TV: South Park

[XanBcoo]

I'm not a fan of the "anything goes" interpretation of art, because it isn't a position that allows for any discussion. It becomes an, "Everyone is a Right," environment.

Overall, I think this episode was very successful. It got this discussion started, which is precisely what can't be done when, "everyone is right," about their particular interpretation.

Well I think you're misunderstanding the objective of interpretation. It's not so much "anything goes" as "everyone's interpretation is viable given enough insight". I'm not advocating saying "everyone is right and let's leave it at that", I'm saying that despite the author's intent, anybody's analysis or interpretation of a work of art is meaningful and real (even if only to them). It's not a case of "adding in meaning" it's a case of "seeing meaning".

How can you not agree that such a thought process is the only way to have insightful and creative discussion? Taking everyone's opinion and interpretation into account is the arguably the only way to have good discussion. Your circle example is great. Someone who looks at a perfect circle and makes that kind of connection is arguably more intelligent and creative than someone who merely says "Yep, that certainly is a circle." Obviously it's not accurate to the creator's intent, but is it devoid of meaning and insight? No.

I'd rather have Archangel waltz in here talking about how this episode was clearly about the recent Health Care vote in America by backing it up with strong arguments rather than have another 4 posts of "Heh it was funny when they puked." I'd certainly be impressed if he did so and was able to back it up convincingly. Then we'd have a discussion going. Maybe we'd agree or disagree with him, but through discussion I think we'd all be richer for it.

Mark David Chapman's only sin was murdering John Lennon, not seeing (or adding, in your words) a meaning that wasn't there. I think it quite obviously it was there or he wouldn't have been so convinced of it. Salinger didn't intend for him to come to such a conclusion, but by virtue of its effects, it was a meaning that was "there" (again, if only to MDC).

Looking back to my school days, every english teach would assign a book and then ask you to write about how the author was using this and that as a metaphor, or as the innocence of youth or all that stuff....when in reality thats just you're guess. Maybe the author just wanted to tell an interesting story.

You weren't given those assignments to guess what the author was trying to do, you were meant to think critically and creatively. Of course it's a guess, that's the point of the exercise. It's about the interpretations and context you bring to it as a reader, and the critical thinking techniques you employ to get there.