An Another Note Entirely

[aspectabund.livejournal.com]

Okay, this is slightly off-topic, but it's about books in general and and since this community is filled with librarians and lovers of books it's not far off. This is my excuse, and I am sticking with it.

So, I have a class last period called Literature Studies, henceforth to be referred to as Lit. Anyway, the theme's "literature of the disenfranchised," which is a lovely topic even though I can barely spell it and we have cool books and a nice teacher and all is well and good, etc. etc.

However, the other day we got into a discussion, the topic of which now eludes me and it isn't important anyway. But as we started with the delicate transition onto another subject of discussion, my teacher uttered this: "The plot of a book doesn't really matter to me. I can know the ending before I even start and I won't care. It's the symbols that matter, and the language used."

My reaction was to goggle at her. So what, she could have a lovely huge book filled with nice metaphors and alliteration and imagery and what have you and she would be happy for all eternity? I find this highly unlikely. I gave her the benefit of the doubt and decided that she was merely ignorant of her subconscious lust for plot, and remained silent until the conversation moved onto less troubling topics.

And then, just yesterday, I brought in my Octavian Nothing Vol. 1 book*, since it's about a black kid and his mother in the 1800's who are test subjects of white scholars in order to determine whether or not black and white people are in anyway equal, and certainly an example of a disenfranchised person. Since I adore it, I figured everyone else in the world would as well, including my teacher.** So I gave it to her for inspection, and she didn't even read the plot summary. She looked at the cover, and liked the fact that it had won awards, and that it had a serious but nifty cover. She concluded that she would read it, but in a couple of weeks when she had time. Yes, she is going to read it, but the only reason she is doing so is that it won prestigious awards and is therefore "literature or something like it."

If I could efficiently express tone of voice and facial expressions through the internet, I would probably sound and look like an exasperated, constipated hamster right now. Or like this: >8| You'd really have to see it for the full effect, though.

So my question is this: how can someone read a book and not care about the plot? Isn't this defeating the whole purpose of a word of fiction? What do symbols and metaphors matter if there's no context to put them in? How can a person so far detach themselves from a literary work that they feel nothing for the plot, the setting, the characters, but for the hidden meanings that they hold? I mean, yes, things hidden beneath the surface are fun to find and bring more meaning to a story, but aren't they just pretty things you pass by on the car ride? As in, you take notice of them and they enrich the storytelling experience, but aren't the whole thing? How could anyone read for any amount of time just looking at hidden meanings and ignoring what's on the surface, which is equally as important.

EDIT: Oh dear, I've gone and written something in a moment of enflamed passion and given the wrong idea out. XD

No, I don't just read for plot. But I don't see why one ought to have to injure one's brain seeking solely the hidden meanings and not be able to enjoy the plot as you go along. And, to discount it completely is, well, retarded (or mentally handicapped, for the sake of political correctness XD). I think the hidden stuff is awesome-cool - I can't even keep count of the times where I'm happily musing on the story and suddenly *whamholycrapthatswhatthatmeant!* moment. XD The author's voice is, of course, one of the things I love dearly about books, and a dull author's voice can easily turn me off a book. Mind you, to me, narrative voice is not one of those hidden meaning things, because, well, it's not hidden. It's there, telling the story.

Personally, I read mostly for the characters and what the book is overall trying to tell me. How characters interact and such, and how that reflects our way of acting. I love satires for this, and dark humor and allusions to other stories, things, and people, fictional or no. But I'm going to be up front about this: I hate metaphors, similes, and generic symbolism. Author's personal codes are pretty cool though - like Tennessee Williams kind of thing.

Let me give you an example of the stuff I dislike [EDIT: Oops, contains major spoilers. Sorry jade XD Highlight the missing stuff to see.]: The Great Gatsby. I hate this book. I am quite passionate about the sheer volume of loathing I have for this book. But the English teachers at my school pretty much swear by it, because of all the freakin' symbolism. Never mind that he's obsessed with this woman he knew for like, two seconds and slept with once, and gets rich, gets ditched again, and then gets shot. Never mind that Nick is perhaps the flattest, most boring-ass narrator in the universe, who somehow lands a hot chick anyway but manages to lose her by being a wiener. The only good part about it was when we started questioning Nick and Fitzgerald's sexual preference, what with all the page-long crap focusing on how strong and sexy Tom Buchanan is, and how special Nick thought Gatsby's smile was. XD My English teacher got all flustered and offended and it was really funny. But my point is, yes, lovely symbolism and what have you, crappy plot and characters.

