On yet another hand, I get very irritated by books that try to teach me what I already know. I feel they're treating me like a kid, and I'm unlikely to persist with them. So you think all the effort Alan Moore put into the V, 5 and Guy Fawkes symbolism in "V for Vendetta" was wasted? With that symbolism you get a classic of the genre. Without that symbolism you barely have a story. I think the main difference that age makes is that, all other things being equal, the older person will have read more than the younger one, so the older person will have a wider experience of symbols to draw on and so will recognise them with less effort (and will therefore be less tolerant of constant explanations). They're also less likely to find something fresh and original, because they're more likely to have read something similar before. Very often because they've seen it come round a couple of times before and already thoroughly sick of it! No excuse for that, though. Agreed, I think. I can think of plenty of books aimed at young adults that still work very well for older adults. I can't think of any examples of books aimed at adults that work for six-year-olds, though. There are certain themes and issues that a child just isn't going to understand (sex doesn't make any sense before that hormone rush at puberty!) so to require that books be understandable by six-year-olds before you consider them "good" would be unduly restrictive. And I think publishers will tend to market their books to the youngest age they can because that maximises their market, so if it works for six-year-olds I'd expect to see it marketed to them (and to the adults, with a different cover).
I think it is as simple as being yourself. Each one of us is unique. The very best most simple stories involve something the writer is passionate about or a character that is based on themselves. The strongest most unique voice any writer can give the story is themself. Everybody is different they don't need to try to hard. Stories become copycat when people allow someone else to dominate their voice and ideas. When someone tells you such and such has to happen when writing or in literature but it disagrees with your inner voice then its not going to be right for your story. Stories fail, become snobbery, etc when that story is not entirely from the author. By six I was starting to read books from parents shelves - at seven my daughter has really enjoyed John Barrowman's autobiography (I did edit it a little lol whilst reading it to her), and my favourite book Mist Over Pendle caught her imagination. We are enjoying Cadfael together as well. By far the best has been Gervaise Phinn, Yorkshire School Inspector we have roared with laughter together at his stories and they are ones she can read to herself without me editing - when reading I share bits from my books with my kids. There is a book called Smith that was self published by someone who used to be on the site and it was great with the kids - the idea of the spy disguised as an oven glove being killed by a rolling pin has us laughing and crying together. By nine I had read things like Dickens, Jane Eyre etc Agatha Christie was my favourite author by end of the year - also discovered the Hardy Boys that same year lol
I feel that I should bring up that some of the things you feel you need prior knowledge to understand (Greek mythology, Shakespeare references, historical or biblical references, really big words) were understood by the target audience of the time for many older novels. Take The Picture of Dorian Gray; the audience of the time was an audience which was specifically well versed in Shakespeare and Greek Mythology. Or take Shakespeare himself, or Dante with the Divine Comedy. The audiences of those time studied Mythology as what would be considered now a required college subject that went hand in hand with Lit and History. Of course, we don't study it very much anymore, so we miss the great majority of mythological allusions in works from that time.
why? To make money? quantify (and justify) better. You haven't addressed any of the points, you've just restated your idea and i think one that has been dismissed. why the fixation with colours? There's more to symbology than colours. Reread my earlier post. There are some aspects of human experience that cannot be explained without the use of symbology because the language does not exist - or it is entirely symbolic (take the whole of buddhist thought for example). Universality is not a quantifier for quality. Do you want to make everything into a grey sludge? Books can be many things. This is a hard thing for most teenager / early 20's to swallow but your tastes do change as you grow older and as you grow more experienced. Everything about you changes - your political affiliation, your opinions about sex, money, religion. You also learn to appreciate things in an entirely different way. The things you learn in school are nothing compared to the things you learn afterwards. How is that opinion valid - you haven't defended it you've simply reiterated the same points. To paraphrase (and rebutt) your points: 1. Symbology is pointless Symbology is unavoidable. The way the mind works is to create symbols from everything it comes across. When you use pre-existing words they come attached with culturally loaded iconography. Being aware of that iconography allows you to be economical and creative with language. It also allows you to make connections that are not previously available through the use of juxtaposition. Some aspects of human experience (such as Cathexis) can only be told through symbols as language does not exist to describe them. Symbols can affect you viscerally without you being aware of it. Symbols can also cause you to think about something in a new way. 2. Symbolism is not worth spending time over It is because mankind naturally likes consistency and economy of language in order to understand topics. Symbols provide powerful shortcuts and have great resonant imaginative power. Consistent, concious use of symbolism can enhance a story even though you may not be aware of it. 3. Symbolism only exists in order to boost the authors self esteem by showing how clever he is and giving school teachers something to talk about. The latter half of that is daft. You're fixating on school teachers. The thrall of school teachers only lasts until you reach University age. To suggest that Lars Von Trier used symbolism simply to give his school teacher something to talk about is nonsense. No doubt some authors do write symbolism because they think it's clever. 4. Symbolism are puzzles. Symbolism can be puzzles, but that is not all they are. Symbols are methods of communicating human experience economically. 5. All literature should be "story based" and be straight forward. Books should be wide ranging and multi-faceted to reflect the diversity of people on the globe. 6. All literature should apply to only one group and that should cover as many age ranges as possible. It's up to the reader to educate themselves. People are not born with the entire range of human experience in their head. They grow, they change they acquire more knowledge. Literature should reflect that. Mastering and appreciating symbolism will give you greater insight into the human condition and give you a greater range of tools to conciously use in your arsenal. 7. Symbolism should only be used subconciously. As soon as you start editing a piece you are writing conciously. To keep an image or symbol in becomes a concious process. Inserting images in order to have economic use of language makes for more effective and imaginative writing. 8. Symbolism is too vague and can be misinterpreted. It is almost impossible to write anything that cannot be misinterpreted. A good writer suggests and lets the audience do the rest of the work. Once you create and release something your control over it ceases. There are flexible symbols (colour) and there are culturally understood symbols (the cross, a raven, a graveyard). Concious use of symbolism ensures that the symbols are used in an entirely consistent way. It is up to the writer to ensure that they are interpreted in the correct way (deliberate misinterpretation or confustication is also a valid ojective for an author) but he cannot control the experiences of the readership.
