So here's the idea. Modern English departments, with few exceptions, have gone off the deep end into silliness and confusion. In my opinion, this is because they have forsaken the gospel. The evidences of this deep-endedness are the following: modern literary criticism, literary theory, deconstructionism, feminist interpretations, ignoring the wishes of the author, etc.
This is in no way an indication that all English professors are so inclined to all foolishness, nor that there are not good and proper methods of exegesis. Incidentally, the former evidences I listed are all examples of eisegesis: reading into the text. We get those two wonderful words, exegesis and eisegesis, from the Greek. "Ex" means "out of", and "eis" means "into". So if you exegete a passage, you first of all must assume that the text has some message to be obtained. You then use various ways of examination to get the message. In contrast, if you eisegete a passage, you read into it whatever you want.
It is my belief that almost all passages are meant to be exegeted. I certainly would not want anyone to read this blog and eisegete it. Such goings-on only confuse the communication process. If I wish to be exegeted and not eisegeted, then the Golden Rule would dictate that I exegete others' works, and not eisegete them.
This blog is an attempt to critique methods of interpretation, literary theory of all kinds, and finally to provide some examples. I have already provided one rather extensive example in my Pride and Prejudice blog. Others will be forthcoming, Lord willing.
I hope you enjoy both the form and content of this blog.