And it's Lit Studies, Univerisity Preparation Grade 12. :)

Yanno, by the sounds of things, it's a good thing I'm not planning on an English major or anything. So perhaps, just consider my opinion's to be that of the Common Man, yes?

I'll remember the other stuff I wanted to write here later. Until then, I shall reply to comments! :)

* By M.T. Anderson. Weird book, full of very strange situations and observations. For those who have read it, I especially appreciated the sentiment about breaking a child's back to give him a spine. Very interesting perspective, as well. Yes, this is a shameless plug.
**I do this all the time. It shocks me to no end when someone, usually my mother, cannot get through even the first ten pages. But I digress.

Comments

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

Hold on, I think my brain just broke. Give me a few minutes, and I'll come back with a rational reply.

Right now, I kinda want to just take the book and hit your teacher upside the head with it.

[cleo]

I mean, yes, things hidden beneath the surface are fun to find and bring more meaning to a story, but aren't they just pretty things you pass by on the car ride?

This made me die a little on the inside.

As my girlfriend just said, if plot is what gets you to read, that's great. But if the only reason you read a book is for plot, after you've read seven or so, you've read them all.

I'm curious as to whether this is a high school or college class; regardless of that, your teacher's reaction is not...unusual. I'm actually at a loss as to what to say here; I'm completely floored that you would find this a...problem.

I can't remember the last time I was in a lit class when a plot was discussed... No, I can. It was my contemporary American class when we were dicussing Slaughterhouse Five, which is essentially an argument for the banality of plot (among other things). I think of so many short stories and books that do not have what we would consider a traditional plot. I think of Welty's "A Curtain of Green" in which nothing particularly happens; I think of Joyce's Ulysses which ecompasses 24 hours but does not have the devices of what we would call "plot." I think of John Fowles' The French Lieutenant's Woman...where Fowles interrupts narrative flow, does not know where his story is going, and offers two different endings (actually, there is a third ending even before those two).

When we study lit, we have to move beyond plot. It's everything between the beginning and the end that is driving the storytelling...plot is just a convienient way to put it all down. Plot can give structure, but one doesn't need a plot for that. Lit wouldn't be worth studying if all we were looking at was plot; there is nothing remarkable if there is just a plot. If we're just talking about plot...there's little to no creative impulse.

The plot does not give us the complete context for the symbols and metaphors, and if it did, we would be worse than people who only employ New Criticism as a critiquing technique. Symbolism and metaphor are given life and breath through literature itself, through the author, through the historical setting...not just through plot. There's so much there besides plot.

It seems to me that if you're simply reading things for plot, you can stop with Chaucer because it was pretty much all done there.

And as for your teacher not reading the plot summary on the back of the book... That's not uncommon either. Most of the time a summary is written by an editorial assistant who has read half to none of the book. They can be misleading or downright stupid. It's not something we need when we go into a reading.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

ach, I didn't even see that. I was too busy going gah-gah over the idea of only reading a book because it won awards. Sure, that's an easy way to find books, but at the same time it can be a bit arbitrary, and nevermind the fact that things like Amber Spyglass have won awards that really didn't deserve them.

I don't have time to go much either way, but I'm more in a happy medium, I guess. For example, Amber Spyglass. It has a lot of good imagery and symbolism in it. On the other hand, the plot is so terrible it detracts from the novel (and the prose is heavy-handed, which doesn't help). While I can't say you should only read novels for plots, you can't only judge something by its symbolism and metaphor. I think he or she is right inasmuch as the plot, however strange or skimpy, does anchor the symbolism and metaphor (especially extended metaphor--it's hard to have that without some sort of progression). And if you include characters within the category of "plot," then you do have more to read than just Chaucer. Of course, whether or not you should separate characters from plot is another matter entirely.

