Symbols & Imagery

I'm sorry Mad Queen but you are talking about a very particular form of writing which not everyone writes. If fiction was meant to be nothing but based on real life then I guess the entire Fantasy/SF genre is just totally pointless.

I get you don't like the idea of the author of being visible in the story, that you would rather characters revealing the story to you, but that is only one kind of fiction writing. There are many many different kinds, and yes even the ever reviled "Dear reader" (which I like a lot, but I know many do not). There are also incredibly poetic works, books where the plot is entirely revealed through symbols. For you it appears you prefer not to suspend your disbelief too far. You might not like genres that ask that of the reader, but to say one form is better than the other, well that just kind of blows my mind.

Mad Queen said:

It's you, the author, and only you, who could be saying this woman cannot take the wife's place.

Click to expand...

Er, maybe I didn't make myself clear here. I don't say anything at all in the story. I give the woman green contacts. Nobody comments on it. It's just part of the description, along with red hair and a fancy dress. Subtlety.

There's no way you'll ever convince me using symbolism is poor writing or "author intrustion." There's no intrusion if the symbolism is simple description, facts - with nothing pointing it out. Soooo many works of great literature employ symbolism, it's a huge part of studying English literature. I mean, think classic American writers - Melville and Hawthorne. The Scarlet Letter is one of the most amazing, thought-provoking pieces of literature I've ever read. Without the symbolism involved it would be shallow and almost pointless. Or what about Steinbeck and the Grapes of Wrath? Poe and the Tell-Tale Heart? And then there's the classical greats - I mean, the Oedipus trilogy? Oh my goodness. Take the symbols out of that and it's over. Like, completely.

I maintain it's just one tool among many in the writer's bag. It ads depth and strength to the story.

JoNightshade said:

Er, maybe I didn't make myself clear here. I don't say anything at all in the story. I give the woman green contacts. Nobody comments on it. It's just part of the description, along with red hair and a fancy dress. Subtlety.

Click to expand...

You were clear, but you gave the woman green contacts for a purpose, your purpose. The readers who notice the symbol will know that you, the author, consider this woman inappropriate for the other character.

JoNightshade said:

There's no way you'll ever convince me using symbolism is poor writing or "author intrustion."

Click to expand...

I said in my first post I don't consider it poor writing, it's just a preference. I might love your story, despite your use of symbolism.

JoNightshade said:

There's no intrusion if the symbolism is simple description, facts - with nothing pointing it out.

Click to expand...

I know that 'author intrusion' has a negative connotation and no one wants to see it applied to their work, so let's skip this discussion. It doesn't matter if symbols are an 'author intrusion' or not.

You've chosen to give her green contact lenses, so you are marking her as an inappropriate woman. It's your judgement. It doesn't matter if you point it out or not, though it's better if you don't. The reader who understands the symbol will know what you think about the woman.

JoNightshade said:

Soooo many works of great literature employ symbolism, it's a huge part of studying English literature.

Click to expand...

There are all kinds of authors who enjoy all kinds of things. Even blatant 'author intrusion' was acceptable once and in my opinion it still is. Some authors like symbols and others don't. Symbols are acceptable, I just don't like them. I don't even notice them when I read a book. In Tell-Tale Heart, it's the character who creates the symbol in his head, which I like. If there are any other symbols in this story or in the others you listed, I don't want to know.

And this kind of symbolism is only one of the things I don't like that other people love. I don't like obvious humour in serious works. I might laugh now, but I'll criticise it later.

I do not consciously insert symbols when I write; I discover them after I am finished writing. Symbols naturally weave their way into my stories, often with a suitably powerful effect. I do purposefully incorporate imagery, mostly because I love imagery--it greatly enhances a scene.

I remember the "find a symbol" kind of assignments in grade school were among my least favorites because they diverted my attention from the story and characters, especially when the symbols felt intentionally contrived.

This led me to avoid putting intentional symbols into my work. I don't want the reader to feel like they are in an easter egg hunt. If they find their own that's great, but I would rather entertain them with a good plot and character dynamics.

Why can't there be both? And isn't anything written into a novel intentional?

