I don't think there's anything wrong with symbolism in and of itself. I'd prefeer to make my own meaning rather than have someone else put it in there for me, be they writer or English teacher, but the other day I had a jarring experience with symbolism.
You see, I don't actively put symbols in my stories. Actually, I think the harder you try the worse they come across. Nevertheless, a critiquer recently explained to me what I had really meant by a man trying to help a sick girl....apparently he is her savior, representing Jesus.
I laughed out loud. I mean, in the end I put stuff out there and people can take whatever they want from it but I think that it's the implication that *I* put it there or meant it to be there that made me laugh.
Does anyone put symbols in on puprose? Or have you have someone point something out to you, thinking you meant it as a symbol when you didn't (at least, not conscioussly?)
This isn't something I'd do on a regular basis. As symbolism and theme shouldn't be forced. They should flow naturally if they are there at all. And I think that is sort of what happens when a reader reads a story, they find connections that the writer doesn't even see or intend. In this way a story can be a dynamic thing, open to varied interpretations. Even wrong ones. Can be a good or bad thing. But it always kind of pleases me to see theme emerge from my writing when I had no conscious intention of putting it there.
In my first novel, I did use seismic activity to indicate an upset in the balance of nature, but one of my main characters was a geophysicist, and the earthquakes occurred in areas that are known to be seismically active.
I don't put much into stories intentionally, either, except when I designed Indian rituals for my WIP. Rituals are symbolism, so I had to do it then.
What I will do instead is echo themes. Put in something about how Frank doesn't relate to his dad, and then show him bumbling in relating to his son, and let the reader make the connection that it's the same dynamic.
In a way, you'd think the author would have some kind of control over what a reader finds in the author's work, but that doesn't appear to be so.
Every time a work is read, even by the same reader, it is possible for that work to be at least a little different. Experiencing a written work is actually a collaboration between the author and the reader, and the author has no control once the work is published. (Unless, as OSC has done a time or two, you can get a publisher to publish a revised edition.)
It can be a true adventure, and one that authors aren't really prepared for, to find out what a reader draws out of an author's creation. Authors can either enjoy the insights or be totally flummoxed by them, or anything in between. The danger is if authors let it keep them from writing for fear of what some reader will bring to their own reading experience.
I don't know. In grade 12, when studying Steinbeck's, "The Grapes of Wrath", I wondered a bit about the symbolism that was supposed to be there. There was a lot that I'm sure Steinbeck put there, but there was stuff that my teacher got completely wrong (or at least half wrong).
I know I don't often try to put symbolism in my stories. It does tend to come across heavy-handed and awkward. Looking back at things I have written, there are elements that I must have put in sub-consciously, put they work because they are part of the character or are needed because of the plot. Usually those "symbolic elements" are there because the characters and events are based on real people.
I could say more, but I'm alreadyt rambling incoherently, so I'll stop for now...
I've read symbolic interpretations of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" Been awhile since I read the story itself, though---high school. But I keep coming back to something I learned later, something that wasn't taught to me in English literature class. The storyline and characters might be fictional, but the background is quite real, it's something that really happened.
From what I understand, it's a matter of great debate, but here's what Hemingway himself has to say on the subject, from an interview with George Plimpton. Plimpton asked, "Would you admit to there being symbolism in your novels?" Hemingway's response:
quote:
I suppose there are symbols since critics keep finding them. If you do not mind, I dislike talking about them and being questions about them. It is hard enough to write books and stories without being asked to explain them as well. If five or six more good explainers can keep going why should I interfere with them? Read anything I write for the pleasure of reading it.
How's that for vague? Still, he lends credibility to the beliefs of Ray Bradbury who often finds symbolism emerging subconsciously in his work. He never meant to put it there, but it shows up nonetheless. Why? Because he grew up in a world rich with symbolism, immersed himself in literature steeped in symbolism. We can't get away from symbolism. It's so much a part of our lives, that, whether we intend to do it or not, it appears in our writing. And readers keep looking for it there--and finding it, whether we intended to put it there or not. As Hemingway said: "Whatever else you find will be the measure of what you brought to the reading." I LOVE that line! I find, however, that the harder the writer TRIES at imbuing their work with symbolism, the less effective it is.
I actually love it--and am almost always surprised by it--when a critiquer points out some symbolism in my work. It shows to me that subconscious at work.
