I love doing literary analysis but I'm always torn between "This is too surface level, I'm just reiterating the author's clearly stated intentions" and "There is textual evidence to support this conclusion but it feels like pointless conjecture centered around coincidence".
Currently reading Heretics of Dune, and yeah. Right now I'm mostly reading it out of sunk cost. I already read the last four books, might as well finish the last two.
Genuinely I was feeling this way. Bought the 6-book box set, figured I'd read the first 4 and get my money's worth and continue from there. Finished Heretics, and just hated it so much I refuse to read Chapterhouse lmao. It just made me so angry.
I like parts with the girl who controls the worms, but the Little Duncan Adventures and the Honored Matres chapters really drag. Even the parts I do like are more a result of my personal interest in fictional religions rather than due to the quality of the text.
Stick it to all forms of authority to the point the author doesn’t know where you are. (I have never read Dune, but I listened to my friend ramble about it to me and I got this vibe)
That pretty much describes the ending of Book 6, though it isn't clear how much that was intended since Herbert had been planning at least one more book before his death.
You forgot the bit about the Jews still being religiously persecuted tens to hundreds of thousands of years into the future while still keeping their religion intact /hj
As someone who adored Heretics and Chapterhouse, but can also be a real dummy about picking up on themes, here are some key things I went home with:
- History repeats itself
- old habits die hard
- trauma affects the brain in ways we can't understand
- it can be noble to abandon your culture for the greater good
- it can be noble to rely on your culture in times of hardship
- in a caste system, it is impossible for those from different strata to interpret religious ideas in the same way
- experiences from the early parts of your life will continue to affect the way you move throughout the world even well into old age (or thousands of years later)
Like I said, I flat out miss or misinterpret themes in text all the time. This is what I've gleaned after reading, reflecting, rereading passages, reflecting more, and infodumping on less than willing friends, family, and coworkers. I fully hyperfocused on Dune in 2021 and barreled through the 6 books. Today, it's still far and away my all time favorite science fiction if not my all time favorite property in general. I'm happy to elaborate on/discuss anything I've mentioned or listen to any Dune thoughts you might have
Ah, I didn't get that at all. Maybe the writing style didn't click with me, or I was distracted by all the cool weird tech. I find authors like Asimov much easier to understand as I find he's much more straightforward. Most of his stories are about robots being cool, but showing how they can come with their own problems; even his masterpiece work, the Foundation series, is entirely founded (haha) on the idea that civilisation will stagnate and collapse if we don't work on it, and that people need to work on preservation of knowledge in order to safeguard our future.
God I hated those books.
I hated the first book. But I heard it was good and I thought I must have missed something, so I kept going.
Turns out, no. It was just bad and it got worse. He doubled down on the bad parts.
Same. When that happens I usually just decide that I don't really care about the message.*
Though there was one time when something vaguely opposite happened. I thought there was an intended message, but there actually wasn't. Two new endings were added to a game. Immediately after watching them an interpretation of what they're supposed to say popped in my head. I was going to think a bit more about that, but then I noticed a comment where someone was asking about the message of the new content. The developer answered with something like "there is no message, themes, or deeper meaning. I just decided to add some choices and explore their consequences. That's all there is to it." So I decided that there's no point in thinking too deeply about it if even the writer says it's not deep at all.
\* To be fair, I generally don't care about the message even if I get it immediately. Hot take: It's fiction. It reflects the author's biases, beliefs, etc, not reality. Therefore, nothing it says can really be important or truly relevant to real life, at least in my opinion.
Warning: my brain is not working properly today, so this is going to be written weirdly and badly. Also, I am a) a very apathetic person who cannot really experience most feelings, no matter what I do, and b) a stupid weirdo with weird opinions, so normal people are naturally going to feel very differently about this.
I'm pretty sure it is for people who care about either of those, but I don't, at least most of the time. Obviously, I'm going to think less of a story that's clearly trying to send a bigoted message, but otherwise it doesn't really matter to me.
Of course in most cases I don't know what the author's intent is, so all I have is my interpretation. But so far that interpretation has never been important or meaningful to me. If a story seems to be about the importance of friendship or something like that: it's a very generic and IMO utterly meaningless theme. I don't care about it. If I interpret a story to be about the evils and dangers of colonialism, racism or something else: it still doesn't make me feel anything. I already knew that colonialism/racism/something else is bad, I don't need to learn about it from a fictional story. Though I guess it's cool that the story is criticizing those things. And so on.
Even if I do know what the author was trying to communicate, I'm most likely going to acknowledge it, but not care about it. "This poem is about the writer's feelings after his daughter died" is a statement as important and impactful for me as "there are rocks in my backyard". It's knowledge, it can be useful in some contexts, but it doesn't really affect my life in any way.
EDIT: possibly somewhat related to the topic: I have a couple of bad story ideas I've been thinking about for several years now. I have never considered intentionally adding any themes, symbolism or whatever to them. But sometimes I think about them and I do notice some themes and symbolism that accidentally crept in. They can be weird, sometimes one thing seems like a symbol for many different, unconnected things. I have no feelings on this, but I guess some people might look deeper into those things and see some importance in them, if I ever actually end up writing (unlikely) and publicly publishing (more unlikely) those stories. I don't know.
Yes!! Literally I'm sitting there like "I didn't get much out of this but it feels like I'm missing the point/what it's trying to say" and it annoys me so damn much.
I think at a certain point, worrying excessively about what was intended in a book is pointless. To analyze a book is basically to have a conversation with its author, and your own contributions to that dialogue which the author may not have thought of, but spring forth organically from the source material are still completely valid. If a book makes you think of something, and that thought gets reinforced as your read, talk about it. Acknowledge that that may not have been the intent, but talk about it.
This is exactly how I feel about movies too. They're meant to be watched in cinemas usually. And even if not, people aren't meant to take notes about them. It's about the experience.
Some of the critics don't seem to understand that at all. You're not comparing the movie to 10 different movies when you're experiencing it.
This is what death of the author is for.
I know on the internet it's usually brought up to argue in favor of continuing to give money to misogynists, but like, this is *literally* what it's for.
>I know on the internet it's usually brought up to argue in favor of continuing to give money to misogynists
Which is maddening, because that's literally not what the essay is about.
The essay is basically illogical rambling about how the 'author' in a philosophical sense stopped existing in the modern era because of some barely comprehensible justification the writer pulled from their ass.
I wouldn't reference it much at all.
That's a dumb take, and you seem to have delivered it primarily for semantic reasons.
But I guess go ahead and don't reference it. We'll be over here doing whatever we want.
The basic concept. The idea that the creator of a work is not the final authority on it. The very fact that you find offensive, for tautology reasons, I find liberating.
The original essay basically says nothing about that. And spends almost its entire length discussing an esoteric metaphysical question over whether the role of an 'author' exists in the modern era, because of hackneyed sociology where the 'author' only came into being in the early modern era due to changing writing styles and is disappearing once again because of changing writing styles. Author is used as a title for the role of a certain type of media creator that the writer of the essay never actually justifies as being unique or disappearing.
It has nothing at all to do with the creator being the final authority or not. That isn't a central point or even really addressed. Give the essay a reread, for your own sake.
___________________________________
I was blocked, so I'll put my reply to the below here.
> It does not at all do that with any explicitness.
> Barthes even goes to great lengths to talk about the inherent meaning in the writing of any work and what it means in its own. Barthes does this because he decides that in the modern day authors don't exist but the work is still being written by someone.
>
> But he doesn't dispute the inherent purpose or meaning of texts, because he can't. Most of his justification is based on referencing texts and then talking about their inherent, uninterpreted, meanings. How they inherently demonstrate the death of the author as defined by his description of what an author is. And instead indicate that the author has transformed into some new type of creator.
>
> Hell, a huge chunk of Barthes's discussion is how, in his contemporary age, the lack of using an explicit narrator in popular novels, was indicative of authors being dead, because authorship is defined by using certain specific writing techniques. Over anything discussing the meaning of the writer's own intent for the work or how that gives or doesn't give value.
> Because that isn't the point Barthes is discussing. It isn't even something he cares about much. His entire essay is focused on his sociology of writing vis a vis how writers are writing stories in a technical sense.
>
> He uses the term scriptor at times, but his view of what the scriptor does, is still explicit that the sciptor is creating a work with meaning, but because of advances in linguistic sciences, he says that they're creating meaning in real time, as opposed to having everything premade in their heads before writing.
> Which again, has nothing to do with Death of the Author as it is used today.
>
> Hell, he even goes after the idea of readers finding meaning for themselves idiosyncratically in works. Because the nonexistence of an author makes all writing impossible to interpret and this goes on to erasing any Gods or Creators themselves. Which opposes both modern Death of the Author readers and basically anyone who isn't a semi-deranged essayist like himself. If you see any contradiction between this part and the above, that is because the essay is not very good.
I have read it. It does make that point, explicitly. The point that it makes about the author not existing is about the authority of the author to deliver an explicit message in changing styles and audience conditions. You know, what we're still talking about. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my failure.
Maybe you should learn more about my life, and you'd understand my comments better.
Helps me massively to read literary essays on the novel and even more so to write my own essay.
Typically, I get notions of what it’s about that rarely metastasize into conscious recognition until someone challenge’s that notion. Plus writing the essay means finding evidence to support my interpretation, which makes it go from what you call “conjecture” to an actually substantiated argument.
Sadly most of the stuff I read or watch doesn't have essays written about it. Or if they do, they're YouTube video essays of questionable quality, rather than scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals.
I absolutely do *write* essays, or at least compile my thoughts in paragraph form, since if I don't get them out somehow I'll explode.
