# Teaching > General Teaching >  Teaching Literature as a Science

## Gladys

We all know that academia has long considered literature like art or music, in that the beholder brings much to the interpretation, so that young students are encouraged to interpret for themselves with little correction, hopefully learning in the process. Nevertheless, most literature involves communication from a writer which, if understood, multiplies our appreciation. Although we cant know a writers original intent, we can painstakingly decipher meaning intrinsic in the text, as the starting point for finding our own additional meanings.

For me, literature is communication from a great writer that I strive to understand before seeking my own variant or deeper meanings. Most communication, whether oral or visual, demands scrupulous attention to evidence. For instance, young students in science and mathematics are expected to gain a meticulous understanding of a text. A similar expectation may have once applied to literature and is gathering momentum in some universities as post modernist influences fade. Does careful attention to evidence render the study of astronomy, biology or mathematics less rewarding or inspiring? 

I have twins in an elite city high-school, where the two literature teachers and fifty pupils interpret Washington Square by Henry James as the story of a cruel and evil father impeding the not undesirable marriage of his hard-done-by, feminist daughter to a gold-digger. Such an interpretation gives little weight to textual evidence. Love of literature is not just a love of reading but the love of insights and ideas from great writers.

If fear of being wrong turns young students off literature or mathematics, so might neglect of the peerless logic, insights and ideas inherent in a dazzling text.

----------


## JCamilo

Except, Art and literature gets richer with variation of interpretation, even because it is not possible a full interpretation of anything. 
Take for example Dante and his Comedy. The continious re-reading of the book only granted its imortality. Expecting us to read with the same mindset of italians from XIV century is discovering that book have no longevity. 
Every generation must add something, and if we just nail the truth, the work is done and all will be over.

----------


## Gladys

I agree, except to say insightful interpretation can hardly take place in the absence of understanding. For instance, to interpret a novel in French, one needs an understanding of that language. 

Similarly, a student's interpretation of an English novel is hardly meaningful, where grammar and vocabulary skills are hopelessly inadequate. I sure many students find 'meaning' in more difficult passages by reading sentences in an _order_ that differs from the writer's, or by _omitting_ a problematic sentence or two.

----------


## JCamilo

Not knowing the language is not absence of understanding, it is just no reading at all. Absence of understanding is something that belongs to the universe of Homer Simpson, even the most notorious simpletown may give an interpretation of a text. 
Anyways, what you describe is not teaching literature, but teaching the language. Two different things. 
Many would argue that reading a sentence in a different order is a fair game, after all James Joyce wrote a book that could be read in any order. Others will point that some mistakes of translation, exactly because the translator had limitations when reggarding the original language have important influence on the history of literature (Moses probally never stepped on the red sea or the manipulation of the translators of 1001 Nights, for example) and a few would say that pointing that ommitting a problematic sentence is a form of reading and may lead to creating a new perspective. 
Everything depends the field and approach of the literature teaching. For example, lingustic studies can hardly be so interpretative, since they do follow almost a mathematical pattern. But it is hardly the best subject to all classrooms.

----------


## Gladys

> even the most notorious simpleton may give an interpretation of a text


We differ, JCamilo, in our usage of the word 'interpretation'. I presuppose that a valid 'interpretation' must flow from a defensible understanding of the text.

Each student needs an _appropriate_ grasp of language, whether French or English, for meaningful interpretation. Without that grasp, the best a student may achieve is fine creative vision, based on incidental fragments within the text. Such imaginative vision constitutes inspiration rather than 'interpretation', but does no more justice to the text than would Homer Simpson.

Understanding language - grammar, vocabulary, idioms, punctuation - is an essential prerequisite for understanding literature. And most high school students lack sufficient understanding of their native language to decode classical literature typically written for an educated elite.

While, James Joyce may have written 'a book that could be read in any order', most of his and other writers' works need to be read strictly in the order written. When I mentioned 'omitting a _problematic_ sentence or two', I meant _sentences problematic to the unskilled reader_. Such pregnant sentences are often crucial to understanding and interpreting the work as a whole. 

To repeat my basic contention: the first step in a valid interpretation of a text is to understand thoroughly its literal meaning.

