READ THIS ENTIRE ENTRY BEFORE YOU START COMPOSING YOUR RESPONSE! :)
Hey there, sweet seniors! I'm so excited to welcome you to the wondrous world of literature exploration that is AP Lit. We're going to have a great time together this year reading, analyzing, discussing, and most importantly appreciating fine works of prose and poetry.
First, I want you to watch this awesome video by the inimitably amazing John Green:
Next, read this selection from Thomas C. Foster's How to Read Literature Like a Professor:
Along about now you should be asking a question, something like this: you keep saying that the writer is alluding to this obscure work and using that symbol or following some pattern or other that I never heard of, but does he really intend to do that? Can anyone really have all that going on in his head at one time?
Now that is an excellent question. I only wish I had an excellent answer, something pithy and substantive, maybe with a little alliteration, but instead I have one that's merely short.
Yes.
The chief deficiency of this answer, aside from its lack of pith, is that it is manifestly untrue. Or at least misleading. The real answer, of course, is that no one knows for certain. Oh, for this writer or that one we can be pretty sure, depending on what they themselves tell us, but in general we make guesses.
Since proof is nearly impossible, discussions of the writer's intentions are not especially profitable. Instead let's restrict ourselves to what he did do and, more important, what we readers can discover in his work. What we have to work with is hints and allegations, really, evidence, sometimes only a trace, that points to something lying behind the text. It's useful to keep in mind that any aspiring writer is probably also a hungry, aggressive reader as well and will have absorbed a tremendous amount of literary history and literary culture. By the time she writes her books, she has access to that tradition in ways that need not be conscious. Nevertheless, whatever parts have infiltrated her consciousness are always available to her. Something else we should bear in mind has to do with speed of composition. The few pages of this chapter have taken you a few minutes to read; they have taken me, I'm sorry to say, days and days to write...all I'm really saying is that we readers sometimes forget how long literary composition can take and how very much lateral thinking can go on in that amount of time (82-85).
Now ponder these questions in a written response: What evidence from your prior literature study do you have to support both Green's and Foster's claims? And what facets of John Green's video particularly connect with Foster's claims?
You might be wondering what I'm looking for in terms of quality here. A phrase you will get used to hearing me say this year is "3E." That stands for eloquent, exhaustive, and effective. Your response should be worded in a fluid fashion, free of grammar or spelling errors. Your response should be in-depth and detailed, leaving no stone unturned, so to speak. And your response should effectively respond to the prompt above, neglecting nothing as you provide considerable insight into the topic at hand.
That said, students always want to know what they should be shooting for length-wise. 3E responses are typically comprised of multiple paragraphs; in fact, most AP Lit students from past years end up needing to submit their entries in two parts (or more) because blogger only allows comments up to a certain length. When it comes to AP Lit writing, size matters, and the bigger the better. :) I would advise composing your response in a Word document, then cutting and pasting it here. That way you have a record of your responses and are also less likely to have your response vanish into the tubes of the inter webs without anything to show for it (it happens every year to someone...don't let it be you!).
Literature Lurve
Literature is, perhaps, one of the most complex things to ever exist. Why do we read? What are we reading? What is the author trying to tell us? These are all questions we ask that remain unanswered to this day and will likely never be answered. Both Green and Foster make solid cases- Green talks on the motivations behind reading while Foster touches on the thought and effort authors put into their works. Let’s take The Scarlet Letter as an example.
ReplyDeleteWhile we as students may not completely appreciate this dense piece of literature, we do have to acknowledge the effort and time Hawthorne put into writing his novel. We look at symbols prevalent in the novel- the big red letter ‘A’, the natures of Dimmesdale and Chillingworth, and even Pearl. In accordance with Foster’s argument over proof of symbolic intention, we will never know if Hawthorne intended for these to actually be symbols. Yes, there is a likely chance he meant for them to be, but we have no way of knowing for sure. Should that change the way we look at the novel as a whole? Not at all. We should take the opportunity to appreciate the message Hawthorne (and other authors as well) is trying to convey with his writing. This is where Green’s claim comes into play.
In his video, Green argues that we should read not just for the sake of it, but to enhance our understanding of those around us. Even more importantly, reading will help us enhance our own writing by providing good examples of how to communicate effectively and empathetically. In the case of the Scarlet Letter example, our experience with Hester throughout the books allows us to learn about her isolation from others and how she fearlessly conquers that. We followed as Chillingworth seemingly grew in power and Dimmesdale suddenly lose his. Each character, regardless of book origin, brings something new to the table. One might teach us a lesson in being a selfless person, another might show us the necessity for ambition in life. As with The Scarlet Letter, exposure to all of the characters brings about a holistic learning experience for readers.
(part 1)
Green also mentions slightly how we should make our own interpretations and analysis of the literature we read. While we are reading and taking in someone else’s feelings, that doesn’t necessarily mean we should stop having thoughts of our own. Back to the Scarlet Letter example: there are many scenes where Hester encounters pieces of nature (ex: the rosebush). The reader can take this to mean a plethora of different ideas. Nature could symbolize her inner goodness, it could also symbolize the faults of society… My interpretation could vastly contrast from the next person’s. Does that make either of our thoughts wrong? Thus, Green advocates for open appreciation; we should be able to read and have the power to drive our own conclusions about it. Foster mentions something similar where, at a certain point, it is up to the reader to make his/her interpretation of what the author has given him/her.
ReplyDeleteBoth Green and Foster make valid points. In fact, their claims have aspects that go hand in hand. Within Green’s video, he touches on how authors write so they can share their message and feelings with others (including an audience decades past their time). Foster, on that same note, discusses how authors meticulously take their time writing something worth their time. Like a carefully woven braid, these two ideas come together to mesh into a cohesive thought. Green’s point in this case just happens to click right into Foster’s claim. With as much effort as authors put into writing, we as an audience should be there to not only learn but also enjoy their works.
There is much to take away from the works left behind by our predecessors; even if they are stubbornly enigmatic, we can still take away so much just from the experience. While I used The Scarlet Letter as my primary example, countless others remain out there that validate Green’s and Foster’s claims. The Great Gatsby, The Catcher in the Rye, Grapes of Wrath, so on and so forth. I have no doubt that the pieces of work we read this year will also contain philosophy from Green and Foster- an ideology that encourages us to appreciate the blood, sweat, and tears shed by these authors.
(part 2)
In John Green’s Crash Course video, he covers the topics of how and why we as humans read. He begins by discussing how writing and literature act as means of communication between people and also eras of time. More importantly, he delves into the questions readers often have when attempting to comprehend literature. A frequently pondered question is what authors’ actually mean when writing their compositions, as surely readers perceive meanings that weren’t originally intended by the author. What Green expresses in his video, which also coincides with Thomas C. Foster’s How to Read Literature Like a Professor, is that what the author intended to relay to their audience and what they meant in their words, doesn’t necessarily matter if the reader finds meaning in the work for themselves. The point of literature is to convey topics, truths, discoveries, and any other ideas that are worth sharing in a way that makes an impact on the reader. With this in mind, Green and Foster both express that even if the reader of a piece of literature doesn’t perceive even close to what the author meant, but still finds meaning in the work for themselves, then the author’s intentions aren’t necessarily all that important. While its spectacular if the author is able to convey their thoughts and feelings in a way which is correctly perceived by their readers, as long as the reader finds meaning in the work, then the piece of literature has served its purpose. In the end, we won’t always find out exactly what the author meant in their words and works of literature, so both Green and Foster would agree that it’s a more valuable use of time to seek out a relevant meaning to yourself in a piece of literature, rather than to spend an eternity wondering what the true meaning of the work really is.
