well i was using "Turner" as a symbol for (cough)"high art" and in a general way- i think you knew the meaning - you can't honestly say that a picture of a team smiling together has the same emotional resonance of a rembrandt. Sure - about basic scientific subjects - and Brian Cox, starkey,et al - water down the science behind it to make it so the public can understand it and present it with strong visual images. Can the same be said of a discourse on morality? Which conveys more the visceral horror of war - A scientific, dry explanation of war - or "A serbin film" - arguably the most horrific film ever made - and a symbolic retelling of the serbian war - if you read the synopsis of the film as shocking as it is, the film itself is worse - much, much worse.
The thing that is clear is that readers are getting pretty worked up about this. I wonder if the sense of betrayal (that some have experienced) is quite of the sort that is outlined above. If I can’t understand a sentence because I don’t know the meaning of a word, I get my ignorance, and can move on having rectified or not rectified that ignorance. Often, the meaning of the word is made clear by that which follows. If I can’t understand a paragraph because it heaps complex idea upon complex idea I recognize that, and I might stay awhile to overcome the difficulty or choose to continue on with the knowledge of my ignorance. If I don’t quite get the emotional significance of a character’s talk or actions, there’s a reasonable chance the reaction of other characters might expose it for me. In these sorts of cases: a) there’s every chance that further interaction with the book might partially put an end to my ignorance or b) I am at least made aware of my difficulty and even if its not overcome I can choose to proceed with that awareness. Yet having a difficulty with symbols is, usually, not something that one is made aware of, and not something that can be tackled, during reading. Symbols are simply overlooked, not seen at all. And to be told, having finished a novel, that you missed some of its power because you failed to recognize that X connotes Y is an unexpected kick in the teeth. You have been carrying your baggage of ignorance through the novel but have not been given the opportunity to accept the burden. A quite terrible thing to happen to a bird. As always, all of this may not concern the writer in the least.
This seems to be a matter of different attitudes to learning. If I'm told, having finished a novel, that I missed some of its power because I failed to recognise that X connotes Y my reaction is "Oh, wow! That too! Cool!" It isn't that I have been kicked in the teeth. I relish learning something new. What you're saying seems to imply that you resent the fact that you didn't already know it.
yes if you know the people on the team and you are invested in them. Just like even if it is a Mills and Boons etc if I am invested in the characters and rooting for them the emotional resonance will be much higher than if I am reading Thomas Hardy who's characters I rarely like. What will have more emotional resonance on my wall - photographs of my kids or Da Vinci? Starkey is a Historian would be interesting to see what he does with science lol So is Dan Snow. Archaeology was my academic area but I still gain from watching Time Team even though it is done to be understandable and entertaining. I have studied astronomy at degree level and I loved Brian Cox. My children will sit transfixed at the latest Attenborough offering and will recite the facts from that alongside that of Pokemon and Bakugan. Make your work understandable and no matter what it is people invest and pay attention. Actually the best pieces of writings to do with war that carry the deepest resonance for myself are war memorials - lists of whole villages dying on the same day for me carries far more than any gory film. A memorial in Liverpool from an orphanage listing 50 children that died within a short space of time is the most moving piece I have ever seen or read about the conditions of Victorian England. Knowing they had a hard life and then life was robbed so viciously from them during the cholera epidemic. Also I think the most moving fictional war representation was the over the top scene at the end of Blackadder goes Forth. That image of the men disappearing being replaced by the field of poppies is something I do not forget. What is more moving watching a fictional movie or listening to someone who has lived through the conflict tell their tale? I know which one I would choose.
Very true. That intelligence will affect people differently. But the resentment arises not because they didn't already know it but because (among other things) they are not given the opportunity to correct their ignorance. Which is to say that the person who loves learning may be more justified in their resentment than the person who is indifferent about learning.