Is it worth mentioning that according to the most prevalent current theory language itself is symbolic, so any story told in language is nothing but symbolism?
Finding out the author of a book I've been reading has been deliberately using symbols to convey some sort of "meaning" to me is like finding out the chick you've been dating has only been in it to get you to buy her things. I just feel so betrayed and manipulated. Words ARE symbols anyway. The thing I'm touching will never, ever be a "keyboard", that word is just a noise we make which points to the actual thing, a mental symbol, so if someone needs one of these mysterious, ineffable sense-objects they can make the sound, "Hey, gimme a keyboard." Taking it a step further and saying "Well the way I'm using the word 'keyboard' here seems to point to an object you use to type letters onto a screen, but on a deeper level it's pointing to the sexual repression of the Roman Catholic Church!" just pisses me off. If you want to say something, come right out and say it; what you're trying to say isn't any more meaningful to me after sifting through a bunch of ciphers and enigmas to get at what you're actually trying to say.
How else do you convey information then? You think stories don't have messages or themes? or are they just random sequences of events? The symbolism doesn't have to convey a specific meaning - it could convey a mood, an atmosphere, or a sensation. There's two levels of symbolism - direct - ie the word represents the object. And allusory - the juxtaposition of symbols to convey other information. That's why that type of symbolism is contextual. As has been said in the review section: "the cat on the mat" doesn't represent anything other than a cat on a mat at this level - because there is no further information to draw any other reading. If the cat on the mat were presented within another setting - such as the cat being called America and the Mat in the shape of Iraq you could draw an inference from it. As has been said before It's so that a) you can say something that is currently thought of as taboo or that cannot be expressed due to political concerns b) it's to express something quickly which does not need a long drawn out explanation c) it's more poetic and interesting to read d) hyperbole is the antichrist
Themes yes, messages... it depends. Generally, when I want an intellectual message I'll go to a preacher, a philosopher, a journalist, or some other jerk with an arbitrary degree. When I want to enjoy some art, I'll go to an artist. The artist's job is generally, in my humble opinion, to say "Hey! Look at this beautiful thing I made!" and then shut up. This I have no problem with. My main beef is with the use of symbolism to convey ideas and meanings when overtness would suffice. A fine example of what WOULD piss me off is what follows here: Outrageous. Just come out and say it, for crying out loud. The instant the symbols have been seen through the magic is gone and our hypothetical artist is just another schmuck who dislikes American foreign policy. It's barely even art, IMO. He's just putting on a couple of symbolic sock-puppets and having them say "I have such-and-such an opinion!" So write an opinion column and stop dressing it up as art, jeeze. This wouldn't bother me unless the writing in question was written in modern times in the Western world, in which case the artist is just being a coward. I respectfully disagree with the above, the former because it contradicts my experience and the latter because of my personal preferences.
