[s]) that might justify his/her/their ardent claims. Maintaining that the author(s) of WE is/are "moron(s)" and "idiot(s)" without providing even the most general supporting evidence is proof of an underdeveloped analytical mechanism.
The fascinating critical considerations provoked by the complex set of possible readings (and misreadings) of this singular text merit thoughtful, thorough, and sophisticated studies not only from scholars of language, linguistics, and literature, but also from ambitious experts in the fields of sociology, paleography, philology, history, informatics, political science, environmental law, philosophy, religious studies, and apparel merchandising. I implore future scholars to adopt a systematic and multi-faceted approach to their contributions to the critical discourse surrounding WE, rather than submitting to the urge to substitute partially developed opinions and inappropriate estimations for academically sound reasoning, a temptation which proved too strong for my colleague(s) whose work is here in question.

Back to WEaction