4 ms·

Several posters seem to have read weird things into the phrase "on purpose". I don't mean that every single word in a book has some grand meaning, but that the

Several posters seem to have read weird things into the phrase "on purpose". I don't mean that every single word in a book has some grand meaning, but that the author choses to affix some words to the blank page and not others, and then leave them in (or change them) through various editing passes. A novel isn't like a tree in nature where you can just say "it looks that way simply because it does, and that's it—sheer happenstance and natural processes". For example: In real life someone goes to the kitchen and makes a sandwich because they're hungry. Sure, good enough. In a book, an author including a scene in which a character makes a sandwich probably included it for reasons beyond "the character was hungry", even if the reasons are purely structural or for the author's convenience ("I needed them in the kitchen to smell the gas leak") rather than to advance a theme or mood or anything like that. Characters don't have needs, and the degree to which their satisfying normal human needs must be included in a story to maintain suspension of disbelief is typically minimal—so why spend three pages on sandwich making? There should be a reason. If that scene includes two paragraphs on the character's choice of mustard, there should be a reason (even if it's just "I thought it was funny"). That's what I mean. It's worth interrogating the purpose of the inclusion or exclusion of elements in a book, and the details, because the construction of a book in a certain way is deliberate. That doesn't mean every book stands up to close reading. Sometimes books don't have much going on beyond the surface level (but there are still, guaranteed, reasons behind much of what makes it in, even if they're mundane structural ones—lack of reasons, or bad ones, can amount to mistakes if the included purposeless elements don't, by happenstance, improve the book) but sometimes they really do. In The Lord of the Flies, there's no island. There are no kids. Golding made them up. Golding didn't put pigs on the island and choose to have the kids notice and then kill a couple them because that was his only option. Even if it had been, he didn't need to devote as much page-space to it as he did. He also wrote in a kid whose nickname is "Piggy", and who features prominently in the book. And there's a whole thing with a pig head on a stick in it. So yes, I think it's totally reasonable to ask "why pigs?" or "what did killing the pig mean?" or all kinds of things along those lines, without any risk whatsoever of disappearing into poorly-supported fancy.

vidarh 5y ago
After reading this, I stand by what I wrote. There often is no reason other than that it sprung to mind while writing, with no additional intent. There may well have been in that scene in Lord of the Flies, or not. I don't find it a very interesting question, because absent a statement from the author it's guesswork. And in cases where we do have authors views it is not unusual for it to turn out the guesses were wrong. And even when there is a purpose it will often be trite or different from what you expect and unrelated to the themes of the story. E. g. a very prominent part at the start of one of my novels, which people might very well think is significant is there just because I found it amusing, with no other significance. I'd concede that counts as purpose, though, if not a purpose anyone would be likely to guess at.
- brimble 5y ago
  Lord of the Flies is plainly allegorical, at least in part. As I (and another poster) noted elsewhere on here, it's made very clear at the end. If you're not going to ask those questions, you may as well not read it. > After reading this, I stand by what I wrote. There often is no reason other than that it sprung to mind while writing, with no additional intent. But you kept it in the book. All kinds of things sprung to mind and didn't make it in, surely. [EDIT] Also: > I'd concede that counts as purpose, though, if not a purpose anyone would be likely to guess at. Sure, which is why some books don't reward close reading. Which is fine. But an author's still deciding what goes in and what doesn't, what gets edited out (perhaps with some help) and what stays. [EDIT EDIT] I don't want to quibble over your writing process or anything, my core point is simply that "there's a whole section about killing pigs because the characters were hungry" would represent poor reading, period. Lack of awareness of structural, character, thematic, allegorical, symbolic, allusive, et c., reasons for choosing to devote page space to one thing over another (or nothing), will make becoming a better reader and writer challenging at best, so it is a good idea to try to teach students those things. Whole kinds of reading would be unapproachable, and even constructing a basic narrative of one's own, unduly difficult. It's possible and sometimes rewarding to ask those sorts of questions about literature because they're not set-in-stone depictions of reality, but something a human constructed. Even documentaries typically exhibit some of these traits, and those intend to depict reality itself in some fashion—editing, shot choices, et c. In a documentary you're not watching someone eat a sandwich, you're watching a specific view of someone eating a sandwich which a human decided to show to you at exactly this point in the film. There's a reason that shot's there and not somewhere else, or some other shot isn't in its place—or there better be, at any rate. So it's likely worth asking why, if only to hone one's own documentary-making skills.

vidarh 5y ago

After reading this, I stand by what I wrote. There often is no reason other than that it sprung to mind while writing, with no additional intent. There may well have been in that scene in Lord of the Flies, or not. I don't find it a very interesting question, because absent a statement from the author it's guesswork. And in cases where we do have authors views it is not unusual for it to turn out the guesses were wrong. And even when there is a purpose it will often be trite or different from what you expect and unrelated to the themes of the story. E. g. a very prominent part at the start of one of my novels, which people might very well think is significant is there just because I found it amusing, with no other significance. I'd concede that counts as purpose, though, if not a purpose anyone would be likely to guess at.

brimble 5y ago
Lord of the Flies is plainly allegorical, at least in part. As I (and another poster) noted elsewhere on here, it's made very clear at the end. If you're not going to ask those questions, you may as well not read it. > After reading this, I stand by what I wrote. There often is no reason other than that it sprung to mind while writing, with no additional intent. But you kept it in the book. All kinds of things sprung to mind and didn't make it in, surely. [EDIT] Also: > I'd concede that counts as purpose, though, if not a purpose anyone would be likely to guess at. Sure, which is why some books don't reward close reading. Which is fine. But an author's still deciding what goes in and what doesn't, what gets edited out (perhaps with some help) and what stays. [EDIT EDIT] I don't want to quibble over your writing process or anything, my core point is simply that "there's a whole section about killing pigs because the characters were hungry" would represent poor reading, period. Lack of awareness of structural, character, thematic, allegorical, symbolic, allusive, et c., reasons for choosing to devote page space to one thing over another (or nothing), will make becoming a better reader and writer challenging at best, so it is a good idea to try to teach students those things. Whole kinds of reading would be unapproachable, and even constructing a basic narrative of one's own, unduly difficult. It's possible and sometimes rewarding to ask those sorts of questions about literature because they're not set-in-stone depictions of reality, but something a human constructed. Even documentaries typically exhibit some of these traits, and those intend to depict reality itself in some fashion—editing, shot choices, et c. In a documentary you're not watching someone eat a sandwich, you're watching a specific view of someone eating a sandwich which a human decided to show to you at exactly this point in the film. There's a reason that shot's there and not somewhere else, or some other shot isn't in its place—or there better be, at any rate. So it's likely worth asking why, if only to hone one's own documentary-making skills.