There is something surreal about the application of metaphor in the English language that almost shock’s me when it’s used appropriately in conversation. Personally, I am one of those that believe in the power of language as a “weapon” of control, and of manipulation. In relation to “Remix” by Lawrence Lessig, we as consumers of culture must accept the “art” of interpretation by using culture forms as a blueprint for original creation. In the chapters, Lessig brings up the real-life events of early 20th century composer John Philip Sousa, and his struggle with infringement. Sousa’s account discusses the importance of creative thought by engaging in innovative action. What Sousa deemed as culturally important was the continual practice of amateur interaction in order to produce new and unique sound. As Lessig puts it, “We could call the culture that Sousa celebrated a ‘Read/Write’ culture.” This enables the consumer to add or edit representations of art, which in Sousa’s case were musical scores. Like Sousa, I too believe in the open interpretation of cultural art forms, even in the most basic sense. If an elementary school student wants to draw a pencil mustache on a copy of the Mona Lisa, which in turn creates a newly constructed take on a piece of timeless culture who are we as a free society to stop them? Overall I believe that Lessig is attempting to encourage an understanding of individual interpretation by listing the creative benefits of doing so. In modern day society we appreciate the edited or “Remixed” versions of songs, or adapted versions of literature, which we have apparently dubbed as “fan fiction.” We enjoy these forms of culture, and while it seems as though they may not be completely original in a sense that the said interpreter deserves credit for it’s conception, they do deserve acknowledgement for their effective manipulation. After all, effective manipulation is the framework for effective rhetoric, which is what the power of language is all about.