#mryee

With the best peoples in Malaysia. #Chin 😎 #MrYee 💪 #Syah 👶 & #Myself 😎 on the #OldPicture 🎞 at the #Party (at The Royal Selangor Club)

The study of literature and interpretive analysis of everything from English poetry to screenplay is a process that is highly subjective by nature. Based on a discussion I had following the English 11 Honors application essay, I talked to some classmates about the poem of that day’s essay and found that because of our backgrounds. We interpreted the same poem, using the same lines as evidence to support what were our own beliefs, which were very opposite. This is a question that has been pondered by students of English through all ages: does literature have a meaning beyond that of the text, and if so at what point does that message become a reflection of the interpreter’s beliefs over the author’s? In a classroom setting, because of the diversity of ideas, religious backgrounds, and otherwise opinions, the undertones are assigned more of an unbiased meaning, taking portions of everyone’s thoughts to create a shared experience and understanding. But what is it an understanding of? The question I find myself wondering is does it properly matter whether the undertones are meant to be interpreted at all and if they are is the purpose to rather than convey the author’s ideas on a subtext level, to share as part of the human experience, a reassertion of one’s own ideals? A lot of terms can be thrown around to attempt to explain such happenings but one I find often is the conformation bias. Humanity is constantly looking for a new tape to measure itself by, in exploring the deeper parts of literature of any kind, there are respected author’s supposed ideas that would approve of one’s actions if that is the way in which it is interpreted. Life is the search for gratification and to be in a position to believe that a renowned and brilliant author would share the same beliefs as the reader or the critique is reassuring for that person. It is interesting to then reflect on earlier this year when Oscar Wilde’s opinion on the levels of literary enlightenment, he argued that the highest level of the literary food chain as based on importance is that of literary critique. Now at this point I’m inclined to agree because it seems as though the true value found for people in literature is that presence of the reassuring affirmation of one’s beliefs, that which is only found in the analysis of the work on a deeper level. Read between the lines. A common phrase, one could say that between the lines is only blank but I would be inclined to say that what one reads between the lines is the sum of their life experience and perception because in everything we do as humans, we leave part of ourselves in it, pouring in to get something out of it. We pour in our analysis only to find that what we get out of it is something we already believed in.

If time exists at corrupt lies, breaking down the universe, then fear is an extension cord reaching out to connect the universe, stretching across the shoe of all hope, each end of endlessness capped beautifully like a narwhal. If the narwhal blinks then it sees the camera watching over it as it lies in the pool of generosity, the cup of the world. When the camera is fear and it corrupts the lies corruption and becomes the lamppost that guides the masses. However long the aglet lasts as the only monopolizing cap for the shoes of life, when shoes are no more the peoples' patronus. And when I am the light that reaches the stretches of eternity, the camera captures the perfectly brilliant yet endlessly clouded clarity of all that was, resonating from the blinking narwhal who realized that he was trapped away from the water in a void full of hydrochloric acid. Then time is everywhere and nothing is anywhere because all is foreign to the brilliance of the moment.

Literature morphs and changes overtime to match the needs of contemporary society as a whole. The creation of literary works was not possible until a culture advanced enough to have enough sedentary inhabitants to be creative. From the roots of creativity itself, those who were audience to the poetry and stories of old had their preferences as to how the story was told; these ideas shaped literature into what it is today. Reading becomes something not only for nobles and conveying information but for expression and representation of things real and metaphysical alike. The novel evolves to match demand of its readers and has thus split into subcategory after subcategory. When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle published his mystery/detective novels at the turn of the 20th century, the works filled the gap of action in city-dwellers’ lives. The high tension of the series was more than enough excitement for the readers. Quite differently 100 years later as visual effects in movies improve, it entices audiences and becomes an expectation. In a way people today seem to go to movies to critique the visual appeal rather than the slowly dying presence of compelling plot in movies. If someone were to adapt and produce the Doyle novels into film to the letter, it would be considered a boring movie to a lot of viewers. In other words just as money or intellectual values change in time so does the appreciation for properly good literature of times past, because there is longer exposition and attention to detail. This is something many people lack the diligence or attention for in their fast-paced and technology-filled lives. People are impatient, something slow paced cannot satisfy the standard which they have been trained to expect over the years. Society also becomes less imaginative and willing to suspend their disbelief in the world where they can instantly look up the legitimacy of any statement or happenstance.