|
ConfusedUs
|
In school, there was nothing I hated more than literary analysis. Literary analysis is the art of picking up a perfectly good book and tearing it to pieces to look for its 'hidden meanings'. Today I ran across this article on DiabloII.net. It pretty much gives my entire take on literary analysis. I have cut and pasted it here because diabloii.net is extremly slow loading. This work is not mine, but I do agree with it. There are perils in the world of literature that games have so far seemed to avoid. Overanalysis is one of those perils. This is a very serious disease that we may hope never reaches the gaming industry. It is an insidious disease that does nothing but confuse the reader/player and suck a lot of the fun out of a good story.
For instance, did you know that Little Red Riding Hood is vibrant portrayal of feminine oppression in the Middle Ages? Personally, I have lived most of my life with the unenlightened view that it is the most recent version of an old peasant?s tale. Despite the best efforts of several educated people, I still hold that opinion.
How about The Epic of Gilgamesh. That particular tale holds very deep meanings, with every last monster and giant being symbolic for something. What each monster is a symbol of really depends on who you talk to, but I have been repeatedly assured that this tale is much more than it appears to be on the surface. Personally, I still think it is a pretty neat adventure story that really should be made into a movie. Preferably with Sean Connery as Gilgamesh. Again, many educated people have tried very hard to convince me that I am very wrong in this, and that such things as the theological conflict between monotheism and polytheism are the real driving forces behind the epic.
For myself, I think the names in the story are hard enough to say without tossing in more multisyllabic nonsense.
I could go on making examples out of just about every well known tale too old to have made a best seller list. And many that have made those lists are given this same treatment.
Is there something wrong with a story being just and simply that, a story? Certainly we can learn much about the people that created the ancient tales in my examples, but there is a point at which reading meanings into them becomes simply ridiculous. For instance, from Little Red Riding Hood, we can guess that the forest was not a safe place to be. From Gilgamesh we can reasonably reason that the time was dangerous, and that some events may have been explained as the work of the gods or monsters. Such conjectures are a far cry from attempting to say that the woodsman is in reality a symbol of the male ego. I do not see why the woodsman has to be a symbol for anything; why can he not just be a woodsman?
I think we risk losing something every time a story is analyzed to death. Not all literature has to have a meaning. Sometimes a story is good simply because it is a good story. That opinion, however, seems to be the one opinion that is not allowed. Rather than merely appreciate an epic for the enjoyment it brings, a substantial portion of our society has to weave into the fabric of the tale a secretive psychological meaning. I am afraid that such analysis in fact lessens the story, rather than making it greater. Instead of happily enjoying a good fairly tale, I am confronted with the same highly charged political disputes that have graced our newspapers for decades. Instead of literature providing an escape from reality, that peculiar segment of our culture is attempting to force on unwilling entertainment a more significant reason for existence that simply is not there.
Pick up an unabridged version of the Huckleberry Finn. Flip through the pages that precede the story, and find there the few lines that Mark Twain penned before the story ever begins. Then look over the lists of banned books, and find that same title. Mark Twain clearly stated he did not want the reader trying to find a meaning in what he wrote. So what has our culture done? We have banned this book, in part because of a meaning we have forced on it, clearly against the will of the author. Hunt down an unedited copy, and you will quickly see why I am afraid that by forcing on unwilling literature the politics of our times, we risk damaging that literature for generations.
Some authors and works I readily concede are symbolic and do contain meanings that are only available to those who give them thought. C.S. Lewis laced his wonderful fantasy series The Chronicles of Narnia with subtle Christian theology. Robert Heinlein has written several novels in which he seems to be making a point of some kind, foremost in my head being Stranger in a Strange Land I have no idea which of the myriad of points I have been told he was making he was really making; I read it because it is a really good book.
If a book makes me think, like Heinlein does, then it is a good book that makes me think. If has a subtle lesson, like Aesops Fables, then it is a good book with a lesson. If even the most radical psychoanalyzing guru cannot find a hidden message, then it is a good book without a message or a moral or a meaning. But it is still a good book, and I think it should be read and appreciated for that.
Quality literature does not need anyone to justify its quality. Bringing enjoyment is justification enough for any story. If, like some, the story has a message built in, then credit the author for giving the reader thought-provoking enjoyment. I am not convinced, though, that asking ?What is the author trying to say?? is a valid treatment for every tale. If the answer to the question is merely ?I hope you enjoy yourself,? then I wish it could left at that.