I'm sure pretty much the entire art world would disagree with you. What you're describing is a pretty picture. A functional object. it's the difference between a Turner painting and some office art. The office art might look nice but it won't move you like an old master will. It's more entertaining to read a story than an essay right? If you have a message and you want lots of people to hear it which is going to get heard right? I'm not religious, in fact i think the whole thing is complete fiction. But the fact that the Whole book of the bible is loaded with symbolism and imagery and has managed to stay around for 2000 years means some parts spoke to some people. The parables are symbolic morality tales. People crave stories. And stories with symbols in them make great stories. Symbols have power. Well it was an example of a symbol to make it easier to differentiate between what you were suggesting and a symbol - a clunky and easy to read one of course, but you instantly knew from the phrase: America the cat sat on a mat shaped like Iraq what could otherwise have taken several sentences. It would have limited appeal. Stories make cultural discourse possible, and can influence minds. For example, in the 1960's there were a set of films from Britain called "kitchen sink dramas" these focused on the lives of poor underclass people - going through divorces, wife beating and back street abortion. They were intstrumental in the winning over of Joe Public who sympathised with the characters. As a result of this laws were passed in parliament which changed the face of British society - in ways that straightforward essays never could. Stories can be incredible forces for change. Western societies have taboos too. There are lots of things you can't say openly in this society. For example there is a massive taboo in the states about honest and open discussions of "socialism" amongst other things (*cough* healthcare) - and it's greeted with a hysteria once reserved for "communism". Just because you think you live in a free society doesn't mean you do. The Chinese for example happen to think they live in a free society too. I demonstrated above.... If i say America, the cat, sat on the mat Iraq. you know exactly what the meaning of this that would take several sentences. Poetry IS symbolism.... dude! seriously you need to read more....
So you must feel betrayed and manipulated by everything you read, right? Or maybe you figure that symbols can be used well or badly after all.
Make the cat a lion and the mat hyenas and you pretty much have Disney's Lion King, the symbolism of which worried quite a few folks outside the USA.
I think this discussion suffers from serious confusion stemming from the multiple and imprecise meanings of the terms involved...
And it suffers from too much absolutism. Too much of people saying it "has" to be this way, or authors "never" do it that way. Which is all bollocks as far as I can tell. Art is as varied as artists, and no one approach is absolutely right or wrong.
My Face=Forkfoot's avatar. It seemed that we originally had people who preferred story or misunderstood symbolism, and people who love it. And now we have someone who just outright hates it. Symbolism does speaker louder than a regular sentence, that's why we use it. The new love interest in a novel reveals to the MC that her favorite flowers are yellow roses. Later, he finds out that she's a total jerk, a female dog (being polite here), and is pretty much evil, maybe throw in some murderous tendencies. By itself, those roses don't mean much. Yellow roses often symbolize friendship, but that doesn't mean much. However, if the author describes those roses as being a sulfurous yellow, and maybe that they smell rotten, or of rotten eggs, the roses would mean something important. They would act as foreshadowing. Because to people of a western culture, sulfur is associated with the devil. It's evil. So her favorite flowers are evil, so very likely, she's pretty evil. So there is some useful symbolism. It's subtle, but powerful because you will know that she's evil, even though none of her actions suggest that. So the author creates a level of suspense. So when she walks off with someone she doesn't like into a dark alley, and only she comes out... We can suspect that something happened. Sure, the author could just say "Well, she looked really nice, but really, she was demon spawn." But that would just be boring. Now, that symbolism might not transfer to other cultures very well. But the author is British, so he writes for the British, people of his culture. Many others will understand, people from other western cultures, even if they don't speak English, because the idea transfers. But you can't expect an author to eliminate that symbol because the Japanese won't understand. If they won't get it, they just won't read it. Why do you think there are so few novel's from japan or china in barnes and nobel? Not Manga or the sort, but novels. Because they don't translate well culturally. But they're still great novels, we just have a harder time identifying with them. Japanese Samurai commits ritual suicide because he shamed his family. Japans opinion: that's good of him, the only way to bring honor back to his family. America's opinion: Well that was stupid of him. Japanese fox spirit shows up and does stuff. Japan: Cool, okay. America: Wtf? Troll or fairy shows up. America: cool, okay. Vietnam: Wtf? (Japan has embraced western culture more than some other countries) Do we read Japan's Three Kingdom's? No. Could we? Maybe. But we might now understand some of the symbols. Do they understand all of Shakespeare? Surely not. But are either horrible novels and plays because of that? Surely not.
To me, that kind of symbolism sounds horribly clichéd. Like when the villain in a story is given an "evil" name, like Sinister or Mordred. It makes me want to ask, "Why don't the characters notice that something is wrong with their world, when it's possible to recognise evil by the type of flowers someone prefers (or by their name)?" If the character's evil instead is symbolised by, for example, being cruel to an animal, or being the only one not moved by something sad, it makes sense within the fictional world. It becomes a part of the story, not something tacked on to it. To me, that seems like a far more subtle way of making the point. More show, less tell. If I know she's evil, even though none of the circumstances described in the story suggest it, it makes me aware that the writer has told me, and breaks the suspension of disbelief. It's like a little note attached in the margin saying, "Message from the author: This character is evil". I don't see how it can be seen as a sign of skill. It requires no subtlety, merely inserting objects with predetermined, unambiguous meanings into appropriate places in the story. By showing someone's character through their actions and other circumstances, the story becomes more universally understandable. Many "literary" writers are only understandable by a small subset of the people of their own culture, which is familiar with the specific meanings attached to the symbols. The problem with using symbolism of the type "yellow is evil", is that those symbols are ultimately arbitrary. They are hard or impossible to infer from context, and have to be learned individually by the reader. The more the symbolic language is developed by the writer, the more arbitrary meanings the reader has to learn, until they have developed a language of their own which is incomprehensible to outsiders, isolating the literary community from the rest of the world.