----------


## JCamilo

Well, It was T.S.Eliot who once said that a reader may not have the same interpretation of the writer and something he may have a better interpretation. All interpretations are valid, of course, some are more - just like any text - strong than others. Of course, there is a correct interpretation - the one that usually only the writer knows about - but who said we need or it is possible to achive such interpretation (To tell the truth, modern study of language will go against it). 

Understanding a work as a whole. What does it means? You can understand a part of Dante Comedy but you are wrong if do not understand another? And I only need the example of one book that does not need to be read in sequence (actually, a trait only to romance and novels - the flow of chapters - which can be ignored, we need only Kafka to understand there is no relevant part of a novel that is not just a short story) to show that reading the entire work in order is just a habit, not a need. (It is not the only book that allows such thing.) 
I agree that most basic form of interpretation is the literal meaning. That is all. Since - as Chekhov once said - "writing is not hard, hard is to hide what you really want to say", the literal meaning is not exactly a key to unlock many secrets, right?
More, the first step? I would say that the first step to understand Dante is studying St. Agustyne and Virgil. The life, style, philosophy, everything that build that writer may be more important than the literal meaning. Reading Il Convivio (by Dante himself) helps more than the literal meaning. Ok, you may claim that losing track of the literal meaning will make the reader abandon the text, because he didnt conected at basic level. I agree. But not everyone reads to understand beyond all the several layers of interpretation. 
In the end, you are creating rule of how people must read and the only rule is that they must read as they like. The first step is producing the bound between reader and text. And you do not produce a bound by obligation, you produce by freedom. 


See, Gladys I do not know French. Yet, I am very good with some french authors. Ok, I know you just said those two languages for tradition, but I repeat - translation is often an interpretation and we have sittuations in the history where translators didnt fully understood the languages they are working. This stopped a meaningful interpretation? What exactly is a meaningful interpretation? Satan is not noble or a hero in Paradise Lost, but the romantic movement interpreted as such (and they understood well the language) and voilá, we have the anti-hero born. It was not meaningful?

----------


## Gladys

> I agree that most basic form of interpretation is the literal meaning ... the literal meaning is not exactly a key to unlock many secrets, right? But not everyone reads to understand beyond all the several layers of interpretation.


Of course there is much, much more to interpretation than understanding literal meaning, but the latter is _necessarily_ the foundation, the cornerstone. If the 'first step to understand Dante is studying St. Augustine and Virgil', our student must still begin by decoding literal meaning in that study! 

Perhaps we can agree, JCamilo that a 'first step in a valid interpretation of a text is to understand thoroughly its literal meaning'? If so our differences may be minimal. As you rightly say, "Ok, you may claim that losing track of the literal meaning will make the reader abandon the text, because he didn't connect at basic level. I agree." I have been arguing that few readers and fewer students are capable of achieving _that first step_, of connecting 'at basic level'. And without achieving that first step, their 'interpretations' are vacuous.

Are you _really_ suggesting, in the quote above, that understanding literal meaning should follow, in part, from a grasp of 'all the several layers of interpretation'? Surely not.




> Of course, there is a correct interpretation - the one that usually only the writer knows about...


For me, the 'correct interpretation' or interpretations derive from a reasoned appreciation of the writer's text, which may or may not have expressed adequately his intention. Since our understanding of human psychology is so primitive, there will always be scope for better interpretations of every text. For instance, Shakespeare reinterpreted earlier plays, and I suspect his interpretations of those plays were more _correct_ than most of those early playwrights. 




> ...we need only Kafka to understand there is no relevant part of a novel that is not just a short story


If so, the sequential and accurate decoding of literal meaning within each 'short story' is a prerequisite for understanding (for interpreting) these stories. Obviously, some decoding failures will have more serious impact than others. 




> but I repeat - translation is often an interpretation and we have situations in the history where translators didn't fully understood the languages they are working. This stopped a meaningful interpretation?


Since translation always involves substantial interpretation, poorer translations do cloud meaning. As most translators are exceptionally skilled in decoding literal meaning, their interpretations are always more meaningful than students who are not. Of course, the translator needs to decode both literal and figurative meaning, as well as understanding relevant culture, politics, geography, history, etc.