This is what I am not getting, authors put symbols into their work all the time, some are better at it than others, some symbols are not noticed as "Ah the shoehorn is fate", but rather understood over time. There are degrees to even that, blatant vs subtle. To me this thread reads as if people had a bad time in high shcool english and think all symbols are are extra credit assignments. The best books that use symbolism weave that into the fabric of the story itself, it isn't a reader going, "Let's find all the symbols" but rather a reader gleaning the symbolism in the story in the same way they would plot and character.

As to whether or not it matters if everyone gets the symbols placed in the book, I already made my answer but I'll try again. Not everyone gets every joke I write into my stories, not everyone gets the references. Some get one thing, others others, and yet two people who understand the book slightly differently can still both tell me they enjoyed it. Yes ideally I would love it if everyone understood everything I wrote exactly as I wanted them to, and it is my job as an author to try to convey a story as clearly as I can, but to appeal to everyone is just not possible, it will never be possible. Does that mean I then leave out the stuff not everyone might get? No. I have an entertaining story that for the most part can be appreciated on the surface and if some get the deeper levels, the inside jokes, as well, well that is just awesome.

It need not be either/or.

Toothpaste said:

Why can't there be both? And isn't anything written into a novel intentional?

This is what I am not getting, authors put symbols into their work all the time, some are better at it than others, some symbols are not noticed as "Ah the shoehorn is fate", but rather understood over time. There are degrees to even that, blatant vs subtle. To me this thread reads as if people had a bad time in high shcool english and think all symbols are are extra credit assignments. The best books that use symbolism weave that into the fabric of the story itself, it isn't a reader going, "Let's find all the symbols" but rather a reader gleaning the symbolism in the story in the same way they would plot and character.

As to whether or not it matters if everyone gets the symbols placed in the book, I already made my answer but I'll try again. Not everyone gets every joke I write into my stories, not everyone gets the references. Some get one thing, others others, and yet two people who understand the book slightly differently can still both tell me they enjoyed it. Yes ideally I would love it if everyone understood everything I wrote exactly as I wanted them to, and it is my job as an author to try to convey a story as clearly as I can, but to appeal to everyone is just not possible, it will never be possible. Does that mean I then leave out the stuff not everyone might get? No. I have an entertaining story that for the most part can be appreciated on the surface and if some get the deeper levels, the inside jokes, as well, well that is just awesome.

It need not be either/or.

Click to expand...

Toothpaste, this is really a great answer.

I hated Thomas Covenant, and now I love that annoying world "The Land". I'm into the second series and loving it; and I bought Book One of his last series.

He does a J.R.R Tolkien, and does a recap where he explains much of the symbolism that went before. It's just rather fascinating, because he didn't telegraph it. You don't see it on the way in, but that's what makes it more pleasurable when you look back and see there was "more".

I look at inserting subtle elements like a Beatles song, the song has to stand on its own merrits; but for the really curious fan, they'll play the song backwards and at different speeds to look for those little things added.

I think that really clever people like riddles, to be teased and treated. It's kind of like those old crackerjack pictures that showed different pictures depending on how you held them to the light.

But if a novel reads like the Book of Revelation, nobody is going to get it or finish it- of course unless they think your message is inspired.

So the metaphors either have to be a part of the story, or else the story has to read entirely like a great novel without solving any of the imbedded riddles. They're their for people that like that sort of thing, who will re-read something and realize there was an entirely new dimension.

So do I have any little things in my story? You'll just have to read them and find out.

H. K. Enoch said:

I remember the "find a symbol" kind of assignments in grade school were among my least favorites because they diverted my attention from the story and characters, especially when the symbols felt intentionally contrived.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many people have this at the source of symbol-antipathy? It used to hit me that way too. But that seems to me a problem with how it's taught, not with symbolism itself.

I'll add, I don't really think of what I do as playing with symbols. I think of it as a combination of putting in easter eggs (that someone somewhere might get, but if nobody does that's okay) and having all aspects of the writing, including the choice of framing metaphors, play together well.

Another thought: Interestingly enough, I think my love of symbolism is derived in part from my world view. I believe symbolism is all around us in life; I believe that a higher power actually created the world itself so as to convey meaning to us. I look at the parables Jesus told and I think, I bet the author of the universe intentionally created nature in such-and-such a manner just so this analogy would make sense to us.

So although it might be heightened in novel-form, as is plot and other elements, I do think symbols are a part of real life. When I look back at the life I've lived so far, I see symbolic elements I never noticed while I was living the event. It makes me think things like, "Ah, if I had only noticed that, I would have realized..." Whether or not that symbolism is due to the influence of a higher power or a construction of my brain is, I guess, irrelevant.

