#literary interpretation

[omegaphilosophia]

Theories of the Philosophy of Literature

The philosophy of literature encompasses various theories that explore the nature, purpose, and significance of literature. Here are some prominent theories in this field:

Mimetic Theory: This theory, associated with Aristotle, suggests that literature imitates or reflects aspects of the real world. It focuses on the representation of human actions and characters.

Expressive Theory: This perspective emphasizes the expression of the author's emotions, thoughts, and experiences through literature. The work is seen as a medium for the author's self-expression.

Aesthetic Theory: Aesthetic theories, such as those by Immanuel Kant, focus on the intrinsic beauty and form of literature. They explore how literature provides aesthetic experiences and engages the imagination.

Reader-Response Theory: This theory considers the role of the reader in interpreting and giving meaning to a literary work. It suggests that meaning is not solely derived from the author's intentions but is co-created by the reader.

Structuralism and Semiotics: These theories, associated with figures like Roland Barthes, analyze the underlying structures and signs in literature. They explore how language and symbols create meaning.

Deconstruction: Developed by Jacques Derrida, deconstruction challenges fixed meanings in literature. It emphasizes the instability of language and the presence of multiple interpretations.

Feminist Literary Criticism: This approach examines literature through the lens of gender and challenges patriarchal norms. It explores how literature reflects and reinforces societal attitudes toward women.

Postcolonial Theory: Postcolonial literary criticism examines works in the context of colonialism and its aftermath. It explores how literature addresses issues of power, identity, and cultural representation.

Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism: Drawing from Freudian and Jungian theories, this approach explores the psychological dimensions of characters and narratives in literature. It delves into unconscious motivations and symbolism.

Ethical Criticism: Ethical theories in literature examine the moral implications and ethical choices presented in literary works. It considers how literature engages with ethical questions and influences readers' moral perspectives.

Cultural Criticism: Cultural theories analyze literature in the context of cultural practices, beliefs, and values. They explore how literature reflects and shapes cultural identities.

Narrative Theory: Narrative theorists examine the structure and function of narratives in literature. They explore how stories are constructed and how they contribute to our understanding of the world.

These theories offer diverse perspectives for interpreting and understanding the complexities of literature.

#philosophy #epistemology #knowledge #learning #chatgpt #education #Philosophy of Literature #Literary Theory #Literary Criticism #Hermeneutics #Aesthetics #Literary Interpretation #Reader-Response Theory #Deconstructionism #Feminist Literary Theory #Psychoanalytic Literary Theory #Postcolonial Literary Theory

[pencil-urchin]

Dude, Thrawn can claim to fight for the "greater good" as much as he wants. The fact remains that he still sides with the Empire of his own free will and is explicitly apathetic at best about their atrocities. Not to mention the Grysks are not even remotely as dangerous as he claims they are.

You're free to interpret it that way, but I don't, plain and simple.

I'm not going to be argumentative about this because while I have a degree in and experience with parsing out language to infer meaning behind the surface and secondary reading of a text, I don't owe anyone my expertise, energy, or time, let alone some unidentified nobody who disagrees with me on something that can be read equivocally and thus has no definitive answer. I could absolutely explicate each chapter of the series and defend my points, but that's not why I engage with the media--I engage with it to enjoy it.

And not to disparage the genre (because my tenure as a librarian combined with my own love of reading and academic study of literature has repeatedly demonstrated that it has as much if not more emotional and psychological impact as any other genre) this disagreement is about something that is fictional. Quite simply, it has no real purpose other than to persuade one viewpoint to abandon its position and come to the opposing side at best, and to sow division at worst.

I will say, however that (and I cannot stress this enough) even if your reading were empirically true, even if Zahn came out and declared you 1000% correct, I am still allowed to like characters you have problems with and interpret them however I want.

Thanks for stopping by.

💙

#thrawn #star wars #grand admiral thrawn #thrawnsimp #mitth’raw’nuruodo #thrawn apologist #literary theory #literary criticism #literary interpretation #librarian #thanks for coming to my ted talk

[enhypendiaries]

The ENHYPEN Lore

Is it not such a fascinating subject?

I have always been in love with ENHYPEN's artistry from the moment their debut trailer was released. The filmography was mesmerizing and flawless as if it was some cinematic masterpiece. Oh how I love to be the theorists that deduces, infers, and gives meaning to the imageries on films, but that was something I unfortunately was poor at.

