Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[bedelia1984]

 

 

 

I can come up with a lot of theories about Euros, based on a suspicion of mine that part of her wanted to believe Sherlock was a good guy while the rest of her despised the notion. And I like to think that when she met him at Baker St, disguised as Faith Smith, she really did find him different from how she remembered and expected him to be.

 

 

I agree with your theory. Well, at least I think she liked him for being better than she expected, but she also was jealous that he was so much better at all the emotional stuff than she is- he was gentle with Molly, he didn't lose his cool with Mycroft- she couldn't quite understand what was motivating him, which made her feel more alone than ever. She wanted her and Sherlock to be more similar, so she could feel less alone

 

 

But there were no explosives in her flat (at least AFAIRemember). Maybe that's why the darts - because what would she do, if the time passed and Sherlock still couldn't bring Molly to say the words?

 

Sorry, J.P., I've missed something here, what is 'that's why the darts' in reference to? Either way, I think it is interesting that Eurus didn't want to kill Molly, as she had no qualms about anyone else, and as mentioned by Surelock she could have used a drone too- or a sniper, for that matter.

 

About Eurus and Sherlock, I have been thinking that perhaps when Sherlock has suppressed the memory of Eurus and Victor, (with Redbeard in place) that somehow he internalised the idea of Eurus, and some aspects of her came out in his own personality- coldness, detachment and less empathy... and then gradually throughout the course of the series continued and memories slowly resurfaced, this coincided with his character development. 

 

Or it could be the opposite- through his friendship with John, some of those internalised characteristics were eroded, because through John he found the real self he had been with Victor, and that god rid of the artificial more Eurus like characteristics, and made him, well nicer, and more the person he used to be.

[BLS_Pro]

 

About Eurus and Sherlock, I have been thinking that perhaps when Sherlock has suppressed the memory of Eurus and Victor, (with Redbeard in place) that somehow he internalised the idea of Eurus, and some aspects of her came out in his own personality- coldness, detachment and less empathy... and then gradually throughout the course of the series continued and memories slowly resurfaced, this coincided with his character development. 

 

Or it could be the opposite- through his friendship with John, some of those internalised characteristics were eroded, because through John he found the real self he had been with Victor, and that god rid of the artificial more Eurus like characteristics, and made him, well nicer, and more the person he used to be.

I believe you are closer on the latter.  Look at John.  He wasn't emulating Eurus subconsiously when he distanced himself emotionally from others, especially Sherlock.  When humans get hurt, they have a tendancy to retreat.  To isolate themselves emotionally to prevent further trauma.  It's the same as jerking your hand away from a stove when you get burned.  You try to avoid that which hurt you in the first place.  Don't love.  Don't feel. Be detached from your emotions.

 

That will keep you safe.

 

Of course it does the opposite.  It leaves you alone - and miserable.  That is Eurus' state - and John's state after Mary's death.  You need the love of others to save you.  And, as John provided that love to him and saved Sherlock, so Sherlock provided that love to John, and saved him.  And, as Eurus needed that same love, so Sherlock finally provided it to her, and thus saved her as well.

[kieranjol]

 

 

About Eurus and Sherlock, I have been thinking that perhaps when Sherlock has suppressed the memory of Eurus and Victor, (with Redbeard in place) that somehow he internalised the idea of Eurus, and some aspects of her came out in his own personality- coldness, detachment and less empathy... and then gradually throughout the course of the series continued and memories slowly resurfaced, this coincided with his character development. 

 

Or it could be the opposite- through his friendship with John, some of those internalised characteristics were eroded, because through John he found the real self he had been with Victor, and that god rid of the artificial more Eurus like characteristics, and made him, well nicer, and more the person he used to be.