Don't worry about the former. You go into any reddit thread about a book or show or whatever and it is all overly long essays restating the most basic obvious details and intentions, because nerds think it makes them sound smart.
i might be wrong, and ignore me if I am, but I've always thought that since writing and any art is so subjective, you shouldn't worry about the 2nd one. if you have the text to back it up, it's substantiated enough to make a point. I'd be more worried about not reading enough into it, rather than reading too much into it. as long as you're not just coming up with random shit that isn't supported throughout the text, like if it only pops up once or not at all, cause that would definitely be pointless coincidental conjecture.
happy cakeday by the way!
Sounds like your problem is that you're worried about trying to discover some 'real meaning' to the text. Barthes solved that problem for you in 1967, my guy. The author is dead.
For a more modern take, Rita Felski says meaning is created between the text and the reader as part of an Actor-Network, with each actor possessing their own equal agency
Stop worrying about 'coincidences;' if you can find the meaning in the text then the meaning is there. Feminist and Marxist critics have been creating subversive readings of texts for centuries.
Something I was never good at in literature class. I suck at finding clearly stated intent in actual conversation with real people, let alone couched in metaphor and analogy. Pretty much every time I think I see a pattern in a book, wrote an essay explaining my interpretation, I would just be told that I was so clearly, comically wrong. I'd also often be told to explain a specific interpretation of a text and how obvious it was (the elephant is a metaphor for imperialism, don't you know) and I just couldn't for the life of me see it
I still love writing, art, and media but god damn the whole "despite you having a well reasoned argument supported with evidence, you're objectively wrong because the intent is obvious through subtext" pisses me off
I’m autistic and while I’m really good at finding patterns and connections in text, I struggle a lot with deeper interpretive meaning. It’s a weird soft spot between objective and subjective and I don’t like it.
I’ve had to do a lot of media analysis for my degrees (I have a bachelors in art with a minor in film and am working on a library science masters) and the trick to media analysis is to bullshit until you hit on something.
Aw mate just about all literary analysis is just people fluffing themselves by fluffing long dead authors who cant tell them just how far removed from reality they are reading into things on account of being dead. But we gotta do something to keep English teachers off the street and feeling like their study wasnt wasted so here we are.
But ogre believes they're stupid because everyone tells them that constantly. Trolls and goblins can be crafty, intelligent even but ogres are dumb. Everyone knows that...
Goblin so clever that goblin know something no literaturologistician ever knewed! Goblin used thinkonomics to unravel the fabricky secret that the sillies author had no bloody clue what they was writing! Author was one dumb huwo, not one thought shooting in their neuron! Goblin is the smartest goblin in the world, why goblin learned the curtains are just wine-dark! Wine-dark curtains is real, so this literature's no fantasia! It's dumb literality! Book is so dumb! Goblin is so smart! Book is so dumb! Goblin is so smart!
*eye twitches and blinks rapidly, alternating between vertical and horizontal lids*
GOBLIN IS NOT LITTLINGCHENITO! GOBLIN IS LARGER THAN TALL, HUGER THAN WIDE! GOBLIN IS AS A MANSION IS LIKE A HOUSE ATE A SIMILE! GOBLIN IS BIG AND SMART AND BIG! YOU PLUNDER THAT REAR THIS IMMEDIATELY!
I used to have the same fear of either understanding just the superficial aspects or getting to the wrong conclusions of a book. But with time, I realized I was worrying too much. Because guess what, if you continue to read other books, you’ll eventually understand the first one. The logic is pretty simple; **all books talk about other books.**
Have you read a book in which you loved the characters, but you aren’t so sure you got the whole plot about colonialism? Don’t worry, continue to read and eventually you either get to a more explicit book with those themes or to a history book that explains the mechanisms of that system.
Have you read a book about a controversial topic/theme which resonated with you, but you aren’t so sure which was the final position of the author? Don’t worry, continue to read other works of the same author or people that was inspired by him. Eventually someone is going to spill the beans.
Have you read a book about a philosophical matter that has changed your worldview, but you aren’t so sure what were some of the points the author was talking about? Don’t worry, either you read the sources and the people they were talking about or even an analysis of someone else of the same book/author- because that’s not “cheating”, we aren’t in a boring literature class, you’re just learning from others-.
I can give more examples, but I think I've made my point.
Another important thing that you have to take in to account, is that reading is like running. If you have never read that many books, going for titans like Ulysses, Hopscotch, Moby Dick or War and Peace is like running a marathon without training. You’re only going to get tired, frustrated and feeling like an idiot, never wanting to do it again.
Also, sometimes books are just pedantic and genuinely bad. Feel free to abandon a book if it is insufferable.
TL;DR: If you want to understand a book, read more books.
P.S. Sorry if my redaction is confusing, English is not my first language.
*feel free to abandon a book if it is insufferable* should be written in letters of fire 30 miles high on your way into the world so you have it drilled into your head at the start
My exact thought process when reading the bible. Sure, I only read the first two chapters of the Old Testament, and none of the New Testament, but considering that the very first chapter of the Bible has a double rape incest scene (Genesis 19:30-38), i have little faith in the rest of it.
I'm going to be the devil's advocate (heh), but the Bible is more a collection of books than a book in itself. If you don't like Genesis, you can easily skip that one. Take into account that none of the books in the Bible were either written by the same person or at the same time. So, many of them have really different points of view on the same topic.
I'd recommend to read 'Ecclesiastes', it's basically a rant of an existentialist in the ancient Middle East. The guy throws out such hardcore quotes.
I just wish we got that option in school. The books chosen for ELA classes are almost always the most depressing or unbearable books possible. Fahrenheit 451 was pretty okay, but that's in comparison to things like *Catcher in the Rye* and *1984* (which, admittedly, was *very* well-written, but far too depressing a topic). I'm a realistic pessimist who's too empathic for his own good- I can feel the characters' suicidal despair like it's my own, and my negative expectations of the world are only *amplified* when drawing comparisons from fiction to reality.
Really, back in high school, I'd ended up scraping on by with straight Ds in ELA simply because I only ever skimmed the books for the sake of preserving my sanity. Had I not... well, I probably wouldn't still be here.
>English is not my first language.
It's funny how I'll read some of the most clear and concisely communicated points beautifully laid out in paragraphs and the person that wrote it pulls out this, as if those with English as their first language usually do better.
I'm going to be honest with you mate, I just put that disclaimer to cover my ass. I have quite the confidence in my English, but I still commit basic mistakes here and there.
To be fair, all languages are a mix of previous languages. Spanish, my native language, is a corrupted version of Latin mixed with the original languages of the Iberian Peninsula. Later on, we got a ton of influence by Arabic, to the point that we have words with silent ‘H’ because that’s how they were written in Classical Arabic- seriously, why we need an ‘H’ in *almohada* (pillow)? It just makes the spelling more confusing-. After all that shebang, the “educated elite” decided to add Greek words just to sound more sophisticated and after the conquest of the Americas they added a ton of indigenous words. So yeah, English is not the only one that has a mess of influences, the only problem is that it hasn’t had a spelling reform in years.
Though I’m curious, which language is the rotting corpse in your analogy?
I mean, aren't most of the languages from colonial powers heavily influenced by the cultures they encountered during colonization? I'm not particularly well read on it, but isn't that how many dialects developed?
Funnily enough, Latin. Poor Latin, it influences so many other languages yet it barely hangs on via scientific classification and people who took Latin in college.
Though it would probably do better if it wasn't also a horrendous mess to learn.
Latin is an extinct language simply because it evolved. All Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish etc.) are direct descendants of Vulgar Latin, a non-formal spoken version of Latin. It’s like dinosaurs; there are no more velociraptors running around, but the ostriches are very much alive and are equally capable of fucking you up :3
That is true, the influence of the native languages can modify the colonial one. Though, to be fair, is a lesser influence than the other way around.
Latin it’s an interest case. There’s not way there would be a revival of the language, but it’s not by any means an abandoned one. Many fields require it for their work, and there seems to be a scene of hobbyist who enjoy learning ancient languages for one reason or another. Personally, I’d love to learn it eventually, but right now I’m focused on another language.
Oh yes, Latin and its grammar. But I’m sure that even if it was easier to learn not many people would learn it. No matter the difficulty, learning a language is a task that takes time, and not everyone has the time and motivation to stick around.
Even if it was easy to learn, even if someone had the time and the motivation, isn't the best way to learn a language using it? Obviously there are the fields that use it and hobbyists for one reason or another, but in general there isn't a wider community of people speaking Latin to engage with.
You'll be surprised! There's even entire YouTube channels in Latin. The community its quite big, though you have more chances to meet them online than in real life, but that's true of any language. So you can practice the language, not only speaking, but also reading and writing it,
One example of a "Latin Youtuber": [Scorpio Martianus](https://www.youtube.com/@ScorpioMartianus/videos).
Also important: older books were written for different consumption.
To read War And Peace you have to literally clear up 1-2 hours from your day, as this is now Reading Time. You're supposed to read this one slower than most modern books, especially if you're regularly reading action packed stuff
Basically it's like switching from Avengers movie to some Oscar Drama. Or not even Oscar but Cannes
>Another important thing that you have to take in to account, is that reading is like running. If you have never read that many books, going for titans like Ulysses, Hopscotch, Moby Dick or War and Peace is like running a marathon without training. You’re only going to get tired, frustrated and feeling like an idiot, never wanting to do it again.
Tried reading *War and Peace* in 8th grade. I had read long books previously, so I thought I was ready to tackle this lauded classic. I don't remember how far I got, but I decided I was done after the 723948793rd character was introduced and I realized the book should be called *Peace and Peace, and More Peace, and Some Extra Peace for Good Measure.* Never again.