I think it's even more complicated, because there are no clear cut boundaries. There's a continuous slide from words as symbols through, dead metaphor, through live metaphor, through allusion to the most obscure of symbolism. That doesn't mean that they're all the same thing: black doesn't equal white, but most things (in a monochrome world) are actually shades of grey (shade as a symbol representing degree of metaphor; absence of reference to hue, tint or tone suggesting that there are many other ways in which language can vary; intertextual reference to Jasper Fforde's Shades of Grey possibly suggesting that this is the <em>lowest</em> level of variation between texts, contrasted to intertextual reference to The Monkees Shades of Grey suggesting that this is a more mature level of variation; two conflicting interpretations in need of resolution, but the introduction of the very concept "shades of grey" suggests that such a resolution may not be possible and the "black" and "white" interpretations might need to be held simultaneously. See how hard it is to avoid symbolism?)
I have to admit that the evil rose is horribly horribly chiched, but it was only to put a simple point across. In a more real setting, Such as The Portrait of Dorian Gray, the character Lord Herny is pretty obviously a bad guy. He manipulates people, corrupts them with pretty unethical ideas, he's a total hedonist. Now, yellow is associated with him a lot. Yellow gloves, yellow colors around him, etc. Later, he gives Dorian a yellow book (which turns out to be quite an evil little book), and before that, Dorian notices some yellow (sulfurous specifically) roses before seeing that his portrait looks evil-ish. So, we have lots of yellow around a bad guy. Then, yellow stuff not associated with the bad guy, but equally evil. This didn't have some incredibly important impact on the story, but the knowledge that yellow can be pretty evil in the first place is good, and it can actually be picked up contextually. That symbol is threaded through the book and gives an extra layer of meaning and impact to some of the objects and events.
Analogy is not the same as symbolism, and even if it was it wouldn't matter, since we're discussing the use of symbolism in art, not internet forum posting.
Why won't it ? Personally my favourite Turner is an obscure pen and ink drawing of an even more obscure church - precisely because it is so unexpected for turner - no symbolism just a straightforward drawing probably done before his eyesight started giving out Chances are you could reproduce it and it be considered office art. I enjoy reading a well written academic essay no reason why they cannot be easy to read and entertaining. It is similar to a work of fiction in that the writer has the option to create something that conveys information in an easy to read format or tit about trying to make themselves sound intelligent. David Starkey, Dan Snow, David Attenborough, Brian Cox come to mind - all manage to produce works which appeal massively and sell around the world. Being in the UK the power of a good documentary can have as much impact as a drama. Springwatch and Autumnwatch are a national phenomena that even kids get involved with.
"Analogy is not the same as symbolism, and even if it was it wouldn't matter, since we're discussing the use of symbolism in art, not internet forum posting." Just so happens that analogy is a form of symbolism. And it sorta does matter, because this is an internet forum posting about symbolism on a website about writing. Plus, if I use symbols in a shortstory, it'll be analyzed here. Or in our currently sleeping (It will never die!!) RPG section. It's just a forum post, but it relates to others, and symbols can spread throughout it. So... This is a picture of a cat pushing a watermelon out of a lake. You understood that? It's called allusion. Or just intertextuality (interwebuality perhaps)
I don't see how this can be true. I must not understand either term. Can you elaborate a bit? You just said it's so, then moved on to So the fact that you may use symbolism in a work you post here makes it your duty to change the opinion of anyone who expresses a negative view of symbolism? I really don't get this. Actually, I don't get a lot of the feedback coming my way in this thread. It's just my opinion, yo. My personal taste. You can tell me why my understanding of what symbolism is is wrong, you can express that your feelings on the matter are different from my own, but I think it's kinda silly to tell me I'm wrong for not liking something.
An analogy is a comparison. A comparison is a type of representation. Any time you try to represent something you use a symbol - an information substitute. In your orignal post isn't it like dating a chick who You're using the analogy of "dating a chick who" to represent your feelings about reading a book instead of saying "i'm dissapointed and frustrated that novels try to convey hidden messages in stories because i feel they are preaching or lecturing me. I feel they have a hidden agenda trying to convince me to a point of view. There is a feeling of betrayal that instead of trying to provide me with an entertaining the story, the writer is trying to push a moral point" - presumably because the image of "dating a chick who" has greater emotional impact than going into a dry discussion.
