Today our subject might be ambiguity.
Contributed by David Mansfield on 07 November 2006 at 16:13What is the difference between
The motifs of eyeballs and submersion Minority Report can be read as a dialectic between truth (eyes) and concealment (submersion).
which I consider to be a problematic thesis, and
Though inconsistencies problematize any straightforward reading, the motifs of eyeballs and submersion in Minority Report represent a discourse between truth and concealment.
?
Besides the fact that the the first statement is in passive voice, I think the main difference is that the first is wimpy - saying that motifs "can be read" this way - whereas the second states the truth in stronger language.
But wait, you may say - don't both theses hedge their bets? The first one may say "can," but the second has all this business about the impossibility of a straightforward reading.
True, I would reply, but the first takes as a given that one can create a straightforward interpretation but offers its own such reading in very meek fashion. In contrast, the second says flat out that any reading is problematic, but it offers its own interpretation anyway.
There is a difference, essentially, between the first saying "We can know the truth, but I don't," and the second saying, "We can't know the truth for sure, but here's a candidate."
There are two reasons why I prefer the second tact. On the one hand, the first technique is uninformative. If I ask you what you had for lunch, I don't care what you might have had; I want to know what you did have. Likewise, if I ask for analysis of Minority Report, I ask how you interpret it, not how you could intepret it, maybe, if you were in a particular mood.
More importantly, the second approach - "We can't know the truth for sure, but here's a candidate" - makes two claims where the first approach really only makes one. You have an option under this second approach not only to support your interpretation, as you could with the weak thesis, but to support your claim that no interpretation is 100% correct. More evidence = more content = less fluff required to reach a length requirement = everybody is totally happy.
Now don't try this on every paper. It works best in analyses of books, films, or other texts, because these very often include ambiguity as a central formal element. But when you get the urge to use wimpy language like "can" or "maybe," consider using this alternate approach.