tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post5129614442215693016..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: On over- interpretationRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-68841609554906629792011-03-12T01:07:31.209+11:002011-03-12T01:07:31.209+11:00Woah. I originally read that as a question of whet...Woah. I originally read that as a question of whether the correction of typos was objectively binding, but now I find myself questioning whether you intended to follow that tangent. Literary interpretation indeed.Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07345409714343072179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-6862145018694469022011-03-11T02:50:19.310+11:002011-03-11T02:50:19.310+11:00I don't have much to say about overinterpretat...I don't have much to say about <i>over</i>interpretation, except what I am about to say: I don't think the artist gets to decide what their works means. They don't even really get to decide what it's <i>intended</i> to mean, except to the extent that they can enumerate what their conscious intentions are.<br /><br />I already sort of thought this, but the message was driven home for me when my wife pointed out some really quite clever (if I say so myself) symbolism in some of the songs I've written for my band, which I was not conscious of whatsoever. From an objective standpoint, I didn't feel I could make an argument even the slightest bit convincing that the songwriter had <i>not</i> intended those other meanings -- except for the fact that I hadn't. <br /><br />No reason to diminish your appreciation of a piece of work just because the artist was too thick to properly interpret his own work! ;)James Sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17212877636980569324noreply@blogger.com