Understanding
Literature
|
INTRODUCTION:The term literature is familiar to most of us because of years of schooling. Stop for a moment and think about what you associate with that word:
Writing that is
|
delight |
long rainy afternoons with a warm blanket and a good book |
engagement |
identifying with people and places outside my usual experience |
imagination |
reflection, pondering, enlarging my awareness of life and living |
The Topics and
the Tools:
What's
What
|
First, how may we define the term literature? We cannot simply call it writing because long before writing came about, people told stories and commemorated events and ideas with language and passed them down to their children and to their children's children. Also, certainly not all writing is intended as or is "worthy" to be designated as literature. However, literature is made up of language - language of the highest and often the most moving sort. Highest because it is precise. But precision is not enough; expression is everything. The greatest, most enduring writing expresses deeply the human soul, sometimes within narrowest limits, often in broad complexities, but always with the piercing to some essence of human response to life.
In this sense of response to life, literature is imaginative. In fact, the literature studied in classes of that name is often designated imaginative literature. Why imaginative?
Perhaps because it is with the
imagination that we may envision, ponder, and even construct
and reconstruct what is not literally before our eyes. It is
through the imagination that we can select detail to compose
a picture for ourselves of an event, a person, a place. The picture
we create becomes the vehicle for our discovering meaning --
or creating it.
That very picture is what the "literary" writer attempts
to paint with words.
Literature becomes, then, a vision of reality. A vision that you, the reader, may enter, explore, understand, and then accept, adapt, or discard. The greater the literature, however, the more difficult to discard its vision totally, no matter how much we may wish because literature of this sort, though perhaps not factual in the usual sense, becomes true indeed.
At this point, you may be tempted to respond in some such way: Come on. Get real. You can't tell me that writers have all that deep stuff in their brains when they sit down to write. Well, yes and no.
Some writers are quite aware of the issues they wish to present. When this is the case, it's tough to do so in a believable way because "works of art" have an uncanny life of their own, as any artist -- literary, visual, physical, musical -- may confess, often in frustration. Other writers start with only a part of the puzzle -- a character, a situation, a setting, perhaps even some technique -- and start experimenting to see what works. For these writers, writing is partly manipulation, mostly discovery.
At every point, however, there are choices to be made that in turn create new challenges, new discoveries. Because a writer is first a person who writes about some aspect of existence by selecting all along the way certain details to include or omit, a coherent picture emerges -- one whose details may be selected from reality, but because of the very process of selecting, one whose product is not itself real in any objective sense other than words on a page. Hence, that picture becomes a vision of what life is like or may be like.
LEVELS OF UNDERSTANDING AND ANALYSIS
Because a work of literature is a human expression of a vision of some aspect of life (some creation of order out of the chaos of existence, to use more philosophical language), literature qualifies as an art form that may be approached on several levels. We will identify three levels for our class purposes:
a. the superficial level -- the most obvious level of what we can all agree to (characters, events, physical setting, style, elements, etc.). All understanding at this level arises from the grasping of the specific and particular information actually contained in the work.
b. the motivational, or psychological level -- a less obvious level that involves perceiving why elements occur as they do (why characters act in certain ways, why the author made certain choices). At this level, motives may be stated either directly or indirectly in the work, and the reader often must interpret from the context as a whole.
c. the meaning, or philosophical level -- this is the level that gets at the artistic vision first, then the significance of it all to the reader. This is the level that addresses the question of so what.
As an art form, literature can be grouped into various genre, or types: short story, novel, poetry, drama, essay -- to name the broadest categories. Each has sub-categories of its own, also referred to as "genre" (science fiction, detective, initiation, fantasy, etc). Although drama is a mixed media form, it and the other genre use the common medium of language and use it in particular ways.
As in other art forms, we may talk
about the basic elements that are the author's building
blocks for expression and the reader's first "handles"
to grasp for analysis and understanding. However, before we describe
the various elements, it will be helpful to review the main principles
that govern their use (again, as in other art forms).