I believe you are closer on the latter.  Look at John.  He wasn't emulating Eurus subconsiously when he distanced himself emotionally from others, especially Sherlock.  When humans get hurt, they have a tenancy to retreat.  To isolate themselves emotionally to prevent further trauma.  It's the same as jerking your hand away from a stove when you get burned.  You try to avoid that which hurt you in the first place.  Don't love.  Don't feel. Be detached from your emotions.

 

That will keep you safe.

 

Of course it does the opposite.  It leaves you alone - and miserable.  That is Eurus' state - and John's state after Mary's death.  You need the love of others to save you.  And, as John provided that love to him and saved Sherlock, so Sherlock provided that love to John, and saved him.  And, as Eurus needed that same love, so Sherlock finally provided it to her, and thus saved her as well.

 

 

I agree with this assessment on the love in the show. The love has been there since the very first episode of the show. It's a bit of a shame that John was reduced to a bit of a hanger on in this episode when the love that he represented un(sher)locked the mystery of the whole season. Love, love - always love.

[BLS_Pro]

 

I agree with this assessment on the love in the show. The love has been there since the very first episode of the show. It's a bit of a shame that John was reduced to a bit of a hanger on in this episode when the love that he represented un(sher)locked the mystery of the whole season. Love, love - always love.

I agree that Watson was reduced more to the role of Damsel in Distress in this episode.  But then everyone's role, including Sherlock, was reduced.  As I noted previously, Sherlock's actions are not what move the story here. He is told the backstory.  He doesn't deduce it. He doesn't discover it.  He is spoon-fed everything - led around by the nose.  This story is not his.  It is Eurus' story.  Sherlock just happens to be a major character in it.  Overall, he is not the one doing things.  Overall, he is just the one things are done to.  It is only in the end where he exercises much agency.

[Surelock]

I think Moffatiss making this season so much about love runs counter to how they were also trying to make this season dark.

 

Before this season premiered, basically all the articles said it would be a darker season:

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/12/sherlock-season-4-mark-gatiss-interview

http://movieweb.com/sherlock-season-4-story-details-steven-moffat/

http://ew.com/tv/2016/12/28/sherlock-season-4-darker/

 

I think a lot of the inconsistent, ineffective characterisation/plot etc can be explained by Moffatiss trying to mix darkness and love together. It's difficult to get the such different themes to work alongside each other.

 

This can most clearly be seen with Euros. Moffatiss wanted to create a terrifying villain out of her to tie in with the theme of this season being dark. However they also wanted us to sympathise with her on some level because they also wanted this season to be about love. This just resulted in a number of viewers being unable to connect with Euros and thus the episode getting a mixed reception.

[BLS_Pro]

Another BTW - John's comments to Sherlock about The Woman apply to both Irene and Eurus:

"you BLOODY moron.  She's out there, she likes you and she's alive.  Do you have the first idea how LUCKY you are?  Yes, she's a lunatic, she's a criminal, she's insanely dangerous..."

But loving others "will complete you as a human being".  It doesn't matter who you love.  It doesn't matter "who you are" or who they are.  All that matters is that you love.  It is what saves you. 

[Arcadia]

 

 

 

When Sherlock talked to Mary and said, "I don't understand - I said I was sorry, isn't that what you're supposed to do?" I believe he really meant that. He just didn't get it. But when John left, I think Sherlock started to realise the depth of John's anger and sorrow. He caught up quickly after that

I don't believe he meant it at all.  He was acting.  And he lets this facade down only at the end when replying to Mary's question: "You don't know anything about human nature do you?l"  "Mmmm, nature?  No." he replies flippantly.  "Human? he says more slowly, pausing to give Mary a serious look.  "No" he states in a deeper, self-confidant tone.  And then he smiles.  This is Sherlock essentially winking at Mary.  And Mary smiles back at him.  She gets it.  This was NOT blindness but knowing action.  Recognizing that his WHY she immediately says she will help Sherlock. "I'll talk him round."

