[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Glice

But that's interpretation. You seem to just not want to use the word interpretation when interpreting literature.

ha ha ha-- you lying sack of shit-- the lenghts that you go to jerk other people's chains. well played though, i did fall for it for a second or two and then i recovered. any reader with 3 interconnected neurons can see that i was speaking of immediate pleasures rather than the transposition of meaning to an external referent in order to "explain". of course you knew that too, being sufficiently intelligent, but it's this salmon masturbation that you practice that makes one confused and i was ready to accuse you of sophistry, you interweb imp.

anyway, go read sontag and enjoy.

you'll find beauties like these:

Today is such a time, when the project of interpretation is largely reactionary, stifling. Like the fumes of the automobile and of heavy industry which befoul the urban atmosphere, the effusion of interpretations of art today poisons our sensibilities. In a culture whose already classical dilemma is the hypertrophy of the intellect at the expense of energy and sensual capability, interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.


Even more. It is the revenge of the intellect upon the world. To interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world - in order to set up a shadow world of “meanings.” It is to turn the world into this world. (“This world”! As if there were any other.)


The world, our world, is depleted, impoverished enough. Away with all duplicates of it, until we again experience more immediately what we have.

i'm sure others have said similar things before her, but i like how (and when) she said it. & fuck plato!