The themes we advance have a loose narrative structure, but the actual content is left up to individual artists. The theme forms a supportive spine, a sort of genetic core, to which many unique works and particular points of view can attach. Each effort then becomes a commentary of the whole. The result may be ambiguous, but I think that ambiguity is very useful. It invites participant involvement.
People like to connect the dots.
No two interpretations are the same. You could call this an act of collective story-telling. The method here described bears a resemblance to the actual process of myth-making that occurs in unselfconscious and traditional societies. As students of myth and folklore are well aware, the polished literary creations which represent to us the classic canon of mythology derive from fertile oral traditions of story-telling. Such material evolves within social settings by a telling and re-telling which accretes complexity, and hundreds of variant strains may thus be generated.