Considering responsibilities in interpretation

The subject of the book of Revelation has again come to the fore, so I thought I would bring up my thoughts on responsibility in interpretation. 
It seems that the wide variety of thoughts on how to understand the book of Revelation bring out the worst in people.  It really is unfortunate that people can't just have simple dialog and discussion on this aspect of Scripture.  It is especially odd because of this books place in history.  For quite some time, the church did not include the book in the canon.  Obviously, they eventually did, but even now, there are no liturgical reading from the book.  These facts in themselves should provide us with slight apprehension and caution in approaching this book dogmatically or passionately.
I would like to suggest a couple of things as we approach this book.  First, we must recognize its Old Testament/covenant nature.  One honestly could view the book as Daniel part two.  The book of Revelation is opening up and revealing what Daniel had concealed.  The imagery used to communicate its message is clearly old covenant.  The people of the first century would understand the symbols and typology used by God through the apostle John, whereas we, many centuries later, miss very much. 
Second, we have to take the clear messages for what they are saying.  It simply is not honest to twist words so as to fit our preconceived theological framework.  For example, the book begins with and ends with the message, "These things will shortly take place." (1:1, 22:10, 22:12, 22:20).
And third, it must be acknowledged that the term "the antichrist" is never used in the book.  And even more pointed, the term "THE" antichrist is never used, period, anywhere.  The book of First John uses the term "antichrist" without the definite article.  As a side note, First John identifies "his current time" as the last hour, with many antichrists (2:18).
I may cover more on all of this later.