I recently gave my horror novel to an illustrator. When he finished it, he loved it. He gave me such a well-formed interpretation that I was surprised. I even joked with my mom about it and literally said, "It seems he understood my book better than me." Then, I saw your video. Holy shit. Subscribed.

Reminds me of the Bojack quote from Free Churro: In all the shots of the horse, you can see a paper coffee cup on the kitchen counter, but in the shots of Ethan, the coffee cup's missing. Was that because the show was making a statement about the fluctuant subjectivity of memory and how even two people can experience the same moment in entirely different ways? And I didn't have the heart to be, like, "No, man, some crew guy just left their coffee cup in the shot. " So instead, I was like "Yeah."

"Chernobyl video on the back burner." Joker voice: *Very poor choice of words.*

Everybody asks Who is the Writer... *But nobody asked How is the Writer*

The Game of Thrones example *is* internally valid. We can't forget that the two characters are Tywin and Arya, and that Arya's bringing up Rhaenys and Visenya comes after he implies that Aegon is the one to conquer Westeros. Which is a common statement throughout the story--it's Aegon the Conqueror, not Siblings Targaryen the Conquerors. It's not that Tywin's knowledge of Westerosi history is contradicted, it's that it's cast in a different light; he only knows--or just only cares about--the male side of the story. But we know that Arya has always been interested in powerful female historical figures--she names her direwolf Nymeria, after all, and her similarities to Lyanna Stark are lost on no one. Considering Tywin's role in Cersei's childhood angst (constantly trying to wed her off, for one) and Arya's eventual mercy towards the women of the Freys, these moments indicate their priorities and follow through the narrative. And that's without bringing the books into it, which could give the scene an even deeper grasp of gender, identity, and history.

Kubrick never really liked explaining anything about his stories, not because he was hiding some secret, but because he felt art speaks for itself.

The one thing I really wanted when I started writing my first full-fledged novel was that audiences would take an interpretation about it; being able to point out what it says about itself or about me where I haven't been able to. I remember when I presented the pitch for the story to my sister, she said it sounded like a self-reflection type of story, and I really like that she phrased it as such, because I saw that as reason enough to write out the story with the sole intent that it'd be dissected as a way of giving me others' explanation of me and my way of thinking. I write so that others can tell me about myself in ways I can't figure out.

Writers write things subconsciously and forget things...

Same with the xmen, many believe the uncanny X-men is symbolism for civil rights and that professor x and magneto are supposed to be mlk and malcom x but stan lee himself said that was coincidental

I was in a writing class and i had several symbols intended but my classmates and professor all picked out several more that i felt enriched the story even further.

I love this topic! It boggles my mind really. I have so much i want to add here but I'm not about to write a novel in the comment section so I'll just say: as always, great vid

This is fairly complicated, and the first video of yours where I have some strong disagreements. For one thing, Heller's comment did not imply that the readers were creating the symbolism. He seems to have said that it was there, but that he didn't recognize it. There's a huge difference between this and the Barthes position. Intent or even recognition is not necessary for the elements of a story to reflect the thinking, values, and subconscious concerns of the writer. His comment could be compared to saying "I didn't notice the stain on my shirt until someone pointed it out." That's not the same as "I didn't notice the stain on my shirt until someone put it there." My own thought, which I expressed on Sandberg's post as well, is that reader/viewer interpretation is not invalidated if it does not accord with the creator's intent. But that's a much broader statement than the Barthes position again. I believe that you can yield rewarding results by applying any number of theories to a work and seeing what gives. One such theory may dismiss the writer's intent altogether, but does not invalidate the rewarding results of then applying a theory that writer intent is all that matters. As such, any theory is equally valid, but you CAN incorrectly apply a theory, coming up with claims of symbolism that are either unsupported or actually contradicted by the material (which is how you get hack interpretations by people who think Kubrick did the moon landing etc.) Finally, saying 'writers don't matter' isn't really what anyone is saying. I guess it's click-baity but it's not on point.

I've never been so amazed by a simple yet so complex statement as "Writers don't matter" you are savage bro

8:45 How did I never notice this. Holy Crap.

When it comes down to it I feel like intent is important but also isn’t. I feel like when people tote around phrases like death of the author it’s to confirm that their own theories are just as valid as intended themes or that if they don’t like the themes they can just ignore them. I think it’s wonderful that some unintended themes can come from your story or that improved your story. A little bit of balance is required it needs to be noted what is and isn’t intended and that your interpretation is your own

This concept, of the audience giving meaning to a work of fiction, is already misused and abused by people, mainly for political reasons.

