# Reading > General Literature >  Over-analysing Literary Works!

## Nossa

Hey everyone,
This question accured to me while I was studying one of the short stories I have in my short stories course this semester. It was by Ernest Hemingway, and being a big fan of his, I'm not going to bash the story now..lol
Anyways, I just wanna know if I'm the only one who feels this way, so have any of you ever felt like some story, poem, short story, play or any literary work you have studied or read about have been over-analysed? Ever got that feeling that there was NO WAY the author meant ALL these interpretations? Beacause this drives me MAD. Sometimes professors just say things that I feel like WAY over the top, I don't even feel that I need to take them down as notes cuz I feel that they sometimes don't even make sense.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Hey everyone,
> This question accured to me while I was studying one of the short stories I have in my short stories course this semester. It was by Ernest Hemingway, and being a big fan of his, I'm not going to bash at the story now..lol
> Anyways, I just wanna know if I'm the only one who feels this way, so have any of you ever felt like some story, poem, short story, play or any literary work you have studied or read about have been over-analysed? Ever got that feeling that there was NO WAY the author meant ALL these interpretations? Beacause this drives me MAD. Sometimes professors just say things that I feel like WAY over the top, I don't even feel that I need to take them down as notes cuz I feel that they sometimes don't even make sense.


Is there a difference between analysing and Interpreting?

----------


## Nossa

> Is there a difference between analysing and Interpreting?


Well..as far as I know, analyse means examining the details, interpret has to do with the meaning as a whole for the most part.
I'm still not sure which part of your answer is relevent to my question..lol

----------


## Annamariah

> Anyways, I just wanna know if I'm the only one who feels this way, so have any of you ever felt like some story, poem, short story, play or any literary work you have studied or read about have been over-analysed? Ever got that feeling that there was NO WAY the author meant ALL these interpretations? Beacause this drives me MAD.


Eh, only about every time we've discussed about a poem or a book at school  :FRlol:  

It's not so bad with novels, but some short stories are really way over-analysed. The worst situation is always with poems. They are never left to be just beautiful pieces of art. I think that poems can be just read and that everyone can think whatever they want about them. I'm not so interested in hearing what one _should_ think about it. 

No, at school the poems are always ripped apart. Every single verse and every single word has to be analysed. I sometimes feel that students come up with the weirdest analysations and interpretations of poems just to please teachers (who of course always say "well, that's a very good point" to everyone...) :Sick:

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Well..as far as I know, analyse means examining the details, interpret has to do with the meaning as a whole for the most part.
> I'm still not sure which part of your answer is relevent to my question..lol


We need to be clear on what we are talking about don't we :-)

Definitions:

Analyzing - Examining and evaluating data. Presenting alternative actions in relation to the evaluation is frequently 
Analyzing - The process that interprets data and transforms data into information.

Interpretation - a mental representation of the meaning or significance of something 

Interpreation - an explanation of something that is not immediately obvious; "the edict was subject to many interpretations"; "he annoyed us with his interpreting of parables"; "often imitations are extended to provide a more accurate rendition of the child's intended meaning"

----------


## Nossa

@Annamariah: So true. I have studied some Donne poems this semester as well, I remember how the peofessor used to give each stanza upto TEN minutes sometimes to analyse eve word, by the end of the lecture I'm like..that guy MUST have been a genius..I mean he was a GREAT poet, but not THAT great...lol

@Lote-Tree: lol..well thanks for doing this, and you're right, I should have cleared it up, I just thought that people would understand what I mean.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> @Lote-Tree: lol..well thanks for doing this, and you're right, I should have cleared it up, I just thought that people would understand what I mean.


OK then lets digress if you don't mind?

Is the question you posed same for Scriptural Works?

----------


## Nossa

> OK then lets digress if you don't mind?
> 
> Is the question you posed same for Scriptural Works?


I think I made it quite clear that it's meant for 'literary works' as in written by an author, even though I know that you might say that sacred books ARE wirtten by people, these aren't the things I'm posing this question to discuss. So the answer is NO...I also stated that I meant anything over-analysed in a poem, short story, novel or a play...so these are pretty much the things I'd like for anyone to discuss. Any religious discussions are NOT part of my question and therefore are not required in the answer. Not to mention that religious discussions are not to be started in this section of the forum.

