![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The the depth of interpretation some people achieve has had me arching my eyebrows some times and rolling my eyes at others. What I have to wonder is, not where people come up with these theories on a certain peice of literature, film, or show, but if they're just picking and choosing certain aspects to paint what they want to see, not what they were meant to see.
I remember watching some news program where a bunch of historians were pondering if Abraham Lincoln was gay because of a bunch of letters he wrote to some young man. Not that I remember what the letters said, just that I recall thinking "but that's how people talked back then, even guys." Whether Lincoln was gay or not wasn't the issue for me so much as how quickly everyone latched onto this theory without seeming to consider other possibilities. Maybe the young man being written to was someone Lincoln saw as a son. And people back then were more verbally open with their affections. Even guys weren't afraid to use terms like "love" when talking about their best friends.
Anyways, what I'm getting at has nothing to do with what a group of historians thought about Lincoln. It's how far people tend to go in their "interpretations". How people will dig deeper and deeper for stuff that, half the time, isn't even there. How they'll take this into account but not that, and come up with conclusions that are not only ludicrous depending on what's being interpreted, but also rather pointless.
Did those historians take everything into account, or were they just looking to stir things up?
I remember a TV program a while back talking about my church, and the whole time I was watching I was like "did they even interview any members or just talk to a bunch of historians of the kind who think all religious people are nuts?" There's being neutral in one's opinion, then there's being a subtle, snotty skeptic. I always say - if you want to learn about a religion, ask someone who's a member, not someone who studied the faith for their dissertation or to do a news report on it.
Then there's interpretation of TV show characters. Come on, TV? Usually when it comes to a television show, what you see is what you get. As intriguing as it might be to paint a character in a certain light, you need to remind yourself - it's a TV show. Most writers for TV shows don't like to make things over complicated as it tends to lose viewers. I know we don't all see a character in the same way and sometimes like to see them in certain ways. Some people, however, seem to go a little over-board with their personal interpretations. Either that or get hung up on aspects that, in the long run, really don't matter. Sheppard flirting does not make him a womanizer or a sex-fiend (besides Teer, has he actually slept with anyone else?), and neither does him killing a bunch of Genii to protect the people he cares for make him a cold-blooded killer.Just because some guy (some very shallow, creepy guy) called Danny Messer a "player" doesn't mean he is, and everything that followed after that episode points to him being anything but a player.
I've come to learn that when it comes to making an interpretation, whether for a story or show or whatever, a lot of times what you see really is what you get, and teh simplest answer really is the best one. I remember analyzing a story for a literature class and coming up with two conclusions, my first had been the closest, but I didn't realize that until class the next day. Doubting myself, I had gone with the second interpretation. Not that it was wrong, just a lot less insightful while also missing the point of the story.
I guess what I'm saying is, you have to be careful how you analyze. Don't under-think, don't over think, and get all the facts if facts are obtainable. Not just when it comes to entertainment but life in general as well. I've found that a lot of problems in my life really aren't that complicated, I just get hung up on thinking they are.
I remember watching some news program where a bunch of historians were pondering if Abraham Lincoln was gay because of a bunch of letters he wrote to some young man. Not that I remember what the letters said, just that I recall thinking "but that's how people talked back then, even guys." Whether Lincoln was gay or not wasn't the issue for me so much as how quickly everyone latched onto this theory without seeming to consider other possibilities. Maybe the young man being written to was someone Lincoln saw as a son. And people back then were more verbally open with their affections. Even guys weren't afraid to use terms like "love" when talking about their best friends.
Anyways, what I'm getting at has nothing to do with what a group of historians thought about Lincoln. It's how far people tend to go in their "interpretations". How people will dig deeper and deeper for stuff that, half the time, isn't even there. How they'll take this into account but not that, and come up with conclusions that are not only ludicrous depending on what's being interpreted, but also rather pointless.
Did those historians take everything into account, or were they just looking to stir things up?
I remember a TV program a while back talking about my church, and the whole time I was watching I was like "did they even interview any members or just talk to a bunch of historians of the kind who think all religious people are nuts?" There's being neutral in one's opinion, then there's being a subtle, snotty skeptic. I always say - if you want to learn about a religion, ask someone who's a member, not someone who studied the faith for their dissertation or to do a news report on it.
Then there's interpretation of TV show characters. Come on, TV? Usually when it comes to a television show, what you see is what you get. As intriguing as it might be to paint a character in a certain light, you need to remind yourself - it's a TV show. Most writers for TV shows don't like to make things over complicated as it tends to lose viewers. I know we don't all see a character in the same way and sometimes like to see them in certain ways. Some people, however, seem to go a little over-board with their personal interpretations. Either that or get hung up on aspects that, in the long run, really don't matter. Sheppard flirting does not make him a womanizer or a sex-fiend (besides Teer, has he actually slept with anyone else?), and neither does him killing a bunch of Genii to protect the people he cares for make him a cold-blooded killer.Just because some guy (some very shallow, creepy guy) called Danny Messer a "player" doesn't mean he is, and everything that followed after that episode points to him being anything but a player.
I've come to learn that when it comes to making an interpretation, whether for a story or show or whatever, a lot of times what you see really is what you get, and teh simplest answer really is the best one. I remember analyzing a story for a literature class and coming up with two conclusions, my first had been the closest, but I didn't realize that until class the next day. Doubting myself, I had gone with the second interpretation. Not that it was wrong, just a lot less insightful while also missing the point of the story.
I guess what I'm saying is, you have to be careful how you analyze. Don't under-think, don't over think, and get all the facts if facts are obtainable. Not just when it comes to entertainment but life in general as well. I've found that a lot of problems in my life really aren't that complicated, I just get hung up on thinking they are.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 11:14 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-03 12:59 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-03 01:58 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2007-10-04 01:25 pm (UTC)From: