4 ms·
Sure, but I think stopping all the way back at "they killed a pig because they were hungry" in Lord of the Flies is... well, going to limit one's literacy level
by brimble 5y ago
Sure, but I think stopping all the way back at "they killed a pig because they were hungry" in Lord of the Flies is... well, going to limit one's literacy level.
There's flights of fancy, and then there's not being able to understand literature.
- gkop 5y agoYou expect too much from the HN commentariat with regard to this topic.
- vidarh 5y agoIt's entirely reasonable to ask the question and to ask people to consider what it might mean, and what supports that reading and how likely readers are to interpret it that way. That is not the issue. The issue is to then assume that this must have been the intent of the author all along unless they've actually told you. There's nothing wrong with not knowing with certainty the intent of the author. That does not take anything away from your interpretation. But often people seek to ascribe intent to the author in an attempt to assert authority over what the "true" meaning of a work is.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoActually, there is a sub-steam of art interpretation that insists that you can ascribe a particular meaning to some part of a peice of art even if the creator explicitly says "I did not mean that"