I think it's necessary to draw a distinction between actual analysis of a work, and over-analysis. There's only so much meaning in any given text, and there are plenty of people more than willing to create symbols and infuse a text with ideas that it was never meant to contain. The Professor in a philosophy class I took a few years back told us that a lot of philosophy was "Mental masturbation, it feels good, but doesn't accomplish much." I have nothing against "Literary Jargon," and textual analysis. They are valuable tools in understanding a work, particularly when the work is from a time and culture different from our own, but what I see forum members attacking is not legitimate discussion, but over-analytical mental masturbation. Some people just toss words and ideas around, until the texts say what they want them to say. Matthew Miller