True. What I meant was, ignore the characters as characters, but don't ignore them as representations of an ideological position. See them for *what* they stand for, rather than *who* they are.
EG: Avon - educated, civilised, visitor, knowing, scientific. And male, of course. Meegat - uneducated, primitive, native, ignorant, spiritual. And female, by some strange quirk of coincidence.
This only works if you agree characters are *meant* to be symbols, rather than people. As a writer, I try to write my characters, for the most part, as people. Only the bad guys symbolize the part they play (nasty-minded criminal; greedy corporate person who has no conscience yet exploits people without breaking laws; thrill-seeker). I myself am an educated yet degreeless woman who is strongly disposed towards science but has had some 'psychic' experiences which I believe have a scientific explanation that will one day be discovered and religious ideas that have been influenced by my upbringing yet differ from my parents' and certainly divert from the mainstream of society. People are complex and do not 'represent' something unless they choose to do so (in real life) or are chosen to do so (by the author in fiction). To do a literary analysis is to impose one's own views on a situation, and as the analysist has a strong need to FIND symbolism, they will create it where it may very well not exist. Don't say that's not true. We've all had to write papers for English class where we knew perfectly well we were shovelling it but had to make a point and back it up to get the grades we needed. Well, most of us. Some people may really beieve all the symbols they uncover are truely meant as such.
From: Helen Krummenacker avona@jps.net
EG: Avon - educated, civilised, visitor, knowing, scientific. And male,
of
course. Meegat - uneducated, primitive, native, ignorant, spiritual. And
female, by
some strange quirk of coincidence.
This only works if you agree characters are *meant* to be symbols, rather than people.
As I hope I've made clear enough times by now, I think they can be both at one and the same time. This is not an either/or situation.
A character can occupy a symbolic role without the author's conscious intention. In fact she or he will almost certainly fulfil such a role to a greater or lesser degree, and not necessarily the one intended (if any) by the author.
As a writer, I try to write my characters, for the most part, as people. Only the bad guys symbolize the part they play (nasty-minded criminal; greedy corporate person who has no conscience yet exploits people without breaking laws; thrill-seeker).
You mean person=good, symbol=bad?
People are complex and do not 'represent' something unless they choose to do so (in real life) or are chosen to do so (by the author in fiction).
People are complex, yes. Which is why they can represent many things simultaneously, especially when viewed by a diverse group of observers. Choice doesn't enter into it. You can't choose not to be representative of anything. You don't necessarily have much say in what you do represent.
To do a literary analysis is to impose one's own views on a situation, and as the analysist has a strong need to FIND symbolism, they will create it where it may very well not exist.
This I can certainly believe, but it hardly means that symbolism doesn't exist. It might simply be misread. In the case of Deliverance, I think it's pretty bald and unambiguous, once you look at it from the right angle, and the various elements are mutually supportive of each other.
Don't say that's not true. We've all had to write papers for English class where we knew perfectly well we were shovelling it but had to make a point and back it up to get the grades we needed.
You might have done. I never did. But then I dropped English when I was 16 and my critical faculties were next to non-existent. (What do you mean, 'They haven't improved much'?). I don't think we were ever taught even the rudimentary fundamentals of litcrit. More a case of 'Keep giving 'em Shakespeare till they all fall asleep' which for most of us wasn't very long.
Well, most of us. Some people may really beieve all the symbols they uncover are truely meant as such.
The interesting symbols are the ones that weren't intended.
Neil
-
Helen Krummenacker -
Neil Faulkner