Archive of Our Own ^beta

Chapter Text

Open to interpretation—

What does that even mean?

Looking back over my works, I ’ve only listed a small handful as being open to interpretation — it currently stands at less than 5%. None of these is tagged as open to interpretation, however. For example, stories containing a given romantic ship (aka the “/” relationships) aren ’t stories where readers are free to interpret that ship as not happening unless I ’ve also tagged the matching “&” relationship.

It ’s things like—

• —a story tagged where Shimura Danzo is the Reason Behind Hatake Sakumo’s death, and whether this means he orchestrated events just to drive Sakumo to suicide, or if Danzo actually faked Sakumo’s suicide is up to the reader.

• —I’ve a story where a character thinks he died and apparently doesn’t, which isn’t tagged with the character death warning because of this, but readers are free to interpret it, because of the nature of the story as if the character really did die in the end, though I don’t outright say this is the case

• —I’ve a story where a character dreams something where the reader is allowed to interpret it as just a dream, or something that really happened.

And that ’s honestly just a few examples of what I mean when I use the 'open to interpretation' tag.

However, as a writer, it irks me when some fans of any series say, “the writer/creator left it open to interpretation,” because what they mean is one of two things. One, they insist that the work is full of symbolism and metaphor, which is, in turn, open to interpretation by the reader; or two, they’re free to interpret the work any way they want to.

For the first one, fact—most writers/creators of fiction don ’t think of their work in terms of symbolism and metaphor; that’s more of a poetry thing at the end of the day, but often it tries to place meaning that was never there in the first place. They can be fun interpretations of the media, but at the end of the day, as Mark Twain says, as writers we should “say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.”

In turn, the second one is very similar to the mantra I ’ve seen some writers adopt, which is that because there is no one right way to write a story, there is no wrong way to write a story either, a significant misconception. When one says there is no one right way to write a story, they mean things like whether a writer writes the story all at once or serializes it as they write.

It ’s not meant to excuse behaviors like those of writers who decide their writing style is defined by the lack of use of end punctuation, thus never having a single paragraph comprised of multiple sentences, creating an abhorrent mess of run-on sentences that are difficult for the reader to follow and understand. Yes, I’ve come across such a writer in the past, and yes, such a writer insisted that was her writing style, nor did she care that such abhorrent use of the English language was difficult for dyslexic readers like myself, because the problem must be the dyslexic reader, not the grandiose writer, right?

And yes, I am a dyslexic reader and writer. It doesn ’t mean I can’t read or that I can’t write, but that it is more of a challenge, so writers saying what they mean is essential to me; it’s also important, I’d say, to ESL readers and writers.

The “free to interpret however I want” interpretation of open to interpretation is based on the idea that there is no wrong way to interpret the media one is consuming, which, just as that one writer I mentioned, ignored the rules of grammar, this often allows these readers to either ignore context, or say something is true, “because I say so.”

For example, certain Obito/Rin fans are very insistent that Rin actually had feelings for Obito, that her feelings for Kakashi “weren’t real” like Obito’s were, that had Obito not died, Rin would have simply moved on and requited Obito’s feelings which is a “because I say so” interpretation that also trivilizes the feelings of a female character just to make the interpretation work, while placing the feelings of the male character as beign superior.

If the trivialization of the female character ’s feelings while making the male character’s feelings superior, those not familiar with Narato may not realize Obito is a character who lived a life sheltered from the realities of the world until reality hit him in the form of a giant rock, and even then he jumped right into rehab so he could be with his Rin only for reality to finally hit him when she died, so he then goes evil killing a ton of people including kin-slaying so that he can create an ideal dream world where everybody is happy because they ’re avoiding reality.

Which, no. Obito isn ’t the black sheep of his family; that ’s a mistranslation in the Anime subtitles for the Japanese version, with all other translations, Manga, and the dubbed version being that he’s a failure or some synonym, nor do I want to hear that black sheep is a synonym for failure because it’s not; it has a particular meaning.

No, I don ’t want to hear that Obito was persecuted for not having the Sharingan when in canon that ’s supposed to be rare even among the Uchiha, or how Obito was somehow repressed or shunned simply because he didn’t meat the standards we see the head of the Uchiha clan place on his own children, because Obito is not of the head family. There ’s absolutely no canon evidence.

And no, Naruto claiming Obito was lonely growing up because he recognizes Obito felt the same as him growing up isn ’t proof, not when this idea of Naruto being alone is constantly contradicted by the narrative, such as him hanging out with Shikamru, Choji and Kiba only for it to reveal why their friendship fell apart when Naruto foul mouths them at the Chunnin exams showing he only sees them by their most negative traits, while Naruto gushes about how he just wanted to be Sasuke ’s friend all along, when in reality he was bloody envious of all the attention Sasuke got because he was jealous of Sasuke’s sucess and genious.