ReplyDeleteI find this to be true through past works of literature I’ve read. One example would be with the book 1984 written by George Orwell and published in 1949. Some readers of this particular piece of literature tend to share the belief that Orwell intended it to be a sort of cautionary tale that warned against what our future as a civilization could look like if we continued on a certain path. We can even see resemblance between the dystopian novel and our own society today. Despite these similarities and the inference of Orwell’s intention, we will never truly know if Orwell wrote the novel with the purpose of warning us as a society against certain behaviors and compliances that would lead to his imaginary world, or if he simply wrote the novel to relieve and share his frustrations of living in a war-torn and highly political era. The same can be said about Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World published earlier in 1932. Similar to 1984, Brave New World warns about the future and how different our society could end up if we chose to go down a certain path. Although it’s safe to say that Huxley’s purpose with writing Brave New World was to share a warning about the effects of possibly abusing science and drugs (two of the themes within the novel), we won’t really truly know his meaning with every page as we don’t of Orwell’s with 1984.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteIn both the video by John Green and the passage by Thomas C. Foster, the question of author’s intent is raised. In the context of these pieces, both writers strive to answer every English student’s long held question of whether or not symbols and patterns teachers force them to analyze are truly there or not. Simply, both Green and Foster agree that those symbols and patterns do exist and belong there but aren’t as strategically placed as readers think. Green explores this claim during his open letter segment in which he emphasizes how the correlation between author’s intent and symbols existing is irrelevant. This is because he believes that the symbol in and of itself exists not for the author’s pleasure but instead to serve the reader. Green states that even if a symbol turns out to have not been intended by the author, if a reader’s experience was in any way improved by finding a symbol, the symbol therefor matters and has validity. This idea is somewhat echoed in Foster’s writing when he discusses the consciousness of a writer. He points out that writers are also voracious readers and thus carry an abundance of book culture. Because of this, elements such as symbols and patterns are so embedded in their knowledge that including them in their writing is a natural thing. As such, symbols and patterns may flow out of the writer without them even noticing.
Under both Green and Foster, literature exists not for an educational experience but instead for an emotional and performative experience. Authors write to put their imagination on paper and readers read to submerge themselves into new worlds and topics. Because of this, literature is meant for open ended interpretation and unique perspectives. When looking at cookie cutter analysis, it is very easy to chastise a reader for having an “incorrect” interpretation and say that they have missed the author’s point completely.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteBut, both Green and Foster argue that in the broad view of literature, there is no incorrect interpretation because if that interpretation made the reader feel something in the positive sense, then it is already correct. The idea that readers can be so right and so wrong at the same time is reason to agree with Foster and Green that dwelling on the idea of writer’s intentions is a waste of time because no true conclusion can ever be made.
If intention was able to be concretely proven, then there would only ever be one right answer to every analysis of a given book. This idea was greatly disproven during a literary study I remember doing during sophomore year on the novel Lord of the Flies. In this project, each student had to pick a unique, unexplored, piece of the book and showcase how that thing was representative of greater symbolism. To find over 30 new symbolic elements requires readers to think beyond the literal pages and look past the usual symbols. As such, we had to take outside knowledge that we knew or experiences from our own lives to think of potential symbols and connections that we could make to the book. If there were true author’s intent in the symbols found in Lord of the Flies, this project would not have been able to occur because our extrapolation would be a deviation from the one real answer. Yes, we could still make our far-fetched claims, but they wouldn’t mean anything because we would already know that we are wrong. Being able to explore various paths in a novel is what enriches the overall reading experience. By having a good idea of what the author is thinking but not the legitimate details is what allows us to have lengthy discussions and projects. Having an author say that a certain symbol was made purposely and means one specific thing builds a wall that blocks readers from ever expanding the world that they have created. John Green hones in on the idea of making our own worlds through reading and emphasizes that anything that richens our lives, whether intended to our not, is valid and should be celebrated. Thus, literature is something that is not made for the sole purpose of symbolism and analysis, but rather is made for the expansion of the human experience which happens to sometimes come from convenient symbolism.
One of my most vivid memories from middle school was reading “Esperanza Rising” in the sixth grade. It was an engaging book, and I enjoyed reading it; however, I distinctly remember thinking that my teacher exaggerated the significance of the book. She had described the scene in which the pinata was broken as symbolic for the workers being beaten down and the immigrants’ hopes being shattered into pieces. I explicitly recall my skepticism, thinking that even Pam Munoz Ryan could not have possibly intended that outlandish interpretation, and I dismissed the idea as something my teacher probably saw online. I continued through middle school with a similar mindset, believing that most symbolism was invented in the minds of creative English majors or language arts teachers, searching for and finding meaning in even the most minute details.
ReplyDeleteEventually, I got to my ninth grade English class. We read “Animal Farm” and studied the book in the context of the Russian Revolution, and I suddenly realized the beauty and depth of literature (especially a well-done allegory). The symbolism, in historical context, was so blatant and cleverly-crafted that it metaphorically “slapped me in the face” and forced me to change my viewpoint on literature. I instantly became a fan of George Orwell but also of studying literature with a new lens --- that of authorial intent.
After overcoming my ignorance for the sophisticated nuances of literature, I have come to greatly appreciate authors and their care, as well as thought process, in creating meaningful work. I began to realize the significance of an author’s historical and personal background, as context for their writing. As soon as I began viewing literature as an engineered message for a greater purpose, I began to more avidly hunt for deeper meanings, not only in literature but also in movies and social interactions. Maybe I was in fact overthinking a bit, reading between the lines too much, and finding meaning where there was none intended; however, it did not matter in the least. Even if (and especially when) the hidden meanings and messages were all inside my head, the level of engagement and interest I had was incomparable. I made personal connections with what I read, and the books became meaningful to me, in my own way. Whether the authors had intended it or not, I found themes in the books applicable to my own life, and the personal takeaways I discovered made me think in new ways.
John Green and Thomas Foster both assert the viewpoint that authorial intent does not matter, and what the reader gleans from their experience with the book is the most important. Authors’ intentions are essentially impossible to prove; however, our interactions with books and how we interpret what we read is more easily quantified. Regardless of whether an author meant to include a symbol or certain connotation, the reaction a reader has when they read is most important. If an author inadvertently makes their book memorable and meaningful to readers, it should not matter whether the author truly intended that effect.
Consequently, when I read or share ideas now, I worry less about coming to the same conclusions as others. In the case of literature, less conformity is better. I have found that everyone reacts to literature in their own way, and no reaction is invalid (within academic reason). Sometimes, authors attempt to lead their readers to certain conclusions; some authors are more successful than others. But even if they do not lead to the desired conclusion or instead leave room for other interpretations, it by no means implies less success. In leaving some ideas open to readers’ imaginations, authors allow readers to make more personal connections with their books and, in doing so, promote a richer learning and emotional interaction with their literature. All in all, maybe it is good to switch out the lens of authorial intent for your own glasses every once in a while; instead of trying to read and think how others would, we must sometimes truly think for ourselves.
The argument for understanding authorial intent, in most cases where I’ve heard it been staunchly advocated for, relies on the assumption that the author determines the best interpretation of their work. And I understand why that might be a tempting ideology to adopt. It makes it easy to delineate a right and wrong answer. But I’d argue that quibbling about authorial intent, in full-hearted agreement with John Greene and Thomas Foster, is unfruitful, and frankly, meaningless. And, I’d go so far and to say that fixation on authorial intent to determine what readers should think about a book is counterproductive to the value of literature as an expression of the individuality, and unity, of human consciousness.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe in authorial intent being used, by authors or by readers, as a weapon to dismiss other perspectives on novels. In most cases, authorial intent is hard to define, but when it is, it’s relatively unimportant compared to the unique interpretations of each reader. Foster argues that “since proof is nearly impossible, discussions of the writer's intentions are not especially profitable. Instead let's restrict ourselves to what he did do and, more important, what we readers can discover in his work”. John Green heartily agrees, stating that a question about whether or not an author intended to include a symbol isn’t an interesting question at all. Yet Foster’s argument takes a turn when he starts to justify, with his own experience writing, why in fact an author probably did include that allusion to a literary history and culture. And I would concede, that writing is far harder than most people give credit for; inserting carefully crafted Biblical allusions is not at all easy to do. Yet, I would refer to John Green’s exclamation that reading is for the reader. Believing that an author always intended to include a symbol is only important when it helps the reader learn something new or come to a new conclusion. But only the reader can do that for themselves.
