Topic: Unintended Interpretations of Classic Literature

[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.

[Frank]

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.

Apophenia's almost certainly part of it, certainly. That's basically symbolism & interpretation in a nutshell. Decent analysis is what PhDs and Literature Departments are made of, everything else is... amateur speculation. Then again, that same take can be applied to any analysis of art or... anything you can take a specialised, non-rigorous interest in. (And it's perfectly possible to take a rigorous interest in analysis of literature - I doubt that the claim that Oz is political would stand up to that sort of scrutiny, but we could be surprised.)

The worst case of all this was when we analysed a poem back in Higher English which had the context and message that was clearly on the futility of analysing things too closely. We never did finish that poem, I suspect the teacher hadn't quite been on top of her game that week. 16/17yo pupils were not happy (well, were both unhappy and gleefully triumphant) about that little learning curve...

[Skeptress]

This was my least favorite bit of high school English.  I remember I had to do an interpretation of a poem and handed in two versions.  One was what the teacher wanted to see, the other was a literal interpretation.  The teacher was not amused.  Then again I was a smart ass in high school.   

[Henning]

Yeah, literature is art, and you can't get mad at people for seeing in it what they do.
But I agree, don't start presuming you have the artist's intentions figured out (or that they matter much).

[stonesean]

Yeah, literature is art, and you can't get mad at people for seeing in it what they do.
But I agree, don't start presuming you have the artist's intentions figured out (or that they matter much).

If the artist actually declares their intention, does that count for anything?

[Henning]

Yeah, literature is art, and you can't get mad at people for seeing in it what they do.
But I agree, don't start presuming you have the artist's intentions figured out (or that they matter much).

If the artist actually declares their intention, does that count for anything?

Kinda takes away the fun... like telling  person what they're looking for in pareidolia.
After you know, you're judging how well they got across their intention, not so much how well you liked it.

[Frank]

Yeah, literature is art, and you can't get mad at people for seeing in it what they do.
But I agree, don't start presuming you have the artist's intentions figured out (or that they matter much).

If the artist actually declares their intention, does that count for anything?

Yes & no. In fiction at least - I read a lot of tie-in universe novels, knowing the author's slant on things can make for a much less jarring (or more conciliatory) take on the way they've done things. (Think nerdrage, "But previously in Episode 27 you said he had copper-plated bollocks!") Moreover, it can help to piece together symbolism & references that aren't necessarily obvious without the added context.

Of course, that doesn't excuse/improve things by necessity, but it's the foremost help for things. A wacky, trippy novel can be parsed more easily if someone later points out what they were aiming for, a bit of an "oh, I see!" moment after reading.

In that manner, I'd say the artist's declarations of intent often count for a huge amount... but it's quite a variable old thing. Context's often important. Sometimes the artist is a pretentious, dribbling idiot.

[stonesean]

Well, I meant that question mostly in the context of the example I used earlier.

Tolkien insisted that his books were not an allegory for anything at all....

Scholars and fans insist otherwise.

Tolkien is the one who's correct, right?

[Neon Genesis]

There's nothing wrong with coming up with your own symbolic interpretation in itself.  I enjoy political allegorical stories like Maguire's reimagined fairytales a lot myself but there's a difference between coming up with your own interpretation and saying you know what the author meant more than the author themselves did.  Using Oz as an example again, it's one thing for Maguire to create Wicked as his own alternate universe political allegory story but it would be incredibly annoying to me if Maguire started claiming his vision of Oz is the one Baum always intended his story to mean.  What the author thinks of their work shouldn't matter to your own enjoyment of the story in itself but if you're going around claiming your interpretation is approved of by the author even when the author says otherwise, unless you have evidence showing the author is inconsistent in their interpretation of their book, it makes you look conspiratorial to claim your interpretation is the only correct one when the author has openly disagreed with you.

[Joe B]

Matt Damon & The Walrus & the Carpenter Poem

[Henning]

Tolkien is the one who's correct, right?

About what he intended, yes.
About what his story actually means, no. I wouldn't limit that to what Tolkien insists about it.