The subject of multiple meanings and texts in which multiple, ambiguous interpretations are possible is one that may cause consternation among readers. If one is going to write ambiguously, why write at all? Surely, if one has something to say, then one should make it as clear as possible, no?

I am going to say "no", because when I write, I do not write in absolutes, but rather in ways that put forth multiple ways of looking at a scenario, and it is my ideal that if one views something I have written as worthy of analysis, that one should look at the words and statements that have more than one meaning, and thus put forth multiple ways of interpreting the words.

To be honest, the multiple interpretations--which at worst could be interpreted as double-speak, and at best as unifying contrary ideas in order to show the ambiguity and multi-faceted nature of reality when interpreted textually--come from a place deeper than what I am consciously aware of. That is, there is a "multiplexer" within me that knows there is more than one meaning to what I say, but when I write it down there is generally only one thing in mind. To me, this states that, as a writer, I have a conscious agenda which I am aware of, and a deeper, more complex part of me with a hidden purpose that produces statements with contraries it desires, yet only allows me to be conscious of one at a time.

There are many ways a statement can be ambiguous: there are words that can mean more than one thing, and there is the situation where the antecedent of a pronoun is ambiguous. For instance, if I say: "A man passed a boy, and he then walked to the store", am I speaking of the man or the boy? It forces the reader to choose one or the other, or to not choose at all. Some dismiss ambiguity; others view it as integral to the nature of reality. For me, it is interesting that the choices of interpretation that the reader makes are colored by their own views, prejudices, emotions, and subconscious tendencies. In other words, ambiguity in interpretation causes a reader's own self and nature to influence how the text is read.

When a text is read in a moralistic manner, often the reader will interpret what is meant by their own moral standards. A mere statement of fact can seem to be a spur to judge a situation, when a situation is merely being brought forth, and the reader's judgment on the matter is optional. Could it not be said that intent is read into a text, where a text purports to condemn or glorify something, when it is only the reader who views it in a moralistic manner? For instance if I describe a killing, one could believe that I describe the horror of the act of killing, or that I glorify the killing described, when I merely put forth a situation: a killing. And much like a dead body that just sits there if no one is there to judge it, it is simply a statement, and the reader would be putting words into my mouth if they were to say that I condone or condemn the killing.

For sure, it is helpful to know what emotions one will stir in a reader when they read something. For most, a killing causes fear, consternation, excites the fight-or-flight response, and even stimulates a desire to condemn or celebrate. However, what if it were my point to show the unimportance of these things, just like the raven in Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven" says "Nevermore" as a seeming indicator of the futility of trying to avoid or undo death, and while the raven's victim goes mad, unable to deal with this, the raven itself simply repeats the reality of death over and over in response to the man's consternation, and the man who is afraid works himself into madness instead of accepting the reality implicit in the word? Likewise, when one looks at a statement that puts forth a seeming horror, perhaps it is helpful to simply view it as if it were referring to some object, and that is all. Of course, it may still make one afraid, but did I cause the fear, or was the fear already within you?

It is a curious thing that if one reads literature without thinking of it as being "for" or "against" the topic, one can see the reality of the text itself on the page as just simple ink that stares back at the reader, and the events of the books that are meant to elicit an emotional response can be viewed as simple events. A war happens. It is not anti-war. It is not glorifying war, it is simply the case that a war happens. A dystopia is described. There is no condemnation of the future described, but the idea of the dystopia is put in the mind of the reader, and that is that.

Could it be that texts get in our rational minds, and what is described can exist isolated from emotion? That when what many would condemn as an evil act is described, it is simply the act itself that is in the rational part of the mind? Therefore, the will to negate, to destroy the reality of said act exists independently of the act itself in one's mind.

This brings up the notion that tragedy in texts may serve not to bring a sense of antipathy toward the situation itself, but serve as a function of power that posits the existence of the tragic reality itself in order to control others. Therefore, a dystopia that is described is not something that serves as a harsh reminder, but puts the idea of the dystopia in the mind of the reader, and the harsh consequences that befall those who struggle against it likewise are merely put into the minds of the reader as an apparent reality, or perhaps as a function of power and control.

In this sense, when a text is read with an eye toward rationality, one sees a hidden desire toward the inhuman hiding behind a humanist mask in some works, that once one discards the good or the evil in reading about a situation, the stark, inhuman reality of what is being described is what remains, and that is what we carry in our minds when we go into the future.