The chief principles guiding the use of the elements are those guiding most writing: unity, coherence, and development.
By unity, we mean that all parts -- words and elements -- are related to some central purpose that governs their inclusion and use. All relates to the whole and is necessary to it; without any part, the whole would somehow change and become something else. Since most of the selections for college literature courses are works that are generally considered "good" or "quality" or "worthy" because they have been published in widely acclaimed anthologies or periodicals and have received critical recognition, you as a student may assume unity with some degree of confidence. This is an advantage to you because when something appears at first glance not to "fit" or to be relevant, you can proceed positively and start to discover some of the threads that connect that element to the whole; that is, you can begin to experiment with interpretation.
Coherence relates to the smoothness of flow between parts of the work. Often structure is plain, and one section moves clearly and logically into the next. Sometimes, however, on the surface of things, you may have no idea where you are going and only in retrospect will be able to detect the pattern that governs movement. Once again, because of the nature of the selections, you are fairly safe to assume coherence and to attempt to discover it.
Development refers to all the detail that "fleshes
out" the concepts into a clear picture. It will include
descriptive details, characterization detail, elaboration on
idea, thoughts, sensory information, and event and their explanations.
Some writers give more than you ever thought you needed; others
paint mere bare bones. Development in literature that "works"
is largely a matter of individual author's consistent style and
sometimes reader expectation and demands.
The chief elements that we will consider are the traditional ones for fiction: plot, character, setting, style, and theme. These elements are basic to most fiction because the form is narrative whether it be story told in short form, long (novel), drama/film, or even narrative verse.
Fiction refers to narratives whose subjects, events, characters, etc. are largely imaginative and non-factual. This does not mean that all details exist only in the story and not in reality, but that the whole is not to be taken as "literally true." Hence, there are historical fiction and other similar forms.
| Narratives are stories: a character or characters involve themselves in some conflict at which a resolution is intended. |
It is the conflict that provides the sine qua non (the without-which-there-is-nothing) of a story. No conflict, no story. No matter how fascinating the characters, how rich the setting, how magnificent the style, how deep the intended theme.
| No conflict, no story. |
Since conflict is central and conflict
is the heart of plot, then plot is one place to begin.
What is plot? Your immediate response may be something like Plot is what happens in a story. You know, the events -- rising action, climax, falling action -- stuff like that. That is certainly part of it. A German writer, Gustav Freytag, suggested a sort of pyramid structure to classical five-act drama that has been applied often and profitably to all fiction:
1) introduction
2) complications and development
3) climax
4) falling action
5) denouement (a resolution that involves tying together all the threads of the story and in tragedy also involves final catastrophe.
All this is based upon conflict. Basic character and setting exist. Enter problem. The characters, who have certain interests and goals, confront obstacles whether human, societal, natural, or divine (sounds like real life, doesn't it?). Of course, conflict results. The story is created by the sequence of decisions and events that attempt to deal with the obstacles and resolve the dilemmas. If the obstacles are overcome and the goals are reached, we have a happy ending (for the protagonist, at least) and the "stuff" of comedy; if the goals are not reached, we have an unhappy ending for the protagonist and the "stuff" of tragedy.
On the superficial level, we may ask the following questions:
1. Can you identify the sequence of events?
2. Can you identify the goals that set these events in motion?
3. Can you identify the obstacles that influenced the course of the events?
4. Can you identify the plot's resolution by the end of the story and determine if goals have or have not been met?
On the motivational level, the plot involves all the forces acting to create events:
1. What internal forces in the characters influence the events and/or are in conflict? (Internal forces may be values, dreams, personality, instincts, goals, passions, and characteristic traits.)
2. What external forces exert influence or are in conflict? (External forces may be historical events, economic conditions, social structure, culture, nature, God, Fate, and even other people or groups.)
On the thematic, or philosophical, level, the plot analysis and interpretation involves identification of the central conflict, the classic categories being the following:
a) the person and the self,
b) the person and others,
c) the person and the environment (physical or social, natural or human-made), and
d) the person and the supernatural or the spiritual, traditionally in western literature in the form of God or the gods.
