Famous authors on symbolism in their works

[Rigel]

Just found this article today, though it cites a student project from 1963. Still, the responses are interesting.

Basically, a student mailed a four part questionnaire to 150 working novelists, and got back quite a few answers. The questions were:

“Do you consciously, intentionally plan and place symbolism in your writing?… If yes, please state your method for doing so. Do you feel you sub-consciously place symbolism in your writing?”

“Do readers ever infer that there is symbolism in your writing where you had not intended it to be? If so, what is your feeling about this type of inference? (Humorous? annoying? etc.?)”

“Do you feel that the great writers of classics consciously, intentionally planned and placed symbols in their writing? … Do you feel that they placed it there sub-consciously?”

“Do you have anything to remark concerning the subject under study, or anything you believe to be pertinent to such a study?”




My favorite answer, written in response to the final question, was from Richard Hughes:
“Have you considered the extent to which subconscious symbol-making is part of the process of reading, quite distinct from its part in writing?”

Essentially, that meaning is inferred as well as implied

[[Syl]]

Interesting article, Rigel.

I found Ralph Ellison's answer the most helpful.

“Man is a symbol-making and –using animal. Language itself is a symbolic form of communication. The great writers all used symbols as a means of controlling the form of their fiction. Some place it there subconsciously, discovered it and then developed it. Others started out consciously aware and in some instances shaped the fiction to the symbols.”

Oh, and Rand is a dick. Surprise surprise.

We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges. When soldiers take their oath they are given a coin, an asimi stamped with the profile of the Autarch. Their acceptance of that coin is their acceptance of the special duties and burdens of military life—they are soldiers from that moment, though they may know nothing of the management of arms. I did not know that then, but it is a profound mistake to believe that we must know of such things to be influenced by them, and in fact to believe so is to believe in the most debased and superstitious kind of magic. The would-be sorcerer alone has faith in the efficacy of pure knowledge; rational people know that things act of themselves or not at all.

[aliantha]

Yup, good stuff, Rigel.

Having seen more than one author in a Q&A session answer a question about "when you wrote X, were you thinking in terms of Y?" with a surprised and/or thoughtful look...I really do think that most authors are simply out to tell a story, and if symbolism creeps in, then it's largely coming from their subconscious. If we agree that there are only so many plots out there (and we ought to, because it's true ), then what an author brings to the writing of a new book is himself/herself. Which is gonna entail sticking some subconscious stuff in there.

I also agree with Hughes. Which is why I have a problem with lit crit in general. If you want to disembowel a story, I suppose that's your right as a reader. But what's the purpose, other than as a mental exercise?

[Vraith]

On the first, Ali, sometimes I think I can feel if an author has started with the symbolism then made the story suit it [but I could be deluding myself on that].

[though I'm not at all sure it applies to poetry and short works and such at least in some cases...]

On the last...that's one reason I have to go fast, in huge chunks, on a first reading, to keep my brain "still" as much as possible.
But if I end up liking it, then the lit/crit ends up being fun...finding what things "could" mean. Then trying to figure out if they DO mean it.
I guess the first read is deer hunting...there's something going on just in the hunt. But then, if you get one, and don't gut, clean, and eat it it feels like a lot is wasted.

And, related to the original post [I might have posted this somewhere before...I don't know exactly how well I'm remembering this tale:] Apparently there's a Hitchcock scene with a car running over some wood on a road that's been analyzed to death [what the kind of car means, what the numbers on the plate stand for, the fact that pieces of wood were crossed, blah blah] like much Hitchcock is. A guy who worked on the film said they just grabbed the first car they could, they never even looked at the plate, and the wood was in the road cuz the wood was in the road.

[aliantha]

And, related to the original post [I might have posted this somewhere before...I don't know exactly how well I'm remembering this tale:] Apparently there's a Hitchcock scene with a car running over some wood on a road that's been analyzed to death [what the kind of car means, what the numbers on the plate stand for, the fact that pieces of wood were crossed, blah blah] like much Hitchcock is. A guy who worked on the film said they just grabbed the first car they could, they never even looked at the plate, and the wood was in the road cuz the wood was in the road.

See, that's what I'm saying. A lot of times the stuff that seems to be fraught with meaning is just, y'know, somebody taking advantage of what's there.