How does one read a short story?

[Chester]

So I’m reading Joyce’s Araby the other day and I finish it and I’m left with a kind of so-what feeling. Not that it was a bad story. I thought it was good, as a matter of fact. I was compelled by it and I wanted to see how it ended. And so it did end and I thought, well, I guess that was interesting, this story about a young boy with a crush on a girl, etc., etc. And then I was ready to tackle something else, specifically I had errands to run, as I recall. (Post office, bank, pick up the dry cleaning, 7-11 for some beer).

But then it hits me that this is Joyce and so the story has to be important. I mean, doesn’t it? From what I know of Joyce I’m sure it’s full of all kinds of symbolism and metaphor and deep considerations that a cursory reading only scratches the surface of.

So I Google it and it turns out that, yes, there is much to this story. (What there is specifically is of no real consequence here. Totally beside the point.) And so my question really is, how much of the depth to a story is it the reader’s responsibility to discover? Just how much time is one supposed to mull over any particular story once one has read it? How does one know to even mull? How does one know there is symbolism to be found, or some great hidden theme? Would one’s conclusions even be recognizable by the author? How much does the author’s intent enter into it? Look, if there’s nothing meant to be found, why should I invest time that could be better spent reading the next story, on trying to find something? I’m not asking for blatantly obvious clues by the author, mind you. I appreciate subtlety as much as the next guy. But just how much work is one supposed to do?

[Sarasvati21]

While I am not really familiar with Joyce, I do know that most authors write either solely for themselves, or with a specific purpose/audience in mind. It does not seem to me that the reader should have to spend a great deal of time mulling over what they have just read. It is alright if each person who reads the work gets something different out of it, as long as the reader appreciates the amount of effort the author put into his writing. Because everyone comes from a different background, everyone will get something different out of what they read, so that the description of the symbolism you found may not be what I discover when I read it. That you recognized there was a deeper meaning within the story is compliment enough to the author.

[barbara0207]

While I am not really familiar with Joyce, I do know that most authors write either solely for themselves, or with a specific purpose/audience in mind. It does not seem to me that the reader should have to spend a great deal of time mulling over what they have just read. It is alright if each person who reads the work gets something different out of it, as long as the reader appreciates the amount of effort the author put into his writing. Because everyone comes from a different background, everyone will get something different out of what they read, so that the description of the symbolism you found may not be what I discover when I read it. That you recognized there was a deeper meaning within the story is compliment enough to the author.

Quite right. Chester, forget the word 'supposed to do' in this context (unless you are or aspire to be a scholar). The most important thing is whether you as a reader relate to a book or not.

You seemed to feel that there might be more behind the story than you could see on reading it for the first time. You got interested and tried to find out more. If you had not cared about the story (or the author), you wouldn't have bothered.

Authors publish their works at their own risk. They cannot expect their work to be understood exactly in the same way as they meant it. Thus you can only ask what effect a piece of literature has on a reader, but nobody can know what exactly the author's intention was.

[believin]

Agreed — author's intent is pretty much impossible to really know, and therefore irrelevant. (I am a big fan of Barthes's article "The Death of the Author.") I think that the reader has a whole lot of responsibility when it comes to figuring out what a text "means." The reader and his/her viewpoint is an important part of the equation that goes into interpreting a text.

A well-written text is more likely to get the reader's attention, making him/her want to see what more might lie behind the surface reading of a story, poem, etc. There are plenty of stories that I've read (or movies that I've seen, poems I've read, etc.) and put out of my mind, only to have them resurface in my brain when there was an opportunity for them to take on a fuller meaning in my own understanding of them. I always love it when that happens.

[JBI]

Whose short story. There are two approaches to the two types, the Chekhov type need to be read to analyze the character perceptions and resolutions, whereas the Borges type need to be analyzed from the setting and concept/device, such as looking at the library of Babel, or contemplating Shakespeare's memory.

[Eric Cioe]

One reads a short story the same way one reads anything else:

1. Read slowly
2. Concentrate

It isn't a race to the end of the book.

[nathank]

You got interested and tried to find out more. If you had not cared about the story (or the author), you wouldn't have bothered.


A well-written text is more likely to get the reader's attention, making him/her want to see what more might lie behind the surface reading of a story, poem, etc.


These are the important points! Is what you are reading interesting enough to make you want to find out more about it? If you feel like it is worth your while to spend more time with a story, trying to pull out more meanings, then go for it. Otherwise, don't waste your time searching just because you've been made to feel like you're supposed to.

It seems like there are many stories out there, a couple by Joyce in particular, that are just stuffed with symbolism and metaphors, but that lack enough interest to get you to really WANT to spend significant amounts of time deciphering all the hidden meanings.