I just HAPPENED to stumble upon this video and I'm ssoooo excited that I did. I've been a "fledgling writer" with a "wealth of raw talent" foorrrrr....Idk, six years now, lol? I just kinda stalled between landing an agent and landing a publisher, and I got so bogged down in LEARNING how to write that I actually stopped doing it. Watching a couple of your videos makes me want to pull out and dust off my manuscripts and dive back in. I'm subbing...keep 'em coming.

I’ve seen other videos about this same topic but this one is by far the best. The points you made, the research, everything.

Bradbury's statement is spot on: the perceived message gathered from the observer oftentimes tells us more about the observer than the art itself. I find this to be increasingly true with people who claim to extract cultural/politicial issues from films and novels, when the truth is that they are more likely projecting those biases into the work. As an author myself, it sometimes makes me cringe, because people like that cannot follow the advice of C.S. Lewis and simply read a story and enjoy it for its own sake. Addendum: I disagree considerably with Barthes. That sort of thought turns the author into a slave, the audience into tyrants, and opens the door for meaninglessness. If something can mean anything, then it either means nothing, or its meaning is determined by whoever shouts loudest and wields the strongest iron fist. As an example, I've heard things labeled as prejudiced when it was clear that the producer of the work had no prejudicial intention whatsoever. The author, first and foremost, determines what his/her work is, and what it "means," not the audience. That the audience extracts something other than what the author intended is a reflection on the audience, and that's not always a good thing.

This is difficult for me as the editor, as I hate the Pixar theory with every fibre of my being 😂😂😂😂

I cant believe you're not more popular...this is such a genius video!

This is one of the best videos I've seen all year, seriously. This is the best thing I've seen from you so far. Keep it up, man.

12:58, I LOVE this. It's that kind of open perspective that breads the best relationship between a creator and their fans/critics.

9:45: As a lifelong Tolkien geek, you have shaken everything I thought I knew!

Interesting topic. Thank you!

Excellent video. Hope you grow quickly! You deserve it

That glove questioned FUCKED ME UP when I was kid and sent me spiraling into wondering what aspects of my world I just accepted and never questioned.

6:40 I am sorry I really don't understand. A character with perfect knowledge is unrealistic because a human with perfect knowledge is unrealistic. Tywin can be mistaken about things, it creates a more interesting and believable character to have people be wrong about things. Characters in a well-crafted story should have the exact level of knowledge that that character should have. A master swordsman should have knowledge about sword stances and patterns, a novice should be unknowledgeable. Also, the Tywin and Ayra scene makes no contraction about the death date of Dalerion the dragon. It is showcasing that Aegon did not conquer alone, and specifically that it was women that Tywin has forgotten. Given my reading of Tywin's character, I would say this is trying to show that while Tywin is indeed knowledgeable about things most have forgotten, he can and will ignore things he finds to be unimportant. In this case the role of women that he seems to have a low opinion of exemplified in Cersei. This comes to a head when usually a very cany person when it comes to manipulating others and getting them to do what he wants, Tywin says the exact wrong thing and gets Tyrion killed. This is more extreme as Tywin has an extremely lower opinion of Tyrion then of women in general or of historical women like Agons sisters, Rhaenys and Visenya. So by my reading, Tywin has High internal validity. So how do we reconcile two diametrically opposed views taken from the same example? Well for one we can say that I am using other facts from the story, is actions towards Tyrion and Cersei. But beyond that, we seem to have two extremely opposite opinions on the internal validity of Tywin. By the ending of your essay, I would guess your argument would have to be "well we can both feel that way." Drawing from that I would have to point out that your argument that Tywin at 7:10 "Tywin has low internal validity." most be instead by your line of reasoning. "Which is why I think Tywin has low internal validity." Your argument line allows, for no certify in media yet you make arguments in the same essay that some things in media are certain. "Tywin has low internal validity." How can this possibly be? It's like your trying to have your cake and eat it too. PS Please forgive any bluntness, I am not trying to offend or impune anything. I am confused and just cant follows the logic of the argument, and frankly that erks me when I cant. And I see that as a failing in myself and my ability to comprehend.

