Writing literature

[cipherdecoy]

Do authors think about the underlying meanings of their work as they write, or are they mostly accidental?

Kafka's The Metamorphosis is open to many interpretations, and I was wondering if any of them actually came to his mind as he was writing it, or if he was merely trying to tell a story about a travelling salesman turning into some sort of insect as a literary manifestation (if you can call it that) of his own isolation?

[stlukesguild]

My guess is that it depends upon the writer and it depends upon the individual work. I cannot speak from personal experience as a creative writer... which is something I seldom attempt... but as a visual artist I would assume that there are many similarities. There are times I begin with a specific theme or idea that I wish to convey; there are times that I only have a mood or atmosphere from which I begin; there are times when I begin with a formal challenge... using a color combination or compositional element that I realize I usually avoid. There are times I begin merely with an image that has caught my eye for whatever reason. As the work evolves I become more and more aware of various elements... of what mood it conveys... of how it might be seen... but I have no doubt that it is rare that an artist makes a conscious effort to analyze his or her work for every possible interpretation... or even is conscious of everything that goes into a work. From my own experience I would say a work of art includes elements that are very consciously thought out, many that are not, elements that are automatic... subconscious... even elements that the artist is not aware of or even would rather were not recognized.

[JBI]

Nice signature StLukes, good choice with Dürer.

Back on topic, I think a lot of what is symbolic and such is planned. Certainly the impressionistic mode which came out of the 20th century has a lot of intentional symbolism. In prose it, I would think, would be more likely not to be planned than in verse, given the forms, but I am certain many things found in books were intentionally put there by authors.

As for unintentional symbols, well, I'm too much of a skeptic when it comes to a Freudian, or Lacanian reading of anything.

[PeterL]

Do authors think about the underlying meanings of their work as they write, or are they mostly accidental?

Kafka's The Metamorphosis is open to many interpretations, and I was wondering if any of them actually came to his mind as he was writing it, or if he was merely trying to tell a story about a travelling salesman turning into some sort of insect as a literary manifestation (if you can call it that) of his own isolation?

The underlying meaning is the reason why authors write. Kafka knew perfectly well that he was writing about alienation.

Sometimes (in rare instances) writers include things that can be interpreted other than the way they intend, because they are thinking about a certain interpretation and don't notice the other possibilities. Authors are generally more aware of the possibilities of their work than are readers.

[sofia82]

At the university, one of the professors always said why you are always looking for a symbol. Maybe, the gun is just a gun, and shows nothing more. Why do you labour so much to find a symbol in a work.
But I think authors know what they are writing consciously and using different symbols and things.. But about the unconscious aspect, it is the other matter and needs freudian and lacanian reading. About this psychoanalytic reading, I am not sure if author's using special subjects, always represent something or not!

[kelby_lake]

I think pretty much anything in any book is symbolic. It's chosen because it fits in with the book, it suits the book, not always necessarily carefully planned.

[stlukesguild]

As for unintentional symbols, well, I'm too much of a skeptic when it comes to a Freudian...

Of course even Freud admitted, "Sometimes a cigar is ONLY a cigar.":lol:

[sofia82]

Sometimes, sofia, I think readers try to insert too much meaning into a piece of literature. I've heard authors say so. Sometimes I think a bird is just a bird or a flower is just a flower. Not all the time, of course. There are authors who love to fill their work with symbols, but other authors don't care much for them. To them, something is there, like a bird or a flower, just to describe the landscape.

This is the same thing he says. About inseritng meaninf into a piece of literature, it is interesting to me while critics/readers try to label an author as lesbian or gay through these readings, even though the author denies it.
I agree. For example reading a realistic work, and trying to refer to all thing in the book as symbles, it means that we live in a symbloic world in reality.

[sofia82]

There are a lot of descriptions of the Russian countryside in the works of Turgenev and Tolstoy, just to name two. Most of the time, these are just very poetically written descriptions, not symbols of anything. Same with Thomas Hardy. He'll write very poetically about the English countryside, but it's just description. Love description, but description without being symbolic.

Now, I've learned that D.H. Lawrence is a writer who loves to fill his work with symbols, however, it can be read and enjoyed without recognizing each and every symbol, such as the color of the flowers signifying passion or innocence, for example.

