# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![Dr.Winston\_OBoogie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.winston_oboogie/32/2945_2.png) [@Dr.Winston\_OBoogie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Winston_OBoogie)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/422 "2021-04-28T16:28:34Z")
Did she include the Fish cheer from the studio album, or the “Fish” cheer from the Woodstock album? ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/423 "2021-04-28T16:35:55Z")
> [@Dr.Winston\_OBoogie](#): > > Another interpretation - the brilliance of noting that what we call “science” would have been called “magic” or “alchemy” 500 years ago. That’s a really low bar for brilliance and that’s coming from the guy who handed in the “poem”. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/424 "2021-04-28T17:39:05Z")
It was a guy, and I don’t remember any cheer. He also taught us “Bad, Bad Leroy Brown,” and a couple of years later when our family moved to Chicago I was relieved to learn we wouldn’t be living on the south side. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Winston\_OBoogie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.winston_oboogie/32/2945_2.png) [@Dr.Winston\_OBoogie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Winston_OBoogie)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/425 "2021-04-28T17:54:59Z")
The beginning of the studio version starts with Joe yelling “Give me an ‘F’”, and the band responding “F”; “Give me an ‘I’”; “I”; etc. On the Woodstock album, it’s “Give me an ‘F’”; crowd yells “F”; “Give me a 'U”"; “U”; “Give me a ‘C’”; “C”; “Give me a ‘K’”. It’s actuall marked on the Woodstock album as the “Fish” cheer (with quotes). ---
**Author:** ![furryman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/furryman/32/99_2.png) [@furryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furryman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/426 "2021-04-28T18:04:17Z")
Actually, I wonder where the idea that the hero wore a white hat began. Considering the fact that Zorro one of movies most popular and earliest heroes wore A black hat. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/427 "2021-04-28T18:05:26Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > What I’m taking away from this thread is that _Alien_ is an awesome movie. One of Charles Manson’s top ten ‘Let’s start a race war!’ films! ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/428 "2021-04-28T18:07:54Z")
[Wikipedia, at least, says it started all the way back with _The Great Train Robbery_ in 1903.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_white_hat_symbolism_in_film#:~:text=In%20American%20films%20of%20the,contrast%20in%20good%20versus%20evil.) ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/429 "2021-04-28T18:08:11Z")
According to [this site](https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/threats/black-hat-hacker) about hackers, > [@](#): > > The terms derive from the color coding scheme found in 1950s westerns, where the bad guys wore black hats, and the good guys wore white or other light colors. ---
**Author:** ![furryman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/furryman/32/99_2.png) [@furryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furryman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/430 "2021-04-28T18:15:08Z")
In that case maybe Zorro is the anti trope since he premiered in 1919. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/431 "2021-04-28T19:58:14Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Concider my example of looking at a cloud–there is one and _only_ one “right” answer to what a cloud _is_ –it is a floating clump of water dropets. Period. Anyone who says that is is a dragon or an alien spacecraft or an angel is objectively wrong. I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now, from up and down and still somehow it’s cloud illusions I recall. I really don’t know clouds at all. ---
**Author:** ![EinsteinsHund](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/einsteinshund/32/8400_2.png) [@EinsteinsHund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EinsteinsHund)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2021, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/432 "2021-04-28T20:08:31Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now, > from up and down and still somehow > it’s cloud illusions I recall. > I really don’t know clouds at all. Brilliant! 😁 ---
**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 30, 2021, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/433 "2021-04-30T13:56:57Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@RealityChuck](#): > > > > But it’s yours. If everyone one can assign their own meaning to a work, then the work has no inherent meaning. And with no inherent meaning, then the assigned meaning by the reader has no validity. > > That’s not my argument. That’s part of one of my premises, plus your own absurd conclusion. > > Everyone has a different reaction to art. The validity of that reaction is not dictated by how close their reaction matches the reaction the artist intended to invoke. Whether that reaction is interesting to anyone else depends on that person’s ability to articulate their reaction, and tie that reaction to specific things found in the text. Rarely, it turns out the author is available to comment on a specific reaction, and confirm or deny if it matches the reaction they intended to evoke. While this information can be valuable, it doesn’t change the fact that the person originally had a different reaction. And in some cases, a person may find that the artist’s expressed intent is less interesting or entertaining that the interpretation intended by the artist. In such situations, that person may