Author: Hans Burger

I want to start by talking briefly about the distinction between summary and analysis, and how multiple readings can be drawn from the same text.

When we write papers for this class, our goal is to analyze a particular work of literature. That means we’re arguing for a particular perspective about how the work defines the experience of being human. Sometimes that’s in relationship to a universal human experience (Harry Potter is about the thrill and terror of growing up) and sometimes that’s in relationship to a specific time and place (Lord of the Rings is about the experience of defeating the Axis in World War II). Sometimes your analysis might find a meaning that the author likely intended (Frankenstein is about scientific arrogance) and sometimes it might find meaning the author didn’t intend, and might strongly disagree with (Dracula is about the negative psychological impact of Victorian sexual repression).

One important thing to remember is that these aren’t mutually exclusive. Maybe you think Dracula is about the fear of immigration. There’s no reason a smart reader couldn’t see the text as commenting on both immigration and Victorian sexual mores. Or, more complicatedly, you might think that Dracula is about the benefits of a restrictive sexual climate, and the perils of unrestricted sexuality. You could probably construct an interpretation of the text which supported either side, and there isn’t necessarily a right answer (although of course some readings are more easily supportable than others).

The great thing about analyzing literature is that any text contains a potentially infinite range of interpretations. In a way, this is a bit like a movie adaptation. Think about how Clueless updates Jane Austen’s Emma, or how Ten Things I Hate About You puts a Shakespeare story in a new context. These movies create a new reading of an old story, and in the process they construct a new argument about what the story means. Every society can do this; there could be a Chinese Emma, or an Emma set in New York during the AIDS crisis. A movie adaptation is a form of interpretation, and interpretation is infinite.

Of course, you’re not making movies here. Instead you’re writing an academic critical paper which argues about the meaning of a text. But your papers have infinite range to explore, because interpretation is infinite.

In your papers you also need to summarize, which means describing, briefly, events in a story which are relevant to your argument. Your summary is important because it helps focus the reader on the portions of the text which you find most meaningful. But analysis is the important step, and the majority of your writing for this class should consist of analysis. In my comments on your papers, I may critique your balance of summary and analysis, and this is what I mean: the ratio of saying what happens versus saying what it means.

Here are two interpretations of the famous story of Little Red Riding Hood:

1. Little Red Riding Hood is placed in a dangerous situation because she is too friendly with a wolf, thus showing the importance of not talking to strangers.
2. Little Red Riding Hood puts on a red cloak which represents the onset of female sexual identity. She meets a wolf, who symbolizes masculine sexual aggression. The story is about the onset of puberty.

Now you try it! Pick one fairy tale (I’m going to be very loose with the boundaries around ” fairy tale;” if you’re wondering if it counts, then yes it does) and provide two different interpretations of what it means.

When I was doing my master’s degree, I believed very strongly that literature was important business, and that writing and thinking about it was significant work that mattered in the world. Then I left academia and spent a couple of years working in an office, and now I’m not so sure.

What I do know is that, for as diminished as the role of literature has become in the larger culture, and in most people’s lives (even using the broadest definition possible of “literature” and including things like Stephen King or Harry Potter) we still encounter all kinds of narrative texts in everyday life (movies, TV shows, books) and it’s important to be able to think about and discuss how they convey meaning.

So I’ll throw the question to you — what’s the value of being able to interpret artistic works? What do we gain, if anything, from being able to approach a text and draw some meaning from it, or compare the meanings others draw from it?

**This discussion has been moved to Canvas. Please go to https://canvas.alaska.edu/courses/8575/discussion_topics to see all Discussions for this course.**

Take a couple of minutes to watch this debate between E.L. Doctorow and Margaret Atwood about Moby Dick. As you may be aware, Moby Dick is, at a surface level, a story about a mad sea captain trying to hunt down a whale. Atwood says the whale is a symbol of global capitalism, while Doctorow says it is a symbol of the blind unmanageable destructiveness of nature.

Then, have a scan through the comments. The most popular comment asks, “could these people be any more fucking boring holy shit” and the second most popular comment refers to the debate as “pseudo-intellectual BS by pseudo-intelligent assholes.” The general thrust of the comments seems to be “this is a story about a mad sea captain hunting down a whale, and how dare you insist that it has to mean something?”

So, what do you say? Are Doctorow and Atwood ruining a perfectly good adventure story? Is it fair to accuse critics like this of over-analysis? Why does two minutes of symbolic analysis seem to have made these commentors so upset?

And what do you think the whale really symbolizes?

**This discussion has been moved to Canvas. Please go to https://canvas.alaska.edu/courses/8575/discussion_topics to see all Discussions for this course.**

At the end of the semester we’ll be writing a long research paper about a particular work or author. This is meant to be an interpretive research paper, meaning you read about what other critics think that author’s work means, and then use those perspectives to help synthesize an argument about the meaning of the work.

However, some students are tempted to write a biography of their author, even though this isn’t meant to be a biographical paper. Often they’ll end up showing links between life experiences and literature: “Hemingway experienced war so he wrote novels about war.”