Any or all of the conflicts may be present in a story, but usually one can be defended as the basic (or main) conflict, sometimes unequivocally, sometimes only as a matter of interpretation.
The first thing most students think of when we mention character is character traits. Traits we most commonly think of in terms of adjectives descriptive of personality: aggressive, kind, garrulous, loving, weak, strong, ambitious, proud, etc. The superficial level of analysis involves identification of these along with reference to details from the story that support our labels.
To do this, we must recognize how an author delineates character in a number of ways:
a. through direct exposition -- the author simply tells us what he or she wants us to know;
b. through what other characters say about the character (these comments may be suspect, depending upon the character speaking and the author's use of that character;
c. through the character's actions and choices;
d. through the character's thoughts, if we have access to them;
e. through the character's speech;
f. through the character's physical appearance.
A typical plot diagram on the superficial level representing the main plot as the solid line and the sub-plot as the broken line. Each has the same parts:
a = exposition
b = rising action
c = climax
d = falling action
e = denouement, or conclusion
On the psychological level, we may examine causes and effects of traits, whether the character changes or develops, effects of characters upon each other, motivations for choices -- the whys of choice and behavior and relationships -- the what-makes-him-tick aspect that is of far greater interest than mere labels.
On the philosophical level, we may see implications of perspectives, choices, behaviors, and relationships, and we may relate these to our own time, world, and life.
To most people, the word setting refers to geographical location and historical period, or to put it more simply, it refers to place and time.
1) Rather than thinking of place as geographical location, I would like to expand -- or contract -- the concept to physical setting that includes all physical characteristics: geographical place, of course, but also other physical surroundings - a neighborhood, a street, a house, a room, colors on the wall, furniture, temperature, etc. -- all the physical features. Why? Because the author selected each detail either consciously or not, so that it all creates the coherent, unified picture. The superficial level identifies these; the motivational level explores the reasons for the choices.
2) Second to physical placement of characters and action is the temporal placement. Historical period plus the year, the season, the month, day, time of day, and even the hour. All of these if they are given. Each detail of placement in time contributes to the psychological effect on both characters and reader (for instance, an aging woman or man alone at dusk in autumn).
In addition to these two well-known aspects of setting, we might also consider others because of their contribution to the whole atmosphere of the story.
3) The third aspect of setting to identify is the combination of the lifestyle of the character(s), which is heavily influenced and represented by occupation(s). For instance, the setting of a Washington attorney will be very different than the setting for a Washington street person (although their worlds might be made to overlap interestingly in a larger context of a story).
4) The fourth and last aspect of setting we will identify is the general environment created by the psychological and philosophical atmosphere of the story. This part of setting may be heavily connected to history or character, but it becomes an aspect of setting when it is drawn as a backdrop of choice and action.
Style is often dispensed with as "the way the author writes - the word choice." This may sound simple, but when requested to analyze it, many students will find themselves asking what on earth the definition means!
Style may be anything from choice of a word such as tintinnabulation as opposed to sound to choice of a whole characteristic vocabulary such as that of a "kid from the Bronx." This is why style may seem to make a story easy or difficult to access. Think of your first experience with Shakespeare. I can guarantee that it wasn't plot, character, or setting that most got in your way!
Style also includes sentence structure from Faulkner's 25-line long, complex sentences to Hemingway's 5-word ones. It includes level of language from scholarly to conversational. Because of this, style is often the most characteristic earmark of an author. Experienced readers can spot a particular writer at a glance.
Style relates to the author's use of imagery and symbol. Imagery is often considered most effective when rooted firmly in the reality of the story. For instance, in Hemingway's "Snows of Kilimanjaro," animal references are a significant part of the African setting. However, Hemingway also focuses upon those animals closely associated with naturalistic death -- vultures and a particularly ghostly hyena all drawn by the smell of the protagonist's progressing gangrene infection. Their use in the story emphasizes the inevitability and naturalness of death, the dispassionate unconcern of nature so characteristic of naturalism as a literary philosophy, as well as a human being's quite passionate distaste for his own end. Even the choice of hyena, which is suitable for the real setting, arouses the association of the un-funny, misplaced, and terrifying cry that sounds like laughter. As the hyena's invisible presence recurs, its imagery becomes a symbol of death and a certain statement about death because the image actually represents more than what it literally is.