I do second the question as to what level this class is at, but I also would like to add that I have, on the collegiate level, discussed plots. Very recently. Like today. Granted, we were looking at how Thackeray was satirizing the marriage plot through the first ten chapters of Vanity Fair, but that did involve looking at what he did with that particular trope, which required discussion of how said plot works. :-)

reading for plot etc.

[lilian-cho.livejournal.com]

But if the only reason you read a book is for plot, after you've read seven or so, you've read them all.

Hmm yeah. Which is why I stopped reading romance novels when I was 16 and stopped reading mystery/detective novels after I can correctly guess the perpetrator 95% of the time D:

I still enjoy plot twists (Life of Pi and Megan Whalen Turner's The Thief), but that's not why I love books. I love Life of Pi for all its humor and zaniness, and The Thief has a narrator that makes me turn page after page until the end. And even though the sequels cannot possibly compete with the first book for its AWESOME plot twist, I still love them because I love the way Turner write her characters.

I can't remember the last time I was in a lit class when a plot was discussed.

Same here. My papers are usually written about details that seem insignificant. My professor dubbed my paper as "taking a worm's point of view." He added, "not that there's anything wrong with a bird's p.o.v."

The first book that came to mind as being "plotless" yet utterly enjoyable (for me anyway) is Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities. Sure, Marco Polo is telling a story about cities to Kublai Khan, but that's pretty much it plot-wise =P

plot is just a convienient way to put it all down.

Yep. Shakespeare's not read for his plot. He stole all his plots from various places. Heh.

And as for your teacher not reading the plot summary on the back of the book... That's not uncommon either.

Like the OP, I did get miffed about this fact. Mostly because it feels rude to me ^^;;
If someone goes to me and says, "I totally ADORE this book! I can lend it to you if you want to read it =D" then the least I could do was read the book jacket (or the first few pages) and say, "This looks interesting =)"

IMO, cover art is more arbitrary than book jacket summary. Awards...well, not having read many award-winning books (except for Caldecott awards), I can't really say one way or another.

[aspectabund.livejournal.com]

*cough* I think I'm not using the right vocabulary here. I assumed, as I always have, that plot means what is happening in the book. Apparently this is not so? Is the term too broad? It is to what I was referring. I also meant not caring at all about what happens in the book, and only looking for literary devices.

And... I think my opinion is rather biased. I do not see, nor wish to see, things from the perspective of one who studies books. I simply read them, and then realize all the cool stuff hidden away in the corners when I reread it, if I deem it worth rereading to do so. This is undoubtedly the reason why I find English class magnificently useless. I can't enjoy my books if I have to stop every three sentences to plunge deeply into the mind of the author, meditating deeply on what So-and-so has just realized or written.

I mean, come on. Give me at least a paragraph or two in between those plunges. XD I need more air than just a gasp for my bodily functions to work properly, lest my last gasp turn to a death-rattle.

*has no idea what New Criticism is, even after a brief googling. Which sounds incredibly dirty*

Also! I edited my OP with a bit of clarification. :)

[peggy-2.livejournal.com]

*loves the characters best*

[willow-41z.livejournal.com]

If I could efficiently express tone of voice and facial expressions through the internet, I would probably sound and look like an exasperated, constipated hamster right now. Or like this: >8| You'd really have to see it for the full effect, though.

That is a wonderful mental image. (Hey, would you be hamster Gen??)

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Well, I adore plot myself. Really terrific, twisty plots, or wild, improbable ones where there are lots of adventures and swordfights and things. I spent my formative years reading Alexandre Dumas, and I love that stuff.

I think different people approach their reading in different ways, and that's okay -- for instance, my husband is a huge Joyce fan, whereas I still haven't made it through Ulysses. Clearly plot doesn't matter as much to him.

It's a bit like my friend who goes to the movies and notices the lighting and the art direction above all. The story and the characters are completely secondary to him. It's not how I watch a movie, but it works for him. We both enjoy them in our own way, and occasionally we even like the same movie.