I wonder symbloic writers make their stories based on the symbols, or make symbols based on the story. Does it make difference?(the same question asked before?!:confused: )

[JBI]

Well Zola is said to have created the character of Nana as a metaphor for the Second Empire, symbolizing its decline and fall with her small pox killing her.

As for a writer like Joyce, I am sure he spun the episodes of Ulysses around symbols, but who knows how much of the story he mapped out in his mind before writing. Serial writers are so impressive in the sense that they really could not go back and edit once it hit the papers, and they just had to go from there. His symbols, which he even recorded while writing however, are clearly put there for a reason.

With others it is less clear. I am sure everything in Tolstoy is there intentionally. Tolstoy was an utter perfectionist when it came to his writing, and simply would not tolerate mistakes. If something seems frivolous, or pointless to the reader, chances are, in context, it makes sense. Keat's lush descriptions in his late long poems, The Eve of St. Agnes for example, are there fore a reason. The central aspect of the poem eventually becomes an impressionistic expression of the situation, where everything in the poem is used to create the effects of the story, and not add to the story.

With 20th century, and even 21st century prose it is harder to tell, but assume any book by a great master to have been planned out like that to some degree. The perfect example is The Great Gatsby, where the prose itself is perfect, and reveals more and more on each reading. The very colors of everything in such works seem to reveal facets of information about characters, and personalities that only subconsciously touch the reader on the first reading.

Assume a symbol is a symbol if you can find a meaning for it. After all, it is the interpretation that matters more than the intention.

[JCamilo]

Everything depends, The author can only know about his own time, so he can only guess what his symbols will mean for that audience. But that is not mathematics, he can not control the interpretation of everyone. Much less when it is the interpretation of those that are not from his time and with works such as Kafka or Dante of authors who worked with different layers of interpretation.

[chasestalling]

I read somewhere that Kafka meant THE METAMORPHOSIS to be funny and that he was all the more amused that critics took it to be a bleak somber commentary of man.

In any case I'm inclined to think symbols that are incredibly subtle and clever to be the work of critics who have a nomenclature of their own and which no one but critics for whom that nomenclature is their livelihood should ever take too seriously.

[stlukesguild]

I agree that the symbolism is intentional in a good many major writers, and I am equally wary of Freudian notions of subliminal/subconscious symbols. On the other hand I am equally wary of those interpretations that seek out hidden symbols related to gender, class struggle, racism, and other themes that the artist may have had no thoughts of dealing with in the actual work. Building of Freud's quote ("Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar") I remember rolling with laughter after reading one serious feminist critic analyzing a series of paintings Matisse had done of goldfish and arguing that the goldfish were clearly and obviously penises. Sometimes a goldfish is just a goldfish and quite often a critic will find exactly what he or she wants... no matter what the artist/author's intentions and no matter what is actually there in the work in question.

[stlukesguild]

Nice signature StLukes, good choice with Dürer.

How could I actually not love this painting? Durer was perhaps the first artist to seriously paint a self-portrait as a finished work of art in and of itself. In 1498 he had the audacity to portray himself as a young noble... complete with elegant curled hair, fashionable dress, expensive lambskin gloves, and posed before a window open upon an Italian landscape... the artist as aristocratic man of the world. In 1500 he painted this self-portrait looking dead-on... in a pose like a Gothic or Byzantine icon, his bearded appearance and hand raised in benediction clearly suggesting Christ. For an artist to portray himself (at that time) as a young aristocrat was certainly bold... even arrogant; to portray himself as Christ... the artist as God almighty... was absolute blasphemy. I love it!:thumbs_up :lol: :D

[blazeofglory]

Do authors think about the underlying meanings of their work as they write, or are they mostly accidental?

Kafka's The Metamorphosis is open to many interpretations, and I was wondering if any of them actually came to his mind as he was writing it, or if he was merely trying to tell a story about a travelling salesman turning into some sort of insect as a literary manifestation (if you can call it that) of his own isolation?

Kafka was unbeatable in that he had presented his piece entirely differently and as a matter of fact he stood out as a very modern writer indeed leaving a new legacy.