"The Myth of 'Hidden Meaning'"

I know I said I had no time to write, but I am taking a well-deserved break to say that my Crime: Fiction & Film professor is AWESOME. Pretty much every lit class here requires you to buy his book, The Prentice Hall Pocket Guide to Writing About Literature. I rarely use it, but I saw today in the second section a bit entitled "The Myth of 'Hidden Meaning'" so of COURSE I had to keep reading.

(If you don't read this, I understand. It's long.)

THE MYTH OF "HIDDEN MEANING"

One of the first concepts we should consider in our attempt to identify what we write about when we write about literature is the nebulous concept of "hidden meaning." Often students say something such as "I read the story but I didn't get the hidden meaning." We might even refer to this aspect of literature as the "deep secret hidden meaning." Let us examine this phenomenon.

Anyone who has taken a literature course has probably had this experience: You are given a reading assignment, say, a poem. You read the poem, and it describes in beautiful language, say, a bird singing in a tree. You return to class and tell the professor, "That poem is about a bird singing in a tree." The professor smiles a tired, disappointed smile and explains, "Yes, well that's a common misreading. Actually, the poem is about the poet's unresolved feelings of anger toward his mother. But good try!" Here is born the myth of deep secret hidden meaning! Literary works often are not about what they seem to be about; they are about what the teacher says they are about--and only English teachers can figure out what these hidden meanings are.

Well, we should put this to rest: generally speaking, assume that there is no such thing as hidden meaning in literature. Should literary works only be read on the literal level? No. Should we stop looking for symbol and metaphor in literature? No. Should we say literary works do not contain levels of meaning not apparent on first reading? No.

Literary works should be read on literal and figurative levels.

Careful readers of literature should look for symbol and metaphor and figurative language of all kinds.

Literary works do contain levels of meaning not apparent on first reading. They are just not hidden.

If we read a work of literature assuming that the work contains hidden meaning, then we must assume also that the author has intentionally hidden it. Under this theory, literature becomes a sadistic puzzle in which "famous authors" write works with carefully hidden subtexts that no one is supposed to find. It is the literary equivalent of backward masking on rock and roll records. You can only really appreciate Led Zeppelin if you listen to their music backward!

No. Literature is a means by which authors express themselves and by which sophisticated writers and readers communicate with one another. When a work of literature is really touching and powerful, the reader feels that he or she is in the presence of this other person, whether or not that person is living or dead. It is still possible for us to know Tolstoy or Austen or Dickens or Homer or Dickinson or Shakespeare because these people chose to express themselves in their work...

Back to our poem about the bird in the tree. If the poet was skillful enough, or if the images in the poem evoke other images in the reader's mind, the poem can mean many things. it can be a poem about a bird in a tree or about the poet's unresolved anger toward his mother or about the Russian Revolution or the history of rock and roll! Some of these readings will resonate with many readers, some with only a few. Hopefully all of the variant readings will bring some satisfaction and pleasure to the readers. Perhaps all are valid readings. Perhaps all of these meanings were intended by the poet. But these meanings are not hidden--they are on view for those who care to see them.

There's more in between, and after that he goes on to include an excerpt on interpreting literary works. But yeah. At least I've had one professor who would never ask us, "What was Chandler trying to tell his readers? What did he MEAN?" He'll explore different theories with us, but he never pretends there's a single, solitary meaning, and he never explicitly asks us, "What did the author mean?" Yay for individual interpretation over theorizing a right/wrong answer. Hehe.

Now back to work. In truth, I really only took a break so I could listen to John Mayer Trio songs while I typed because I didn't have to concentrate. Tee hee. Good stuff.

----------------
Now playing: John Mayer Trio - Good Love Is On The Way