interpretation?

[ajoe]

why are English teachers obsessed with finding the hidden symbols? what if the author was never writing any symbols? does that mean we're stretching stuff just to satisfy our literature expectation? if you know what I mean. (seriously, why do we capitalize "i"??)

[emily655321]

Just several of the many mysteries of the Universe. (Why do we capitalize "Universe"?)

Actually, I think writers often include symbols unconsciously, but they are there. You know, whenever you write something you have an emotional reference point, but the people reading it only have the words. Looking for symbols in the work is a way to piece together what was going on in the author's mind while he was writing, so you can have a better feel for how to interpret the work emotionally.

[Koa]

Yeah... I agree that sometimes critics exagerate in seeing too many symbols, and that anyway a big part of them wasn't intended... My great lit. teacher at school used to say that great writers tell more about themselves with what they don't actually say, cos they don't realise what they unconsciously put in their works... *sighs* how I miss that teacher...

[simon]

Can't you have just one venting thread for all the things you hate and don't understand?

[ajoe]

no, cause this forum starts to feel dead anyway and who else will create threads to vent and ask stupid questions but me?

[emily655321]

Since when has the forum been dead? I mean, sure it needs a good injection of KIK to liven things up, but I would hardly consider it near death.

[faith]

I think u can make up symbols and themes for books and poems etc, even thou it wasnt what the writer really meant. My literature teacher says she will buy anything we write about symbols and themes if we just acn explain why we think so...

Not that symbols and that is everything with literature.

[Ainuvande]

A lot of times, symbols and themes are undercurrents in a writer's process, and in the novel itself, but with some things they are very intentional. Lord of the Flies is a good example of intentional symbolism. For that matter, a lot of the books schools choose to teach have very intentional symbolism and political commentary in them. I find it usually gets in the way of the actual story when the book is just a vehicle for allegory.

As for unintentional symbolism, it's usually some relatively subtle thing that the author either agrees or disagrees with. I can't necessarily make up a theme or a series of symbols and apply them to any random novel, but I can certianly say "this author tends to use bright, vibrant colors in her discription to denote passionate emotion." I can also say "The fact that this book is dominated by strong, independent women gives it a feminist theme"

On the other hand, there are definitely teachers out there who read wayyy too far into a book, and suck all the joy out of reading.

[mike401]

Fact is, without symbols and interpretation you don't really have "literature" on your hands. If you read any further into a story than you do a news article (which one reads for information, as a generalisation), you're interpreting what the author says and looking for symbols in the language that convey the meaning.

Don't get me wrong, I hated classes where the teacher accepted any sort of answer in terms of what the author was really "trying to say," because usually she wouldn't require any support for a student's argument. And you've got to consider the possibility that the author doesn't really matter at all; sure, some context to his/her life may illuminate some matters, but literature is meant to let the reader take what they may from it, rather than having what the author intends forced down their throat by the author's opinion. If the symbols are strong enough, the reader will get the author's intent without any help, and that's when you've got decent literature.

[Love to Read]

I have lots of teachers that will see symbolism in anything particularly one prof who sees everything as being sensual or having a Christ figure. However my bone of contention is some of the time the authors didn't mean that and as analysts of literature we need to look at the whole picture. You can discover intended symbolism by doing some research on the author. Find out their history, thoughts, and beliefs. If you do that then you can understand somewhat were the author is coming from and perhaps what they intended. For example one time a friend and I decided we would see how far we could argue an interpretation of Christina Rosetti's Goblin Market. We took it to a total extreme, but the prof bought it because if you looked at certain things in the poem, it did look that way, especially from a 21st century outlook However if you looked at her life and the time period you would realize that as a staunch Roman Catholic she never would have considered writing anything like that, in fact she probably wouldn't have even thought about it. So I guess in conclusion I feel we have to research and not just make blind interpretations. We have to understand the history surrounding the author before we can search for symbolism. Ok sorry all I'm off my soap box. :p

[trismegistus]

I disagree with that. You seem to be saying that all symbols are intentionally constructed, and that's simply not the case. Symbols rise from the subconscious; they can find their way into a work without the artist's intending them. Jung would argue that the primal forms can rise out of the collective unconscious even if the author has absolutely zero active knowledge of them. We really don't need a personal history in finding some symbols. ("Some" is the key here.) Some archetypes will find their way in with or without intent and with or without knowledge.

[mike401]

We have to understand the history surrounding the author before we can search for symbolism. Ok sorry all I'm off my soap box. :p

that's not always true, though. while it can contextualize certain matters, to say that you can cull nothing from the text without the author's intent closes a lot of doors. part of what makes classic literature (i.e. shakespeare) so great is that so many new ideas find home in their lines because shakespeare captured human nature so well; obviously he didn't include feminist or marxist symbolism in there, but who cares? if someone can find the symbolism and support it, its not so much what the author "means" (whatever that means) as what the text itself means.