However, influenced by my literary inclinations, I was rather more drawn to ENHYPEN's narrations. I looked forward to every narrative in ENHYPEN's discography, eager to listen to what they present next. The writing is superb and wondrously poetic. Complemented with the members' impressive narrations, enhypen's narrative discography is a museum of art.

In this continuing series, I will delve into a literary interpretation of ENHYPEN's narratives chronicling their lore. While this is not a full-blown theory in itself, I hope that this could offer some help to our resident theorists while demonstrating the fantabulous writing of these narratives.

Table of Contents

✧ Introduction & Debut Trailer

✧ Border: Day One

✧ Border: Carnival

✧ Dimension Duology

✧ Manifesto: Day 1

✧ Dark Blood

✧ Orange Blood

#enhypen #lore #narration #narrative #literary interpretation

[monstrousgourmandizingcats]

How do you as a Catholic feel about the Dracula Daily polycule

First, it isn't really "the Dracula Daily polycule"; people have been reading the characters that way for a while now. Secondly, and I think this is probably what you're trying to ask/entrap me about, I don't personally like the idea mostly for moral/religious reasons, but the great Flannery O'Connor said it best:

It is popular to suppose that anyone who can read the telephone book can read a short story or a novel, and it is more than usual to find the attitude among Catholics that since we possess the truth in the Church, we can use this truth directly as an instrument of judgment on any discipline at any time without regard for the nature of that discipline itself. Catholic readers are constantly being offended and scandalized by novels they don’t have the fundamental equipment to read in the first place, and often these are works that are permeated with a Christian spirit. It is when the individual’s faith is weak, not when it is strong, that he will be afraid of an honest fictional representation of life, and when there is a tendency to compartmentalize the spiritual and make it resident in a certain type of life only, the sense of the supernatural is apt gradually to be lost. Fiction, made according to its own laws, is an antidote to such a tendency, for it renews our knowledge that we live in the mystery from which we draw our abstractions.

Thirdly, even though I don't personally like it and don't think it's what Stoker intended to communicate, I absolutely think it can be reasonably inferred from the text in a way that it can't with most other older novels where it's a currently popular reading. Even if that weren't the case, people can and do read what they like into these kinds of books, no matter how I or anyone else feels about it. There's a specific interpretation of the last scene of The Sea of Fertility that I absolutely can't stand, and would get judgmental about if someone asked me, but you don't see me going after other Mishima readers to raise a fuss over it.

#dracula #catholic #flannery o'connor #literary interpretation #anonymous

[whodoyouthinkithinkiam]

I think everyone gets The Tortoise and the Hare wrong.

I've seen a few different interpretations, and they all seem to agree that the important point in the story is when the Hare stops and takes a nap, but they don't always agree on why that is. Usually it's interpreted as laziness. Sometimes the Hare is mocking the Tortoise; always it is so sure of itself it doesn't even consider it could lose. Some of the more creative reinterpretations have two "Hares" who spend all their time sabotaging each other, not noticing the "Tortoise" passing them in their struggles.

That's "steady" winning the race. But everyone seems pretty sure the proper translation of the moral is "Slow and steady wins the race". I argue that that "slow" is actually important.

This story is about pacing yourself.

The Hare took a nap because it had to. It had to nap because you can't sprint forever. It was overconfident for sure, but that overconfidence was expressed when it challenged the Tortoise at all.

According to Wikipedia, which I admit was most of the research I did before writing this, even Aesop's contemporaries referred to the story as being about the downfall of "idleness". I admit I'm kind of surprised by that. I thought the ancients knew about pacing themselves, that the idea that rest is inherently evil had shown up somewhere in the Middle Ages.

So yeah, I'm arguing an interpretation of an ancient story that I can't find anyone else talking about, and yet I do think I'm right. What did Aesop say about overconfidence again?

#aesop #literary interpretation #the tortoise and the hare #oh wow i have a follower i've never met in person #hi *waves shyly*

[bluemanedhawk]

While i hate the facebookian metaverse as much as anyone else, i'm very confused about people calling the Snowcrash Metaverse “the torment vortex”, because when i read that book i interpreted its portrayal of its Metaverse as mostly a completely neutral setting for scenes, and in some cases a pretty positive thing. The one kinda negative thing i can remember the book saying about its Metaverse is [MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD] gung juvyr vgf zrgnirefr zvtug or pbby nyy gur erny unpxref fgvyy hfr gurve irel gjb qvzrafvbany pbzchgref fperraf sbe frevbhf jbex, [END MASSIVE SPOILERS] but even then i think i remember that being written in the form of being nothing more than an observation.

