More on interpretations, was Re: [EVA] The Eva card game [uh, sorta PG-13 stuff, I guess]

[Archer]

At 10:42 AM 9/13/01 -0500, you wrote:

>I feel that this ambiguity enchances the series and makes rewatching it
>even more rewarding. The images and the text on the Hokan cards seem like
>possible resoloutions to the conflicts and relationships that were left
>unresolved throughout the series. I believe that if we accept the text on
>the cards as gospel truth we might lose some of the richness EVA has to
>offer.

I tend to disagree.

I have watched it through several times, sometimes catching things I missed 
before, but I am always left with questions. Some of these I can figure out 
with a lot of deep consideration, some appear to be either unanswerable or 
even bloopers, and then there are some I feel I may understand - but I am 
not prepared to present my interpretation as fact. To me, any information 
provided by the series creator(s) that illuminates these problems is 
*invaluable*. I do not want to criticize others but often the ML works out 
a particular interpretation of one of the aforementioned problems that 
relies on and is consistent with canon information, whether new or old, and 
the only counter-argument I ever read is "I think Eva was meant to be left 
more open to interpretation than that. Other peoples' interpretations are 
just as valid". Now, this may be true, but I personally disagree. IMHO 
there is no excuse for not being willing to alter one's views when new 
information appears.

This might sound strict but its part of the philosophy I live by. I'll 
argue on this ML from this perspective, but I'm not going to hold others to it.

K. Oska Archer   http://www.senet.com.au/~archer
'Similarly, it's logically possible for bunnies to lay
multicoloured eggs. Unfortunately, mammalian
physiology can't produce such treasures.'