(no subject)

[charliesmum]

There'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?

Comments

[sing1118.livejournal.com]

This all the time!

Although all I can focus on in that quote is that he spelled Austen wrong.

[king-duncan.livejournal.com]

I find when I'm writing the symbolism just happens. I don't put any thought into it, and then afterward people are all like, "oh man, the thing with the thing", and I'm like, "Uh, yup, intended that. o_O".

[pairika.livejournal.com]

Basilisks. One of my fave words in the WOTR plays. Interesting, especially as the Henrys were written way before Richard III, yet it's in both. Like a theme.

Also, must say that I love king_duncan's icon above. Yay for Opus!!!! (Or Opurt, as sometimes).

[fayzalmoonbeam.livejournal.com]

Some interesting ideas for me as a (shortly to be former, well for a year, anyway!) English teacher. I sometimes think I am guilty of placing too much importance on perceived symbolism when all I want to say is "it's a great story/play/poem regardless of what we perceive the author's intentions to be". But then there's the notion that the reader's interpretation is just as important as the writer's intention - so whatever you read into a text, regardless of original authorial intention, is a valid interpretation (provided you can back it up with a quotation from the text!).

I spent a great hour today chatting with my Year 10 (15 year old) class about Conan Doyle's wonderfully cheesy pathetic fallacy and other techniques in The Hound of the Baskervilles - now THERE'S an author who really knew how to milk the cliches and write a ripping yarn. I think the kids looked at me like I was mad when I kept giggling whilst reading a chapter to them, but honestly, ACD is such a glorious hack sometimes!

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

SUCH a hack. Which is why it's hilarious when people complain about the new Holmes movie being silly and hacky - they are clearly unfamiliar with the source material. But it's Victorian so it must be serious. *g*

let me whip out my lit peen

[drakonlily.livejournal.com]

See, I talked about this forever before. Good writers, Literature with a capital L is something that sticks with a reader and makes them thing, uses our natural inclination for group discussions to do JUST THAT. It makes itself pervasive and story telling, from music to written word is just the writer trying to get something "good". I think that Literature (MASH perhaps included) doesn't have a magic theorem. There's good writing, good craft and that certainly counts to the term Literature, but I think that there's a lot to be said for style (I hate him, but Faulkner comes to mind) and for sheer power. I don't think that they all go out to be like "oooo now for the SYMBOLISM" as much as they want people to ENJOY it.

Because then people talk about it. People share it and talk about it. And in that way, people make it their own.

[sixth-light.livejournal.com]

Possibly "basilisk" is used a lot because the basilisk was the king of snakes (from the Greek basileus(sp?), king) and the plays are all about kingship (i.e. who has it, who doesn't, who has the right to it, etc.)? But that's just off the top of my head.