Hey, Literature Majors...some help here?

[Andrew Breecher]

In my critical reasoning class, the prof has something he calls "The Method" for analyzing a text, part of which involves counting how many time words are used in a text

What an amazing way to take a great work of literature and reduce it to nonsensical numbers!

;)

Seriously, though, I have a feeling if most authors knew how their texts were picked apart in classes they'd roll over in their graves and say, "I just liked the way that sounded," or "I don't know what I was thinking, I just wrote it and it turned out well." Don't get me wrong, I love literature, and I love how it makes me feel, but there's such a thing as overanalysis. It's only literature. It's made to be enjoyed, not tedium.

Andrew.

[Nick]

What an amazing way to take a great work of literature and reduce it to nonsensical numbers!

But...but...didn't you know numerical quantification is the only way to tell if something has any merit or value????

Nick -with tounge firmly in cheek.

[davedove]

What an amazing way to take a great work of literature and reduce it to nonsensical numbers!

;)

Seriously, though, I have a feeling if most authors knew how their texts were picked apart in classes they'd roll over in their graves and say, "I just liked the way that sounded," or "I don't know what I was thinking, I just wrote it and it turned out well." Don't get me wrong, I love literature, and I love how it makes me feel, but there's such a thing as overanalysis. It's only literature. It's made to be enjoyed, not tedium.

Andrew.

I always thought it rather arrogant for people to analyze writings and discuss how the author meant this or that. My thought was always "Did you ask him?" or "How do you know he wasn't drunk or stoned when he wrote that?", especially when you're talking about authors from three or four hundred years ago.

There's a place for the literature analysts in the world, but for most people it's completely unnecessary. Just enjoy the work.

But, I guess if it weren't for classroom analysis, a lot of professors would have to find a new line of work.:rolleyes:

[Prester John]

Sounds like a poor method to me. I'm a Lit major and I NEVER heard of this method for interpretation, outside of specific studies in Scripture, and even those only bolster other methods and observations.

Sorry, I can't help more than that...as if that is any help! I know, I know.... :confused:

[Iolaus]

What an amazing way to take a great work of literature and reduce it to nonsensical numbers!

;)

Seriously, though, I have a feeling if most authors knew how their texts were picked apart in classes they'd roll over in their graves and say, "I just liked the way that sounded," or "I don't know what I was thinking, I just wrote it and it turned out well." Don't get me wrong, I love literature, and I love how it makes me feel, but there's such a thing as overanalysis. It's only literature. It's made to be enjoyed, not tedium.

Andrew.

The majority of the popular literature people read is exactly that - a good story. Some stuff actually is written to make a point, and the better writers use analogies and metaphores to make their point emotionally and subliminally as well as using the direct approach. That's the stuff we're supposed to be analyzing.

[ronstew]

And yet, my last English prof told me that the symbolism that I interpret is the symbolism that matters. That is, what the author intended is not as important as what I think the author intended.

My last English prof was full of something.

[davedove]

And yet, my last English prof told me that the symbolism that I interpret is the symbolism that matters. That is, what the author intended is not as important as what I think the author intended.

My last English prof was full of something.

Well, the best stories can be read by different people and they will each get something different from them. That's great, just don't claim that your own interpretation is what the author intended.

[Iolaus]

And yet, my last English prof told me that the symbolism that I interpret is the symbolism that matters. That is, what the author intended is not as important as what I think the author intended.

My last English prof was full of something.

Yeah, I think that's their catch-all excuse for having created the "interpretation monster" in the first place; that way, they can justify liking something that everyone else thinks is crap, by saying "Everyone gets something different out of it."

Seriously though, I think this class isn't about interpreting specific works, so much as learning how to read a text in detail, to train us to be aware of these things like repetition and contrasts, not having to do the rigorous dissection I'm doing now, but to let the stuff register in our brains as we read, rather than just skiming the surface and judging the work on first impressions.

[Andrew Breecher]

All right, I'd love to use this method to "analyse" David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest - half of which is endnotes (some entire chapters are endnotes, and some endnotes have footnotes).

Since writing that novel, Wallace has consistently used end/foot notes in all of his writing, both fiction and non-fiction. When asked in an interview why he chose to use that particular device ad nauseam, he replied that he'd just discovered the endnote function in Microsoft Word and started playing with it.

And yet, in a literature class, one might start to ascribe "real" meaning to his use of endnotes. (In retrospect, after having re-read this 1,000-page novel several times, there is some purposeful use to the endnotes: any of the chapters or long passages of text are flashback sequences.)

Andrew.