(Sharon sits down next to Matt)

Sharon: Hey Matt, how’s it going?
Matt: Not bad, I’m really excited about this course!
Sharon: Yeah… I mean, it’s the shortest class description I’ve ever seen: “English 324: Applied Hip-Hop Analysis - We be deconstructin’, yo!”
Matt: So terse, yet enigmatic! Hey–did you hear the Shakespeare lecturer last night? He did half the show in drag, and nobody could tell, because he–

Professor:
Good morning all, please take a seat
I’m professor Stevens, and for this I’ll need a beat;
Literary analysis of hip-hop’s the class,
But realistically we’re here for kicking names and taking ass.
As it’s the first day, we’ll start with something easy
Sharon, please read from the excerpt on page one-fifty.
Sharon: … Um… ahem… Mike Shinoda, of Fort Minor, in “Get Me Gone”:
After that I made it a rule
I only do e-mail responses to print interviews
Because these people love to put a twist to your words
To infer that you said something fucking absurd
Oh, did I lose you at infer?
Not used to hearing a verse that uses over first grade vocabulary words?
People used to infer that we were manufactured
Professor:
Now comes the part we’re best at in English
We make an argument and ram it like a shish-
Kabob through shoddy language and tumescent prose
My thesis, then, is what I want you to suppose.
When Shinoda uses the word “infer”,
His choice of language is poor and
Throws us a lure
That his diction’s unsure.

(Matt raises hand)

Matt: I think that it’s entirely possible Shinoda’s just misunderstanding the meaning of the word here; certainly his–

(Professor and Sharon stare at Matt in worried disbelief)

Matt: –diction is somewhat unclear
For in his first line he tells us quite near
That the interviewers falsely implied his career
Was fake; that sort of agency doesn’t mesh with “infer”
So it’s clear that his choice of words is disturbed
The man just can’t write, it’s a laughable stink!
He’d better step up if he wants us to link
His media, his message with intelligent think!

Professor:
Sharon, if I may beg you to flatter
My interest; please share your thoughts on the matter
I want words to clatter and mix like cake batter
Smashing Matt’s argument to pieces that shatter.

Sharon:
I agree with you Matt
The diction’s absurd
But you’ve got to look past the flat
Mat of ratted and tattered words
Into the deeper construct of post-structuralist norms
There are no underlying forms,
No inferrable swarms
Of congruent ideas labeled by a slurred
Blurred and unformalized word
When Shinoda says “infer” it’s a contradiction in terms
That’s the true message for us to learn
Through introspection he affirms and confirms
That arguing over meaning isn’t feasible;
Only in context are those inferences reasonable.

Professor:
Take a shot, Matt, here’s your chance to show off to the class
C’mon, pop a cap in her metalinguistic ass

Matt:
You know what? Fuck your post-structuralist diploma
You’re missing out on the key point of Shinoda
Which isn’t the absence of concepts right under me
The selection, perfection and subsequent rejection
Of meaning through useless semantic inquiry
It’s the binary opposition of “infer” and “imply”
Which gives rise to a structure worth giving a try
Shinoda’s leaving a puzzle for us to recognize
If you step back and think for a second you’ll find
That our own identity as intelligentsia elite
Has given us cred you can’t find on the street!
So pack your Focoult and get the hell out
Your model’s worth nothing when it comes to the shout!