casey
Armadillo Pup
Posts: 20
|
Post by casey on Jun 7, 2011 4:42:12 GMT -5
I think to not consider latent meaning - "symbolism"- in literature is of great detriment to the reader (especially to an English major!), but I understand how when reading for leisure the process can become exhausting. In a lot of great literature that would be recognized as part of the "canon" I don't really think any description, harangue, pattern, or meticulousness is superficial or arbitrary. More intricate even is decoding meaning in form, whether the meaning is more obvious, like an Enlightenment-era closed couplet articulating order and reason, or more esoteric, like a syntactical pattern in a piece of prose that some journal article goes on for 10 pages about but you yourself never noticed. I think there is a lot to pay attention to and sometimes ideas in literature are BEST articulated through form, symbolically, rather than overtly stated.
Having said that, I think the most important thing is to know what you're reading. If you know what movement of thought, era, and location the work is from, if you know the context, you know what you're looking for. Sometimes stressing over the latent content makes you miss the point, but oftentimes it can enhance a message considerably.
My favorite symbol that comes to mind is the "chalice" the young protagonist carries through a "throng of foes" in Joyce's Araby. It is such a great intersection of sex and religion and articulates the character's indoctrinated naïveté perfectly. Also I like harps as an intersection of nature and man. Props to Coleridge.
This is my first post ever so sorry if I sound like an asshole. IM JUST ENTHUSIASTIC
|
|
|
|
Post by devilishlybookish on Jun 7, 2011 15:48:33 GMT -5
I enjoy symbolism, but to a point. Holden Caulfield's red hat the colors in [uThe Great Gatsby[/u] are fun, but when you spend an entire English class and a subsequent homework assignment finding the colors and copying the quotes down...it's really a waste of time.
My first English course in college we read some Edith Wharton novel where these star-crossed lovers go for a walk in the woods and find a run-down barn. My professor went on about how them finding the barn on their path is indicative of their doomed relationship and I'm sitting there like "...you've never seen a rotting barn in the woods before?"
Or maybe I'm just dense xD[/color]
|
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 17:46:05 GMT -5
I think simply encouraging students to "find the symbolism" is bad teaching. I don't think I even really look for symbols anymore. It just seems so... elementary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 18:22:20 GMT -5
My first English course in college we read some Edith Wharton novel where these star-crossed lovers go for a walk in the woods and find a run-down barn. My professor went on about how them finding the barn on their path is indicative of their doomed relationship and I'm sitting there like "...you've never seen a rotting barn in the woods before?"
Or maybe I'm just dense xD I don't think so, and I honestly think there are always two approaches to a symbol: the "reality check" and the deeper meaning. The reality check is just that: a reality check. To continue with your example, obviously there are many barns in the woods that are run-down and stumbling across one is not unheard of. On the other hand, to go with the deeper meaning, the author clearly made a choice for the characters to enter a run-down barn. It's up to you to decide if it's meant to be a symbol of the characters' doomed relationship, or if it's meant to just be a damned run-down barn and that's the end of it, dagnabbit. If you don't think something is a symbol, you're not wrong; you're not right, either. Often, the author has passed away and we (as readers) can't ask them what they meant by this and this and this and that one white rabbit in the second chapter. There can be scholarship that argues one symbol means this thing whereas another argues it means something entirely different. That's one of the joys of being a reader. You base your connections, thoughts, etc. on your experiences and personal knowledge. You won't always see the same thing as someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 18:23:08 GMT -5
I think simply encouraging students to "find the symbolism" is bad teaching. I don't think I even really look for symbols anymore. It just seems so... elementary. Agreed, though I still believe symbolism is somewhat important to rooting out the layers of a story. Just looking for the symbolism, though, is missing the entire point of the novel. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 18:35:01 GMT -5
I think simply encouraging students to "find the symbolism" is bad teaching. I don't think I even really look for symbols anymore. It just seems so... elementary. Agreed, though I still believe symbolism is somewhat important to rooting out the layers of a story. Just looking for the symbolism, though, is missing the entire point of the novel. I actually find it more interesting to think about stories as being accidental. When you go looking for symbols, to me, that feels like you're trying to decode a riddle the author has intentionally left for you. That's way too assumptive for me to really enjoy anymore. I'm one of those "the author is dead" readers, so I try to stumble over deeper revalations within a work in the same way I believe the author just happened to stumble upon the right arrangement of words. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 18:36:56 GMT -5
