# About interpretation



## M. LeRenard (Aug 18, 2013)

Cross-posted from Weasyl.

One of the things that tends to bother me the most about modern literary fiction (as with modern art) is the overabundance of vagueness, the heavy, heavy reliance on symbolism and whispy language. There is absolutely a lot of merit in using such techniques; no one appreciates being lectured on a particular subject, and so a certain degree of ambiguity in a work's theme is required in order to make it impactful. But it seems like a lot of time authors take it way too far, to the point that the message is so wholly buried in the vagaries of the work's construction that it's impossible to find, or worse yet, the author didn't even bother putting a message in there at all. Now, stories without a message are great, but the kind of 'stories' I have a problem with are those that do this and otherwise have no plot and no characters to speak of (only simple constructs to act as representations of something). This seems to relegate such works to nothing more than a curiosity, a puzzle that may be intellectually stimulating to try and solve but from which no truth can ever actually be derived, because the author never actually got around to putting one in. The modern art equivalent would be something like this; just pretty colors, supposedly representing some kind of raw emotion but otherwise thoughtless in design.

This seems to lead to countless essays or books or dissertations wherein people pick apart these works, grasp at any possible clue that might find to put together some kind of coherent message. The worst thing is when the authors of these deconstructions then go on to apply what they've learned to other, more clearly-written works (mostly older literature, i.e. Dickens, Flaubert, Dostoevski, etc.) and end up "discovering" new meanings that may or may not have actually been part of the author's original intent with the work. You'll note from the presence of such books as Family Guy and Philosophy (to give one of the more absurd examples) that this type of analysis can be applied to absolutely any work, no matter the author's original intent.


That's my opinion, anyway. What I'm wondering from the community is, what are your opinions on analyses like this? Does it matter if, when interpreting a work, most of what's gleaned ends up being a fabrication by the interpreter? Or maybe in simpler terms, what's the line between a useful truth and bullshit, or is there one? And do works that have no clear message and no clear story have a purpose other than mild mental stimulation? Is it lazy for the author to write something that's meant only to spark discussion about what it could mean?


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2013)

Pretty colours, if pretty are still worthwhile in my view, although false representation- the allusion to having a masterplan when really there isn't one is something I find deeply irritating because it is a pretense. 

I think one of my old art teachers is a good example; here's a quotation from his website.

_"What it is, I think the reason I do this - make paintings, film projects, write stuff - I think the reason I do this is to try and Make Things Make Sense. I like to seek, or rather, I like to find - no, probably not even find, but to construct Meanings, through Connection and Association.

I call it: The Urge to Make things Make Sense.

And I have come to realise too, that it is the Urge (which is great), rather than the Sense (which is minimal), which, in the end, makes things make sense."

_Pieces which deliberately hint at a hidden meaning which is actually absent just invite a confirmation bias in my view, and some artistic skepticism would be nice now and again.
One of the claims artists who do this often make is that their real intention is to make people wonder and think of creative ideas, but this is often a rather stinky pretense in my view and it rather patronises the viewer too. 
A simple metaphor might remind these artists of the function they wish to undertake; every pearl is built around a speck of irritating grit.


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 18, 2013)

This reminds me of what Doug Walker was talking about in one of his Nostalgia Critic Top 10's (I think it was worst movies he's ever done, but this was before he started a new season of NC) where he's talking about The Cell and how he just felt like the director was trying to say "ASK ME WHAT IT MEAAAAANS!" 

Anyways, I've actually not noticed this trend, but then again, the most recent story I've read aside from the one in my signature was a Redwall novel, and thankfully Mr. Jacques isn't into that vague symbolism game. 

The thing is, people are always going to interpret things one way or another, sometimes different from how the writer orignally intended it. One example is the song "Alive" by Pearl Jam, where if you read the lyrics is actually quite a disturbing song. But some people take a different meaning from it because in the song the singer mentions about how "[They're] still alive", so fans kinda took it in as yes crap had happened in his life, but at least he was alive still. And then also just look up any given song on Lyrics Meaning and see the various meanings people come up with for songs. 

Though I do think people go too far with it. A good example for LeRenard's "People always trying to find meaning" is "The Red Wheelbarrow" (Or XXII as it originally was called, since it was the 23rd poem in a book): 

so much depends upon/ a red wheel barrow/ glazed with rain water, beside the white chickens. 

According to an English class I took in college, it seems like there's a big audience that tries to discover some kind of hidden meaning -- some even going so far as to say if you tilt whatever book the poem appears in that at a certain angle the stanzas form a wheelbarrow (Really?!).



Fallowfox said:


> One of the claims artists who do this often make is that their real intention is to make people wonder and think of creative ideas, but this is often a rather stinky pretense in my view and it rather patronises the viewer too.
> A simple metaphor might remind these artists of the function they wish to undertake; every pearl is built around a speck of irritating grit.


I feel that to make people wonder and think you've to do more than just hint at some meaning. You've got to inspire them, reach them, hit them with some kind of meaning. How can you do that if you leave people with a jumbled up mess where they're going to spend half the time thinking about your piece thinking about what the heck it means? I mean I've had my fair share of lyrics that made no sense to me, but that's probably because I lack a larger vocabulary and knowledge of various events and affairs and things that are sometimes referenced in music. But even once I learn those words or events I'm able to crack a meaning from it.


----------



## Conker (Aug 18, 2013)

I've always been under the guise that "authorial intent is meaningless" and there's some kind of fallacy about that. 

As to the bulk of your post: I find that there's a certain fun in trying to deconstruct a work or analyses a work for meaning, even if it isn't really there. it's a different way of thinking, and a favorite book or movie or show can become a puzzle for the simple sake of pretentiousness. 