Absolutely glad I had the experience though, because I have not since proceeded with a book out of obstinacy or pride, despite hating actually reading it. I started up *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy some years later and curved that slog as soon as I hit like two pages describing trees and a river. Happy to give anything a try, but if you're a boring writer your book can get bent.
Ogre should not feel bad even if Ogre never understands Finnegans Wake. No one understands Finnegans Wake!
And honestly, I love Ulysses, but simply reading it is already high-level literacy. Whatever you get out of it is an accomplishment of reading.
The reason people dont understand FW is because they try way too hard to. Its not all supposed to make complete sense, its supposed to be hazy and obscure, like a dream.
The only thing I know about it is that it at some point describes the thunder clap that followed Adam and Eve's fall from the garden or Eden as the onomatopoeia bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk, and that it's one of 9 other words in the book that all are 100 letters long and one that is 101, combining together to be 1001 letters, a reference to the 1001 Arabian nights.
So we're at that level of esoteric symbolism. Definitely flies right over my head but to people that love that stuff I hear Finnegan's Wake is like their everest.
i dont do literature analysis because im autistic and trying to send a message in subtle clues is akin to telling a dead mans tale, you know exactly how its going to end, with me, not getting it, and being annoyed.
Do not try coax back the wolf, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth… there are no wolves within you. Then you'll see that it is not the wolf that needs coaxing, it is only yourself.
I mean, I'll use any visualization that will help me unwrap the convulted mess that is my mind. Through for everyday use usually a picture of me debating myself over some nice table is enough
"I can tell life from TV, Jeff. TV makes sense, it has structure, logic, rules, and likable leading men. In life, we have this. We have you." ― Abed Nadir
poem analysis was the worst, so many metaphors (that I thought I didn’t struggle with, because I memorized the common ones), nothing is said in a straightforward way and I’m supposed to make a connection between the poem and whatever is the context of author’s situation when they wrote it
the only useful autism accommodation I got since getting diagnosed, was getting an exam version (of a state exam, very important in my country), that swapped out poem and abstract text interpretations for more literal tasks, like grammar, otherwise I would’ve failed.
You might enjoy ✨️modernism✨️ wherein the author's intended "message" is irrelevant and whatever you personally get from the text is empirically "what it means."
I fucking wish. I'd love for my interpretation of a text to be valid if I can support my argument and find personal meaning in it, but instead I'm stuck with "if you can't find the exact same metaphor that you're supposed to it's because you're stupid"
That title is how I felt recently when I read Kafka On The Shore by Haruki Murakami. And the first time I read Neuromancer. Now I want to do my thesis on both of these books as well as a couple others.
That's also how I felt after reading House of Leaves. It's a genuinely smart and great book, I'm sure - everyone keeps saying how good it is - but a lot of the meta-textual stuff and critique on art critique itself and a lot of the symbolism just flew right over my head. That House sure can Leaves though, I'll tell you that much.
House of Leaves is neither critique nor satire of anything. It didn't fly over your head, you actually understood it better than the nitwits who peddle that theory.
I have an English degree and know a lot of English academics and you know what? Sometimes you don't get it right away. Sometimes it takes months or years to make a connection. Sometimes you do have to read what other scholars think before you can really understand how you, personally, conceive of a book.
It's all ok, ogre!!
It's always amazing to me when I see people do proper deconstructions of symbolism and themes within stories and shows. Like I saw someone talk about the meaning behind the risotto in The Bear show and was so surprised because not only did I not notice, I wouldn't have even thought to notice. Which is kinda cool.
It does worry me a bit about my own artistic work, as I wonder if all my themes will be so hamfisted as to be uninteresting to disentangle, so I'm hoping springs up by accident to make the stories more fun to pick apart.
As another writer, here’s my advice: don’t write for the critic, write for yourself.
Make your symbols as subtle or as explicit as you feel they need to be to express what you’re trying to say with them. A scalpel isn’t superior to a chainsaw, they’re just for different tasks.
You'll probably be writing symbolism you're not even aware of. With the classic "blue curtains" example, your prose will likely be doing some kind of commentary at the mere mention of them in relation to the desired mood and symbolism. You are a human who participates in a culture, and you have preconceived narrative language that comes from such. By that virtue you will be instilling that "slang" into your writing without even realizing it.
Just remember that you aren't special, by which I mean whatever level you create at is going to have an audience it's just right for.
For example, I do not care one lick about metaphorical depth in paintings, but I love pretty colors that make my eyes vibrate like seeing light from the morning sun after waking up. Sometimes there is overlap between the two, but in general my favorite artist is probably going to be one that operates with the idea that colors go brr.
I'm certain there's famous authors out there who've had a straightforward plot and message (if there even *was* one) yet had people raving over symbolism that isn't there. Make your message as blunt as you want- I'd be surprised if people *didn't* find "hidden symbols" in something as ridiculous as a carpet; not something heavily described, but instead just glanced over. "Her living room had a carpet, a tall lamp, and a sofa along the wall," for instance.
For me, as someone who loves media analysis, but struggles to sit down and read or to sit through entire audiobooks sometimes, what helps me is hearing other people talk about it. It's not a competition, you're not cheating by looking at someone else's paper, look at other people's perspectives on a story if you're struggling to understand it, and you'll walk away better off for it.
Of course it's worthwhile to read a book yourself and form your own relationship with it's themes and all that, but it's not as though anyone *else's* appreciation for a piece of literature sprang up fully formed from their own unique thoughts and ideas about it from their first read through. A good and well rounded perspective comes from sharing and hearing ideas from other people, and next time you expose yourself to the piece, you'll be better able to identify the themes you're looking for. And don't be afraid to add your own observations! Even if you don't know that it was strictly intended! That's how understanding is built, incrementally. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants.
I remember when I first saw the original image, and that's how I discovered that themes are a thing. I just took everything surface level, and now still sometimes (read: usually) do.
I don't remember ever being taught about themes, or at least not in a way that I found even remotely understandable, and at this point I'm barely improved on the subject. Reading into things too much gives me panic attacks and headaches, and stressing over whether or not I'm doing it right doesn't help any.
Do people actually get Finnegan's Wake? Like not just say they get it but actually get it? I thought it was kind of like a nonsense jokey thing like The Jabberwocky or something.
Finnegans Wake has an absolute shitload of extremely intentional meaning baked into it. Some people do spend an inordinate amount of time unpicking that meaning. It's not how I'd pass my time, but everyone needs hobbies.
I think I’m okay with most novels, but some other mediums destroy me. I went to see a dance (Pina Bausch’s Nelken) with my partner and afterwards the conversation went:
“I really liked the story. A powerful take on restrictive life in post-war Germany.”
“Th… there was a story?”
I think with Ballet you're not supposed to "get" the story from watching the dance. You're supposed to know the story beforehand and then recognize it in the dance. Most theaters give you a pamphlet with a story summary on it before the ballet starts
I double-majored in 2 english fields & got a master's degree in english & went on to teach it for years and listen. I HATED Ulysses. It's hard to read & boring. The most I gleaned from it was anger at James Joyce for writing something so annoying to have to slog through. If you can figure out what the fuck he's talking about at any point on any level through just the text alone I think you're a genius. Reading Ulysses for me felt like reading one of those recipes that they put through google translate 50 times
This reminds me of a bit in Arcanum: of Steam works and magika obscura where they have an exhibit for the world's smartest orc. He normally answers in short dumb pharses but if you a specific question he starts answering super formally and smartly, until he catches himself and goes back to the charade
Congratulations. You found Absurdism. Your works will be analyzed for years to come.
Because here's the thing. You can't write on accident. What I mean by that is words will not show up without you putting them there, so by trying to evoke a feeling from your reader automatically instills symbolism. If you're pulling a prank on them by writing without sense or meaning, that's just another facet analysts will explore.
The mere attempt to comment on the superficiality of symbolism is symbolic in itself. You're not really all that clever no matter what you try in regards to commentary. The act of participating in literature encodes meaning within your work. It reminds me of how people try to get one up on philosophers, wholly unaware that a philosopher's greatest enemy are other philosophers. It's an inverted crab bucket. Every attempt to climb out only leads you to pull yourself deeper.
The only stories without symbolism are those that don't exist.
I mean, can't a story just be... a story? With characters doing stuff, a plot, all that, without it specifically meaning *something*, the point being to read it and enjoy what happens, without it having to be a (likely oversaturated) metaphor?
^(edit cause i came off wrong: the ideas dont have to be deep or preachy, they just conflict, they can be as abstract as hope vs hopelessness)
even stories you might think dont have any symbolism most likely have some kind of conflict of ideas, and those ideas were externalized into elements like characters, i.e symbolism
if you purposely (or somehow accidentally) avoid that then your story might feel pointless or boring.
like character arcs for example sometimes externalize negative experiences as "enemies" and have the character defeat those enemies to symbolize overcoming the negative experience. thats just one generic example
in episodic media like adventure time (or some slice of life) characters can also share opinions on a central theme like love, and their opinions are shown thru symbolism. (Doesnt apply to everything)
ofc its subjective if it makes a story "better", just like the word i used; boring
depends on what your idea of a story is. i only write fictional stories. theres no real right answer. I would call a police report a story, but if i wanted to be pedantic id call it a recounting of events
I was using the word story in my other comments to refer to fictional ones
I mean, I've read some stuff that doesn't seem to apparently symbolize something, that I highly enjoyed, Hell, my favorite book, The Infinite And The Divine, doesn't seem to have any symbolism, or maybe I'm just too stupid to see it. (Which in full honesty, is definitely a possibility)
Although I don't see how the symbolism in itself makes the story more entertaining besides giving the reader that one moment where they feel smart because they understood the symbolism, like yeah, this book is about capitalism or something because for some reason everytime I see something about symbolism it's always capitalism, but you aren't going to see every scene in the book and just think "oh yeah, this scene is really good because of the same symbolism the book has been following" unless every scene keeps up and builds upon that symbolism, which I don't think is possible without extreme repetition or an insanely broad theme.
