I had an interesting discussion in class today about whether authors (or artists in general) intend for their work to be scrutinized once they're finished with it. Certainly some works have a lot of symbolism in them, but what about other works?
The book we are just finishing is The Great Gatsby for any of you Brits who may have studied American literature. The teacher said that we should participate in teh discussion more instead of sitting there looking at him with beady eyes. We just read about a scene where Mr. Gatsby was murdered. I ventured to ask how many ways we could say a man was murdered? I further asked whether F. Scott Fitzgerald, the author, really intended his work to be scrutinized in that way?
Maybe, I said, it was written to be an entertaining story, and he would like it treated that way. Suddenly I thought of my comments to appanah after his first analysis of Butterflies. How much do the writers actually expect Malcolm to be analysed?
My teacher suggested that it varies by artist, that some clearly intended for their work to be analysed and criticized. For example, he thought, sticking with The Great Gatsby, how could there not be some symbolism in the giant eyes of Dr. TJ Eckleberg watching from his billboard? Maybe he had just gone to the eye doctor and it was a random idea? I, of course, decided to agree with that. But then he went on to say that some authors probably don't intend for their work to be analysed; 90% of what you get from any artist's medium of expression is your opinion. You can form your opinion any way you like. Maybe it goes too in depth, but in many cases it works anyway.
How much do you think Malcolm was meant to be analysed? Is it just a cooky dysfunctional family on TV, or is it something a little bit more? Do the writers purposely capitalize on the primary theme running through the show, life is unfair, or is that just another cooky idea that makes the show funny?
The book we are just finishing is The Great Gatsby for any of you Brits who may have studied American literature. The teacher said that we should participate in teh discussion more instead of sitting there looking at him with beady eyes. We just read about a scene where Mr. Gatsby was murdered. I ventured to ask how many ways we could say a man was murdered? I further asked whether F. Scott Fitzgerald, the author, really intended his work to be scrutinized in that way?
Maybe, I said, it was written to be an entertaining story, and he would like it treated that way. Suddenly I thought of my comments to appanah after his first analysis of Butterflies. How much do the writers actually expect Malcolm to be analysed?
My teacher suggested that it varies by artist, that some clearly intended for their work to be analysed and criticized. For example, he thought, sticking with The Great Gatsby, how could there not be some symbolism in the giant eyes of Dr. TJ Eckleberg watching from his billboard? Maybe he had just gone to the eye doctor and it was a random idea? I, of course, decided to agree with that. But then he went on to say that some authors probably don't intend for their work to be analysed; 90% of what you get from any artist's medium of expression is your opinion. You can form your opinion any way you like. Maybe it goes too in depth, but in many cases it works anyway.
How much do you think Malcolm was meant to be analysed? Is it just a cooky dysfunctional family on TV, or is it something a little bit more? Do the writers purposely capitalize on the primary theme running through the show, life is unfair, or is that just another cooky idea that makes the show funny?