muh symbolism

[Anonymous No.6626502]

Does symbolism actually add anything of value to literature, or is it just added in as fanservice to English professors?

Is symbolism something that a decent writer would consciously include in their work? Or is it something that people choose to see, as a result of reading too deeply into an author's meaning?

[Anonymous No.6626507]

:,(

[Anonymous No.6626508]

>>6626502
It's a tool of resonance, which is hard to master. A gamble, if you will, a delegation to the reader.

[Anonymous No.6626510]

>>6626502
I wrote a shitload of symbolism into my novel.

[Anonymous No.6626525]

>>6626502
it's a parlor trick. prose is the only thing that matters.

[Anonymous No.6626541]

Symbolism is retarded. Fuck I hated being in English classes in college where the professor tried to twist every novel that we read to fit their world view.

>That white man in the 18th century described the kettle as "black". Obviously this is supposed to symbolize colonialism and the oppression of Africans.

>The dentist pulling that guy's teeth out is symbolic of income inequality resulting from the California gold rush

[Anonymous No.6626555]

>>6626541

[Anonymous No.6626557]

>>6626525
There isn't any aspect to the novel that isn't a parlour trick, including its prose.

The sooner you guys realize that your favourites play up to your idea of what a good novel or good writing is, the better off you'll be.

[Anonymous No.6626560]

>>6626555
>Intentionalism
Trips checked

[Anonymous No.6626570]

>>6626557
I set out to write the next Finnegans Wake so I don't think anything can really help me.

[Anonymous No.6626571]

It's a way of reinforcing themes without being too heavy-handed.

[Anonymous No.6626576]

It's an enrichment, an enlivenment. A way of tying things into the story that are a bit tangential on their own without the added context.
and they can be a crutch for hacks trying to make "literary" works. Fucking looking at you, a separate peace.

[Anonymous No.6626583]

>>6626502
Symbolism has evolved far past the primitive and heavy-handed analogs of 19th century romanticism and 20th century realism. Authors have long since figured out that blatant symbolism disrupts the verisimilitude of a story and generally makes the readers roll their eyes and groan. It still exists, but on a much more organic and natural level.

Take Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. Benjy the atemporal retard links certain objects to the comfort and warmth of his childhood, mainly the mirror above the fireplace and Caddy's slipper. The emptiness of the space where the mirror used to be (which was removed sometime after his childhood) very distinctly represents the loss of his childhood. And yet the treatment of this symbolism is very smoothly woven into the story; it is completely natural for a mentally retarded man to latch onto this change in his setting.

I guess what I'm getting at is symbolism does exist in the real world. People attach emotional valence to inanimate objects all the time; that's just how the human brain works. But the important thing is that it needs to be done organically and intelligently--sometimes so subliminally that most people won't even notice--and moreover the symbolism needs to be a product of the lens of one of the characters, not the narrator.

[Anonymous No.6626612]

>>6626555
So what's the point of recovering meaning from a text? Why make it an academic discipline?

If the meaning of a work cannot be comprehended by the "average" reader, then the author has failed. After all, fiction writing is entertainment and nothing more. If the author fails to entertain you, then the work is shit.

I feel like English professors are of the same ilk as trekkies, hardcore gamerz, and others who get way too invested in a hobby, the only difference being that English professors have discovered how to turn their hobby into a racket and command veneration for simply being a dork that likes to read a lot.

[Anonymous No.6626626]

>>6626612
Art, dear boy.

[Anonymous No.6626633]

>>6626612
>If the meaning of a work cannot be comprehended by the "average" reader, then the author has failed. After all, fiction writing is entertainment and nothing more. If the author fails to entertain you, then the work is shit.

Probably the single most anti-intellectual post on this board, ever.

[Anonymous No.6626648]

>>6626612
>If the meaning of a work cannot be comprehended by the "average" reader, then the author has failed. After all, fiction writing is entertainment and nothing more. If the author fails to entertain you, then the work is shit.
I disagree. There are different tiers of videogames for different tiers of gamers and the same can be correctly said about books. If someone is not good enough at videogames to play x hardcore videogame, has the developer failed? Of course not. He was just shooting for a different demographic of gamer.

Like it or not there are dumb people and there are smart people and there are people with long or short attention spans. There are experienced readers who can hone in on the most sublime subtleties and properly appreciate them, and there are boors who can only read Tom Clancy.

And the function of books isn't solely to entertain. It's also to enlighten, and if you have not realized that you have not read enough.