Thank you for clarifying this burning question i had for years

Thank you so much for this! I do not think many in the lovers of arts in general understand this concept. That your interpretation of something will always be yours and never the author's choice.

This was a great video. It's given me something to chew on for awhile.

I really like the idea that through the comments of your readers you also learn something about your work, and I'd dare to add that you also learn something about yourself, because every writer always puts something of himself in his works, intentionally or not.

I really agree and disagree with this thesis. On the one hand, a reader finding a deeper symbolism that strengthens the original message is pretty much only good thing. Perhaps you could say the author subconciously had that connection in place but forgot to make it obvious. But then you can have people horribly misconstrue a character and force ideas upon them that were never a part of them and maybe even SHOULDN'T be a part of them. Take situations like JK Rowling and The Legend of Korra confirming characters as gay and such without much real basis for example. What do these "confirmations" truly add to the story? If anything, these details only take away and make the characters shallower and messier. (I'm not saying being gay is a poor thing, it can actually be a humanizing detail. This was just an example.) I guess it's too simple to say "it's good when it's good and bad when it's bad," but these are my feelings. Whatever serves the story's best and purest image I feel is what should be upheld by reader and author alike.

Very interesting, and great video! Recently I also came to the conclusion that I have to push my writings a bit further from my drawer, because of the reasons mentioned here: my stories aren't truely complete without someone (besides me) reading them. The readers are like this invisble yet prominent rib to my style.

9:11 I love that note in the bar

this is my favorite video you've made so far excellent 10/10

Holy crap, this was one of the best videos I've ever watched on the subject of Death of the Author. Loved that quote by Joseph Heller. Meaning or symbolism depends on each individual interpretation, and the best writers are the ones who are open to interpretations other than their own. Great video.

I love this. This is why I became a writer. Stories have the power to reach different people on different levels. I firmly believe that authors should determine for themselves what their story means but not hold too tightly to it and allow their audience to find in their writing what they will.

Great video essay. Entertaining and informational. I love your content. :3

Death of the Author as a concept doesn't apply the way KZfaq Essayists think it does. A lot of essays come up as a defense of people reading their own biases into movies or writing. What they fail to recognize is that art is a form of complex communication. Words are symbols meant to impart an idea to another person. The possibility of words failing to translate from one person to the next does not mean the message did not have intent. Communication can fail, and it can fail because of either party. Especially when people look at scripts and expect them to one to one a finished novel. They aren't equivalent stages of the work! You mention that Darla's speed story wasn't in the script, and was therefore unintentional. However, the "authors" of the final movie are the editors. The Editors made choices of scenes and cuts to create the film. They intentionally chose these shots to form a little arc, even if it wasn't in the script. This is why movies are often "found" (restructured/rewritten) in the Editing room. Every one of those choices is as deliberate as speaking. The intentionality is there, but you are focused on the script, which is not the same as a novel. The novel is imbued with this intentionality, but the script is an early draft, where the intention can and will almost every time, change. Barths was reacting to Structuralist critics in France when he wrote his papers. This was an exercise in nihilism. PostModern thought is beyond this. Critique of art is centered as a collage of otherwise shattered experiences. Just because we see separate things, does not negate the original intent.

This has a running joke for years. Watch the Rodney Dangerfield movie "Back to School". He plays a very wealthy self made but uneducated man who goes to college with his son, who doesn't think college is worth it. In one part he pays the author of a book to do his report on the author's book. Dangerfield's character fails the report because the professor disagrees with everything Dangerfield submitted. The professor had no idea that the actual author of the book in question did the report, and that was the joke. That the professor didn't understand the book in the same way as the author, but was teaching a class that was dependent on him doing so. I myself have this issue as a self published author. I find I am so concerned about internal consistency that everything else suffers, including the fact that while I have five 200k word books written, I have only been willing to upload one of them so far. The few people that have read them say they are great stories, but I know there is something missing, something that changes a common work into something more substantial. Maybe internal consistency, my pet peeve, is what actually makes a written work better? Perhaps giving the reader a chance to feel like they see things that they believe that only they can see is what makes the work better? It might make the reader feel emotionally involved and as such, more invested in the work. Look at the insane numbers of Game of Thrones videos that twist themselves in knots trying to assign value to every line of dialog, every look, every placement of every prop and every off handed comment made by anyone that might be related to the production. And even after all that, the writers train-wrecked the last season to go chase more money doing something else. I will send you an e-mail regarding my books and perhaps we can do business.