 

 

I know I should probably take this discussion to The Empty Hearse thread... but I think that thread is less active, and I'm really curious to hear people's versions of this scene

 

I interpret Mary's words like she is saying: "I know you don't really understand human nature, and that's why I'm going to help you". Sherlock's words just sound like he's making a joke, splitting human nature up in two separate terms so as to emphasize the fact that he understands next to nothing of either one.

 

I can't quite follow you as to why Sherlock would act ignorant here... That hardly seems helpful in getting John to let go of his anger and forgive him.

 

What does everyone else think?

 

 

I've never thought Sherlock was quite as clueless about emotions as he pretended to be; it's more like he preferred to deny they had much value. And at times, they genuinely get in the way of meaningful action, which he finds annoying. And like a lot of stoic people, he prefers to make light of a situation rather than confront strong emotions head on.

 

So, I think Sherlock initially expected to waltz right back into John's life, they'd have a good laugh about how clever he'd been, and that would take care of that ... up until he actually saw John in the restaurant, when he began to realize that emotions might be a factor in their reunion. After that I think he just tried to deflect John's anger with a combination of reason and humor.

 

So when he says he doesn't understand human nature, I don't think it's entirely true ... he himself would have reacted more dispassionately in that situation (or least, he thinks he would have. ) But that doesn't mean he doesn't really understand why John reacted the way he did. To me, it sounds more like Sherlock is saying "Oh, how stupid of me, of course John reacted that way, he's only human, I should have realized." But he makes light of it -pokes a little fun at his own clumsy handling of the situation- because that's what manly men do.

 

But I think he genuinely didn't know what else he could do about the situation, if John wouldn't listen to reason. Notice we aren't shown him making any more efforts to contact John. And up until Mary offered to help him, he barely acknowledged her existence, so yeah, I imagine he was pretty surprised when she offered to help. Why would she? He probably figured his return would just get in the way of her romance with John, since he seemed to be a problem for all of John's other girlfriends. Plus I imagine he didn't expect her to be as perceptive as she was, because he thinks most people aren't.

 

So, no, I don't believe he had a plan for winning back John's trust. He was just playing things by ear.

[Arcadia]

 

Personally, I feel that a certain amount of humility is necessary when declaring the meaning of someone else's work.

 

 

I second this.

 

[Arcadia]

But there were no explosives in her flat (at least AFAIRemember). Maybe that's why the darts - because what would she do, if the time passed and Sherlock still couldn't bring Molly to say the words?

 

The darts were in the next room, but you bring up a good point ... what would Eurus have done if Molly hadn't said the words? Or if she hadn't even answered the phone? I think Eurus almost had to be lying about there being no explosives, or this "game" wouldn't have made any sense.

 

 

But there were no explosives in her flat (at least AFAIRemember). Maybe that's why the darts - because what would she do, if the time passed and Sherlock still couldn't bring Molly to say the words?

 

I see several possibilities:

 

Either Euros was telling the truth when she said there were no explosives. In that case, she probably had a video ready showing an explosion, well enough made that Sherlock and Mycroft wouldn't be able to tell it was a fake.

 

Or she was lying. Molly's flat really was rigged but rather than admit Sherlock won that part of the game, she told him he had just put Molly through the wringer for nothing.

 

My bet is on the first version. But you never know.

 

 

And my bet's on the latter. For what it's worth, since, as you say, we'll never know. Ah, let the continuity fun begin! :D

 

I watched TFP again and the only aspect of the show that I still can't decide about is Eurus' immediate reaction to the ILY room right as Sherlock says play fair I won. It just seemed like her facial expression was inconsisent with the rest of the games where she had taken a lot of pleasure in the emotions she elicited from the men. It was strange to me upon first viewing and still is.

I think I know what you mean ... she's half smiling, as if she's genuinely touched by what Sherlock was willing to put himself through to save Molly. It fits with her "you're nicer than I thought you'd be" remark as Faith. But I still haven't decided what to make of it, because I'm still not convinced Eurus is actually capable of being touched in that way.

