I’m pretty sure what something implies is dependent upon the reader’s interpretation. And it looks like many readers think it implies that a non-American is about to land on the moon even if you didn’t think so.
“I can tell the author’s intent because I can” is circular reasoning and is not rational or logical. What that tells me is that you know that the author’s intent cannot easily be discerned from a headline other than taking it at face value, but you’ve been backed into a corner and refuse to admit it.
But if you are actually claiming that you can tell an author’s intent from the title, I assume you would know that O. Henry intended “The Gift of the Magi” to be ironic, right? Because that must have really ruined the ending for you.
Similarly, the end of “The Wizard of Oz” where it turns out that title is actually meant to be a ruse because the wizard is not actually a wizard must have been a huge disappointment to you.
The rest of us, however, do not have this special ability you have and have to take titles at face value until we read the context.
Did you know without reading the book, watching the film or even just hearing the plot that there was no wizard in The Wizard of Oz? You knew it just from reading the title?
And let’s talk about movies- you would know without knowing anything about those films that “Chinatown” does not take place in Chinatown and “Fargo” does not take place in Fargo apart from a few seconds, right?
I’m pretty sure what something implies is dependent upon the reader’s interpretation. And it looks like many readers think it implies that a non-American is about to land on the moon even if you didn’t think so.
The writers intention. You can read there being an implication, but it doesn’t mean it is implied.
Please tell me how you are able to figure out what the writer’s intention is from a headline.
Because I would think that would require reading the article and no one is complaining about the contents of the article.
Tell me how you can, perhaps? I can figure it out because… I can? And the article backs that up.
“I can tell the author’s intent because I can” is circular reasoning and is not rational or logical. What that tells me is that you know that the author’s intent cannot easily be discerned from a headline other than taking it at face value, but you’ve been backed into a corner and refuse to admit it.
Another example which is wrong.
That’s not an example.
But if you are actually claiming that you can tell an author’s intent from the title, I assume you would know that O. Henry intended “The Gift of the Magi” to be ironic, right? Because that must have really ruined the ending for you.
Similarly, the end of “The Wizard of Oz” where it turns out that title is actually meant to be a ruse because the wizard is not actually a wizard must have been a huge disappointment to you.
The rest of us, however, do not have this special ability you have and have to take titles at face value until we read the context.
So, you can read the context to find that the way I interpreted it was the correct way.
Which is what people did. And which is not what people’s problem is.
Great that it only applies to others and not yourself.
Did you not read the rest of my post?
Did you know without reading the book, watching the film or even just hearing the plot that there was no wizard in The Wizard of Oz? You knew it just from reading the title?
And let’s talk about movies- you would know without knowing anything about those films that “Chinatown” does not take place in Chinatown and “Fargo” does not take place in Fargo apart from a few seconds, right?
No. The article also says you are not correct. You didn’t tell me how you can understand it other than what you think. The same logic.
We are not talking about the article, we are talking about the headline.
Which is a way to verify your interpretation is wrong.
This is not something anyone has disputed. This is about the first impression upon reading the headline.