As you may begin to see, imagery can be extremely powerful because of its capacity to evoke associations in the reader's imagination. Some images call forth universal responses because they are grounded in experiences common to people everywhere. These are images of family, of birth, death, stages in life. They may be images that evoke responses to war. Weapons, uniforms, drumbeats, insignia, flags -- these all may emphasize the glory of war. These same details can evoke the brutality and destructiveness, especially when combined with the blood-color red, torn uniforms and flags and men, or children's cries.
Other images may be culturally based and so able to appeal only to those who understand. "Mother, apple pie, and ice cream" are typically American. Colors of mourning change in different cultures -- traditionally black in the West, white in parts of the Orient. Uncle Sam is a familiar figure the world over, yet probably calls up vastly different responses, not only based upon one's nationality, but even among Americans.
Some common types of images are called by specific names:
a) simile - a comparison that announces itself usually with such words as "like" or "as". Example: "as soft as a cloud"
b) metaphor - a comparison that is implied and that assumes the reader will grasp the intent: "green-eyed jealousy."1) personification - a metaphor that gives human characteristics to non-human things, beings, or ideas: "the arms of death"
2) anthropomorphism - like personification, but here the comparison gives human characteristics to God or to the gods.
3) synechdoche - a comparison that represents something by a significant part of it: "I need a strong arm to help me." "Here comes the mouth!"
Perhaps more surprisingly, style may also refer to choices of structure: types of beginnings and endings, types of plots, use of flashback, stream of consciousness organization. Here we may ask questions such as these:
1. How does the story begin? Does it start at the beginning of the plot or does it toss us into the middle or even begin at the climax? Does it begin with explanation and background or does it let us discover as we go?
Why might the author have chosen to begin this way? How would another beginning have changed the story significantly?
2. Does the ending tie everything together in an obvious way, or does it appear to leave the reader hanging? Is it satisfying or not, and why?
What other endings seemed possible or even preferable? How would another ending have changed the story, its themes, and its impact?
3. How is the plot organized? Does it proceed in a chronological fashion? Does it use flashbacks, and if so, what is their effect? Does the organization seem dis-organized, and if so, what is the effect of that?
How might the story be changed if the order and method of its telling were different?
Usually people identify the author's tone, language level, use of imagery, and let it go at that. On a deeper level, however, we can see that these style choices relate to character, setting, theme, and overall pacing of our reading. If language is "out of sync" with these elements, the story does not "feel" right. Because language is the vehicle of literature, style most directly affects our encounter with the piece as a whole and with each part of it.
A final aspect of style that warrants special consideration is the author's choice of point of view. By that term, we mean from whose perspective the story is told, or through whose eyes we experience the people and events. Selecting point of view is one of the most important decisions the author must make because a story changes drastically depending upon who does the telling (as most of us have painfully learned)!
The first of the three major categories of point of view is the first person narrator, one of the characters who is him- or herself telling the story. This character may be the protagonist, but may also be another character in the story -- someone involved with the protagonist, a minor character/observer, or even the antagonist. Since the first person pronoun is used by the character/narrator, this perspective lends great immediacy to a narrative, but also severely limits the reader's knowledge to just what that character knows, observes, and thinks -- all of which results in a highly slanted telling.
The third person point of view may be divided into two main types: the limited and the omniscient. The limited view is restricts itself to the reference point of only one of the characters in a sort of "over the shoulder" perspective. The author uses the third person pronoun in referring to the character, but the reader has the same limitations as with the first person -- we see only what that character sees, know what s/he knows, etc. The use of third person pronoun lends greater subtlety to the narration, but also a bit more detachment for the reader than the first person does.
