Media > Books

Unintended Interpretations of Classic Literature

(1/7) > >>

Neon Genesis:
If there's one thing that annoys me about English literature academia, it's when people try to come up with unintended interpretations of classic novels that were never intended by the author themselves and insist this is the true meaning of it.  The most obnoxious example I can think of is The Wizard of Oz.  For some reason, people still keep insisting that Baum intended The Wizard of Oz to be a political allegory and come up with all this far fetched symbolism to prove it even though Baum states in the foreword of the book that he hates preachy children's literature and that he wrote The Wizard of Oz to be nothing more than purely mindless escapist fantasy for little kids to enjoy.  The whole idea of The Wizard of Oz being a political allegory actually goes back to this history teacher who wanted to make history more interesting for his class so he incorporated The Wizard of Oz into his class as a way to make history more fun.  I don't mind people coming up with their own modern interpretations of classic literature in itself.  It's just annoying when people insist this is what the author intended when they wrote the book and there's evidence to the contrary that they didn't mean that.  Why can't people just accept that some stories are just for entertainment and fun instead of coming up with their own meanings and making up lies about what the author believed?

Frank:
Because the Author is Dead. [/facetious]

Which is to say - interpreting literature doesn't really have much to do with intentions. A good author's intentions might be missed by pretty much everyone. A bad author's 'well meant intentions' might be hidden by inadvertent racism, casual sexism and so forth - or even just really obvious symbolism. Picking an exotic sounding name is all well and good, but when Space Captain Vaas Deferens has to launch a boarding party onto the Labia Rex...

Well, it doesn't matter what the author intended if, indeed, there's other indications visible in the prose.

O'course, it gets my goat up when folks say 'clearly they intend this' when it's not that obvious at all - but worded and supported well, some interpretations can be quite cracking. Nick Kyme's Salamanders series, for instance, about genetically enhanced supermen soldiers in walking tank armour... well, it parallels closely many of the Harry Potter styles and choices in a manner quite unintended (the author denies much of the parallels), but when pointed out... they're decidedly amusing.

(Right down to an outright 'yer a wizard, Harry' moment.)

Anyway, asserting it as fact is supremely irritating. Seeing a lot of the nuance and possibilities of interpretation, however, allows it to be very interesting to scrutinise too.

stonesean:
Tolkien kept explicitly insisting that his books were not an allegory for anything....

Critics and fans keep insisting otherwise....

MikeHz:
Authors are not always aware of their own symbolism. It's a Freudian sort of thing.

Neon Genesis:
A simpler explanation to me is that some adult readers are paranoid about their maturity and would be embarrassed being caught enjoying a book written for children.  They just can't accept that someone could write such a good story just to entertain kids so they have to dig through a kid's story hunting down "deep" symbolism in it which somehow makes them feel more secure about their maturity when they discover the "real" meaning.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page