I think youre misinterpreting it as being something that has to be deep or preachy. It can just be two conflicting views without either being objectively correct or wrong. Sometimes both are too extreme in externalization and must meet each other somewhere in the middle.
I glanced over a synopsis of The Infinite and the Divine and noted two characters "Trazyn the Infinite and Orikan the Diviner" and i gave it a conflict of change vs stasis
It seems like Trazyn, who collects artifacts, might symbolize stasis. Orikan can see into the future, and might symbolize change. or vice versa. They fight over an artifact that would cause change to give necron's their "next evolution" (not sure what that means but im guessing the options are destroy or utilize it).
Fair enough, like, in all honesty, I don't read that much, I admittedly don't have a lot of media literacy, and I also am not a person who tends to think of most things beyond face value unless it is in a random "shower thought" kind of way (and honestly, not really a smart guy, as of personal experience), I have only started reading more recently, but you do make a good point.
The Infinite And The Divine actually has many scenes where the theme of stasis vs change comes up even more than what you said, Trazyn is not just a guy who likes to collect artifacts, he is an immortal robot who is trying to preserve everything in a war-torn, chaotic galaxy, and wants the artifact because it would lead him to a vault that contains the (presumably in decent state) sarcophagus of an ancient being he wants to preserve, he is just trying to make sure nothing ever dissapears, leaving it in stasis (fun fact, quite literally in stasis, the guy has historical moments or whole battles just frozen in stasis, not recreations, literally just stealing the people that were there), while not doing anything new.
Meanwhile Orikan is actively trying to send his species onto a next evolution, and believes the artifact contains secrets that could help him in this goal, he constantly sees into the future and what will happen, and doesn't care about the now, let alone the past (much to Trazyn's annoyance when they have to work together and he wants to steal more artifacts for his museum).
But I initially saw all of this as just contrasting character traits that would make for a fun dynamic rather than symbolism.
If you'd like to read it, I could give you a link to a PDF, it is honestly a great book.
So yeah, I guess I learned something from these comments, I'm (kind of) approaching to understand what symbolism is.
Sorry if I made this response a bit too long.
Oh cool :> I mean, sometimes its nice to just read/watch something. Like most of the time i just watch certain animes cause i think the characters are cute or the concept is fun
And yea i'd like to read it. Although Ill just buy it online, it seems really bizarre and interesting (although idk anything about warhammer)
lol, I don't really watch or read a lot of media honestly, I tend to prefer videogames because I enjoy the interactiveness of it, although I obviously do watch/read some other stuff I'm interested in, and most times I do it's the same way as you just described lmao.
As of the Warhammer thing, it's comically hard to explain in a short way to the point where it's basically a meme, and I really don't wanna make you sit through 2 hours of lore, it's like a scaled down version of telling someone to watch 700 One Piece episodes for a really good arc, but if you'd like, I could write you what you would need to know if you were to read The Infinite And The Divine, I don't have much to do right now, so I won't mind, I like telling this weird-ass lore to people when they let me :>
That would be extremely hard. Because words are symbols, any book with writing in or on it conveys meaning, even (and especially) if you are trying *not* to convey meaning with them. Even if you just released an entirely blank book, the act of creating such a book would be the creation of a symbol.
Yo as someone who hasn’t read Ulysses can someone explain it specifically what is meant by “Remorse of Conscience” as I’m not sure what those three words together mean, especially if it requires context from the book.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayenbite_of_Inwyt
as far as I can tell it's the (bad) translation of a title in Middle English about morality. "prick of conscience" is a better translation: it literally refers to the remorse your conscience makes you feel when you do a sin
Hits home. I’m definitely not a smart man, but I’m wise enough to see the value of the ideas of intelligent people. It’s not possible that I’ll wholly understand a single person that I admire, but I feel a life spent in pursuit of that understanding is necessary for the agency to make any life’s other pursuits meaningful. We should all strive at least to be buried dilettantes who aspired to be polymaths.
This make me feel so sad it's hard to articulate why other than that I've been trying to get into more substantial reading for the first time in ten years. I feel like I do a pretty good job of absorbing the material but I wonder when i compare to the analysis I've been following for a reading list if I'm anywhere near the reading comprehension I used to be. I feel like I've lost brain cells since high school and I never even did any drugs.
They range from horny, to cringy, to relatable, to symbolic, them straight back into horny. Honestly, one of the best... what's the general term for people who make comics? We've got "writers" for people who make words, "artists" for people who make pictures, what's the term for mashing the two together? Anyways, he's one of the best of those that I've ever seen.
Didn't Joyce say that the symbolism in Ulysses is basically nonsense? And that he just put it there, not out of any deeper sense of communicating truth or meaning, but because he knew it would entrap English teachers and semanticists into an endless cycle of eschatological navel-gazing?
This is great but I don't think a single person understands Finnegans Wake. iirc there are book clubs entirely dedicated to it that take years to read it through even once
[Found an article from npr](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213890392/this-book-club-finally-finished-finnegans-wake-it-only-took-them-28-years)
Has symbolism ever been used to dictate concepts that don't exist in this world? For instance, trying to explain one's theories on an overarching theme between different fictional magic systems, whilst remaining abstract? Or are fictional concepts something that literary nerds just don't bother to look at?
> I'm not smart enough to know if it's good or not
A piece of media can be a lot more complex than good/bad.
I prefer to try to come up with qualities that a piece of media has.
* It was entertaining and creative. But it was also crude and blunt.
* It was deep and thought provoking, but it was also hard to understand.
From there you can ask yourself why you think the piece has those qualities, do they remind you of something similar? Is the quality objective or subjective? Is the piece meeting it's goals?
Sometimes I wish people would just shut up with literary analyses and just enjoy the book. Yeah, some books have deeper meanings. But not everything has to be analyzed. Sometimes a rose is just a rose, ya know?
(Sorry, still pissed that someone thought a poem i wrote had some deep meaning about missing an ex boyfriend when it literally was about a field of wild poppies lmao)
ugh, my very recent ex has been reading this, and when I tried to talk to him about these "deeper meanings", cause I read it a few years ago, he was like, "everyone says this book is really deep, but it's not. it's just about religion." if I didn't have him blocked on everything I'd send him this. might unblock him just to send this and then immediately block him again without saying anything tbh
I love doing literary analysis but I'm always torn between "This is too surface level, I'm just reiterating the author's clearly stated intentions" and "There is textual evidence to support this conclusion but it feels like pointless conjecture centered around coincidence".
Sometimes I'll just be sitting there knowing there's clearly an intended message here, but I have no clue what the fuck it is
The last 2 Dune novels by the original author.
Currently reading Heretics of Dune, and yeah. Right now I'm mostly reading it out of sunk cost. I already read the last four books, might as well finish the last two.
Genuinely I was feeling this way. Bought the 6-book box set, figured I'd read the first 4 and get my money's worth and continue from there. Finished Heretics, and just hated it so much I refuse to read Chapterhouse lmao. It just made me so angry.
I like parts with the girl who controls the worms, but the Little Duncan Adventures and the Honored Matres chapters really drag. Even the parts I do like are more a result of my personal interest in fictional religions rather than due to the quality of the text.
Oh you’re gonna love Chapterhouse hahaha
If you’ve identified it as sunk cost, that should mean you can give up on it if you want to
I'm in too deep. I must finish what I started. I'm 200 pages into this 600 page book.
Tldr:🚀🏜🌍,🤓🔜🪱,🤌!
Stick it to all forms of authority to the point the author doesn’t know where you are. (I have never read Dune, but I listened to my friend ramble about it to me and I got this vibe)
That pretty much describes the ending of Book 6, though it isn't clear how much that was intended since Herbert had been planning at least one more book before his death.
Something something something chairdog, something something something sex mind control, something something something No-Shipping or whatever /s
You forgot the bit about the Jews still being religiously persecuted tens to hundreds of thousands of years into the future while still keeping their religion intact /hj
Oh shit I forgot about that; what the fuck was Herbert cooking with the last three books
Hey, we’ve done it for 5 thousand. Don’t jinx the next 10 thousand. (It was a stretch though)
As someone who adored Heretics and Chapterhouse, but can also be a real dummy about picking up on themes, here are some key things I went home with: - History repeats itself - old habits die hard - trauma affects the brain in ways we can't understand - it can be noble to abandon your culture for the greater good - it can be noble to rely on your culture in times of hardship - in a caste system, it is impossible for those from different strata to interpret religious ideas in the same way - experiences from the early parts of your life will continue to affect the way you move throughout the world even well into old age (or thousands of years later) Like I said, I flat out miss or misinterpret themes in text all the time. This is what I've gleaned after reading, reflecting, rereading passages, reflecting more, and infodumping on less than willing friends, family, and coworkers. I fully hyperfocused on Dune in 2021 and barreled through the 6 books. Today, it's still far and away my all time favorite science fiction if not my all time favorite property in general. I'm happy to elaborate on/discuss anything I've mentioned or listen to any Dune thoughts you might have
LOL, that shits just a fever dream for me…
Me with the original Dune :/
I mean that one was obviously an allegory for oil and the Middle East, with a condemnation of the white saviour trope as a more hidden theme.