I earnestly believe that every single interpretation of literature is valid in and of themselves. I usually balk at using such sweeping generalizations, but I think that it’s dangerous to say the statement with exclusions or hesitation. I think it's far more important to let literature be completely free than run the risk of one person, even if that person is the author, to dictate the validity of interpretation. Because that, in its essence, is not only controlling thought, but also impossible in execution. Whoever asks the question of whether one interpretation of literature is right or wrong, I think, is fundamentally missing the imperfect aspect to all communication. Words are just poor vessels in our attempt to communicate to one another our infinitely complex feelings and unique set of experiences. There aren’t enough words in the English language, nor are we skillful enough at using the ones we do have, to fully, completely, holistically express what we are thinking at any time. Even if an author does delineate their authorial intent, we all would perceive their words in vastly different ways. So if even explicitly defined authorial intent is inherently subjective, then that means that everything about literature is subjective. Thus, validating one strict interpretation of literature isn’t just undesirable, it’s impossible.
The best literature is the literature that gives readers a detailed look into the lives of those described in the work and provides readers an insight into the universal human condition regardless of when it was written. Another characteristic of great literature is that it can stand as an objectively influential and powerful work despite what Thomas C. Foster describes and John Green names as “authorial intent”.
ReplyDeleteIn Foster’s How to Read Literature Like a Professor, he states that as readers, we cannot find definitive proof of the author’s true intent for the contents of the book: the symbols, the structure, the substance, the subject… the alliteration. By fixating on the intent of the work, Foster claims that readers “restrict [themselves] to what [the author] did do” as opposed to fixating on the potential edifications interrogated from the work. Similarly, in John Green’s How and Why We Read Literature: Crash Course English Literature #1, Green addresses authorial intent directly in An Open Letter to Authorial Intent. In the Open Letter segment of the video, Green explains that the impact-even the untapped potential impact- of the literature supersedes the intent of the author. Furthermore, Green expounds the purport that the purpose of the book is to accommodate the interest of the READER, not for the author. Both Foster and Green rightfully promote the notion that symbols found within various literary works may deviate from the author’s original purpose of said symbol or may not have even been intended to be a symbol; The ability for a symbol to take on a life independent of the author continues to promulgate that authorial intent cannot sway the quality of a work in any paramount way. Ultimately, since readers could never truly prove the authorial intent for practically any form of literature, the quest to discover intent is undeniable fruitless in comparison to the concepts readers can glean from the work.
For example, Joseph Conrad’s controversial Heart of Darkness has been bombarded with multiple claims that Conrad himself was inherently racist, and, by scathing sodality, Heart of Darkness must also be racist. However, this criticism disregards multiple modern interpretations of the book that come in direct contravention with the notion that the book is racist solely because of the author. Fundamentally, Conrad or any other author’s personality or opinion on the topics scrutinized in their works is not indicative of the quality or worth of said work. Personally, I perceive that Conrad’s book demands readers to question the very title of the book, to question whether the Heart of Darkness is a racist reference to the Congo being in the heart of Africa or the Heart of Darkness refers to the darkness that dwells in the heart of man, plaguing the human condition. Heart of Darkness gives readers to opportunity to meaningfully interrogate themselves and possibly help them question whether they should look down with such confident disdain on the characteristics of people like Kurtz and Marlow, the same way Kurtz and Marlow looked down on the people of Africa. Even if Conrad was definitively proven as a profound racist, his perspective should not taint or lessen the importance of the values extracted from his work, nor should it affect any other work of literary merit.
part 2
ReplyDeleteThat's why John Green and Foster agree that discussions about authorial intent just aren’t that important. Because an author’s interpretation of their work, is just that: their own. It’s valid because it is an interpretation of literature by one person. And we should celebrate every interpretation of literature for its ability to enhance our own. But only we can formulate our own interpretations of literature. Not only is this the best way to experience literature, but it’s the only way.
The purpose of literature is fulfilled in two ways that are both mutually exclusive in importance but fundamentally inclusive in execution. First, literature is an author’s refusal to be silenced. That act of expression alone validates the beauty and lasting value in literature. And second, while readers read what the author’s express, they interpret it in only a way that they can. And that process, I believe, is mutually exclusive to the author’s expression.
Literature has no goal. Literature just is. I think that’s the beauty of it. Literature isn’t a means to an end. Nor is it the end. It just is. And that is my favorite part about it. It is unabashedly itself. Literature is there, for you and me and everyone to read, and to enjoy, and to hate, and to read or not to read. Literature is beautiful because it does not need to be understood. An author wrote those words because they wanted to, and in that, they fulfill everything that literature is. Reading is the affirmation of the reader’s infinitely valid and different experiences. I love literature because there is no right answer; there isn’t even a wrong answer. There aren’t even answers. Literature is the continued, though infinitely unrealized, struggle to understand each other and share our world with others that are close and far from home, in our time periods and for generations to come. Books are our green light.
Because, as John Green says, even if we can’t exactly feel what Gatsby felt when he was yearning for the green light, we feel nonetheless. We don’t know exactly the disdain Holden feels for phonies, but we’ve been annoyed by the superficialities of the world too. And maybe in that dissimilitude, parallelling each other but never meeting, we find our true similarities.
Every single person’s experiences have been different. Everyone perceives the world differently. But in that way, the written word unites our vast differences into a mode of expression that encompasses our disparate perspectives. And so I think that arguing about whether an author intended to add an allusion in their prose negates all the incredible, inarticulable joys literature can give us. We read not because we want to find an answer or come to a consensus. We read because we can, and no one can tell us differently.
From my prior literature studies, one of the most recurring lessons that I have been taught is that a book never has just one layer of meaning to it. I have learned that a seemingly trivial word, in a seemingly trivial phrase, inserted in a seemingly trivial paragraph, isn't actually so trivial. That one word, more often than not, holds important meaning to not just the phrase but the entire novel itself. However, we can never be completely positive of what the intention of each word is, or whether or not the meaning given to that word is intentional or not. Sometimes the hypothesis stating that a certain word can have this or that meaning sounds so far-fetched that it's hard to believe, luckily the answer to the hypothesis doesn’t matter. From my literary studies I have been taught to look at the bigger picture and what it tells us and gives us( us being the reader). John Green is saying the same thing when he mentions that, “the author doesn’t matter”. He continues by saying that, “writing is an urge to communicate complex ideas and experiences”, those ideas and experiences are the big picture. Whether or not a word is used to support that complex idea is irrelevant to the ideas itself. Foster is saying the same thing when he tells us to, “ restrict ourselves to what he did do”. Foster is restating the same lesson of focusing on the big picture of that central idea or experience that the author is giving us. He is reminding us to focus on the meaning of literature: to share and connect with total strangers from the past, present, and future in a deep meaningful way.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the connections were not obvious to begin with, as I went back through and rewatched the video by Mr. Green, and reread the article by Mr. Foster, I came to see that the two individual’s claims work “hand and hand” with each other. In the video, John Green says that the intent of writing literature is to connect and share, to give meaning to experiences that the author wishes to communicate. Every work of literature is written with the goal of communicating in mind. That idea connects well to Mr. Foster’s statement that, “something else we should bear in mind has to do with speed of composition”, saying that writing takes time, because it takes time to sufficiently communicate an experience or idea. The ideas of the two individuals connect further when Foster, referring to the sometimes unclear intention of the author, tells us to, “ restrict ourselves to what he did do”. Foster is saying that instead of focusing on whether or not the author used every word with great intention, we should focus our attention on what the author clearly gives us: the big picture, mentioned by John Green.
