My "misinterpretations" of literature
Anyone here always misinterpretes the "moral" of the story like me?
I have always faired badly in English courses because of it, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the process of "twisting" the morals of classical pieced of literature. In fact, I did not twist it for the fun of it, I actually believe my interpretation is the "better" one. I'll give you guys a few examples of my "misinterpretations"
Atlas Shrugged was supposed to make the "looters" look bad, and it is supposed to make the "prime movers" look good. However, through my interpretation, I find that I sympathize with the looters more. How am I supposed to sympathize with those such as Dagny? She is smart, well education, ambitious, and hard working, whereas me (I'm honest), I'm a lazy, stupid, slob. Thus I thank Ayn Rand, she shows us "Homer Simpson" like people a path to success, be a looter and mooch off of the prime movers.
Fans of Atlas Shrugged usually point out that my mindset is the kind they hate. They say that Atlas Shrugged has the opposite moral, that we should work hard and strive to become like the prime movers. That might be Ayn Rand's point, but seriously, how am I supposed to sympathize with people that I can never even hope to approach?
Heart of Darkness is often referred to as an anti-colonial masterpiece. Yet, I view it as an extremely moving, pro-colonial piece. I view it, as a "thank our troops" kind of thing. The gripping portrayal of the descent into madness by the protagonist just further shows the difficulty of the task. In fact, towards the end, when Marlow lied to Kurtz's fiancée, it just shows how Joseph Conrad interpreted the views of the public towards colonizers, that they are shielded against some of the worse horrors.
The book as a whole just serves to create a portrayal that the men in the colonial services are "overworked and under appreciated". The message as a whole seems to be "look at the horrors our boys have to endure to bring you people back at home cheap rubber and ivory". The book delivers a strong, convincing pro colonial message, one that is unmatched by anything else. In fact, arguments regarding how the book tries to deliver the so called "anti-colonial" message usually focuses on the exposure of brutality in the colonies. However, the focus of the whole book has been on the colonizers, not the locals. The story focuses heavily on how the brutality has effected the colonizers, not the natives. Thus, it creates an almost "Dilbert-esque" atmosphere, the natives are treated like Dilbert's cubicals, something that stripes the humanity from the colonizers, who are unappreciated by the folks at home.
Anyone here have any more "unorthodox" interpretations that they think is better than the "mainstream" one? I mean, these interpretations will not get us great marks in english classes, but we might as well enjoy discussing them here, at the Verge's book club.