# Pop Culture Stuff Everyone Seems to Misunderstand **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 22, 2021, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564 "2021-04-22T19:51:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/382 "2021-04-27T21:03:24Z")
Because everyone that thinks that not everything has a hidden meaning and not everything benifits positively from fine dissection is autistic? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/383 "2021-04-27T21:17:32Z")
Okay, I’m not really seeing the connection you’re trying to establish between, “What did this book make you think about,” and “What is the purpose of your grandmother’s cancer.” It’s not my bag, but there are certainly religiously inclined folk who find solace in the face of personal tragedy by ascribing events to some larger plan. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/384 "2021-04-27T21:20:33Z")
Now I want to go to an art museum and walk up to people looking at a picture and ask them, “What do you think of it…objectively.” ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/385 "2021-04-27T21:29:51Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Right. Now extrapolate that to the third question I posed, and explain again what your problem with reader response is. He hates literature. That’s his problem. He thinks literary analysis is a made - up concept with no value and that we’re stupid for liking it. > [@RealityChuck](#): > > But the real point is that if an author is including allegory and symbolism in a story, _they know it._ No, we don’t. Some, to be sure, but hardly all of us. I’ve had symbolism pointed out in my own work, and, oh yeah, that fits. But for many it’s just an unconscious process. Part of the problem with making authors the sole arbiter of the meaning of their work is that we often don’t know what it is. Or, as is the case with a project I spent six years on, the meaning evolves over time, it served a specific function to me, the writer, and now it no longer has that meaning, and has evolved to be something else. It’s a common refrain in the field that when you ask prolific writers about their process they just pull answers out of their asses because they don’t really know. Stephen Pressfield has talked about how his editor has to explain to him the meaning of his own work. Show me 10,000 writers and I will show you 10,000 ways to write a book. > [@RealityChuck](#): > > Even in published “bad” fiction has an author who knows exactly what they’re doing. It may not be high toned or literary, but the author isn’t going for that. _Fifty Shades of Grey_ may be a terrible novel. I’ve only read the first paragraph, but I did see that James was subverting a cliched trope. Do you truly believe that James knew she was subverting a clichéd trope? Have you listened to interviews with this woman? Are you familiar with her larger body of work? She elephanted her way through the China shop of literature, as many do. And while I hate 50 Shades, and find her prose cringey, the woman knows how to tell a story, and I promise you she lacks the self - awareness or commitment to her craft to learn the abstract skills to do that. She just did it. Innately. I’ve worked with so many writers over the years, experienced and new, myself, my colleagues, random people on the internet, amateurs, successful published authors, and the idea that we all know what we’re doing is just laughable. Forty years from now I still won’t know what I’m doing. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/386 "2021-04-27T21:31:05Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Okay, I’m not really seeing the connection you’re trying to establish between, “What did this book make you think about,” and “What is the purpose of your grandmother’s cancer.” It’s not my bag, but there are certainly religiously inclined folk who find solace in the face of personal tragedy by ascribing events to some larger plan. Yes, and for a hundred given religions there are a thousand different, contradictory, nondisprovable answers. Here’s what I’m seeing from “reader response” classes: Teacher: “What does the hat symbolize?” Student 1: “My feelings tell me it symbolizes the Dark Side of the Force.” Teacher: “Excellent! You get an A for having feelings!” Student 2: “My feelings tell me it symbolizes racism.” Teacher: “Excellent! You get an A for having feelings!” Student 3: “My feelings tell me it has a good beat and I can dance to it.” Teacher: “Excellent! You get an A for having feelings!” I see it as deepity. I see it as not hugely removed from [post-fact “science.”](https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2016/03/13/postmodern-glacier-professor-defends-his-study-says-it-was-misunderstood-it-wasnt/) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/387 "2021-04-27T21:34:46Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Here’s what I’m seeing from “reader response” classes: No, you are absolutely not seeing anything like that in reader response classes. That’s a crude caricature that exists only in your own mind, and bears no actual resemblance to what anyone has said in this thread, much less what’s taught in any actual class room. For real: why are you _so angry_ that some people like to think about literature? ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/388 "2021-04-27T21:34:49Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > He thinks literary analysis is a made - up concept with no value and that we’re stupid for liking it. I think that just because you are holding a hammer not everything you look at is a nail. And I have read thousands of books, I simply do not use them for bibliomancy. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/389 "2021-04-27T21:49:38Z")
Oh shit, thousands!? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/390 "2021-04-27T22:02:38Z")
**General Jack D. Ripper:** I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh… women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh… I do not avoid women, Mandrake. **Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake:** No. **General Jack D. Ripper:** But I… I do deny them my essence. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/391 "2021-04-27T22:09:02Z")
What I’m taking away from this thread is that _Alien_ is an awesome movie. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/392 "2021-04-27T22:14:10Z")
