Novelist B.J. Hoff recently posted the following on her blog, Grace Notes:
I’ve also been asked about “symbolism” in my work, and while some may exist (there is always symbolism among the Irish, don’t you know?) I have to admit that it’s not my doing. To my knowledge, I’ve never intentionally tried to inject symbolism or deeper meanings into my fiction–and if I were to try, I’m fairly certain I’d make a royal mess of it. My standard reply is something to the effect of “it’s whatever you want it to be, whatever you understand it to be.” My preference is simply that readers read my work for story. And my own reading preference (in regard to fiction), is also to read for story. Not to interpret. Not to search for deeper meanings. Not to unearth examples of symbolism.
This need to interpret, to find different layers of meaning or symbolism in fiction seems to contend that the obvious has no significance, only what is veiled or hidden….
I couldn’t agree more. Heavy doses of symbolism in a novel always detract from rather than enhance my reading experience. I don’t enjoy it when an author digs her elbow into my ribs–Get it? See the significance? Did you catch my cleverness here? Didja?–and I don’t understand why an author would want to pull me out of a great story to marvel at her insight and subtlety. If she wants me to think she’s clever, all she has to do is take me for a thrilling ride. I won’t actually give her cleverness a thought until the ride’s over–but as soon as I do come back to myself, I’ll scramble to find more of her books.
B.J. Hoff continues:
…any deliberate effort on the part of a writer to inject meaning or significance or symbolism is not only futile, but manipulative as well.
Those efforts are futile. If a reader doesn’t catch the symbolism, what has been added to her reading experience? And if she does catch it, she’ll step outside of the story world to contemplate the construction of the novel. She might then resent the author’s heavy-handed attempt at Sending A Message, particularly if that message is political or religious in nature. (Those who know I write romance novels from a conservative Christian perspective might be itching to ask if I don’t try to “convert” my readers or teach spiritual lessons. The answer is an emphatic no. I just tell stories.)
A reader falls into a story when she has found meaning in it. But it’s her meaning, a personal interpretation of and reaction to the people and situations in the world of the story. She isn’t thinking about the author’s skill, but about herself–how she feels about what she’s reading. While she inhabits the story world, she is aware only that she is thoroughly entertained and perhaps deeply moved; she is unlikely to welcome any attempt by the author to pull her aside and teach her a lesson.
Once an author has written and published, her novel must be “finished” by readers. Whether a given book is good or bad is highly subjective; an author may believe she has produced a great story, but that’s not her call to make. It is the readers who will determine whether her book is good or bad. We all know that beautifully written novels (I’m talking about mechanics, not story) can fail to touch hearts, while those by less talented authors often shoot to the top of the bestseller lists. That’s because for the vast majority of readers, a gripping story trumps everything. Clever dialogue, evocative descriptions, and splendid characterization are wonderful additions but not necessary. (Anyone who doesn’t believe that has never read The DaVinci Code.)
How do you feel about the use of symbolism in romance novels? Can you spot it when an author has attempted to “deepen” a story through the use of symbolism? Do those hidden messages tend to enhance your reading experience, leave you feeling manipulated, or affect you not at all?
Gah, it’s like school all over again: “Okay, class, find the hidden symbolism! On your mark, get set, go!” I asked, after one particularly obscure search, how anyone knew what symbolism the long-dead author had intended. I was, of course, reprimanded for my impertinence.
I find it fascinating that those searches remain part of the reading habits of some people. I couldn’t wait to get away from the scholarly assessment, which, to me, sucked the life out of the story. (Not to mention, in school, you MUST interpret meaning the way they do. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of “interpretation”?)
I read for fun, which for me doesn’t involve evaluating every word for hidden meaning and critiquing the technicalities of the writing. I almost pity those who can’t get beyond the first page of a story because they’re so offended by the use of an adverb (or whatever) that they can’t embrace the story.
by Kerry Allen January 23rd, 2008 at 7:44 am~Once an author has written and published, her novel must be “finished” by readers. ~
I really love this sentence, and this sentiment.
by Nora Roberts January 23rd, 2008 at 8:59 amI’m just a simple gal (no wise cracks, please).
Authors can try to inject symbolism into their books all they want. I likely won’t “get” it.
