(no subject)
Feb. 25th, 2010 11:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
charliesmumThere's a neat topic on this television writer, Ken Levine's blog today about symbolism in writing. He says:
Every so often I’ll read an article or term paper or passage in a book that references a MASH episode my partner and I wrote. The piece is most always complimentary; sometimes overly so. But invariably the authors will analyze the episode. They’ll identify the symbolism, how when Hawkeye hangs up his laundry he’s really representing the Anti-Christ, and they’ll find all kinds of mythological parallel, subliminal messages, and odes to other works of literature. They’ll compare Klinger to Jane Austin, find significance in jeep license plate numbers, and detect hidden codes in Radar’s dialogue.
He goes on to say, er, no, we didn't do that ever. We just tried to write a good show.
The discussion in the comments got really interesting - How do we know if the writers meant what our English teachers told them they meant? And are good writers unconsciously adding symbolism? Is all good writing good because there is the possibility of symbolic interpretation in it?
In our show (OPENING FRIDAY BOOK YOUR TICKETS ONLINE!)which is basically the three Henry VIs and Richard III, I've noticed the word 'basilisk' comes up a lot. Was Shakespeare going somewhere with that, or it's just imagery he liked, so he used it frequently? (Also calling people 'homicide' happens frequently. It's sort of amusing when you start to notice these things)
I personally think the best writers don't intentionally get hung up on symbolism and meaning and portents. They write a good story, but they understand the world, and people's imagination enough that occasionally literature happens in the process of them telling a good story.
I despise books that try too hard to be 'deep and meaningful'. Oprah Books, I call them. Written by and for people who seem to think that, in order to be literature, the story has to be heavy, laden with symbolism, and usually bleak and depressing.
(I blame the fact that most of the books that we're forced to read in school ARE bleak and depressing. Our Mutual Friend is a far superiour book to A Tale of Two Cities, in my opinion, but TOTC is what usually gets taught.)
What do you think?
Every so often I’ll read an article or term paper or passage in a book that references a MASH episode my partner and I wrote. The piece is most always complimentary; sometimes overly so. But invariably the authors will analyze the episode. They’ll identify the symbolism, how when Hawkeye hangs up his laundry he’s really representing the Anti-Christ, and they’ll find all kinds of mythological parallel, subliminal messages, and odes to other works of literature. They’ll compare Klinger to Jane Austin, find significance in jeep license plate numbers, and detect hidden codes in Radar’s dialogue.
He goes on to say, er, no, we didn't do that ever. We just tried to write a good show.
The discussion in the comments got really interesting - How do we know if the writers meant what our English teachers told them they meant? And are good writers unconsciously adding symbolism? Is all good writing good because there is the possibility of symbolic interpretation in it?
In our show (OPENING FRIDAY BOOK YOUR TICKETS ONLINE!)which is basically the three Henry VIs and Richard III, I've noticed the word 'basilisk' comes up a lot. Was Shakespeare going somewhere with that, or it's just imagery he liked, so he used it frequently? (Also calling people 'homicide' happens frequently. It's sort of amusing when you start to notice these things)
I personally think the best writers don't intentionally get hung up on symbolism and meaning and portents. They write a good story, but they understand the world, and people's imagination enough that occasionally literature happens in the process of them telling a good story.
I despise books that try too hard to be 'deep and meaningful'. Oprah Books, I call them. Written by and for people who seem to think that, in order to be literature, the story has to be heavy, laden with symbolism, and usually bleak and depressing.
(I blame the fact that most of the books that we're forced to read in school ARE bleak and depressing. Our Mutual Friend is a far superiour book to A Tale of Two Cities, in my opinion, but TOTC is what usually gets taught.)
What do you think?