I am not optimistic though, that our culture will ever stop overanalyzing everything it comes in contact with. That, in turn, makes me wonder what will happen when that peculiar segment gets bored with literature and starts in on movies (which has already happened), and games.
I can hear it now... "The Diablo series is more than a leading cause of carpal tunnel among gamers! It is really an insightful portrayal of the struggles inherent to a misunderstood younger sibling growing up in a hostile society!"
But that is a different story altogether.
Salem's Fire is hosted by Diabloii.net, and written by Salem (Luke Blaize). The views expressed in his columns are those of the author, and are not necessarily the opinion of Diabloii.net. You may email Salem at salem@diabloii.net. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kain-Xavier
|
I pretty much agree with that entire article. What passes for symbolism is all a matter of one's interpretation unless the author directly states that's what he/she was striving for.
Hell, I probably would have failed several assignments in some of my English classes if I wasn't told what the symbolism in a certain novel was supposed to be. I just usually bs analytical essays the best that I can. heh
As for games becoming analyzed, I'd be extremely scared if they did. How the hell can a modern game, especially when most have design teams of up to 50 people working on them at once, express any idea other than what was stated in the design documents? If this somehow comes to be and is accepted in some quasi-professional circle of people that somehow represent the industry, well then all those black and white games showcase white superiority to the black race. You can't sway my opinion at all on that one. It's clearly visible to the literate.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
I remember listening to audio commentary on the Extended Fellowship of the Rings in this regard. He was described as hating allegory in favor of applicability. The difference between the two would be like saying that allegorically the Ring symbolized one specific thing - Facism, War, Greed, whatever. Applicability means you take the struggles of the characters and basic themes and apply them to your own life. In one, the definition is fixed, rigid, and unchanging. The second is fluid, and the reader takes out whatever meaning they choose to find for themselves.
I think a big problem with this is the "religion" of secular humanism, where authors DID write allegorical symbolism directly into their stories. Ayn Rand, anyone? It's all politically motivated and I think a lot of educated fools have taken to disecting this genre of propagandist literature and then trying to translate it over to other, older, and more innocent works. If it provides a mechanism to brainwash someone to their methodology of thinking (after all, they're more educated so they know what's best for you to think) then they'll do it. Hence the situation Kain mentions that if you don't get the answer THEY expect you are penalized. You cannot derive your own meaning. It MUST match theirs or you fail. While not all teachers and literary scholars are guilty of this, the mindset of overanalyzing still exists. I think, like many things, over time it just becomes habit.
Sometimes a rock is just a rock. Sometimes a tree is just a tree. Every author has a purpose to their story, but the obvious answer sometimes is the correct one. Most of the time they're just trying to tell a good story.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
ConfusedUs
|
Hence the situation Kain mentions that if you don't get the answer THEY expect you are penalized. You cannot derive your own meaning. It MUST match theirs or you fail. While not all teachers and literary scholars are guilty of this, the mindset of overanalyzing still exists. I think, like many things, over time it just becomes habit.
This was precisely my biggest problem with literary analysis in high school. Often I would spend DAYS reading and re-reading some novel/article/short story trying to find some (often non-existant) meaning behind it all. When my exhausted brain would FINIALLY make a connection somewhere, it would end up being something completely different from the teacher's interpretation. The ONLY reports that I EVER failed in school were those involving Literary Analysis. Then there's the flip side of it. After the first few failed reports, I just started making up crap. And while I still failed most of the time, the bullshit I made up would occasionally net me an 'A'. I once spun some insane tale about how Stephen King's The Stand was an allegory of strife between the Muslims and the Christians, and got an 'A' for it.. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
  
Posts: 1011
|
That tends to be the problem with current academia, if you dissagree, you're wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
despite what peter jackson may think tolkien specificly stated before his death that there is no underlying meaning in his writings.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Angst
Rabid Doomer
Team Member
Elite
Posts: 1011
|
to quote Smeagol: "and Peter Jackson, my precious, who do you think you are you fscking HACK!? shame on you! SHAME on you!"
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Who says a chainsaw isn't a ranged weapon?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
