>> |
!!mS8C53RKS5M 06/02/10(Wed)19:11:51 No.9286792>>9286603 >lol u fags, he ain't gonna bone you anyway so why
even bother? HEY, HEY, THEY SAID I COULD GO BY "SHE" NOW. >>9286610 >Do you guys ever play around with the equipment? You
know, "I'm going to abort you if you don't stop that shit!" and then
chase each other around with your baby killing devices? Oh my
god, no, but now I really want to. FFFFUUUUUUU. >>9286624 >Well I wouldn't want him to if that were the case. When
I tuck, you can't even tell, okay? >:3 >>9286629 >You are unquestionably awesome, both as a person
for your ideals and manner (demonstrably as well as presumably), and for
your efforts to bring something interesting and positive to what is
generally a sinkhole of negativity and unoriginality. Keep
being made of awesome! Holy ass, you guys have been so awesome to me
today. Thank you for everything. This day has gone from major suck to
major win <3 >With distant affection,
Anon. Same to you, kind anon! >>9286640 >Do you think, in interpreting a work of literature
or art, the intention of the author/artist in actually making the piece
has precedence, or is it merely one interpretation among many (equally
valid) interpretations? Very interesting question. I think any
creative piece will affect different people in different ways. It is
the effect that it has on the viewer/audience/reader that matters, in my
opinion. Emotion should be the by-product, not the end-product, so if
everyone felt the same way about it, then it wouldn't be very effective,
I think. But yes, the creator's interpretation matters, but it is not
*all* that matters...in my opinion. |