----------


## kenikki

From my years of studying Literature, I will forever always be over-analyzing literary works. It is constantly in my head to look at symbolism, meaning, literary devices etc. Sometimes it's frustrating but most of the time it is nice to see the different layers of a text almost instantly whilst reading.

----------


## kandaurov

I agree with you, Nossa. Sure, I think it's interesting to come up with wild interpretations, that's partly what's fun about analysing. As for actually _believing_ that the author(ess) had _all that_ in mind when he/she wrote it, that's just being naive.

And I do just like you: when I think the teacher's interpretation is too far-fetched, I disregard it. They can't make you believe in theirs; everyone is entitled to one's own interpretation as far as it's plausible.

----------


## NickAdams

"Then there is the other secret. There isn't any symbolysm [sic]. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The shark are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is ****. What goes beyond is what you see beyond when you know." - Ernest Hemingway

----------


## Neo_Sephiroth

> Hey everyone,
> This question accured to me while I was studying one of the short stories I have in my short stories course this semester. It was by Ernest Hemingway, and being a big fan of his, I'm not going to bash the story now..lol
> Anyways, I just wanna know if I'm the only one who feels this way, so have any of you ever felt like some story, poem, short story, play or any literary work you have studied or read about have been over-analysed? Ever got that feeling that there was NO WAY the author meant ALL these interpretations? Beacause this drives me MAD. Sometimes professors just say things that I feel like WAY over the top, I don't even feel that I need to take them down as notes cuz I feel that they sometimes don't even make sense.


Heck yeah! :Biggrin:  

I should know! I've been analyzing almost every assignment given to me! :Sick:  

Now, I only dig deep when something interest me.

That's why I'm so cool and calm...Word. :Cool:

----------


## Nossa

> "Then there is the other secret. There isn't any symbolysm [sic]. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The shark are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is ****. What goes beyond is what you see beyond when you know." - Ernest Hemingway


Great quote..Thanks for posting it :Biggrin:

----------


## Hyacinth42

Not only is it over interpreted, but there is also only one interpretation... How can your opinion be wrong?

----------


## ladyofshalott

Eh. I don't know. I guess my answer would have to be, "sometimes."

But I think sometimes the people writing the books are the same people seeing tons of symbolism in other books. So it would make sense that they put a lot of symbolism in their own books. I remember reading an anecdote about Joyce once... The short version is, he had this photograph of the city of Cork that he wanted to hang up in his house, and he really wanted a frame for it made out of cork. So he went to a ton of trouble to get someone to make it for him. That's just the kind of mind he had, always looking for connections...

I guess what I'm saying is that normal people would not put as much symbolism into books as literature professors claim is in there, but then, great authors are usually not normal people.

----------


## Amanda29

Yes, I agree. A piece of literature CAN certainly be over-analyzed. Not to mention, misconstrued. 

I love to discuss my opinion and my personal interpretation of a poem or prose, whichever, and I like listening to other's ideas also. What I DON'T like is when it becomes a war of opinions. 

For instance, in class, my fellow students and I studied "Lord of the Flies". It was very interesting until two classmates became a little too eager to discuss their interpretations. It soon became a raging verbal battle of over who was 'right' and who was 'wrong'. Ridiculous! After all, there's sometimes a clear cut intepretation for some simple literature pieces, but for many, it really depends on the reader. "Lord of the Flies" is definitely one of those stories that is open to different interpretations - with much of it being symbolic.

It's not fun anymore when everyone argues about it.

By the way, I love this website!

----------


## xaqxit

When we covered _Lord of the Flies_ in my senior literature class we were required to pick an intepretive frame that was not intended by the author (the suggestians were Freudian psychology, Jungian psychology, Sartre's existensialism, Camus' absurdism, Kierkegaard's Christian existentialism, etc.) in order to show that one could really read anything into a work, and for the most part make it fit, although we were also supposed to note what elements of a certain frame just didnt fit with the novel in hand and what we had to "stretch" to make it work.  It's quite interesting.