Erik Vaughn
8/30/18
period 3
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteLiterature is more than just about analyzing the cryptic, oftentimes obscure details of a piece of work; it is about truly feeling and connecting in some way, shape, or form to the characters, and being able to place oneself in their stories and experience their journeys with them. To be able to empathize with a certain character, relate to a particular section of a novel, no matter how small, is to have gained a “bigger and richer experience with the world” (Green). Both John Green and Thomas C. Foster share the same sentiment that a discussion purely devoted to speculating on an author’s intentions is for the most part useless. There are an infinite number of things that could have been running through an author’s mind as she wrote about, for example, a man wearing a yellow shirt. Does yellow symbolize his being a joyful, happy person? Does it represent cowardice? Jealousy? Or, perhaps, he’s just fond of the color yellow. Dwelling too long upon the unknown is a lost cause – instead, readers must focus on what resonates with themselves. Green and Foster both agree that what readers take away from a piece of literature is what greatly enriches their lives. By the time a “hungry, aggressive reader…writes her [own] books, she has access to that tradition in ways that need not be conscious” (Foster). With this ability to connect with and learn from one novel, and another, and another, and so on, comes the increased ability to effectively share one’s own experiences through words and share a connection with the rest of the world.
One of my all-time favorite literary works thus far in high school is Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger. The story follows Holden Caulfield in a first-person narrative as he leaves Pencey Prep and travels through New York. At a glance, the reader may not think that he or she has anything in common with Holden. He has been expelled from school numerous times; he is cynical and often times belligerent. But as the novel progresses directly through the mind of Holden, the reader begins to truly understand how he thinks and how he feels. Through the course of his journey, Holden seldom stays anywhere or fraternizes with new people for too long. He yearns for companionship and love, yet doesn’t allow himself to receive these things. Holden is scared as he matures in a world full of “phonies” and resultingly isolates himself completely. The reader cannot relate to Holden’s innate personality (although everyone can be a bit cynical at times); however, the sense of isolation and loneliness he feels as a result of being scared to enter the real world and be emotionally vulnerable, is something that many people, if not all, have experienced in their lifetimes. This connects the readers to Holden Caulfield and increases their ability to empathize. They experience a different perspective through his eyes, and the potency with which J.D. Salinger conveys the world through Holden’s eyes betters the readers’ skill sets in their own writing.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteAnother favorite novel of mine is The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. A literary classic, this book is known for its rich symbolism and other literary devices. Momentarily disregarding the treasure trove of symbolism that exists on nearly every page of the novel, what truly makes the story great is how rich in emotion it is. The readers feel Jay Gatsby’s passion and yearning for Daisy; they feel his heartbreak, pain, and complete and utter brokenness toward the end of the novel when he realizes that the thing he has been working toward for what seems an eternity is unreachable; when it dawns on the readers that Gatsby is dead, they feel their stomachs churn with pity and sadness. And why? Through Fitzgerald’s effectiveness in telling this story, the reader becomes emotionally invested in the characters. The readers begin to feel what the characters feel, and this resultingly inspires and helps them to develop their own powerful, unique writing.
Perhaps, a person’s writing is a little bit of Hemingway, a dash of Fitzgerald, a dollop of Steinbeck, and who knows what else. Everything taken away from books of literary merit or even books that mean a great deal in the eyes of the reader helps shape that person’s style, voice, and potency in writing to create something uniquely his. Symbolism and other such literary devices in novels are important, of course; but learning of these things as mere facts instead of truly understanding and finding a way to relate to them will not better a reader. One must experience literature, not just read it.
(1/2) In my rather limited scope as a pulp fiction enthusiast, I’ve dabbled in a few great modern works, from the likes of Vonnegut to Tolkien (although Game of Thrones might not be considered classic literature, per se). Titles such as Slaughterhouse Five and Breakfast of Champions encapsulate this idea, as they brim with unanswered and obscure messages, often from the convoluted lens of an unreliable or slightly insane narrator. As the novelist and AP score savior John Green notes, “stories are about communication” where one is able to share complex ideas and experiences with someone very far away or in a different time period. Through the eyes of Billy, our no-so-heroic-and-slightly-psychotic protagonist, Vonnegut transports us into his world, of what he truly felt after the tragic bombing of Dresden. But he uses quite the satirical tone, even in the most monstrous and profound moments, which juxtaposes his profound messages of human savagery. His story quite literally is out of this world as the confusing inclusion of Billy’s kidnapping by Tralfamadorians, a curious alien race, parallels the many afflictions he’d suffered as a prisoner of war during World War II.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Vonnegut excels in his ability to inject humor to the most serious of situations, the sincerity of his messages lose their impact. For example, at the conclusion of the story, his commentary on bombing of Dresden ends with a bird’s call, “Poo-tee-weet.” At first glance, I knew there must be SOME explanation for a novel of such caliber to conclude with mere gibberish. Was everything for not? The whole story of the Tralfamadorians, the wars, the injustice. All summed up into a little package of, quite frankly, nonsense? It seemed lazy. Almost offensive. Even after consulting numerous sources (cough, cough, SparkNotes and Reddit), theories of the true meaning of this phrase opposed each other; some argued that the “ birds respond with something so simple and beautiful and identifiable and meaningful and meaningless” whereas others maintained that the bird called back to the first chapter, in which it was present in the initial bombing scene (and thus, the book came full-circle). Unable to ascertain Vonnegut’s true intentions, I decided to believe that the bird symbolized the ignorance of mankind to the atrocities of war and bloodshed. The bird could only reply with a seemingly oblivious “Poo-tee-weet”, signaling that nothing will truly change.
(2/2) However, can we truly know? Thomas C. Foster, English professor and literary analyzer, believes that the beauty of literature lies not in its length or the construction of its prose, but in its often esoteric and subjective messages, sometimes even unintended but patently profound. Precise interpretations are quite impossible as meticulous examination often sheds light on previously unnoticed. Thus, there really isn’t a true meaning to any book. Especially with modern art and painting, this argument has been These “markers of civilization” truly manifest the complexity of the human condition, in its most benevolent and egregious manners.
ReplyDeleteGreen and Foster concur on this point that no one will truly know the original intentions of authors, no matter how meticulously they craft their stories. That said, Green’s pithy remark against authorial intent sums up Foster’s arguments quite nicely- “Dear authorial intent, You DO NOT MATTER.” The novel’s existence does not depend on the author’s intent, rather for the benefit of readers, who draw their own conclusions and, thus, enrich their lives by living vicariously through characters, lessons, and stories. Whether birds can talk, well, that’s a discussion for a later date.
(part one)
ReplyDeleteJohn Green claims that the reader has power as well. He says that even if symbols are gleaned unintentionally, they are still important. If the reader can find meaning, then that is great. Instead, it is a conversation between the author and the reader. Green sees literature as an effective vehicle to describe the human experience. Communication is not just giving instructions to be able to go from point A to point B. It can be, but when to describe how, “my heart is shattered into a million pieces”, we are attempting to communicate the experience of heartbreak.Even with his best friend “in the entire world”, his friend may not truly understand what is happening inside of him. But the empathy exists because as humans, we all feel heartbreak. It is a question of being able to explain that tangled mess of human emotions. Literature is a valuable device to do just that. It also allows that feeling to be communicated even across a great distance between people. And those people are complete strangers, often reading with very little knowledge of an author’s personal life yet being able to connect through literature. With Green’s example for instance, simple heartbreak is a timeless feeling in human existence. Literature also communicates even more complex feelings such as the loneliness and yearning for someone to understand that Blanche experiences in A Streetcar Named Desire.. Or in the Great Gatsby, literature captures the feeling of being, “outside in the evening, staring off into the distance at a future that may never be ours”.We are able to connect with that feeling, of not being able to accept reality and living within our own world. Literature connects us across the globe and across eras to other humans trying to understand life.
