ruined by interpretation

In class we had to read "The Great Gatsby" as a class novel study. I finished the book in a week-end, reading it for hours on end. I want to say now that i liked it very much and since have gone on to read Fitzgerald's other novels.

My post is not about the quality of the novel in question but on how my class butchered the book through analysis. Gatsby was torn apart chapter by chapter, each bit of meaning was squeezed out and examined. The book was ruined, every bit of mystery completely removed. So my question is have you ever had a book spoiled for you by over analysis and over thinking? I know that books should be looked at in depth but have you had any experience of something like this?

I've been fortunate that nothing has been ruined for me, though I've often been annoyed by overanalysis. This calls to mind, however, Ray Bradbury's heated objections to the way that so many have interpreted Fahrenheit 451, mainly that it is publicly regarded as a criticism of censorship but he actually intended it to be more of a denunciation of the increasing influence of television and pop culture.

It depends on the teacher. My highschool teachers ruined reading Macbeth and King Lear for me, whereas my professors have given me great insight and appreciation for things I used to loathe. I've cured myself of my problem with Macbeth, and with Lear, yet I still haven't gotten over my hating of Ondaatje's poetry, though I suspect that wasn't the teacher, but rather Ondaatje's fault.

Hey at least they gave you texts to ruin. I didn't study a text until half way through my 2nd year. I studied Genre. Who knew the 'city' was a genre? Who knew the 'flaneur' was central to it? And who knew Lacan and Foucault had anything to do with it? Questions i didn't care about then and don't care about now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynara

In class we had to read "The Great Gatsby" as a class novel study. I finished the book in a week-end, reading it for hours on end. I want to say now that i liked it very much and since have gone on to read Fitzgerald's other novels.

---

Glad to hear you enjoyed The Great Gatsby - Fitzgerald has remained as one of my favorite authors. Give Tender is the Night a chance, if you have time - truly a work of art!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cynara

My post is not about the quality of the novel in question but on how my class butchered the book through analysis. Gatsby was torn apart chapter by chapter, each bit of meaning was squeezed out and examined. The book was ruined, every bit of mystery completely removed. So my question is have you ever had a book spoiled for you by over analysis and over thinking? I know that books should be looked at in depth but have you had any experience of something like this?

---

Reading a book and sharing interpretations can get quite exhausting, and, I agree, it can ruin a book. I love hearing others' opinions and interpretations, even if I disagree with them, explaining why I joined this forum originally; for me, it takes a lot to ruin a book, and I normally find the reason behind that with others pushing their views upon others - both teachers and the 'know-it-alls.' In this light, however, one can see a novel from multiple perspectives, notice details s/he failed to see, and encorporate different backgrounds of knowledge to interpret the novel - both a blessing and a curse sometimes.
Some books that got butchered for me: Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, Middlemarch by George Eliot, and almost all of the works by Jane Austen and Charles Dickens.
In my opinion, some books, despite how much attention they receive, get better and better with the more studying and discussing they need - books like Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon, The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera, Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, The Prophet by Khalil Gibran, and many works by James Joyce, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Albert Camus.

It is very much the way, alas. Fortunately, you eventually become immune to it, and great literature will eventually return to your original perception. I remember one of my lecturers butchering Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey by insisting it had a strong political subtext, something which caused me almost physical pain. But now, I've entirely purged my mind of his drivel, and can still enjoy the poem for what it is.

I was lucky, as it seems...

My only thing that was really ruined was really Antignone. I was not educated enough (nor was the rest of the class) in Greek culture to understand the problem with the Gods and everything.

My liking of Shakespeare was not affected as he was still too dfficult. We did exerpts of Romeo and Juliet, but we did not analyse.

In French, we did Le Rhinocéros of Ionesco. I don't think the teacher got it either... I don't have the impression anyway. It wasn't totally ruined, though...
What we read for the rest, was total crap, anyway.

In Dutch we did general style, so we never overanalysed.