In music there are several types of listening skills: 1. There is a cursory listening - this is the level most people experience - it's the level at which you simply enjoy the music. 2. There is critical listening - you're listening for areas that could be improved or worked upon or what the underlying themes are - this is for a greater appreciation of the music. 3. There is deconstructive listening - you're listening for chords, structure, specific use of melodies and scales - this is equivalent to looking under the hood to see how it works. The only people who would do this type of listening are people who are either composers or musicians. It is your english teachers job to teach you to deconstruct so that you can apply the techniques a good author uses to your own work. Therefore you're english teacher is selecting works where the techniques are obvious (such as gatsby). - because it makes it easy to demonstrate. The same applies to reading a novel. If you have to deconstruct in order to simply read the thing in the first place then possibly it's not well written (or the author wants you to deconstruct it). if the language of the novel is simply one you haven't encountered then it's not anyone's fault - but you may need to broaden your experience to appreciate it on it's own terms. Going back to a large concern which probably hasn't been covered thoroughly. Why do people transmit messages in the form of symbols. Going back to "A Serbian Film". The message of the film is basically that "the serbian war was absolutely terrible" and "rich, powerful people can manipulate people into committing terrible acts". So why didn't the filmmaker simply make a film about the Serbian war. It's because we are desensitised to images of war. In order to convey the true horror of war (which is always personal) he had to present it in an allegorical form. And it worked. One reviewer from the horror site "bloody disgusting" described it as "having [his] soul raped". He continued "...a work of genius - don't take that as a recommendation it is the single most disturbing film i have ever seen - i urge you not to watch it". One of my friends saw it - a fan of extreme horror who thought it was just going to be another "martyrs" said he wished he hadn't seen it - it's put him off Horror (and porn).
For me the key thing there is whether it matters that I didn't learn it. If I don't spot the womb symbolism of the red room in Jane Eyre, does it spoil the book for me? No (the interminable asides and lectures did that, but that's another matter). So the fact that another person might have enjoyed the book more doesn't mean that I enjoyed it any less. If the book is impenetrable without decoding the symbols then it comes down to whether I'm on the inside or the outside. If I do recognise the symbols, that's fine. If I don't then I'm clearly not in the target readership for the book, but I don't expect all authors to write to a lowest common denominator so I don't expect to be able to access every book ever written. I'm told you need a good understanding of freemasonry to appreciate Moby Dick. Fine: let those with a good understanding of freemasonry enjoy it. I probably wouldn't.
Absolutely. But it might rankle that you were not given the opportunity to enjoy it more or were given no indication that more enjoyment was to be had. I'm simply trying to get at why all this poses an especial irritation for the reader. I agreee with all else that you say. The writer can do as he chooses and if the reader doesn't get it, he doesn't get it. cmpress I'm not sure that any training in looking will be much help when one has no idea what one is looking for; though, I recognize, it may be partially helpful. More likely, the training might prompt the reader to read more creatively. Which raises the issue, earlier discussed, of subjective interpretations and the author's intent.
Well a teacher would take a book and say - "In gatsy, Daisy's name and her constant association with the colours white and yellow help to reinforce the idea that Daisy is....... etc... This is supported by her behaviour... and the events that occur to Gatsby..." It's the connections between clues in the narrative that allow us to draw conclusions. Like in english a word can have several meanings. It's the context (when looked at the whole of the story, sentence etc..) that gives it a specific meaning. If you know what to look for - the connections become, if not obvious, but certainly clearer. You cannot say X equals Y if there is no evidence within the text to support that conclusion. That is why it is not correct to say: "within "the cat sat on the mat" the cat represents the feminine dominating the ... blah blah" because there is not enough information to support that conclusion. The text should guide you in interpreting the narrative.
I think another large source of irritation is the perceived pretentiousness of some literary experts or literature lovers (I'm not talking about people on this forum). In some circles, literature is used as a status marker or group marker. You have to read (and like) the right books to belong and be considered educated. That kind of exclusivity always tends to tick people off, even if they don't really care about belonging to the group. "Do they think they're better than us?" When someone doesn't see the point of using symbolism which requires the reader to stop and contemplate or go to outside sources for information, I think it it is easy for them to assume it's all about being pretentious. I agree; it's not as simple as I pretended in "The cat sat on the mat". But in a large text, it's possible to find support for almost any interpretation, if you allow it to be far-fetched. Together with the assumption that any interpretation is valid as long as you can find support in the text for it, it can lead to the most pseudointellectual drivel.