#Snowcrash #Literature #Literary interpretation #Interpretation of literature #Books #Interpretation of books #Media #Media interpretation #Interpretation of media #Metaverse (Snowcrash) #Snowcrash's Metaverse #The Snowcrash Metaverse #Computers #Technology

[tenth-sentence]

Men cannot bear children, but can women bear motherhood?

"Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture" - Jon Turney

#book quote #frankenstein's footsteps #jon turney #nonfiction #men #women #childbearing #motherhood #questions #frankenstein #mary shelley #literary interpretation

[whats-in-a-sentence]

Men cannot bear children, but can women bear motherhood? Perhaps both might find salvation if we could create life in the laboratory.

"Frankenstein's Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture" - Jon Turney

#book quotes #frankenstein's footsteps #jon turney #nonfiction #frankenstein #mary shelley #literary interpretation #men #women #questions #childbearing #motherhood #salvation #life #creation #laboratory

[immortalsapphics]

so the reason that i'm bad at literary interpretation is that i think everything symbolizes the war. and then teachers are like no edith it's about egotism. and i'm like. but. the war. everything is about war.

#it's always about war in my mind #or #sometimes #about my struggles with suicide #but mostly war #literature #literary analysis #literary interpretation #war symbolism

[cemeterything]

was thinking about this earlier but the dynamic of cannibalism being associated with high society and the culinary elite (hannibal comes to mind specifically) while also simultaneously being associated with the socially isolated and economically impoverished (as in texas chainsaw massacre) is so interesting to me i want to read 10 million books on why it happens so much in media....

i can only speak from a place of personal opinion and general knowledge, because i haven't read that many papers or in-depth studies on cannibalism, but i think it often comes down to an interesection between the themes of the story you're telling and class structures and divisions. cannibalism is a compelling form of narrative symbolism because it's undeniably impactful and hard to ignore. when portrayed as a practice associated with the culinary and social upper class, it might be used as a critique of the rich and powerful and their lack of ethics and willingness to consume and destroy others for their own self-interest by showing them literally preying on and consuming their victims, or a horror story/cautionary tale about how having everything can lead you to never be satisfied and turn to increasingly extreme measures to feel like life is worth living, or a dark fantasy of indulgence and excess. when associated with the poor, marginalized and isolated, it's often based in bigotry and harmful stereotypes of the "primitive" "inhuman" "savage" "other", however it might also function as a revenge fantasy where the most oppressed and exploited members of society turn on their oppressors and take "eating the rich" to its most literal extreme, exposing the fragility of class divisions and pointing out that those in positions of social and economic power are hardly the mythic titans their propaganda tries to make them out to be, but ultimately just as mortal and made of flesh and blood as any other human being, and not immune to being dragged down from their position at the top of the food chain and torn to pieces by the crowd (as well as reminding the audience of their own fragile mortality and precarious position in the social order, and the humanity we all share in common - however cannibalism often divides the perpetrators from both their victims and the audience, so this is rarer than the other interpretations mentioned).

cannibalism and power often go hand in hand. cannibalism has historically been used as both a means of displaying your power over defeated opponents and delivering a final, humiliating blow to their image by consuming their flesh, and a means of othering and dehumanizing your opponent by portraying them as the cannibalistic monster.

both the very rich and very poor also tend to be perceived as more distant from the people who make and consume these stories, making them easier to project fiction onto and transform into symbols and narrative devices (or, in the worst cases, dehumanize) than those who occupy the same social spheres as the creator. they can be held at an arm's length without discomfort and, depending on the target audience, may be a source of fascination due to the differences in their lived experiences. it adds to the fantasy, and makes any inaccuracies, exaggerations and fabrications feel more plausible because the majority of the audience probably don't have any personal experiences of being in those positions to draw on.

#cannibalism #classism #like this is literally just my interpretation based on my knowledge of media studies literary analysis and sociology #i cant say with any certainty whether its a True and Accurate assessment

[tuurverheydepoetryandprose]

You know, lately I find little joy in reading media discourse. I love media analysis, I studied it, I taught it, but lately I just don’t enjoy reading people’s thoughts like I once did.

It’s not just that media literacy and reading comprehension are in decline, that’s been going on for a while. It’s that so much of media discourse feels like a phantom war, a proxy for something else. It’s not even about the media anymore.