[Chester]

Eric, good advice, sir. Two things (reading slowly and concentrating) for which I need to improve. It’s our fast-paced society, you know. I’m a victim of the race. I can’t seem to slow down and focus on what I’m doing and I get distracted and before you know it...I’m...I’m...er.....sorry, what were we talking about?

Nathan I think you hit the nail on the head. I did in fact take the time to learn more about "Araby". But not because I was interested but because it was Joyce. And I felt like I was supposed to be interested, as Barbara has wisely counseled against doing.

This is gold: "...Joyce in particular...stuffed with symbolism and metaphors, but that lack enough interest to get you to really WANT to spend significant amounts of time deciphering all the hidden meanings." Thank you. I thought it was just me.

JBI, your approach seems to actually add a step where I am looking instead at simplifying. Now I am to first categorize the story depending on type before I know how to read it? I think there is some merit to this, certainly. But doesn’t this presuppose some knowledge of the author? Or maybe I am misunderstanding.

I think, as has been suggested (by Sarasvati21 and believin and others), that a story interests one, or it does not, and if it does then one takes a different approach than if it does not. The word "resonate" keeps coming to my mind. In the same collection of works in which I read "Araby", I also read "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Now here was a story very rich in symbolism but the symbolism stood out to me, making itself apparent before my very eyes. Why? I think because the story grabbed me from the first and never really let go. I found myself thinking about it two or three days later as a matter of fact. It resonated and, like magic, depths of meaning presented themselves. This, without knowing a thing about Gilman. Probably that makes some kind of statement about the dangers of preconceived ideas about a story or its author.

[JBI]

Eric, good advice, sir. Two things (reading slowly and concentrating) for which I need to improve. It’s our fast-paced society, you know. I’m a victim of the race. I can’t seem to slow down and focus on what I’m doing and I get distracted and before you know it...I’m...I’m...er.....sorry, what were we talking about?

Nathan I think you hit the nail on the head. I did in fact take the time to learn more about "Araby". But not because I was interested but because it was Joyce. And I felt like I was supposed to be interested, as Barbara has wisely counseled against doing.

This is gold: "...Joyce in particular...stuffed with symbolism and metaphors, but that lack enough interest to get you to really WANT to spend significant amounts of time deciphering all the hidden meanings." Thank you. I thought it was just me.

JBI, your approach seems to actually add a step where I am looking instead at simplifying. Now I am to first categorize the story depending on type before I know how to read it? I think there is some merit to this, certainly. But doesn’t this presuppose some knowledge of the author? Or maybe I am misunderstanding.

I think, as has been suggested (by Sarasvati21 and believin and others), that a story interests one, or it does not, and if it does then one takes a different approach than if it does not. The word "resonate" keeps coming to my mind. In the same collection of works in which I read "Araby", I also read "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Now here was a story very rich in symbolism but the symbolism stood out to me, making itself apparent before my very eyes. Why? I think because the story grabbed me from the first and never really let go. I found myself thinking about it two or three days later as a matter of fact. It resonated and, like magic, depths of meaning presented themselves. This, without knowing a thing about Gilman. Probably that makes some kind of statement about the dangers of preconceived ideas about a story or its author.

You shouldn't read any work without at least a paragraph blurb about the author, and the places he has been and seen. Otherwise your reading isn't accurate. Either way though, you should know what type of story it is by the first paragraph.


As for Araby, for example, we need to look at the time it was written in, 1890s to early 1900s. Then we look at the setting, pre-independent Ireland, in a quiet boring street. And then there is the early reference to the dead Priest. What does that mean? Well, from the way the story goes, it would seem that the priest is a parallel to the boy, his religion being a parallel to the girl, and his love of Scott's novels parallel to the boys fascination with romance.

This is a Chekhov style story, so we need to focus on character. First question, why does the boy like the girl, why does she make him feel like she is playing him like a harp? Is it because she is very attractive, it is because he is made delusional by the Walter Scott novels he has found, or is it because the setting is so boring, and he needs something to occupy his fancy.

Then, there is the question of the bazaar. There is no question in the reader's mind (or shouldn't be) as to the motive behind Mangen's sister. She wants a free trinket, and is using the boy to get it. Is Joyce saying here that this is what happens, or is this a metaphor for women in general, or is this a comment on the society they live in. Then the getting ready for the Bazaar. Why is the narrator so fascinated, why, him knowing that he is going to go, is he so obsessed with it before the fact, to the point his grades are slipping?