[Anonymous No.6626651]

>>6626633
How is that view anti-intellectual? Literature can only be of an acceptable quality if its real value can only be deciphered by those with years of education in critical theory and literary analysis?

Let me guess, you think Martin Luther was anti-intellectual when he suggested that it was bullshit that the Bible was only available in Latin?

[Anonymous No.6626663]

>>6626648
By "average" reader, I meant the book's target demographic.

Also,
>he thinks the feeling of enlightenment is not entertaining in and of itself
It feels good and keeps you "entertained" with thoughts of your own enlightenment, does it not?

[Anonymous No.6626674]

>>6626651
>Literature can only be of an acceptable quality if its real value can only be deciphered by those with years of education in critical theory and literary analysis?
No but it's misinformed to say that fiction is strictly for entertainment, or that entertainment only comes from surface level readings.

[Anonymous No.6626700]

>>6626674
>it's misinformed to say that fiction is strictly for entertainment

Its really not. Those feelings you get when you read a book that carries a lot of meaning to you, can accurately be described as [superlative] entertainment. Soul enriching entertainment, sublime entertainment, however you want to describe it. Those feelings of fulfillment you get from reading great literature... its entertainment

[Anonymous No.6626723]

>>6626612
>So what's the point of recovering meaning from a text?
Two reasons: the obvious one being that the author intentionally put it there. The second one is that, if the author did not, it adds depth to the text and the reader's appreciation of it is enhanced.

>Why make it an academic discipline?
I'm not knowledgeable of literary theory or its history, so I don't really know, but if I had to guess it would be due to literary theory (or at least modern theory) developing primarily in academia.

>If the meaning of a work cannot be comprehended by the "average" reader, then the author has failed.
The general meaning of something should perhaps be noticed by the average reader, but not necessarily comprehended or understood.

[Anonymous No.6626727]

>>6626700
>dfw not understanding art to this extent

[Anonymous No.6626771]

>>6626727
>dude, you just don't get it

At what point does a medium for expression turn from "entertainment" to "art", then? The only reason literature is placed on a pedestal compared to other forms of entertainment is it's age, nothing more.

Novels used to be considered mindless entertainment until multiple generations of readingfags convinced everyone that it was a valuable art form worthy of respect.

You consider the value derived from reading a work of literature to be something more than entertainment specifically because someone told you to. The reality is, its giving you an entertainment double whammy because not only was it a good read, you gain the satisfaction (i.e. entertainment) of feeling somehow more self aware than those around you.

Nothing wrong with enjoying literature, but lets not kid ourselves about why we really enjoy reading.

[Anonymous No.6626785]

>>6626771
So what you're saying is you're straight-up retarded, basically. It might be ok to be a Luddite but not realizing you're one isnt.

[Anonymous No.6626838]

>>6626583
underrated post

[Anonymous No.6626856]

>>6626700

well-written fiction also has the effects of increased vocabulary and fluency, though, both of which have practical applications elsewhere

[Anonymous No.6626880]

From a writers perspective it's too easy, you can put symbolism anywhere on a whim just to shoehorn some quick theme into your story, which is a cheap move.

Also if you believe it's a good thing when a book doesn't remind you that it's a book all the time, symbolism should be avoided

[Anonymous No.6626884]

I think for most writers symbolism comes very naturally and it is only later into the process when you recognise it and perhaps choose to exploit it. I think it would be very bizarre to go 'I'll put some eyes on a billboard and that will mean this...' before you begin. The mind is bizarrely brilliant at creating patterns that are thematic and symbolic.

For example you might start a story about a cranky farmer and it starts off with him killing coyotes and putting up a fence. Most people wouldn't have gone 'I'll start with a fence scene so we can seem him build a wall around himself to show what an isolated character he is' but with it in mind that the character is isolating himself from the world you naturally create scenarios that echo this.

The sign of a good writer is seeing this and exploiting it to make drama but not something you begin with 'consciously'.

[Anonymous No.6626901]

>>6626884
>building a fence
But is that symbolism or character development?

[Anonymous No.6626905]

sure is r/books in here
>>6626723
please kindly share with us specific definition of this "average reader"

[Anonymous No.6626906]

you don't enjoy a little symbolism?

[Anonymous No.6626912]

>>6626905
meant for
>>6626612

[Anonymous No.6626916]

>>6626901

The fence is clearly a symbol of his isolation from the world.

Take something simpler. Luke Skywalker wearing white and Darth Vader wearing black. It's not something I suspect any intelligent person would have suggested for its symbolic qualities but like I said the mind is so loaded that when it starts crafting a pure character he's wearing white.