----------


## JCamilo

> Of course there is much, much more to interpretation than understanding literal meaning, but the latter is _necessarily_ the foundation, the cornerstone. If the 'first step to understand Dante is studying St. Augustine and Virgil', our student must still begin by decoding literal meaning in that study!


First, sorry Gladys. I missed this answer, that is why my reply is delayed. 
First, having a perfect understanding of idiom may not produce a perfect understanding, so I would say everything work together. You can not separate both.
But the basic is your intention. If you are talking about a crytical analyses, I would say you need all. But your original post talk about something else. You mention high-school students. You are talking about people grasping the vallue of literature and how to teach it. So, I must quote Jorge Luis Borges: "I have not taught literature, I have taught love for literature", evne being one of the top writers of XX century, plus one of the main critics and teacher of literature he shunned away of technical interpretations and told his students they should like reading first and then the rest. 




> Perhaps we can agree, JCamilo that a 'first step in a valid interpretation of a text is to understand thoroughly its literal meaning'? If so our differences may be minimal. As you rightly say, "Ok, you may claim that losing track of the literal meaning will make the reader abandon the text, because he didn't connect at basic level. I agree." I have been arguing that few readers and fewer students are capable of achieving _that first step_, of connecting 'at basic level'. And without achieving that first step, their 'interpretations' are vacuous.


I believe that one can even graps something without a perfect literary meaning, but it is really obvious language came first. But my point is that valid interpretaiton are not that necessary for literature. 




> Are you _really_ suggesting, in the quote above, that understanding literal meaning should follow, in part, from a grasp of 'all the several layers of interpretation'? Surely not.


No, because I follow Dante line of reasoning. 






> For me, the 'correct interpretation' or interpretations derive from a reasoned appreciation of the writer's text, which may or may not have expressed adequately his intention. Since our understanding of human psychology is so primitive, there will always be scope for better interpretations of every text. For instance, Shakespeare reinterpreted earlier plays, and I suspect his interpretations of those plays were more _correct_ than most of those early playwrights.


Here some points:
1 - A reasonable interpretation may lead to mistakes as well. 
2 - Some writers (most of the good writers) create texts with differet interpretations, so one may be right and other as well, with both defending different visions. Some, like kafka, play exactly with gap between understanding and interpretation, leaving a open vaccum to create chaos. Alegories abound. 
3 - Shakespeare can only be right about his own plays. 
Thus, I would rather appreciate the texts from the point of view of technique, aesthetical experience than what coulod it mean to one person. From the point of view of the writer at least, it is what matters to me. 




> If so, the sequential and accurate decoding of literal meaning within each 'short story' is a prerequisite for understanding (for interpreting) these stories. Obviously, some decoding failures will have more serious impact than others.


Of course. However, more important is the discussion that people know to read or how to read. Obviously, to discuss if they know how to read, they must have the language dominated already. 






> Since translation always involves substantial interpretation, poorer translations do cloud meaning. As most translators are exceptionally skilled in decoding literal meaning, their interpretations are always more meaningful than students who are not. Of course, the translator needs to decode both literal and figurative meaning, as well as understanding relevant culture, politics, geography, history, etc.


agreed, what I would point is that mistakes or clouded interpretations are also valid. Not valid for a perfect critical analyses, but not all readers need to belong to that group. Literature also breed from those mistakes, so the correct teaching would need also to vallue it.

----------


## Gladys

Our differences, JCamilo, now seem few:




> So, I must quote Jorge Luis Borges: "I have not taught literature, I have taught love for literature", even being one of the top writers of XX century, plus one of the main critics and teacher of literature he shunned away of technical interpretations and told his students they should like reading first and then the rest.


I would argue that school should encourage a love for reading in the same way as they ought to be fostering a love for science and mathematics (consistent with Jorge Luis Borges). It's not so much a matter of painstaking 'technical interpretations' as _elementary reading for meaning_. A modicum of common-sense when one reads - that teenagers so often lack.




> 3 - Shakespeare can only be right about his own plays.


Being right is a matter of interpreting text, not a matter of conversation or séance with its writer. What's written stays written. I have no doubt Shakespeare would see more deeply into many a play by a lesser contemporary than these shallow playwrights themselves. 




