21 ms·

> I had a friend drop out of Ph.D in Japanese Lit because he felt the only way to progress in his dept. was to purposefully try to come up with the most wild in

> I had a friend drop out of Ph.D in Japanese Lit because he felt the only way to progress in his dept. was to purposefully try to come up with the most wild interpretation he could that leaned extremely left and he felt that was intellectually dishonest and disrespectful of the author. I’m getting high school Lord of the Flies english class flashbacks. Teacher: why did they kill the pig Me: because they were hungry. Teacher: NO! It was the author telling you that they were descending into savages! Me: I’m pretty sure they were hungry. This is the first time they ate anything in the book. I’m also wondering about the bathroom situation

tjalfi 5y ago
Literary augury[0] is my term for that kind of literature discussion. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/augury https://www.britannica.com/topic/augury
pcmoney 5y ago
[flagged]
- apocalypstyx 5y ago
  You've kind of flipped the script here. First you argue everyone's discounting the author. But then you state "as an allegory of", which would fundamentally be about authorial intent. Instead such would have to be stated as: "The killing of the pig can be read through the lens of..." The second prospect is distinct in that it recognizes that the subjectivity of the reader must be foregrounded by the very definition of experience. The core anxiety here is one of fear in relation to notions of the possibility (or not) of communication. If I cannot ensure meaning of myself with regards to the perceptions of others, then can I control myself, seeing as how there are a multiplicity of myselves in each human perception? What does this mean when the author has evaporated? Was there ever a single Homer? Who wrote Little Red Riding Hood? What about when the author contradicts themselves in regards to intent? Ray Bradbury gave opposing 'meanings' for Fahrenheit 451 over the course of his lifetime; one of them had to be incorrect; how does this bode for authorial intention? Absent of such knowledge does the text become meaningless? No, because it always depended on the subjectivity of the experiencer. Which is why randomized strokes of paint (or stars in the sky) can be experienced as meaningful.
  - pcmoney 5y ago
    Bravo
  - pcmoney 5y ago
    Real reply: I think the subjective experience of the reader/viewer is immensely important. Who doesn't tingle at the feeling of relating to a long dead author/artist in a unique way or degree that you struggle to with people in your life? Simply amazing.
rjsw 5y ago
I think they were hungry. I guess a better teacher could argue that the way they killed the pig was important to the message in the book.
- amp108 5y ago
  There is a major character named "Piggy" in the book. They kill him in the end. The probability is zero that those events are thematically unrelated.
- bccdee 5y ago
  I think I'm going to lose my mind. Nobody in this thread remembers the book. > He picked his way up the scar, passed the great rock where Ralph had climbed on the first morning, then turned off to his right among the trees. He walked with an accustomed tread through the acres of fruit trees, where the least energetic could find an easy if unsatisfying meal. Flower and fruit grew together on the same tree and everywhere was the scent of ripeness and the booming of a million bees at pasture. There's more than enough fruit for everybody to eat. That's not why the boys hunt. Hunting is explicitly equated with the military; with the human urge to fight and kill. > "The choir belongs to you, of course." > "They could be the army--" > "Or hunters--" > "They could be--" > The suffusion drained away from Jack's face. Ralph waved again for silence. > "Jack's in charge of the choir. They can be--what do you want them to be?" > "Hunters." The hunters eventually start ritualistically killing the other boys in their "hunts." The ending links the boys' savagery to the savagery of WWI, when the naval officers find them. > And in the middle of them, with filthy body, matted hair, and unwiped nose, Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy. > The officer, surrounded by these noises, was moved and a little embarrassed. He turned away to give them time to pull themselves together; and waited, allowing his eyes to rest on the trim cruiser in the distance. This is the last line in the book. Golding isn't being subtle about this.
brimble 5y ago
On the one hand, yeah, that's a bit much to insist on that being the whole thing. On the other hand, good (or even just competent) authors usually put things in the book for a reason, usually for a narrative, character development, or thematic/message reason. Everything in a book was put there on purpose. In most books that aren't terrible, there's some reason the author chose one thing over another. The pig may be there because the author felt a need to explain how the kids could eat and survive, so that's one purpose—but there were other ways to do that. It's entirely reasonable to wonder why a pig and why is the scene exactly that way when both things could have been totally different. It's difficult to write well, yourself, without really embracing the idea that a book is crafted and the parts are there on purpose and for a reason. Some choices may genuinely end up being arbitrary, even in a very good book, but lots of them will not be.