I think also with a dead author it requires you to know about them - to be honest I think if someone is thinking about me when reading my story I have not done my job as a storyteller. The reader shouldn't need to know about me to read my book - they should be able to put it down and not even remember who Anya Kimlin is - however I want them to know who Angus, Socrates, Nate, Fyren etc are
Sure - but they're relatively easy to spot because the overriding evidence in the text won't support or will contradict their conclusions. Well not nesc. The piece of work (unless it's about the author or is intensely personal) should stand alone (or as part of a body of work). I think some of the concepts or language of the time might not translate too well if it's a particularly old piece which might make judging it on it's own merits hard. For example a character which is a pastiche of a famous person of the time might be obvious to contemporary readers but lost on modern readers. Again this depends on what type of piece it is.
It is like the red room/womb thing though - for me that is so un Charlotte Bronte it isn't funny. Sits very uneasy - the symbolism may be there but to be honest think it was red because it was a common colour in stately homes at the time oppressive. Yeah sure I can see it - but a read of the author says nah
True. The type of symbology people have a problem with seems to be the one which requires specialised education, inside knowledge or a conscious effort to understand.
I've never read the book (i know my bad!) so i can't comment on the specifics. But it depends on whether there are additional clues to indicate this reading. Clues could be overt - such as describing the room as womblike, using words like "pregnant"..etc.. in association to that room or describing leaving the room as "birth"... Or they could be through suggestion- describing a low thudding whilst in the room (a heartbeat) a feeling of intense security - being afraid to go outside or a painful "birth" from the room. Thinking of the house as a body or a mother - all the indicators should be there to support that interpretation. It's the combination of factors that build up an image. Just because the author is in public, prim and proper, or shows disgust at bodily functions or sex or whatever doesn't mean that their writing betrays their inner psychology.
This example of teaching still assumes knowledge of what those colours symbolize. To see connections between clues one needs to understand that one is dealing with clues. Though I do see the point and I barely think we're disagreeing: the meaning of symbols can sometimes be extracted by close reading and their power (their truth) is dependent on context. And, indeed, those with a broader understanding, wider knowledge will often gain more from a text than those who don't possess those things. And, I'm not saying that's a problem. And sometimes, I think the text will be of no assitance in helping with the interpretation. And I don't think that always represents a lapse on the author's part. And I'm not saying that's a problem either. Aye. That's what I've been thinking of. In the context of this discussion, fancy talk about the symbolism of each and every word doesn't shed any light at all.
