Multiple Interpretations Quotes

...I am much better now at ambiguities.

Multiple descriptions are better than one.

So you need hardly spell me how every word will be bound over to carry three score and ten toptypsical readings throughout the book of Doublends Jined.

I think it's good if a song has more than one meaning. Maybe that kind of song can reach far more people.

My worlds are complex, and often suggest more than one story.

The wonderful thing about films is how they can be understood by so many different people on so many different levels.

It's in being read that a book becomes a book, and in each of a million different readings a book become one of a million different books . . .

Ambiguity is the devil's volleyball.

Any consideration of the story we call 'Cinderella' for simplicity's sake must acknowledge that 'Cinderella' has had a dizzying array of personae over hundreds of years, in several cultures. There is no one authoritative tale of 'Cinderella,' only a hall of mirrors with a different face in each reflection.

But O the truth, the truth. The many eyes That look on it The diverse things they see.

Some readers read a book as if it were an instruction manual, expecting to understand everything first time, but of course when you write, you put into every sentence an overflow of meaning, and you create in every sentence as many resonances and double meanings and ambiguities as you can possibly pack in there, so that people can read it again and get something new each time.

It's fun as a creator to make something that allows multiple interpretations.

A starry sky is equally interesting to a scientist, a mystic, an ethics scholar, and a poet. Looking at the stars, each experiences something different, and each sees his own picture.

I think that films or indeed any art work should be made in a way that they are infinitely viewable; so that you could go back to it time and time again, not necessarily immediately but over a space of time, and see new things in it, or new ways of looking at it.

We always had the idea that there might be two slightly different versions of the same thing.

I think if you decide that any book is about Only One Thing you're probably wrong. Even if that thing is in there.

Every great narrative is at least two narratives, if not more - the thing that is on the surface and then the things underneath which are invisible.

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.

All my plays have these titles that are oddly tricky. I like that something can look like one thing but mean two different things. Language is really unstable in that way.

It's always difficult with the superhero stuff because you're working with characters who have been written by 100 to 200 people over the past 20 years, at least, so they never sound the same or act the same. The best approach is to try to draw the best fitting line through all of the interpretations.

I like films that don't have that unonimity of a response; that don't have consensus in the audience. What it is essentially for me is that if you go back and watch the film a second time, do you feel that you've been played fair with? Are all the clues in place? Indeed, sometimes these things are even overstated. Specifically, for that reason.

You don't understand anything until you learn it more than one way.

I think that the best literature has a core that you can't lock to a time or place but that can generate lots of meanings and translations.

If you look at a painting that you love by one of the great masters, every time you go back to it, you see something different - a different attitude or brushstroke. 'Hamlet' is like an entire gallery of old masters.

So many heads so many wits.