I'm one of those "the author is dead" readers, so I try to stumble over deeper revalations within a work in the same way I believe the author just happened to stumble upon the right arrangement of words. Can you clarify that for me? I'ven't been getting a lot of sleep, which may be why, but I can't figure out what you mean by that just yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 18:50:23 GMT -5
I'm one of those "the author is dead" readers, so I try to stumble over deeper revalations within a work in the same way I believe the author just happened to stumble upon the right arrangement of words. Can you clarify that for me? I'ven't been getting a lot of sleep, which may be why, but I can't figure out what you mean by that just yet. Like, in order to search for symbolism, there's kind of this underlying agreement that exists: the author has placed something here intentionally and it's my job to find it. I disagree with the first part of that, as I don't believe an author has the ability to intentionally place meaning in their work, since language is so unreliable. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 18:57:16 GMT -5
Can you clarify that for me? I'ven't been getting a lot of sleep, which may be why, but I can't figure out what you mean by that just yet. Like, in order to search for symbolism, there's kind of this underlying agreement that exists: the author has placed something here intentionally and it's my job to find it. I disagree with the first part of that, as I don't believe an author has the ability to intentionally place meaning in their work, since language is so unreliable. I both agree and disagree. Something can be a symbol without the author's intent, as there's that damned pesky thing called a "subconscious" that could always take part in the writing process. I also believe that something could be a symbol with the author's intent. I stated this somewhere, but essentially you bring your own thoughts, opinions, experience, and knowledge to a book. That is why your experience of the novel (or play, poem, etc.) is different from someone else's. It's the same for symbolism, as you can connect two things in a way that the author didn't intend. Is that still a symbol? I think so. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 19:07:02 GMT -5
Like, in order to search for symbolism, there's kind of this underlying agreement that exists: the author has placed something here intentionally and it's my job to find it. I disagree with the first part of that, as I don't believe an author has the ability to intentionally place meaning in their work, since language is so unreliable. I both agree and disagree. Something can be a symbol without the author's intent, as there's that damned pesky thing called a "subconscious" that could always take part in the writing process. I also believe that something could be a symbol with the author's intent. I stated this somewhere, but essentially you bring your own thoughts, opinions, experience, and knowledge to a book. That is why your experience of the novel (or play, poem, etc.) is different from someone else's. It's the same for symbolism, as you can connect two things in a way that the author didn't intend. Is that still a symbol? I think so. Agreed on all accounts. I didn't mean to imply that the author can never successfully translate meaning into a text, but that they don't have as much control as they'd like to, which sucks sometimes to have to acknowledge, especially as a writer. haha. I want to believe my favorite authors are geniuses who are amazing at creating incredibly intricate literary masterpieces, but I'm leaning more and more toward thinking of authors as fantastic storytellers above all else. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 7, 2011 19:09:02 GMT -5
want to believe my favorite authors are geniuses who are amazing at creating incredibly intricate literary masterpieces, but I'm leaning more and more toward thinking of authors as fantastic storytellers above all else. We all want to believe they're geniuses, but sometimes they just get lucky. That being said, I think a storyteller is just as valid as a genius because you have to engage your audience, rather than just flaunting your intellect. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 7, 2011 19:19:32 GMT -5
want to believe my favorite authors are geniuses who are amazing at creating incredibly intricate literary masterpieces, but I'm leaning more and more toward thinking of authors as fantastic storytellers above all else. We all want to believe they're geniuses, but sometimes they just get lucky. That being said, I think a storyteller is just as valid as a genius because you have to engage your audience, rather than just flaunting your intellect. Pretty much. Tim O'Brien's one of my favorite authors, and I think The Things They Carried was just him getting lucky. |
|
|
|
Post by devilishlybookish on Jun 8, 2011 20:32:00 GMT -5
Pretty much. Tim O'Brien's one of my favorite authors, and I think The Things They Carried was just him getting lucky.
...And then I brought in the copy of an interview with O'Brien where he said it was just a novel and he didn't include symbols or anything of the sort, that he was just a storyteller. Of course, no one was willing to entertain the AUTHOR'S own interpretation of his own novel. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 8, 2011 20:33:16 GMT -5
Plus, have you read any of his other works? They're awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by andreaisabbbw on Jun 8, 2011 20:37:17 GMT -5
I love looking for symbols. I hate looking for motifs.
|
|