6:46 I've always assumed Tywin was either A. Using a bit of hyperbole for effect, B. Merely rounding out the number, or C. A little bit of both.

This is such a great video essay

Wow. You are doing great work

This was a fantastic video

Heller is totally correct. I'm working on a TV script, and have table reads with friends. We just stand around my laptop and read a few scenes. Then disband for half an hour, and come back. I've learned SO much about my story just from them asking questions. To me it is the difference between a fantastic beta reader or editor -- someone who asks the questions they want to.

What Tywin is saying Savage books is that he didn't know the names of the dragons and the their riders except for Aegon and Balerion.....And in the town room Tywin is talking about the skulls of the dragons. which means he was the is internal consis

I enjoy this, thank you.

This whole video is worth it just to catch that pic at 13:20. Outstanding

This reminded me of a video where Jordan Peele is asked if in Get Out, Rose's character eats cereals and milk separate because it's a metaphor for how she separates "the colored from the white to not ruin the purity of the white", and Peele only replies "emm no, I did it to accentuate how crazy the bitch is"

I think Antman would work better if he had a switch on his body that causes him to either act as extremely dense, or as the size he appears to be. So when it's flipped one way he can ride an ant, and when it's flipped the other he can punch a man.

Great video my guy

great video omg id love you to talk more about mother!

Hasn't everyone taken an English class where the teacher says "Any opinion is valid as long as you can defend it using the text."?

Writers could be throwing in symbolism without being aware of it. It might genuinely surprise them later on what their subconscious let slip, but for it to be internally consistent, it has to be the writer's intent, conscious or subconscious.

Fantastic video. And very interesting. I think we want to see meaning in our lives and our fiction and sometimes we struggle to accept if there is none intended. But it doesn't mean we can't assign meaning to the content we consume. I just wonder how much writers could use external interpretation as a getaway to excusinh harmful messages and content (e. G. Discrimination messages, mental health etc)

This has certainly given me insight after seeing some of the more interesting Mr. Robot theories after the finale

When I write I sometimes leave hints of things for my readers, not knowing myself what they mean but waiting to hear what they imagined. I love the idea of not knowing myself and learning concepts from the readers, and I love the fact that one thing can mean something completely different to someone else. 😊

I'm inclined to agree with Heller. I think it's likely for writers to do things accidentally or for meanings to evolve in ways the writer didn't consider. It's part of what's exciting about writing, seeing what other people can draw from what you've given them and see what you didn't even know about yourself and your work.

It's absolutely incredible to see this happened with media and the creators. The interpretation of viewers v. the vision of the author. It's really funny to me bc I do deep interpretation bc I want to respect the author but sometimes it just depends. The creator could've done something in the fly like the view from halfway down in Bojack or take so much time to understand their world like Atlantis. Most people don't realize that something happens bc they wanted to and not some deep meaning behind it. I'm an artist and I do things because I'm trying to improve but my uncle who loves art give meaning behind it and I could only say "...yes" I don't want to say he's wrong but I just enjoy and value how much value other people put into my work without being my intention. And I think that the beauty of art, what I means to others.

I once made a short film called double date, about two people with DID going on a date, trying to hide their other personalities from each other. When I showed it to somebody close, they said that they liked how it was a clever Metaphor for how people always hide their true selves from each other when on a first date. In reality, I made the short film because I thought calling the movie Double Date was a funny pun. I learned something new about my own story that day.

Great video

Its simple as to why you can learn from your own book, its your subconscious coming out. I learned so much looking back at my own writing as to where and why I wrote what I did. Its fascinating.

When does art become art? I always like to believe it’s when it’s shared. Until then, it just exists in my head

This reminds of a video essay on, of all things, an avengers film. The author of the video was seeing such dark symbolism within the film he was taking offense to and passing moral judgement upon a movie about a purple man on a quest to find six magic stones. I was already well aware of the concept of unintended symbolism but not how deep the rabbit hole can go.

the idea that anybody can make up any valid meaning from a story they want makes no sense and fails when put to the test, By this logic somebody can interpret "how to kill a mocking bird" as pro black slavery! ive heard a lot of people push the idea that meaning comes from the reader as much as the author but never got a good answer to this question in 10 yrs.

We Matter. "Cries a little inside"

When you kill the author, anything and everything goes, and when everything goes, nothing goes.

