Jon’s answer to “What's so special about the name Polly? There's a character in the book, Polly, who set herself …” > Likes and Comments
Like
My answer is simply that you are asking a perfectly rational question in an irrational context. I suggest you read through the chapter called Mind and Brain, which discusses how we use two interpreters. One sees a tiger in the corner, the other interprets that correctly as a bureau. If the first interpreter refuses to see that bureau, then you understand her statement "....must have seemed ridiculous to her..." So Polly seems ridiculous in one case but not the other. It is all projection.
This explanation doesn't really make sense to me. This is not a case of interpretation-based dichotomy. There's a name, Polly, and that name was ridiculous while she was planning, but it suited her afterward. Interpretation hasn't changed, circumstances changed. And to be clear, the name must have seemed ridiculous at first, not the person.
But I appreciate the attempt :)
As I said, you ask a perfectly rational question in a completely irrational context. But it is indeed an interpretation-based dichotomy, despite your need to find some other fact-based reason to evaluate the name Polly. The book is all about mental cognitive and perception issues. The name Polly is perfectly fine in either case, as you surmise. But the Mind and Brain chapter lays it out perfectly, at least to me.
This is not some random need for reason, I'm actually revising a translation of this book, and the literal translation just doesn't make any sense. If Kaysen wrote "the name seemed ridiculous", your explanation would have made sense to me. But she writes "must have seemed", and I cannot avoid wondering why :)
Anyway, thank you for taking the time, I appreciate it
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
My answer is simply that you are asking a perfectly rational question in an irrational context. I suggest you read through the chapter called Mind and Brain, which discusses how we use two interpreters. One sees a tiger in the corner, the other interprets that correctly as a bureau. If the first interpreter refuses to see that bureau, then you understand her statement "....must have seemed ridiculous to her..." So Polly seems ridiculous in one case but not the other. It is all projection.
This explanation doesn't really make sense to me. This is not a case of interpretation-based dichotomy. There's a name, Polly, and that name was ridiculous while she was planning, but it suited her afterward. Interpretation hasn't changed, circumstances changed. And to be clear, the name must have seemed ridiculous at first, not the person.But I appreciate the attempt :)
As I said, you ask a perfectly rational question in a completely irrational context. But it is indeed an interpretation-based dichotomy, despite your need to find some other fact-based reason to evaluate the name Polly. The book is all about mental cognitive and perception issues. The name Polly is perfectly fine in either case, as you surmise. But the Mind and Brain chapter lays it out perfectly, at least to me.
This is not some random need for reason, I'm actually revising a translation of this book, and the literal translation just doesn't make any sense. If Kaysen wrote "the name seemed ridiculous", your explanation would have made sense to me. But she writes "must have seemed", and I cannot avoid wondering why :)Anyway, thank you for taking the time, I appreciate it
What's so special about the name Polly? "This name", - she writes