Even this idea that the village persecutes Naruto is something told to us rather than truly shown in the Manga. It is instead something the Anime manages to show in filler material, which is a stark contrast to other characters, where their persecution is displayed, such as Inari actually being shown to be bullied. Yes, there were villagers when he didn ’t graduate who were like, “Isn’t he that boy?” which is meant to be taken as them talking about the nine-tailed beast being sealed inside of him, yet could very well be from the fact Naruto is, particularly in the Manga, a disrespectful brat to people, and it is far.

In other words, Obito growing up compared to Naruto growing up actually makes the whole narrative of being lonely fall apart because it simply means they both didn ’t have parents, not that they were truly alone like Gaara of the Sand was growing up. Still, they both lived relatively sheltered lives, unaware of what the real world was like before becoming shinobi.

Which means Obito turning evil, having nothing to do with Rin ’s death, that it was only the straw that broke the camel’s back, is an incorrect interpretation, because there was nothing prior to this that clued him in to the unfairness of the shinobi world. No, he’s not coming in first place to Hatake Kakashi or his fellow Uchiha doesn’t count as labeling that as unfair; it's a childish outlook and trivializes actual unfair events, such as Rin dying, because she’d been effectively turned into a nuke for her village. Thus, she suicided to keep her village alive.

True, Obito did say he didn ’t do it for Rin, but that doesn’t negate the fact that he went evil because of his death, not when the person he’s doing it for is himself , and not for the entire world as he so claims. He wants to be stuck in a reality where she doesn ’t die, where he can be with her, and she be his, regardless of what she feels.

Of course, sure Obito/Rin fans claim the ending is open to interpretation, that they ’re free to interpret her as going into the afterlife reciprocating Obito’s feelings for her, that platonic hand holding can be interpreted by as romantic hand holding because they’re free to interpet the canon however they want, while also triumphantly pointing to the fact Rin choose to watch over Obito in limbo.

Which—

Limbo isn ’t a choice?

Context-wise, in Japanese culture, being stuck in limbo, aka, not being able to move onto the afterlife, isn ’t a choice, nor is who the dead are forced to haunt. Those stuck are often those with violent deaths, such as suicide, for which the two characters we see, unable to move on, are, in fact, characters noted in canon to have committed suicide in some shape or form. Still, the person they meet in this place of limbo is someone wronged by their death, who went down the wrong path, meaning they were forced to watch, cursed to watch that person go down the wrong path.

To which—

Certain Obito/Rin fans honestly want everyone to believe Rin fell in love with Obito in the afterlife because she was stuck watching over him. Yet, they outright ignore the fact that she was forced to watch him release the nine tails on their village, killing their precious sensei, their sensei ’s wife’s wife, leaving their sensei’s newborn child an orphan, and killing others in the village; she also watched him commit kin-slaying of the Uchiha clan.

Like, no. That ’s not believable, not when this would make her not want to fall in love with him.

Of course, there is a significant focus on Kakashi ’s supposed lack of feelings for Rin, which is summed up as, “he rejected her, thus there were no feelings,” leaving out the vital context of how he rejected her, that his rejection was a “I’m not good enough for you” type of rejection, which—

At the end of the day, I ’ve racked my brain. I can’t think of any other narrative context where this kind of rejection is done by a character who doesn’t have feelings for the person they’re rejecting. Yet, for some reason, this isn’t accepted as Kakashi admitting he does, in fact, have feelings for her, that he’s not in a mental place to reciprocate.

Which, yes, having feelings and reciprocating feelings are two very different things.

This is ironic despite the fact that two other significant events happened in the same flashback.

The first is, well, for those who don ’t know Naruto, Kakashi is known for never showing his face; he always wears a mask or disguises himself. Well, almost never, because he does , in fact, show his face to Rin during this flashback while she is medically treating him. Some may argue that this is because she ’s the team’s medical ninja, but the fact is, Kakashi didn’t have to show his face based on where the injury was located; yet, he removed his entire mask (it’s attached to his shirt) in front of her. This is despite the fact that they were on a mission, and it would make more sense not to take the shirt off at all, when he could lift it, remove one sleeve, etc.

The second is how this flashback parallels Kakashi ’s lying about his feelings for his father with his feelings for Rin, with his use of his father’s tanto showcasing he does, in fact, care about his father and doesn’t want to actually throw the memories away like he’s been pretending to do, which in turn was brought upon by his father’s death. Thus, after Obito dies (or they think he did), Kakashi returns to the familiar. He attempts to lie, to avoid saying how he really feels, particularly since his plan at the time was for Rin to escape and for him to die protecting her. He ’s also blaming himself for Obito’s death.