But perhaps if I believed my life was pure chance, I might feel very much different.

Mad Queen said:

You've chosen to give her green contact lenses, so you are marking her as an inappropriate woman. It's your judgement. It doesn't matter if you point it out or not, though it's better if you don't. The reader who understands the symbol will know what you think about the woman.

Click to expand...

But the symbol can be understood in different ways; the author can't impose their personal interpretation on the reader, unless they add footnotes to the text. If I read the story, and if I picked up on the green eyes symbolism, I would probably come up with a different theory on what it meant.

I agree that if symbolism is prioritised over straightforward narrative it probably won't turn out well. But I think unobtrusive symbolism can help to organise material in ways that can't be done explicitly through dialogue or description. It adds that extra layer.

Birol said:

She's the author. Who else would consider the woman inappropriate for the MC? The MC? Secondary characters? Both of which are constructs of the author's imagination, regardless of the type of writing?

Click to expand...

The characters' opinions aren't necessarily the same as the author's opinions.

Birol said:

If they aren't noticed, are they serving their purpose? If they are noticed, are they failing to serve their purpose?

Click to expand...

Your questions are too difficult.

JoNightshade said:

Another thought: Interestingly enough, I think my love of symbolism is derived in part from my world view. I believe symbolism is all around us in life; I believe that a higher power actually created the world itself so as to convey meaning to us.

Click to expand...

If you believe symbolism exists in real life, it's a different matter. I guess it makes sense for you to like symbols. I'd like symbols in a novel too if they occured naturally in the story's universe, if the gods or fate used symbols to communicate with the characters. Then they wouldn't be the author's opinion.

I think symbolism and subtexts add to the layers of the story. Like fine cooking -- people may not know what go into it, and the layers and delicacy of tastes and textures, but they know it tastes great, exquisite, complex, out of the world. I think symbolism/subtexts work on the subconscious level. While most readers probably won't be able to define or articulate these elements (leave it to the lit. scholars to discover them), or they may not even "get it," they will feel them working in the grander context.

Now, whether the writer deliberately puts in those elements... I think it depends. I'm sure some writers do, and they do it very well. Personally, I don't really think much of it, but it doesn't mean I don't "subconsciously" think of it. And sometimes, after thinking of the story and the intricacy of everything for so long, some kind of symbolism/subtext would emerge naturally. I think the best ones I had were the ones I didn't even know I used (but they were there, once I recognized them). To me, these add to the story, and for those who discover them, they're like "easter eggs" -- they add to the enjoyment.

Shweta said:

H. K. Enoch said:

I remember the "find a symbol" kind of assignments in grade school were among my least favorites because they diverted my attention from the story and characters, especially when the symbols felt intentionally contrived.

Click to expand...

I wonder how many people have this at the source of symbol-antipathy? It used to hit me that way too. But that seems to me a problem with how it's taught, not with symbolism itself.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it's part of the issue for me. I never could understand what my high school literature teachers were going on about. They didn't explain anything; it was always just X is a symbol for this and Y is a symbol for that. We were expected to nod dutifully and regurgitate it on the test.

Shweta said:

I'll add, I don't really think of what I do as playing with symbols. I think of it as a combination of putting in easter eggs (that someone somewhere might get, but if nobody does that's okay) and having all aspects of the writing, including the choice of framing metaphors, play together well.

Click to expand...

I still don't have much use for symbolism, but I have learned to appreciate metaphors. The English language is rife with metaphors; it's impossible to write anything more sophisticated than Dick and Jane without using metaphors. The only choice we have as writers is whether to leave them flopping around willy-nilly or to create patterns with them.

Birol said:

Ah, if you don't notice them [consciously] as a reader, that goes back to the original question. If they aren't consciously noticed by the reader, do they still add depth and layers to the story? Not noticing them is a far different matter than noticing them and not liking them. If they aren't noticed, are they serving their purpose? If they are noticed, are they failing to serve their purpose?

Click to expand...

Symbolism, I think, is all or nothing. If you don't recognize it, there's no connection made, so it can't have any effect. (Or maybe that's just my antipathy talking.)

