When I was a callow lad, I used to opine that the best conductors were those who were faithful to the intentions of the composer. Later, as a director of several plays, I realized that the intention of the author was not readily divinable, and, in any case, a playwright was neither an actor nor a director, and did not necessarily know how to best present his text. I had to fill in the gaps. I also noticed, from recordings, that frequently poets did a poor job of reading their own work, and that living composers sometimes did not have the best recorded performances of their work. From this I was led to believe that artistic interpretation went far beyond fidelity, and sought to put the raw material (the score, the text) in the best light.
What about intellectual interpretation? Although it has to remain faithful to the probable meaning of the work, and therefore has less license, there are various points where choices have to be made, and, in those instances, I think they should favor the author. One assumes that the author meant to clarify, not obscure; that he knew his own mind; that he sought the most felicitous expression; and so on, unless those assumptions are insupportable.
This is applicable to the threads, then. I believe that one should try to read other interlocutors in the best light consistent with what one knows of them. If there is a reasonable alternative explanation to the proposition that someone has lied, do not call him a liar. If the person made a remark that could be taken as insinuating, but need not, do not jump to a salacious conclusion. If the person has muddled a point, see if you can unravel it satisfactorily. In my case, it is only when I cannot make something better of it that I become exasperated, and willing to question the good faith or intelligence of the offending party.
We are collaboratively creating this thread. We can bless or curse it by the choices we make. |
