BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / How to percieve and interpret a piece of art?

**Posted by mrshouse** February 19, 2015 3:55 pm

Ah-chie wrote:
Here is an article that deals with that very question (in fact they even site "Johnlock" as an examle of what is discussed - because no doubt, this is what this thread is really all about when it boils down).

http://thegeekiary.com/authorial-intent-versus-audience-interpretation-whos-voice-is-more-valid/4024

For me, living as I do with an author and having a certain part of our household income dependent on literary royalties and the sanctity of ownership, I will side with the author of any piece of work (be it in any format) over "fanfic" interpretations every time.

I think that audience (fans) can have all the fun they want with their "interpretations" in their own heads (and when discussing it among like-minded individuals) but it ends when they start dictating to the authors that they know better than those who created it, when the creators make it known that certain views are clearly misinterpretations. That is something that just doesn't sit right with me. And it never will.

-Val

Thread starter's note: This is not a johnlock thread and as a thread starter I would be very much disappointed if it was widely simplified down as such. And as Vhanja already mentioned, it wasn't even inspired in the last impetus to open it by it. We can discuss other characters from the show, books you've read, plays you've attended, anything that can be called arts.
And this aim is not open to interpretation. The rest is for the johnlock official debate thread.

**Posted by Ah-chie** February 19, 2015 3:57 pm

I apologise for my misinterpretation of this thread.

-Val

**Posted by SusiGo** February 19, 2015 3:58 pm

Thanks for clarifying, mrshouse.

**Posted by mrshouse** February 19, 2015 3:59 pm

I hope you will stick around, Val, I'm sure you have interesting inputs to give.

**Posted by Ah-chie** February 19, 2015 4:12 pm

I have deleted the offending posts.

I think I shall just move along. Thanks. Enjoy your discussion.

-Val

**Posted by lil** February 19, 2015 4:16 pm

One of the great things with Sherlock is... I think the different and varied interpretations of the show..is part of the intent.
The ambiguity over practically everything is very carefully contrived...I think on occasions they even deliberately say provoking things because they know it will fuel controversy and conversations and metas and fanfics and fanart....etc etc etc....and threads like this.
Cynically I could say it's all for publicity and to keep the talk@interest going through the long long hiatus..(not something new)...or that art to fuel more art from viewers...has maybe become a new part of the creative process when aiming for success...

**Posted by tonnaree** February 19, 2015 4:23 pm

lil wrote:
One of the great things with Sherlock is... I think the different and varied interpretations of the show..is part of the intent.
The ambiguity over practically everything is very carefully contrived...I think on occasions they even deliberately say provoking things because they know it will fuel controversy and conversations and metas and fanfics and fanart....etc etc etc....and threads like this.
Cynically I could say it's all for publicity and to keep the talk@interest going through the long long hiatus..(not something new)...or that art to fuel more art from viewers...has maybe become a new part of the creative process when aiming for success...

I think they like to watch us dance......................

**Posted by SusiGo** February 19, 2015 4:30 pm

You have a point, lil. As I said above, there are works of art that are meant to be ambiguous. Regarding the fact that they do not want to lose their fans during the long wait for the next series, it is quite plausible that the show is intended as being ambiguous in various respects. And as long as the controversies created by this do not get out of control (which, sadly, has happened in some respect with series 3) it is all fine.