promethia

Yes, I absolutely agree. It is interactive and that brings so much to both the creators and the audience. I think the more interactive the audience gets, the richer culture becomes. In the past, culture was designed to be interactive. Books would be read aloud in groups, and presumably discussed along the way. Pictures were not just looked at but were the focus of worship, contained visual puzzles and puns, and designed to interact with specific lighting and positioning (think Holbein's Ambassadors or The Wilton Diptych). I have a personal theory that in Shakespeare's day the audience would be expected to join in with the songs and dances of the play, especially at the end (think of the ending of Much Ado - don't tell me that isn't intended for audience participation). And I feel that the modern world is only just getting back to that level of non-passive participation in the arts. I love it.

But, it is important to keep it fun and not...get too invested.

I think we both are in agreement here as to what we mean but haven't yet expressed it clearly. It is not that there is anything wrong with a deep analysis, that is fun and the deeper you go the more fun it becomes. It is just that one can stray into the error of thinking things are intentional when they were not and then the analysis can become almost a conspiracy theory, straying over into tin-hatted craziness. I saw that in Buffy fandom with people who seemed to seriously believe that things which occurred in season 7 had been planned for and foreshadowed in season 1. Something in S7 might carry on a theme that had been in existence and evolving since S1, but only a writer of absolute genius (and supreme confidence in their ability to get renewed) would have planned that far ahead.