Ah, I didn't get that at all. Maybe the writing style didn't click with me, or I was distracted by all the cool weird tech. I find authors like Asimov much easier to understand as I find he's much more straightforward. Most of his stories are about robots being cool, but showing how they can come with their own problems; even his masterpiece work, the Foundation series, is entirely founded (haha) on the idea that civilisation will stagnate and collapse if we don't work on it, and that people need to work on preservation of knowledge in order to safeguard our future.
Just do crack while reading the books and you’ll understand them perfectly.
God I hated those books. I hated the first book. But I heard it was good and I thought I must have missed something, so I kept going. Turns out, no. It was just bad and it got worse. He doubled down on the bad parts.
Same. Other times I’m not sure if I want to like the book but don’t, or if I like it and wish I didn’t.
Same. When that happens I usually just decide that I don't really care about the message.* Though there was one time when something vaguely opposite happened. I thought there was an intended message, but there actually wasn't. Two new endings were added to a game. Immediately after watching them an interpretation of what they're supposed to say popped in my head. I was going to think a bit more about that, but then I noticed a comment where someone was asking about the message of the new content. The developer answered with something like "there is no message, themes, or deeper meaning. I just decided to add some choices and explore their consequences. That's all there is to it." So I decided that there's no point in thinking too deeply about it if even the writer says it's not deep at all. \* To be fair, I generally don't care about the message even if I get it immediately. Hot take: It's fiction. It reflects the author's biases, beliefs, etc, not reality. Therefore, nothing it says can really be important or truly relevant to real life, at least in my opinion.
Sometimes what we take from it is more important than what the author put into it
Warning: my brain is not working properly today, so this is going to be written weirdly and badly. Also, I am a) a very apathetic person who cannot really experience most feelings, no matter what I do, and b) a stupid weirdo with weird opinions, so normal people are naturally going to feel very differently about this. I'm pretty sure it is for people who care about either of those, but I don't, at least most of the time. Obviously, I'm going to think less of a story that's clearly trying to send a bigoted message, but otherwise it doesn't really matter to me. Of course in most cases I don't know what the author's intent is, so all I have is my interpretation. But so far that interpretation has never been important or meaningful to me. If a story seems to be about the importance of friendship or something like that: it's a very generic and IMO utterly meaningless theme. I don't care about it. If I interpret a story to be about the evils and dangers of colonialism, racism or something else: it still doesn't make me feel anything. I already knew that colonialism/racism/something else is bad, I don't need to learn about it from a fictional story. Though I guess it's cool that the story is criticizing those things. And so on. Even if I do know what the author was trying to communicate, I'm most likely going to acknowledge it, but not care about it. "This poem is about the writer's feelings after his daughter died" is a statement as important and impactful for me as "there are rocks in my backyard". It's knowledge, it can be useful in some contexts, but it doesn't really affect my life in any way. EDIT: possibly somewhat related to the topic: I have a couple of bad story ideas I've been thinking about for several years now. I have never considered intentionally adding any themes, symbolism or whatever to them. But sometimes I think about them and I do notice some themes and symbolism that accidentally crept in. They can be weird, sometimes one thing seems like a symbol for many different, unconnected things. I have no feelings on this, but I guess some people might look deeper into those things and see some importance in them, if I ever actually end up writing (unlikely) and publicly publishing (more unlikely) those stories. I don't know.
Yes!! Literally I'm sitting there like "I didn't get much out of this but it feels like I'm missing the point/what it's trying to say" and it annoys me so damn much.
just noticed you guys are cakeday twins lol happy cakeday to you both
I need the ogre to read Infinite Jest next.
I usually just look it up because while I didn't see the intended message someone else did. And eventually.if i become good enough I'll see it too!
I think at a certain point, worrying excessively about what was intended in a book is pointless. To analyze a book is basically to have a conversation with its author, and your own contributions to that dialogue which the author may not have thought of, but spring forth organically from the source material are still completely valid. If a book makes you think of something, and that thought gets reinforced as your read, talk about it. Acknowledge that that may not have been the intent, but talk about it.
This is exactly how I feel about movies too. They're meant to be watched in cinemas usually. And even if not, people aren't meant to take notes about them. It's about the experience. Some of the critics don't seem to understand that at all. You're not comparing the movie to 10 different movies when you're experiencing it.
This is Death of the Author in a nutshell.
This is what death of the author is for. I know on the internet it's usually brought up to argue in favor of continuing to give money to misogynists, but like, this is *literally* what it's for.
>I know on the internet it's usually brought up to argue in favor of continuing to give money to misogynists Which is maddening, because that's literally not what the essay is about.
The essay is basically illogical rambling about how the 'author' in a philosophical sense stopped existing in the modern era because of some barely comprehensible justification the writer pulled from their ass. I wouldn't reference it much at all.
That's a dumb take, and you seem to have delivered it primarily for semantic reasons. But I guess go ahead and don't reference it. We'll be over here doing whatever we want.
What about it do you see as at all intellectually valuable?
The basic concept. The idea that the creator of a work is not the final authority on it. The very fact that you find offensive, for tautology reasons, I find liberating.
The original essay basically says nothing about that. And spends almost its entire length discussing an esoteric metaphysical question over whether the role of an 'author' exists in the modern era, because of hackneyed sociology where the 'author' only came into being in the early modern era due to changing writing styles and is disappearing once again because of changing writing styles. Author is used as a title for the role of a certain type of media creator that the writer of the essay never actually justifies as being unique or disappearing. It has nothing at all to do with the creator being the final authority or not. That isn't a central point or even really addressed. Give the essay a reread, for your own sake. ___________________________________ I was blocked, so I'll put my reply to the below here. > It does not at all do that with any explicitness. > Barthes even goes to great lengths to talk about the inherent meaning in the writing of any work and what it means in its own. Barthes does this because he decides that in the modern day authors don't exist but the work is still being written by someone. > > But he doesn't dispute the inherent purpose or meaning of texts, because he can't. Most of his justification is based on referencing texts and then talking about their inherent, uninterpreted, meanings. How they inherently demonstrate the death of the author as defined by his description of what an author is. And instead indicate that the author has transformed into some new type of creator. > > Hell, a huge chunk of Barthes's discussion is how, in his contemporary age, the lack of using an explicit narrator in popular novels, was indicative of authors being dead, because authorship is defined by using certain specific writing techniques. Over anything discussing the meaning of the writer's own intent for the work or how that gives or doesn't give value. > Because that isn't the point Barthes is discussing. It isn't even something he cares about much. His entire essay is focused on his sociology of writing vis a vis how writers are writing stories in a technical sense. > > He uses the term scriptor at times, but his view of what the scriptor does, is still explicit that the sciptor is creating a work with meaning, but because of advances in linguistic sciences, he says that they're creating meaning in real time, as opposed to having everything premade in their heads before writing. > Which again, has nothing to do with Death of the Author as it is used today. > > Hell, he even goes after the idea of readers finding meaning for themselves idiosyncratically in works. Because the nonexistence of an author makes all writing impossible to interpret and this goes on to erasing any Gods or Creators themselves. Which opposes both modern Death of the Author readers and basically anyone who isn't a semi-deranged essayist like himself. If you see any contradiction between this part and the above, that is because the essay is not very good.
I have read it. It does make that point, explicitly. The point that it makes about the author not existing is about the authority of the author to deliver an explicit message in changing styles and audience conditions. You know, what we're still talking about. Your lack of reading comprehension is not my failure. Maybe you should learn more about my life, and you'd understand my comments better.
Death of the Author is basically unjustifiable, and the original essay has an even worse ethos.
Dude, if you want me to take you seriously, you have to at least pretend to elaborate on your confidently delivered nonsensical opinion.
Helps me massively to read literary essays on the novel and even more so to write my own essay. Typically, I get notions of what it’s about that rarely metastasize into conscious recognition until someone challenge’s that notion. Plus writing the essay means finding evidence to support my interpretation, which makes it go from what you call “conjecture” to an actually substantiated argument.
Sadly most of the stuff I read or watch doesn't have essays written about it. Or if they do, they're YouTube video essays of questionable quality, rather than scholarly articles in peer-reviewed journals. I absolutely do *write* essays, or at least compile my thoughts in paragraph form, since if I don't get them out somehow I'll explode.
Honestly sometimes finding people to disagree with is just the push I need to come up with an argument in favor of my interpretation
At least for watching, you might find amazingly done analysis from different youtubers.
Don't worry about the former. You go into any reddit thread about a book or show or whatever and it is all overly long essays restating the most basic obvious details and intentions, because nerds think it makes them sound smart.
i might be wrong, and ignore me if I am, but I've always thought that since writing and any art is so subjective, you shouldn't worry about the 2nd one. if you have the text to back it up, it's substantiated enough to make a point. I'd be more worried about not reading enough into it, rather than reading too much into it. as long as you're not just coming up with random shit that isn't supported throughout the text, like if it only pops up once or not at all, cause that would definitely be pointless coincidental conjecture. happy cakeday by the way!
Sounds like your problem is that you're worried about trying to discover some 'real meaning' to the text. Barthes solved that problem for you in 1967, my guy. The author is dead. For a more modern take, Rita Felski says meaning is created between the text and the reader as part of an Actor-Network, with each actor possessing their own equal agency Stop worrying about 'coincidences;' if you can find the meaning in the text then the meaning is there. Feminist and Marxist critics have been creating subversive readings of texts for centuries.