decide to continue to engage with the work using their original assumptions, and disregard the artist’s explicit intent, because they find the work more enjoyable that way. And once again, you are saying that art _has_ no intrinsic meaning. Therefore any meaning the reader ascribes to it is both right and completely wrong at the same time. It’s a cute idea, but basically says that art is meaningless. > [@](#): > > > [@RealityChuck](#): > > > > Absolutely not. Symbolism and allegory are revealing, not hiding. Maybe the reader doesn’t get them on first glance, but they are there to provide themes develop depth. If you have something to say, why hide it? > > Because things are more meaningful if you have to work for them. A reader who has to think his way through a story to find the meaning is going to carry that experience with them much longer, than they would if the themes were state up front and clearly explained. Not really. Every reader decides what they find in a work, right? How they find it should be irrelevant to their enjoyment. And if you hide it, many will not get your point. I have no problem with an author being subtle and bringing up points that could be missed on first reading. I just think it’s ludicrous that an author would hide the meaning so deeply that it takes years for anyone to notice it. Why bother doing it if no one catches on? > [@](#): > > > [@RealityChuck](#): > > > > But your comment “I’ve read enough bad fiction to recognize that this is a fallacy” is clearly condescending. First of all, what’s bad fiction? Second, just because it isn’t high literary fiction, it doesn’t mean the author doesn’t know how to write fiction (I’m not talking about self-publishing, BTW). It means they write a type of fiction that doesn’t appeal to you – and know how to write that type of fiction. > > Are you seriously copping this in the same thread where you’re crapping on Alien for having an “idiot plot?” Your entire thesis is that the reader determines the meaning, so you can’t be objecting to my argument. And since you don’t write SF, you don’t understand the term “idiot plot,” which is well known throughout the field. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I’ve read a lot of books that I think were bad. And by “bad,” I mean I didn’t like them. Some of them were popular and bad. Most of them were bad and sold poorly. Pretty much all of them were genre fiction of one sort or another. I’ve got no idea where you got the idea that I’m prejudicing “literary” fiction over popular fiction, but it definitely gives me the impression that you’re having half this argument with someone in your head, and not me. I’m having the argument with the words you are writing down. I assumed the showed what you were thinking. ---
**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 30, 2021, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/434 "2021-04-30T14:02:29Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > > [@RealityChuck](#): > > > > Authors know what they’re doing and what they’re trying to achieve. The difficulty is learning how to actually achieve it. > > Yeah, maybe this is true, for the good ones. My current angst is about knowing what to do, but not how. But there is a ton of bad stuff out there and there are definitely people writing who have no idea what they are doing. But they’re not like Irving, you know. Not knowing how to do what you want is a common problem of all writers. The writers who are successful – even if they’re “bad” writers – know what they’re doing. They may not know certain elements of writing, but the story is doing what they want. Even _Alien_ knew what it was doing: it was out to make the audience jump. My objection is that they could only doing by showing characters who didn’t have a lick of common sense. They clearly succeeded, but the movie would have been far better if the characters reacted in a sensible manner. > [@](#): > > I still maintain that not everyone knows what their work means. I think at a certain point it stops being about the writer and becomes about the reader. Occasionally. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/435 "2021-04-30T15:38:20Z")
Perhaps it would be more useful to think of it as more “Does this story work as a metaphor for _[different subject]_ (irrespective of original intent)?” I think, almost by definition, that every individual reader (or viewer, whatever) is going to read a different book just based on their own cultural and personal backgrounds, fears, situation. This is especially true when a story has obvious double-meanings. You don’t have to go about arguing what the author really meant, you just have to be able to explain how a given interpretation would work. It doesn’t have to be “correct” because that’s not the point. The Matrix works as a hero’s journey, but also as a Christ/savior metaphor, and also as a metamorphosis and transgender metaphor. There are obvious things that have double-meanings, but what the second meaning is can be whatever. If you’re going to make a claim, the job of literary criticism is to articulate that. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/436 "2021-04-30T15:41:18Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > And once again, you are saying that art _has_ no intrinsic meaning. Therefore any meaning the reader ascribes to it is both right and completely wrong at the same time. > > It’s a cute idea, but basically says that art is meaningless. Once more, with feeling: meaning is a neurological phenomenon. It objectively exists, but it objectively exists only as an electrochemical process within brains. How could it exist otherwise? Saying it exists in brains isn’t the same as saying it doesn’t exist. ---
