In contrast, I have always loved to read. Yet again, this class threw me for a loop. Instead of just looking at the story or poem itself, I was encouraged to “look beyond what I see” (Lane) and try to find the meanings hidden deep within the texts. For example, look at the poetry reading. I spent long hours pouring over these texts wondering, “How am I supposed to know what they were thinking from this?!? I can hardly understand what they did say.” In the end I had to just make up something to get started writing and then the rest came afterwards. It was the same with the final project. It started with an accident on my part. I knew that the Narnia stories had a lot of symbolism in them, but I got it in my head that it was J. R. R. Tolkein’s The Lord of the Rings that I started my project on. Now, I thought that at least there would be something there, after all the man was a linguist and created 11 languages by himself, not to mention the cultures and peoples that he created and detailed in his stories. In this I was a little disappointed; not only did he specifically deny and discourage such talk, but everything in it could be tied twenty different ways! In the forward to the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, Mr. Tolkein states,
“As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has been in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit…. Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
(Tolkein xvi-xvii)
Looking at other stories I have read and what the authors have stated of them, this is often the case with many pieces of literature: all too often, we try to drum up grand themes that in all probability didn’t exist in the mind of the author. In such cases, especially when the author is deceased and cannot address the question directly, who is to say what meanings are right or wrong, or if there even is one? Case in point: all of the Frankenstein papers....
All this is a little outside the realms of simple accounting, and goes against my very personality and reasoning, so I set it aside and don’t even bother. However, for the purposes of this course I believe that having only one of eleven learning outcomes finish a little shaky is OK.
Sources:
Lane, Nathan, perf. The Lion King 1 1/2. Disney, 2004. DVD.
Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel. The Lord Of The Rings. One Volume Edition. Boston: Houton Mifflin Company, 1994. xvi-xvii. Print.
Nathan,
ReplyDeleteI really liked you entry and great page btw! So you talked about assignment and the time you spent pondering too much and how this would affect your writing. I agree in the same degree because I feel the minute you start over thinking the assignment is around the time the paper stops developing and I need to simply walk away for a bit.
Frankenstein was defiantly a difficult read and it’s hard to dissect Mary Shelley’s words sometimes but once you get the meaning the story really is beautiful. I know this sounds bad and its the end of the semester but when I first read Frankenstein I had to go to Barnes & Noble and check out the spark notes to understand what was going on. Once I did that the book was much more enjoyable. It helps to have a guide line, sort of a path you sort of already know; you just are lacking serious detail.