- roofone 5y ago
  Totally agreed and well said. It can be easy to read too much into something (especially when people are learning how to understand literature in high school), but some level of decision-making, i.e., design, goes into every word. Nathaniel Hawthorne didn't choose scarlet because it was his favorite color.
  - magicalist 5y ago
    Lord of the Flies is also a particularly silly example because the author practically hits the reader over their head with the officer at the end to yell at them, "this is an allegory!"
- watwut 5y ago
  Honestly, I don't think this is true. Good writing is not the same as "making high school analysis easy by making everything for straightforward reasons". Plenty of times, things are there, because it experiment or atmosphere or even needing to make it longer.
  - brimble 5y ago
    > Good writing is not the same as "making high school analysis easy by making everything for straightforward reasons". Where'd I write anything like that? > Plenty of times, things are there, because it experiment or atmosphere or even needing to make it longer. Even then, the author's picking one thing to put in over a bunch of others they could have chosen. Novels are artificial, what goes in them is what the author decides is best to be there. Often, there's a reason for their choice. Stopping at "the characters were hungry" is leaving a lot of potential meaning on the table. OK—but why, of all the ways that could have been addressed, did the author write that they killed a pig? Why wasn't it sufficient for that to be "off-screen"? Why was that more important to include than other things that could have filled those same pages? This is especially a valid path to pursue when there are other cues that a book may be operating on more than a strictly literal level, and there definitely are such indications in that one. The final line does all it can without grabbing the reader by the lapels and slapping them, to communicate that the book's more than just a simple story about some kids stuck on an island. At a minimum, it's got some allegory going on, because it all but says as much at the end. [EDIT] The killing of a pig features heavily in a book that tells you at the end it's got at least some allegory going on, and a major character is nicknamed "Piggy", I might add. Like... yes, I think it's very fair to say that's included and plays out the way it does for reasons other than "the kids were hungry".
pessimizer 5y ago
They weren't hungry, though. Fictional people don't get hungry unless the author wants them to be. They're completely made up. edit: In real life, talking about meaning and purpose and God is a matter of opinion and culture (or maybe direct revelation, I don't know your experiences) but in fiction, there's always a God, and it's the person who wrote it.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Characters are similarly unaffected by gravity but I'd be confused reading a book where everyone floats around without any explanation.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Would you be, or would you just wonder why the author did that? I'm watching the Raised By Wolves TV show right now (probably not for much longer, it got pretty bad after the first half of the first season.) They have a giant serpent that flies around as if air were water. Nobody on the show explains or questions that. The "explanation" you're referring to is what criticism is attempting to provide. edit: That's why it hopped from a psychological theory of everything like Freudianism in the first part of the 20th century to a materialist theory of everything in Marxism in the 60s. They're frameworks for answering questions that weren't directly answered in the work. Part of making writing interesting is prompting questions that you trick people into answering themselves.
gs17 5y ago
Does this happen a lot with that specific book? It's what killed my interest in high school literature to the point where I tested out of all the English classes after 9th grade. I actually tried to come up with symbolism for Piggy's glasses, but my theme wasn't the specific teacher approved one, so I got told I was interpretting it wrong.
bccdee 5y ago
The problem with this is that you often miss the stuff that the author was trying to say. Turns out stories have themes after all. For instance, you're factually wrong about Lord of the Flies. The pig wasn't the first thing they ate. The island is described at the very start as a natural paradise with more than enough food to feed all the boys. Jack starts hunting because he wants to kill, not because he needs to eat, and it unfolds into this whole primitive religion celebrating murder. It gets pretty explicit when the boys start killing each other while chanting ritualistic hunting chants. The ending very directly links the savagery which inexorably unfolded on the island to WWI when a bunch of British naval officers show up and say, "wow, can't believe nice civilized boys would do something like this," while staring at their battleship on the horizon. If you commit yourself to this weird attitude that subtext and metaphor don't exist and everything is literal, you miss out on the ideas underlying the text. That's exactly why high school English class tries to get you to dig deeper.