But, IMO, when someone points out that a character is symbolic of Christ because he is a saving figure--that's just ridiculous. Then I suppose every hero that ever saved a damsel in distress is symbolic of Christ? 
I'm afraid our educators have taught too many readers to seek intentional symbolism in everything they read, when all writers are really doing is attempting to write an enjoyable and engaging story. At least that's MY goal.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited September 12, 2005).]
Looking for Chris in things seems to be some people's favorite passtimes. Now, if you're reading C.S. Lewis it's not so ridiculous. But even though I think it's a bit silly, and even though not even my subconsciouss meant for a savior to be a Christ-figure, it is still fascinating to see what other people bring to a story with them. It not only shows me their preconceived notinos, but also mine!
The symbolism of the ring representing protagonist's family was definitely there in the text before I became consciously aware of it. All I did was tweak it to make it work a little better .
Hemingway hated talking about writing. His answer was ambiguous--it could indicate what you are suggesting, that he had no symbolic intent. Or it could indicate that it was loaded with symbolic intent, he just didn't want to talk about it.
But I put it to you directly, based on the work itself--can you really contend that there weren't deliberate symbols? That the marlin was just a marlin? That the dreams of lions were just dreams--hardly relevant to anything if taken literally--but for some reason important enough to end the story with? That the old man represented only himself? Without symbolism, the story is dry, boring, and pointless. With it, the story is one of the most powerful works in the English language. It's possible that the one element that makes the novella a classic for the ages was the accidental product of Hemingway's leaking subconscious--but that seems far less likely than deliberate effort.
"There isn't any symbolism. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The shark are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is shit. What goes beyond what you see beyond when you know."
I refuse to believe that the symbolism was some kind of cosmic accident. However, since attempting to so maintain in a public forum confronted by the quote I just found above would be, at best, a losing battle, I'll withdraw to surly silence.
I find that brilliance, like heroism, is often misattributed. We look for greatness in our midsts and it's amazing, but when we go looking for something we tend to find it. I haven't read much Hemmingway, but from what little I did read (and I regret that the work in question is not on the list), I get the impression that Hemmingway is a simple man. I wondered if accident and sheer dumb luck made his work worthy of critical acclaim.
That's not to say that his subconsciouss wasn't at work the whole time. Some days I plod along, frantically searching for words. Other days my fingers fly of their own volition and I am shocked and tickled by what I read. I tend to think that's the true writer in me, and when it comes out I am loathe to make radical changes even after critiques because I know that voice doesn't often come out for a second draft. But it's in that mode, that stream-of-conscioussness mode, that I create my most interesting and believable characters, make significant points (you may call this theme) and draw attention to things in the environment that may have meaning above and beyond the words themselves.
Many greats have disavowed any knowledge of themes or symbols in their writing. Mark Twain did the same thing. That doesn't mean that those works can't be enjoyed on that level. It doesn't even mean that the authors didn't subconscioussly put them there. But I think that novels, in particular, are very complex works that require a writer to be more than a writer, more than just a person stringing words together, however coherently.
There is no correct answer.
If an author says yes even once to symbolisim it is taken as justicfication for all those literary critics and thesis writers for each claim of symbolism they've ever imagined and they will run with it. Not all, but enough will that the author will forever be plagued with questions like 'What were you getting at in chapter IV?' (maybe misquoted by directly stolen from the Unstrung Harp.)
(With apologies to Douglas Adams.)
That said, I found the "Your Favorite Books on Writing" thread to be very helpful. I was just reading about Theme in Keys to Great Writing and so I tried to involve theme in my flash challenge this week. Only problem: I'm not sure if I did it well. Oh, well, it's all a learning experience.
Hmmm Christine, clearly your laughing at the symbolisim implicit in your writing is a subconcious identification to Sarah the wife of Abraham when she said, 'Surely this thing is impossible.'
But writing in order to project a specific symbol, well, most people just don't do it. It's hard to create a good story when you're too worried about injecting your symbols into it. Now, if you happen to realize that something in your story works as a symbol, and you want to play that up a bit, that's fine. It's writing symbolism instead of writing stories and letting the symbolism take care of itself that gives people problems. I can remember several modern stories that I've read for lit classes that had little to no plot or worthwhile storyline, but were bursting at the seams with symbolism.
That said, I think it is possible to write a story that is just full of symbolism, and do it intentionally, and still have a good story. I just think it's a lot harder than writing and letting the symbolism come out on its own. And, quite honestly, I'm just too lazy to do it. 
