Really? I'm not talking about anything as figurative as metaphor.
I'm being quite general I know, but I'm referring to cryptic codes, symbols and signs. These have all existed in Modern Literature.
Really? I'm not talking about anything as figurative as metaphor.
I'm being quite general I know, but I'm referring to cryptic codes, symbols and signs. These have all existed in Modern Literature.
Last edited by Set of Keys; 05-17-2007 at 02:38 PM.
"Saw this friend the other day, I was like "HEY WHERE'S THAT FAX MACHINE YOU PROMISED ME, YOU SAID TUESDAY NOW IT'S FRIDAY, he was like "STOP PUNCHING MY SINCLAIR C5 AND I'LL TELL YOU" and then we wrestled for about 20 minutes".
The Turn of the Screw
Tropes, then, you can call them. Or images. "Symbolism" is a very specific form of representative imagery.Originally Posted by Set of Keys
Even college professors misapply the term, actually. It's pretty funny when one of the other department members calls them out, though.
Sorry, I should have been clear about what I meant by symbols. I wasn't referring to Symbolism and the Symbolism Movement.
I meant symbols and signs. Semiotics. Umberto Eco. That sort of thing.
"Saw this friend the other day, I was like "HEY WHERE'S THAT FAX MACHINE YOU PROMISED ME, YOU SAID TUESDAY NOW IT'S FRIDAY, he was like "STOP PUNCHING MY SINCLAIR C5 AND I'LL TELL YOU" and then we wrestled for about 20 minutes".
The Turn of the Screw
Ah, yes. Well, the thing about semiotics is it's a legitimate and wonderfully insightful field. Many authors do consciously bring abstractions, metaphors, and representative imagery into their writing. The problem, however, is that there are some poorer scholars out there who completely devalue the field with poor analysis and misinterpretation. Many scholars think that somehow some form of "symbolism" will descend from the heavens and absolve them from the need for close-reading. From there, we get a lot of simply BAD criticism that interprets a certain image as meaning something that simply doesn't follow through contextually througout the entire work.
"The problem, however, is that there are some poorer scholars out there who completely devalue the field with poor analysis and misinterpretation. Many scholars think that somehow some form of "symbolism" will descend from the heavens and absolve them from the need for close-reading. From there, we get a lot of simply BAD criticism that interprets a certain image as meaning something that simply doesn't follow through contextually througout the entire work".
I agree with this.
And I do find semiotics an intereting phenomenon. Ferdinand de Saussure has blown my mind more than once. But when applied to literature to convey meaning, it all gets a little cold-blooded and giddily premeditated for my tastes. I begin to distrust the author. And paradoxically, for me at least, the cloaked meaning becomes tainted or lost.
"Saw this friend the other day, I was like "HEY WHERE'S THAT FAX MACHINE YOU PROMISED ME, YOU SAID TUESDAY NOW IT'S FRIDAY, he was like "STOP PUNCHING MY SINCLAIR C5 AND I'LL TELL YOU" and then we wrestled for about 20 minutes".
The Turn of the Screw
Bumping this in light of the recent histrionics by some regarding the idea that people may *insert gasps and sound of people fainting* enjoy reading just for reading and not as an exercise in literary analysis
My position remains unchanged from my OP. I still see no need for it.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
This is from the Harry Potter thread. I thought it was apt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCamilo
But why he can not over-analyse it. To me it seems like he deals with all books this way, why he can not be free to do as he please? Just because the results he produces are negative?
Because sometimes people just want to read and enjoy a book, without having every comma, full-stop and sentence ripped to shreds, particularly when the book which is getting said treatment is supposed to be an enjoyable adventure entertainment for children. We don't have to have a lecture on literary criticism for every book ever mentioned. I know this is a literature forum, but to take apart a book aimed at children, and try to demolish it, and those who enjoy it, is tedious in the extreme, not to mention patronising.
How does one read uncritically? Even if you think something as simple as "I like this" or "I don't like this" you're reading critically. And I can't see how one can avoid doing that.
Anything further is simply an extension of that unbidden thought - but it's all criticism.
I am puzzled because you think there is only one way of reading wiht pleasure. Apparently, critical reading is a torture!
At times yes it is. At times reading is mindless escapism.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
So when you're reading for mindless escapism, you don't have any view as to whether you're enjoying it or not?
No, the problem is that they think one ceases to be while reading. They think critical reading is a job, not a form of relationship with books. A Critical reader enjoys as much as anyone, but they equate enjoyment with liking the book. But of course, since you can only know how much you liked the book after you finish, they advice critical readers to predict the future and avoid certain books.
now earlier in this thread we went round in some circles cos I didnt explain myself fully on the subject of what I mean by "critically" I mean here critical analysis of literary technique. I do use small c criticism in the original deciding whether I enjoy the story enough to continue reading it.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
and I have no problem of reading just for the sake of reading.. but when it is mindlessly reading "relative" trash, please don't claim that it provides more benefit than just entertainment, is all...
Okay.
Then, for me, yes, it is necessary.
I have never read for mindless escapism. What I like about fiction is the engagement with the writing - and that means how it's done as well as what it's about. That, to me, is entertainment. If I didn't do that, I wouldn't enjoy reading at all.
Incidentally, this is not because I think that writing is in some way special. I watch TV and movies the same way. It doesn't detract at all from Two and Half Men to notice how cleverly the plot is constructed, or how a gag in the last few minute was set up so carefully at two or three earlier points in the show, or what the inherent rules are that govern the internally-consistent world of the Harpers.
Come to think of it, I don't do anything mindlessly. I'm not sure I'd even know how to. How do you disengage your mind?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
