Turbulence

An alumnus asked me to meet him under the big oak tree, a landmark of my school. I arrived at the location fifteen minutes early. I sat there and watched as people were passing by me. I always love to spend time observing people and guessing what they are feeling – it allows me to connect with other people in some unknown ways. The alumnus arrived on time. We were taking a stroll around the area when the alumnus asked me to go check out the LGBTQ+ society with him. I rarely tell anyone about how I feel when people keep assuming that I like talking about girls and dating girls – it makes me a bit uncomfortable most of the time when the guys keep talking about dating girls with me. But I trusted the alumnus, and I shared with him. Actually, the alumnus had asked me to check out the society with him a long time ago. But I kept turning down the offer since I was very busy with my assignments and examinations. Now that the semester was over, I finally had time to go with him. To be honest, I had some reservations about the invitation at first, but it wouldn’t hurt to try, right? It would be a waste of time at worst – apparently, I would not be assassinated merely because I went to an event organised by the LGBTQ+ society.

In Philosophy of Arts class, I have been taught two major schools of thought regarding interpretation of arts – hypothetical intentionalism (interpretation of arts is based on what is written in the text alongside other literature-relevant evidence such as the theme of the authors’ previous works) and modest actual intentionalism (interpretation of arts is based on what the author says they want to convey, but such has to be supported by what is written in the text). It seems to me that hypothetical intentionalism and modest actual intentionalism rely on textual evidence, alongside other literature-relevant evidence, to interpret a work of art. The extent to which each evidence plays in the interpretation of a work of art varies depending on the school of thought. I just wonder whether such an approach would do justice to the author, as language may not fully convey what the author wants to express. Let me clarify my point.

"The Tale of Kieu" has been a very familiar literary work to not just the Vietnamese, but also to people around the world. But have we stopped to wonder what makes people so hyped about "The Tale of Kieu", or is it just overrated? Well, in school, we are taught a great deal about literary devices: metonymy, metaphor, foreshadowing, anastrophe, and here the list goes. But I would argue that "The Tale of Kieu" offers an avenue to the interpretation of the meaning of life. When I was discussing with my friends the motif of adventure tales and fairy tales, it struck me that "The Tale of Kieu" does not follow such a motif, which appears weird because most of the tales go with a happy-forever-after ending for people who lead a noble life. I will not summarise the plot of the story, as it can be found on the Internet, so please go read it if you want to be familiar with the topic.