Eric, you're a HOOT! Either that or you're my old college lit professor--but you're too young, and too tall, and have too much hair on your head, and you're too blond, and WAY too humorous! 
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited September 12, 2005).]
The way I put symbolism in my stories, however, doesn't really involve me sitting down for a while and thinking, "Gee, how can I work this into my story as a symbol?" What happens is that I come up with a theme for my story and then write the plot around that and the symbols start to appear. For instance, in my first novel, it could easily be argued that the cé'ahni race is symbolic of those Christians who are too afraid to tell others about what they believe. They just sit back and let the world go on as it will. Did I deliberate over that symbol until I found a way in which it would work? No. It just appeared as the story progressed and I'm sure readers will find some others that I didn't see before.
I think, however, there is a difference between writing based around a certain theme and intentionally writing in symbols. I don't think anyone intentionally writes in symbols--at least most of the time. I'll admit that I did for my second novel, but it's more that the characters represent people I know than that they symbolize anything or anyone specific.
That said, I think some authors intentionally write based around a theme, but I don't think they always try and put symbolism into their stories.
No. I don't think so. Am I right?
I think a clear distinction needs to be made between borrowing elements from other stories (which we all do, both consciously and subconsciously), and including symbolism (which some of us do consciously, but which we ALL do on some level subconsciously). Define symbolism. "The use of symbols to represent invisible, intangible, or abstract things." Symbol: "Something hat represents or stands for somthing else, as by resemblance or association."
I think it was Robyn Hood who wrote that awesome Gruff space opera to which I refer. While the goats were replaced by space ships, I don't think the ships symbolized the goats. Why? Hmm. I'm not sure. I'm asking, here, people. Is it because the connection between the goats and the ships wasn't important to the core of the story? Was it because understanding that the ships represent the three goats isn't integral to understanding the point of the story? Was it because the story had no 'point' as it were--it was just a really cool story with no intentional 'deeper meanings'? (At least I THINK it had no intentional deeper meanings. I won't speak for its author. If it DID have intentional deeper meanings, I'd LOVE to hear its author expound on them right now. )
Hmm. Food for thought.
PS: That was a joke.
I would not deliberately symbologise.
Although I have had things pointed out to me. Some are valid some are not, or at least I am not yet ready to say they are valid. An example is one story in which all my bad character's smoked, all the good ones did not and the main character hated smoking. It was unintentional and a coincidence. Or am I wrong to assume that there is such a thing as coincidence in fictional worlds?
Maybe some readers are addicted to symbols. (We could start Symboholics Synonymous and develop an eleven step program -- not twelve because that is the number of apostles and certainly not thirteen because that's just plain unlucky, so it will have to be eleven. Nothing symbolic about eleven... I think.)
Searching a story for symbols can be like examining sheep entrails to divine the future.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited September 13, 2005).]
quote:
For instance, in my first novel, it could easily be argued that the cé'ahni race is symbolic of those Christians who are too afraid to tell others about what they believe. They just sit back and let the world go on as it will.
Is this actually symboli? I'm not 100% sure how you use the race in question, but it almost sounds more like an element of theme in which you use one of the powers of speculative fiction -- the power of not directly naming names -- to create a parallel group of people to do something you've seen and want to address in the real world.
I've done this myself in certain political and moral situations, but I don't think it's the same as using a symbol. Symbols tend to be more elusive, more abstract in their representation, less direct. The red "S" in the scarlet letter, for example.
I could be wrong, though.
Writing is, to a greater or lesser extent, an unconscious process, and reading is enjoyed often on the unconscious as well as the conscious level. Literary criticism, however, is a conscious process in which the text is examined with a minuteness that may well exceed the attention it's received from anyone else involved with it--the writer, the editor, the proofreader, etc. Traditional literary criticism involves examining the text in its social, cultural and historical context, as well as delving into the life experiences of its author. Modernist lit crit said "the heck with THAT!" and examined the text purely in the light of what it brought to the reader, including allowing interpretations and associations that could not have been made by the author or their contemporary readership.
You pays your money and you takes your choice .
quote:
Nothing symbolic about eleven... I think.
quote:
(At least I THINK it had no intentional deeper meanings. I won't speak for its author. If it DID have intentional deeper meanings, I'd LOVE to hear its author expound on them right now.
