Wriging

Beautiful passage, Scrivs. It explains what is so magical about the reading experience. On a related note, J. Bronowski was saying something similar about the creativity involved in reading a poem or a theorem:

"And the great poem and the deep theorem are new to every reader, and yet [they] are his own experiences because he himself recreates them. They are the marks of unity in variety; and in the instant when the mind seizes this for itself, in art or in science, the heart misses a beat."

We all try, or at least we should try, to reach that communion with the writer, the poet and the mathematician, to reach that "Aha!" effect. We reach it very infrequently - there is almost always an uncrossable chasm - but for those few moments when it happens, it is pure bliss.

Ah, wonderful quote Polaris. It is difficult finding that moment when you believe to have achieved a connection with that writer, but that moment is worth trying to achieve once you do it. A great example of a poem left for many interpretations would be T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland". I have come across so many interpretations of that thing that I am numb to even know what its about now, but if Eliot was alive today I would surely find a way to ask him and I'm pretty sure his answer would be "whatever you want it to be".

The great writers ble to help you reach a moment whether it was the specific one they had in mind or not. That's what makes them great because that one moment is the one that always sticks with you.

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go. TS Eliot

I'm not sure I'm in complete agreement.

I don't like the idea of literature as Rorschach test.
That's not great writing any more than the creators of inkblots are great artists. (It's definitely proof of creative reading, though.)

I think writers should be trying to convey something specific. Even if that something specific doesn't include or guarantee the conveyance of a deep insight.

I mean, I want Eliot to intend to convey something particular and if he were to respond to my question with "whatever you want it to be"- I'd either feel insulted (he's been verified elsewhere and my comprehension isn't worth his breath) or duped (Rorschach drivel).

But I think the authors are trying to convey something, but how as readers are we supposed to know that what we are interpreting is exactly what they meant? That's the gist of it. We all pretend to know what the author really meant by having the person wear a green sweater all the time, but do we really know the reason besides the obvious?

The most annoying part of literature classes for me was analyzing symbolism. So many times I wanted to scream "WHAT IF THE GREEN SWEATER MEANS NOTHING!!"

or Nichole, what if there is no spoon? Then what?

As for how I read, I go from left to right... but also agree with a lot of the other comments here.

Do you want to know what I think is funny? Oh c'mon, yes you do...

I think there is some island that all the famous writers live on once they pass away where they can see how we react to their writings or not react via satellite or something. Shoot, they probably have a cable channel dedicated to watching people reading books.

They probably get a kick out of seeing us trying to figure out something that has no meaning.

It's like in history classes when they'd show a movie. Most thought it was so we could watch some great movie on history and learn something, which at times it was.

Other times, what I figured was most of the time, it was an opportunity for the teacher to get a little rest while the lights were off like most of everyone else in the class sitting in the back, sleeping while drooling on ourselves.

Ah, the memories...

Reminds me of back at school when I interpret a piece of literature and draw out the possibilities that I envisioned, I basically got screwed.

A girl in my same class didn't even bother to string her points into words. She just filled in 12 points, powerpoint-style, that the teacher was looking for and got full marks.

I meant sentences. Excuse the grammar. :)

"I meant sentences." - see, you should have paid more attention in class ;)

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go. TS Eliot

Nicole: That's exactly what I am talking about. I dealt with teachers that tended to over nalyze books and many times I would like to just take what the author said at face value, but I was supposed to find a deeper meaning to the littlest things for no reason at all. Sometimes I could tell the author was laughing at me for even trying to be so foolish.

Scrivs: I understand your frustration, but think about this: if you only took books at face value, why would you take a literature course? Most literary writers do layer their meanings and do use metaphors and symbols. That doesn't mean you have to figure out exactly their intent, or agree with it, but it does mean that it will take more work to fully appreciate the piece than just taking the text at face value.

And really, studying literature is as much about developing skills for analysis and critical thinking as it is about reading (which is why so many English majors go on to be lawyers).