People find one flaw and judge it an irredeemable one so they can dismiss something they were always going to dismiss because of the theme, the subject matter, the person behind it etc. People dismiss a piece of art that is about x for not being about y (people wanting every story to indirectly be about them etc.) People dismiss pieces of art for not condemning their own characters for not being morally virtuous, not condemning their own themes for being limited, not condemning their own creation for being insufficiently radical or revolutionary.

It’s like so many people will just say stuff completely disconnected from the reality of creation under capitalism, completely indifferent to authorial & historical & geographical context, genre, subtext, logistics etc.

It’s not enough to say that a work has flaws and explain why and what that reveals. The flaws must be irredeemable blemishes that besmirch the moral character of the creators and audience. It is not treated as expression. It is treated as a calculated move in the battle of ideas and must be lambasted or praised not on the basis of artistic merit or analytical potential, but on its position within the discourse.

Media & art themselves are seen as allies or enemies to social and political causes and their evaluation is a strategic manoeuvre to gain clout for or against certain causes or ideas.

I just think it’s a shame. All art is political. All analysis is political. But the way interpretation is taking a back seat to propagation is troubling. It decentralises the art and forefronts the viewer, deprioritises questions of meaning over questions political usefulness and salience. Ultimately, it diminishes actual analytical and argumentative skills and massively proliferates bad faith arguments, confirmation bias, rhetorical tricks and propaganda tools.

I think this kind of approach will not work out well, will only lead to more alienation and polarisation, and will ultimately exacerbate the devaluation of any art and any analysis that it is deemed irrelevant to mainstream identity groupings or insignificant to mainstream social and political causes. This will not end well.

If we cannot value art that is not of use to us or about us then we cannot appreciate most of artistic history. If we do not value stories because they ostensibly don’t relate to our own, how can we ever learn to see past difference and choose empathy over antipathy?

This will not end well.

#media analysis #media literacy #interpretation #reading comprehension #analysis #literacy #literary discussion #literary analysis #anti intellectualism #barbie #oppenheimer #barbenheimer #oppenbarbie #discourse #media discourse #media discussion

[volitioncheck]

nvm this is still on my brain. kim does not like to watch harry suffer… to say that kim takes satisfaction in harry’s pain is a huge misconstruing of his character.

the “getting thrashed like a schoolboy” line comes from a board game, lol. it’s a tease, not a cruelty. there’s never any line that implies that Kim enjoys seeing Harry taking actual morale damage.

he can be amused if you fail a check, but the check is always relatively inconsequential, and again, Harry isn’t taking damage in these.

Failing to pry the trash bin open:

Failing to shatter Ruby’s lorry window:

(also in both of these examples he only responds smugly if you choose for Harry to stubbornly dig in his heels. if Harry gets huffy, Kim teases. If Harry backs down right away Kim won’t rub it in, which feels significant to me! it reminds me of that recent post goin around about Kim meeting your energy!)

and here’s some reactions to failed checks where he does take damage.

Failing the jump to get your cloak:

Failing to break down Plaisance’s door:

he’s not laughing if Harry’s taking damage because he’s not a dick lol.

aaaaand here’s some other instances of morale/health damage and kim’s reactions.

alternate dialogue for failing the harbor jump:

after the call with precinct 41:

seeing bullet holes in the wall:

most significant examples to argue this point for me come when harry has done something to jeopardize the RCM’s image. which kim goes on and on about the importance of maintaining— and yet even here, he still extends worry and assurance.

telling Billie about her husband and handling it badly:

hardie authority check failure cock carousel:

aaaaand the car. this line is one of the most mask-off kim moments we get in the game in my opinion, honestly.

tying this back to the schoolboy line— that line doesn’t show up if you have a negative reputation with Kim. if you have <1 rep, it gets replaced with him calling it “about four hours of our lives that we'll never get back,” lol.

it’s affectionate ribbing!! twisting it into anything else is bizarre 2 me lmao!

anyways. kim is a foil to every other cop we meet in the game specifically because he doesn’t view harry as a punching bag or a lost cause. gottlieb does nothing but sling jabs and glib jokes about harry’s health. torson+mclaine and the others laugh at harry’s panic attack over the radio. in response to harry’s suicide-by-car attempt(!!!!) jean yells about RCM budget. all kim’s lines in response to harry’s check failures and health-damage are consistent, explicit textual contrast against the callousness of the rest of the RCM. twisting kim’s character here requires a bad faith interpretation of the whole game.