[bedelia1984]

 

 

But there were no explosives in her flat (at least AFAIRemember). Maybe that's why the darts - because what would she do, if the time passed and Sherlock still couldn't bring Molly to say the words?

 

I see several possibilities:

 

Either Euros was telling the truth when she said there were no explosives. In that case, she probably had a video ready showing an explosion, well enough made that Sherlock and Mycroft wouldn't be able to tell it was a fake.

 

Or she was lying. Molly's flat really was rigged but rather than admit Sherlock won that part of the game, she told him he had just put Molly through the wringer for nothing.

 

My bet is on the first version. But you never know.

 

 

And my bet's on the latter. For what it's worth, since, as you say, we'll never know. Ah, let the continuity fun begin! :D

 

I hope someone will search Molly's flat then, in the next 3-100 years whilst we are waiting for season 5!

 

But the more I think of it, I don't think she was going to kill her. Maybe she identified with her being lonely, or who knows why? She didn't pick on Mrs. Hudson, either. Maybe she dislikes men more than women, for some reason? Daddy issues?

 

I watched TFP again and the only aspect of the show that I still can't decide about is Eurus' immediate reaction to the ILY room right as Sherlock says play fair I won. It just seemed like her facial expression was inconsisent with the rest of the games where she had taken a lot of pleasure in the emotions she elicited from the men. It was strange to me upon first viewing and still is.

I think I know what you mean ... she's half smiling, as if she's genuinely touched by what Sherlock was willing to put himself through to save Molly. It fits with her "you're nicer than I thought you'd be" remark as Faith. But I still haven't decided what to make of it, because I'm still not convinced Eurus is actually capable of being touched in that way.

 

 

I wonder is it at all possible that she is feeling some emotions,- say pride at how Sherlock is handling himself- but they somehow aren't making their way into the part of her brain that makes decisions/ can separate the emotions from each other and identify them? I feel like there are a few times when we see emotions on her face for a moment and then it's like a flick of a switch and her 'thinking' mode is back and it's usually mostly a default of malice. That would mean at the end she has a sort of a breakthrough moment.

 

That's a small way how I can see her and Sherlock seeming related. He takes a bit longer processing emotions too, in my opinion (but obviosuly in a much more high-functioning way). But maybe where for him it can take longer, for her it is sometimes just not happening.

 

By way of explanation:

• "An emotion is a complex psychological state that involves three distinct components: a subjective experience, a physiological response, and a behavioral or expressive response."

  (Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2007)

So she's having the experience, and the physiological response, but in the behaviour or expression side, something is going haywire?

[BLS_Pro]

Does no one else think Eurus recognizes Molly as a mirror to her own relation to Sherlock?  That Eurus recognizes they are both in exactly the same situation - they both suffer from unrequited love for Sherlock?

[Arcadia]

It's an interesting idea, but again, I'm not convinced Eurus is capable of identifying the emotion of love, or any other emotion. She doesn't know "which one is pain," she can't tell the difference between laughing and screaming ... so I have trouble imagining her recognizing emotional Molly as her counterpart.

[gerry]

 

I watched TFP again and the only aspect of the show that I still can't decide about is Eurus' immediate reaction to the ILY room right as Sherlock says play fair I won. It just seemed like her facial expression was inconsisent with the rest of the games where she had taken a lot of pleasure in the emotions she elicited from the men. It was strange to me upon first viewing and still is.

I think I know what you mean ... she's half smiling, as if she's genuinely touched by what Sherlock was willing to put himself through to save Molly. It fits with her "you're nicer than I thought you'd be" remark as Faith. But I still haven't decided what to make of it, because I'm still not convinced Eurus is actually capable of being touched in that way.

For me it was more like fascination with what she saw, all those countless complicated emotions. Almost like it was something she didn't expect from her game and it took a moment to process. It was odd to me but the show kept the reactions in so it must have had some kind of meaning, right?

