nakahara wrote:

If I only saw B on-screen, I would probably still consider it B and a failed attempt at portraying A.
 

You only see B, others only see A. Others again see both A and B. And the creators says A. 
 

Because the Creator is right.

Vhanja wrote:

nakahara wrote:

And why is this a problem in the first place?
 

It isn't. Not at all. Not until the one who says B thinks that their interpretation is just as valid as the creators who states that A is the correct one. Ref. everything else I've posted here today. 
 

If I hold B for correct, because that´s what I saw o-screen (and the work was written in a way which makes both A and B), how is my reading not valid?

besleybean wrote:

Because the Creator is right.

Saint Augustine said:

ego uero euangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae conmoueret auctoritas
(But I would not believe in the Gospel, except that the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so.)

Which can be read, if you are cheeky: "The gospel is bullshit, but the authorities told me to believe it, so I switched off my brain and did so."

It reflects poorly on the authors of the story if they need their authority to proclaim "one true reading" of their story and are not able to clearly convey this "one true reading" in the story itself.

Last edited by nakahara (January 4, 2015 9:01 pm)

nakahara wrote:

Vhanja wrote:

nakahara wrote:

But if you make your work ambiguous so that it can be read as a Lone Wolf-story, a reptile alien story, a communist story, a captialist story etc. and at the same time you would not include enough scenes proving that the story is actually about being bullied, your true interpretation would not hold even if you say so, because the people wouldn´t see it in a finished story. 

If you want your one interpretation to hold, be more sincere and don´t try to be too artsy if you don´t know how to properly do it so that your message would be conveyed.
 

Yes, that is a point. But when a story is then made so ambigious that both A and B are valid interpretations, and the writer then goes out and states: "A is the correct interpretation", then you have your answer.
 

If I only saw B on-screen, I would probably still consider it B and a failed attempt at portraying A.
 

Brilliant again, nakahara.

nakahara wrote:

Than they should not sneer at fans: "you didn´t get it", if they indeed see many intended interpretations in the work itself and play with them.
 

I've never heard them sneer at fans. I've heard them nothing but polite when talking about Johnlock, even being positive about slash fanfics. The only thing they have said as I've heard is that it is not in their series and not the way they are going.
 

They do like to tease the fans a lot, but as far as I can see they've always been respectful about it and it's all in the spirit of good fun. My conversation with Steven Moffat still counts as one of the highlights of my life, during which he told me absolutely nothing about Sherlock and absolutely nothing about Doctor Who. :D

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

They do like to tease the fans a lot, but as far as I can see they've always been respectful about it and it's all in the spirit of good fun. My conversation with Steven Moffat still counts as one of the highlights of my life, during which he told me absolutely nothing about Sherlock and absolutely nothing about Doctor Who. :D

Wow, you met him?! When, how, where, what? Report! 

I completely agree with the premise of the piece...,but once again, we are seeing different things!

Last edited by besleybean (January 4, 2015 9:54 pm)

Harriet wrote:

A friend of mine told me about a young student in the family who studies maths at university:

"He's talking of strange things I have never heard of, he uses letters instead of numbers, and I can't see what this is good for. I think calculation should be good enough for everybody."

Reminds me of the discussion here ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Uhm, discussions forums are usually good for... discussing, I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