Board Thread:Off Topic/@comment-24534644-20170630004409/@comment-25936766-20170702172439

RayStrikeAbius wrote: 1- Not what I meant. Obviously there is rhyme and reason to how it goes...

2-Interpretations, however, are up to the audience. That's the beautiful thing about art really; there is no correct way to interpret something.

3-It's kind of like how Disney's versions of the Brothers Grimm tales aren't the originals, but that doesn't make them any less valid or enthralling. 1-But most Nursery Rhymes are nonsensical by design...

2-There are incorrect ways to interpret something, however. When the author did not mean to imply or say X at all, yet some people think he did and preach "their message" by using their work.

It's one thing to use Applicability. It's another to completely misinterpret what the Author was trying to say (or never meant to say). In extreme, it's just ridiculously missing the point.

...And with nursery rhymes, they were never meant to mean anything. People act like X poem is about politics or religion or whatever, but they were just poems, entertainment, not a message about anything.

It's like if you said "I like milk, but not chocolate", and people thinking you are some super-racist monster or something because of it. When, you know, you possibly simply like milk but don't like chocolate.

3-The Disney versions may be part of almost-everyone's childhoods, but most people know they're their own versions different from the originals. So the comparison falls flat here.

Also, IIRC the Brothers Grimm did not make "their" tales either. They just gathered them, collected them, and published them. At first, without any changes, but over time they changed some things. (Though most of those tales were not meant for children, so they were already grim from the start).