It’s chest - burstingly amazing. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. (Happy 21st Cake Day, wow!) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/393 "2021-04-27T22:16:02Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > The problem with that is idea that the author is the sole arbiter of meaning of a work has been discredited in literature for quite a long time. > > You say “discredited” as if it is an objective fact, like Lamerican inheritance is discredited, when what it really means is that a majority of literary critics hold one philosophical opinion over a different philosophical opinion. (Myself, I think a _very_ large percentage of so-called literary criticism is pure horseshit. If Flannery O’Conner says her hat is just a head covering, then the young teacher is an idiot, period.) That is indeed what I wanted to convey. It is pretty clearly illustrated that the meaning that the audience ascribes to a work is not determined by the author. There are just too many examples of such to ignore. To use something somewhat contemporary: _The Room_ by Tommy Wisseau was originally intended to be a dramatic story about man whose girlfriend cheated on him, not a comedy. But humor is the meaning people get out of it today. I’m sure that, if you thought about it for a second, you can also think of works where the author’s intended meaning was rejected by the audience. It seems pretty clear that the author is not the sole arbiter of meaning. I also am not a fan of this devaluation of study and expertise in our culture today. It does not make sense that the poorly backed up argument by someone who has not studied the subject is so often treated as being just as valid as the experts. I don’t think we should give much weight to the average Joe who comes in and declares that an entire field of study is going about it the wrong way. That’s not to say that anything is unassailable, and that an outsider perspective is meaningless. But, when the current consensus came from a whole lot of study, the refutation will generally require the same level of study. I do not restrict this to the “hard” science fields as many so often do. Just because there is some level of subjectivity in the pursuit of a discipline doesn’t mean that any and all opinions are equally valid. The anti-intellectual streak in a whole lot of modern culture is not a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/394 "2021-04-27T22:21:38Z")
Thanks. Hard to believe you guys have kept me around for 21 years. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/395 "2021-04-27T22:23:46Z")
> [@Just\_Asking\_Questions](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > The idea of there being one correct way to interpret things is often considered to be the removing of intellectual rigor from literary analysis, an attempt to dumb it down and eliminate the long history of the subject. > > The idea that there isn’t just one way to interpret things, or that differing viewpoints are equally valid, is a fiction created by the ivory tower elites to justify their existence. And you can’t prove me wrong without invalidating your own premise. 🙂 I know you included a smiley, and so are not putting this forth as a legitimate argument. But I do want to clarify that it doesn’t invalidate my premise at all. For one thing, my premise is that it is the strength of the argument that matters. You would thus need to make a strong argument that this is the case, one that is stronger than the argument made by experts. I also was confining myself to literary criticism. Reality is somewhat similar but it is not entirely the same. Intent has a lot more importance in a reality where (we act like) free will is a thing. And discovering facts is a more convoluted process. Analyzing real life is, unsurprisingly, much more complicated than analyzing fiction. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/396 "2021-04-27T22:53:43Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > “Literature” is the dusty old books schools force children to dissect to teach most of them to hate reading. > [Book Cave - content-rated book deals to your inbox - Fabulous free and…](https://mybookcave.com/are-high-schools-ruining-reading-for-our-kids/) > > Schools work hard to educate our children, but when it comes to reading do they try too hard? Is trying to force students to enjoy classic novels contributing to the 33% of high school graduates and 42% of college students who never read another… Some of the books on her list are awesome, though. And I begin to doubt her as a credible authority if she thinks there is any shortage of magic, epic adventures, murder, sex, violence, slapstick toilet humor, etc. I wonder if she bothered cracking any of them open? Makes one tend to dismiss her rather than pay attention to any valid points she may have concerning what books are appropriate for children. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/397 "2021-04-27T23:29:50Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@RealityChuck](#): > > > > But the real point is that if an author is including allegory and symbolism in a story, _they know it._ > > No, we don’t. Some, to be sure, but hardly all of us. I’ve had symbolism pointed out in my own work, and, oh yeah, that fits. But for many it’s just an unconscious process. Part of the problem with making authors the sole arbiter of the meaning of their work is that we often don’t know what it is. Or, as is the case with a project I spent six years on, the meaning evolves over time, it served a specific function to me, the writer, and now it no longer has that meaning, and has evolved to be something else. It’s a common refrain in the field that when you ask prolific writers about their process they just pull answers out of their asses because they don’t really know. Stephen Pressfield has talked about how his