Its just crazy cause literally just this morning I was debating with my friend the signaficance of a throw away line in the new spiderman movie. He was claiming that the writers meant it a certain way while I said its not significant enough for it to have been anything other than a coincidence but he may still have been right because we dont know the intention. Then *poof* this video.

I have to admit, I found your channel through your Game of Thrones videos. I subscribed to your channel because of videos like this one.

@savagebooks Thanks a ton for addressing this. Popularly, such kind of interpretation is also known as the 'Author Vs The English Teacher'. I so badly regret that I discovered your channel today, but then, I guess, it's better late than never. I really love the way you analyse and, moreover, the topics you analyse. Keep such good stuff coming! You've a regular visitor in me - already subscribed. As an aside, I've a question. And I don't want to go the ' Author Vs The English Teacher ' way. Hence, I'll straight away ask, why call your channel SavageBooks? P.S.- Really loved your videos on 'Joker Vs the mob', this video, and the video on Hereditary (a fine example of creating horror by blending it with grim human sufferings). Minor complaint- Please don't say 'Writers don't matter' (since I am an aspiring one and I know you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it before watching the video). You could have titled it something to the effect of 'A lot changes after a writer is done writing the final draft'. Just a humble suggestion. But then again, it's just a minor complaint. It didn't hurt me after I watched the video since everything you said is a fact. Awaiting your next video. And kudos to you (and to your team if you have one) for putting in such exhaustive efforts. All the best!

Great topic. I think: When diligent / conscientious creative people work on things that appear unintentioanlly on the first sight, even for themselves, they act subconsciously logical and connectiv. Sounds made up, and it is not always the case. But it is, when people love and care about what they are working on. If someone is a logical person, his/her mind works like this, even subconsciously. Because you want to make your project feel real for yourself. Even when it's sometime just a coincidence, it's often subconsciously the tend / strive to connect meaning and logic.

I love this video so much..

The way I see it if a writer wanted to tell us what they think they could just write an essay saying what they believe. If they choose to write fiction than as an audience we have the right to interpret it anyway we see fit, as long as we can use the text to justify our interpretation than no one author or otherwise can say those interpretations are wrong.

Fascinating as always. Let me ask you: how do you feel about people's perspectives and interpretations and their effect on reality? At the risk of inadvertently proving your point, I can't help but feel like there's something you are saying about that as well.

This video is bad. It doesn't make sense to say a writer doesn't matter. No matter what themes or plots or actions taken in a story they don't happen unless someone thinks of the idea and write it down. Your interpretation nis yours, but that has nothing to do with writing and creating process. We wouldn't have A Game of Thrones if George RR Martin didn't sit down and create his ideas.

OMG, affordable editing! O-O *Instantly subs*

As an editor, how do you feel about the collaborative story telling environment that is table top role playing? Have you ever watched Critical Role? What do you think of it? How do you write for it? DM's control the flow of the game, the times for lore, then entrance of new characters... is this like impromptu editting?

Why aren't I subscribed? I watch your videos all the time. I gotta fix that....now. :p good video as usual

This video reminded me of what Michael Shermer proposed when he wrote on Scientific American his essay on Patternicity and Agenticity, how people find meaning and symbolism behind patterns they identify everywhere. Also, I watched the video about challenges in Shazam and I liked it, but I had no idea the man presenting the video was the actual director, just a knowledgeable fan or a journalist.

An interpretation maybe cannot be 'wrong' in the sense that as long as the viewer gets some enjoyment out of it, their perspective has validity. However, an interpretation can be arbitrary, or even objectively incorrect. For example, when people say that the final act of Minority Report occurs solely in Anderton's mind, this is an example of an arbitrary interpretation. It's not specifically wrong, but nothing in the text of the film supports it. It's just a theory people can use to filter their experience of the film arbitrarily - a way they prefer to imagine it, rather than actually recognizing something in the movie itself and identifying it. As an example of an incorrect interpretation, I'd suggest that an interpretation based on a viewer's misunderstanding of the story would fall under that category. For instance, I knew someone who mistakenly thought that the true crime book in The Bone Collector was written by Denzel Washington's character (it wasn't), and that he therefor knew all along what was happening. My friend's misunderstanding of a basic plot element lead him to interpret meaning in character behavior that simply isn't there. So the viewer can be wrong - and is wrong more often than the writer. You could just as easily make an essay titled "Why Viewers Don't Matter".