Heck, I’m the person who listened to the director’s commentary of The Sixth Sense and hadn’t even noticed he used red. LOL
That said, I do like novels with morals or at least the old “good triumphs over evil.” Give me a fairy tale for my pleasure read.
by Kimber Chin January 23rd, 2008 at 9:22 am“…beautifully written novels can fail to touch hearts…” Amen to that.
I’ve always preferred reading for the story; hang that “The turtle crossing the highway represents the struggle of the Joad family” stuff. But thanks to all that English major training of mine, I can pick out symbolism a mile away. It depends on the story itself whether or not I’ll like having the symbols and hidden meaning there. If it throws me out of the story, that stinks. If it adds an edge, great!
by Elizabeth K January 23rd, 2008 at 9:26 amI am reminded of having a discussion in a film class right after Rodriguez came out with the first film, El Mariachi, and film students everywhere were dissecting the deeper meaning of why there was a dog in certain scenes. After hearing a few deeply profound theories, Rodriguez was purported to have laughed and explained that the dog was a stray and they didn’t have the budget to have someone look after him and keep him out of the shot.
If we’re lucky, we tell a compelling story that the reader can’t put down. If we’re really lucky, something about that story sticks with the reader for a while. It might happen to have had some deeper meaning, but it isn’t going to mean the same thing to everyone, since we can’t all have identical points of reference.
~Once an author has written and published, her novel must be “finished” by readers. ~
Perfect statement.
by toni January 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 amI don’ t really think you can get away from symbolism that easily. If you write about “falling” in love or a character who has a “broken” heart, you’re using metaphor. A road romance is automatically going to have the idea of travel to reach a specific aim, so there’s a link there to the idea of the quest. Kimber Chin said “Give me a fairy tale for my pleasure read,” and lots of romances do have an underlying Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast theme.
I don’t think it’s a case of “contend[ing] that the obvious has no significance, only what is veiled or hidden.” A rose is a pretty flower with a nice smell. But give someone a red rose on Valentine’s Day and they’ll think you mean something by it. It has symbolism. When authors are told to “show, don’t tell”, most of the time the way they “show” is through actions which have a deeper symbolism. Jenny Crusie gives the example of a character who makes sure that the woman he loves has something to eat. It’s not just because he thinks she needs the calories. Food can symbolise nurture and love, food for the soul as well as the body.
Of course, sometimes people just walk through a door, and it’s a door, not a symbol of their liminal state and impending transition into adulthood etc. But a bride being carried across a threshold does have a clear symbolism (she’s literally entering a house but also symbolically entering into a marriage).
The fact is that authors don’t write about every single detail of a character’s life. You choose the details that count, the details that, deep down, resonate with the reader because they mean something. We know, for example, that a house can just be a house. But sometimes, “home is where the heart is.”
You may well not be choosing these symbolisms deliberately, and I can see that someone who’s obsessed with getting symbolism into everything could end up writing allegory rather than a fun, exciting story, but all the same, I think symbolism tends to come through subconsciously, and readers respond to it emotionally, even if they also don’t sit around analysing it.
by Laura Vivanco January 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 amI think it’s important to distinguish here between symbolism — which I agree tends to feel like the author waving a spoon in the air while making googly eyes at you and saying “look at the de airplane. Don’t you want de airplane? Open up and it’ll land in your mouth!” — and the potential resonance of underlying themes for individual readers — which is part and parcel of the reader “finishing” the book.
I think you’re talking about symbolism in this post, and not underlying themes. Am I right? Because as a reader, I am inclined to finish a book if the story carries me through it so well that I can’t put it down, and if I don’t think the author is treating me like I’m stupid. However, I’m more inclined to re-read it if I can’t stop thinking about some aspect of it once I’m done.
For example: I couldn’t stop thinking about the fine line distinctions between romance and stalking in Jenny Crusie’s Crazy for You. I reread Nora Roberts’ books for their insights into families and for the ways her depictions of art / artists strike me as true. I reread Emma Bull and Stephen Brust’s Freedom and Necessity every year for the ways it catalyzes me to think about life and politics and love within families as well as for partners.
I personally enjoy it when books feel in retrospect as though they were also the author’s answer to a question or exploration of a topic. “In retrospect” and “also” being the key words. The story is the thing, and if it’s not good enough I won’t finish the book, much less go back to it. But if the story is amazing and fun or thrilling or entertaining on the first read, I like the added layer of “and it made me think about …” It doesn’t have to be an intentional layer for me to feel like it’s something the author did well. It just feels like a really good partnership where we both (author and reader) brought something to the table.