> But my point is that valid interpretation [is] not that necessary for literature.


Only true if _understanding_  is detrimental to _the joy of reading_ and _the generation of thoughts and ideas_. To the contrary, understanding may actually enhance both joy and inspiration. 




> Literature also breed[s] from those mistakes, so the correct teaching would need also to value it.


 Just as in mathematics, constructive reflection on mistakes is the pathway to understanding, improvement and, yes, innovation.

----------


## JCamilo

> I would argue that school should encourage a love for reading in the same way as they ought to be fostering a love for science and mathematics (consistent with Jorge Luis Borges). It's not so much a matter of painstaking 'technical interpretations' as _elementary reading for meaning_. A modicum of common-sense when one reads - that teenagers so often lack.


The great problem lies in teaching as a science: if you study mathematics you have no opition. You must deal with every aspect of your particular field. You will be an specialist. If you study literature, you wont be a specialist. You as a teacher is as sucessful if you turn a young boy (or girl) in a reader lover that just enjoy superficiality or in a dude that will seek every hidden meaning of the text. Like Umberto Eco likes to say, there is different kinds of readers and all of them are equally relevant. 



[quote]Being right is a matter of interpreting text, not a matter of conversation or séance with its writer. What's written stays written. I have no doubt Shakespeare would see more deeply into many a play by a lesser contemporary than these shallow playwrights themselves. [//uote]

Shakespeare objective was not interpretation of the previous texts but creating his own vision. So, he was right: you can only measure sucess if you analyse the objectives of a given activity. 





> Only true if _understanding_  is detrimental to _the joy of reading_ and _the generation of thoughts and ideas_. To the contrary, understanding may actually enhance both joy and inspiration.


Actually, it is true if there is a single example of joy of reading regardless of interpretation. It shows there is no such rule that you need a higher level of understanding to enjoy the text. And there is not. 




> Just as in mathematics, constructive reflection on mistakes is the pathway to understanding, improvement and, yes, innovation.


Literature is no mathematics. Reflection on mistakes may also lead to misunderstanding and they may lead to innovation as well. Two different visions and interpretations may be equally positive (In the creative sense), just look Voltaire and Liebniz, Poe and Coleridge, Borges and Neruda (about Walt Whitman), the vision of Kafka as a prophet of Nazism, Emily Dickinson pontuaction, The interpretations of the Divine Comedy, Ortega Y Gasset Meditations of Quixote and Borges Pierre Menard, Reading Ulysses just as a mirror of Odyssey, Virgil view about Ulysses, The real identidy of Homer, Marco Polo Letters, MacPherson's Ossin, Carlyle and Emerson...

----------


## Gladys

> The great problem lies in teaching as a science: if you study mathematics you have no option. You must deal with every aspect of your particular field. You will be an specialist. If you study literature, you wont be a specialist.


Not so. Just as all children are taught _basic_ mathematics, all should be taught basic principles for decoding _literal_ meaning from text in a systematic way. Specialisation comes later.

With respect to Shakespeare, we are at cross purposes. I was just proposing _a thought experiment_.




> Actually, it is true if there is a single example of joy of reading regardless of interpretation. It shows there is no such rule that you need a higher level of understanding to enjoy the text.


Why not argue the same for the_ joy of doing mathematics_? Perhaps its even true!?




> Literature is no mathematics. Reflection on mistakes may also lead to misunderstanding and they may lead to innovation as well.


You seem to believe that this is true only for literature. I would argue its truth for both maths and science.

----------


## JCamilo

> Not so. Just as all children are taught _basic_ mathematics, all should be taught basic principles for decoding _literal_ meaning from text in a systematic way. Specialisation comes later.


But this is already how it works. Alphabetization is the basic level of interpretation. Even if at first, literature is rather a support than an objective (after all you will use language for oral conversations as well). 
Unless where you live (sorry, No idea) there is something radically different from what happens in Brazil, where simple texts are given and the student must locate the main characters, split the text, etc. But that I doubt will make anyone be a adcited reader which is necessary for the next levels of reading. 




> With respect to Shakespeare, we are at cross purposes. I was just proposing _a thought experiment_.