Here’s a quote from The Death of The Author that I believe summarizes it: *We know that a text does not consist of a line of words, releasing a single "theological" meaning (the "message" of the Author- God), but is a space of many dimensions, in which are wedded and contested various kinds of writing, no one of which is original*

Amazing video! Although, I would recommend you to take a look into the lore of Dark Souls too when talking about internal validity. Especially the decision to cut out material from the final game to keep things more ambiguous. Now, this decision might have been motivated by the limitations of the consoles. Regardless, people to this day look for clues and hints throughout the game to comes up with concrete theories.

This video reminds of the cut chapter from Berserk. Both the 90's anime and the Golden Age movies partially adapt this chapter when Griffith is before the Idea of Evil. From what I know, Kentaro Miura had this chapter removed because he thought he wrote himself into a corner with it. For me personally, I find the story as a whole makes more sense with this chapter in mind considering this is the one time we see Griffith in true isolation, and have a better understanding of his motives.

@Savage Books ... without having greater context... I'd argue that Heller was talking about a completely different idea. And that Heller was referring to subconscious programming as opposed to audience constructed meanings. In other words, if I am raised as a Christian there is a good chance my books will carry Christian values and themes even without my realizing it. The same can be true of prejudices, upbringing, and the media that I consume and that influences my life and thinking. Even before studying the official hero's journey or the three act structure my stories may conform to it simply because my favorite entertainment does and I subconsciously turn to that format to tell my tales. Likewise, without knowing it I can perpetuate ideas and trains of thought that my readers will pick up on. Hence, I will learn more about my writing. This isn't because the meaning wasn't there. But like going to a therapist for counseling, maybe I never saw it until someone pointed it out. And by doing so, I now have potentially learned something significant about myself and/or my piece of fiction and the message I am intentionally or accidentally conveying. 🤷‍♂️

your channel is a gem to understanding writing

That shittyflute GoT opening killed me 😂

A lot of the examples felt like they were really reaching. Darla did not "have a character arc" in Shazam. At most it was ironically funny. I feel that its ok for people to look for meaning in a piece of writing. However, it is super annoying when people feel they must find some symbolism in it

In Lord of the Rings, some of the orcs have human overseers. Those humans, particularly those of the double-agent variety, may mingle with the rest of human society and, as a consequence, visit tavers on occasion. Now, taverns may have menus so what this means is that the human overseer double-agent may reference said menus when dealing with their orc subjigates. Furthermore, the human may even go so far as to coordinate group feedings of their orc troops (especially if they have dealings with human military training camps in middle-earth) with a word like, "menu."

My favorite is where MCU Nick Fury is Jules from Pulp Fiction, thanks to Fury's gravestone at the end of Winter Soldier XD

This is actually something I've experienced myself. Sometimes I write about things I find profound, but I don't know why until someone else reads it and says "this is why this scene works." It's a huge part of the industry.

Regarding death of the author, the Argentinian writer Julio Cortázar, hated the "passive reader" so much, that he wrote a short story just to kill him/her. The story is called "the continuity of parks" that ends with the fiction killing the passive writer. I very much suggest you read it. Even though I spoiled the ending, it's a very good read (and the spoiler doesn't really take that much away from it).

13:51 to 14:17 somehow reminds me of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt game, where players make consequential decisions in-game that, to some degree, alter the storyline and the environment ( but then again, I still have an ongoing Witcher obsession as of late ) One question though: At what degree does not fully understanding, or misinterpreting, the work, actually ruin the conveyance of meaning through the source material?

OH MY GOD I love you man

It always bother me that Twynn in the show doesnt remember Visenya and Rhaenys, when Rhanenys and her dragon were killed in dorne and began the bloodiest conflict under Aegon's rule, and Visenya not only funded the Kingsguard but was the mother (and demon on the shoulder) of Maegor, the worst Targaryen king.

14:47 I'm sliiightly disappointed you didn't match up footage of Hal naked in a shop with Walt naked in a shop ;)

I live in europe.. I'm now quite confused of what the ok symbol is supposed to mean if it is not "okay"..

2:10 This is the kind of shit I wasted years trying to explain to my English teachers during reading assignments!

Your channel its beyound good, and all writers need to know your channel, i already recomended to all my friends

I'm curious on where you stand with the audience inferring a theme that the author not only did not intend but opposes?