On Sunday 06 April 2008, Brad Rogers wrote: > On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 10:56:10 -0500 > Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Dave, > > > > younger. It was just weird. > > > > Yes, it was. Wasn't that the point? > > To a degree, yes. In the end, if that's all it is, then it's > unfulfilling. Patrick McGoohan always maintains there's more to it > than that. He refuses, however, to be drawn on the subject. Which, > in itself is just as weird. :-)
No, it's not. As Joe Straczynski, the creator of Babylon 5 has often said, to suggest is to create, to define is to destroy. Many people who create something they've worked hard on do not want to talk about the creative process or to tell people what was intended. To do so limits the interpretations and leads people to think that there is only interpretation to the work. When the discussion stops around such a creation, it no longer holds the interest it did. If someone jumped out of a time portal today and said, "I've been hopping around in time and know why La Giaconda is smiling," it would limit the interest in the painting. If we knew whether the protagonist picked the lady or picked the tiger, the short story would hold no interest. If we knew for sure why Hamlet is such a wimp, much of what compels people to reinterpret the play over and over would be gone. Hal -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