editor has to explain to him the meaning of his own work. Show me 10,000 writers and I will show you 10,000 ways to write a book. I’m not saying it can’t happen. I’m saying that it’s unusual. And that the author is the final arbiter of whether it’s symbolism or not. Someone can point it out, but the author has the final say. > [@](#): > > > [@RealityChuck](#): > > > > Even in published “bad” fiction has an author who knows exactly what they’re doing. It may not be high toned or literary, but the author isn’t going for that. _Fifty Shades of Grey_ may be a terrible novel. I’ve only read the first paragraph, but I did see that James was subverting a cliched trope. > > Do you truly believe that James knew she was subverting a clichéd trope? Have you listened to interviews with this woman? Are you familiar with her larger body of work? She elephanted her way through the China shop of literature, as many do. And while I hate 50 Shades, and find her prose cringey, the woman knows how to tell a story, and I promise you she lacks the self - awareness or commitment to her craft to learn the abstract skills to do that. She just did it. Innately. I haven’t read any of her work. Maybe it was accidental that she subverted the trope. But she did know how to write a story that people found compelling. In that respect, she knew what she was doing, even if she couldn’t articulate her reasons. Some writers innately know what they’re doing, but they still know what they’re doing. > [@](#): > > I’ve worked with so many writers over the years, experienced and new, myself, my colleagues, random people on the internet, amateurs, successful published authors, and the idea that we all know what we’re doing is just laughable. Forty years from now I still won’t know what I’m doing. That’s bending the definition. Authors know what they’re doing and what they’re trying to achieve. The difficulty is learning how to actually achieve it. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/398 "2021-04-27T23:49:26Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > > [@RealityChuck](#): > > > > They all do stupid things _solely to advance the plot_ . But there’s a difference between doing it organically from the character and situation, and contriving a bogus situation to make it work. The entire movie was filled with badly contrived situations and reactions that didn’t make the slightest bit of sense from a character/plot standpoint, but was only just there to make the audience jump. > [@](#): > > But it’s simply not true that the plot is advanced purely by stupid decisions. There is a mixture. Ripley attempts to quarantine the people returning from the ship. That’s not stupid. Ash over-rides the quarantine. This decision pushes forward the plot by getting the infected crew member on board. > > But that’s not stupid, either. Ash simply has _different motivations_ from the rest of the crew, just as he has ostensibly different motivations from Ripley on the surface level when he hits the over-ride button. It’s the conflict of motivations that provides tension between the characters. > > And even if Ash’s decision seems “stupid” at the time, absent the information revealed later, it’s also an incredibly _human_ decision (ironically enough) for his ostensible rationale to disregard stuffy safety precautions in favor of short-term expediency. For regular hyu-mon viewers, which I assume includes the majority of people who watched it, it is _completely understandable_ why people might ignore quarantine, even if we rationally consider it a bad decision. Real human beings disregard sensible quarantine precautions all the time. (This should not require a cite.) There’s an injured colleague who needs medical support. The tension between Ripley and Ash starts out with an ostensible difference in adherence to reasonable regulations, and then builds to deeper differences in motivation given the later revelations of the film. The inter-personal tension escalates as Ash’s motives become clear. I thought it was a pretty stupid thing to do from the beginning. By the time they explained it (which did make sense), everyone else was behaving like an idiot, so it didn’t particularly justify it. It also was a pretty stupid justification. It made absolutely no sense for the people of the Evil Corporation to do what it did. It was risking millions of tons of ore (presumably valuable) for no return. > [@](#): > > _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ starts with a multi-person trek through foreboding jungle. The intrepid band trudges their way through wilderness with the guidance of an old musty map. > > But in the escape phase, there is an airplane waiting **with exactly one extra seat** , suitable for the exactly one survivor who makes it back out. What was the plan for getting the other people out? > > Classic narratives have expedient short-cuts like this all time, because talented storytellers realize that almost all of the audience is going to be focused entirely on what propels the narrative forward from scene to scene, rather than noticing loose strands that hang out that don’t immediately capture our attention. It simply does not influence our evaluation of the movie to notice, afterward, that the airplane doesn’t have enough seats, or later in the movie that the main character would be in significant trouble stowing away on top of a submarine in which the command to submerge can clearly be heard. _Raiders_ was an homage to 30s serials (including 12 distinct “chapters”), which were never known for deep characters or tight plotting. You’re pointing out nitpicks that the story doesn’t depend on. _Alien_ depends on the characters being stupid. > [@](#): > > On top of all this, your comments ignore that much of what makes _Alien_ work operates on a level far outside the logic of narrative propulsion or “jump scares”. > > Much of the movie is _atmosphere_, just pure dread that comes from exquisite set and monster design, extremely impressive even four decades later. > > Go ahead and [watch the chains scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YTIMGmZUr4), again, where Harry Dean