Arron, I love your understanding of literary symbolism! On the other hand, Cecil, your idea that "is something for English teachers to shove down their students throats years later. It gives the illusion of depth because you can say "see, look at this symbolism, see how much thought the author put into every choice!" when in fact, the aspects of the story that actually matter (who the character is as a person, the plot, character development, etc.) are exactly the same." Is driving me crazy! So I challenge you. Read Ch.11 of The Portrait of Dorian Gray. It's online at half a dozen sites, and easy to find. I read it, and I found symbol after symbol after symbol. So did my teacher. Some of my classmates found symbols she didn't catch. We're high school students, not lit major graduates. That chapter has all but the absolutely smallest impact on the story itself. Plot wise, it serves only to fast forward. He spends an entire chapter to do nothing but say "Dorian tried a lot of stuff, had a good time, became more evil, over the course of a few years.", really now? How about this passage from a brave new world describing the bowl of flowers set out before some babies. ""Thousands of petals, ripe-blown and silkily smooth, like the cheeks of innumerable cherubs, but of cherubs, in that bright light, not exclusively pink and Aryan, but also luminously Chinese, also Mexican, also apoplectic with too much blowing of celestial trumpets, also pale as death, pale with the posthumous whiteness of marble." Huxley could have just said "A bowl of flowers" For that's all he needed to do plot wise. Maybe add some descriptors like rosy or beautiful for effect. But he added all of that. Why? Because he had a purpose. You know what happened to those babies? They were scared to death and electrocuted. You know why? To make them totally scared of those flowers. Flowers that resemble mexican cherub cheeks.Could it really be just to make them scared of nature as a character explains if the flowers are described like that? Many authors don't purposefully use symbolism. Many do it without realizing. Many try to do it and the symbols flop. But the greatest authors, those who's works are now classics, who fall under the category of "Fine Literature" They did it on purpose. It doesn't interrupt the reading, it adds to the meaning of the work as a whole. Kafka's "metamorphosis" Guy turns into a bug, family hates him, abandons him, he dies. Okay. That's the plot. That's about it. Plot wise, way too simple. How about that the word Kafka uses to describe the bug means something along the line of beast not accepted by god? Might mean something perhaps? Or surely, its just coincidental that Kafka chose that word over something simple like, bug or vermin, or pest. As for Daisy Miller, Daisies show up in summer right? Guess who she falls for? Winterborne. Guess who dies in that. Take a guess. Daisies in summer and Winter. Not everyone catches that, but people do, and it adds to the work.
True but if the writer intended no symbol and merely uses the name then it becomes the reader imposing an idea. Which is great if that is the way they want to read. Plenty of reviewers have read depth into my work that I have never intended or wanted lol I wrote a story for people to be carried away into another world and love the characters. Be entertained and uplifted. Most that are read into it come from misspent youth watching cartoons and playing RPG computer games. Nothing great or literary done on my part.
Haven't you heard? The author is dead The flowers were of all colours, including their own. If it had something to do with making the babies averse to people, they would be equally averse to people of all colours. There may be some symbolism going on there, but if so, I think it's unclear. I'm not entirely convinced Huxley had a purpose; he might just have let his associations carry him away.
and the dead can't answer for themselves. It is like my husband paints impressionist works. It is fun in an exhibition to stand by and hear people discussing what it is supposed to be. The temptation to say 'no really it is just blobs of paint.' Is huge lol He just thinks the colours are pretty that way. His official response is that the painting is in the eye of the beholder and it is whatever you see.
Aye, Islander. Arron's point is perhaps sophisticated, and I'm likely missing something, but it would seem to lead down paths which might end in nonsense and which might wholly undermine the postion of the creative artist. Symbolism may deny a singular interpretation but there will likely be one interpretation - mostly the author's - that is surely to be preferred.When an author writes ‘ the man walked towards the car’ in almost all cases his express desire is for the reader to understand that a biped, with a penis, by the use of his legs, was making upon a wheeled mode of transportation. You may think the man blonde; I might think dark haired. You might imagine a faltering gait; I might imagine an athletic one. You might think of a Ford; I might think of a Bentley. But none of that makes a nonsense of the following scene in which the man buys a drive-thru meal. Though that scene would be a nonsense if ‘the man walked towards the car’ had induced a reader to interpret that as ‘ a kangaroo was giving birth.’ So authors do intend for their words to be read in a certain way if their work is to make any kind of sense. They impose on the reader a particular view of things. And their work is – for the most part- better for that imposition. The work builds through the accretion of – understood - descriptions of place and person, metaphors, insights, symbols. And the reader recognizes that he will be lead and that by being lead he will (hopefully) encounter truths and beauties that might otherwise have remained unknown to him. This is not saying that the reader can’t think for himself; it is not say that reading isn’t in some degree subjective, or that reading isn’t also an exercise in creativity. But, if the reader imposes himself too much or has no trust in the author (or cannot follow), the work is normally, and sometimes catastrophically, diminished.