[gerry]

Does no one else think Eurus recognizes Molly as a mirror to her own relation to Sherlock? That Eurus recognizes they are both in exactly the same situation - they both suffer from unrequited love for Sherlock?

I don't. That takes an element of self awareness and empathy and I haven't seen Eurus have either.

[Arcadia]

 

 

I watched TFP again and the only aspect of the show that I still can't decide about is Eurus' immediate reaction to the ILY room right as Sherlock says play fair I won. It just seemed like her facial expression was inconsisent with the rest of the games where she had taken a lot of pleasure in the emotions she elicited from the men. It was strange to me upon first viewing and still is.

I think I know what you mean ... she's half smiling, as if she's genuinely touched by what Sherlock was willing to put himself through to save Molly. It fits with her "you're nicer than I thought you'd be" remark as Faith. But I still haven't decided what to make of it, because I'm still not convinced Eurus is actually capable of being touched in that way.

For me it was more like fascination with what she saw, all those countless complicated emotions. Almost like it was something she didn't expect from her game and it took a moment to process. It was odd to me but the show kept the reactions in so it must have had some kind of meaning, right?

 

 

Ah, that is what it's like, isn't it? Hmmm, something new to consider. Still not sure where that takes me, though. She doesn't do anything different from the other times. Interesting.

 

[Loekie]

Does no one else think Eurus recognizes Molly as a mirror to her own relation to Sherlock?  That Eurus recognizes they are both in exactly the same situation - they both suffer from unrequited love for Sherlock?

 

Does Euros want sex with Sherlock?

[Loekie]

Yes, a fascination with "all those countless complicated emotions". It took a moment for her to process.

[bedelia1984]

 

 

I watched TFP again and the only aspect of the show that I still can't decide about is Eurus' immediate reaction to the ILY room right as Sherlock says play fair I won. It just seemed like her facial expression was inconsisent with the rest of the games where she had taken a lot of pleasure in the emotions she elicited from the men. It was strange to me upon first viewing and still is.

I think I know what you mean ... she's half smiling, as if she's genuinely touched by what Sherlock was willing to put himself through to save Molly. It fits with her "you're nicer than I thought you'd be" remark as Faith. But I still haven't decided what to make of it, because I'm still not convinced Eurus is actually capable of being touched in that way.

For me it was more like fascination with what she saw, all those countless complicated emotions. Almost like it was something she didn't expect from her game and it took a moment to process. It was odd to me but the show kept the reactions in so it must have had some kind of meaning, right?

 

 

I really like this interpretation too. Of course that assumes she was capable of knowing what she saw, would she have been? Or did she think she would be? Do you think it mattered that the conversation took place on the phone, so it meant Molly could not see him but Eurus could?

 

 

 

Does no one else think Eurus recognizes Molly as a mirror to her own relation to Sherlock?  That Eurus recognizes they are both in exactly the same situation - they both suffer from unrequited love for Sherlock?

 

Does Euros want sex with Sherlock?

 

 

Yikes!

[Loekie]

Maybe Euros was one second affected by the passion without violence between Sherlock and Molly.

Because in her mind everything is connected with violence, we saw earlier when she touched the hands of Sherlock and what happened next.

[Arcadia]

 

Does no one else think Eurus recognizes Molly as a mirror to her own relation to Sherlock?  That Eurus recognizes they are both in exactly the same situation - they both suffer from unrequited love for Sherlock?

 

Does Euros want sex with Sherlock?

 

 

Possibly. She seems to want a connection, I'm not sure it matters to her what kind of connection it is. I'm glad they didn't explore that aspect of it in the show, though!

 

 

 

 

I watched TFP again and the only aspect of the show that I still can't decide about is Eurus' immediate reaction to the ILY room right as Sherlock says play fair I won. It just seemed like her facial expression was inconsisent with the rest of the games where she had taken a lot of pleasure in the emotions she elicited from the men. It was strange to me upon first viewing and still is.