[aspectabund.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I like your movie reference. I always notice the art direction too, and if it's an animation I always focus on how smooth it is and the nifty techniques they use. But generally, I focus on plot and characters for movies, probably because narrative voice never comes into play. Unless there's a narrator, of course. :)

[cleo]

Try Dubliners if you haven't already. The short stories are more manageable than Ulysses. "The Dead" is one of my favorites.

[rosaleeluann.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I also like your movie comparison. I always see some shot and exclaim over its marvelous composition or the prettyful lighting (though I know rather less about the art direction of movies than some, I do know what I like to look at/paint ;) and everyone else is going, "Who cares?"

But I like the plot too. :)

[hikari-cyhan.livejournal.com]

I think I agree more or less with Aristotle. Plot, then characters. Language is subservient to them both.

[aspectabund.livejournal.com]

Oh! I've heard that before... not sure where. But I think the order can be tinkered with at times, mostly plot and characters doing a switch at times. I agree that language shouldn't really be the main purpose of the book, really, although a good narrative voice is necessary.

[cleo]

Yeah, but most of that goes to hell and a handbasket with Modernism and Post-modernism. *hugs Modernism*

[appellations.livejournal.com]

Plot is the looks, and symbolism, character &c is the personality, no? One may read a book for it's plot, but if an author's work is to have staying power, there needs to be something more than just plot to pull a reader through. Very much like a relationship, methinks.

Dan Brown's Digital Fortress was a pretty plotful book, but I didn't stay around to read the rest of his stuff because well, I didn't think there was much other than the smart plot. The book was nice, but frankly it wasn't worth reading a second time. And once other people start copying the plot, there really is no reason to read DB's books any more.

on the other hand when I first read Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale I disliked it intensely at first (i.e. ugly as hell), because there didn't seem to be much of a plot (she's stuck in a dystopian world, she remembers stuff, she tries to escape), but as we delved deeper into the book, extracted and analysed all the nitty gritty details you hate, the book (to me at least) was transformed into a brilliant piece of work. You can read it, read it, and read it again.

[jade-sabre-301.livejournal.com]

ooooooh, I really liked Handmaid's Tale when I read it--but I was in the mood for something slow and reflective (I started it while sitting on a plane waiting for like 3 hours to take off).

[main-titles.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, but I like a good story. I like characters with depth, dialogue that flows, and a plot I can enjoy on a surface level. I'm firmly with the plot and characters camp.

[cailet-06.livejournal.com]

Like many others I'm trying to remember the last time we actually discussed in a plot in one of my English classes and all I can think of is symbolism or hidden meanings etc.. Plots are fun and great (and sometimes there awesome when you don't want to think why he picked a rooster for a narrator- Cant. Tales) and I do enjoy reading for a plot. But other factors come into play that off ten make a novel so much better.

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

It's funny to consider this as a writer, because the elements seem so inseparable to me -- character dictates plot, which reveals character and illuminates theme. Style reflects character and plot and theme. Everything drives everything. But then, I write for kids, so I think having no plot at all is impossible for me.

[turtlerock.livejournal.com]

You know, it has been over a decade since I've been an English major, so I don't know what the kids are learning these days. Personally, I found all the critical theory and focusing on literary devices to be pretentious crap that English professors used to justify their existence. If left in the hands of the unwary or the unreflective, such things lead to the spouting of useless jargon and the creation of unreadable essays that suck all of the fun out of reading literature.

But I digress. Back in the day, the book dictated whether we focused on plot or character or language the most--and generally the professor left it up to the student to deconstruct the texts as she so chose. There weren't any hard and fast rules. But I've found if you can talk about one area, without referencing the others fairly often to elaborate on your point, then you are probably not doing a close enough reading and you may be missing a lot, because a truly great, or even a merely very good, writer is probably working with all of those things simultaneously and how they combine them is what raises their work to the level of art.

So, yeah, I am a sucker for character, but I also want to be told a story and one that--no matter how simple the seems--makes me think or feel or enjoy. And if you have enough mastery of your craft to do that (using whatever literary devices you choose) without making the technique so intrusive that I cannot lose myself in the world that you create, then I know that your plot, your characters, and your language are working quite well together and that I can, if I so choose, focus on any one of those elements, and find things to surprise and delight me and to help me understand the work as a whole.

