4 ms·

> 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? >

> 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".

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
There are all kinds of choices when making art of any sort. The internet more or less proves that there are many things that never even appeared to the creator(s) as choices at all, but to those interpreting/experiencing the art appear to have been choices made for a reason. Why did she wear a red sweater? Why was it set at the equator? Why did it rain? Why is the only named plant a phylodendron? Why did they leave for 2 days and not 3? Why did journey go north instead of east? People convinced that all art is created by careful choice-making at every possible juncture seem to find it a little difficult to accept that the creator(s) of a piece of art that they like may not even have experienced a particular story/view/sound/structure point as a choice at all.
- brimble 5y ago
  Sure, but I think stopping all the way back at "they killed a pig because they were hungry" in Lord of the Flies is... well, going to limit one's literacy level. There's flights of fancy, and then there's not being able to understand literature.
  - gkop 5y ago
    You expect too much from the HN commentariat with regard to this topic.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    It's entirely reasonable to ask the question and to ask people to consider what it might mean, and what supports that reading and how likely readers are to interpret it that way. That is not the issue. The issue is to then assume that this must have been the intent of the author all along unless they've actually told you. There's nothing wrong with not knowing with certainty the intent of the author. That does not take anything away from your interpretation. But often people seek to ascribe intent to the author in an attempt to assert authority over what the "true" meaning of a work is.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Actually, there is a sub-steam of art interpretation that insists that you can ascribe a particular meaning to some part of a peice of art even if the creator explicitly says "I did not mean that"
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > People convinced that all art is created by careful choice-making at every possible juncture Where are these magical strawpeople? :D
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Chris Nolan fans who've been to film school.
watwut 5y ago
> 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. This is high school level analysis. These are straightforward reasons. > Everything in a book was put there on purpose This I think is just not true. This is true in simple literature, in adventure books and in streamline writing production.
- brimble 5y ago
  > This is high school level analysis. These are straightforward reasons. Yes. The hang up here seemed to be at exactly that level, though. At the very least it's useful to keep those things in mind and look out for them. That does not mean it's where things end. I took the original post to suggest that even this is too much, which is simply incorrect unless one wishes to be stuck at about a 6th grade reading level forever. There are bad teachers who don't even convey the basics well, and analyses may sometimes go pretty far into fairy-land at higher levels, but considering why pig-killing features so much in Lord of the Flies is something worth thinking about for a good reader, beyond "the characters were hungry". But yes, of course that's not exactly an advanced analysis, death of the author, et c. But it is table stakes for even beginning to appreciate literature or understand how stories (even blockbuster film scripts!) are typically assembled. Some amount of purpose plays a role in at least some decisions in practically all stories, and understanding how that works will make a person a better reader and writer. But I agree with you, it's not the end of that journey, nor is it advanced, and I don't think I wrote that it was. > This I think is just not true. This is true in simple literature, in adventure books and in streamline writing production. Short of experiments in randomly-assembled literature, it is true. It does not mean every single little detail has a grand purpose, but it does mean that the words on the page were placed there by a person, who could have instead put different words there, or nothing at all. Some things may still be arbitrary, but their inclusion was not—you don't get an arbitrarily-chosen type of flower without both choosing to include a flower and choosing to name what kind of flower it is. Details may be chosen simply because the author likes the image they paint, or just has a preference (which are still reasons!) Others details may be dictated by the needs of the narrative ("why did this take two days, and not one or three? Because it needed to to fit some other piece of machinery in the narrative, no special meaning beyond that") or simple fidelity to reality in cases where there's no reason to strain suspension of disbelief. Of course all that's true—but it's also true that an author can do anything with a blank page, and instead of all the other things they could have done, did what you see before you.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

There are all kinds of choices when making art of any sort. The internet more or less proves that there are many things that never even appeared to the creator(s) as choices at all, but to those interpreting/experiencing the art appear to have been choices made for a reason. Why did she wear a red sweater? Why was it set at the equator? Why did it rain? Why is the only named plant a phylodendron? Why did they leave for 2 days and not 3? Why did journey go north instead of east? People convinced that all art is created by careful choice-making at every possible juncture seem to find it a little difficult to accept that the creator(s) of a piece of art that they like may not even have experienced a particular story/view/sound/structure point as a choice at all.

brimble 5y ago
Sure, but I think stopping all the way back at "they killed a pig because they were hungry" in Lord of the Flies is... well, going to limit one's literacy level. There's flights of fancy, and then there's not being able to understand literature.
- gkop 5y ago
  You expect too much from the HN commentariat with regard to this topic.
- vidarh 5y ago
  It's entirely reasonable to ask the question and to ask people to consider what it might mean, and what supports that reading and how likely readers are to interpret it that way. That is not the issue. The issue is to then assume that this must have been the intent of the author all along unless they've actually told you. There's nothing wrong with not knowing with certainty the intent of the author. That does not take anything away from your interpretation. But often people seek to ascribe intent to the author in an attempt to assert authority over what the "true" meaning of a work is.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Actually, there is a sub-steam of art interpretation that insists that you can ascribe a particular meaning to some part of a peice of art even if the creator explicitly says "I did not mean that"
wolverine876 5y ago
> People convinced that all art is created by careful choice-making at every possible juncture Where are these magical strawpeople? :D
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Chris Nolan fans who've been to film school.

watwut 5y ago

> 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. This is high school level analysis. These are straightforward reasons. > Everything in a book was put there on purpose This I think is just not true. This is true in simple literature, in adventure books and in streamline writing production.

brimble 5y ago
> This is high school level analysis. These are straightforward reasons. Yes. The hang up here seemed to be at exactly that level, though. At the very least it's useful to keep those things in mind and look out for them. That does not mean it's where things end. I took the original post to suggest that even this is too much, which is simply incorrect unless one wishes to be stuck at about a 6th grade reading level forever. There are bad teachers who don't even convey the basics well, and analyses may sometimes go pretty far into fairy-land at higher levels, but considering why pig-killing features so much in Lord of the Flies is something worth thinking about for a good reader, beyond "the characters were hungry". But yes, of course that's not exactly an advanced analysis, death of the author, et c. But it is table stakes for even beginning to appreciate literature or understand how stories (even blockbuster film scripts!) are typically assembled. Some amount of purpose plays a role in at least some decisions in practically all stories, and understanding how that works will make a person a better reader and writer. But I agree with you, it's not the end of that journey, nor is it advanced, and I don't think I wrote that it was. > This I think is just not true. This is true in simple literature, in adventure books and in streamline writing production. Short of experiments in randomly-assembled literature, it is true. It does not mean every single little detail has a grand purpose, but it does mean that the words on the page were placed there by a person, who could have instead put different words there, or nothing at all. Some things may still be arbitrary, but their inclusion was not—you don't get an arbitrarily-chosen type of flower without both choosing to include a flower and choosing to name what kind of flower it is. Details may be chosen simply because the author likes the image they paint, or just has a preference (which are still reasons!) Others details may be dictated by the needs of the narrative ("why did this take two days, and not one or three? Because it needed to to fit some other piece of machinery in the narrative, no special meaning beyond that") or simple fidelity to reality in cases where there's no reason to strain suspension of disbelief. Of course all that's true—but it's also true that an author can do anything with a blank page, and instead of all the other things they could have done, did what you see before you.