Ask John: Should Anime Be Interpreted Objectively or Subjectively?

Question:
I agree that anime is an excellent source for intellectual stimulation, and should be regarded as something worthy of serious contemplation and reflection. The only problem that comes from trying to understand anime as a contemporary piece of art is through the process of interpretation. I am not just implying that the cause of misinterpretation is cultural differences or narrow minded outlooks, but rather the fact that we lack knowledge about the writer. Common mistakes can be made by taking something literal that the writer meant as allegorical, or seeing great philosophical worth in something the writer meant to be a trifle plot change. The basic question is, should we interpret anime through our own eyes or try to see them through the eyes of the writer?

Answer:
Without exception, I believe that the interpretation of fiction is the domain and the obligation of the reader or viewer. An author may weave particular symbols, themes, and meanings into a work, but it’s up to the reader to evaluate and recognize those characteristics. A writer that demands a uniform, singular interpretation of a piece of writing or film has constructed an argument or a textbook, not a piece of creative fiction. Awareness of the author’s intent or the circumstances surrounding the creation of a work may enhance the interpretation and evaluation of that work, but shouldn’t define and limit evaluation.

Authors may intentionally insert themes, symbols, or meanings into their fiction in order to add nuance to the work. Authors may also unconsciously imbue works with their personal influences, and their cultural and personal experience. By recognizing these unconscious additions, readers may recognize or develop interpretations of a work that the original author didn’t consciously include. A reader also brings his or her own personal perspective to the interpretation and evaluation of any creative artwork. A reader that apprehends a particular theme or symbolic meaning in a work isn’t necessarily right or wrong. Interpreting a passage a different way than the author intended doesn’t automatically mean that the interpretation is wrong; it’s just a different interpretation (although some interpretations are more valid than others depending upon the amount of support they have from the original text.)

I don’t believe that the audience has a right to participate in the original creative process or affect a finished work, but I do think that the audience has a right to extrapolation and interpretation. In other words, I don’t agree with third parties changing the music, writing, voice acting or other fundamental components of an artist’s work, but I do support the audience’s right to create spin-offs, interpretations, criticisms, and evaluations of a published work. The strength and longevity of anime like Evangelion and Sailor Moon lie in the audiences’ ability to explore them, speculate about them, relate to them, analyze and interpret them. If Hideaki Anno were to clearly explain every detail of Evangelion and the meaning of each scene, I don’t think that his explanation would or should preclude other viewers and critics from developing their own, unique interpretations of the series. It may be interesting to know that Anno was suffering a mid-life crisis when he wrote Evangelion, or that he intended the story to encourage individuality and bolster self-confidence in Japanese teens, but these facts don’t prevent non-Japanese viewers from enjoying, appreciating, and interpreting the show. In fact, Anno’s own intentions merely add another layer of depth to the show which viewers are free to interpret or ignore.

The very point of creative art is that it’s a flexible medium that isn’t bound by a singular perspective or steadfast rules. Like all art, anime is an amorphous entity that’s specifically designed for viewers and readers to engage and interpret. Anchoring the meaning and interpretation of any piece of fiction strictly to the author’s intention is too narrow-minded and restricts the creativity of the author and the work. Once again, I’m not suggesting that consumers have a right to physically alter completed works, but they do have a right to subjectively appreciate and interpret art. Some interpretations may be more valid than others, but denying the very option for interpretive analysis is contrary to the purpose of creative art.