Then again, I didn't really care much for _The Lord of the Flies_ as I found it a poor man's _Heart of Darkness_, even though Golding states that he had never read any Conrad before writing the book.

----------


## IrishMark

I am currently doin prep reading for my final year at university and have to read a book called 'The Poetry Handbook', don't know if anyone has come across it before, but the author seems to me to be performing a ritualistic act on poetry, that is quite common today with most teachers, students and general poetry critics that is the dissemenation of poetry and changing it into a mathematical equation. In this book this change is actual literal and i could quote formulae and equations from the book where the author analyses the poetry in terms of maths. does anybody agree that this method is completely absurd and should be outlawed forever? no, but seriously, am i wrong in thinking that poetry was not written with the intention of being analysed mathematically but in an attempt to come to terms with the inner problems of being that cannot be described through maths and science and barely even put into words, hence the attempt at poetry?

----------


## Niamh

you are right mark. I dont think that poetry should be analysed matamathicly. thats just wrong. to me, what a poem means is what you understand of it when you read it. Without all this ripping it to shreads business.

----------


## Nossa

I think that for the most part people tend to over-analyze literary works, thinking that by this they're showing how brilliant and unique that poet, novelist or dramatist was. I believe that this is wrong. Simply cuz the fact that we ARE studying it or reading it now, this IS enough to make that person great in my opinion. I don't have to extract tons of metaphors, symbols and likes of these just to make my point. That's why it drives me mad, cuz it's not only too much, it doesn't make sense to me sometimes.

----------


## kathycf

While sitting in lit classes and drowsing at the lecture, I have oftened wondered what would happen if the author whose work is being discussed were to pop into the classroom. What would they say about how their work is being interpreted? Would they laugh? Would they agree? 

Sometimes it is interesting and quite useful to understand different elements of a story or poem...it adds depth to the reading experience. Quite frankly however, I find that often the analysis adds about as much to the enjoyment of reading the work as stepping in dog poo in the street. Not trying to be crude or offensive, but I often felt some of my professor's were...full of "it".

----------


## NickAdams

> While sitting in lit classes and drowsing at the lecture, I have oftened wondered what would happen if the author whose work is being discussed were to pop into the classroom. What would they say about how their work is being interpreted? Would they laugh? Would they agree?


Reminds of the scene from Annie Hall, when Woody Allen and Diane Keaton were in the movie theater.  :FRlol:

----------


## Annamariah

> While sitting in lit classes and drowsing at the lecture, I have oftened wondered what would happen if the author whose work is being discussed were to pop into the classroom. What would they say about how their work is being interpreted? Would they laugh? Would they agree?


I think they'd become angry, if they weren't laughing so hard  :FRlol:  I mean, there are usually so many different interpretations at the same time and some of them totally ridiculous...

----------


## kathycf

Well, I guess some of those professors feel they have to spout off stuff to earn their keep.  :Tongue:  

I was thinking about The Great Gatsby last night, and what if F. Scott came in to a classroom and said something about how Dr. T.J. Eckleburg doesn't symbolise a darn thing except bad eyesight! People are always asking about Dr T. J. and what do the huge eyeglasses mean and blah blah. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not faulting the questions, and I suppose what is taught is correct in that particular instance...it is just sometimes some of what is taught seems a bit farfetched. The teacher seems to be regurgitating something that he or she was taught without really questioning it. At least that is the way it strikes me.  :Smile:

----------


## Sani

An example of an overly analysed short story would be "Lost in the Funhouse" by J. Barth.... 

Its a little marmite - in the sense that you'll love it to bits, or you will hate hate hate it! But if you want a laugh - then read it....

x

----------


## quasimodo1

Over-analysis of certain literature has been bugaboo for me for a long time. Ok, you want to read T.S. Eliot or Joyce's "Portrait of an Artist as a young Man"...why not just read it and not worry about the allusions, illusions, metaphors, siimiles, mytholgical connections, alliteration, consonance and even histeron-proteron later. Read it for it's sound and maybe some fury, then if still interested deeply, get inside it on the heavier, deeper levels. My point of view only. quasimodo1

----------


## RobinHood3000

Those of you who write, I suggest you try and analyze your own work objectively. You may be surprised by what you find.