Actually, no. Dakota was right, it was a fun space opera and nothing more. The plot was borrowed but that's as far as it goes.
Though since it's a borrowed plot, I guess you could say that you were actually divining the "inner meaning" of the original story.
And here I always thought that the "inner meaning" was that if we let our greedy selves (the troll) put off accepting the small opportunities that we can handle, and trying for things that we really aren't ready for (because we're greedy), we'll finally be handed something we can't handle and we'll fail miserably.
A rose is a symbol of love: yes, it often is. So if you have John give Mary a rose, it means something. If you have them meet in a garden and there are roses, it might mean love (or something else).
Valentines are symbols of love: yes.
Valentines are symbols of roses: this is getting silly. And that's what reviewers who claimed LotR was about WWII were doing. They're taking two things that can symbolize good v. evil, and having one symbolize the other. Maybe WWII symbolized LotR!
I think allegory is often "valentines symbolic of roses," but done intentionally. John Christian has a journey; it symbolizes a Christian's life. But at a deeper level, both symbolize life, journey, struggle, etc.
BTW, I have a great book on symbols in Western culture, which I bought for dream analysis. A Dictionary of Symbols, I think it is. Lots of symbols that sort of make sense. Here are some for numbers.
1: unity, of course.
2: opposition or complimentarity
3: structure -- the Trinity, or body/soul/spirit
4: stability ("foursquare")
5: devilishness (pentagrams)
6: mankind; short of perfection
7: perfection, holiness
12: perfection, holiness, the church (12 apostles), Israel (12 tribes).
13: better than perfection; bad luck (I don't know why!)
Numbers like 17 or 65 might be 1 and 7, 6 and 5
1000: A whole bunch
So in Revelation, 144,000 means the church, incorporating Jewish believers, and a whole bunch of them.
Wouldn't work with Oriental stuff, of course. For the Japanese, 4 means death, because it's pronounced "shin" (and so is their word for death). For American Indians, often, 4 is the structure (the 4 points of the compass).
Last night I finished, Lord of the Flies a story which, I'm happy to report, was never forced on me in school. While reading it, I only vaguely sensed some symbolism, but as I started to drift off to sleep, the connections my mind made were so many as to be almost overwhelming. It was an amazing, unsettling experience.
I don't think an author needs to consciously insert symbols, but it's rather gratifying when a reader can find something deeper, something that they can recognise. It's a way of "owning" the story.
That's why insisting upon a symbol's meaning can be harmful (especially in a classroom setting) or even pointing out that something IS a symbol, unless the author has explicitly said, "Why yes, the ocean in my story is, in fact, a metaphor for the collective subconscious."
I did read it in high school, and I was so into running for my life near the end that the paradigm shift at the end nearly gave me whiplash.
Hmmm. Come to think of it, POV shift might be a better description of what happened. And someone here lately has been asking about putting a POV shift at the end of a story. Have to mention that book to them.
Now I have to think about whether it was a good thing or not. It really made an impression on me, for sure.
I liked the novel. It was really good and did explore some interesting issues.
I don't mind alegories or even light symbolism, but I don't usually like to be hit over the head with it.
One of the only exceptions is poetry or lyrical writing. I love reading Shakespeare and part of the reason is all the symbolism and metaphors. Why does it work? I don't know exactly. Poetry is meant to be interpretted. So a story told in poetry ought to have symbolism.
quote:
John Christian has a journey; it symbolizes a Christian's life. But at a deeper level, both symbolize life, journey, struggle, etc.
(At least that would be the explaination if you had my English 30 teacher...)
As far as I'm concerned, any symbol that must be understood to be useful is simply a symptom of poor communication skills: the writer HIDING what he should be DISPLAYING. It really irks me. Now, I won't say that there's no value at all to this sort of symbolism, because there is. Some people enjoy looking for and finding it. Hey, enjoyment is always good. What bothers me is when the people who enjoy it take the attitude that stories with this sort of symbolism are somehow superior to, more "meaningful" than, works without. Hogwash. They're less meaningful, because the meaning is hidden. They're more FUN (if you find it fun to look for such symbolism), just as a mystery is more fun (if you find it fun to try to figure out who did it). But the VALUE of those symbols is no greater than the VALUE of the clues in a mystery.