Just my $.02.
by Shannan Palma January 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 amI agree I don’t like novels to preach at me, but I don’t think that’s the same as symbolism, per se.
by Jess January 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 amWell, I actually like symbolism in a story. I think as a reader I instinctively look for it as a way to find a deeper meaning. As a writer I also incorporate it instinctively, and it doesn’t emerge sometimes until I’m finished the novel.
What I *don’t* like is obvious symbolism which makes you feel like the author thinks you’re stupid and might not get it unless it’s in blazing red letters on every page. Symbolism, IMO, by its very nature should be subtle, so subtle that perhaps you even wonder if it’s intentional and even then the meaning isn’t totally obvious.
One of my favorite novels is Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro (remember the film with Anthony Hopkins?) and at the end a bird has become trapped in the house and he is trying to let it go. The film ends with him watching the bird fly away. There’s symbolism there, yes, but what does it mean? Is he the bird? Is he free or is he still trapped? I had some rousing discussions about it and no one seemed to agree… symbolism of the best kind
!
by Kate Hewitt January 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 amThank you, Brenda–I’m glad you liked the entry.
And by the way, you made several observations in your own post here that deserve careful consideration. Not the least of which is this one: “for the vast majority of readers, a gripping story trumps everything.”
A good mantra to print out and hang over the computer!
BJ
by BJ Hoff January 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 am[...] posted a rather lengthy comment to a post on symbolism in romance novels over at Romancing the Blog, today. Perhaps it’s time to confess that I was a huge romance reader growing up, and still [...]
by Time for a romance confession | Foul Papers January 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 amI think symbolism tends to come through subconsciously, and readers respond to it emotionally, even if they also don’t sit around analysing it.
Exactly, Laura. What I’m talking about here is the intentional inclusion of symbolism in the hope that it will add importance to the story. I don’t see how a writer can avoid symbolism or why she should even try. But going out of her way to add it to a story for the sake of profundity risks limiting readers’ enjoyment of the novel.
I think you’re talking about symbolism in this post, and not underlying themes. Am I right?
Right, Shannan.
And B.J., it’s nice to see you over here.
by Brenda Coulter January 23rd, 2008 at 10:45 amYes, I loooove Symbolism in stories. The thing is it should not be obvious, or it loses it’s power. I have no doubt everyone here who says they hate symbolism have been mesmerized by it unaware.
by Kimber An January 23rd, 2008 at 11:47 amI love symbolism, I love using symbolism, and I love reading symbolism.
I would much rather read, “She looked at him and reached out for the apple,” than “She knew this new knowledge he was giving her would destroy her innocence and her world.”
To me, the latter is the heavy handed approach to getting the reader to see what you mean.
There’s a difference though, if I do make something intentionally symbolic, it is because that imagery rings vibrantly for me. I get it, if no one else does, that’s okay. The rest of the book should carry them along just fine.
I fear that part of the reason that romance novel prose is so maligned by the literary world at large is that there seems to be a bitterness toward using literary devices in writing from our writers. I think that is sad. They are all just tools to get your point across. Symbolism included.
Use the tools, or don’t. But don’t get all huffy about them. They are just tools. In the end, you are right. Story is King.
Use the tools that work for you to tell the story in the best way you can.
by Chessie January 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 amgoing out of her way to add it to a story for the sake of profundity risks limiting readers’ enjoyment of the novel
I think we need to separate out the different parts of this statement.
The first is “risks limiting readers’ enjoyment of the novel.” Jenny Crusie (since I started by mentioning her I may as well continue
) has quite deliberate symbolism in Welcome to Temptation. A title like that’s hardly subtle, is it? And then you have the phallic watertower. The whole town can spot the symbolism in that, and it’s an important part of the plot precisely because everyone can, quite literally, spot the symbolism a mile off. However, a lot of people think that this is a hilariously funny novel. Symbolism doesn’t have to be unemotional and unfunny. It can deepen emotion and/or be funny, and there’s no reason why an author can’t put it in deliberately, or notice it when, through subconscious processes, it appears in the first draft and then emphasise it. Far from limiting the readers’ enjoyment, it can enhance it. But only if it’s done well.