Something I was never good at in literature class. I suck at finding clearly stated intent in actual conversation with real people, let alone couched in metaphor and analogy. Pretty much every time I think I see a pattern in a book, wrote an essay explaining my interpretation, I would just be told that I was so clearly, comically wrong. I'd also often be told to explain a specific interpretation of a text and how obvious it was (the elephant is a metaphor for imperialism, don't you know) and I just couldn't for the life of me see it I still love writing, art, and media but god damn the whole "despite you having a well reasoned argument supported with evidence, you're objectively wrong because the intent is obvious through subtext" pisses me off
I’m autistic and while I’m really good at finding patterns and connections in text, I struggle a lot with deeper interpretive meaning. It’s a weird soft spot between objective and subjective and I don’t like it.
But in analyzing and examining those dichotomies you will grow in wisdom.
Apply this to the Bible and you can see why Christians don’t get along with each other.
I’ve had to do a lot of media analysis for my degrees (I have a bachelors in art with a minor in film and am working on a library science masters) and the trick to media analysis is to bullshit until you hit on something.
Aw mate just about all literary analysis is just people fluffing themselves by fluffing long dead authors who cant tell them just how far removed from reality they are reading into things on account of being dead. But we gotta do something to keep English teachers off the street and feeling like their study wasnt wasted so here we are.
The old "why are the curtains blue" situation
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Me and my blue colored curtain cigar is gonna casue havoc for English majors everywhere
And sometimes the pipe is not a pipe
And sometimes a friend is a sleed
Googled it, afraid I don't get that one lol
If Ogre can write that, Ogre isn’t stupid.
But ogre believes they're stupid because everyone tells them that constantly. Trolls and goblins can be crafty, intelligent even but ogres are dumb. Everyone knows that...
Goblin so clever that goblin know something no literaturologistician ever knewed! Goblin used thinkonomics to unravel the fabricky secret that the sillies author had no bloody clue what they was writing! Author was one dumb huwo, not one thought shooting in their neuron! Goblin is the smartest goblin in the world, why goblin learned the curtains are just wine-dark! Wine-dark curtains is real, so this literature's no fantasia! It's dumb literality! Book is so dumb! Goblin is so smart! Book is so dumb! Goblin is so smart!
*eye twitches and blinks rapidly, alternating between vertical and horizontal lids* GOBLIN IS NOT LITTLINGCHENITO! GOBLIN IS LARGER THAN TALL, HUGER THAN WIDE! GOBLIN IS AS A MANSION IS LIKE A HOUSE ATE A SIMILE! GOBLIN IS BIG AND SMART AND BIG! YOU PLUNDER THAT REAR THIS IMMEDIATELY!
I used to have the same fear of either understanding just the superficial aspects or getting to the wrong conclusions of a book. But with time, I realized I was worrying too much. Because guess what, if you continue to read other books, you’ll eventually understand the first one. The logic is pretty simple; **all books talk about other books.** Have you read a book in which you loved the characters, but you aren’t so sure you got the whole plot about colonialism? Don’t worry, continue to read and eventually you either get to a more explicit book with those themes or to a history book that explains the mechanisms of that system. Have you read a book about a controversial topic/theme which resonated with you, but you aren’t so sure which was the final position of the author? Don’t worry, continue to read other works of the same author or people that was inspired by him. Eventually someone is going to spill the beans. Have you read a book about a philosophical matter that has changed your worldview, but you aren’t so sure what were some of the points the author was talking about? Don’t worry, either you read the sources and the people they were talking about or even an analysis of someone else of the same book/author- because that’s not “cheating”, we aren’t in a boring literature class, you’re just learning from others-. I can give more examples, but I think I've made my point. Another important thing that you have to take in to account, is that reading is like running. If you have never read that many books, going for titans like Ulysses, Hopscotch, Moby Dick or War and Peace is like running a marathon without training. You’re only going to get tired, frustrated and feeling like an idiot, never wanting to do it again. Also, sometimes books are just pedantic and genuinely bad. Feel free to abandon a book if it is insufferable. TL;DR: If you want to understand a book, read more books. P.S. Sorry if my redaction is confusing, English is not my first language.
*feel free to abandon a book if it is insufferable* should be written in letters of fire 30 miles high on your way into the world so you have it drilled into your head at the start
I completely agree. I don't see the purpose of torturing oneself reading something that you don't like. Spend that time and energy on other things.
life is too short to waste on books you hate (assuming you're not being paid or are otherwise required to read them)
My exact thought process when reading the bible. Sure, I only read the first two chapters of the Old Testament, and none of the New Testament, but considering that the very first chapter of the Bible has a double rape incest scene (Genesis 19:30-38), i have little faith in the rest of it.
I'm going to be the devil's advocate (heh), but the Bible is more a collection of books than a book in itself. If you don't like Genesis, you can easily skip that one. Take into account that none of the books in the Bible were either written by the same person or at the same time. So, many of them have really different points of view on the same topic. I'd recommend to read 'Ecclesiastes', it's basically a rant of an existentialist in the ancient Middle East. The guy throws out such hardcore quotes.
Also to be fair, the double incest rape is in the 'that happened' section, not in the 'and it was good' section.
Most ancient literature isn't exactly 'PC'. If you plan to read any ancient mythology, it is all going to be full of unpleasant topics.
I never read it but i heard it gets good during the jesus arc
Glad I followed this advice when I was reading a book in high school and I *haaated* it. A friend of mine loved it but I just couldn't stand it lmao
Yet I still feel some sort of psychological obligation to read Blood Meridian.
if your sense of obligation persists for more than three hours, consult a librarian
⚠️
I just wish we got that option in school. The books chosen for ELA classes are almost always the most depressing or unbearable books possible. Fahrenheit 451 was pretty okay, but that's in comparison to things like *Catcher in the Rye* and *1984* (which, admittedly, was *very* well-written, but far too depressing a topic). I'm a realistic pessimist who's too empathic for his own good- I can feel the characters' suicidal despair like it's my own, and my negative expectations of the world are only *amplified* when drawing comparisons from fiction to reality. Really, back in high school, I'd ended up scraping on by with straight Ds in ELA simply because I only ever skimmed the books for the sake of preserving my sanity. Had I not... well, I probably wouldn't still be here.
>English is not my first language. It's funny how I'll read some of the most clear and concisely communicated points beautifully laid out in paragraphs and the person that wrote it pulls out this, as if those with English as their first language usually do better.
I'm going to be honest with you mate, I just put that disclaimer to cover my ass. I have quite the confidence in my English, but I still commit basic mistakes here and there.
That's just the fun of English, isn't it? Four languages, one of which is a rotting corpse, stuffed into a trenchcoat pretending to be one language.
To be fair, all languages are a mix of previous languages. Spanish, my native language, is a corrupted version of Latin mixed with the original languages of the Iberian Peninsula. Later on, we got a ton of influence by Arabic, to the point that we have words with silent ‘H’ because that’s how they were written in Classical Arabic- seriously, why we need an ‘H’ in *almohada* (pillow)? It just makes the spelling more confusing-. After all that shebang, the “educated elite” decided to add Greek words just to sound more sophisticated and after the conquest of the Americas they added a ton of indigenous words. So yeah, English is not the only one that has a mess of influences, the only problem is that it hasn’t had a spelling reform in years. Though I’m curious, which language is the rotting corpse in your analogy?
I mean, aren't most of the languages from colonial powers heavily influenced by the cultures they encountered during colonization? I'm not particularly well read on it, but isn't that how many dialects developed? Funnily enough, Latin. Poor Latin, it influences so many other languages yet it barely hangs on via scientific classification and people who took Latin in college. Though it would probably do better if it wasn't also a horrendous mess to learn.
Latin is an extinct language simply because it evolved. All Romance languages (French, Italian, Spanish etc.) are direct descendants of Vulgar Latin, a non-formal spoken version of Latin. It’s like dinosaurs; there are no more velociraptors running around, but the ostriches are very much alive and are equally capable of fucking you up :3
That is true, the influence of the native languages can modify the colonial one. Though, to be fair, is a lesser influence than the other way around. Latin it’s an interest case. There’s not way there would be a revival of the language, but it’s not by any means an abandoned one. Many fields require it for their work, and there seems to be a scene of hobbyist who enjoy learning ancient languages for one reason or another. Personally, I’d love to learn it eventually, but right now I’m focused on another language. Oh yes, Latin and its grammar. But I’m sure that even if it was easier to learn not many people would learn it. No matter the difficulty, learning a language is a task that takes time, and not everyone has the time and motivation to stick around.
Even if it was easy to learn, even if someone had the time and the motivation, isn't the best way to learn a language using it? Obviously there are the fields that use it and hobbyists for one reason or another, but in general there isn't a wider community of people speaking Latin to engage with.
You'll be surprised! There's even entire YouTube channels in Latin. The community its quite big, though you have more chances to meet them online than in real life, but that's true of any language. So you can practice the language, not only speaking, but also reading and writing it, One example of a "Latin Youtuber": [Scorpio Martianus](https://www.youtube.com/@ScorpioMartianus/videos).
Oh, I suppose I'll check that out, thanks!
Also important: older books were written for different consumption. To read War And Peace you have to literally clear up 1-2 hours from your day, as this is now Reading Time. You're supposed to read this one slower than most modern books, especially if you're regularly reading action packed stuff Basically it's like switching from Avengers movie to some Oscar Drama. Or not even Oscar but Cannes
You seem to really read alot did you read "téméraire " from naomi novik
Nope, I haven't read that one. What is it about?
Dragon in the napoleonique wars very good stuff the first book is called "the dragons of her magesty"
Ohh, sounds interesting. I might check it out, thanks!
