Comments on: Clanging symbols

By: Kate Hewitt

Kate Hewitt — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:52:03 +0000

I 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: Rosina Lippi

Rosina Lippi — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 01:53:56 +0000

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.

Okay, 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: Cindy Swanson

Cindy Swanson — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:03:58 +0000

“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: ForstRose

ForstRose — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:01:47 +0000

Wow 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: Method or just madness? « Eve Jameson

Method or just madness? « Eve Jameson — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:27:31 +0000

[...] 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: Eve Jameson

Eve Jameson — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:44:26 +0000

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: Susan Kelley

Susan Kelley — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:57:30 +0000

I 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.
So give me my wonderful romance story like the hundreds of books on my shelves and keep entertaining me.

By: Jess

Jess — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:35:33 +0000

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: Tina Wainscott

Tina Wainscott — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:41:43 +0000

I 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,
Tina

By: I read for plot « Pennermag.com

I read for plot « Pennermag.com — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:13:57 +0000

[...] 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 [...]