"Really, well I thought it worked on 9 levels..."

Recently, I have become increasingly disillusioned with the depth in which some things are analysed. This should come as no surprise to regular readers, who know by now I become increasingly disillusioned with everything. Constantly. One day I aim to reach a state of disillusionment where I transgress into another dimension which shall lead me to become a fat string-vest wearing man in a council flat with an obsession for brylcream and asprin.

Yet, political aspirations aside, I absolutely loathe the obsession some people have with finding obscurities in artistic works and claiming that they were not only intentional, but the main focus of the work.

Let me clarify a truth. The main theme, is the main focus. This is because they are both linked with the word "main." The idea that Mary Shelley's "Frankenstien" is a proto-feminist rant due to the face that she as an author was female is a big, fat, unadultered heap of horseshit.

There can be some hidden meanings. I do not argue that for a second. But does it ever occur to people that whilst you may be able to gather some evidence to support your claim, that because you are not the artist, nor do you look at the overhelmingly huge pile of evidence against you, that you might, just might, be FUCKING WRONG?

Yes, lets read into subtext. Stalin purged people because he liked courtroom dramas. Hitler killed 6 million Jewish people to be ironic on a grand scale, and Satan was cast out of heaven to show how the great inequalities in God's own creation in the transcendiant world exsist along side ours and to set the example for us to segregate good and evil, merely as a demonstration of his never ending agape towards us.

Problem is, some bastard can come and read this, my rant, and claim that I was suffering from anything from sexual repression to headlice due to the shaky spelling indicitve of frequent head movements. I AM NOT! I'M JUST TELLING PEOPLE TO SEE THINGS FOR WHAT THEY FUCKING ARE!

Any comments that don't involve the words "Meanings", "subtext", "nugget", or "perhaps what the artist meant to say..."?

The EU and the UK- like the odd couple, but without any good dialogue.

The EU has been in the news a lot, what with the new treaties, calls for referendums and expansion on the forefront. What I hope to do here is engauge in a fireside chat with you the reader about Britain's role with Europe- and particularly why I think much of the fear about Europe is Bullshit.

Firstly, the EU treaty/constitution as it stands is being misinterpreted. It's one thing I actually agree with the current Government about- it's a necessary change, and it will not create a federalised European Superstate. The EU is too burecratically complex to lead to such a development- all this draft does is make some superficial changes to external representation of the EU (So that we have 1 representative figurehead, not 87) and ensures all member states are upto the same level in terms of basic rights (no prejudice, equal trade within Union and opportunities etc.) So that we all strive towards better economic unity- the EU'S FUNCTION!

Secondly, there was a dull, shite and altogether pointless speech made yesterday by either Milliband or Balls (they should really finish thier GCSE's before joining a cabinet) saying that they believe the EU must meet the promise of including Turkey and should seek to take in even Russia and north africa, to expand beyond Europe as a true Union for all nations.

I love this- it's the best way to fulfill the Eu's goals of creating a stronger market prescence for lots of tiny countries. It helps all the same, spreads the improvements around where needed, and seeks to benefit member nations- not directly, but on a structural, behind the scenes way.

Besides, i don't see why so many people hate Europe when all it seeks to do is streamline foriegn affairs locally.

It's better than New fucking labour.