The reading for today poses an interesting theory that questions not only the capacity of authorship but more importantly, of the reader. To quote TT quoting Friedrich Nietzche, “facts… do not exist, only interpretations.” While one may blindly assume reading is nothing more than a means of consumption, it is ignorant to assume that anything can be consumed without interpretation; or transformation. In the reading, the writer makes many notions to conclude that language is completely arbitrary, having no “natural” or “mystical” origin connecting it the signifier to the signified. While this is true, and the only thing that connects English to Latin or any other language is because it has been replicated, language is our way of communicating our inner thoughts and feelings about the world around us. Language is a tool we use to communicate ideas and because language is somewhat restricting, these thoughts and ideas can be interpreted differently depending on the person reading of them. Social and cultural changes, personal experiences, what makes a person “unique” ultimately decides how they can interpret given information. Therefore, even if an author has a concrete purpose for their writing, it cannot totally and invariably be fathomed by a reader without implicit biases interpreting things. Just as the contexts in which something like Frederick Douglass’s Narrative of the Life of the American Slave changes it’s meaning due to political and cultural advances, the contexts in which any individual reads anything it’s meaning changes due to their own personal experience.