So that takes us to the phrase “for the sake of profundity.” Put alongside this sentence
We all know that beautifully written novels (I’m talking about mechanics, not story) can fail to touch hearts, while those by less talented authors often shoot to the top of the bestseller lists. That’s because for the vast majority of readers, a gripping story trumps everything.
and I think what we’re looking at is a division along genre lines. Some people enjoy reading books which are carefully written with the intention of being profound. These readers want to spend time pondering the meaning of the symbolism etc. But in general if someone’s looking for that sort of a read, they won’t pick up a hot romance, or a blockbuster adventure story. They’ll probably look for a novel which explicitly (via its cover-art, title, subject matter and genre) promises the reader that it is a “profound” book.
The thing is, though, that a lot of romances can be read on lots of different levels, so they can please both the person who wants a “gripping story” and the person who wants to think about the symbolism or the nature of love or other profound topics. And done well, the symbolism could be put in deliberately. But in a romance it has to be done carefully, so that the symbolism/motifs etc don’t detract from the central love story. A romance won’t work as a romance just by being beautifully written and intellectually profound. It has to have a great storyline, be emotionally moving, and it can also be profound and beautifully written. That’s why writing a really, really good romance, which works on all those different levels, is so very hard to do.
I’m not denigrating novels which only work on one level, because getting a novel to work really well on even one level is difficult. I certainly can’t do it. I’m just expressing my admiration for authors who manage to do even more.
by Laura Vivanco January 23rd, 2008 at 11:54 amSuzanne Brockmann has very heavy political messages in her novels. I happen to agree with them, so I don’t have a problem reading her books. But having her characters make statements about terrorism or torture or homosexuality is not symbolism. It’s not even theme. The theme of All Through the Night might be that all love between consenting adults is equally beautiful, equally worthy, but that’s not the symbolism either. There is symbolism in the scenes in which Robin gets locked in the basement and locked in his bedroom and insists on finding his own way out when one considers it against his history of alcoholism and his battle with the closet of homosexuality. But it’s also just Robin getting locked in the basement and the bathroom. Symbolism doesn’t have to be heavy-handed. And I only just noticed, as I was typing this, the symbolism I mention here, but that doesn’t mean that I didn’t adore the novel before. Now it’s just that one layer richer for me the next time I go back and reread it.
Symbolism can be as basic as Jane Austen calling the Bennet’s house “Longbourn” and Emma’s house “Hartfield” and Mr. Knightley’s house “Donwell” Abbey. When it’s pointed out to my students, they go, “Ooooh!” but it doesn’t decrease their enjoyment of the novels not to have seen it themselves.
There’s layers and layers of symbolism all over Laura Kinsale’s novels, but that doesn’t make them any less of a rolicking good tale if you don’t catch it. And one couldn’t catch it all, probably including the author. As a reader, you catch what’s important to you. So I can go into how Ruck is Sir Gawain AND the Green Knight AND the embodiment of every chivalric romance hero, but I couldn’t really speak intelligently about the symbolism of Melanthe. I could if you gave me a while, but not immediately, because I’m much more interested in Ruck, and that’s okay.
Almost every one of Nora Roberts’ characters has an incredibly symbolic job that tells the reader a lot about who they are and why they’re that way, but the same could be true of real people, and, in another respect, it’s just what they do to earn money.
Theme does not equal message does not equal symbolism does not equal metaphor, although they might all overlap a lot. I think you’re throwing a lot of babies out here with the bath water of symbolism.
by Sarah S. G. Frantz January 23rd, 2008 at 12:18 pmI see I’m in the minority on this one. I love symbolism… Moby Dick, anyone?
I don’t think symbolism is something authors should avoid. Symbolism adds depth, which I almost always take as a good thing. For the reader questions mentioned in the post, I think it’s good that the reader is trying to interpret the meaning of the story, of the characters…don’t take it as an insult, be flattered that the reader sees something more than you originally intended! As authors, we are trying to tell our reader something (that’s why we’re writing the story in the first place, right?) and we shouldn’t try to get away from that. Then again, the level of symbolism will vary depending on the audience. For instance, a typical romance may not have as much as women’s fiction, which won’t have as much as literary fiction.
I suppose I’m not understanding the problem with symbolism in a story. Romance is all about symbolism, if you ask me. For instance, it’s not enough for a man to just hand you a bunch of flowers, there has to be some sort of meaning behind it. It’s the same thing with underlying themes, and the bird example from a comment above.
