reasons I hate /talking/ about literature with opinionated people:
because everyone is wrong and I'm right.
alright not really but c'mon. this is what I'm good at. this is what I /do./
I mean usually I can go off on my tangent and bitchslap everyone with words, but no, when you get the opinionated ones in the conversation, it's like "shut up, you're not Enlightened like I am." Yes, I'm full of myself, but I think this is one area where I can claim at least semi-expertise, you know?
I /get/ it. Things /click/ for me. It's like solving a math problem; it's like figuring out derivatives. And yes, they're the same. Figuring out the logic of a math problem is akin to figuring out the themes and symbolism of a piece of writing. There is, to a degree, a right answer.
If you look at Catcher in the Rye and try and use it as an excuse for killing John Lennon... NO. YOU'RE WRONG. You read it incorrectly. Try again. Minus $2000. No double Jeopardy for you.
It's a /hard/ math problem, I'll give you that, but if you're smart, you can figure it out.
Now, how you apply this symbolism and theme to your personal life -- that's a different story. That's something that doesn't belong in a classroom, not something that can be taught, but something you can do on your own. How a book makes you /feel/, makes you act, develops your take on life or whatever... that's the personal part of English, the part that math lacks. But to truly get that satisfaction of affecting your life, you have to get the first part down. You have to know what the author wanted you to take from it. You need to analyze the symbolism and imagery and metaphors and similes. You /have/ to, otherwise you won't really get it.
Maybe I can take this back to the math metaphor...
You have to know the unpractical part of math to get to the "real world" application. And usually, for the "real world" application, you don't need to get so... involved in the process.
Take All Quiet on the Western Front. It's really, painfully obviously an anti-war novel. It says it on the frickin' cover. But you take it, you analyze it, you learn the author's tone, you look at the symbolism, and you see the theme in all its glory. To get to the application, all you really needed to know was it was an anti-war novel, and determine whether or not you are going to take it to heart. Do you agree or disagree with the author? You only need the basic level, but to back yourself up, to really /learn/ from the novel, you need to get into the symbolism and metaphors and motifs. You need to look for allegories and know that diction is just as important as anything else.
Take /any/ book. Harry Potter. Hell, take Where the Wild Things Are. Take The Da Vinci Code or TWILIGHT, even. There are bits to be analyzed. There is something to /learn/. There's a theme to be gotten. There's an idea developed. There's a /reason/ the book was written, and I PROMISE it's /not/ just because the author was bored. Those books don't get published, those books have no substance.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with the idea is your opinion; what you take from the book is entirely personal. Personally, I disagree with the morals of Twilight. I think it's a shitty book. I don't think there's a lot of depth to it, and I don't think Smeyer was very subtle, but whatever. She is an author, she wrote a book, and I have an immense amount of respect for her. I do.
Now, she could probably stand to work on her narrative technique, which can and often does enhance the theme of the book.
Alright this is really long and rambly but whatever. This is what happens to me.
alright not really but c'mon. this is what I'm good at. this is what I /do./
I mean usually I can go off on my tangent and bitchslap everyone with words, but no, when you get the opinionated ones in the conversation, it's like "shut up, you're not Enlightened like I am." Yes, I'm full of myself, but I think this is one area where I can claim at least semi-expertise, you know?
I /get/ it. Things /click/ for me. It's like solving a math problem; it's like figuring out derivatives. And yes, they're the same. Figuring out the logic of a math problem is akin to figuring out the themes and symbolism of a piece of writing. There is, to a degree, a right answer.
If you look at Catcher in the Rye and try and use it as an excuse for killing John Lennon... NO. YOU'RE WRONG. You read it incorrectly. Try again. Minus $2000. No double Jeopardy for you.
It's a /hard/ math problem, I'll give you that, but if you're smart, you can figure it out.
Now, how you apply this symbolism and theme to your personal life -- that's a different story. That's something that doesn't belong in a classroom, not something that can be taught, but something you can do on your own. How a book makes you /feel/, makes you act, develops your take on life or whatever... that's the personal part of English, the part that math lacks. But to truly get that satisfaction of affecting your life, you have to get the first part down. You have to know what the author wanted you to take from it. You need to analyze the symbolism and imagery and metaphors and similes. You /have/ to, otherwise you won't really get it.
Maybe I can take this back to the math metaphor...
You have to know the unpractical part of math to get to the "real world" application. And usually, for the "real world" application, you don't need to get so... involved in the process.
Take All Quiet on the Western Front. It's really, painfully obviously an anti-war novel. It says it on the frickin' cover. But you take it, you analyze it, you learn the author's tone, you look at the symbolism, and you see the theme in all its glory. To get to the application, all you really needed to know was it was an anti-war novel, and determine whether or not you are going to take it to heart. Do you agree or disagree with the author? You only need the basic level, but to back yourself up, to really /learn/ from the novel, you need to get into the symbolism and metaphors and motifs. You need to look for allegories and know that diction is just as important as anything else.
Take /any/ book. Harry Potter. Hell, take Where the Wild Things Are. Take The Da Vinci Code or TWILIGHT, even. There are bits to be analyzed. There is something to /learn/. There's a theme to be gotten. There's an idea developed. There's a /reason/ the book was written, and I PROMISE it's /not/ just because the author was bored. Those books don't get published, those books have no substance.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with the idea is your opinion; what you take from the book is entirely personal. Personally, I disagree with the morals of Twilight. I think it's a shitty book. I don't think there's a lot of depth to it, and I don't think Smeyer was very subtle, but whatever. She is an author, she wrote a book, and I have an immense amount of respect for her. I do.
Now, she could probably stand to work on her narrative technique, which can and often does enhance the theme of the book.
Alright this is really long and rambly but whatever. This is what happens to me.
Thank you.
*does English homework*
<3
Also P-Nelli in the tags ahaha.
I dont think I was even CLOSE to being this analytical when I was 16.
I really like your post, and under normal circumstances I may stay here and actually write a good comment with some substance other than "it was good", because, well, when one writes that much about something that is actually conversation worthy, they like to get good comments, but I should be doing work, so this is the last thing I am going to do online besides talk to you on skype.