I think I know what you mean ... she's half smiling, as if she's genuinely touched by what Sherlock was willing to put himself through to save Molly. It fits with her "you're nicer than I thought you'd be" remark as Faith. But I still haven't decided what to make of it, because I'm still not convinced Eurus is actually capable of being touched in that way.

 

For me it was more like fascination with what she saw, all those countless complicated emotions. Almost like it was something she didn't expect from her game and it took a moment to process. It was odd to me but the show kept the reactions in so it must have had some kind of meaning, right?

 

 

I really like this interpretation too. Of course that assumes she was capable of knowing what she saw, would she have been? Or did she think she would be? Do you think it mattered that the conversation took place on the phone, so it meant Molly could not see him but Eurus could?

 

Well, that's exactly what I'm struggling with ... Is she capable of recognizing the emotions for what they are? That's why I like the idea of "fascination" ... she's seeing emotions she's not accustomed to seeing (I imagine what she mostly sees in that place is fear, loathing, etc.) and filing them away for analysis. On the other hand, she's capable of acting like a normal person, i.e., Faith and gang. So she knows how to fake emotions, even if she doesn't really know what they feel like --- ?? But she recognized that Sherlock was "nice." Urgh, it just keeps twisting back on itself. That's why I keep going with she's just plain crazy, we can't expect any consistent behavior from her. But that's not very satisfactory either, because then we don't know how to understand what's going on with her ... why was Sherlock able to reach through to her when he did? Why did she start the game in the first place? Random whim, or plan? Ak!!

[Redbeard]

 

 

The revelation about Eurus felt, to me, as if the writers had written themselves into a corner and had to find a way out.  It happens, sometimes.

 

Yes.  Its all just a mishmash they threw together.  The complete and astonishing level of integration, down to every small detail, including the joke "The Hungry Donkey" is just pure coincidence.  It's happenstance.  The writers aren't intelligent.  They didn't write their story to be unified so absolutely that every action and word they wrote can be explained by the one theme.  They didn't plan it.  That's just an accident (just as Bride actually being ALL about Eurus is just an accident).

 

:facepalm:

 

Obviously the writers are intelligent.  Doesn't mean they can't have plot holes (even the best episodes have them), contradictory storylines, improbable characterisation and all the other difficulties that writers face.  You can read your own meaning into the story, in which every tiny detail fits perfectly into place, but that doesn't mean that it's true.  You can impose your own narrative on fiction - people do it all the time - but you can't insist that it is the only interpretation.  You have to accept that you might, just possibly, be wrong.

 

I'll give you a non-Sherlock example.  Years ago, I had to study a Thomas Hardy poem, "The Self-Unseeing."  People had various ways of understanding the poem but one of the tutors insisted that it was about a wedding.  Read it yourself and see if you can see this meaning.  Most people couldn't but this particular tutor was convinced, and felt that every word contributed to the wedding theme.  She was reading her own narrative into Hardy's lines.

 

You believe that you understand the themes in TFP and TAB.  You may be right.  On the other hand, you may be utterly mistaken.  Personally, I feel that a certain amount of humility is necessary when declaring the meaning of someone else's work.

 

 

I read an interview once with an author where he watched a university class analyzing his work and he was fascinated that they were convinced of certain things, like symbolism he'd never intended.  For example, the students were agreeing that the appearance of a particular bird was foreshadowing of this or that and the author was like "I had just happened to look out the window and saw a bird so I described it" lol.  Stuff like that.  They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, often "meaning" is too. 

[Slithytove]

 

You have to accept that you might, just possibly, be wrong.

No. 

 

Just as accepting an idea is true (or possibly true) absent evidence is irrational, so too is accepting an idea is false (or possibly false) absent evidence.

