Abstract

Sticking to the point is thought to be a good thing. Changing the subject, by contrast, is regarded as a sign of a wandering mind if it is unintentional and as a sign of duplicity if it is intentional. Yet, as I shall show, interpreters regularly replace an initial object of interpretation with a new object, thus “changing the subject.” They do so in one of four ways: idealization, resegmentation, reconception, and recovery. Far from being symptomatic of either intellectual weakness or a desire to hide something, however, these processes are an intrinsic part of that most central of human intellectual endeavors, interpretation, and they contribute to its positive value.