On the surface, Lord of the Flies is a novel about a group of boys stranded on a desert island. But understanding the many, many symbols from pigs to parachute soldiers to dancing, reveals the layers to be savored in Lord of the Flies. We as readers, feast upon the spread Golding laid out and savor his words. Perhaps I had looked too deeply into the setting of Lord of the Flies. I found importance in the heat of the island because I felt it added to the claustrophobic atmosphere of the island. Maybe Golding set the novel on a tropical island because he wanted a way to move the plot. But Green would agree that since I found an interpretation that deepens my reading experience and understanding of the novel, I should give myself credit even if I am not “correct”.
To Foster, yes, the author was intending to allude to that obscure work. The symbols in these works serve a purpose, and a “lateral thinking” was clearly applied during the writing process. This “lateral thinking” can be seen in Macbeth. As writing is not done in a vacuum, the author’s environment and past infiltrate the writing, intentionally or unintentionally. These authors usually are people devoted to writing and are well read individuals. Knowing that Macbeth was written when there was a change of power between Queen Elizabeth and King James I, the play is granted another perspective. Armed with this knowledge, readers can further their understanding of not just the play, but to a moment in history Shakespeare was alluding to. Shakespeare is communicating experiencing through a moment in time years into the future through his writing. This is one of the powers of literature that Foster highlights.
(part two)
ReplyDeleteFoster also states what the reader does have to work with is, “hints and allegations, really, evidence, sometimes only a trace, that points to something lying behind the text.” For instance, reading To Kill a Mockingbird, I understood that there was a deeper meaning to Calpurnia’s explanation about killing mockingbirds, and I admit I was not quite sure what it was. I first read the novel much younger, when my father gave me his own copy from high school. I had a surface understanding of the novel; but the wonderful thing about literature is that I improved from just picking up on the hints. After studying the book more, I deepened my understanding and appreciation for the book after analyzing the symbols. And now To Kill a Mockingbird is one of my favorite novels because of I saw my understanding of the novel change. Thinking critically about the “hints and allegations” that there is most likely more to the text opens a whole new perspective to a book.
Green would agree with Foster that we read because there is more to the story, and the author probably meant that reference. Does the author intend to lead us on a treasure hunt? No, but the author does want to communicate their ideas and experiences to the reader. That way may be provoking symbols and imagery, patterns layered into the text, or diction expertly employed. In addition, Green’s video connects with Foster’s claim that, “Since proof is nearly impossible, discussions of the writer's intentions are not especially profitable. Instead let's restrict ourselves to what he did do and, more important, what we readers can discover in his work”. We can look at Shakespeare, whose writing is still read hundreds of years later. Of course, we cannot ask the Bard in the middle of class if the symbolism in, “What, you egg?” was intentional, or if he simply thought it would be a good insult. Or, even if the bird imagery throughout the whole play was intentional at all. And both authors would agree that as readers, if we think it is significant, then it is significant. Lord of the Flies, or The Great Gatsby, or Macbeth would not be still read and analyzed today if they did not contain great literary merit. The common thread between all these works is the fact that they are good at being good literature. They are able to capture and communicate the fine details of human consciousness through symbols, patterns, and more.
In John Green’s video and in Thomas Foster’s excerpt, both men stress that a key component to reading is the communication to the reader and not necessarily looking for a meaning or some sort of symbolism within a story. It is the reader who reads and interprets the text to create their own experience from the words, and every person has the right to do so. I have read many books on my own and in school in which there was discussion on symbolism; however, there are other times when the symbolism was subject to my own experience. The book Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer was about Chris McCandless, a post-undergraduate student with a free spirit who decides to drive away from society and into the wild. At one point in the story, Chris burns all 120 dollars he has in his pocket. Applying Green and Foster’s claim, one can interpret this in different ways -- cut off from society, disdain for money, etc. However, when I read this I comprehend this act as an act of anger and Chris wanting to rid himself from something -- whether it was society or his past (including his relations with his parents). Given my personal experiences, burning something that was once important to you is a much more meaningful and shocking act than simply tearing apart or burying the item.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, both men agree with the immense power that reading has on people from around the world. The importance lies within in the text, and what we can discover as the audience of a story. In the words of John Green, we can fully understand people of different cultural and ethnic background, become more empathetic, and grasp a full understanding of ourselves. This is what we can gain from these written works. Works of literature throughout the years have given a voice to those who hope to interpret their own lives, feelings, and personal/world events with the use of language. Language is and has always been a way to communicate and engage with others. Coincidence with Fosters claims, he believes that with the use of literary devices (or “evidence”) such as, foreshadowing, metaphors, allusion, and many other techniques, the author can convey complex human emotions and experiences. We, the audience, are given the chance to read these fine works of literature, grasp the idea of literary devices, and comprehend everything in our way: the way the author intended.
When we lose ourselves in what is often a dense jungle of words, we forget that this little world came from the mind of a fellow human; when we realize this fact, we begin to ponder the intent behind every little thing that comes out of the trees to amuse or to torment us. If the author stands as the deity of this jungle, then we as readers stand as mere tourists within the story. The author molded this jungle to his liking and disappeared from the picture, allowing the reader to step into a multi-dimensional realm that was frozen in time. What the reader finds within this realm is hers and hers only. The author cannot step in and take back what the reader has claimed for herself. And when another reader decides to pick up the story, he will find himself in the same reality as the first reader, but rarely inside the same dimension. The beauty of literature lies in its symbolic layers and the many angles by which it can be viewed. Every mind takes a different approach to the story. Every mind will find something different within the story. When a basketball player makes a circus shot, people question whether he really tried to shoot it. The truth is, it does not matter whether he tried to shoot it, but only that he made it. Likewise, whether or not the author planned everything out is unimportant. What matters is the work of literature that has survived years or even decades of analysis and punishment.
ReplyDeleteIn Life of Pi, Yann Martel uses Pi Patel’s journey through the Pacific Ocean to tell a gripping story of courage and love and survival. After the death of everything he had ever known, Pi finds himself alone on a lifeboat with a tiger, whom he names Richard Parker. Any combination of factors or even one factor has the potential to kill Pi, from thirst, to sickness, to a hungry tiger. Pi finds himself at the mercy of the elements, and this is where the reader begins to question the author’s intent. From one perspective, one sees that Pi died with everyone on that boat. His identity sank with that ship to the bottom of the Pacific. His journey through the ocean could be seen as a journey through purgatory. He had to fight to prove that he is worthy of going to heaven. The Pacific Ocean and Richard Parker were God’s tools of judgement. He wanted to know if Pi was capable of loving a creature that would never love him back. He wanted to know what Pi was truly made of. As a reader, I cannot be sure whether or not Martel meant for an interpretation to be so religious or deep. To me, however, it does not matter whether or not Martel meant for this book to be interpreted this way. He put the words on the page and left the rest of the job to me. People write to express themselves, to push ideas and move society in a positive direction. Authors would never want readers to limit themselves to what the words themselves present on a superficial level. For society to advance, we must push the boundaries of thinking and break out of our mental prisons.
Green and Foster both regard the author’s conscious intent pertaining to symbolism as being insignificant to the work as a whole. If the author intended to put the symbol there, then the author deserves credit for having that insight and creativity. If not, the story does not change one bit. Both Green and Foster emphasize the importance of the final result in the creation of a work of literature. No one but the author can ever know for sure what went through the author’s head during the creative process. Discussion of such theories has never proven to be productive. Everyone has his/her own take on everything. There is no reason for anybody to limit their range of thinking. You see what you see, and you take what you find. Discussing the origin or intent is like discussing the dawn of the universe -- one will never find a definite answer. However, such is the nature of literature as a whole. As the critic Roland Barthes once said, “Literature is the question minus the answer.” No statement has ever rang more true.