 

You show me the evidence which contradicts my premise (about the integration present throughout the episode [and since Bride]).  You show me evidence that thematic integration simply does not exist - that it is only a phantom of the imagination - then I'll certainly consider that evidence.  But you just tell me to think I may be wrong for NO reason whatsoever?  Not happening.

 

The capacity for error is not evidence of error.  Sorry.

 

As to the statement about plot holes and mis-characterization, I've already said they exist and that I don't like them.  But, even there, the thematic integration explains them.

 

OK, THIS IS MY REPLY:-

I fear that this reply will probably not post properly and may be included in your quote.  I have a new tablet and it seems to have a mind of its own. I'm old and not good with technology.  Apologies.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to get into an argument with you about absence of evidence, as I suspect we would bore the pants off everyone else.  This is a fan forum, not a symposium.

 

If you happen to be Mark Gatiss or Stephen Moffat and can thus confirm that you created an episode of prime-time tv as an exercise in existentialism, then I'm sorry.  You were right and I was wrong.  If not, I stand by my assertion that your interpretation is simply that - your own and no more unassailable than any literary theory.

 

When I studied "Frankenstein", decades ago, I had a lovely little theory that Victor and the Creature were one, the latter being his shadow self which enacted the dark desires suppressed by a respectable member of the Genevan bourgeoise.  Then I got to the one scene in the book where a third party sees Victor and the Creature together.  Damn.  However, up to that point, all the details meshed together perfectly.  It is perfectly possible to think you can discern an underlying theme which integrates every detail into a perfect whole.  It doesn't mean, though, that it is what the writers intended.  When I read the Famous Five stories to my kids at bedtime, I used to think you could do a convincing Freudian interpretation of those books - not just the gender stereotyping but the symbolism too (all those tunnels and lighthouses....) There could be an entire chapter on George's Electra complex alone.  I don't think, though, that Enid Blyton deliberately went for that in terms of thematic integration.

 

In Sherlock terms, Johnlock is a perfect example of a theme that you can read into every episode.  If you are sufficiently convinced, you can interpret the whole thing as the story of John & Sherlock's love.  In fact, Youtube has people doing exactly that and, frankly, they have more evidence for their theory than you have for yours.  IMO, the writers knowingly contributed to Johnlock, especially in Season 3, but that doesn't mean that its the correct and only explanation.  It's one way of interpretating narrative - one of many.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Caya
gave the formatting a little nudge ;)

[Arcadia]

 

I read an interview once with an author where he watched a university class analyzing his work and he was fascinated that they were convinced of certain things, like symbolism he'd never intended.  For example, the students were agreeing that the appearance of a particular bird was foreshadowing of this or that and the author was like "I had just happened to look out the window and saw a bird so I described it" lol.  Stuff like that.  They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, often "meaning" is too. 

 

That happens a lot in the visual arts too. It even happened to me once; some guy told me the figure in my painting represented my feelings about my father. Well, no ... it was just a compositional decision. I felt a figure was needed there to balance the painting, and so I painted in some random guy who was walking past. My "fan" told me my father must have often walked like that, with his arms behind his back. Well, no he didn't, and in any case the figure I painted wasn't supposed to look like he had his arms behind his back, I was just trying to paint the way his near arm swung back as he walked. Etc etc etc.

 

It was a fascinating conversation, though!

[J.P.]

 

I read an interview once with an author where he watched a university class analyzing his work and he was fascinated that they were convinced of certain things, like symbolism he'd never intended.  For example, the students were agreeing that the appearance of a particular bird was foreshadowing of this or that and the author was like "I had just happened to look out the window and saw a bird so I described it" lol.  Stuff like that.  They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, often "meaning" is too. 

 

The same with out stupid play.

 

It's actually more interesting to see what you can see, than what was intended. And that it still can make sense.

[Inge l-w]

Dear shadowy teddy bear, the etc. quote was perfectly fine as uttered by the King of Siam, Yul Brynner et al; as uttered by Euros, it's just plain creepy and goose-bump-raising!