I know, but I think this illustrate a bit where I think you are doing a mistake of judgment (I do not think while actually teaching you do, since we are just throwing theories) is forgetting you must adequate your expectations and working plan to your objectives. Then judge the results by it. 





> Why not argue the same for the_ joy of doing mathematics_? Perhaps its even true!?


Because the pratice of literature is not objective as the pratice of mathematics. If we talk about basic text we may say that scientific, forencis, etc literature may be pratical, but if you talk about poetry the agent of literature is mixed with its object, like in all arts. 
Lets remember there was a formalism in the study of literature that organized it as science. But science is about generalization, classification, dissecation. You may kill a good reader by demanding him to abandon his Dracula to analyse Paradise Lost, and you may kill yourself by analysing Dracula. 






> You seem to believe that this is true only for literature. I would argue its truth for both maths and science.


Not really: you may have great philophers proposing different routes for maths, but in the end of the day, the functional and more precise solution will sustain. In Literature it is not the truth, so all those fights are going to lead to paths that are equaly valid (The Anti-hero of romanticism is created after the misreading of the role of Satan in Paradise Lost for example, which by the way, still the most popular view of Satan, as a noble rebel, which is not what Milton intended. In Mathematics a mistake would lead to a dead end and would be abandoned). 
There is also another problem, like Wittegenstain said, language is not logical, you can not even say what you are really thinking. Since literature (or art) is often a estilization of language, it is even harder. Show and not tell is probally the best way to teach literature.

----------


## Gladys

> But this is already how it works. Alphabetization is the basic level of interpretation. Even if at first, literature is rather a support than an objective (after all you will use language for oral conversations as well).


In addition, teenagers should be systematically taught, whether inside or outside the schoolroom, the basic purpose and protocols typical of erudite oral and written communication, which few leaving high-school seem to know. Perhaps the rigorous trial and error process for learning maths would work here for many students. Maybe _communication_, itself, should be a formal subject.

My concern is less with 'locate the main characters, split the text, etc.' than with building an understanding of what _communication_ involves, and what is inimical to it.




> Because the practice of literature is not objective as the practice of mathematics. If we talk about basic text we may say that scientific, forencis, etc literature may be practical...


Just as one needs an understanding of arithmetic to succeed in algebra, one needs a basic understanding of the nature of _communication_, to begin to tackle poetry or prose.




> Let's remember there was a formalism in the study of literature that organized it as science. But science is about generalization, classification, dissection.


 I'm not suggesting a return to Russian formalism. There is a new movement in literary studies to place literary criticism on a more scientific footing, which appeals to me.




> There is also another problem, like Wittgenstein said, language is not logical, you can not even say what you are really thinking. Since literature (or art) is often a estilization of language, it is even harder. Show and not tell is probably the best way to teach literature.


 With so much inherent uncertainty in language and literature, all the more reason for teenagers to grasp the basic principles of oral and written communication.

----------


## Virgil

> We all know that academia has long considered literature like art or music, in that the beholder brings much to the interpretation, so that young students are encouraged to interpret for themselves with little correction, hopefully learning in the process. Nevertheless, most literature involves communication from a writer which, if understood, multiplies our appreciation. Although we cant know a writers original intent, we can painstakingly decipher meaning intrinsic in the text, as the starting point for finding our own additional meanings.
> 
> For me, literature is communication from a great writer that I strive to understand before seeking my own variant or deeper meanings. Most communication, whether oral or visual, demands scrupulous attention to evidence. For instance, young students in science and mathematics are expected to gain a meticulous understanding of a text. A similar expectation may have once applied to literature and is gathering momentum in some universities as post modernist influences fade. Does careful attention to evidence render the study of astronomy, biology or mathematics less rewarding or inspiring? 
> 
> I have twins in an elite city high-school, where the two literature teachers and fifty pupils interpret Washington Square by Henry James as the story of a cruel and evil father impeding the not undesirable marriage of his hard-done-by, feminist daughter to a gold-digger. Such an interpretation gives little weight to textual evidence. Love of literature is not just a love of reading but the love of insights and ideas from great writers.
> 
> If fear of being wrong turns young students off literature or mathematics, so might neglect of the peerless logic, insights and ideas inherent in a dazzling text.