lol except in my case it came from 80s cartoons rather than Greek, Peruvian or Asian cultures. Sometimes the idea came from a computer game Which is fine a reader can find what they like in my work but 'no really it is just blobs of paint.'
hmm it is whichever one involves the artist standing there randomly dolloping paint onto a canvas he does do impressionist as well you can kind of make a desert or a hill in some of them and one definitely had a window with blobs in it. LOL I am a similar kind of writer - I randomly dollop ideas and words on a page. Usually they look pretty - other times the dolloping can be seen. I agree with you though for me the hunt for symbols can distract from the story but some literary books choose to do symbols and technique at expense of the story anyway. In which case hunting for the symbols prevents total boredom in my case. A few people can manage to create a story where the symbols enrich and add depth and can be picked up whilst reading them
Classic examples would be Narnia and Sunset Song for me. Narnia hardly requires an indepth knowledge to know Aslan = Jesus, the sacrifice, the creation story etc. Sunset Song the symbols are woven into the story and we return often enough that they whack you over the head, with hey look at me. Neither require great searching on the readers part.
But the general nature of the terms used...man...car... would not convey a message in the way that true symbolism would. On the other hand, if a character was described as driving a motorscooter in a neighborhood where everyone else is described as driving Bentley's, the reader would quickly draw some specific conclusions.
Yep, absolutely. That bit was only meeting the point arron mentioned before that all words have slightly different resonances for different people. Yet the point is that the point is gotten. In the same way the author will intend the symbols to convey a meaning, and if that is not picked up something will (probabaly) be lost.
In place of a longer, more complex response, I'm just going to say that my writing and story telling philosophy emphasizes the notion of the "invisible author" and that the story itself should always be the priority. In a perfect story (obviously this is impossible, but let's be hypothetical) the reader won't even stop to say "wow, the author sure is smart." In this impossible ideal, the reader is utterly engrossed in the story itself and their emotional involvement with the characters. The reader is in "another world" until it's time for them to go back to their day to day responsibilities, or they finish the last page. If they spend any time contemplating symbols, it will be when they aren't reading. Any instances of symbolism that fit into that ideal are okay by me, but are often not worth the effort if the writer or reader has to spend more than a few minutes figuring them out. I'll come right out and say that by my philosophy, most of those "great classics of literature" are no better (and often worse) than many modern titles and that they do not deserve their fame or their utter dominance in the education system. I've read a lot of Henry James and plenty of other books like the Great Gatsby and I find them to be no better storytellers than J.K. Rowling, Orson Scott Card, C.S. Friedman, or even (dare I say it) Stephenie Meyer (note that I haven't read Twilight yet, but it's raw popularity suggests that many readers do get pretty engrossed in it which I think indicates good story telling even if the story itself isn't that great). Besides, it will only be another 50-100 years before literary scholars start picking apart Harry Potter for all of the symbols that Rowling may or may not have put there on purpose. The Lord of the Rings is already ascending from "modern fantasy that geeks read" to seriously regarded literary epic. It's just a matter of waiting for the books' target fanbase to reach "scholar" age. Even less popular (but still good) books can ascend this way, so long as a fan ends up in the right position to praise it in front of enough other people. What I haven't emphasized enough in previous posts is that this is (of course) my opinion. If you like reading a certain kind of story, then I'm in no position to criticize that, and as long as there are people who like reading that type of story, there will be a market for those who like to write them.
Hmm. I actually do write quite aware of imagery. I guess I had it hammered into me a lot in school, but instead of reacting badly, I became quite interested in it. I never want to spell anything out, but I'm always bearing in mind what is symbolic of what. It can be pretty stupid stuff, but I like to know that there is a second or third level that only me and people who read really closely and repeatedly would get. Of course I mostly concentrate on witty banter and fun descriptions and good action and all that blah, but in the middle of that, I try to sneak in symbolism, hopefully not in a pretentious way. I just see it as part of having a theme - knowing that means I'll write anything so that it connects to the theme, even it's only in a way that makes sense to me. I make a lot of jokes that I am the only person on the planet who would get. Similar to the images. I just like knowing that when I say "instant noodles" I actually mean one of my main characters, even if no one else does.