[sclerotia.livejournal.com]

I am one of those persons who can hardly ever read a book the first time without cheating when I am only mid way through and going to the back to see how it ends. Obviously I must care about plot or I wouldn’t care about how it ends. But unless the beginning has been a total waste of time and I just skipped over to end the misery quickly, I still read and enjoy the book. In fact, I re-read my favorites over and over, so what I am enjoying and what is making a book worth my time must be things other than the plot and mostly that is how and why characters behave the way they do. Also, I am a sucker for wry wit and love it in both narrators and characters, (so MWT-Eugenides-love is a natural for me). I will re-read a whole book just to get to a particularly wryly apt description or marvelous bit dry humor in a conversation between characters. If all someone is interested in are symbols and metaphor why bother with fiction. There are essayists who don’t clutter up their writing with plots.

On another note, it takes a certain kind of person to enjoy dissecting fiction. It is kind of like enjoying a well diagramed sentence. For me it sucks all the pleasure out, but I have my own vices; when I look at a lovely flower I admire its beauty and sniff its scent, but my next thoughts are to wonder what its scientific name is, what family it belongs to, how hardy it is and what diseases it gets, all things that I am sure many people would totally denigrate as being counter to true enjoyment of the flower. Surely there is room in this world for Pilates, who knows his wheat, and for your instructor, who finds pleasure in symbol. Fortunately, we have English Departments where we can segregate these latter poor deluded individuals so the rest of us don’t have to put up with them except for compulsory classes. (Also remember that here where we dissect MWT’s works and taking great pleasure in finding her allusions and references, any stone cast on this type of enterprise had better be really, really small.)

[sclerotia.livejournal.com]

Why is it that I can never see the stupid grammatical errors until after I have posted?

[puppeteergirl.livejournal.com]

EEk! I don't have time to read all of the comments. So if I say something that has been said or whatever forgive me. :-)

When I'm rating a book I usually think about how much I enjoyed the characters or the plot (or both). It's very rare that I'll find a book that I like just for the style its written in. For instance, I liked A Series of Unfortunate Events, but not for the characters (who were pretty predictable) or the plot(s) (which were equally predictable). The thing that got me through that series and had me look forward to the next book was mainly the way Daniel Handler wrote. That series would have bored me to death if not for witty remarks like "Miracles are like meatballs, because nobody can exactly agree what they are made of, where they come from, or how often the should appear.".

[rosaleeluann.livejournal.com]

I've been avoiding the Series of Unfortunate events, but that quote there is making me consider them. :p

[aged-crone.livejournal.com]

Before reading the other 50 comments:

I can agree that even if I know the ending of a book I can read it for the language used (and, to a lesser extent, the symbols). That's what happens when I re-read (over and over and over) books that I love.

That plot doesn't matter, however, is something with which I cannot agree. It does matter, a lot. For example: the 2006 Newbery Medal winner, CRISS CROSS. There were parts of it that I thought very well done (plus a few that I thought were a bit too self-consciously clever); it had all the literary bells and whistles; AND NOTHING HAPPENED! I *hated* it. I kept waiting for something to connect or to flow or to *something*, and nothing ever did.

As far as "Oh, there are only X number of plots and everything is a variation of them," maybe so. It's the variations that make up the real plot of the book, not the category of plot into which it falls. The story may be moving from point A to point B, but it's how it gets there that matters. Georgette Heyer, for example: basically, her books boil down to they-fall-in-love. But the different situations of the characters, and what happens in between their meeting and falling in love make the book interesting. As of course does Heyer's writing style, but if you gave me her writing style with no plot I'd go crazy.

I often wonder whether one can really claim that there are only X number of plots or plot elements, expecially when I see people twisting things to fit them. "Ah, this is a Hero's Journey," pontificates someone. "Therefore, *this* part must be X, and *this* part must be Y, and the author must have meant Z." And I imagine the author staring at the analyzer as if the analyzer needs to be carted off to an analyst.

My favorite example of a good combination would be the Narnia books. You can read them as plain adventure books, without even realizing that they are full of Christian analogies and symbolism. Reading them and getting the symbolism adds another layer to a very good story.

