Well, no. The jargony definition of a text is "Anything which can be analyzed the way we analyze a non-jargony text." So RPF canon is a text even though it's just a bunch of stuff happening in the "real" world. When academics say that everything is a text, using this definition, they are making a meaningful statement.
The non-jargony definition of text is, I don't know, something written using alphanumeric characters? The non-jargony definition, like all word usages, is fuzzy enough that the academic definition grows out of it rather than being wholly separate. (Although really, who talks about "texts" other than academics?).Someone who reads an academic saying that the world consists only of alphanumeric characters is misreading, plain and simple.
no subject
The non-jargony definition of text is, I don't know, something written using alphanumeric characters? The non-jargony definition, like all word usages, is fuzzy enough that the academic definition grows out of it rather than being wholly separate. (Although really, who talks about "texts" other than academics?).Someone who reads an academic saying that the world consists only of alphanumeric characters is misreading, plain and simple.
There's been a lot of misreading going on lately.