John Green claims that it does not matter whether or not authors intended to embed certain symbols within their literary texts. He claims that the fact that they exist on page is all that matters and that the reader's interpretation of those symbols can be a meaningful experience gained from the book. Green primarily argues that the benefit of reading includes understanding the emotions of others and that the benefits of literary devices employed by authors help the readers understand their emotions and connect to other people more efficiently. Thomas Foster's argument is more ambiguous. It suggests that authors most likely did intend to create observable literary utilities considering that the amount of time invested by an author to write a few lines of words significantly trumps the amount of time a reader skims through the words; however, it would be impossible to figure out the authors' true intentions without having confronted them. Both Green and Foster argue that the discovery of the authors' true intentions is a waste of time and are irrelevant to what a reader can gain from text.
ReplyDeleteMy prior literary experience of reading Les Miserables by Victor Hugo provided moments in which I lacked the knowledge of whether Hugo intended to create certain symbolic texts and coincidental plots. Throughout the whole novel, numerous objects symbolize Jean Val Jean's character development such as the two candlesticks that Monseigneur Bienvenu offered to Jean Val Jean which represented his redemption from being a petty thief to a loving citizen. The symbolism of God is present in many aspects such as the numerous coinciding events that Jean Val Jean experienced. For example, his encounter of Javert as the mayor, his reencounter with Thenardier in Paris, and the introduction of his look alike Champmathieu all occur in a very short time frame at the most inconvenient moments for Jean Val Jean (convenient for the plot on the other hand). Hugo explicitly states that God gave Jean Val Jean a choice between turning himself in as the real Jean Val Jean during his mayorship and comfortable life to save the wrongfully accused Champmathieu from the galleys, however, the events that occur such as the love that sparks between Cosette and Marius and the multiple reencounters of the antagonists, Javert and Thenardier, all occur within a very short time frame and seems to be a scheme of God in my interpretation. Although not explicitly stated, God's continuous plans of giving hardships and difficult choices to Jean Val Jean seems to be God's test to whether or not Jean Val Jean really changed from a man of hatred to a man of love. This is an example of where I, as the reader, interpreted the novel's events as the result of a supernatural being whether or not Hugo intended to make it so. I find my interpretation of the symbolism as viable analysis of the novel which both Green and Foster claim is a good thing. Although I may never truly know Victor Hugo's intent in making all of the events in the novel coincidental, I take pride in interpreting those events as an ongoing struggle between man and God.
John Green's video connects with Foster's claims in that texts written by authors consist of culturally complex ideas from their experience, yet, the deliverance of those ideas or the ability to communicate them through words is important to acknowledge while reading. In ways, reading an author's work can lead to infinite possibilities of interpretations by the readers and that may be why so many desire to know the "right" answer to the intent of the author (this is the reason why so many math majors don't like English- they like one definite answer).
The possibility that readers may believe their interpretations to be wrong may lead to their obsession in discovering an author's intent. However, I believe Green and Foster claim that knowing the "right" answer is irrelevant to how the readers are emotionally impacted by the words of text. The best skills that readers can obtain from text is the ability to connect emotionally through literary devices such as hyperbole and metaphors. Furthermore, readers can come full circle by becoming better writers who convey their points of view effectively to their own audience. There is a saying that good writers are good readers.
ReplyDeleteAs a lover of reading and writing, I found myself fascinated by the author’s purpose for writing a novel. I become so involved on the authors point of view that I begin to lose track of my personal outlook on the story and even the entire story itself. Then I remind myself, that the author doesn’t matter. The author’s feelings could never transfer to me, nor could my emotions toward a novel transfer to other people. Everyone experiences different situations in life, causing our view on any story to be altered by feelings we have previously felt from other situations.
ReplyDeleteAs a published writer myself (I’m bragging), I have experienced people asking me what my poem means, or what experience made me write so descriptively. To be quite honest, I usually begin writing with one thought or idea in mind, which turns in to an abundance of smalls ideas (such as dinosaurs and a leaf), but no one cares about that. Readers want an answer that will blow their very minds away, but, as John Green and Thomas Foster put it, the author’s purpose for writing does not matter.
John Green begins his video with aggressive enthusiasm, as usual, stating that “Stories are about communication” and strongly emphasizing on “Author’s do not matter when reading a book”. Thomas C. Foster states very similar opinions as John Green. They both agree on the author’s intent not being a huge factor when reading a novel. They also agreed upon hints (metaphors, hyperboles, and allegations), that authors leave in order to feel the emotions that the author him/herself feel. So I, a lonely widow, will continue my studies on this subject, until next time.
-Molly Scott
(Part 1)
ReplyDeleteEnglish teachers get a bad reputation for having their students tease out every last detail in a work. The most unusual case I’ve heard was a teacher asking her students to count the number of periods on a page-- all twelve (12) of them-- to prove that the number of periods indicated a connection to the Bible’s twelve disciples. Regardless of how worthwhile that activity was, both author John Green and University of Michigan-Flint professor Thomas C. Foster argue that, in general, literary analysis is the best way to make the most out of a work. On one hand, in John Green’s video, “How and Why We Read: Crash Course English Literature #1,” he contends that it doesn’t matter if an author intended to included a literary gold nugget—say a fantastic symbol—in her piece. In his eyes, a literary work exists for the reader, and, therefore, it is her right to milk whatever she can out of the work for her enjoyment. On the other hand, Foster’s argument in his book, How to Read Literature Like a Professor, approaches the value of literary analysis in a different way. Because authors take “sorry to say, days and days to write” and spend much of their lives reading other authors’ works, he maintains that it’d do the author a disservice to ignore all the richness in her work that doesn’t meet the eye. All that knowledge floating in her consciousness—of history, of culture, of great literature—will inevitably make its way in her writing. And, thus, it’s our job as readers to look for those bits of knowledge, which, in turn, will make our reading a rewarding experience.
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteSubscribing to both Green and Foster’s philosophies on literary analysis makes reading a more worthwhile endeavor. Although Green looks down on calling literary analysis a “treasure hunt,” one where the unfortunate English student needs to crosscheck every object (red hunting cap? shoelaces? suitcase?) with Sparknotes to see if it’s a symbol or not, I find that a “treasure hunt” is an appropriate moniker for it. Or, really, an unknown treasure hunt: one where the reader’s fishing for an unknown answer out of the author’s subconsciousness. Using this lens of analysis while I read has made my reading experience more fruitful. For instance, incorporating both Green and Foster’s perspectives in my Old Man and the Sea treasure hunt made my reading more productive. If one were to read—and not between the lines, either—she’d get fatigued over the fisherman’s seemingly endless pursuit of the fish. Yet, when using this treasure hunt lens to analyze the novel, the dry narrative is flush with veins of gold. Using Green’s perspective, I can confirm the novel is much more exciting when I decide the fish is a symbol of a target that is so close to being in our grasp, rather than a large fish in the Gulf of Mexico. I can suddenly relate to the fisherman more—I can feel his anguish, the sweat trickling down his face, the harpoon cutting into my hands as I chase something I’m so close to yet so far out of my grasp. I can relate the fisherman’s fish, to my “fish,” to a “fish” that transcends all boundaries… I can put myself into the proverbial universal human experience.