[Anonymous No.6626921]

>>6626905
>calls other r/books
>in same post brings in debaters unpleasantness and muh'logic please define X
>implying that anon's post was advocating an actual "average reader" mark and not just saying that one should act according to the audience that exists

simply epic

[Anonymous No.6626927]

>>6626880

A novel is storytelling. Wanting book not to be a book is saying the story should not be a story. But it is. It has a narrator that is constructing an artificial narrative for entertainment.

The only thing that would work for you is a novel that was basically documentary. Using minimalist language and describing what happens in sequential order with no dramatic framework.

Which might be interesting but the point is that symbolism has lots of uses as a storytelling device and avoiding it to pretend their isn't a narrator is ridiculous and a rule you'd only follow to be pretentious. You wouldn't care as a reader unless it were poorly done. 'Oh is that supposed to be symbolic of his grief? Fucking hell, the dreamstate has been ruined!'

[Anonymous No.6626981]

>>6626916
But is he fenced out, or fenced in? (Pathos)

Is he figuring out how to best construct the fence? (Logos)

Or is he building a fence for a neighbour's cattle or something? (Ethos)

[Anonymous No.6626993]

>>6626981

It's D. He just likes looking at fences.

[Anonymous No.6627792]

>>6626555
Pleb here. This diagram looks like it's saying that the author's intent is the least important thing to consider when reflecting on a written work, while the opinion of an English professor should be highly regarded.

So what's the point of an author putting any effort into his writing in the first place if some faggot is just going to interpret it however he wants, and will then teach his understanding to students who will unquestioningly believe him?

[Anonymous No.6627841]

>>6627792
Sounds like you're in the same boat as me.

You hate Roland Barthes without even knowing it my friend.

A great example i like to use is "The naked Lunch" by William Burroughs - stripped of the context of the way the author lived and thought during it's production robs it of half it's value as a text.

[Anonymous No.6627880]

>>6626727
>>6626785
Top tier arguments, anons. Bravo.

Anon 1:
>Reading is a pastime. Any additional value you assign to it is just you losing your head up your own ass

You:
>NO NOT! I SMART, U DUMB!

[Anonymous No.6627897]

>>6626557
I disagree though. Prose that presents a clear image without being flashy is not a parlor trick (and least not in the way that heavy handed symbolism is)

[Anonymous No.6627918]

>>6627880
Anon 1 has his head wedged even further up his own ass though. He's just repeating himself with more words than anyone who cares enough to respond to him.

[Anonymous No.6627923]

>>6626651
Suggesting that an author should only write for people who don't understand complex work is anti intellectual. You're suggesting that all literature should be dumbed down for the masses.

[Anonymous No.6627982]

>>6627918
He put forth an actual argument. Is the best response anybody on /lit/ can give is "lolno ur wrong" without some semblance of an explanation? Seems pretentious and, dare I say, anti-intellectual to me.

[Anonymous No.6628042]

>>6627982
He doesn't have an argument, he nullified his own. He answered his question "of why do people bother with complex work" with the semantical "one's enjoyment of complex work can be described as entertainment".

[Anonymous No.6628076]

>>6628042
Not that I really care that much about an argument a couple of anons are having, but from my reading of this thread the discussion had devolved into the two anons I quoted earlier dismissing the "reading is entertainment" anon as simply not "getting" art, and calling it a day.

[Anonymous No.6628082]

>>6627982
No he didn't. For one thing the premise that all fiction is strictly for entertainment is entirely wrong because that ignores things like satire, social commentary, or any fiction that's used to put forth a philosophy or make any sort of other statement.

Even beyond that, the assumption that there's no entertainment to be found in things that 'need to be deciphered" or can't be understood by "the average reader" is also wrong. His only response so far to anything anyone has said has boiled down to "lolno that's ENTERTAINMENT too11!1" which isn't an argument.

[Anonymous No.6629146]

>>6626502
Read "Bruges-la-Morte" of Rodenbach, a really good book and a symbolist one.

[Anonymous No.6630623]

>>6626583
Well put anon, always refreshing to actually read something of merit on here.

[Anonymous No.6630656]

>>6626502
it's only effective if the symbol used is neither a blatantly obvious cliche, nor a vague and obtuse parallel that english teachers masturbate over

in short, it's a balancing act

[Anonymous No.6630826]

>>6627792
>>6627841
If fiction authors cared about you developing the "correct" interpretation of their work they would just become nonfiction writers