For a writing workshop I took, we were required to create a porfolio of all of our work and essentially comment on the process we underwent throughout the workshop. Because I had only written one major piece, I studied all of the drafts I made and checked them for the changes between them. Long story short, symbolism/motifs/themes are not nearly as conscious as some scholars assume they must be. But they will appear. Imagine how surprised I was to find a "Fallen Angel" symbol in my novelette that managed to pop up without my thinking about it.

----------


## Aiculík

Overintepretation is, of course, possible. While reader is free to interpret the work as he wants, this freedom is not unlimited. As *xaqxit*  (that was very interesting, thank your for posting it) said, you can choose any interpretive frame, but there will always be parts that don't fit in it. 


But, for example, my favourite authors are Eco, Marquez, Tolkien... and I think they really did use metaphors and symbols knowingly and intentionally. Good author knows what he wants to achieve and searches for the best possible way to do it. Especially if they are linguists at the same time.  :Smile:  Analysing symbols, metaphors, imagery... is not overinterpretation. It's just trying to find out what means author used in order to better understand the text. 

My experience is, that most people don't do over-interpretation the book, but, quite contrary, they do under-interpretation.

----------


## IrishMark

Aiculik- I could not disagree with you more. No offence but the real poet doesnt write in the form of symbols and metaphors but speaks from the heart, trying to express in words his feelings so that he can come to terms with and understand himself. To under interpret a work is not to read it. once it is read it is automatically interpreted by our brains in one way or another. To say that the author/poet meant this or that and the poet/author not realising he meant it, is all down to Freud, as his work allows people to defend their over-interpretation of work as being held within the author's sub-conscious and that is why it is on the page, whilst the whole time, the real message of the poet is being diluted by the images, symbols and metaphors that whilst may be intended by the poet, are not as essential to the work as is made out!

----------


## Turk

> "Then there is the other secret. There isn't any symbolysm [sic]. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The shark are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is ****. What goes beyond is what you see beyond when you know." - Ernest Hemingway


THANKS! THANKS FOR SHARING THIS! It's like that many times, a novelist or story writer NEVER thinks as deep as analyser does! Once i've researched about Breakfast at Tiffany's, the essays i've found was simply over analysed/over stupid. They try to find a symbolism even at the most unimportant and little detail. It's completely silly. Of course there's symbols in literature, but not as some people thinks, i am sure if those writers would be alive and hear comments about their stories they would be surprised as much as a normal person like me.

----------


## monellia

I think it's an automatic impulse for me to personally analyse everything I read, and thus form my own interpretations on what the author might have been trying to say. I don't consider it over-analysis in the sense that I don't advocate what enters my mind. Nossa, I reckon you may benefit from considering what you believe to be under-analysis, as well as over-analysis.

It's worth keeping in mind that the ambiguousness of any composition (be it literary, musical, visual or otherwise) is inevitable. I think it's fair to assert that any composer intends for their composition to be interpretted in his/her intrinsic way, and therefore there is but one system of intended motifs pertaining to each respective work. 




> Sure, I think it's interesting to come up with wild interpretations, that's partly what's fun about analysing. As for actually *believing that the author(ess) had all that in mind when he/she wrote it*, that's just being naive.


I agree. I reckon that such people either are greatly self-assured, or greatly overmine the accumen of the author.

----------


## Turk

> I often felt some of my professor's were...full of "it".


Yeah! I was hesitated to write it, thanks for that too. I think they partly doing that because if "the sea is sea" and "the old man is old man", then "professors" wouldn't have any difference and privilege than normal readers. So they have to show they are professors and they are able to rummage even the most little piece of sh.t and find a blue bead in it. :FRlol:

----------


## jedi

I thought I was the only one who thought that schools are over-analyzing literary pieces. Hahaha. Lucky me. 

There are some works that would benefit by analyzing/ interpreting, just like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland... it is a story from a dream, and incomprehensible dreams are meant to be interpreted.

However, I think that some other works are just meant to be that way. No symbolism whatsoever. The distinction on which are meant to be analyzed is the problem. So no matter, you'd have to stick up with analyzing for you to know if you've wasted time analyzing in the first place. 