Then there is the confrontation with the Uncle. What does the uncle represent? How does that relate to Joyce's own feelings towards his father, how does it show the boys feeling towards authority, how does it show the boys perception, relative to the childish fantasies he has gained from reading romantic novels?

Then the actual Bazaar. The key point here is a) he comes late, and wastes money going through the expensive entrance, and b) everything is almost gone already. The key point here is the reaction he gets from the confrontation with the woman behind the counter. Why does she act the way she does? What does that represent? What does the boy finally realize about himself? What does he finally realize about Mangen's sister? What does he realize about society, and about love?

That is how you read a story like this. Nothing in a good short story is explained, yet everything is believable, and should be able to seem plausible (unless the author deliberately tries to make it impossible, as a way of commenting on the possible).

Reading something once rarely offers as much (assuming it is a good story) than the second read. Plot in this case is less important the character and setting. Always pause when reading to ask why, that way you can understand the text better.

[Chester]

Thanks JBI. I don’t think I would disagree with you too much here. Certainly it’s interesting to learn something about the author and the time period. This can give us a clearer perspective. And yet, it seems to me that we’re still stuck with presuppositions, and maybe even inaccurate ones drawn upon what we think about the time period or what we think the author’s bio is telling us. A little knowledge, as they say, can be dangerous. What if we miss?

Too, shouldn’t a story stand on its own merits, notwithstanding whether or not it was written by James Joyce or, for that matter, Joyce James, or Jesse James? And notwithstanding whether it’s a "Chekhov style story" or not? Shouldn’t it just naturally occur to me, through the telling of the story, that this is a story that is, or is not, character-driven? And once this determination is made, then I can govern my reading accordingly, no?

Back to "The Yellow Wallpaper." After I read this story I found out that certain significant parts were damn close to autobiographical. I found this interesting. I think I even suspected this might be the case. But the story – in terms of the merit of the story itself and its hold on me – had no need for this piece of trivia. Does knowing this enrich the story? No, I don’t think so. Does it enrich my appreciation for the author? Well, maybe so. But these are different things.

How much of your spot-on analysis of "Araby" really requires an understanding of the author and the times? And how much of it should require those things, rather than the story itself presenting its meaning?

In other words, if I write a short story and send it to you, is it necessary that I begin it with a blurb about me so that you can "read it accurately"?

[JBI]

They should, but you must keep in mind there is more to just the story. Every approach that adds something to the result is worth while. That being said, I didn't say it is good because it is Joyce, I just tried to stick it into context. The art may stand on its own, but how then can we judge biographies. This is a biographical piece (or at least I think so, matching it with A Portrait of the Artist, which is most certainly biographical in nature) and I warrant that the context is important. You can, however, read something like The Dead with less of a context related approach, and get many results. It depends on the story. Art is an extension of the artist, therefore you must try to understand him. Even with anonymous artwork there is a depth of character coming from the author. Not as far out as Freud thought, but there is something, after all, it is based on his experiences.

[believin]

Thanks JBI. I don’t think I would disagree with you too much here. Certainly it’s interesting to learn something about the author and the time period. This can give us a clearer perspective. And yet, it seems to me that we’re still stuck with presuppositions, and maybe even inaccurate ones drawn upon what we think about the time period or what we think the author’s bio is telling us. A little knowledge, as they say, can be dangerous. What if we miss?

Too, shouldn’t a story stand on its own merits, notwithstanding whether or not it was written by James Joyce or, for that matter, Joyce James, or Jesse James? And notwithstanding whether it’s a "Chekhov style story" or not? Shouldn’t it just naturally occur to me, through the telling of the story, that this is a story that is, or is not, character-driven? And once this determination is made, then I can govern my reading accordingly, no?

Yes. You are right on the mark here, I think.

When reading a short story, it seems to me that it is important to remember that it is a creative text, filling an imaginative space and coming from an imaginative space. To read too much of the author (or context) into the text is to risk misreading. Too much attention to something other than the text itself just gives us more material to interpret.

For me, I always read the story first, giving attention to its language and how it is structured, etc. From this, as you say, you should be able to tell which things are more important in the story (character, plot, etc.), and let the way the text is assembled drive your reading of it. Only after I have become somewhat familiar with that do I really pursue finding out more about the author and his/her context, if s/he is not already an acquaintance.

[Morten]

Pay attention to detail, to dialogue, to the subtleties. And, as T.S. Eliot would have it, the objective correlatives.

[chasestalling]

I remember reading ARABY and thinking I like this I really do. Then my prof had to spoil it by drawing symbolic parallels. He was only doing his job, however, and I didn't begrudge him his hard earned symbolic status.

[Chester]

Ha! Great point. Analyze something enough and you can analyze the joy right out of it.