GlaDOS - Free?

[TheWolf13]

How do you apply that to non-fiction books? You can't interpret facts how you want to. Just because you interpret some way that makes you feel good doesn't mean you are right. Most of the time false interpretation is no big deal(GlaDOS) but sometimes it is very harmful.

[TDK]

Originally Posted by DFM

Edit: If the author was dead or something you'd have point since no one would know what the actual intent of the message was but in any of these scenarios we're talking about the author isn't dead, she's right there telling you that's not what she meant.

Honestly it was more the point of Who wouldn't take credit for having written something deep instead of, to use your analogy, poop and fart jokes.

But I do think that a public work, like Portal for instance, is free to be interpreted by whomever wants to and the author can't say anything. Granted the former person might (probably would) be wrong, but its still valid because they can interpret it how they want as the audience.

Though Valve would probably lie and say there was no symbolism if there WAS, but that's beside the point.


Edit for above: Obviously I'm not talking about non-fiction. The Iraq War, for example, isn't symbolic of anything, except, perhaps, Bush's stupidity.

[DFM]

If I write poop and fart jokes then you're getting poop and fart jokes and god help you if you try to attribute deeper meaning to it that I didn't intend.

[TDK]

The more I expound on this and put it into words, the more it sounds wrong and I think it was a stupid thing to say to begin with. It all started with a comment on youtube about symbolism in some movie or something...

I'm not explaining it good enough, but its probably not true anyway. Sounds like it should be though.

[Mirai Gen]

Plus there's the whole art/pornography argument that this train wreck is inevitably barreling towards.

[TDK]

Oh man...I was involved in a massive argument on deviantart on that topic. Andy Frogman from UJ was involved too.


Edit for this whole argument: See the thing about me is, I tend to talk out of my ass a lot and have no idea what I'm talking about, or keep arguing and deepening and analogizing a point which I don't actually believe, simply because I'm argumentative. I usually end up freely admitting I'm wrong at the end, like I did before.

Honestly, I just get bored too easily.

[DFM]

If I cleverly hide a critique of the continental congress within a children's song about playing pattywack and nobody sees anything but the children's song I'd be like "Well that's not what I meant but I hope your kids enjoyed the song."

[Odjn]

This whole thing needs to die, as my position the first time. At least Freud said a cigar was sometimes just a damn cigar.

[Mirai Gen]

I do find it funny that in Twiddy's post the filter edited the phrase about the cake being a lie in the quote of the article.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

See, forgetting whatever mumbo jumbo TDK and DFM are talking about, there's another rule about literary analysis.

It's a science (yes, yes it is), which means that there is a certain logical structure to doing it. One piece of that structure is that you can't just leave out whatever evidence you want for the analysis you want.

In other words, this guy ignored the entire ending cinematic (and please, ignoring an ending is possibly the stupidest thing you can do) for no reason. Therefore, logically, his interpretation is invalid and bullshit.

EDIT: They had a filter on that Mirai? For whatever reason, I thought he did that himself after looking over it again. >.>