tjalfi 5y ago

Literary augury[0] is my term for that kind of literature discussion. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/augury https://www.britannica.com/topic/augury

pcmoney 5y ago

[flagged]

apocalypstyx 5y ago
You've kind of flipped the script here. First you argue everyone's discounting the author. But then you state "as an allegory of", which would fundamentally be about authorial intent. Instead such would have to be stated as: "The killing of the pig can be read through the lens of..." The second prospect is distinct in that it recognizes that the subjectivity of the reader must be foregrounded by the very definition of experience. The core anxiety here is one of fear in relation to notions of the possibility (or not) of communication. If I cannot ensure meaning of myself with regards to the perceptions of others, then can I control myself, seeing as how there are a multiplicity of myselves in each human perception? What does this mean when the author has evaporated? Was there ever a single Homer? Who wrote Little Red Riding Hood? What about when the author contradicts themselves in regards to intent? Ray Bradbury gave opposing 'meanings' for Fahrenheit 451 over the course of his lifetime; one of them had to be incorrect; how does this bode for authorial intention? Absent of such knowledge does the text become meaningless? No, because it always depended on the subjectivity of the experiencer. Which is why randomized strokes of paint (or stars in the sky) can be experienced as meaningful.
- pcmoney 5y ago
  Bravo
- pcmoney 5y ago
  Real reply: I think the subjective experience of the reader/viewer is immensely important. Who doesn't tingle at the feeling of relating to a long dead author/artist in a unique way or degree that you struggle to with people in your life? Simply amazing.

rjsw 5y ago

I think they were hungry. I guess a better teacher could argue that the way they killed the pig was important to the message in the book.

amp108 5y ago
There is a major character named "Piggy" in the book. They kill him in the end. The probability is zero that those events are thematically unrelated.
bccdee 5y ago
I think I'm going to lose my mind. Nobody in this thread remembers the book. > He picked his way up the scar, passed the great rock where Ralph had climbed on the first morning, then turned off to his right among the trees. He walked with an accustomed tread through the acres of fruit trees, where the least energetic could find an easy if unsatisfying meal. Flower and fruit grew together on the same tree and everywhere was the scent of ripeness and the booming of a million bees at pasture. There's more than enough fruit for everybody to eat. That's not why the boys hunt. Hunting is explicitly equated with the military; with the human urge to fight and kill. > "The choir belongs to you, of course." > "They could be the army--" > "Or hunters--" > "They could be--" > The suffusion drained away from Jack's face. Ralph waved again for silence. > "Jack's in charge of the choir. They can be--what do you want them to be?" > "Hunters." The hunters eventually start ritualistically killing the other boys in their "hunts." The ending links the boys' savagery to the savagery of WWI, when the naval officers find them. > And in the middle of them, with filthy body, matted hair, and unwiped nose, Ralph wept for the end of innocence, the darkness of man's heart, and the fall through the air of the true, wise friend called Piggy. > The officer, surrounded by these noises, was moved and a little embarrassed. He turned away to give them time to pull themselves together; and waited, allowing his eyes to rest on the trim cruiser in the distance. This is the last line in the book. Golding isn't being subtle about this.

brimble 5y ago

On the one hand, yeah, that's a bit much to insist on that being the whole thing. On the other hand, good (or even just competent) authors usually put things in the book for a reason, usually for a narrative, character development, or thematic/message reason. Everything in a book was put there on purpose. In most books that aren't terrible, there's some reason the author chose one thing over another. The pig may be there because the author felt a need to explain how the kids could eat and survive, so that's one purpose—but there were other ways to do that. It's entirely reasonable to wonder why a pig and why is the scene exactly that way when both things could have been totally different. It's difficult to write well, yourself, without really embracing the idea that a book is crafted and the parts are there on purpose and for a reason. Some choices may genuinely end up being arbitrary, even in a very good book, but lots of them will not be.