Stanton gets got. Not a jump. Exactly the opposite. The audience sees the creature first, before poor Stanton, and it’s moving slowly. The entire thing works based on lighting, camera angle, set design, timing, and especially sound. > > And I just watched it again. > > Jesus fuck almighty, it still works, even completely out of context. Ooof. You mean the “What the fuck is he doing?” scene. The one where, knowing that there’s a killer alien aboard the ship, he just ignores the possibility it might be around him? And what the hell is he doing taking a shower? Any actual human in this situation would be on the alert and wary of everying and would have his weapon at the ready. This actually was the scene that showed me that the characters were idiots. It is not a great scene. It’s Stanton going around holding up a sign “I’m the next victim” in a neon sign. And it fails because the Alien’s appearance is not a surprise. > [@](#): > > On top of all this, your comments ignore that _Alien_ has some of the best “jump scares” ever filmed. A _very_ low bar. Jump scares just annoy the hell out of me. They’re cheap manipulation and the easiest effect for a director to achieve. > [@](#): > > The one in which the actors weren’t told in advance what was about to happen is especially effective. They’re not even acting. Their reactions are legitimate, honest shock. > > _And that’s what makes the scene work._ > > It’s not the jump itself, not the bursting out of the chest itself (altho that part is totally awesome), but the legitimate, sincere, genuine emotional response. Which is to say, the genuine terror on the part of the people who had to watch that happen. Their terror is the audience’s terror. The “jump” is fantastic, but the reaction is what makes it great. > > (This is another moment when the crew acts with full intelligence, not stupidity: One of them tries to kill the thing immediately.) I agree, that scene is quite effective in all respects. But it goes downhill after that. I remember watching it from that point on and constantly asking “Why is he doing that?” “Why is she doing that?” “What the hell are they thinking?” ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/399 "2021-04-27T23:52:41Z")
> [@DPRK](#): > > > [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > > > “Literature” is the dusty old books schools force children to dissect to teach most of them to hate reading. > > > > > [Book Cave - content-rated book deals to your inbox - Fabulous free and…](https://mybookcave.com/are-high-schools-ruining-reading-for-our-kids/) > > Some of the books on her list are awesome, though. And I begin to doubt her as a credible authority if she thinks there is any shortage of magic, epic adventures, murder, sex, violence, slapstick toilet humor, etc. I wonder if she bothered cracking any of them open? Makes one tend to dismiss her rather than pay attention to any valid points she may have concerning what books are appropriate for children. She seems to be saying that the purpose of high school English/literature class should be to teach kids that reading can be good escapist entertainment. I heartily disagree: they should be taught that long before they get to high school. In high school they should learn to dig deeper. I am reminded of what Laura Miller said about reading George Orwell’s _Animal Farm_, where she first learned to look beyond a book’s surface meaning: > [@](#): > > If literary writing has any distinguishing characteristic, it’s that the more you look at it the more you see, and the more you see the more you want to go on looking. It invites a plurality of interpretation. … The meaning of _Animal Fam_ is fairly obvious, but what’s the meaning of _King Lear_? The question doesn’t even make sense, really; it’s like asking what I mean, or what _you_ mean. Works of art, like human beings, are irreducible. This is why contemporary readers dismiss allegory, because it appears to lack the density of significance we associate with art. The closer and more completely you can come to explaining what a work of art means, the less like art it seems. > … > Nevertheless, to get to the point of being able to read—really read—_King Lear_, you must first serve an apprenticeship with more manageable books, like _Animal Farm_. So direct and clear-cut are Orwell’s intentions that the book can be used as a kind of primer for thematic analysis. A double meaning is far easier to recognize than an infinite one. There are better books for younger readers than couldn’t serve this purpose nearly as well. > … > It was with _Animal Farm_ that my classmates and I learned to read fiction with a critic’s detachment. Up to that point, we experienced stories as truth, if not always as _fact_. … Like real events and real human beings, the characters and events in those stories didn’t stand for something else. This is from chapter 11 (“Required Reading”) of her [The Magician’s Book](https://www.amazon.com/Magicians-Book-Skeptics-Adventures-Narnia/dp/0316017655) (which I highly recommend), a book about C. S. Lewis and Narnia, but which also has some things to say about books and reading more generally. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2021, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/400 "2021-04-27T23:53:17Z")
I have never heard a writer say “I have the final say.” But I have heard many many creative people say that they won’t offer interpretations of their work because they don’t want to interfere with their readers, or listeners, or viewers appreciation or enjoyment. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/401 "2021-04-28T00:02:01Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > _Raiders_ was an homage to 30s serials (including 12 distinct “chapters”), which were never known for deep characters or tight plotting. You’re pointing out nitpicks that the story doesn’t depend on. _Alien_ depends on the characters being stupid. And horror movies aren’t known for character that make smart decisions. Why is a flaw endemic to the genre acceptable in the first, but fatal to the second? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564.md?page=21)