I was a little confused by what you meant by interpreting literature as science. I think I understand now. You mean that the meaning is to be found in the text and not made up intuitively. I agree with that. I look at understanding literature as circles that over lap each other One circle is the author's intention and then there are circles of different meanings that surround, intersect, and create subsets of interpretations. But clearly there are interpretations that are so far afield that do not overlap the author's intent in any way. Hope my metaphor made sense.

----------


## JCamilo

> In addition, teenagers should be systematically taught, whether inside or outside the schoolroom, the basic purpose and protocols typical of erudite oral and written communication, which few leaving high-school seem to know. Perhaps the rigorous trial and error process for learning maths would work here for many students. Maybe _communication_, itself, should be a formal subject.


Maybe (rigorous trial and error are not exactly good) but what you are teaching is language. Would be your argument be that Language must be taught as a science, so everyone will have as disposal tolls for a possible meaning?




> My concern is less with 'locate the main characters, split the text, etc.' than with building an understanding of what _communication_ involves, and what is inimical to it.


I think you are talking about Language. Not Literature. If you talk about language, I say ok, altough the weapons given to understanding are also the weapons create illusions. 




> Just as one needs an understanding of arithmetic to succeed in algebra, one needs a basic understanding of the nature of _communication_, to begin to tackle poetry or prose.


hmm, The point is that you do not need for enjoyment. Enjoyment is more relevant than understandment. 




> I'm not suggesting a return to Russian formalism. There is a new movement in literary studies to place literary criticism on a more scientific footing, which appeals to me.


It sounds old. And silly. They will fail when meeting Kafka. So they method will be a failure. 




> With so much inherent uncertainty in language and literature, all the more reason for teenagers to grasp the basic principles of oral and written communication.


Because they can fail with style ?  :Biggrin: 
Joking, but is there any place where basic lingustic principles are not taught before even matemathics?

----------


## Gladys

> You mean that the meaning is to be found in the text and not made up intuitively. I agree with that.


Precisely. When interpreting a page of text, almost all students leap to intuition, instead of seeking sequentially all the evidence presented on the page. 




> I look at understanding literature as circles that over lap each other One circle is the author's intention and then there are circles of different meanings that surround, intersect, and create subsets of interpretations.


For me the innermost circle contains the _literal_ meaning(s) conveyed by written language.




> They will fail when meeting Kafka. So their method will be a failure.


 Placing literary criticism on a more scientific footing can only be an improvement on the current fetish with Freud, Marx, feminism and colonialism. I am advocating a systematic (more scientific) approach, which expects students to first establish the _literal_ meaning conveyed by the written language of text.

I love Kafka, and I am certain that students can make little progress here also, unless they first establish the _literal_ meaning conveyed by the written language of each paragraph. Sadly, students instead use the teacher or a study guide as a crutch.

I also love Soren Kierkegaard, and I defy anyone to understand a word he writes without rigorously decoding literal meaning.




> ...is there any place where basic linguistic principles are not taught before even mathematics?


 In Australia, at least, such teaching is woefully lacking in rigour. We need a more _scientific_ approach - both to reading and to teaching!

----------


## Virgil

> Precisely. When interpreting a page of text, almost all students leap to intuition, instead of seeking sequentially all the evidence presented on the page. 
> 
> 
> 
> For me the innermost circle contains the _literal_ meaning(s) conveyed by written language.


I agree with mostly what your saying Gladys. Just be aware that language that is dramatised or incorporates a conceit (metaphor) requires a leap of understanding that is not literal. We have to interpret to a higher level of abstraction what the conveyed dram implies.

----------


## JCamilo

I am baffled by the idea that literal meaning is under such damage. For what I know most people can graps this and mostly, the reason why literature is in danger is because writers only use a basical literal meaning. Are you sure, Gladys, that most people in Australia trouble is not the literal meaning, but when they attempt to convey anything beyond this? For example, Kafka is almost pointless if we only consider the literal meaning. 