Moreover, in studying works, there we see the beauty of the piece or the skill of the author--more or less.

----------


## Fen

> Moreover, in studying works, there we see the beauty of the piece or the skill of the author--more or less.


I don't agree with that I often find that studying a book takes away some of its beauty. How can you really appreciate a death scene etc if your dissecting the style of the author or the influences behind it? I much prefer to just read and enjoy rather than examine

----------


## Aiculík

> Aiculik- I could not disagree with you more. No offence but the real poet doesnt write in the form of symbols and metaphors but speaks from the heart, trying to express in words his feelings so that he can come to terms with and understand himself. To under interpret a work is not to read it. once it is read it is automatically interpreted by our brains in one way or another. To say that the author/poet meant this or that and the poet/author not realising he meant it, is all down to Freud, as his work allows people to defend their over-interpretation of work as being held within the author's sub-conscious and that is why it is on the page, whilst the whole time, the real message of the poet is being diluted by the images, symbols and metaphors that whilst may be intended by the poet, are not as essential to the work as is made out!


"True poet"? What is that, please? And what does "speak from heart" mean? 

I never said that "real poet writes in the form of symbols and metaphors". I said, that every _writer_ tries to find the best means for expressing what he/she wants to say. And I insist on that. I never met anyone who tries to write that had never deliberately used any stylistic device. Especially in poetry. If I write down what I feel now: _I'm tired. I'm hungry. I'm slitghly stressed. I'm angry with one of my professor. I'd like to runaway somewhere on some beach and read whatever I please whole day._ . - that are my true feelings right now, but that's not a poem, is it? And anyway, who said that poetry *must* be about author's feelings? 

The author does not write so that he could "understand himself". Every author writes for a reader. He writes, because he thinks he has something to say and hopes that someone else will read it (and even buy it). So there always is _something_ that author meant by the text. 

As for over- and under- interpretation, I'm sorry to say you wouldn't pass Introduction into Literary Studies.  :Smile:  Under-interpretation is insufficient interpretation, but I don't have time to explain now. 

And I'm not quite sure I understand the last part of your message. Are you trying to say that stylistic devices, such as e.g. metaphors dilute the poet's message and lead to over-interpretation?!

----------


## RobinHood3000

I agree (to some extent) with Fen. I find that to read to enjoy and read to analyze, I have to exercise two entirely different frames of mind, two different reading styles. If I read something to enjoy it, and then have to analyze it, I have to go back and un-remember the first experiencing of it. The only real exception is for figures of speech and imagery, which I can enjoy without having to be reading from an analytical perspective.

----------


## IrishMark

ok, may as well start at the top, Aiculik. trying to find the best means, or form, if you will, for your expression is a distinctly modernist/post-modernist idea that reacts against the norms of poetic forms, such as sonnets, etc... and has created poems with no set forms, as can be seen throughout the poetry of TS Elliot and th works of Woolf, Yeats and Joyce. it does not react against the inherent nature of poetry, which is the aforementioned. furthermore, these same modernist/post-modernist poets would have you believe that you little drift into insanity (only joking dont take offence), quoted above in italics, really is a poem, although it clearly is not. nextly, you have a very negative view of poetry if you believe that poetry is only written for the readership, publication, fame and money as is clearly implied by your, "hopes that someone else will read it (and even buy it)". first and foremost, poets/authors, generally speaking, in the vast majority of the time, write works either for themselves and to help themselves come to terms and understand their own existence or to try to change the world. this can be seen as far back as the 13 century with Pier's Plowman. thirdly, I have passed my intoduction to literary studies and have moved on, thought about it a little more and decided that i disagreed with some of the things i was taught, as not everything i was taught on the course was necessarily true as some views, as with all views on literature, were opinions. this is where you seems to have been branwashed into thinking that everything you were taught is true and either you a) cannot form your own opinions because you don't have the mental capacity, b) refuse to form you own opinions or c) don't have the confidence in your own opinions. thanks for the insult though, claiming that i have bluffed my way through university, i will try not to insult you back so as not to stoop to your level. finally, i was claiming that stylistic devices, whilst sometimes necessary, often have too much time and concentrationspent upon them and thus, not enough concentration is placed upon the actuall essence or message of the poem. moreover, i point you to e. e. cummings poem, 'since feeling is first'.