Symbolism is what an author sees in his/her mind, whether not a reader will or will not comprehend it. I liked the way Elgaisma put it especially. It is perhaps the only explanation for symbolism I can fully relate to. . .
popularity is a bad gauge of the quality of storytelling. There is an author from the 30's who's name escapes me whos popularity eclipsed King, Rolwing and so on combined. They literally sold millions of books - but that their books haven't survived or anyone heard their name is a mark that their writing was formulaic, their characters thin and unrealistic. Dan Brown is a terrible writer but his books sell like hotcakes - actually because of his interest in symbolism. I would be surprised if a generation after us is talking about "the davinci code". That the great gatsby and so on have survived and are continued to be talked about is a mark of the great storytelling involved. It may not be to your taste, or you may not be mature enough to appreciate them (i don't know) What i think you're confusing is bad storytelling with good use of symbolism. A good writer will incorporate symbolism, conciously or unconciously into a book and it becomes a mark of their skill that it does not take you out of the narrative. A clunky usage will stick out - a good usage will not. What symbolism does is compress meaning. You already have an image of the girl called Daisy because of her name, and what she wears. Therefore the writer does not have to expend any more words than are necessary to get his point across. Symbolism and poetry are inescapably entwined. Symbolism is all around us, all the time. It is unavoidable - the advertising industry know this better than everyone. Concious use of symbolism to reinforce a meaning, if done well, will add an extra layer of artistry to a work and will give it extra staying power. I take it you're studying literature now and you're frustrated because you feel your professors are expending energy on teaching you something you feel is not true. " A good writer doesn't waste time putting symbols into his work!" What your teacher is trying to show you is the mechanics of literature. Symbolism is one tool in your arsenal of becoming a good writer. If you do not understand or appreciate the tools available to you then you will lack something as a writer. Symbolism is shorthand for "image". All images are symbols of some description. Actually LOTR has been regarded as a classic literary masterpiece for over 50 years. There's a market for mcdonalds, and a market for fine dining. You're placing too much emphasis on school. No real writers care about what teachers think. It's a teachers job to deconstruct the narrative to give you an understanding of the tools involved in the craft. It's a writers job to write effective stories. They write multi-layered novels using symbolism as symbolism is one of the most effective tool in writing. it's impossible to write a story without images. Multi-layered writing has greater staying power because every time you read it you can discover something new.
Well. I was going to go on a huge rant trying to convince you all, I even wanted to bring Cogito in to try to get my idea across. But, I'm just going to leave this quote from Hemingway about "The Old Man in the Sea" "No good book has ever been written that has in it symbols arrived at beforehand and stuck in. ... I tried to make a real old man, a real boy, a real sea and a real fish and real sharks. But if I made them good and true enough they would mean many things" You see, none of the great writers who use symbols plan them ahead of time. The symbols bring themselves to life as the writer writes them. They are spontaneous. Spontaneous, but purposeful. They aren't pulled out of the Lit Professors butt. They are actually there in the writing. Hidden sometimes, and they often mean different things for different people, but they work to define the meaning of the work as a whole. Not the story or the plot, but the theme. The meaning. When people want action, they watch Indian Jones. When they want meaning and depth, they most definitely don't watch Jurassic Park. Both have exciting plots characters and stories, but not a whole lot theme or meaning wise besides Nazi are mean and Dinosaurs eat people.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you Honorius - I love well written part of the story symbols. However do struggle with those that place the symbol before the story.
I don't see how any person in these forums could possible know whether this is a true statement or not. None? One instance makes it false, and so I'm inclined to believe the statement is false.
yeah i don't think anyone would go - "well you know i want to write a story that includes the symbols a peach hanging from a crucifix representing the ....blah blah blah" But i think it's quite possible for an image to suggest a storyline.... the girl wiith the pearl earring for example. (The davinci code for another...)
At the same time, you read, for example, some Nabokov. Dolores Haze was just a fortuitous name? Or Dostoevsky. Raskolnikov himself, or his socks, or the dual confessions/dreams of Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov. Those all have elements of symbolism throughout, and it strains credulity to think they just stumbled into it and didn't plan this out ahead of time.