As Blackadder put it before kicking Shakespeare: 'And that is for every schoolboy in future, looking for a joke in your Much Ado about Nothing.' (:lol: great :D) I never had that poblem. I praise myself lucky...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

It is very much the way, alas. Fortunately, you eventually become immune to it, and great literature will eventually return to your original perception. I remember one of my lecturers butchering Wordsworth's Tintern Abbey by insisting it had a strong political subtext, something which caused me almost physical pain. But now, I've entirely purged my mind of his drivel, and can still enjoy the poem for what it is.

---

Wrong political subtext? How is that possible? An author writes always in th right context, never mind what the reader thinks...

Can you actually clarify that?

I like interpreting literature, and it doesn't harm the literature; but overinterpreting and misinterpreting literature do harm the enjoyment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiki1982

I was lucky, as it seems...

My only thing that was really ruined was really Antignone. I was not educated enough (nor was the rest of the class) in Greek culture to understand the problem with the Gods and everything.

My liking of Shakespeare was not affected as he was still too dfficult. We did exerpts of Romeo and Juliet, but we did not analyse.

In French, we did Le Rhinocéros of Ionesco. I don't think the teacher got it either... I don't have the impression anyway. It wasn't totally ruined, though...
What we read for the rest, was total crap, anyway.


As Blackadder put it before kicking Shakespeare: 'And that is for every schoolboy in future, looking for a joke in your Much Ado about Nothing.' (:lol: great :D) I never had that poblem. I praise myself lucky...

---

I really like Antigone, both versions. I love the conflict between the gods who pass judgement on the poor vulnerable mortals and the tragedy and flaws and...I can't believe we have to do Greek comedy.

Rhinoceros is about Nazism. Everyone starts turning into rhinos so the man starts wishing his skin was all wrinkly, etc...even though the rhinos are creepy.

We were forbidden from interpreting the poem 'Nutting' as being sexual in class, but I did manage to put the interpretation into my A-level exam :)

I agree texts are ruined by interpretations and translations.

I don't believe that any piece of literature can be over-analysed to the point that it ruins the work itself. Different points of analysis are merely different viewpoints that can be taken or leaven at the door.

The only way that an analysis can possibly be harmful is if a teacher/critic argues that a piece has only one possible meaning, or restricts the free interpretation of a work of art for their students. Either way this is trying to reduce the art, and the students' appreciation of it, which is simply a fault of the teacher/critic and not of the object of analysis itself.

There is no such thing as over-analysing literature.

I don't believe that any piece of literature can be over-analysed to the point that it ruins the work itself. Different points of analysis are merely different viewpoints that can be taken or leaven at the door.

The only way that an analysis can possibly be harmful is if a teacher/critic argues that a piece has only one possible meaning, or restricts the free interpretation of a work of art for their students. Either way this is trying to reduce the art, and the students' appreciation of it, which is simply a fault of the teacher/critic and not of the object of analysis itself.

There is no such thing as over-analysing literature.

I agree. No work of art of any real merit can be reduced to a single "meaning" or interpretation. And certainly I agree that the only possible harm is that wrought by the critic/scholar/teacher who insists upon a single correct interpretation. I won't go so far as to suggest there are no "wrong" interpretations, however.

Quote:

---

I won't go so far as to suggest there are no "wrong" interpretations, however.

---

Well maybe not "no" wrong interpretations, but as long as a fair interpretation is derived from the text itself, strictly speaking, there can be relatively few "wrong" readings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Well maybe not "no" wrong interpretations, but as long as a fair interpretation is derived from the text itself, strictly speaking, there can be relatively few "wrong" readings.

---

You'd be surprised. Plenty of wrong, or stupid readings, or simply readings with no substance (like people who comment something like, "the words chosen here are beautifully written and evoke wonderful images" or other such nonsense). I'd say 80% of academic readings are meh, 40% bad, and 95% of unscholarly readings are pretty mediocre, in terms of accuracy. It's not so uncommon to see complete debasements in criticism, let alone the common reader. Besides which, the bulk of bad readings suffer from not having anything interesting to say - that's the real crime, I think, a teacher taking the SparkNotes, and essentially dictating it to their class. Quite simply, a good class on literature assumes that the students good enough as to be able to write the sparknotes themselves, and thereby teaches something which can't be downloaded from the internet.

Nope.