When is a story not a story?

[HK]

This probably isn't in the right section :ninja

John's post in an intro thread about the Wizard of Oz having all these interesting meanings got me thinking about one of the things I absolutely hated about taking English A-level. Half of what we did was pick apart other people's work and talk about the symbolism or hidden meanings.

Why do we feel the need to look at an entertaining story and say 'hey, I bet this somehow speaks to state of the economy'? Why can't a book just be a book, and a story just a nice way to pass the time?

 

[Panacea]

Whenever I took literature classes and we ripped every single word down and gave it a meaning and then debated the meaning's meaning, I kinda wanted to stab myself in the eye.

Sometimes it's interesting and helps give a new perspective, but sometimes it's just...annoying. Take some things at face value, will ya?

 

[Darrell]

I feel the same way about film. Sometimes there are hidden symbolism, and art, and stuff to interpret the meaning behind.

and sometimes a movie is just a movie.

 

[Tim]

I think it's very important to learn...

It develops your ability to think creatively and outside of the box. I think many people lack this skill today.

Yes, there are times to just enjoy a movie without ripping it apart looking for a hidden meaning, but having the ability to do so is a good thing IMO

 

[purpledove]

I hear y'all ! But isn't it just true of literature and films but words of people too? Don't they also have hidden meanings and we're expected at times to read in between the lines ??

True as Panacea said, why can't we just take words at face value?? Why place other meanings to it?? :unsure:

Now that confuses me :willy_nilly:

 

[HK]

Having the ability to analyse something is a decent skill Tim, I agree.

Sometimes though I think the fascination with tearing everything apart goes too far. Sometimes it feels like meanings are being forced onto books or movies because it's not okay to just say 'it's an interesting story' and leave it at that.

Some things have meaning, but not everything has a deeper symbolism.

 

[Tim]

I just read about the differences in the Chinese people and us here in America.
Did you know that Chinese people aren't as inventive as Americans? More innovation and technology comes out of America than China. It doesn't have anything to do with the people, it has to do with our education. Classes like English A-level aren't taught in China. They have a very different system of education there and creativity isn't part of their curriculum.

 

[Panacea]

I just read about the differences in the Chinese people and us here in America.
Did you know that Chinese people aren't as inventive as Americans? More innovation and technology comes out of America than China. It doesn't have anything to do with the people, it has to do with our education. Classes like English A-level aren't taught in China. They have a very different system of education there and creativity isn't part of their curriculum.

I would think that has a lot to do with limited means of self expression; their culture was stripped completely. Collectivist cultures are far more focused on specific tasks and outcomes, in the US we may be slackers but we do it with style

 

[rback33]

Ugh... my American Lit prof had a knack for looking at me and going... "Hmmm interesting thought... but yer wrong"

 

[purpledove]

I just read about the differences in the Chinese people and us here in America.
Did you know that Chinese people aren't as inventive as Americans? More innovation and technology comes out of America than China. It doesn't have anything to do with the people, it has to do with our education. Classes like English A-level aren't taught in China. They have a very different system of education there and creativity isn't part of their curriculum.

How about the Japanese people?? They are much more innovative than Americans esp in the telecommunications and car industry, right ?? :unsure:

I know in their curriculum, English-A is not a part of it too!

I know in my part of the world, English-A is taught just not called the same as you guys call it. Then in college, depends on one's line of study is when a more in-depth study of English is reiterated in their curriculum!

 

[purpledove]

I would think that has a lot to do with limited means of self expression; their culture was stripped completely. Collectivist cultures are far more focused on specific tasks and outcomes, in the US we may be slackers but we do it with style

:homo: English is also not part of their primary language/ mode of teaching!

 

[Panacea]

:homo: English is also not part of their primary language/ mode of teaching!

I just meant in terms of creativity, I think it's more the culture than the schooling
I glossed past the I'm With Homo part, derp.

 

[purpledove]

I just meant in terms of creativity, I think it's more the culture than the schooling
I glossed past the I'm With Homo part, derp.

Well, as was pointed out that seemingly education/curriculum has something to do with creativity which I don't quite agree given the Japanese people! And maybe some other cultures out there who don't have English literature as part of their curriculum.

My added bit after the homo is just the limitation too why Chinese are what they are bcoz of the language they speak and would care less abt learning English per se as that's not the reiteration of their education!

