/lit/ - Literature

Very often the writer includes symbolism, in fact most of the time, what they choose to include is generally there because its important.

As to the fact that you never notice symbolism, its usually supposed to be subtle, you should be able to see it if you look, but its not supposed to intrude on your reading experience, just form part of the tapestry. But yeah you could just be stupid too.

>>1474452
Well I remember being able to see the symbols and the connections after someone showed them to me. I always felt like a fool for not seeing them though.

But I was afraid of that.

As a writer, I rarely include symbolism on purpose. Most of the time I finish a piece, then re-read it and find a lot of recurring symbols. For example, one of my stories frequently includes butterflies, but not really on purpose. In the sequel, though, I did use them on purpose.

I read in much the same manner as you; I don't go along looking for symbols and analyzing plots to death. I despise when teachers make you look for meanings in the author's words when the author may not have intended them in the first place.

-H

I'm the same way. I prefer to think we are the better readers, because we can get lost in the story, whereas the analytical type are too busy relating it to RL things, or "discovering" the messages the author "intended" to be discovered to actually enjoy the book.

>>1474469
Yes, but you are a bad writer, too passive letting the work tell you what it means. strive to create like a man, a human being and impose your will upon nature.

reread

nabokov.jpg

>>1474492

Create like a man? But I'm a woman!

I'm pretty much the same way, OP. One thing I particularly remember having trouble with was my teacher's interpretation of Simon from Lord of the Flies as "the Jesus character", and how his death was somehow symbolic of Christ's sacrifices for man and loss of innocence, etc. Never once occurred to me while reading the book, and I still don't really see it. Of course, I took his word for it so that I could bullshit on the exam and not fail.

>>1474532
Yeah. Another thing my teacher did was equate Piggy's glasses to civilization, and how when they were destroyed it was symbolic of the complete collapse of civility. I understood that one, but it was still a stretch for me. I saw them as a tool and never really considered them representative of society.

>>1474507
and you always will be with that attitude.

>>1474546
did you actually try and reflect on the book, or did you just read it and have your teacher tell you what it means. I mean these things are open to some degree of interpretation, but its sounds like you just read it and didn't try analyzing it at all.

I'm not judging cause that's a fine way to find entertainment, but you can't really expect to find anything if you're not looking.

>>1474581
I wasn't out to find the symbols, no, but if I realized them by happenstance it set me on a roll after which I saw a lot more symbols. Lord of the Flies was the best book I read in high school to be honest.

Check out TV Tropes. It's kind of a flaming bucket of shit -- and don't you goddamn dare become a 'troper' -- but as far as recognizing character archetypes, narrative conventions, etc, maybe it'll help give you some mental shorthand for future reference.

>>1474581

See, I kind of look at it the other way around. I don't want to look too hard for symbolism, because it's too easy to fabricate false symbolism that the author may never have intended. Same reason why I don't arbitrarily look for symbolism in the real world. If a kid IRL broke his glasses and his luck turned sharply downward thereafter, I wouldn't stroke my beard and say "why yes, I suppose I can draw a parallel between the broken glasses and that poor kid's shitty life." It just is, and anything more than that is overanalysing it.

I suppose there's the potential for more intention in written works than in daily happenstance, but I've never really drawn a line between the two. Maybe I should?

>>1474469
>>1474507
MARIAH CAREY IS A /LIT/ TRIPFAG

>>1474643
That would explain a few things. Is she Deep+Edgy?

>>1474635
Then you don't have to, but symbolism is intended very often. Its not necessary but its there. When dealing with a book you're dealing with an intentionally constructed thing, unlike the real world, unless you believe in god but lets not go there, so its perfectly reasonable to read into what happens. In general when something unnecessary to the main plot happens or is described its either bad writing or blatant symbolism, you should be able to tell the difference.

>>1474635
>>1474478
>>1474469
>authors intention matters

Yeah, I wouldn't bother trying to analyse literature if I were you.

>>1474695
The intent of the author does matter, its not a point to be made in discussion of analysis, for it holds no more sway than anything else, but it does serve as the basis of structuring the words in the book. The book was an attempt to convey something just as much as anyone speaking, in all cases we give the benefit of the doubt to understand the speech in terms of what the speaker/author "intended". Its horribly myopic to claim that the author's intent has no connection to meaning.

>>1474717
How do you write on 4chan from the past?

We can never know author's intention. Even the author cannot know their own intentions. To try and dig up what an author intended from the text is a Romantic notion of an Artist, and is pretty unimportant.

>>1474724
The author can know their intention, but they can't express it in any other ways than how they already did. But their intention shapes the written work, their intention is what caused it to be at all. No we cannot know their intention, but we can guess, and we should guess because just as we try to understand what someone is trying to express to us in conversation we should give that same flexibility of meaning and benefit of the doubt to the written work.

>>1474737
>The author can know their intention
Lol, no. Psychoanalysis and Marxist interpretations disagree.

>>1474724

Yeah art history's pretty much just a fictional thing anyway amirite. I for one, when I sit down to write a piece of fiction, try to first banish any and all intent from my mind, and then proceed to bash my face against the keyboard as HARD and as FAST as possible. That why it's completely illegible garbage and there's no way to discern if it has any relation to objective reality.

Because THAT'S how you make High Literature.

(Also how you deconstruct it.)

>>1474759
You have written words, but not made a point. That is a skill.