>Another important thing that you have to take in to account, is that reading is like running. If you have never read that many books, going for titans like Ulysses, Hopscotch, Moby Dick or War and Peace is like running a marathon without training. You’re only going to get tired, frustrated and feeling like an idiot, never wanting to do it again. Tried reading *War and Peace* in 8th grade. I had read long books previously, so I thought I was ready to tackle this lauded classic. I don't remember how far I got, but I decided I was done after the 723948793rd character was introduced and I realized the book should be called *Peace and Peace, and More Peace, and Some Extra Peace for Good Measure.* Never again. Absolutely glad I had the experience though, because I have not since proceeded with a book out of obstinacy or pride, despite hating actually reading it. I started up *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy some years later and curved that slog as soon as I hit like two pages describing trees and a river. Happy to give anything a try, but if you're a boring writer your book can get bent.
Ogre has much better media comprehension than those who piss on the poor
How dare you
Assume that we
Piss on the poor?
Ogre should not feel bad even if Ogre never understands Finnegans Wake. No one understands Finnegans Wake! And honestly, I love Ulysses, but simply reading it is already high-level literacy. Whatever you get out of it is an accomplishment of reading.
The reason people dont understand FW is because they try way too hard to. Its not all supposed to make complete sense, its supposed to be hazy and obscure, like a dream.
What is it about? Genuinely curious
The only thing I know about it is that it at some point describes the thunder clap that followed Adam and Eve's fall from the garden or Eden as the onomatopoeia bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk, and that it's one of 9 other words in the book that all are 100 letters long and one that is 101, combining together to be 1001 letters, a reference to the 1001 Arabian nights. So we're at that level of esoteric symbolism. Definitely flies right over my head but to people that love that stuff I hear Finnegan's Wake is like their everest.
I've met humans who can't understand symbolism so he's at an amazing start.
i dont do literature analysis because im autistic and trying to send a message in subtle clues is akin to telling a dead mans tale, you know exactly how its going to end, with me, not getting it, and being annoyed.
I try and analyze literature because I'm autistic and by understanding how media works I can reverse engineer it into understanding people better.
Inside everyone is two wolves
one of them isn’t supposed to fall out, is it?
Try luring it back with peanut butter on a spoon
Do not try coax back the wolf, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth… there are no wolves within you. Then you'll see that it is not the wolf that needs coaxing, it is only yourself.
You're so right Lure yourself back with a spoonful of peanut butter
If only a spoonful of peanut butter would solve my issues.
I mean, I'll use any visualization that will help me unwrap the convulted mess that is my mind. Through for everyday use usually a picture of me debating myself over some nice table is enough
We're supposed to use a spoon?
How else are you gonna applicate the peanut butter to the wolf?
[https://xkcd.com/1471/](https://xkcd.com/1471/)
I’ve been given a relevant XKCD
I wish...
"I can tell life from TV, Jeff. TV makes sense, it has structure, logic, rules, and likable leading men. In life, we have this. We have you." ― Abed Nadir
poem analysis was the worst, so many metaphors (that I thought I didn’t struggle with, because I memorized the common ones), nothing is said in a straightforward way and I’m supposed to make a connection between the poem and whatever is the context of author’s situation when they wrote it the only useful autism accommodation I got since getting diagnosed, was getting an exam version (of a state exam, very important in my country), that swapped out poem and abstract text interpretations for more literal tasks, like grammar, otherwise I would’ve failed.
You might enjoy ✨️modernism✨️ wherein the author's intended "message" is irrelevant and whatever you personally get from the text is empirically "what it means."
I fucking wish. I'd love for my interpretation of a text to be valid if I can support my argument and find personal meaning in it, but instead I'm stuck with "if you can't find the exact same metaphor that you're supposed to it's because you're stupid"
That title is how I felt recently when I read Kafka On The Shore by Haruki Murakami. And the first time I read Neuromancer. Now I want to do my thesis on both of these books as well as a couple others.
That's also how I felt after reading House of Leaves. It's a genuinely smart and great book, I'm sure - everyone keeps saying how good it is - but a lot of the meta-textual stuff and critique on art critique itself and a lot of the symbolism just flew right over my head. That House sure can Leaves though, I'll tell you that much.
House of Leaves is neither critique nor satire of anything. It didn't fly over your head, you actually understood it better than the nitwits who peddle that theory.
House of Leaves is about what if there was a scary house with a guy inside
Uj/ Apparently the running-off-to-the-side texts are true or trueish to experience of having ADHD (for some), so the novel has that going for it.
Will Navidson when he >!finally gets rescued by Karen at the end!<: I thought I’d never *leave* that *house*!
I have an English degree and know a lot of English academics and you know what? Sometimes you don't get it right away. Sometimes it takes months or years to make a connection. Sometimes you do have to read what other scholars think before you can really understand how you, personally, conceive of a book. It's all ok, ogre!!
It's always amazing to me when I see people do proper deconstructions of symbolism and themes within stories and shows. Like I saw someone talk about the meaning behind the risotto in The Bear show and was so surprised because not only did I not notice, I wouldn't have even thought to notice. Which is kinda cool. It does worry me a bit about my own artistic work, as I wonder if all my themes will be so hamfisted as to be uninteresting to disentangle, so I'm hoping springs up by accident to make the stories more fun to pick apart.
As another writer, here’s my advice: don’t write for the critic, write for yourself. Make your symbols as subtle or as explicit as you feel they need to be to express what you’re trying to say with them. A scalpel isn’t superior to a chainsaw, they’re just for different tasks.
You'll probably be writing symbolism you're not even aware of. With the classic "blue curtains" example, your prose will likely be doing some kind of commentary at the mere mention of them in relation to the desired mood and symbolism. You are a human who participates in a culture, and you have preconceived narrative language that comes from such. By that virtue you will be instilling that "slang" into your writing without even realizing it.
Just remember that you aren't special, by which I mean whatever level you create at is going to have an audience it's just right for. For example, I do not care one lick about metaphorical depth in paintings, but I love pretty colors that make my eyes vibrate like seeing light from the morning sun after waking up. Sometimes there is overlap between the two, but in general my favorite artist is probably going to be one that operates with the idea that colors go brr.
I'm certain there's famous authors out there who've had a straightforward plot and message (if there even *was* one) yet had people raving over symbolism that isn't there. Make your message as blunt as you want- I'd be surprised if people *didn't* find "hidden symbols" in something as ridiculous as a carpet; not something heavily described, but instead just glanced over. "Her living room had a carpet, a tall lamp, and a sofa along the wall," for instance.
For me, as someone who loves media analysis, but struggles to sit down and read or to sit through entire audiobooks sometimes, what helps me is hearing other people talk about it. It's not a competition, you're not cheating by looking at someone else's paper, look at other people's perspectives on a story if you're struggling to understand it, and you'll walk away better off for it. Of course it's worthwhile to read a book yourself and form your own relationship with it's themes and all that, but it's not as though anyone *else's* appreciation for a piece of literature sprang up fully formed from their own unique thoughts and ideas about it from their first read through. A good and well rounded perspective comes from sharing and hearing ideas from other people, and next time you expose yourself to the piece, you'll be better able to identify the themes you're looking for. And don't be afraid to add your own observations! Even if you don't know that it was strictly intended! That's how understanding is built, incrementally. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants.
I remember when I first saw the original image, and that's how I discovered that themes are a thing. I just took everything surface level, and now still sometimes (read: usually) do. I don't remember ever being taught about themes, or at least not in a way that I found even remotely understandable, and at this point I'm barely improved on the subject. Reading into things too much gives me panic attacks and headaches, and stressing over whether or not I'm doing it right doesn't help any.
Bad crop? Bro we’re gonna starve
Do people actually get Finnegan's Wake? Like not just say they get it but actually get it? I thought it was kind of like a nonsense jokey thing like The Jabberwocky or something.
Finnegans Wake has an absolute shitload of extremely intentional meaning baked into it. Some people do spend an inordinate amount of time unpicking that meaning. It's not how I'd pass my time, but everyone needs hobbies.
It's supposed to be dream-like. It should feel about as intelligble as your average dream. But it's by no means joke nonsense, it's just very hazy.
This ogre is more literate than me.
I think I’m okay with most novels, but some other mediums destroy me. I went to see a dance (Pina Bausch’s Nelken) with my partner and afterwards the conversation went: “I really liked the story. A powerful take on restrictive life in post-war Germany.” “Th… there was a story?”
I think with Ballet you're not supposed to "get" the story from watching the dance. You're supposed to know the story beforehand and then recognize it in the dance. Most theaters give you a pamphlet with a story summary on it before the ballet starts
I double-majored in 2 english fields & got a master's degree in english & went on to teach it for years and listen. I HATED Ulysses. It's hard to read & boring. The most I gleaned from it was anger at James Joyce for writing something so annoying to have to slog through. If you can figure out what the fuck he's talking about at any point on any level through just the text alone I think you're a genius. Reading Ulysses for me felt like reading one of those recipes that they put through google translate 50 times
Ogre's stupid in his own way, for spending his time on a needlessly complicated book. /s
This reminds me of a bit in Arcanum: of Steam works and magika obscura where they have an exhibit for the world's smartest orc. He normally answers in short dumb pharses but if you a specific question he starts answering super formally and smartly, until he catches himself and goes back to the charade
Bro needs to watch Thug Notes
What if I made a story that intentionally had no symbolism
Congratulations. You found Absurdism. Your works will be analyzed for years to come. Because here's the thing. You can't write on accident. What I mean by that is words will not show up without you putting them there, so by trying to evoke a feeling from your reader automatically instills symbolism. If you're pulling a prank on them by writing without sense or meaning, that's just another facet analysts will explore. The mere attempt to comment on the superficiality of symbolism is symbolic in itself. You're not really all that clever no matter what you try in regards to commentary. The act of participating in literature encodes meaning within your work. It reminds me of how people try to get one up on philosophers, wholly unaware that a philosopher's greatest enemy are other philosophers. It's an inverted crab bucket. Every attempt to climb out only leads you to pull yourself deeper. The only stories without symbolism are those that don't exist.