(Part 3) . Combining Green’s perspective and Foster’s perspective together gives me an even richer read. As the fisherman consoles himself by recalling how his star, baseball player Joe DiMaggio overcame his painful bone spur to be the best baseball player there is, instead of dismissing these instances as low-hanging pop culture references, I could analyze history and culture a la Foster to have a deeper understanding. Here, after some research, I found out these details were no fluke—and me more satisfied with my reading experience as whole. Picking baseball as the fisherman’s favorite sport was not an arbitrary choice. In Cuba, the setting of The Old Man and the Sea, baseball had become the nation’s favorite pastime when the book was published in 1951. Joe DiMaggio wasn’t an arbitrary choice either. Despite having to face his painful bone spur which would have ended any other player’s career, DiMaggio fought to regain his full potential back—just like the fisherman, who wants to start catching fish again after 84 days of catching none. Then, to go even further in my treasure hunt, I could compare the fisherman and DiMaggio to Christ, all three of which had resurrected themselves after a “rest” period of a certain amount of days…. Naturally, I don’t have to apply anyone’s literary philosophy while reading a book. But why not? Especially when philosophies like Green’s and Foster’s are perfect complements for each other: an author may not be aware of what parts of her subconscious she’s incorporating in her writing, but even if she isn’t, as readers, we can tease out those hidden pieces for an even more fulfilling experience. Implementing Green and Foster’s philosophies of literary analysis while reading is a win-win for everyone involved. We can validate all the time and lateral thinking an author put into words for us to read, and we can leave the book with a more visceral—yet satisfying—reaction, a perhaps more gratifying experience than counting periods…
ReplyDeleteMany times, attempting to understand a book’s underlying themes and ideas can be difficult. Symbols can be tricky to spot, allusions may be ambiguous, and literary styles overlooked. This leads a large portion of readers to question whether the author’s intentions were to create these themes, or if they are simply figments formed from the over-analyzing of an author’s writing. However, as both John Green and Thomas C. Foster stated, it ultimately does not matter to the reader if the themes and ideas that seem to be present in the book were originally intended to exist in the literature. Both Green and Foster express that readers should be focused on what is actually present in the writing, no matter if it was intended or not.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading Lord of the Flies by William Golding, I remember picking up on many subtle and many obvious themes and motifs. Some obvious ones include the significance of the conch shell, the fire, the beast, and piggy’s glasses. However, there was also some subtle foreshadowing, such as the constant foreshadowing of Piggy’s death through the use of consistent reminders of how physically out of shape Piggy was. It became more obvious later in the novel when Jack broke Piggy’s glasses. When I initially picked up on that minor foreshadowing, I shared it to my class through an in class discussion. I was quickly shut down by my peers, however, who believed that I had over-analyzed the text and had pulled out an imaginary meaning when there was none to be found. My teacher did encourage me, though, and told me that my observation/suspicion may lead to something later in the novel (which it did).
In this case stated above, I did not even question whether it was Golding’s intention to foreshadow Piggy’s death so early in the novel. Since I had noticed it, I felt that it had some importance to me as the reader. The way a reader interprets a book is both subjective and objective at times. A book’s plot can have a myriad of twists and turns and can even feel like a labyrinth with no escape at some times, but the readers will always eventually find their way through to the same endpoint. However, what a reader picks up along the way is completely up to them. Books can be – and often times are – so much more than just what can be found by one read all the way through, or a simple skim of the plot and story. They always have so many underlying meanings and there are countless tiny gems to be found in every work of literature.
I have very vivid memories of sitting in a classroom listening to my English teachers spend an entire day analyzing and going over one symbol in a novel. As students, we are always taught to read between the lines and look for a deeper meaning, but the question that always seems to pop in my head during every symbol lecture is, “How are we so certain that the author meant this when talking about this object?” It always baffles me when people speak so confidently about the writings of someone they have never met, and try to say that the little things in writings are actually symbolic of something much bigger. Of course I know that there are obvious allusions to something bigger in many novels, but where does it become reaching for something that isn’t there?
ReplyDeleteMany pieces of literature that we study in school are written by authors that are no longer alive, therefore cannot tell us what they meant when they said a specific thing. The amount of times I have listened to teachers telling students that their interpretation of something that may be symbolic is wrong is far too many to count. During John Green’s crash course video, he mentions that whether or not the author intended on writing an allusion to something bigger, if the majority of people are brought together by a bigger theory, it is still a “win” on the readers part. I can agree with this statement partially. I do think that it is unfair to say that someone’s interpretation of something is wrong, especially if we cannot hear it coming from the author themselves. On the other hand, I have said that the lectures on symbols can get tedious, but it is sometimes very entertaining trying to make a bigger meaning out of something and really use your critical thinking skills to come up with some sort of answer. This is enjoyable because it can make you feel more closely related to the novel.
The similar theme between John Green’s video and the excerpt written by Foster, is that us as readers are really just making guesses as to what the author meant when saying certain things. Because we cannot truly know the authors intent, we need to focus a little harder on context clues in order to make educated guesses and theories. Both sources say that we will not know what the author meant and that we usually just guess, which is what I have been thinking for several years now. The fact that we will never know the answer is both a positive and a negative thing in my opinion. It is negative because all the readers will be left wondering what a certain symbol represented or if there was a major symbol at all. The other con to this is that may students will be told that their interpretation is wrong even though no one really knows a one hundred percent correct answer. A positive to not knowing what the author truly meant would be that we get to interpret it the way we want to. As John Green said in the video, this can create a richer experience for readers. This is because we interpret things so they make sense to us, sometimes using real life experience to justify our claims. This process of thinking can make us feel much closer to the novel.
In conclusion, no one will ever know is all the symbols are actually symbols or represent something greater. It is fun to think of theories and possible allusions to something, but again, when is it just grasping at straws?
-Maia Weinstock
Allusions throughout the book Heart of Darkness allow readers to view this sense of collaboration through different books and different moments in time. Biblical and mythological references throughout HoD show readers that Conrad actively made the choice to incorporate stories of the past. By using references to already established ideas the author can save themselves some text while looking more informed and professional doing so. Similarly to explaining a certain complex color, an author can describe a harmony of colors to better paint the well, paint. In Heart of Darkness Conrad refers to a city as a "whited sepulcher". A phrase originates from the bible in Matthew 23:27 "... whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." This gives more context as to the specifications of Conrad’s thoughts on the city. By definition a sepulcher is "a small room or monument, cut in rock or built of stone, in which a dead person is laid or buried". While this may seem slightly morbid at first, the intended connotation was of even darker implications. By using the reference to the Bible, Conrad is able to paint the picture of a hollow and evil city that keeps a shroud of holiness that is in truth is evil and hypocritical. These nuances of word and phrase choice by Conrad support Foster’s remarks of how much thinking goes into the drafting of a literary masterpiece. By exploring different options and being “a hungry, aggressive reader [who has] absorbed a tremendous amount of literary history and literary culture” Conrad and other authors have the ability to use allusions to eloquently develop their stories and characters. Given that this knowledge is often applied in “ways that need not be conscious” further supports Fosters claims about the process of the development of stories.
ReplyDeleteAs outlined in John’s video, symbolism that is vague and overarching allows the reader to feel a connection to the novel and facilitates their pondering about their own life. The symbol of the green light in the Great Gatsby reveals itself to be a highly applicable symbol. The green light shows a connection between Green’s belief that authors are writing a story to compel their audience into deeper thinking through the use of symbols and allusions and Foster’s information about how long writing books really takes. Great symbols that reflect innate human desires and passions are simple to come by but hard to illustrate. By effectively referencing the real world and the human psyche, authors can create immersive fiction that at their heart seem so realistic through the use of believable symbols and character motivations.
Renon Gracie
PART 1:
ReplyDeleteI’ve had a love of reading for as long as I can remember. Growing up, chances are that I could always be found with a book in my hand, rather than a video game controller or a television remote. What started as a love of children’s books grew into my love of Harry Potter and other fictional novels of the same level, which then grew into a love of novels with more “literary merit,” which has now grown into a love of literature in general. A glimpse into my room shows books strewn all over the place, a testament to my genuine interest for the mere act of reading. I’ve realized, however, as my reading interests have progressed, that I don’t just enjoy literature for the plots or intricately crafted worlds anymore. I also love it for the nuanced messages that are always present in a work, messages that expand my thoughts about both myself and the world. Literature connects me to something greater than myself, and is invariably able to open my mind to larger perspectives. Both John Green and Thomas C. Foster’s discussions about literature paralleled my own thoughts so well, and I wholeheartedly agree with what they said. I realized that the way I’ve studied literature in an academic sense has contributed to my own personal feelings about it, and this method of studying it can clearly be seen through the lens of their thoughts. Green basically argues that literature contains subtly expressed ideas an emotions, and that rather than going “symbol hunting,” as he puts it, readers should instead try to empathetically connect with what the work is saying. Foster essentially claims that there is no purpose in spending time trying to figure out an author’s intentions, but that we should rather try to figure out the effect that the author’s writing has on the way we perceive the world, and on our own mental/emotional growth.