Yeah you're part of the homo's now

 

[Johnfromokc]

This probably isn't in the right section :ninja

John's post in an intro thread about the Wizard of Oz having all these interesting meanings got me thinking about one of the things I absolutely hated about taking English A-level. Half of what we did was pick apart other people's work and talk about the symbolism or hidden meanings.

Why do we feel the need to look at an entertaining story and say 'hey, I bet this somehow speaks to state of the economy'? Why can't a book just be a book, and a story just a nice way to pass the time?

Art & Fashion? Close enough, lol.

The Wizard of Oz does indeed have societal and political undertones. But it was a genius literary work as well. It is so different watching it as an adult than it was as a child.

Same things with bands. Know how AC/DC got their name? (My favorite group of all time and loudest concert on the planet)

 

[HottyToddyChick]

Ugh... my American Lit prof had a knack for looking at me and going... "Hmmm interesting thought... but yer wrong"

That's what I always hated. You'd write a paper on how you interpret something and the professor is like "nope, wrong". How is it wrong?! Did you talk to the author and have him tell you the hidden meaning?!

 

[Abcinthia]

I think it is important to look at the time when books were written and what was going on in the author's life to shape their work. For example, I recently read The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Brontë and the story is basically a wife with an abusive husband who left him and took their child. To modern readers, there's nothing strange about that but in the mid 1800s the plot was unheard of and the book was really controversial and shocking. Also looking in Brontë's life at the time she wrote it, she was deeply unhappy at her governess post, didn't like the people she was working for and her brother fell in love the mistress of the house who led him on then snubbed him and he died not long afterwards. And that can be seen within the book.


As for delving into 'hidden' meanings of similies, metaphors, pathetic fallacy, 8 persuasive techniques etc etc or commenting on when words came into use in the English Language I can't really be bothered with that. Really frustrated me in English Language and Literature to have to analyse things so much and put me off reading for a while because all I could see was metaphors etc jumping out at me.

 

[Panacea]

I think it is important to look at the time when books were written and what was going on in the author's life to shape their work. For example, I recently read The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Brontë and the story is basically a wife with an abusive husband who left him and took their child. To modern readers, there's nothing strange about that but in the mid 1800s the plot was unheard of and the book was really controversial and shocking. Also looking in Brontë's life at the time she wrote it, she was deeply unhappy at her governess post, didn't like the people she was working for and her brother fell in love the mistress of the house who led him on then snubbed him and he died not long afterwards. And that can be seen within the book.


As for delving into 'hidden' meanings of similies, metaphors, pathetic fallacy, 8 persuasive techniques etc etc or commenting on when words came into use in the English Language I can't really be bothered with that. Really frustrated me in English Language and Literature to have to analyse things so much and put me off reading for a while because all I could see was metaphors etc jumping out at me.

Yes, yes! I agree with both points. I love learning about the social context of works, especially paintings/sculpture. Really changes things.

 

[Zorak]

As someone who spends the majority of their existence trying to read between the lines, I can understand these sentiments.

However, there are plenty of books out there that are just 'stories', take Harry Potter for example; incredibly popular but, few can deny, a very poor series of books. The plots and characters arcs are formulaic, the writing sloppy and there is nothing beyond the text as you see it on the page.
When you compare it to another childrens\young adults series such as Philip Pullman's Dark Materials, the contrast is shocking. Now the Dark Materials trilogy enjoyed fair success also, so it's not a matter of popularity and accessibility. Personally, I'd rather read Philip Pullman every day of the week over J.K Rowling, even though I am undecided with Pullman's staunch anti-ecclesiastical messages in his trilogy.

Sometimes the sub-text of novels is clear; as in Crime and Punishment's denouncement of Utilitarianism, or Madame Bovary's rejection of Romanticism. And sometimes the message is complex and vague, such as in the work of Samuel Beckett. I actually had little time for Samuel Beckett on first reading, but actually after studying and thinking about the works in question, I discovered I both admired and enjoyed them.

 

[pinkporridge]

we have to do this with photography too. we'll get shown an image and the tutor will be like he shot this like this to show *somehting unrelated and boring* and look how hes holding this doesnt this suggest this? its like no! he prob just thought it was a good composition! maybe hed be pissing his pants if he knew you were breaking it down like this?!?

or maybe i just dont see it?

 

[pinkporridge]

i can read a book and be like.. that was kinda anti racism but instead of black and white folk they use.. bears and racoons.. (i dunno im making it up) but i dont take little bit and make it fit an idea thats not there..