----------


## NickAdams

I purchased The Faulkner-Cowley File, for a dollar, recently: it contains the correspondence, between Faulkner and Cowley, for the work that went into Vikings Portable Faulkner and the renewal of Faulkners career. 

Cowley asked Faulkner about the symbolism in his work (a little more specific though). Faulkner said it was not intentional. He wants to tell a story. He states that he is not interested in ideas, but people- this is why he prefers the Old Testament to the New.

Let me know if I should post the exact quote from the book.

----------


## Woland

> Not only is it over interpreted, but there is also only one interpretation... How can your opinion be wrong?


There is only one true interpretation of any text - Mine. The rest is heresy.

----------


## Aiculík

> ok, may as well start at the top, Aiculik. trying to find the best means, or form, if you will, for your expression is a distinctly modernist/post-modernist idea that reacts against the norms of poetic forms, such as sonnets, etc... and has created poems with no set forms, as can be seen throughout the poetry of TS Elliot and th works of Woolf, Yeats and Joyce. it does not react against the inherent nature of poetry, which is the aforementioned.


No. Even poets writing sonnets had to find best possible means to express themselves. To find best means for express what you want to say is not just choosing a form of sonnet or something else...




> furthermore, these same modernist/post-modernist poets would have you believe that you little drift into insanity (only joking dont take offence), quoted above in italics, really is a poem, although it clearly is not. nextly, you have a very negative view of poetry if you believe that poetry is only written for the readership, publication, fame and money as is clearly implied by your, "hopes that someone else will read it (and even buy it)".


No, I didn't put fame and money first. But for some reader, definitely. Why do you think people post their poems here? Obviously because they don't want people to read them, right? 




> first and foremost, poets/authors, generally speaking, in the vast majority of the time, write works either for themselves and to help themselves come to terms and understand their own existence or to try to change the world. this can be seen as far back as the 13 century with Pier's Plowman.


To change the world, yes. They believed that _people who read their texts_ can change. Ooops. Means they were writing people to read it? Yes, it does. 
Of course there are people who use writing of "poetry" as a sort of psychoanalysis, hide their poems in drawers and never show it to anyone, but please don't call these poets. 




> furthermore, these same modernist/post-modernist poets would have you believe that you little drift into insanity (only joking dont take offence), quoted above in italics, really is a poem, although it clearly is not. nextly, you have a very negative view of poetry if you believe that poetry is only written for the readership, publication, fame and money as is clearly implied by your, "hopes that someone else will read it (and even buy it)".


No, I didn't put fame and money first. But for some reader, definitely. Why do you think people post their poems here? Obviously because they don't want people to read them, right? 




> thirdly, I have passed my intoduction to literary studies and have moved on, thought about it a little more and decided that i disagreed with some of the things i was taught, as not everything i was taught on the course was necessarily true as some views, as with all views on literature, were opinions. this is where you seems to have been branwashed into thinking that everything you were taught is true and either you a) cannot form your own opinions because you don't have the mental capacity, b) refuse to form you own opinions or c) don't have the confidence in your own opinions. thanks for the insult though, claiming that i have bluffed my way through university, i will try not to insult you back so as not to stoop to your level.


No, you won't try but you just did it.  :Wink:  While I said you wouldn't pass and even put a smiley, you said, that I am, to put it shortly, brainwashed dement. Well, thank you very much.  :Smile:  
No, I haven't been brainwashed and I can even use my brain. But even if I have my own opinions on what I have been taught, I'm not ignorant of it... 




> finally, i was claiming that stylistic devices, whilst sometimes necessary, often have too much time and concentrationspent upon them and thus, not enough concentration is placed upon the actuall essence or message of the poem.


Well in that case it obviously _wasn't_ the best mean to express author's intention. It's just _l'art pour l'art_. 




> moreover, i point you to e. e. cummings poem, 'since feeling is first'.


Oh I know cummings, he's even one of few I really like. Which however, still does not mean that all poems must be about author's feelings. And thanks God for that.