Throughout high school, I’ve realized that my own love of literature has made studying it so much easier. In addition, much of what I’ve done in my English classes mirrors Green and Foster’s philosophies very closely. The first such instance of when I truly appreciated the study of literature, rather than just the appreciation of it (which in my opinion are two different, though very closely connected things), was during my freshman year at Bishop. We read The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde, which immediately piqued my interest simply because of the intriguing plot. Upon further study and discussion however, and a presentation in which each of us was assigned to present about the impact that a given chapter had on us, I was able to see the work in a different light. My studies directly affected my appreciation of the work, an idea which I think is extremely important when dealing with literature. I was able to gain a deeper understanding of the work, which in turn led to a deeper understanding of my own thought processes, much like Green argues. Rather than only trying to analyze Wilde’s aims in writing it, I thought of why it was important that he chose to do so. Like Green stated, it is important to understand a work fully in every aspect, and thankfully, I was able to do so through my study of The Picture of Dorian Gray.
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteAnother example of my prior literary studies was through the study of Shakespeare’s Macbeth during my sophomore year. I was so appreciative of how in depth we went in terms of making the play applicable to our own lives, as that aided so much in my understanding of its nuances. As you said, “Shakespeare is meant to be acted”; I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. By acting out Macbeth while simultaneously analyzing it on a deeper level, I was able to connect so much more with it, which is the idea I think Foster is trying to convey in his writing. In my opinion, Foster is trying to show the idea that as critical readers, we should use our analyses to see how a work connects with our own personal growth. By acting out Macbeth, I was able to place the work into a more relevant scope for my own life, and was able to see it much more clearly. I really liked how we created our own versions of the play, because it made it so much more imaginable and applicable to the modern world. This, I think, is how works such as these should be taught. By learning in this fashion, I was able to interpret Shakespeare’s words in a sense that let me understand it on a deeper level, and think about it in a way that impacted me much more introspectively. I was able to fully understand the pitfalls of traits such as unchecked ambition, and understand the importance of such a flawed character in regard to my own life.
Green and Foster, in my interpretation of their messages, take very similar approaches to their ideas of how literature should be learned. Their ideas seem to be interconnected, but Green takes more of a perspective on individual thought that can be derived from a work, and Foster’s perspective focuses more on using the author’s words and messages to learn. Nonetheless, both focus on an individual interaction with a piece of literature, which is what I feel is the most important part of the idea of studying literature. They both resonate with each other in terms of literature opening our minds to new perspectives. They both insinuate that reading lets us connect with others and their ideas, which leads to a fuller understanding of life in general. Even though Foster takes more of an emphasis on authors’ deliberate messages and ideas, he still leaves a lot of the equation up to the interpretation of an individual reader. Essentially, both would agree that the beauty of reading literature is that it is a subjective art which allows readers to expand the scope of their thinking.
(Part 1)
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to interpreting literature, John Green believes that we need not ponder whether or not an author intended small aspects of their piece to hold significance in the eyes of the reader, because it is up to the reader to determine what the piece means to them. Upon first glance, this opinion may seem to discredit the talents of the author. However Green is doing the opposite in saying that a good author has the power to present a simple item, line of dialogue, or idea, and force the reader to construe their own ideas and opinions in response to the writing. Essentially, you aren’t actively reading literature if you aren’t questioning the meanings behind colors, items of clothing, and other seemingly irrelevant aspects of a story. The first piece of literature that came to mind after listening to Green’s opinion was The Old Man and the Sea. For all we know, Hemingway was drunk when telling the tale of Santiago, Manolin, and the infamous Marlin. The short novel may be simple and concise in terms of language and structure, however it is home to some of the most recognized symbols in literature today, and can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. For instance, take the lions that Santiago dreams about on the beaches of Africa. I can recall a class discussion in which to some, the lions symbolized Santiago’s youth, and to others they symbolized his pride. The lions can even symbolize Santiago’s relationship with nature in that the lions can be seen to reflect the same relationship Santiago has with the marlin. While each interpretation of the lions on the beach is different, none of them are necessarily wrong. Different readers all pore over the same content, however they can all learn something different from it based on their personal interpretations. Do we know if Hemingway intended symbolic meaning behind the lions? No. However we can decide for ourselves how we choose to understand them. This also goes along with another short novel that is bursting with symbolism, Lord of The Flies. Lord of the Flies came to mind because of the position paper that we wrote sophomore year. Because one is able to take nearly any line of Lord of the Flies and turn it into a symbol or metaphor, none of us were allowed to write about the same thing. In turn, I ended up writing about how Zoo animals represent the boys’ savage nature. While this connection was the biggest literary stretch I had ever made, it made the novel more meaningful for me because it felt like I had found a tiny hidden gem that no one else had ever looked at or cared about. The Zoo was most likely not an intended symbol when Golding was constructing Lord of the Flies, however it made the book a more meaningful experience for me, and as John Green explained, that’s the most important aspect of reading. That being said, Golding’s Lord of the Flies can also be used to examine Thomas C. Foster’s opinion concerning the proper way to read literature.
(Part 2)
ReplyDeleteCounter to Green’s ideas, Foster believes that as readers, we too often forget that authors are spending countless hours crafting their novels for us to read and assimilate. Lord of the Flies can also be used in support of Foster’s beliefs in that the entire book is full of symbols, both obvious and subtle. Whether it be the conch shell, the Beast, Piggy’s glasses, or the Lord of the Flies itself, the immense symbolism in Lord of the Flies is ubiquitous throughout the entire novel. Upon analyzing all of the miniscule aspects of Lord of the Flies such as the butterflies, the audience then realizes that it was no mistake by Golding to pack this short novel to the brim with symbolism and hidden meaning. As Foster explained in his piece, most writers are also probably avid readers who have a wide variety of literary experience in their back pocket. When the audience takes this into account, it is nearly impossible to deny that Golding did not intend deeper meanings behind almost every page of Lord of the Flies. This adds value to the piece in that the reader almost feels closer to the author, as if they are sharing a secret that no one else knows yet.
Although Green and Foster have differing views regarding the things we need to consider when approaching a piece of literature, they also have opinions that agree with one another. In discussing the impact of analytical reading, Green states, “The book does not exist for the benefit of the author, the book exists for the benefit of you. If we as readers can have a bigger and richer experience with the world as a result of reading a symbol and that symbol wasn’t intended by the author, we still win.” In saying this, Green is reiterating the fact that the the most important part of a literary experience is the reader themselves. This goes hand in hand with Foster’s statement, “Since proof is nearly impossible, discussions of the writer’s intentions are not especially profitable. Instead let’s restrict ourselves to what he did do, and more important, what we readers can discover in his work.” In both cases, Green and Foster are trying to communicate that we shouldn’t lose ourselves in whether or not we’re making a literary stretch, but rather, making the book mean something to each of us in our own way. Another aspect of Green’s video that connects to the third paragraph of Foster’s piece is his central argument that we cannot determine if an author did or did not intend to place a meaningful symbol or metaphor in their work. Foster also agrees explains that in general, we are making guesses in literature as to what the author’s true intentions were. We make guesses, however using clues and evidence we are able to make the most out of everything we read. Hence, Green and Foster have differing views when it comes to how much time readers should spend thinking about the writers and their intentions, however they also agree that the chief goal in interpreting literature is finding meaning that impacts each of us individually, and in doing this, every piece of literature will be worthwhile.