In other hand, the proper teaching of language must be used, I am not sure if this is scientific or in what sense would this apply. But I am sure, the intuitive understanding of a text is fundamental. The greatest, in my opinion, critic of XX century is Borges and he is intuitive. (I must give my example, I did not studied english, just a basic level. I started to read english because I had to follow texts - most comics books or animation subs - in english. They are basic, so I feel one day confidant to read a book. I started with a dictionary at my side but in the second page I abandoned it. The meaning of the text could be achived by intuintion, by the fact I reckonized elements of the text from previous experiences, etc) Of course, he have a great knowledge, but nothing of that is organized or basead on systems. The Marxism and Freudiam feitish (bad indeed) are attempts to create systems. 
Again, I must say that it depends: I do not even know if you are talking about young kids that are learning the ABC or more madure students. The objectives changes, the teaching plan must change as well.

----------


## Gladys

> Just be aware that language that is dramatised or incorporates a conceit (metaphor) requires a leap of understanding that is not literal.


 With a metaphor, for instance, visualising the precise literal meaning, in the immediate context of the paragraph, may well lead to clarity.





> I am baffled by the idea that literal meaning is under such damage. For what I know most people can grasp this and mostly, the reason why literature is in danger is because writers only use a basic literal meaning.


I would argue that 'literal meaning' is much more important than you suggest. Incidentally, I know several gifted students (in the final year of high-school) and well-educated adults, who speculate about figurative meaning before they have adequately grasped the literal meaning of a passage; they seem to think that some idea of literal meaning is enough. But frequent errors in literal decoding can only undermine their interpretations. Even worse, as they read they disregard evidence from literal decoding that conflicts with their figurative understanding - as if the writer had erred! Such mistakes are made on these forums.

I _disagree strongly_ that literature is in danger 'because writers only use a basic literal meaning'. If a reader were to gain a _perfect_ understanding of the literal meaning(s) of even a Kafka novel, he would have such a grasp of plot and character development that, he would use redundant information scattered throughout the novel to eliminate all but valid interpretations.

Admittedly, a text like T.S. Eliot's _The Wasteland_ demands a wealth of background knowledge. But even here, a rigorous and flawless decoding of literal meaning would take the reader a long way. 

Am I to believe that most readers in Brazil decode literal meaning in a rigorous, flawless and _scientific_ way?

----------


## Virgil

> With a metaphor, for instance, visualising the precise literal meaning, in the immediate context of the paragraph, may well lead to clarity.


Yes, and I think it depends on the writer's style. There are writers that strive toward clarity (some times referred to as classical or neo classical) and writers that strive for suggestive or intuitive meaning (sometimes referred to as Romantic though they span all eras). Someone like Shakespeare might be in both camps.

----------


## JCamilo

> With a metaphor, for instance, visualising the precise literal meaning, in the immediate context of the paragraph, may well lead to clarity.


Metaphors are easy, altough they have no literal meaning. The problem starts with allegories for example. The literal meaning will not lead to understanding. Sometimes they would be the very opposite. 




> I would argue that 'literal meaning' is much more important than you suggest. Incidentally, I know several gifted students (in the final year of high-school) and well-educated adults, who speculate about figurative meaning before they have adequately grasped the literal meaning of a passage; they seem to think that some idea of literal meaning is enough. But frequent errors in literal decoding can only undermine their interpretations. Even worse, as they read they disregard evidence from literal decoding that conflicts with their figurative understanding - as if the writer had erred! Such mistakes are made on these forums.


Literal meaning is the basic level of interpretation. Just it. No great text have vallue because of that, but because the different layers. 
But you have said what I said: the problem is not understanding the literal meaning, but moving to the allegorical/poetical meaning being unable to do so. (Ok, I say a problem, but obviously, they have every right to do so.).
And yes, it is annoying when someone confunds the freedom of interpretation with a new form of tirany, instead of the tyrant writer, we have the tyrant reader.

----------


## Gladys

> The problem starts with allegories for example. The literal meaning will not lead to understanding. Sometimes they would be the very opposite.


Inasmuch as an _allegory_ is a rhetorical comparison 'sustained longer and more fully in its details than a metaphor' (to quote from Wikipedia), decoding precisely it's literal meaning takes one a fair distance towards clarity.

