Press Backspace

Lolz in Translation

At this point of time, it probably isn’t worth mentioning that I give no sort of regard to copyright law whatsoever, but seeing as how I’ve just started this article and have absolutely no idea how many words I can possibly crank out like a broken record, it’s my firm belief that I should just play safe and throw in a couple (it can be seen from this that my definition of couple has led to the possibility of the family line either ending here, or branching in all directions) of words here.

Abbeh has already written something along the lines of this topic, but I’m still going to write about it, so if you don’t like it, then feel free to stick your fingers in your eyes and pretend I’m writing about something else.

Before that though I should probably say that this article’s topic was a result of the mini blogger’s circle that we held on Thursday (in fact, it wasn’t so much held as passed around like some sort of diabolical potato), and it being the first blogger’s circle, there really isn’t much to compare it to so I suppose we can’t even call it mini. But the main point is that it achieved it’s purpose in giving me something to write about. And while the Daily Refusal pretty much remains in limbo, I should probably add that it might take on the form of a new blog, so keep your hopes (and suspicious) up.

It wasn’t long after we all got together at the canteen and started randomly drifting into two groups, consisting of Me and Abbeh in the first, and the other consisting of everyone else. Shudder was sort of a drifter, and if there’s one way to describe his involvement in the discussion, then I’d have to say that he was doing a cross stitch.

Abbeh brought up the topic of everyone’s favorite cake firing, portal eating fun-fest, Portal. Kylie, strongly believing that such a topic alienated everyone that wasn’t completely obsessed with Portal (No, I know, someone needs to help her), gathered her brethren and started another discussion. At this point of time me and Abbeh pretty much slogged out on an article that she found (shut up), which can be seen here:

http://digg.com/gaming_news/Portal_is_a_feminist_masterpiece_great_read

Trying to make my article feel like two articles instead of one has already been tried and pretty much failed, so allow me to summarize the article in the following way:

1. Portal is feminist.
2. The portal gun is analogous to vagoo.
3. GlaDOS is a maternal figure.
4. The Cube is a paternal figure, which is later incinerated.
5. Ergo ergo ergo, QED, W5, Portal hates 49 percent of the world’s population.

All the allegories drawn in that article were pretty much viable, save for number 4. While I would have accepted the analogy of the Cube being representative of emotional burden or emotion itself, I never thought of the Cube as a father figure (and I refuse to acknowledge that floozy of a pyramid) to begin with, and still can’t. And while it is true that all the other allegories drawn are less masculine in nature than the other elements you see in other first person shooters, and give it a more female friendly atmosphere, if you take away the allegory of the Cube, you pretty much tone down or entirely remove the element of feminism.

It’s at this point of time where the topic of over-interpretation comes in.

One just can’t help but feel that the author of that article is just trying too hard to get that interpretation out of Portal, despite the fact that Valve might be half composed of curly mustaches with matching berets, with bodies to go along with them.

In other words, how far can one go before in his (take that, Portal) interpretations before they can be considered “too far”?

Some might suggest that the point where the interpretations are no longer of the author’s intentions might be a limit, but then you have works like those in visual arts, where the works don’t have a definite interpretation, and are just left there for the sake of making you think (once in a long while).

So does this mean that any work can be used as a basis for any argument, provided that the one using it can provide proper justifications for such a link? And I believe that given enough backflips and literary spasms, a link can be made between the most distant of things, such as children and childhood, or holidays and enjoyment. Given enough effort, such links can be made.

Probably not. While such links can be made, the limit to which these links are believable would be dependant on the audience.

But to a certain extent, such as in milder examples, like the article above, certain stretches can be made, and while I do find that disagreeable, it really all matters on how much I find it believable, and that pretty much varies from person to person.

So not having enough motivation to link this to the topic of peer pressure and the power of the majority, let’s just end this article here, and go back to whatever it was that we were doing, be it writing another article or making fun of the opposite gender.