You Shouldn't Assume.

I guess I didn't learn all that much directly from class this week. I have started to think a bit more about something that was discussed a couple of weeks ago: How the author of Gut Girls is usually labelled a lesbian feminist in her bios, and whether or not that really has anything to do with her plays -- whether her plays can be seen as a comment on feminism on their own, or whether they become that by association.

I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I probably should have written everything down as I was thinking it beause I don't remember the half of it now, but here goes.

I have been wondering if what we do by presenting an audience with information like that beforehand is really a disservice: Whether we are influencing one interpretation of something over another, and -- if so -- if we have the right to do that. Or maybe the play is really just what we have perceived it as, that's the way it is, and nothing else. I'd like to think that we are unbiased and serve only to enhance the experience and not influence it. I don't think that that is the case, though. While this is a goal we may strive for, I don't think that it is entirely possible to present somebody with a particular idea relevant to what they will be seeing/hearing/reading without affecting how they will perceive it.

I'm not being very clear here, I know. So let me try to explain through the use of the infamous Example. Let us say that your friend was about to embark on the epic adventure of reading through the copious amount of pages that is Lord of the Rings, and you tell them before they begin that you had a hard time getting through it because of the long descriptions that go on for pages. This may be a detail that they might not have been inclined to notice intially; but, after having had it pointed out to them, it is something that they will be unable to get through the novel without beng constantly aware of because iit has been pointed out to them. The elephant in the room, if you will.

Maybe that isn't the best example. Let me try another: Say you saw a certain play before a friend, mentioned to them that, though the actor was very good, they had a particular quality about them that was peculiar (say, small ankles or a strange accent), and when the aforementioned friend attended the next performance of the play, they were able to focus only on said particular quality.

ANYWAY.

These musing brought me to another train of thought: Do authors/writers/directors/composers/etcetc really intend to create multiple layers of symbolism and possible interpretations in their works for us to sift through...or are they merely accidents and the results of searching for something to support our own opinions?

I am an English major, and something that I have been noticing as I continue through my years of education is that, no matter how many times you cover one piece of literature, each teacher or professor will bring something new to influence your interpretation. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. Just curious.