I understand that in a classroom it can feel like you're supposed to find a particular meaning, but I think the way to look at it is that you're learning <i>how</i> to find particular meanings. Some authors want you to find a specific meaning, and some are happy knowing that everyone will get something unique from their work. I think when you study literature, though, you're learning how to identify meanings that the author may have created, even if they aren't ultimately the ones that resonate with you.

After saying all that, though, I suppose it really could just be y'all had some pretty lousy teachers, which is a pain we can all share.

Hmm... perhaps <i>how</i> should be how? Probably would have helped if I read the message below about valid XHTML.

Scrivs: Yep. I found lit classes exhausting for this reason -- and I was a motivated student. It must have really sucked for less motivated students, or they didn't care enough in the first place.

I also feel like authors must sometimes get a good laugh at the crap we read into what they write.

The most annoying part of literature classes for me was analyzing symbolism. So many times I wanted to scream "WHAT IF THE GREEN SWEATER MEANS NOTHING!!"

Sybolism can be important, if you know that the writer was writing with it in mind. For example, in most medival writing, like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The author expects the reader to be well versed in what the symbolism behind green is, so that he doesn't have to waste time repeating what everyone knows.

But yeah, I hate when teachers force their interpretations on you, and say that it's the only one that's right. It's frustrating, expecially when you study the same poems over and over (sorry, Lit major here), and each teacher tells you it means something different.

My American Lit teacher asked what our interpretation of "Dover Beach" by Matthew Arnold was, and when I ventured mine, he told me flat out I was wrong. But I'd discussed the same poem in two previous classes, and we didn't get out of it what he said was there.

In general, most teachers will accept whatever interpretation you give them, as long as you can back it up with the text.

And I've had writing teachers tell me "it's not what you wrote that's important, it's what the reader thinks you've said." Which is true, to some extent. Everyone brings something different to a piece of literature, and the writer can't account for everyone's point of view.

Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go. TS Eliot

That is why I detested literature classes and the impact of those classes was long lasting. I would not read a classical literature book because I would feel I needed to analyze it. I read for enjoyment - I might not get out of it what the author intended but if I enjoyed it, is that hurting anyone? I mean as long as I'm not turning a romance into a murder mystery.

Now that I think about it, it's not just classical literature - anything not dated in the present (during my lifetime). I need to work on that.

I think it feels like analysis when you're in the literature classes, but that's because you're still learning how to do it. The idea is that once you've internalized those more in-depth approaches to literature, you'll get a richer experience when you read literature on your own.

Isn't this all to do with the quality of teaching? You get a good teacher in a subject, mostly that subject turns out to be something you appreciate and build on in your life. You get a crap teacher in a subject and mostly you have problems with that subject; doesn't have to be forever, but it's something you have to work on to overcome the damage.

Isn't this to do with the quality of teaching? You get a good teacher in a subject and mostly that'll be a subject that you appreciate and build on in your life.

Isn't this really down to the quality of teacher you had in the literature class?

This is an intriguing line of thought.

It has always been my opinion that western culture (specifically North American) leads the reader/viewer too much. Nothing can be left to the imagination, everything must be literal and explained. It's sort of sad.

It's why we hafve formulaic books and formulaic movies. Because we have formulaic implementation.

Of course, its hard to find the balance. Too little explaining, and the reader gets lost. Too much, and the reader is unchallenged. It is our job, as writers, to find the balance.

Some authors want you to find a specific meaning, and some are happy knowing that everyone will get something unique from their work.

I agree with you here Jeremy. In some stories/literature the symbolism is so cleverly layered that part of the fun of reading is figuring out the hidden agenda so to speak. How X connects to Y and brings you back around to A by way of Z can be the meat of the story. Other things are about as deep as a puddle and that's fine too. You read different things for different reasons and you expect to get different things out of it.

This whole conversation reminds me of a recent thought.

Some music I enjoy a lot more if I've gotten to the chance to disassemble it, listen to it part by part, hear the meaning and feeling behind each phrase or melody and then reconstruct it into a beautiful whole. Other music is best listened to as a whole and if I try to single out and appreciate the component parts it's ruined for me.

I imagine it's largely the same with reading.