Which, for those who don ’t know the series, the conversation pretty much goes like this.

Kakashi: Obito loved you.

Rin: Attempts to admit she loves Kakashi.

Kakashi: Interrupts, saying he ’s trash for abandoning her, aka, saying he’s undeserving and that he feels she deserves better.

Yes, Rin is hurt by what he says, but does the rejection hurt her? No, because the way Kakashi words things indicates to her he does, in fact, have feelings for her. She ’s hurting because she sees Kakashi hating himself as well as lying to himself.

Of course, Kakashi never outright says he loves Rin, which some take as evidence that there are no feelings there, as if that is the only way narratively to confirm a character has feelings for another. By this logic, those who hadn ’t read the Manga, when they saw the first episode of the Anime, shouldn’t be concluding that Hinata likes Naruto, and Sakura likes Sasuke, but the truth is, they do because narratively it is there.

( …)

Of course, some will say Sakura and Hinata ’s feelings aren’t “real” because they’re crushing on a boy they don’t really know, which is why Rin’s feelings for Kakashi aren’t “real”; she doesn’t know Kakashi like she does her childhood friend, thus she must really be in love with Obito.

I don ’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t want to fall for my childhood friend who I litterally caught taking photos of me in secret, which, yes, the pictures on Obito’s pinboard indicate that, but the reasaon Obito choose to kiss the team photo (and place tape over Kakashi ’s face) is because it is the only photo he has of Rin where she ’s smiling warmly into the picture.

Apparently, though, we ’re not allowed to call this out for what it is because the interpretation that Obito’s behavior is no different than preteens/teenagers kissing pictures of their pop idol crushes must be valid, which—

So, preteens/teenagers crushing like that is still cringeworthy behavior. Still, I do have to defend them and say there is a significant difference between them and Obito, because Rin is no stranger to him, and he ’s definitely been trying to take pictures of her without her knowledge, though there is a picture that shows she did find out; in the Manga, she looks upset and irritated, while in the Anime she’s shocked/surprised.

Which, I feel bad for Kakashi, who honestly only has half the picture regarding Obito ’s feelings for Rin as he didn’t see the photos on the pinboard like we did, only Obito trying to kiss the team photo, which had Obito simply been looking at the image rather than trying to kiss it I doubt Kakashi would have figured out that Obito romantically liked Rin.

Open to interpretation—

What does that mean?

Context matters. Interpretations that take canon out of context flummox and exacerbate the rest of fandom, whereas interpretations from a what-if the context were different perspective don ’t. Any fallacy of logic, actually, flummoxes and exacerbates the rest of fandom, to be honest, but there’s still plenty of room to breathe. If something isn’t canon in context, it simply has to be treated as such.

Chapter Text

I never expected to do a follow-up essay to my first essay in “What Does Open to Interpretation Mean?”, but then I found myself writing a fanfic for Lord of the Flies.

I don’t like the book, although that wouldn’t be quite right because I like the book in the same way I like Animal Farm or Fahrenheit 451, because I love the meaning, and there are characters to fall in love with, because who doesn’t like poor Simon?

Who, for some reason, is meant to represent a Christ-like figure rather than just child-like innocence and profound awe in the world, but then, I think one of the fallacies in Golding’s book is this idea that a group of children with absolutely no adult supervision would most definitely fall into the depravity of their human nature, rather than being resilient as the children in the Boxcar Children are.

But that was the whole point.

However, why bring this up?

Well—

I want to discuss where the theory of “open to interpretation” comes from, more specifically that this hidden metaphor and symbolism is going on in everything someone means, rather than taking the work at face value and how the theory of “open to interpretation” differs from “interprettion through a specific lens, though that can be summed up as the latter being not presented as a factual interprettion on the part of the writer, but instead an interesting way to interpret the work tht the writer didn’t expect.

The former, though, really does rely on this idea of hidden meaning existing in all of the media we consume, and—

Well, it’s the fault of one book in particular.

Lord of the Flies

But why is this the case?

Well, Lord of the Flies is taught in PreAP/AP English to help teach metaphor, and it is used had to explain his book to people, and what all his lovely metaphors are.

Which, honestly?

That’s the worst way to teach metaphor; with metaphor, people couldn’t get in the first place without the writer explaining it. Funny how specific interpretations under the “open to interpretation” theory often have to be presented to others and usually end up questionable.

Is Golding wrong to imply this is one of the possible outcomes?

No.

That’s why I said, after saying I don’t like the book, that I actually do, because on a surface level, the book is good at showing a social dynamic where one bully, one psychopath, can result in the chaos we saw on the island.

But then metaphor comes in, and that’s where I start to dislike the book, because at the end of the day—

Well, I didn’t need all the metaphors to get the bloody message, Golding.

