What happened to Objectivity?

Libby poses an interesting and true insight into modern perceptions of homosexuality in the context of masculine friendships. Skepticism and an innate desire to read between the lines, searching for deeper meaning, form the basis of so much media interpretation--be it sexual or not. As an objective reader of a play or viewer of a movie, is it our responsibility to form our own conclusions based on anything less than explicit evidence? After all, an effective playwright or director is completely in control of informing his audience of his message without having to work under the surface. Moreover, do we as readers or editors even have the authority to modify an original work based on our interpretation? As we discussed in class, Bevington added many stage directions and character references to Edward II. Is he discrediting Marlowe by including information where he thinks the great playwright fell short? These questions relate interestingly to the YouTube clip displayed above, one which illustrates a plausible homosexual relationship in The Lord of the Rings. How are we, the viewers expected to believe this video was indeed made from "pure Hobbit fan love"? First, the mere existence of the clip indicates contention with (not "love" of) Tolkein's work, or the maker would not have felt compelled to spread this message. More importantly, the lewd and base manner is which this video was constructed hardly suggests love of this original work at all. The final screen shot, played after the line "It's sticky, what is it?" depicts Frodo with a white substance on his mouth. (I promise I don't have a dirty mind!) To what extent can a reader or viewer go to pick up connotations and hidden meanings? As responsible literary students, this reading of homosexuality should remind us that imaginative interpretations cannot take the place of objective and thorough analysis based on evidence.