Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[trappedslider]

“Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the author intended a symbol to be there, because the job of reading is not to understand the authors intend. The job of reading is to see into other people as we see ourselves.”
― John Green

 

[overgeeked]

They like blue?

The curtains in the room they were writing were blue.

They saw a blue object moments before writing that line.

Their grandmother's curtains were blue and something about the scene they were writing reminded them of their grandmother.

Just because the curtains being blue might mean something doesn't mean it's something important.

That's the trouble with college-level critique, it assumes all those mostly irrelevant details are important.

 

[Mannahnin]

Does it? We know authors can be out right on some views when they write, but then just be lazy about some things and then it's that lazy thing that people read into

Yes, it depends on the author. SOMETIMES they just randomly chose blue, but certainly not always.

Even leaving aside unconscious cultural associations, many writers DO mean to symbolize and imply things through their word choices and details. I was discussing Fellowship of the Ring the other day with someone who's got her MFA in Creative Writing and we were digging into Tolkien's word choices and descriptions in the end of Chapter 7 (In the House of Tom Bombadil) and the beginning of 8 (Fog on the Barrow Downs), and there was a ton of interesting stuff in there. Extra implied meanings and reinforcement of themes.

 

[trappedslider]

The curtains in the room they were writing were blue.

They saw a blue object moments before writing that line.

Their grandmother's curtains were blue and something about the scene they were writing reminded them of their grandmother.

Just because the curtains being blue might mean something doesn't mean it's something important.

That's the trouble with college-level critique, it assumes all those mostly irrelevant details are important.

thank you for being better at explaining and understanding ( I hope) my point. Have a

 

[overgeeked]

The author might tell themselves that they don't mean anything by an inclusion, but they're a product of their environment and, a lot of times, they are passing along their baggage, cultural or otherwise, in their work. And unpacking that baggage is useful, especially when you're reading it separated by a great distance or time, and are not part of that same environment.

Even across state lines in the US you're not part of the same environment. Being raised with different ethnic and financial backgrounds will separate people's environments. Etc.

The folks who create these memes didn't have liberal arts degrees.

Or they do have liberal arts degrees but recognize this kind of analysis is pure nonsense. It's mostly guess work and projection on the part of the reader and a means to fill time in class and fill space in a paper.

 

[Mannahnin]

Or they do have liberal arts degrees but recognize this kind of analysis is pure nonsense.

What kind of analysis? A single sentence taken out of context obviously is really hard to analyze meaningfully. But that's not how literary analysis is generally done. We can speculate that blue used in a story might be intended to imply "feeling blue" emotionally, but practically no one is going to assert it confidently without substantial greater contextual support.

Usually asking the question, "What if the author intended blue to indicate an emotion?" is a prompt to reflect on a) whether that changes the meaning of the scene in a way which makes sense, or reinforces other elements and confirms the meaning more deeply, and b) whether there's evidence elsewhere in the text that the author is using colors symbolically this way. IF so, and it's an if, than maybe we can derive more meaning from the work and pick up additional satisfying details.

'Goldberry! he cried. 'My fair lady, clad all in silver green! We have never said farewell to her, nor seen her since the evening!' He was so distressed that he turned back; but at that moment a clear call came rippling down. There on the hill-brow she stood beckoning to them: her hair was flying loose, and as it caught the sun it shone and shimmered. A light like the glint of water on dewy grass flashed from under her feet as she danced.

Do you pick up the number of watery words in this passage? The number of ways in which Goldberry, the river-woman's daughter, and the things emanating from/around her, share qualities of water? If you go ahead and read the rest of the chapter and the other descriptions of her, these are not an isolated instance. It's enough that it's pretty obvious Tolkien was doing it intentionally. Even from three sentences it looks like a clear pattern, but obviously if we just noticed it and realized it looked like a theme, we'd check the rest of the chapter to confirm.

 

[prabe]

What kind of analysis? A single sentence taken out of context obviously is really hard to analyze meaningfully. But that's not how literary analysis is generally done. We can speculate that blue used in a story might be intended to imply "feeling blue" emotionally, but practically no one is going to assert it confidently without substantial greater contextual support.

They probably shouldn't make such assertions without adequate support, I agree, but that's not how literature is (or mostly has been) taught, at below like the 200-level college class.

 

[Ryujin]

What kind of analysis? A single sentence taken out of context obviously is really hard to analyze meaningfully. But that's not how literary analysis is generally done. We can speculate that blue used in a story might be intended to imply "feeling blue" emotionally, but practically no one is going to assert it confidently without substantial greater contextual support.

Usually asking the question, "What if the author intended blue to indicate an emotion?" is a prompt to reflect on a) whether that changes the meaning of the scene in a way which makes sense, and b) whether there's evidence elsewhere in the text that the author is using colors symbolically this way. IF so, and it's an if, than maybe we can derive more meaning from the work and pick up additional satisfying details.

The problem enters when you have people who state absolutes about such analysis, which is what I dealt with in both high school and college (film elective and science fiction prose elective). There's an old "psychological test" that is supposedly geared to determining your feelings about various life experiences. It involves the so-called tester mentally walking you down a hallway with several different coloured doors, each of which is supposed to represent a significant life event. For example the yellow door is supposed to represent marriage, for some reason. Behind the yellow door I saw mold and puss.

... not because I had that opinion of marriage, at least not at that time, but because I'd had a badly infected wound at one point.

 

[overgeeked]

What kind of analysis? A single sentence taken out of context obviously is really hard to analyze meaningfully. But that's not how literary analysis is generally done. We can speculate that blue used in a story might be intended to imply "feeling blue" emotionally,

The bolded words are the keys. It's all speculation of what something might mean. But it assumes those details have meaning in the first place, which the most likely don't. It also assumes those meanings are important, which they most likely aren't. That's the problem. You're assuming something is there to find, then...as if by magic...finding it.

What You See Is What You Look For

but practically no one is going to assert it confidently without substantial greater contextual support.

I take it you haven't actually been to a college literature 101 class then. When teens almost straight out of high school learn they can just spin whatever kind of nonsense they like and get an A if they spin it well enough, they run with that. With all the confidence in the world.

 

[Mannahnin]

They probably shouldn't make such assertions without adequate support, I agree, but that's not how literature is (or mostly has been) taught, at below like the 200-level college class.

Sorry, what isn't how literature is mostly taught? Are you suggesting that MOST literature classes are teaching students to make unsupported assertions?

The problem enters when you have people who state absolutes about such analysis, which is what I dealt with in both high school and college (film elective and science fiction prose elective).

Who were the people, in this case? Enthusiastic but ignorant undergrads?

What kind of analysis? A single sentence taken out of context obviously is really hard to analyze meaningfully. But that's not how literary analysis is generally done. We can speculate that blue used in a story might be intended to imply "feeling blue" emotionally, but practically no one is going to assert it confidently without substantial greater contextual support.

The bolded words are the keys. It's all speculation of what something might mean. But it assumes those details have meaning in the first place, which the most likely don't. It also assumes those meanings are important, which they most likely aren't. That's the problem. You're assuming something is there to find, then...as if by magic...finding it.

It's weird that you wrote this reply to me asserting that I'm assuming things, while quoting me explicitly saying that it's a speculation and at best MIGHT be true, until and unless the theory can be supported with greater evidence. I ain't assuming naughty word.

I take it you haven't actually been to a college literature 101 class then. When teens almost straight out of high school learn they can just spin whatever kind of nonsense they like and get an A if they spin it well enough, they run with that. With all the confidence in the world.

Or, and pardon me if this is a really weird, bizarre possibility to raise, I have been and my teacher was better than that.