----------


## IrishMark

> No, I didn't put fame and money first. But for some reader, definitely. Why do you think people post their poems here? Obviously because they don't want people to read them, right?


no. because they have the vain hope that these poems of theirs will one day get discovered leading to publication, fame and money.




> Of course there are people who use writing of "poetry" as a sort of psychoanalysis, hide their poems in drawers and never show it to anyone, but please don't call these poets.


ooops, wrong again. bad luck. wasnt actually talking about psycho-analysis but a means of helping themselves to cope with their predicament. they will not study it looking for symbols and metaphors but once they have written it and read it they will feel better for it if they are happy with the finished product.



> No, I didn't put fame and money first. But for some reader, definitely. Why do you think people post their poems here? Obviously because they don't want people to read them, right?


i refer you to above.



> Well in that case it obviously _wasn't_ the best mean to express author's intention. It's just _l'art pour l'art_.


dont get me started on art for art's sake. 




> Oh I know cummings, he's even one of few I really like. Which however, still does not mean that all poems must be about author's feelings. And thanks God for that.


i know all poems do not have to be about author's feelings, but similiarly, it does not have to be analysed mathematically, going through it with a fine tooth comb looking for metaphors, similes and symbols.

----------


## Enchanted

I agree with Aiculik. One of the claims that people use to label analysis as "over-analysis" is the fact that "the author must not have intended this"...

Well true...but I think the experience of art is not limited to what the author intended...analysing, reading or even looking at and formulating an opinion about art is based on a symbiotic relationship between the author and the reader...or the artist and the audience at a general level. There are often cases when the author claims that a certain pattern found within his work was not actually intended but just analyzed by a critic. Now, this could be labelled as "over-analysis"...or...(and I favour this approach more), we can accept both and recognize the beauty added to the art after a certain unintended pattern was identified by a critic. Art is organic...it grows...because the reader adds their experiences to that of the artist. Hence why it appeals to the lay-man...(or some form of it anyway)...because the reader does part of the "creation" along with the author. That said, of course there are bizarre things that people want to draw attention to merely for the sake of attention...but I think Aiculik is right when he says that under-analysis is more common than over-analysis.

When we get into into merely "what the author wanted to say"...we get preachy...labelling the author as preacher. On the other hand, the author's intent and the reader's impression shouldn't be mutually exclusive...I think _that's_  when we get into some over-analysis.

That said...I think that "over-analysis" is a very subjective and deceptive term. For some, over-analysis may just be metrical analysis, figures of speech, linguistics and diction. For others, there may be a higher degree of toleration.

My experience with over-analysis was: (again...this might just show my lack of experience in literary analysis...but was my humble experience)

We read the short-story "The Dead" by James Joyce and we were discussing some of the religious allusions based on close passage analysis. There are lot of these in the story ranging from the inversion between character names and actions (Gabriel-angel of life and Michael-angel of death) to abstract themes (allusion of the feast to The Last Supper) etc. However, our teacher chose to draw our attention to the 9 pence in the protagonist's pocket...and connected it to the 3 coins of betrayal in Judas's pocket. I thought that was a little bit of a "strech" with her justification being 9 is a multiple of 3.

Ultimately, art is about subjectivity...that's what makes it beautiful! :Smile:

----------


## tudwell

> It's just _l'art pour l'art_


What's wrong with that?

----------


## Night Closet

tell you something , me too undergo such feeling whenever i study shakespear in my drama course, i stand and think that "he must be a superman to have all these interpretations in his concern while writing" but to tell you the truth, i love the openness of interpertations and like to give my own analysis too .....................is ti cool.........lol

----------


## Night Closet

tell you something , me too undergo such feeling whenever i study shakespear in my drama course, i stand and think that "he must be a superman to have all these interpretations in his concern while writing" but to tell you the truth, i love the openness of interpertations and like to give my own analysis too .....................is it cool.........lol

----------


## JuLe

Well, yes!! 

It is the beauty of literature after all, no?

I am reading now The Opposite of Fate by Amy Tan, it is her autobiographical book. She says that it is very hard for a writer to see how his pieces are, basically, being torn apart (while he is still alive, of course). She mentioned there some of the most bizarre papers which were written by students based on her novels. (There were points which she has never noticed, even though she admits that she has paid a lot of attention to the details, names, places and etc.. )

Anyhow, you decide for yourself which of the interpretations you accept.