That’s a legitimate critical approach, but it’s not the only way or even the best way to think about literature. For one thing, it’s the low-hanging fruit of criticism, and it’s hard to say anything original this way. Also, lots of people have written great works about things they didn’t experience. Flannery O’Connor wrote about all kinds of weird and fascinating human experiences while leading about as small and limited a life as it’s possible to imagine. So I’d urge you to resist the temptation to fixate on biography as your primary lens for understanding an author’s work.

I also see papers which rely primarily on interviews with the author. If you want to argue that many mid-career Stephen King novels contain metaphors for addiction, and you find an interview with Stephen King where he says precisely that, you may feel like you have a slam-dunk case. In the final research paper I’ll often see a focus only on interviews with the author, particularly if it’s someone more recent.

But one of the assumptions of academic literary criticism is that authorial intent doesn’t shut out other interpretation. A good reader can find things in the text, or ways of viewing the text, that transcend what the author thinks it means.

In our last discussion we talked about  Moby Dick  and the various symbols attributed to the whale. Presumably if you interviewed Herman Melville he would not say “oh the whale is capitalism” but that interpretation may lend depth and texture to the reading experience for some readers — even if it falls quite flat for others.

Another classic example is Paradise Lost, the 17th-century epic poem about Satan and the fall of man. Even though the poem is written from a Christian perspective, some subsequent critics — most notably the poet William Blake — have advanced the idea that Satan is a heroic figure. Now, if you were to interview John Milton, who wrote the poem, I think he would strongly disagree with the idea that Satan is its hero, but he’s written with enough depth and texture that some readers can’t help experiencing him as the hero of the poem.

Now come up with your own example. What’s a text that can be read in an interesting way that’s likely contrary to the author’s intent? This doesn’t have to be “classic literature.” For instance, after Eddie Money died I heard a theory that the song “Two Tickets to Paradise” is actually about a murder-suicide. I think it’s very unlikely that Eddie Money had that in mind, but there are things in the text which support that reading. Can you think of another example?

**This discussion has been moved to Canvas. Please go to https://canvas.alaska.edu/courses/8575/discussion_topics to see all Discussions for this course.**

This week, I’d like you to start out by reading this story from the New Yorker about the poet Steve Roggenbuck.

Then be sure to watch the video titled make something beautiful before you are dead.

Is this a poem? Is this a variation on the old forms of literature, a completely new form of literature, or something that sits outside the literary tradition? Is this inspiring, annoying, both, or something else entirely?

**This discussion has been moved to Canvas. Please go to https://canvas.alaska.edu/courses/8575/discussion_topics to see all Discussions for this course.**

How often do you read poetry just for fun? Do you think your life would change any if you were never required to read poetry again? I know a few poets, was required to read poetry in school, and I regularly teach poetry. I think that to a certain extent my enjoyment of classical, written poetry (the kind found in college textbooks) is a matter of training. I have experience with it and I know something about its history. But, here is a confession: I don’t pick up books of poetry very often to read in my spare time. Actually, almost never. However, there are a few places where I find a tremendous amount of joy in poetry, and it’s always when the poem is coming from the mouth of real person. Poetry out loud is dynamic and complex. I have a particular fondness for freestyle rap, Poetry slams, and poems that my partner reads to me in quiet moments.

It’s only in the context of live performance that poetry really has an IMPACT on me. Otherwise, it’s usually intellectually engaging, but not what I would call emotionally moving or artistically inspiring. But this is a very personal perspective on these things. You may feel differently about poetry, spoken word, and what you find inspiring.

So, let’s talk about poetry out loud. Go read the Wikipedia entry on Rap. Seriously think about rap as a modern form of poetry (using the term “modern” I guess since it’s older now than me and probably most people in this class). In eras prior to the printing press, poetry was nearly always read aloud. Most audiences were illiterate and owning a book was like owning a Rolls Royce.

Now, let’s have a conversation about these things. Start anywhere. What do you think about spoken word, or rap, or poetry slams? Do you think that there is any difference between poetry on the page and poetry out loud? Do you think the Wikipedia article on rap sheds any light on the art of poetry?

**This discussion has been moved to Canvas. Please go to https://canvas.alaska.edu/courses/8575/discussion_topics to see all Discussions for this course.**

In the introduction, I talked a bit about adaptation as a form of interpretation. This week, start out by watching a few variations on the opening witch scene of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. As a bonus, here’s a clip from the film Scotland PA, which sets the story of MacBeth in 1970’s Pennsylvania.

Now, try suggesting a new context for a well-known story, like Romeo and Juliet if the lovers came from rival mining companies on Mars, or an animated version of Pride and Prejudice where all the characters are walruses. What new perspective would your proposed adaptation give us on the underlying meaning of the story?

**This discussion has been moved to Canvas. Please go to https://canvas.alaska.edu/courses/8575/discussion_topics to see all Discussions for this course.**

Well, this is it. Your last discussion question before the research paper. You all have done a fantastic job this semester with the discussions here. I’ve been using your discussions as evidence that students will write like crazy and even write to one another if given an interesting and comfortable environment in which to do so.

This week, I’d like to give you one more opportunity to talk to each other “in the classroom.” Post a few of the ideas you’re thinking about for the research paper. Read what other students are writing about and give them some helpful pointers, some links to resources they might be interested in, or just some general support. What do you do in order to get inspired to write? How do you approach the research process?

Thanks for creating such a great place for student discussion!!