I mean, I've put more thought than needed into the world of Equestria because I find that to be a fun way to enjoy the show. Clearly, the show wasn't made to be analyzed in such a way (it was made to sell toys).

I've been tempted to write a short essay on a metal song to see if I can prove it's about Dante's Inferno, even though I"m almost positive it isn't. But language is fun to play around with, and I learned how to bullshit in college. 

The last books I read were Pullman's Dark Materials, but the meaning behind those novels was pretty damn clear. Before that, I read some Stephen King books, and those had some meaning to them if you dug for it, but I was mostly enjoying the plots and the characters. 

I guess I haven't read anything that was purposefully pretentious in awhile, and that's mostly becuase those books are usually boring and heavy handed.


----------



## Aleu (Aug 18, 2013)

If a book of fiction has no plot then generally I won't read it. I don't think I've read a book where it was up to the reader to determine the meaning. Maybe for the ending like _The Giver_ but that's about it.

I guess I'm just so picky with books that I've picked the ones that don't have any of this. I do know of one with symbolism out the wazoo but it's not reliant on it. If you didn't understand the references or symbolism then it'd still be a good story. If you did catch on to it then it makes you go "oh I see what you did there" a lot of the time.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2013)

Has anybody watched the film 'cloud atlas'?


----------



## Friday (Aug 18, 2013)

I think that if you're still left guessing about what your interpretation of the piece actually means after you've come up with something, then it's not a good piece.

For example (using a video game), Braid is a fantastic example of interpretation done right. The story, on its surface, is about a man, Tim, searching for and attempting to rescue 'His Princess.' It's a pretty standard story, right? Well, at the end, things get weird. SPOILERS: While it at first appears to be that story, upon closer inspection you realize Tim is in fact a scientist and 'His Princess' is the atomic bomb. It's very clear once you realize this, but the meaning is carefully hinted at. Once found, the metaphor is very explicit, but you could easily miss it for the story presented.

END SPOILERS

That's vagueness done right. Anything else is just colors and not art, to extend your example. A narrative, not a story.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 18, 2013)

Conker said:
			
		

> As to the bulk of your post: I find that there's a certain fun in trying to deconstruct a work or analyses a work for meaning, even if it isn't really there. it's a different way of thinking, and a favorite book or movie or show can become a puzzle for the simple sake of pretentiousness.


Sure... it is fun.  I'm just wondering if there's any point to it aside from that.  I mean, some people make careers out of such enterprises, and they take themselves and their analyses very seriously.



			
				Nikolinni said:
			
		

> This reminds me of what Doug Walker was talking about in one of his Nostalgia Critic Top 10's (I think it was worst movies he's ever done, but this was before he started a new season of NC) where he's talking about The Cell and how he just felt like the director was trying to say "ASK ME WHAT IT MEAAAAANS!"


I have no great respect for Doug Walker, but there certainly do seem to exist pieces out there like this.  So what do you think?  Is it lazy?  Isn't most of the work that goes into such a piece the construction of a subtle and potent message?  It strikes me as one of those famous human shortcuts, like when the Buddhist guy decided you could achieve Nirvana just by saying this many prayers this many times or walking around this sacred mountain so many times.  Don't bother putting the message in; just let the reader decide what it means to _him_.  This strikes me as the epitome of bullshit, because I could go find some meaning in a tree outside right now if I wanted to, and I wouldn't have to spend $25 and 14 hours of time reading to do it.


----------



## Conker (Aug 18, 2013)

M. LeRenard said:


> Sure... it is fun.  I'm just wondering if there's any point to it aside from that.  I mean, some people make careers out of such enterprises, and they take themselves and their analyses very seriously.


Hmm. 

Well, I've always been under the assumption that to truly appreciate art, you should give it its due and study it a bit. Think about it, write about it. Something of that sort. 

And there's value to discussion. When I finished _Paradise Lost, _I went on the Internet and looked at scholarly articles about it just to see what others thought. 

But then, _Paradise Lost_ is actually a deep work and worth looking at, and you seem to be talking about new age shit that tries to be deep for the sake of it. Not sure I've read any of that though. And school was all about the old Literature and not whatever's new. 

I guess the first example of something recent that comes to mind is _Prometheus_, and maybe that kind of fits the bill, though I loved that movie for how it made me think. Even wrote a lengthy essay on what I thought the movie meant (in terms of _Alien_ canon), but there are tons of people who saw that movie and thought Lindeloff and Ridley had their heads up their asses and wanted people to ask them what the movie meant so they could not answer the question.


----------



## Fallowfox (Aug 18, 2013)

Conker said:


> Hmm.
> 
> Well, I've always been under the assumption that to truly appreciate art, you should give it its due and study it a bit. Think about it, write about it. Something of that sort.
> 
> ...



The only thing I got from Prometheus was that it was a science fiction version of the question 'What if Creationism is true?'


----------



## Nikolinni (Aug 18, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The only thing I got from Prometheus was that it was a science fiction version of the question 'What if Creationism is true?'



Pretty much. But even then, I'd think that we'd have to evolve or something from what the Space Jockeys had left. Whereas with God he kinda just formed us into existence Ixidor style (Magic the Gathering Reference). 

And the only thing I got from it...well it was an okay movie. But I still kinda agree on some of the things Spoony said about it.


----------



## Conker (Aug 18, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> The only thing I got from Prometheus was that it was a science fiction version of the question 'What if Creationism is true?'


I was looking at it from a slightly different route. The whole symbolism of the Xeno vs the Space Jockey and what each represent. 

Plus the mental gymnastics needed so the black goo makes sense and isn't a plot device.

Fuck do I love that movie.


----------