roofone 5y ago
Totally agreed and well said. It can be easy to read too much into something (especially when people are learning how to understand literature in high school), but some level of decision-making, i.e., design, goes into every word. Nathaniel Hawthorne didn't choose scarlet because it was his favorite color.
- magicalist 5y ago
  Lord of the Flies is also a particularly silly example because the author practically hits the reader over their head with the officer at the end to yell at them, "this is an allegory!"
watwut 5y ago
Honestly, I don't think this is true. Good writing is not the same as "making high school analysis easy by making everything for straightforward reasons". Plenty of times, things are there, because it experiment or atmosphere or even needing to make it longer.
- brimble 5y ago
  > Good writing is not the same as "making high school analysis easy by making everything for straightforward reasons". Where'd I write anything like that? > Plenty of times, things are there, because it experiment or atmosphere or even needing to make it longer. Even then, the author's picking one thing to put in over a bunch of others they could have chosen. Novels are artificial, what goes in them is what the author decides is best to be there. Often, there's a reason for their choice. Stopping at "the characters were hungry" is leaving a lot of potential meaning on the table. OK—but why, of all the ways that could have been addressed, did the author write that they killed a pig? Why wasn't it sufficient for that to be "off-screen"? Why was that more important to include than other things that could have filled those same pages? This is especially a valid path to pursue when there are other cues that a book may be operating on more than a strictly literal level, and there definitely are such indications in that one. The final line does all it can without grabbing the reader by the lapels and slapping them, to communicate that the book's more than just a simple story about some kids stuck on an island. At a minimum, it's got some allegory going on, because it all but says as much at the end. [EDIT] The killing of a pig features heavily in a book that tells you at the end it's got at least some allegory going on, and a major character is nicknamed "Piggy", I might add. Like... yes, I think it's very fair to say that's included and plays out the way it does for reasons other than "the kids were hungry".

pessimizer 5y ago

They weren't hungry, though. Fictional people don't get hungry unless the author wants them to be. They're completely made up. edit: In real life, talking about meaning and purpose and God is a matter of opinion and culture (or maybe direct revelation, I don't know your experiences) but in fiction, there's always a God, and it's the person who wrote it.

willcipriano 5y ago
Characters are similarly unaffected by gravity but I'd be confused reading a book where everyone floats around without any explanation.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Would you be, or would you just wonder why the author did that? I'm watching the Raised By Wolves TV show right now (probably not for much longer, it got pretty bad after the first half of the first season.) They have a giant serpent that flies around as if air were water. Nobody on the show explains or questions that. The "explanation" you're referring to is what criticism is attempting to provide. edit: That's why it hopped from a psychological theory of everything like Freudianism in the first part of the 20th century to a materialist theory of everything in Marxism in the 60s. They're frameworks for answering questions that weren't directly answered in the work. Part of making writing interesting is prompting questions that you trick people into answering themselves.

gs17 5y ago

Does this happen a lot with that specific book? It's what killed my interest in high school literature to the point where I tested out of all the English classes after 9th grade. I actually tried to come up with symbolism for Piggy's glasses, but my theme wasn't the specific teacher approved one, so I got told I was interpretting it wrong.

bccdee 5y ago

The problem with this is that you often miss the stuff that the author was trying to say. Turns out stories have themes after all. For instance, you're factually wrong about Lord of the Flies. The pig wasn't the first thing they ate. The island is described at the very start as a natural paradise with more than enough food to feed all the boys. Jack starts hunting because he wants to kill, not because he needs to eat, and it unfolds into this whole primitive religion celebrating murder. It gets pretty explicit when the boys start killing each other while chanting ritualistic hunting chants. The ending very directly links the savagery which inexorably unfolded on the island to WWI when a bunch of British naval officers show up and say, "wow, can't believe nice civilized boys would do something like this," while staring at their battleship on the horizon. If you commit yourself to this weird attitude that subtext and metaphor don't exist and everything is literal, you miss out on the ideas underlying the text. That's exactly why high school English class tries to get you to dig deeper.