>>1474750
Then can disagree all they want, but if the author cannot know it and no one else can then it does not exist. Which is a foolish thing to say. Things that intentional can clearly be distinguished from the unintentional. Intent exists.

>>1474782
change that too
*things that ARE intentional

>>1474750
They can disagree all they want, but if the author cannot know it and no one else can then it does not exist, which is a foolish thing to say. Things that are intentional can clearly be distinguished from the unintentional. Intent exists.

>>1474771

inorite

Point was: I agree with >>1474737 . Intent matters. You have a goal and a theme, and if you fail to convey these properly, it's because you're a shitty writer.

Now certainly it's possible to read themes into a work that the author did not intend -- but to ignore intent entirely? Navel-gazing.

"I like how your story about those three little pigs paralleled the decline and fall of the Roman empire. ...preparedness?? What? No, it wasn't about that; you're just dumb."

>>1474782
It's not that it doesn't exist, it's that it's idiotic to fawn over it. The Psychoanalytic analyses would say the work is part of the subconscious, so part of the author can be reconstructed from the work. Marxism would say the author is influenced, unaware, by the ideologies of their time. The new critics would say fuck author intent, who really cares, a work can stand on its own.

More important is the perceived intent, if anything, considering the original intent is immaterial.

>>1474789
>Criticize a technique/perspective for something you do in that post, yet it doesn't do
Hurr durr

>>1474791
The subconscious is that which possesses intent, the consciousness is nothing but ephemera.

As to the marxist, just because the author is influenced by the economic power disparity of the time, or whatever, doesn't mean that they lacked intent. In fact it gives us insight into their intent and lets us objectify it to a greater degree.

As to the new critics, who cares.

That said, one benefit of 'intent does not matter' school of thought: it forces a work to stand on its own merits, where 'intent matters' crowd might be tempted to give a shit work with a good point an A for Effort.

>>1474800
Yes, but trying to divorce merit from message is impossible, it may be a laudable goal, but its just delusion.

>>1474804
>>1474800
Merit of a work is a wholly different debate.

>>1474799
What part of:
>It's not that it doesn't exist
Do you not understand? The post was to elaborate on the author not knowing their own intent.

>>1474823
In what sense could it be said to exist then?

>>1474824
>More important is the perceived intent, if anything, considering the original intent is immaterial

...it's like if you read the posts, your questions ared already answered... Pretty scary stuff.

>>1474826
How does that answer the question at all?

>>1474791

>More important is the perceived intent, if anything,

Satisfies me from a practical standpoint. Though I'm still going to insist original intent matters, out of sheer obstinance.

>>1474827
Authorial intent only exists as an interpretation of the reader at best. True (with a T) intent can never be known.

>>1474839
Well perceived meaning is intimately related to intended meaning, otherwise the human species would have never managed to coordinate into social groups at all.

>>1474841
So then how can it be said to exist?

>>1474847
Lurk/read moar.

>>1474861
That won't resolve the basic problem of how you propose a thing to exist without being knowable possibly. That's not a meaningful use of the word "exist" and thus its not a useful thing to mean when you say "authorial intent". Why are you choosing to speak a language filled with so many pointless phrasings?

>>1474868
>cannot into metaphysics
If you want exist to mean that, go ahead, but then pretty much nothing "exists".

>>1474884
How so? its basically a verificationist criterion, almost everything exists.

>>1474890
Verificationist? Lol. Get back to the 50s.

>>1474916
Not an agrument.

Anyway, its a modified version, but in practicalities it boils down to basically verificationism.

>>1474923
>Not an agrument
What is an agrument?

I'm not arguing with you, it's a little boring having to hand hold for every single point. If you wan to learn more, that's up to you.

>>1474927
I'm not asking you to hold my hand, I'm asking you to make a point, cause as far as I see it, you've made an appeal to an arbitrary sense of meaning, and misunderstanding of the nature of psychoanalysis and marxism. I wouldn't be on 4chan if I didn't find this shit entertaining, but it would be more so if you'd actually make a decent point.

>>1474941
Point out where I've misunderstood those two things. Hint: I haven't, you just failed to read the post properly

>>1474945
Of course you've misunderstood them, after all only your perceived intent matters. Your actual intent is irrelevant. As long as I claim you've expressed a misunderstanding of them, then you have.

At least that's the position you've been arguing for.

>>1474953
Oh wow, intellectual checkmate.

Except, now you're in a position of arguing with someone who's saying "Uh, in the context of our language game, I did not misrepresent either of those things". Nice try though.

>>1474960
We haven't been playing a language game, or perhaps we've been playing two separate ones, this whole thread you've been appealing to your own little sources of meaning, but I let you keep going cause I thought it was cute.

>>1474970
>We haven't been playing a language game
Uh, dude, we're always playing language games. We certainly have been here.
>>1474884
Should have been a bit of a clue.

Like I said, lurk/read moar.

>>1474983
Hahaha, no you're not playing a game if each side has a separate rulebook. That's the reason so many intractable debates exist in philosophy, most notably compatibilism vs incompatibilism in the free will debate. There is no language game played when both sides are speaking separate languages.

>>1474986
>There are no games being played when both sides are playing different games
lol

>>1474998
Correct

>>1475001
>Misunderstands game as a social entity

>>1475009
No, correctly understood it thus.

>>1475013
Well, if it makes you happy man, you can think that.

>>1475015
It does, and I do.