#disco elysium #kim kitsuragi #sometimes i think that fandom Hot Takes get posted just for the sake of contrasting with the majority interpretation of the media #which can be fun lol. i personally love being a pretentious contrarian when the shoe fits. #keyword when the shoe fits #sometimes it just comes off as #the thing where positive interpretations of the thing are somehow seen as lesser or naive #which i feel is so antithetical to DE’s core philosophy #it’s not naive to interpret a hopeful story as hopeful #it’s not naive to interpret a kind character as indeed kind #kindness has as much literary value as cruelty in storytelling #overcorrecting for the sake of overcorrecting in this case just feels very. meanspirited #i don’t want to come off as antagonizing because we are all just posting about a video game on tumblr dot com at the end of the day #it’s okay to Have Differing Opinions On Media #but like. there’s a reason the post Did Not Resonate lol #oh also if anyone has a link to the other post i referenced i’d love to link it in the post properly i just couldn’t find it </3 #me talking

[thesweetnessofspring]

I wish people would stop calling Katniss an "unreliable narrator" and call her a "limited narrator" instead.

Either every first-person book has an unreliable narrator, or Katniss Everdeen is a limited, not unreliable, narrator. She does not ever try to lie or deceive the audience or hide information. There is no evidence of her having delusions or making up events. Everything she says is how she actually perceives what is going on. Which limits our information on others' thoughts and motivations and what they're doing behind Katniss's back, but it does not make her unreliable.

#the hunger games #katniss everdeen #literary terms are important #also i think i'm making up the term limited narrator for first person #limited third person exists #i think most literary analysis just says it's first person and people get that is going to limit the information & interpretation we receiv #but so many people are calling katniss unreliable that i'm going to start calling her a limited narrator if need be

[vyeoh]

Losing my mind about the book of job in retrospect basically told how the season was gonna end in the 2nd episode.

As shown in the show, Job is the result of God and Lucifer making a bet regarding the nature of faith- Satan argues that humans are fair weather friends, and their worship is transactional for bring treated well. God argues that worship is regardless of how God treated humans.

This specific part of the Bible is so well known even to people not involved with an Abrahamic religion partly because the train of logic is so?? Odd?? Like yeah the old testament God is kinda super fucked up but in this one God's reasoning (as seen in the show) is basically, "I know more than you and I can do more, so you could never understand the reason for tragedy" which is. Just a WILD answer to "why do bad things happen to good people", especially if you're trying to argue that people should make an effort to be good because they have free will.

Notably, the show didn't focus on the "bad things to good people" paradox that's usually the focus of debate, but rather on the fact that like??? Giving someone more children after killing their old ones is actually really awful?? Basically, giving them a shiny new thing doesn't actually make up for the fact that you broke the old thing, which is something that the Book of Job and the Bible at large seems to misunderstand about humans.

Anyways, Aziraphale is Job. He's been fucked over by heaven so many times, and yet his faith is unshaken. One of his catchphrases is literally saying that God 's plans are ineffible and no one can understand them.

At the end of Job, Job's given a gift (note: a GIFT, not a reward) of prosperity, children, and health by God. Similarly, Aziraphale is given the "gift" of the Archangel Supreme position, to be the head of an organization that's caused him so much suffering. There's no actual acknowledgment and reconciliation of the suffering, because like in Job, that would mean God did something bad that needed to be remedied.

In this context, his relationship with Crowley is like his old wealth and prosperity; its not a perfect comparison but its something that is taken away by God (allegedly) in favor of a shiny new job and a shiny new HR approved relationship with Angel Crowley. And since Aziaphale is still drinking the heaven kool-aid, he does as Job does, and accepts his suffering and receives his reward.

#vio.txt #is this anything #good omens #good omens season 2 #i wrote this in one breath after rewatching ep 2 this morning #good omens spoilers #also im an atheist who likes literary analysis so this is my interpretation of job #as someone who cannot fathom having that amount of faith in anything

[theriu]

Interpreting Bilbo’s Speech

As an editor whose job requires the ability to untangle confusing sentences, I maintain that Bilbo’s speech at his 111th birthday party was actually genuine and complimentary. Let’s break this down.

“Alas, eleventy-one years is far too short a time to live among such excellent and admirable hobbits. I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." 