And if you examine it closer—

Uh, well—

I would not have given the context a thought; these were all children from the same boarding school, for them to even be on the same flight, but then I learned that apparently these were children meant to be WWII evacuees. I couldn’t help but wonder to myself, why the hell were the kids being evacuated on a plane rather than a train?

I mean, learning Golding wrote the book based on his personal experience with WWII and as a teacher of rough school boys, but these boys supposedly weren’t on some school trip from an elite boarding school and strangers to each other—

At the end of the day, Golding came across as a vindictive teacher because he ended up with a ton of brats in his class and effectively created self-inserts for his students to showcase how horrible they were, but plays it off as this allegory where he’s trying to talk about the crux of humanity, that everybody is inherently capable of evil in the worst of times.

Or at least most people.

And—

It doesn’t work.

Sure, it works from a narrative standpoint as a good, hard look at bullying culture, but what Golding wanted to represent?

No.

Which, thinking back, Golding wrote the book when bullying wasn’t understood, and it was thought of as a way to help a person develop a thicker skin. And by this, I mean real bullying, as seen in Lord of the Flies, not some of the things people are calling bullying simply because their feelings got hurt because they didn’t win first place in a contest.

So Golding, even though a teacher, likely didn’t understand what he was writing about, in contrast to say Robinson’s The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, which is how the school bullies aren’t the real bullies, but instead at-risk kids who lack proper social skills until properly taught those social skills.

But why is this important?

Well, PreAP/AP is typically your advanced English class here in the US, where there is only one test where—

Well, one day I critiqued a kids’ fanfic with legit criticism about the characters being OoC as they didn’t get narrative context.

Kid’s response was to, in turn, mock me for ending a sentence with a gerund, trying to tell me that it was grammatically incorrect, while bragging that he aced the first English AP test and was morally superior to me.

And I was like, that’s an English myth, and you bragging about AP to me is worthless, because—

Well, I’m aware of some of the idiotic things certain Pre-AP/AP teachers happen to teach their students because I took those classes and disliked the lack of critical thinking involved with a lot of the activities, but I know full well—

Uh, well, my college professors always loathed incoming Pre-AP/AP English students who ace their tests, including actual English professors, because they had to bloody reteach these kids how to write at the end of the day, but oh, the egos on some of these kids.

But I knew, at the end of the day, this kid who lacked comprehension of the actual canon material for the fandom they wrote a fic for had the second test coming up, which is—

Well, it’s on comprehension of a work’s canon material, and what happens around the time of that test?

An anonymous review shows up, flaming me on one of the stories for the fandom, bringing up the whole gerund thing again, of which I’d only ever discussed via PM with this one kid, so I instantly knew they’d either flunked the second test, or were told by their teacher not to take the test because their actual comprehension skills stunk to high heaven.

And this?

This occurs because Pre-AP/AP is often taught in classes, such as celebrating Lord of the Flies as some literary genius; the work isn’t. Or at least in the way Golding and certain English teachers celebrate him, because I do think Lord of the Flies is an excellent look at the topic of bullying, but not the allegory it pretends to be.

The way it’s taught emphasizes the use of symbolism and metaphor as being inherent in all writers’ work, that writers purposefully put symbolism and metaphor into their fiction pieces as if they’re works of poetry that the mindless mobs who are in their minds otherwise illiterate can’t get, that this is the difference between literary art and everything else.

Except that most classic writers actually don’t incorporate symbolism and metaphor into their works, instead drawing from what they happen to know. Knowing the writer can, at times, shed new light on the work being read by the readers.

It’s also a very different practice between this and interpretive lens, from which one of the interpretive lenses a person can examine a work from, say, a homoerotic lens. Still, at the end of the day, or at least as it was in the past, most of those examining a classic work through a homoerotic lens understand that this is likely outside of the writer’s intention.

Ak, interpretive lens is fun, can lead to some interesting fanfic for us fanfic writers, but it’s never canon and shouldn’t be treated as canon. In contrast, the other method tries to apply “open to interpretation” to all works often using ones own world view to explain the works in question and usually failing because their world view is so off the mark from the actual writers experiences while not trying to support their interpretation with even proper subtext as the person who is doing an interpretation through an interpretive lens is doing.

I also think there is a level of trying to apply an interpretive lens to a work, not understanding that is what someone else is doing because they’ve not been taught to write in such a manner or to think critically about such things. Still, their interpretations often contain logical fallacies, such as ignoring critical context.

Note - Note all Pre-AP/AP teachers teach their students wrong, with some actually employing actual critical thinking skills to come up with their own answers regarding the works in question, rather than forcing the students to regurgitate interpretations of the work they feed the students, or writing answers to specifically please and be teacher's pets like others do, but there are still those bad apples.