[CLUE-Talk] Tolkien and allegory

[Dennis J Perkins]

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 22:47, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:42:33 -0700
> Dennis J Perkins <djperkins at americanisp.net> wrote:
> 
> > I'm not a believer in literary analysis and avoided literature classes 
> > in high school and college whenever possible.  The purpose of most 
> > stories is simple... tell an entertaining story.  
> 
> Avoiding literary analysis altogether is, I believe, a mistake. The
> stories that you read and the movies and television shows you watch
> (and that includes the evening news, commercials and political messages)
> are full of symbolism and messages that lie below the surface. 
> Without an understanding of literary devices, you're really not
> getting the full meaning. 
> 
> For example, consider the book "1984." In and of itself, it's a great
> work of fiction and an enjoyable read. (At least I thought so...) But it
> certainly has greater meaning beyond the surface story and it would be a
> mistake to say that "1984" is only "about" the plot or that the reader
> is getting the full experience of the book if they only take away the
> plot and characters and ignore Orwell's deeper meanings. Obviously,
> "1984" is a bit different than many of the books that people read in
> literature classes because Orwell wasn't terribly subtle about the
> deeper meaning in "1984." Other books that are part of the "canon" are
> often obscure and dull to most readers, which tends to put people off of
> the idea of literary criticism because they learn at an early age that
> literature == dull. 

I doubt anyone avoids analysis completely, and maybe my choice of words
was unfortunate.  My experience with this in school was that it is very
subjective and we weren't allowed to deviate much from the teachers'
perspective.  Having a strong engineer/hard science bias probably
worsened that, where analysis should be objective.

I remember enjoying 1984 and Animal Farm.  I guess they weren't very
subtle. :)

> 
> I wish schools would start teaching literary devices at an early age to
> children, using popular shows and movies rather than musty books that 
> most kids will find terminally dull. You could do an entire lit class on
> "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or "Star Wars" or any number of other works
> that would be far more accessible to younger kids. 
> 

I think this argument could be made for a lot of school subjects.  I'm
not sure how well that would work for some subjects.  At what age do
most children start being able to think critically and analytically? 
This isn't a criticism, just a question because I don't know.

> > Good stories have real 
> > plots to hold our attention.  They do not require analysis to understand 
> > them, altho some people might enjoy analyzing them.  And trying to apply 
> > analysis to stories from another era or culture is bound to produce 
> > ludicrous results.
> 
> I agree with parts of this -- yes, a good story does not require
> analysis to "understand" it -- that is, I shouldn't have to be a lit
> professor to be able to enjoy a movie or book. I shouldn't have to be a
> lit expert to "get" a particular piece -- which is why I consider works
> like "The Waste Land" by T. S. Eliot to be a spectacular failure. 

Or the other extreme, trying to find hidden meanings where there are
none.

> However, really good works of literature have more to them than just a
> good plot -- there's a reason why some works of literature and some
> movies and so forth have stood the test of time, whereas others have
> lost relevance with age. This is why Shakespear's plays are still
> considered great works of art, while many of his contemporaries have 
> been forgotten. 

We read six of his plays in school.  I didn't mind them, but personally,
I don't find them that compelling.  I haven't read works of his
contemporaries.  How did he stand out from them?

I find it interesting that translations of his plays into French and
other languages use modern language instead of translating into the
French (o whatever) of that period.  Shakespeare's works might actually
be more comprehensible to them than to many of us.  Assuming the
translation is good and that some things are very difficult to
translate.

> My particular focus while in college was on mythological themes in
> literature -- there are certain themes that continue to be expressed in
> our stories, and hold some kind of satisfaction for the audience
> regardless of the details. You'll find, for example, that there is a
> pattern that can be found in all or almost all of the stories of our
> "heroes" -- whether that be Frodo, Luke Skywalker, Superman, King
> Arthur, Moses, Buddha or Jesus.  
> 

This sounds like Joseph Campbell's theme of heroes.  

> Analyzing stories from another age is not, in and of itself, a mistake.
> Judging those stories from this culture's particular bias is a mistake. 
> 
> > I remember Asimov's autobiography saying that someone once told Asimov 
> > what he meant in one of his stories..  The guy justified it by saying, 
> > how would Asimov know what he meant?
> 
> Heh... well, it is silly to suggest that an author would not know what he
> meant, but it is entirely possible that an author may inject certain
> symbolism and such into their work without really thinking about it or
> being conscious of it. 
> 
> I think this may be one of the reasons many literary scholars prefer to
> limit their studies to the works of dead authors -- much less chance
> that they'll be contradicted. Probably bloody embarrassing to write up a
> paper on the symbolism of John Irving's latest book when he writes a
> letter to the editor of your journal the next month to say you're
> completely off base... 

I think Asimov didn't really know how to take that remark.  Remarkable,
considering the man.