“I don’t know half of you as well as I should like” can be translated as “Half of you are people I don’t know as well as I wish I did. I wish I knew you at least half again as much as I do.” Literally, “I wish I’d gotten to know you better.”

“I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.” He may not have a deep affection for this less-than-50% of the party-goers, but he acknowledges that they deserve twice as much respect and appreciation as what he gave them during their acquaintance. Literally, “I know there’s more to be appreciated about you than I knew of or that I am capable of appreciating.”

Note: Since he clearly knows THIS half well enough to know they deserve more of his respect and affection than what he gave them, we are probably safe to presume that they are the opposite half from the first group, who he wishes he had gotten to know better. (Although there is probably some crossover). (This part gets into Math a little bit, which is NOT my specialty as an editor.)

So, if we take his first sentence literally—“Alas, eleventy-one years is far too short a time to live among such excellent and admirable hobbits”—then the whole statement is actually quite genuine. For all his grumbling and muttering about his various neighbors’ and relations’ failings or annoyances, Bilbo really does respect and admire many of them, and he is wise enough to know that there’s more to appreciate in the people he doesn’t care for or didn’t know well than he has managed to discover in his short lifetime with them.

But of course this is Bilbo, so he wrapped it up in a mind-bending riddle and left everyone wondering if they’d been insulted before he abruptly vanished, leaving the party in chaos.

In conclusion: Bilbo’s way of handling the awkwardness of being sincere to a large group of people involves tying his compliments into a knot and then running away forever while they’re distracted untangling it.

I’m not saying this is the healthiest way of dealing with the mortifying ordeal of being known, but it does feel very Bilbo.

#lotr #the hobbit #bilbo baggins #literary analysis #movie analysis #I can't remember if this speech is in the books or not #but anyway #I also know he's much better at sharing his feelings with close friends #so this is probably mostly because he was talking to a huge crowd of people he didn't know as well as his close personal friends #and because he's a tricksy little hobbit #anyway my logic might miss a couple points so feel free to point out your own interpretations! #it was definitely a confusing speech XD

[thedreadvampy]

every time something from Neil Gaiman's tumblr crosses my dash I'm so concerned about the people writing and to him like. why have you outsourced your imagination to this man? asking shit like 'what does Morpheus sound like in this scene' or 'what does this dialogue mean' or 'what's the backstory to this moment' like BABES. THIS IS WHAT BARTHES WAS TALKING ABOUT. YOU'RE MEANT TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS YOURSELVES THAT'S WHAT MAKES ALL ART A COLLABORATIVE CREATION OF MEANING. if the author wanted something to be explicit in the text they can make it explicit in the text and if it's not explicit in the text YOU CAN MAKE IT UP.

what really gets me is I 100% prommy these kids regularly use 'death of the author' to mean 'i can enjoy works by problematic creators' which 1) yes I agree you can and should (using some discretion re who it profits and what's replicated in the work) but 2) THAT'S NOT WHAT IT MEANS LITERALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS. NEIL GAIMAN'S POST HOC OPINION ON SANDMAN OR GOOD OMENS IS A NO MORE LEGITIMATE FACT ABOUT THE TEXT THAN ANYONE ELSE'S INTERPRETATION. the text has left his control it belongs to the reader now, you get to decide and debate what it means.

#red said #i know i keep making posts like this but IT KEEPS HAPPENING #like you are not toddlers you do not need daddy to hold your hand and walk you through the story #if you're mature enough to meaningfully engage with a story for adults then you are mature enough to interpret it for yourself #and to understand that ambiguity or vagueness or an invitation to imagination are features of storytelling not bugs #hmmm actually I'm gonna tag this #neil gaiman #sandman #good omens #bc. some of you people need jesus or more relevantly literary and critical agency #like you understand that a story isn't a partial view into a reality that's as 3d as our own right? #the play doesn't carry on backstage #you're not MISSING OUT on a fundamental truth of the fictional world that's obscured by the shape of the story it ONLY exists in the story #you're SUPPOSED to construct the context and detail out of the clues you're given in the text and build your own world #and draw your own conclusions #it's not a Real World That Only Neil Gaiman Can See Into it's a STORY he wrote SPECIFICALLY TO INVITE YOU TO IMAGINE #like it's YOURS. YOU'RE meant to fill in the gaps. ART IS A CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE TEXT AND THE READER. #THAT'S what death of the author relates to #what part if any the author has in that other than what they put in the text