On the other hand, I cast my mind back to my college days. My freshman roommate worked on the university's literary review, and in a show of roommately solidarity I bought a copy. One story that I read involved somebody hiking near a river. He comes across a body lying there. Does he, like any normal person, go and report this to somebody? No, he sits down and watches the body; day in, day out; season in, season out. And that's it. That's the entire selection. So I told my roommate, "This is compeletely senseless!" And she said, "Oh, no, it's *symbolic*!" "Of what," I asked. And she couldn't tell me. That's the opposite extreme. The writing may well have been brilliant, and perhaps there were symbols romping around like bunnies in a spring field, but lacking a plot to make them memorable, they're forgotten.

As far as a teacher deciding to read a book based on the cover and the fact that it had won awards, the mind boggles. Has this teacher never absorbed the old saying "Never judge a book by its cover?" We've spent at least one post discussing good books with ghastly covers. There are also ghastly books with good covers. Clearly, this teacher is insane.

[philia-fan.livejournal.com]

Amen, Leslie. As far as there being a limited number of plots -- maybe so, but if you ask me it's all in how you cut and paste them together. And re "Hero's Journey" -- haha, you must have been spying on my last critique group meeting, where I wanted to strangle them all.

[netslefj.livejournal.com]

I was lucky enough to go to school before post-modernism and deconstruction appeared, but symbolism was all and narrative was incidental, so that wasn't fun. I switched to art history and simply read what I wanted or needed to read - mostly Doris Lessing and Virginia Woolf at the time - and that worked fine for me.

Still haven't read the 19th American classics and sometimes feel the gap. the best moment in Gatsby was Jay's pile of shirts of every imaginable color. I've always aspired to that in turtlenecks.

Change is what matters to me in a novel, preferably in the protagonist or narrator. Even in Criss Cross, some character change occured, though the whole book felt like a very slow summer vacation.

The final Dark Materials book, on the other hand, was utterly overdesigned, overcrowded, frantic even, and maddening. Yet I loved the first book and liked the second. Too many themes colliding and competing for resolution in the third.

Change can be presented through any aspect of a novel, voice or character or plot or setting or symbol, and then the other aspects support that one and make the change convincing. I don't envy those deconstructors at all.

[ladyequinox.livejournal.com]

*delurks*

So this is somewhat off topic, okay totally off topic, but the most awesome thing happened in regards to this post.

I was in the library at my University with my friend and the falling happened:
Me: Hey, did you read the latest on sounis?
Friend: Yeah, the one about plot and characterization?
*we discuss plot vs characterization as we head down the stairs. While we were walking a man passes us going up the stairs.*
Me: *looking at friend and pointing up*
Friend: *nods head* Yep. Best timing ever.
Me: Wow, did you see that one of the comments said that their favourite books for plot twist were Life of Pi and The Thief? I think this just made my day.
Friend: I think that just made my week.

The man who passed us on the stairs was Yann Martel.

I was telling my other friend this story while I was typing this comment and I asked her if she thought script was an acceptable form of writing on sounis and she replied, "Oh you know those Sounisians, they'll probably say it has too much character and not enough plot."

But, to contribute to the discussion, I read books for both plot and characters. I enjoy a sound plot and if it's shaky I don't care as much for the characters or even try to look for symbolism because I feel the author didn't care enough about the story. But that's my own personal opinion.

~Nox

*_*

[lilian-cho.livejournal.com]

OMG Yann Martel? *_*

*squees quietly like the fangirl she is*

Well what's your favorite books for plot twist then? ;-)

[ladymoon-kora.livejournal.com]

After regaining rational thought after reading your account of your teacher, my response was still "WHAT????" How can someone not care about plot? And I have to ask, is your teacher, how can I say this, completely with it? If you start discussing this agian, I would simply say "I'm sorry, but I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person," because she doesn't sound like she is harboring full mental ability to me.

And on the topic of The Great Gatsby, I am reading that in my English class now, and I totally agree. I never picked up on those Nick/Gatsby or Nick/Tom things either (lol). I should use that in class, see how my teacher responds. Really, The Great Gatsby is really pointless, and the symbolism isn't that great either.