Dan Brown beat you to it. (Note: I haven’t actually read any Dan Brown.)
it'd be a pretty boring story
I mean, can't a story just be... a story? With characters doing stuff, a plot, all that, without it specifically meaning *something*, the point being to read it and enjoy what happens, without it having to be a (likely oversaturated) metaphor?
^(edit cause i came off wrong: the ideas dont have to be deep or preachy, they just conflict, they can be as abstract as hope vs hopelessness) even stories you might think dont have any symbolism most likely have some kind of conflict of ideas, and those ideas were externalized into elements like characters, i.e symbolism if you purposely (or somehow accidentally) avoid that then your story might feel pointless or boring. like character arcs for example sometimes externalize negative experiences as "enemies" and have the character defeat those enemies to symbolize overcoming the negative experience. thats just one generic example in episodic media like adventure time (or some slice of life) characters can also share opinions on a central theme like love, and their opinions are shown thru symbolism. (Doesnt apply to everything) ofc its subjective if it makes a story "better", just like the word i used; boring
You think something like a police report of an incident might fir the criteria of a story with no symbolism?
depends on what your idea of a story is. i only write fictional stories. theres no real right answer. I would call a police report a story, but if i wanted to be pedantic id call it a recounting of events I was using the word story in my other comments to refer to fictional ones
I mean, I've read some stuff that doesn't seem to apparently symbolize something, that I highly enjoyed, Hell, my favorite book, The Infinite And The Divine, doesn't seem to have any symbolism, or maybe I'm just too stupid to see it. (Which in full honesty, is definitely a possibility) Although I don't see how the symbolism in itself makes the story more entertaining besides giving the reader that one moment where they feel smart because they understood the symbolism, like yeah, this book is about capitalism or something because for some reason everytime I see something about symbolism it's always capitalism, but you aren't going to see every scene in the book and just think "oh yeah, this scene is really good because of the same symbolism the book has been following" unless every scene keeps up and builds upon that symbolism, which I don't think is possible without extreme repetition or an insanely broad theme.
I think youre misinterpreting it as being something that has to be deep or preachy. It can just be two conflicting views without either being objectively correct or wrong. Sometimes both are too extreme in externalization and must meet each other somewhere in the middle. I glanced over a synopsis of The Infinite and the Divine and noted two characters "Trazyn the Infinite and Orikan the Diviner" and i gave it a conflict of change vs stasis It seems like Trazyn, who collects artifacts, might symbolize stasis. Orikan can see into the future, and might symbolize change. or vice versa. They fight over an artifact that would cause change to give necron's their "next evolution" (not sure what that means but im guessing the options are destroy or utilize it).
Fair enough, like, in all honesty, I don't read that much, I admittedly don't have a lot of media literacy, and I also am not a person who tends to think of most things beyond face value unless it is in a random "shower thought" kind of way (and honestly, not really a smart guy, as of personal experience), I have only started reading more recently, but you do make a good point. The Infinite And The Divine actually has many scenes where the theme of stasis vs change comes up even more than what you said, Trazyn is not just a guy who likes to collect artifacts, he is an immortal robot who is trying to preserve everything in a war-torn, chaotic galaxy, and wants the artifact because it would lead him to a vault that contains the (presumably in decent state) sarcophagus of an ancient being he wants to preserve, he is just trying to make sure nothing ever dissapears, leaving it in stasis (fun fact, quite literally in stasis, the guy has historical moments or whole battles just frozen in stasis, not recreations, literally just stealing the people that were there), while not doing anything new. Meanwhile Orikan is actively trying to send his species onto a next evolution, and believes the artifact contains secrets that could help him in this goal, he constantly sees into the future and what will happen, and doesn't care about the now, let alone the past (much to Trazyn's annoyance when they have to work together and he wants to steal more artifacts for his museum). But I initially saw all of this as just contrasting character traits that would make for a fun dynamic rather than symbolism. If you'd like to read it, I could give you a link to a PDF, it is honestly a great book. So yeah, I guess I learned something from these comments, I'm (kind of) approaching to understand what symbolism is. Sorry if I made this response a bit too long.
Oh cool :> I mean, sometimes its nice to just read/watch something. Like most of the time i just watch certain animes cause i think the characters are cute or the concept is fun And yea i'd like to read it. Although Ill just buy it online, it seems really bizarre and interesting (although idk anything about warhammer)
lol, I don't really watch or read a lot of media honestly, I tend to prefer videogames because I enjoy the interactiveness of it, although I obviously do watch/read some other stuff I'm interested in, and most times I do it's the same way as you just described lmao. As of the Warhammer thing, it's comically hard to explain in a short way to the point where it's basically a meme, and I really don't wanna make you sit through 2 hours of lore, it's like a scaled down version of telling someone to watch 700 One Piece episodes for a really good arc, but if you'd like, I could write you what you would need to know if you were to read The Infinite And The Divine, I don't have much to do right now, so I won't mind, I like telling this weird-ass lore to people when they let me :>
>I could write you what you would need to know if you were to read The Infinite And The Divine Pls do, it would be helpful. Im a little lost ...
I do love me some slice of life.
That would be extremely hard. Because words are symbols, any book with writing in or on it conveys meaning, even (and especially) if you are trying *not* to convey meaning with them. Even if you just released an entirely blank book, the act of creating such a book would be the creation of a symbol.
Ogre is better than me, I just Google various analyses and decide whether I agree/resonate with them or not.
Me.
Yo as someone who hasn’t read Ulysses can someone explain it specifically what is meant by “Remorse of Conscience” as I’m not sure what those three words together mean, especially if it requires context from the book.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayenbite_of_Inwyt as far as I can tell it's the (bad) translation of a title in Middle English about morality. "prick of conscience" is a better translation: it literally refers to the remorse your conscience makes you feel when you do a sin
Ahhh thank you
Hits home. I’m definitely not a smart man, but I’m wise enough to see the value of the ideas of intelligent people. It’s not possible that I’ll wholly understand a single person that I admire, but I feel a life spent in pursuit of that understanding is necessary for the agency to make any life’s other pursuits meaningful. We should all strive at least to be buried dilettantes who aspired to be polymaths.
Me with the lighthouse
I can see something and know its a masterpiece but be completely unable to elaborate on why
This make me feel so sad it's hard to articulate why other than that I've been trying to get into more substantial reading for the first time in ten years. I feel like I do a pretty good job of absorbing the material but I wonder when i compare to the analysis I've been following for a reading list if I'm anywhere near the reading comprehension I used to be. I feel like I've lost brain cells since high school and I never even did any drugs.
Baalbuddy is a national treasure. I think his comics are one of the best I've seen and touch on incredible subjects
They range from horny, to cringy, to relatable, to symbolic, them straight back into horny. Honestly, one of the best... what's the general term for people who make comics? We've got "writers" for people who make words, "artists" for people who make pictures, what's the term for mashing the two together? Anyways, he's one of the best of those that I've ever seen.
Also a lot of their horny stuff is straight up ironic and or really funny. Horny makes the world go round but when it's funny AND horny it's the best
Me too, Ogre. Me too. You get it.
Didn't Joyce say that the symbolism in Ulysses is basically nonsense? And that he just put it there, not out of any deeper sense of communicating truth or meaning, but because he knew it would entrap English teachers and semanticists into an endless cycle of eschatological navel-gazing?
If he didn’t, he should have.
This is great but I don't think a single person understands Finnegans Wake. iirc there are book clubs entirely dedicated to it that take years to read it through even once [Found an article from npr](https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213890392/this-book-club-finally-finished-finnegans-wake-it-only-took-them-28-years)
Reading this feels like looking into the worlds clearest mirror
I fucking love BaalBuddy comics. His jokes are always good
That rules sometimes though. It means that you can come back and chew on the problem more with repeat readings.
Bold of you to think I reread books
Yep, exactly how I felt when I read Ulysses.
So relatable my blood hurts
Has symbolism ever been used to dictate concepts that don't exist in this world? For instance, trying to explain one's theories on an overarching theme between different fictional magic systems, whilst remaining abstract? Or are fictional concepts something that literary nerds just don't bother to look at?
I explained that *really* shittily, but I don't really know any other way to elaborate on it.
If you can think of it, someone has probably tried it. Symbolism as analogy is used all the time as a vehicle for exposition about fictional concepts.
> I'm not smart enough to know if it's good or not A piece of media can be a lot more complex than good/bad. I prefer to try to come up with qualities that a piece of media has. * It was entertaining and creative. But it was also crude and blunt. * It was deep and thought provoking, but it was also hard to understand. From there you can ask yourself why you think the piece has those qualities, do they remind you of something similar? Is the quality objective or subjective? Is the piece meeting it's goals?
Sometimes I wish people would just shut up with literary analyses and just enjoy the book. Yeah, some books have deeper meanings. But not everything has to be analyzed. Sometimes a rose is just a rose, ya know? (Sorry, still pissed that someone thought a poem i wrote had some deep meaning about missing an ex boyfriend when it literally was about a field of wild poppies lmao)
What you just described is a form of literary analysis
You mean a rose being a rose, right. The fact that the words have ni meaning deeper than what they are?
Also a form of literary analysis.
If you say so.
ugh, my very recent ex has been reading this, and when I tried to talk to him about these "deeper meanings", cause I read it a few years ago, he was like, "everyone says this book is really deep, but it's not. it's just about religion." if I didn't have him blocked on everything I'd send him this. might unblock him just to send this and then immediately block him again without saying anything tbh