----------


## Chava

Hmm, I have a brilliant English teacher. He was introducing us to Hemmingway's Nick Adams stroies via "Indian Camp" which is one of the first in the collection.

After reading it, he asked us for an interpretation. Nobody had anything concrete to speak of, so he was prompted to relate a rather humorous story about one of his colleagues.

Now, Indian Camp I believe, offers an experience, a happening that somehow lets us relate to the character. Nick is with his father whom performs a rather brutal surgery involving fish wire and a machette on a young indian woman giving birth. The operation is succesful, the child is born, the mother survives, and then they realise that the child's father has commited suicide in the bunk above.

The proffessor in question had taken notice of the fact that Nick's uncle gives out money and tobacco at the beggining of the story, and apparently this is a tradition for coming fathers, thus his conclusion was that the uncle was infact the lover of the indian woman and the other man had thus commited suicide out of shame.

At this point my english teacher chuckled a hearty laugh and implored us not to force an explanation, but to indulge in that which is before us.

I will always think about this when I am analysing literature.

----------


## Theshizznigg

I can't say I blame you. When I was in highschool I was left with the exact same feelings all the time. People tend to over analyze literature, especially important literature in society. Many never take into account the fact that the author might have merely been trying to portray a character in his book, or a storyline, etc. 
What I always found frustrating was when I was asked to analzye something, and picked it apart so much that it completely removed any enjoyment from the story for me.

Unfortunately its something that in our education system we can't readily avoid.

----------


## byquist

Not really, because lit. crit. just gets deeper and deeper. With all those Norton analysis books, it's an endless stream of ideas. That makes for professors to have an opportunity to publish, and the rest of us see if they arrive at some new idea about a work.

----------


## tudwell

I don't believe there is such a thing as "over-analyzing" a work of fiction. It doesn't matter to me what the author intended to convey. It matters what one receives.

I think it's funny when people like Faulkner say they have no symbolism in their work, and then readers/critics turn around and go right ahead and talk about all the symbolism present in, say, _The Sound and the Fury_. Reading the Sparknotes for _The Sound and the Fury_, I was beat over the head again and again how young Caddie's soiled panties were a symbol for her later promiscuity. And you know what? Despite what Faulkner says, it's true. It doesn't matter if Faulkner intentionally included the soiled panties as a symbol for promiscuity; the symbol is still there and it works.

Then I look at books like _Gravity's Rainbow_, where so much has been said and there are so many interpretations that Pynchon just couldn't have consciously included _all_ of them. But which one is right? Which interpretation trumps the others and is "correct"? I'm of the opinion that you can never read too much into Pynchon. If it's there in the text, or can reasonably be extrapolated from the text, hell, Pynchon may have just put it there on purpose, no matter how farfetched an idea.

----------


## PeterL

> I can't say I blame you. When I was in highschool I was left with the exact same feelings all the time. People tend to over analyze literature, especially important literature in society. Many never take into account the fact that the author might have merely been trying to portray a character in his book, or a storyline, etc. 
> What I always found frustrating was when I was asked to analzye something, and picked it apart so much that it completely removed any enjoyment from the story for me.
> 
> Unfortunately its something that in our education system we can't readily avoid.


There's nothing unfortunate about that. Almost any human expression implies the rest of human existence, in all its detail, son it makes sense that one piece of literature leads to many related ideas,

----------


## Eiseabhal

Sorry to dig up this old thread but it was at the bottom of the page. The profs seem to have been taking a bashing here. But what they are doing is teaching their pupils to read beyond the surface. There are many writers who say duplicitously "I was merely..." and it is damned obvious there is no "merely" about it. If there are texts that are being "over analysed" bear in mind that after a while this analytical mode that you have learned becomes sub-conscious and rapid. There are millions of texts so if a few are "sacrificed" it is but for the greater good of having readers in a highly literate society. An educated reader can read, examine a text and explain it - to oneself at the very least. It is hardly over analysing to find and explain imagery, symbolism etc.

----------

