2,014
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − − + Line 17:
Line 16: − + − + Line 27:
Line 26: − + − + − +
added links
----
----
An '''out of context''' quotation is a kind of discrediting attack which appears to use a person's own words against him, but is deceptive because the apparent meaning of the quoted words—even though they are accurately quoted—is different from the meaning of the longer passage from which the words were taken.
An '''out of context''' quotation is a kind of discrediting [[rhetoric|attack]] which appears to use a person's own words against him, but is deceptive because the apparent meaning of the quoted words—even though they are accurately quoted—is different from the meaning of the longer passage from which the words were taken.
<!--Editors: please resist the temptation to transform this into a long list of examples, and, in particular, avoid examples that relate to live political or Conservapedian disputes. Only a relatively small number of examples are needed. They should be chosen as most clearly illustrating the points being made. This is best done with non-controversial examples. Controversial examples are less clear, because different readers will perceive what they are reading in different ways; in a controversial topic, what one person sees as a "quotation out of context" may be seen by another as perfectly fair. Thanks. --dpbsmith --->
<!--Editors: please resist the temptation to transform this into a long list of examples, and, in particular, avoid examples that relate to live political or Conservapedian disputes. Only a relatively small number of examples are needed. They should be chosen as most clearly illustrating the points being made. This is best done with non-controversial examples. Controversial examples are less clear, because different readers will perceive what they are reading in different ways; in a controversial topic, what one person sees as a "quotation out of context" may be seen by another as perfectly fair. Thanks. --dpbsmith --->
To illustrate:
To illustrate:
Here is a subtle example.
Here is a subtle example.
:"Beauty is truth, truth beauty" wrote the Romantic poet John Keats in "Ode on a Grecian Urn." That famous citation, which expresses 19th-century Romanticism's trust in feeling over reason, is pertinent in the case of Anne Carson's newest volume...<ref>Berstein, Richard (2001), "Books of the Times: Beauty is Truth, and Sometimes Betrayal," February 14, 2001, p. E1</ref>
:"Beauty is truth, truth beauty" wrote the [[Romanticism|Romantic]] poet [[John Keats]] in "Ode on a Grecian Urn." That famous citation, which expresses 19th-century Romanticism's trust in feeling over reason, is pertinent in the case of Anne Carson's newest volume...<ref>Berstein, Richard (2001), "Books of the Times: Beauty is Truth, and Sometimes Betrayal," February 14, 2001, p. E1</ref>
What can be possibly be misleading in this reviewer's quotation of what is probably the most famous line Keats ever wrote? The missing context here is an additional set of quotation marks. The actual closing lines of the poem are:
What can be possibly be misleading in this [[reviewer]]'s quotation of what is probably the most famous line Keats ever wrote? The missing context here is an additional set of quotation marks. The actual closing lines of the poem are:
When old age shall this generation waste,<br>
When old age shall this generation waste,<br>
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'<br>
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'<br>
It is not the narrative voice of the ''poem'' that says "Beauty is truth, truth beauty." It is the ''urn'' that metaphorically says this ''to'' the narrator. The narrator is certainly ''moved'' by the perceived message of the urn, but it is by no means clear that the narrator fully agrees. What the poem means—and what Keats himself believed, which of course is not necessarily the same thing—can be debated, but "Keats wrote 'truth is beauty, beauty truth'" distorts by oversimplifying.
It is not the [[narrative voice]] of the ''poem'' that says "Beauty is truth, truth beauty." It is the ''urn'' that metaphorically says this ''to'' the narrator. The [[narrator]] is certainly ''moved'' by the perceived message of the urn, but it is by no means clear that the narrator fully agrees. What the poem means—and what Keats himself believed, which of course is not necessarily the same thing—can be debated, but "Keats wrote 'truth is beauty, beauty truth'" distorts by oversimplifying.
Sometimes, even a subtle change in wording can radically change what the speaker meant to say. For example, Charles E. Wilson, president of General Motors from 1941 to 1953, is often slightly misquoted as having said
Sometimes, even a subtle change in wording can radically change what the speaker meant to say. For example, Charles E. Wilson, president of [[General Motors]] from 1941 to 1953, is often slightly misquoted as having said
:"What's good for General Motors is good for the country."
:"What's good for General Motors is good for the country."
The context was his confirmation hearing before the Senate for his appointment as Secretary of Defense. He was asked whether, as a government official, he would be capable of making a decision that would adversely affect General Motors. What he said in full was:
The context was his confirmation hearing before the [[Senate]] for his appointment as [[Secretary of Defense]]. He was asked whether, as a [[government official]], he would be capable of making a decision that would adversely affect General Motors. What he said in full was:
:"Yes, sir, I could. I cannot conceive of any because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."<ref>Keyes, Ralph (1992): ''Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations,'', p. 8</ref>
:"Yes, sir, I could. I cannot conceive of any because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."<ref>Keyes, Ralph (1992): ''Nice Guys Finish Seventh: False Phrases, Spurious Sayings, and Familiar Misquotations,'', p. 8</ref>
It's not totally unfair to translate the "vice versa" into "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," but chopping off the "for years I thought" and "what was good for the country was good for General Motors" is; it transforms a forthright statement into a piece of fatuous arrogance.
It's not totally unfair to translate the "vice versa" into "What's good for General Motors is good for the country," but chopping off the "for years I thought" and "what was good for the country was good for General Motors" is; it transforms a forthright statement into a piece of fatuous arrogance.