The other symbols (those towards the other end of the continuum) are valuable because they really ARE meaningful. They communicate ideas and relationships (sometimes very complicated ones) without having to spell them out, without rendering the entire thought process down to mere words, descriptions, and arguments. Not all thoughts are formed in words, and symbols help communicate at a more basic level than language. There is some value in studying literature to find these symbols, because once you DO see them, it can enhance their ability to communicate. But if they don't work to some extent even when you don't notice them, there's really no point looking further.
[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited September 14, 2005).]
I don't remember the shell on the beach in Lord of the Flies.
Guess I need to add it to my To Be Read Again pile.
Of course we were also "told" that the journey west and the subsequent desire to return home were both symbols of, or analogous to, the Isrealites exedus from Egypt. Tom was supposed to be the Apostle Paul. And the title of the book came from "The Battle Hymn of the Republic".
Any symbol has to be interpreted by the reader, and because everyone has a different frame of reference, then a lot of people are going to interpret different symbols differently. What's ovious to one person (often the author) may be totally obscure to someone else. An author has some control in how people interpret intentional symbols but even they can be miscommunicated, or they may be undermined by the unintentional symbols.
As for author's comments, going by what an author says assumes that his/her intentional symbolism (or lack of) is more important than the unintentional symbolism. But who's to say that that's the case? A lot of unitnentional symbolism may come from the author's subconcious and can inform a reader's opinion of a novel. In fact, once a book is in the public domain what it means is effectively out of the author's hands. What they intended to mean doesn't carry a lot of weight - its what a reader thinks it means. And because it means that thing to them, again, who's to say they're wrong? That's how they've experienced the story, you can't change that retrospectively.
It can also reveal a lot about what the author was really thinking. Of course some symbols are accidents, but arguing about what is and what isn't is what's fuelled English Literature courses since they began.
"I got the conch!"
I really need to reread that book.
[This message has been edited by Corky (edited September 14, 2005).]
I never did read Lord of the Flies in high school, but for some reason decided to read it about five years ago. I loved it.
Because I diligently ignore symbolism and meaning and focus on story, I am all the more impressed when a story that carries so much symbolic weight and meaning as Lord of the Flies really works as a story.
I also loved 1984 for the writing, and for the story - not for the sociopolitical whatever. That it works on that level, too, for so many people, is brilliant, but it's damn good even if you view it just as fiction, not as political commentary. Well, if you skip over the 100 page treatise in the middle, that is. Maybe it just seemed like 100 pages.
Things slowly deterriorated on the island up to the point where the conche was destroyed, then the proverbial shit hit the fan (symbolizing the point at which civilization was lost).
I don't mind looking for symbols and discussing possible deeper meanings for stories, but I agree with Beth, if a work of fiction doesn't function as a story that can be enjoyed, then I think something is missing.
I read because I enjoy it. When it turns into a chore, I don't do it.
. Symbols, themes, messages etc can be there or not as extra layers. I often put small ideas into my stories that only a few people will recognise--but I would never do that with a detail that was essential to understanding the story. I like to think that all readers should be able to enjoy what I've written, but some will get more out of it than others.[This message has been edited by BuffySquirrel (edited September 15, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited September 15, 2005).]
Now, we enter a gray area when we talk about he symbolism of having "the monster" actually be a downed pilot, a casualty of the sudden war that has crashlanded the boys on this island. On the one hand, since only one of the boys consciously knows what it really is, and by consciously understanding it ceases to see it as "the monster", you could say that it is purely literary symbolism.
But the initial effect of horror that it has upon the boys is inextricably connected with the fact that they recognize that it is a dead man, and a pilot at that. They were in a plane crash, though it isn't a scene in the book, that experience is part of their collective psyche. The dead fighter pilot, horribly burned and yet granted a semblance of life by his useless parachute, is a grim reminder of what they cannot consciously grasp. That's why they react to it as they do.
The "Lord of the Flies" is only consciously appreciated as a symbol by one character, yet it is clear that the act of sticking a pig's head on a stick represents something significant within the hunters. And to place it on a stick like that meant they knew it to be symbolic, or at least unconsciously intended that it should be so.
Anyway I could go on, but my point is that sometimes a symbol is just a symbol In a book about sentient beings, there will be cases where the characters themselves see one thing as being a sort of prototype or herald or symbol of something else. That's different from a discussion of symbols that the characters themselves are not allowed to notice.
Oh, and it isn't like the entire book is told in one POV and then that shifts suddenly at the end. There are scenes from several different points of view throughout, along with some scrict limited and semi-omniscient scenes.