----------


## JCamilo

wiki is not helping. The definition used by Chesterton while analysing the Allegory - Metaphor debate : An allegory is a symbolism used that moves from the universal symbol to a particular meaning. A metaphor uses the different path. 
By such (which is not contraditory to wiki definition) an allegory do not use much literarity, but relations and analogies that demmand an outside knowledge.

----------


## Gladys

> An allegory is a symbolism used that moves from the universal symbol to a particular meaning.


 Yes; but were a reader to gain a perfect understanding of the _literal_ meaning(s) of an allegory, the nature of 'the universal symbol' would be clear, leaving only a small step to attain the 'particular meaning'

----------


## JCamilo

not exactly, sometimes the allegorical meaning is contradictory to the literal meaning. Some writers like to pull the carpet bellow the reader.

----------


## Gladys

A perfect understanding of _literal meaning_ takes one far, but never far enough. 

Dostoevsky's _The Idiot_ illustrates this well. _Literal meaning_ will show the peerless integrity of Prince Myshkin, his boundless self-sacrificing compassion, and the terrible toll fate and human selfishness play in undermining his acts of love. But only an appreciation of the ever so subtle allusions to existentialist philosophy and Scripture (the life, sufferings, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) can bridge the gap to mature understanding.

----------


## JCamilo

The idiot is not an allegory however. I agree with you (altough the examples you gave just are obvious to the literal meaning. It is not that hard to see Myshkin as a martyr) that extra information about the context helps.
But the point with the allegory is not this one. It is when the literal meaning conveys no information to help to understand the text. A good example is the Bible. The literal interpretation of the bible is a mistake and often leads (of course, I am not talking about the book of laws,etc) more to ignorance than enlightment. 
I am not saying that you can do anything with a text without reading it, but sometimes the literal meaning is a illusion rather than a source of light. Prose writers or with a more realistic style such as Dostoievisky obviously are very linked to the literal meaning.

----------


## Gladys

> The Idiot is not an allegory however. I agree with you (although the examples you gave just are obvious to the literal meaning. It is not that hard to see Myshkin as a martyr) that extra information about the context helps.
> 
> But the point with the allegory is not this one. It is when the literal meaning conveys no information to help to understand the text.


_The Idiot_ illustrates my point consummately, with powerful allegorical overtones that are most difficult to see. Within the constraints of realism, the _The Idiot_ (like Albert Camus' _The Stranger_ and George Orwell's _Animal Farm_) fits this definition of allegory:




> Allegory is a form of extended metaphor, in which objects, persons, and actions in a narrative, are equated with the meanings that lie outside the narrative itself. The underlying meaning has moral, social or religious significance, and characters are often personifications of abstract ideas as charity, greed, or envy.



'It is not that hard to see Myshkin as a martyr', but very difficult to see that martyrdom as that glorious triumph threading through the entire novel. But more of this, later, in the Dostoevsky thread.

----------


## JCamilo

That because it is your vision, not everyone. And even so, a Martym is someone that tryumph over death. It is not hard to see. 
And that definition of Allegory is just flawed. Allegory and metaphors are two different things, so any definition of allegory that afirms it is a metaphor is an over-simplification that is putting in the same bag two forms of symbolism.

They even are contraditory with the earlier definition: the prince (the symbol of the idiot) is something particular moving to an universal symbolism (In this case two universal : the fool and the martyr. Since the allegory moves from universal to particular, that is not the case). 

And The Idiot does not help, because great books always work with conection with other works and that was not my point at all: I said about books which the literal meaning are contraditory to the allegorical meaning or that even writers use the literal as a fog cloud to manipulate the writer. I gave the example of the Bible, which literal reading is a flaw and not an asset, insisting on an example that works with the literal meaning wont nullify the example that shows the different relation).

----------


## Gladys

> That because it is your vision, not everyone's.


 I've detailed my vision in the post: Allegorical overtones in The Idiot.

----------


## JCamilo

Er, love and christianism symbosl are not a particular meaning, they are universal meaning related to function of Myshkin as a Martym (you even say in the post about a world view). Still a particular (some prince in a moderm - of course moderm in relation to first century - world) meaning universal symbolisms. Dostoievisky is not an allegorist. An Allegory of Eternal would be Borges's Alleph or Kafka's Castle. 
The Demons is for example, closer to an allegory, but even so...

----------