The third person omniscient point of view allows the author greater freedom to provide exposition and to enter into any of the characters' thoughts. When we learn of any background apart from character or see what more than one character is thinking, we are reading a third person omniscient point of view.
The third major category of point
of view is the dramatic,
or objective, perspective.
It is called "dramatic" because the author allows the
reader to see only what s/he would see if the events were performed
on a stage -- that is, we could only be fairly detached observers,
learning about the characters and events much as we do in real
life through our own observations, never entering into the inner
sanctum of a character's thoughts unless s/he "wishes"
to divulge them in speech or action. The main difference, of
course, is that the author controls the details we can observe
and so also controls the vision we see of the world.
The final element to be considered is theme. Some people think of a theme as a moral, others as the main idea (sort of like an essay's thesis). And theme can be these, depending on the piece. There was a time when people expected to be able to assign a moral such as "crime doesn't pay," "love of money is the root of all evil," "to thine own self be true," etc. Some stories fit this demand. However, with the advent of realism in literature at some point around the Civil War in this country, writers began simply to portray life as they saw it and let the lessons fall where they may. Themes as morals became difficult to assign. On a superficial level, it may be possible to assign such theme statements, but they may be far from author intent and barely graze the surface of meaning. When speaking of most modern literature, and retrospectively of much of the great literature of the past, it is more appropriate to the author and more workable for the reader to talk about patterns of meaning -- threads of ideas, motifs that recur in a work and together weave that vision of life, or some aspect of it, to which I have previously referred.
Questions a reader might ask could be framed as follows:
What characteristics of life emerge as you read the story? What does life seem like: does it make sense? is there justice in the world? do we have any control over our own lives? is there anything worth living for, much less worth dying for? what makes it all worthwhile? is there meaning, or do you create it yourself?
At this point, we need to address the problem of interpretation. I often hear someone state an opinion about a character or a theme and then hear the response, "that's your interpretation." It appears that some students, or just people in general, think that whatever they feel is true about a work is true because it is "their interpretation." We need to discuss just what interpretation is and what is isn't. Whatever a story makes you think of is not interpretation; it is just whatever the story makes you think of.
| An interpretation is an effort to make some sort of sense of what you have read. |
It first involves the superficial level of reading: a character does or does not do something or say something. If it is directly in the text, it is not a matter of interpretation. Interpretation occurs when we infer relationships and statements of motivation and theme that are not stated explicitly in the text. However, anything does not legitimately go! An interpretation is more or less valid depending on the evidence for it in the text and upon its relevance to the story as a whole, its unity.
We need to separate our subjective response to a story from our objective analysis and evaluation. Why? Because one of the main aims/effects of literature is one of the chief aims/effects of education: to get us out of ourselves and to experience the world through the eyes of another. To get us to "try on" various perspectives and attitudes to see what "fits" for us and to see other people's way of looking at things. We are each prisoners of our own self-hood, our own identity. Literature affords an escape from that in a way nothing else can because it communicates imagination to imagination.
Therefore, the most appropriate attitude for reading is one we call temporary, willing suspension of disbelief. That is, for the duration of the reading, we allow the author to shape our imaginations so that we experience the world s/he has created in as real a way as is humanly possible. Once we do this, the we can step back and make sure we have understood by analysis based on what has been described in this essay. Then we can attempt to interpret -- still sympathetic to the piece -- to discover meanings and implications. Finally, we can evaluate in one or both of two ways.
Objective evaluation involves the work's success in achieving what it set out to do. The success in manipulating the elements of fiction and success within each element (such as, are the characters believable, given the parameters set by the story?). Once we have made every effort to understand and evaluate the author on his or her terms, then and only then is it fair (and safe) to evaluate the piece based upon our agreement or disagreement with, or our like or dislike of the vision.
Even if we discover that we disagree with the author's view, there is still much that can be discovered and applied because we have, through the encounter with the story, broadened our own experience of other human beings and their response to life.
The purpose of e-duc-ation is, after all, to "lead out."