Metaphors and other imagery, though, I believe those can act on the reader at a subconscious level. Imagery can set mood, imagery can reinforce theme, imagery can differentiate one character from another, imagery can foreshadow plot developments. You don't need conscious awareness to be influenced by that.

Ah see, I think symbolism is normally just blatant metaphor or metonymy. When it works

FennelGiraffe said:

I'm sure it's part of the issue for me. I never could understand what my high school literature teachers were going on about. They didn't explain anything; it was always just X is a symbol for this and Y is a symbol for that. We were expected to nod dutifully and regurgitate it on the test.

Click to expand...

You know, I hadn't thought about it like that, but I had the same kinds of teachers. When they started talking about the author's intent in the symbolism, my first reaction was to wonder if that really was what the author intended. But I'm also not someone who reads into a work, so I always have had trouble with this concept. To me, if it's blue, it's just blue, not a symbol for X.

Birol said:

If the readers do not fully realize them, do you think the symbols you use still add depth and meaning to the story?

Click to expand...

I think they still can, just not perhaps in the same way I intended. It's all good though as long as the reader has something they can take away (i. e., learn) from the story. Unconscious perception plays as much of a part as conscious perception.

Like I said one person's symbols won't mean the same thing to everybody, so you never know what you're going to get. Maybe somebody can come up with a theme to one of my stories that I never even thought of myself, at least consciously. It's happened.

Jung was the same way regarding symbols. Their primary importance lies in their personal meaning, not necessarily in their universal meaning. I know how often I read or watch things and think about all the Jungian symbolism when I have no clue whether the creator even intended any of that or not! I still enjoy putting my own spin on things.

Not to mention that sometimes people don't even want to think about symbols and just want to read a nice story.

rugcat said:

Never. I can look back over the books I've written and see themes and images that recur, and are obviously important to me, but I discover them after I'm finished, not before.

Click to expand...

blacbird said:

My feeling is that if you consciously try to employ such devices, they are likely to come across as contrived, artificial, and clumsy. If, in the course of relating a story you know in the marrow of your bones, you produce something that comes across to readers as symbolic or good imagery, it probably works a lot better.

Click to expand...

Both said better than I could. I love it when I find symbols in my work, but I never intentionally put them in there.

I think symbols should arise naturally from the text, just like symbols arise naturally from life. If the author decides to draw out natural symbols more, that's his or her decision, and I think it's a valid one, but I don't do it. I like to leave it between the text and the reader.

But let's say, for example, I have a locket my grandmother gave me before dying, and I've kept it ever since. My grandmother was very important to me, and an inspiration in my life, and let's say I look to this locket when I'm feeling lost or alone. Now, to some observers (readers) this is just a locket. To other observers (readers), or to me, it's a symbol of my grandmother, of love, or hope or inspiration, of family, etc.

maestrowork said:

I think symbolism and subtexts add to the layers of the story. Like fine cooking -- people may not know what go into it, and the layers and delicacy of tastes and textures, but they know it tastes great, exquisite, complex, out of the world. I think symbolism/subtexts work on the subconscious level. While most readers probably won't be able to define or articulate these elements (leave it to the lit. scholars to discover them), or they may not even "get it," they will feel them working in the grander context.

Now, whether the writer deliberately puts in those elements... I think it depends. I'm sure some writers do, and they do it very well. Personally, I don't really think much of it, but it doesn't mean I don't "subconsciously" think of it. And sometimes, after thinking of the story and the intricacy of everything for so long, some kind of symbolism/subtext would emerge naturally. I think the best ones I had were the ones I didn't even know I used (but they were there, once I recognized them). To me, these add to the story, and for those who discover them, they're like "easter eggs" -- they add to the enjoyment.

Click to expand...

I agree. Another great answer. I've always loved to find the hidden easter eggs, whether in a song, or a novel. It's one reason why I love Tolkien. If he never mentioned that Lord Elrond was a symbol for ancient wisdom, I'd never have guessed that. But all who came to him left by a different route.

Obviously, the meaning is profound, that wisdom will change us. And yet, most people who read that story will never get this extra Easter Egg, because they simply enjoy the story for what it is - or not. But some of us like reading and learning more about the man and his thoughts- to us it's like an extra bonus.

That is why people can't stop Talking about Tom Bombadil. He's annoying to many, an enigma, but they also know that he is symbolic. And so there are many debates about TB and what he symbolized. It's not for everyone, but for some it's a great pleasure.