I think the real problem comes from poor writing and novice authors, who don’t know how to make the symbolism subtle and imperative to the story at the same time. Don’t knock the symbolism, embrace it!
by Belinda January 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pmI think what we’re looking at is a division along genre lines. Some people enjoy reading books which are carefully written with the intention of being profound. These readers want to spend time pondering the meaning of the symbolism etc. But in general if someone’s looking for that sort of a read, they won’t pick up a hot romance, or a blockbuster adventure story. They’ll probably look for a novel which explicitly (via its cover-art, title, subject matter and genre) promises the reader that it is a “profound” book.
Very true, Laura. I didn’t spell that out in my post, but we’re all romance readers here.
You mentioned Jennifer Crusie, so I’ll comment on her work. Several of her books (most notably, Bet Me) have found places on my keeper shelf, which includes fewer than two dozen romance novels. Yet Jenny loses me when she starts tossing symbols onto every page. That’s what prevented me from fully enjoying Temptation. The constant references to the phallic-shaped water tower, for example, got annoying fast. But of course I realize others feel differently. That’s why I tossed this question out for discussion.
[Sarah wrote] Theme does not equal message does not equal symbolism does not equal metaphor, although they might all overlap a lot. I think you’re throwing a lot of babies out here with the bath water of symbolism.
Perhaps.
by Brenda Coulter January 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pmBet Me’s full of symbolism, though. Just think about the meaning of the snow globes, for example. There’s the “copulatory gaze” over shared food (and those shared food moments get very sexy). And there are constant fairy tale references: a magic cat, a lost shoe, a fairy godmother, finding one’s prince.
by Laura Vivanco January 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pmI agree that a story trumps all. People think I’m unsophisticated when I say, I read for plot. I really do. Sure, lovely characterization, and beautiful scenery are wonderful, but only if the story is good. For me, the author that does all that is Barbara Delinksy. Whom I loved in category and love in single title. But I don’t *need* that in every book. It really just comes down to a riveting story.
by Jessica January 23rd, 2008 at 2:04 pmI do give authors credit who can successfully inject symbolism into their stories without it seeming like [Note to readers: Please see symbolism in the follwoing paragraph.]
My brain would melt if I had to do it deliberately though. I’m just not that clever. I have found symbolism in my own stories, only after I’ve written them and thought, ‘Wow! How cool is that?’ but I’ve never actually tried to make it happen.
by Bernadette Gardner January 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pmSymbolism is what compels me to re-read books. I enjoy books with good stories, but it’s the subtleties, details, and symbolism, that make me want to go back and read ‘em again.
A good example is “The Garden Spell” by Sarah Allen. The book is chock-full of symbolism (as well as having a good story). During the second reading I paid more attention to the symbolism and undercurrents that I missed the first time around. This is a book that I’ll enjoy every time I read it and that has stuck with me over several months because the symbolism got me thinking beyond just the plot question of “what will happen next?”. It’s also a book I frequently recommend and have lent to three girlfriends.
by MplsGirl January 23rd, 2008 at 3:07 pm[...] not a sophisticated reader. I read volume, not necessarily quality. I don’t want tons of symbolism, endless description, or intrusive themes, UNLESS, there is a [...]
by I read for plot « Pennermag.com January 23rd, 2008 at 3:13 pmI think that anytime an author injects anything “purposeful” into her story, it sticks out like a throbbing red thumb. I have had themes or issues play into my books, like dolphins in captivity, autism, and people who try to bang their religious beliefs over our heads like a mallet. But I’ve never said, “I have a message to get out there.” It’s always natural to the story, or more specifically, to the characters. Sometimes it is something near and dear to me, and my issue morphs into my character, but it’s never a conscious thing.
As for symbolism, it’s literary high-mindedness to wedge something in for the sake of wedging it in. I agree, take me for a ride, entertain me, make me laugh and cry, but don’t preach or manipulate.
Cheers,
by Tina Wainscott January 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pmTina
Theme does not equal message does not equal symbolism does not equal metaphor, although they might all overlap a lot. I think you’re throwing a lot of babies out here with the bath water of symbolism./
Ahh, that was what I was trying to say, only phrased much better. Thanks, Sarah.
by Jess January 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pmI think readers find deeper meanings in some novels than the author intended. And that’s fine. I read romance, fantasy and some mystery work because I want a good story. I select my movies the same way. If I want deep symbolism, I’ll borrow my children’s high school or college literature books and read a dry story that reflects the deeper issues of a perverted society and the failure of the family, blah, blah and written by an author in the 1800’s who was an alcoholic, came from a rich family(who supported him because writers made less then than now) and actually knew nothing about the world he was writing about. Yes, I have some issues with some of the required reading material in school literature classes.
by Susan Kelley January 23rd, 2008 at 9:57 pmSo give me my wonderful romance story like the hundreds of books on my shelves and keep entertaining me.