Ultimately this is irrelevant. You can link it to how Hemingway wrote The Old Man and the Sea: even though he didn't have a specific symbolic message in mind, he knew readers would draw extra-textual meaning from what he had written, and indeed, interpretations vary pretty widely even within academia, yet alone among all the less formal interpretations. What the author has in mind can be helpful as a starting point, but more recent literary theory insists that no one interpretation can stake a claim to absolute authority. This is where understanding symbolism moves into difficult territory, because they often rely on a perceived objective understanding, which simply is not possible in any language or culture. Instead, our reading of symbolism is informed by the textual context, inter- and extra-textuality, and personal response. None of this undermines the strength or validity of the symbol; in fact, I would argue that the opposite is true. The more ways a symbol can be validly interpreted, the more resonant it is. To take the unfortunately facile example of the colour yellow, there are virtually infinite meanings, but not all are valid interpretations of a given text. As with all interpretation, understanding must stem first from the text, rather than being imposed upon it. The presence of the colour yellow in Dorian Gray, for instance, suggests certain things to readers within the primary text itself. Then, from these roots, we apply a cultural, literary, theoretical, etc, framework to the text which extends our understanding of the symbolic properties of the colour. So, there is no fixed meaning, and it should never ruin a text for you (symbols are almost by definition not necessary to tell a story, though it is without question that they have the power to improve them) if you don't understand the symbols right away. As for learning to identify symbols in texts, as with all things, it is simply a matter of practice. Read a lot of books, a lot of theory, or just think critically about the images and ideas you are exposed to constantly, and you will find that that kind of critical analysis becomes second nature. And then reading Dan Brown will make you cry. (Don't hurt me )
Undoubtedly there are people who've interpreted books in an over the top way - that's an argument for concious use of symbolism (by the author) because it makes it consistent within itself. Also it depends if the reader has picked up on symbols and images piece meal or contextually. It's easy to pluck a passage at random and place an arbitrary interpration on it. However if that interpretation is contradicted elsewhere within the same work - the interpretation is not valid (enter the Bible). I don't think most serious critics and readers would assert that "any interpretation is valid". If the work is consistent then the meanings should be clear. If for example a character - Mr Trick - is always seen in red clothes, you can assert that they are associated with red (not what red means). If they act in a terrible, underhand way, being constantly mischevious or demonic then you can infer that the colour red, along with their name, is being used to reinforce their behaviour which leads to a specific reading of what that colour means from it's possible readings. If it comes out that they also wear a pentagram necklace then you can infer more knowledge about their character and what the clues mean. The constant association of Red with the character stands for something simply by virtue of that association. What that something means is defined through the rest of the text. That Red also has a cultural association can only be inferred if that cultural association is consistent with the behaviour of the character in which case the colour stands for something else - it may simply be a mnemonic to think of the characters. Yes there is a danger of pseudointellectualism - but, by definition if it is wholly supported within the text and it is consistent then the reading may be true. Take for example a story about a man with 12 followers. This could be a comparison to Jesus, maybe it isn't. Alone there isn't enough information to say for certain. If the first name of each character is the same as Jesus and his apostles then you can also draw that inference - but not say for certain. If the main character dies in a horrible way on a cross and rises again we can be pretty sure that the story is either an allegory, inviting comparisons with, paraody of, or referencing the story of Jesus. The specifics of which of the latter categories it falls into depends on the text itself.
At the risk of using another analogy - basically symbols are the fairies of academia? Looking for something that probably doesn't exist?
我不是中國人 Anyone who can read simplified chinese can read that last sentence. Is it "Dave's" fault that he can't? No, because he simply hasn't been taught (ie had exposure to) the skills to read them.
I'm not sure what I've written to give you that impression, but it isn't what I meant at all. Symbols are there, they're just words on a page. Anyone can see them, it doesn't take a degree in English literature. The "fairy", if you like, is the meaning behind the symbol. Meaning isn't something you can box up neatly, you can't say "x means y" in a definite way. You can reason that x means y based on the text, but then when someone else comes along and says that the text shows that x means z, you have to accept both interpretations (provided they are soundly reasoned). Symbols are fixed, meaning isn't.
Do you see how these two ideas (in red) might be regarded as antagonistic, Arron? How do theorists meet this point I previously mentioned: 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. If that had induced a reader to interpret those words as ‘ a kangaroo was giving birth,’ the following scene in which the man orders fast food at a drive-thru would be rendered a nonsense. Likewise, most interpretations of symbols that do not chime with the author's own will be rendered a nonsense as the novel progresses and as the symbol is revisited. Authors do 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.
Well for someone to see symbols in my work they need to use at the risk of being Captain Jack - 'corner of the eye stuff.' They can read symbols into if they like but when I wrote it, it had none it was just a story. Fact is you can see as many symbols as you like but that is the reader choosing to read something into it that isn't there. I would much rather someone sat down and read it in a night because they couldn't put the story down. Any symbols found in my work are fairies - they exist if you believe enough. However they are not there. They were never intended. However those reading have chosen to see many - I mean my falcon is merely a symbol that I watched too many cartoons in the 80s - my Great Skua that I like documentaries.