**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 30, 2021, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/437 "2021-04-30T16:13:26Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > And once again, you are saying that art _has_ no intrinsic meaning. Therefore any meaning the reader ascribes to it is both right and completely wrong at the same time. No, I’m saying art had both intrinsic and extrinsic meanings, and sometimes an extrinsic meaning can be more interested than the intrinsic meaning. > [@RealityChuck](#): > > Not really. Every reader decides what they find in a work, right? How they find it should be irrelevant to their enjoyment. And if you hide it, many will not get your point. Yes, there are readers who don’t enjoy symbolism. To them, a bunch of dense symbolism is going to be turn off, and more subtle symbolism is going to be ignored. And that’s okay. If a person likes a book, but misses all the symbolism the author intentionally included, he’s not “liking the book wrong,” and it’s perfectly okay for him to describe his reaction to the book without referencing any symbolism at all. There are other people who really like symbolism, and enjoy really digging deeply into a text to find that sort of stuff. Sometimes these readers will dig up some meaning in a book that the author didn’t intend to put there. That’s also okay. They, also, are not “liking the book wrong.” > [@RealityChuck](#): > > I have no problem with an author being subtle and bringing up points that could be missed on first reading. I just think it’s ludicrous that an author would hide the meaning so deeply that it takes years for anyone to notice it. Why bother doing it if no one catches on? Some people - both artists and audiences - approach art as a puzzle that needs to be solved. Some people like solving hard puzzles. Some people like making hard puzzles, and watching people try to solve them. And, of course, some people underestimate how hard they’ve actually made a puzzle, and nobody can solve it. > [@RealityChuck](#): > > Your entire thesis is that the reader determines the meaning, so you can’t be objecting to my argument. And since you don’t write SF, you don’t understand the term “idiot plot,” which is well known throughout the field. The term “idiot plot” is pretty well known outside of sci-fi, too. I put it in scare quotes because applying it to _Alien_ is so obviously inappropriate. It’s also not something you learn by being a writer, it’s something you learn by reading criticism. Beyond that, no part of “my” thesis holds that you can’t argue against someone’s interpretation, particularly if their interpretation is not supported by the plain text of the work, as in your _Alien_ critique. Additionally, I’ve been talking about meaning, not quality - there is also no part of “my” thesis that holds one can’t comment on the quality of a text. I’ve also not argued that a person’s opinion about a work of art is only valuable so long as they’ve personally created art in the same medium/genre, nor have I argued that a work that is popular can’t be considered “bad” because artists inherently know what they’re doing when they create art. But those are both arguments _you’ve_ made in this thread, which make your criticism of _Alien_ hypocritical - after all, Ridley Scott has made _way_ more movies than you have, and _Alien_ is an immensely popular film. By the standards you’ve articulated in this thread, you’ve got no basis for saying _Alien_ is a bad film. You’ve never made a film, therefore, you can’t properly understand how films work, and the fact that the film was so successful proves, in and of itself, that Ridley Scott made good decisions in creating it. > [@RealityChuck](#): > > I’m having the argument with the words you are writing down. No, you’re having an argument with ideas that you invented for me and then put in my mouth. ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/438 "2021-04-30T16:40:57Z")
In “I’ll Be Seeing You,” the singer doesn’t mean “We’ll meet again.” She/he means “You’ll always be in my thoughts.” [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/yvvP33x4vwU/hqdefault.jpg "The Poni-Tails - I'll Be Seeing You (1959)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvvP33x4vwU) ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2021, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/439 "2021-04-30T23:19:05Z")
Wow. I never considered people could misinterpret that. It’s basically the same sentiment as “Always Something There to Remind Me.” ---
**Author:** ![terentii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terentii/32/212_2.png) [@terentii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/terentii)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2021, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/440 "2021-05-01T06:06:34Z")
I had always figured the former until I really listened to the lyrics. It becomes clear in the second half, which is: _I’ll be seeing you_ _In every lovely summer’s day_ _In everything that’s light and gay_ _I’ll always think of you that way_ _I’ll find you_ _In the morning sun_ _And when the night is new_ _I’ll be looking at the moon_ _But I’ll be seeing you_ ---
**Author:** ![Knowed\_Out](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/knowed_out/32/7380_2.png) [@Knowed\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knowed_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2021, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564/441 "2021-05-01T12:10:30Z")
Ozzy Osbourne’s “No More Tears” may sound like a break-up song, but it’s much more sinister. If you listen closely to the words, the reason why there’s “no more tears” is because the guy killed his gf and she can’t cry when dead. He then kisses her corpse before departing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pop-culture-stuff-everyone-seems-to-misunderstand/940564.md?page=23)