I very much enjoyed reading this post and the comments. I love to read – and do, just about everything but technical manuals. For me, it’s a story’s exciting ride, either through characterization or plot, that catches me, but the other literary elements such as said symbolism that keep me. Bring me back to the same story again and again. Which is why To Kill a Mockingbird and The Great Gatsby are two of my favorite books, but are NOT written by my favorite authors – who all happen to be romance authors. (Except for Shakespeare – but I have an on-again, off-again thing with the Bard which wholly depends on my willingness on any given day to swim through those depths.)
I truly believe that symbolism is important, in literature, in our cultures, in our ability to connect our lives to things larger than ourselves. However, the use of symbolism or lack of its use does not make or break a story - unless it’s “forced” which has been well discussed here. I believe that readers, simply by being human, complex and the “finishers” of the story, require more from a story than literary devices and intellectual artifices.
by Eve Jameson January 24th, 2008 at 12:44 am[...] or just madness? There’s a great discussion going on over at Romancing the Blog about symbolism and it got me thinking about why I write. To entertain? To get across a message? To [...]
by Method or just madness? « Eve Jameson January 24th, 2008 at 1:27 amWow so many different thoughts here. There are alot of things I get from reading though entertainment is primary it is my time to relax. That said the books that move me the most by challenging me and bringing up questions or ideas for me to chew on after reading as well as by literally moving me emotionally through their use of language and characters become my favorites and those that may someday when I find myself scrambling for something to read (hopefully never!) get reread.
So yes things such as theme, symbolism, deeper messages in the story I find appealing and draw me to a story however those things can be either overdone or poorly used and that defeats the purpose of writing in the first place. When these things flow naturally and just sort of fall into my lap as I read a book without disrupting the flow of plot and thoughts in the story they enrich it. When they are forced, contrived as some might put it then they become an obstacle to reading and the story itself.
Having talked to authors and read many books I would say let the story come as it will, the characters do their thing and get it all down on paper. The other things will just happen as the story is written if they are meant to.
Melissa
by ForstRose January 24th, 2008 at 2:01 am“If she wants me to think she’s clever, all she has to do is take me for a thrilling ride.”
Isn’t that the truth! I couldn’t agree more…that would be my highest praise for a fiction writer.
I don’t mind a bit of symbolism in fiction, as long as it’s not heavyhanded. But it certainly isn’t a requirement for me.
For me, it’s all about the story. Is it making me turn the pages? Can I not wait to get my work done so I can delve back in? Am I taking it into the bathtub because I simply can’t stop reading it? There you go!
Excellent post, Brenda.
by Cindy Swanson January 25th, 2008 at 11:03 amOkay, I find I have to say something here. If I’ve misunderstood, just slap my hand and ignore me.
It seems odd to me to talk about what is ‘necessary’ or ‘unnecessary’ in art — and storytelling is an art, on the page or screen. You might claim that the Baroque architects didn’t need all those angels and curlicues and gilding, it wasn’t necessary. And of course it wasn’t. A church would be a church without all that. But those elements were crucial to that particular artistic vision. It’s not my taste, but I wouldn’t call it unnecessary. Dickens told a tremendously evocative story, but everything was inches deep in description. Was that unnecessary? Not to him. Not to the readers of his time. Not to many readers today who really like the carefully constructed Victorian world he gives them. I have heard people say that profanity is unnecessary in modern film or music, but what that really means is that they are offended by it. For some writers, the profanity is an essential part of the scene they are trying to set and the characters they are following around through the plot.
To each his or her own, of course. Always. I don’t have to like the Baroque or minimalism or rap music. But those choices say more about me than they do about the things I reject.
by Rosina Lippi January 26th, 2008 at 9:53 pmI think the comment meant it wasn’t necessary for most readers who care most about the story, not that it wasn’t necessary in art/storytelling in general.
To me, if done well, symbolism is like the frosting on the cake–it’s still cake, but now it’s really tasty.
Kate
by Kate Hewitt January 26th, 2008 at 11:52 pm