> Who gives a fuck about Jim'reasons. Everyone can have his
> own interpretation.
That's a little bit like saying that it doesn't matter why "Abraham Martin and John" was written, or why "Woodstock" was written. When a writer writes, there is a reason. How could one actually remove the reason from the work in a surgical way and call it a valid interpretation? Nobody is turning "Abraham Martin and John", as far as I know, into a two-step.
|
