An Another Note Entirely
Feb. 7th, 2008 04:59 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
aspectabund.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
queensthiefOkay, 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."
* 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.
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.
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! :)
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2/7/08 10:56 pm (UTC)Right now, I kinda want to just take the book and hit your teacher upside the head with it.
no subject
Date: 2/7/08 11:26 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2/7/08 11:33 pm (UTC)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. :-)
no subject
Date: 2/7/08 11:38 pm (UTC)Now satirizing plot is a whole different affair! Lol. Most of the discussions of plot I was involved in through undergrad involved how an author was satirizing or using plot to some other end than just...plot. So, it does have a place.
no subject
Date: 2/7/08 11:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2/8/08 12:06 am (UTC)That is a wonderful mental image. (Hey, would you be hamster Gen??)
no subject
Date: 2/8/08 12:39 am (UTC)Even in my private reading, which tends much more towards the classic, I read for character, not plot. Why do I love MWT's books? Because she can create a complex, nuanced character that I both love and hate. Lots of them, in fact. I don't care so much about the plot except as it affects the character.
And personally I find all literary devices fascinating. Droolworthy, in fact.
no subject
Date: 2/8/08 12:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2/8/08 12:52 am (UTC)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.
seconded
Date: 2/8/08 01:05 am (UTC)reading for plot etc.
Date: 2/8/08 01:19 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2/8/08 01:56 am (UTC)And I think English class has effectively turned me off of literary devices. I wish we did more than point them out and write papers on them. Problem is, I'm not entirely sure what else they could have us do instead. *sigh*
(Also, see my edit! Just so you know that I'm not totally ignoring stuff you said)
no subject
Date: 2/8/08 01:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:07 am (UTC)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. :)
no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:19 am (UTC)In Aristotle's The Poetics, he broke theatrical drama into six major components:
1. Plot
2. Character
3. Theme/Thought
4. Language
5. Music
6. Spectacle
Cut out music, and you have the five major components of literature!
no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:26 am (UTC)Also, I've tried reading The Amber Spyglass twice now and I just can't get past the first 100 or so pages. The great parts of The Golden Compass were the parts that Lyra wasn't in. Philip Pullman never got me to care about her as a character, never really got me to care about the boy-who's-name-I've-forgotten at the beginning of The Amber Spyglass, and neither was interesting enough without that for me to keep reading.
no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:38 am (UTC)It's really not just about simile, metaphor, and generic symbolism. That sort of stuff is important in a lot of things, but it's another surface scratching thing...even though it seems like it isn't.
You mentioned narrative voice as something that you don't consider hidden because it's right there. True-ish; however, there are a million things about narrative voice to discuss, and while it might be up front, it's not a flat or obvious device. There are things to consider--when the book was written, for example. Is the narrator God or god (to steal from john Fowles)? Is the narrator the author's voice; era is going to factor hugely into this. If the narrator is the authr's voice, is the author a character? This comes into play from Chaucer to John Fowles. There's a clear distinction between Chaucer the character and Chaucer the narrator; yet, there is not between John Fowles the narrator and John Fowles the character. Can we trust the narrator?
When I read, I tend to focus on character, especially in the works I'm not reading for classes, and on language, especially in the things I'm reading for academia (I'm an MA student in English). The use of language is one of those things that's, well, right there; however, it is so absolutely revealing.
But I think one of the things to remember is that a lot of this can just be downright arbitrary. And it is a problem if you're just pointing out lit devices and writing papers on them, but you've got to get to upper level college English (lover level at a really great school) to get past some of those things, unfortunately. I have huge problems with how lit is taught in hs because it's...well, stupid and useless most of the time.
And as for Dan Brown...I started reading The Da Vinci Code, and I had to put it down because the man's writing is just TERRIBLE. His grammar...oh for Christ's sake.
I haven't read The Amber Spyglass yet. I've been told I will like it. I liked the first book a lot. I think it was crafted well, but I wanted more of the sorties concerning the adults, which would have made it a more adult book. I like MWT's stuff because she does excellent work at character building and world crafting. She is a sharp writer, and I can only imagine her process involves lots of rewrites and lots of work we're not getting to see. With her work, when there are things left out, you can bet it is going to be for a reason.
no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:49 am (UTC)Re: reading for plot etc.
Date: 2/8/08 02:50 am (UTC)Your teacher's saying about taking the worm's p.o.v. seriously makes me think of the movie Labrynth. Lol...first image that came to mind.
And I think the fact that this professor promised to read the book at all is an indication that she wasn't being rude. They have SO MUCH to read per week.
You're right about cover art.
no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:52 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2/8/08 02:52 am (UTC)