Julie Cohen put a comment in my post about Narnia and codes. Actually I knew Julie would feel this way as she was at one point a highly dedicated and passionate teacher of English literature. We differ on the subject in some respects.
While I have no objection to individuals getting more out of a story than the writer intended, I do object to the searching for codes and hidden symbolism as the primary purpose for literary theory. The first purpose of literary theory should be to look at the structure and how the story develops. Without a solid understanding of story theory, it is impossible to say if certain symbolism or meanings are possible or if the reader is merely projecting. In other words, people need to understand and to appreciate the construction as much as they like to love for the puzzles and hidden meanings.
Without STORY, the whole point of reading fiction vanishes.
In some ways, the concepts of plot, pacing, proactive characters and the reasons why they work in one story and not in another are hard to grasp. Why do particular stories resonate with readers at particular times?
So for me as a die hard -- the Story must come first person -- the first test for anything hidden is it possible within the bounds of storytelling craft? Is it possible within world building? Or is it stretching the bounds of credulity? When does literary theory with an emphasis on hidden text and meaning start becoming a discussion of how many angels can dance on a pin head?
Also do stories have to laden with obvious hidden meaning for them to be worthy of study? And can that meaning change depending on the socio-economic context of the reader? Or is it fixed within the social understanding of the author? And if you get a different meaning from the story than the accepted one or the one the author intended, is it necessarily wrong?
Equally, to a certain extent, you need to know when and why certain things were written. For example, in A Question of Impropriety, Diana wears a rose pink gown to the ball. It is highly doubtful that in a historical context, she would have done. I knew that when I put it in there. Why did I do it? To symbolise her movement from the virginal pure state? Actually, it is there because my then editor said in a call about the revisions that she had found a lovely cover with a rose pink gown and the model looked a bit like her, could I make the colour of the gown rose pink. It wasn't important to the story what the colour of the gown was, so I readily agreed.
Anyway, for me, it is always Story, story, story and really it is what commercial ficiton is all about -- in whatever age it is written. Story is what helps literature stand the test of time. That new generations find elements that speak to them is great but it is Story that underpins, not the codes or hidden meaning.
Showing posts with label codes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label codes. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
More on Narian codes
The author of the Planet Narnia book left a message in the comments of my earlier blog. He felt that perhaps the BBC programme did not show his theory off to its best advantage.
Having dealt with television and knowing that 3 minutes tv time came mean three hours real time, I had a look at his website. I also only watched until the discussion about the planets ruling the days -- which is something I had come across before in my research for the Romans.
The website did confirm what I thought -- namely Mr Ward has never written fiction for publication and that he has never had to construct a world which exists over a series of books. Equally he has not had to deal with the editor/author relationship when you are speaking about commercial fiction. Sometimes, it can be difficult to say when various themes are decided. The entire revision process throws new connections up and thus it would be improbable that he could do a code to that extent over 7 books and not have his editor know that he was up to something. Also Ward does not mention (it could be in the book) Lewis fighting to keep some imagery in that has no relationship to the story and that he would have only fought for IF he was doing this code. It would be in the editor/author relationship that you would see this happening rather than in his relationship with his reading group. Editors are very powerful beings in the commercial world, particularly in the 1950s.
In the FAQ, I learnt that Lewis held critics who searched for hidden meanings in contempt. Thus, I would doubt that if he had put a puzzle or riddle into each of his books, that he would have done so to the degree that Ward suggests. Also he would have been targeting a single person/specific group of people particularly with the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It could be that the correspondance has not survived.
In addition to Father Christmas, this book is the book where the world most reflects English values -- umbrellas, books in a library, sewing machines are all mentioned in this book but not again. It was also geared towards the Christmas book market and someone may have felt that including Father Christmas would help increase either the chances of publication or sales.
You can tell there was some discussion with his editors about order etc and that Lewis lost the argument. This is because he turned in books in a different order to the publication (Horse and His Boy was sent in fourth and published fifth), and indeed apparently began the books in a different order. Although knowing what I know about world building etc and discussions with editors, the later point is not necessarily significant but the sending in of the manuscripts is.
Editors have a habit of saying -- well we would like you to... or can you possibly think about writing this one first. Then they may change their mind.
I know there is a question about the order in which to read the books. I started with Prince Caspian as that was the book my mother bought for my brother. I then borrowed the rest from a neighbour. So because they are stand alone, in one sense the order does not matter. In another, they were edited (and therefore revised by Lewis) in a specific order. Going by order of publication, this puts Voyage of the Dawn Treader third which if you believe Ward's theory is dedicated to the Sun. Sunday is also the Lord's day and this is the first book where Aslan specifically goes on at the end about being Christ. The Christian allegory is a bit clunky at times imho. and as a child, I skipped over it in my rereadings. But because of the trinity and the importance of three, plus the use of sun imagery, you could say that it helps prove the publication with The Lon, The Witch and The Wardrobe being first.
But Mr Ward and I do agree one important point -- Lewis created a magical world that stands the test of time. And he had the right to create the world however he wanted, and not to the dictates of Tolkien.
I am a writer and not a literary critic. I create worlds for my books. But ultimately the most important thing is the story and the story dictates all.
Having dealt with television and knowing that 3 minutes tv time came mean three hours real time, I had a look at his website. I also only watched until the discussion about the planets ruling the days -- which is something I had come across before in my research for the Romans.
The website did confirm what I thought -- namely Mr Ward has never written fiction for publication and that he has never had to construct a world which exists over a series of books. Equally he has not had to deal with the editor/author relationship when you are speaking about commercial fiction. Sometimes, it can be difficult to say when various themes are decided. The entire revision process throws new connections up and thus it would be improbable that he could do a code to that extent over 7 books and not have his editor know that he was up to something. Also Ward does not mention (it could be in the book) Lewis fighting to keep some imagery in that has no relationship to the story and that he would have only fought for IF he was doing this code. It would be in the editor/author relationship that you would see this happening rather than in his relationship with his reading group. Editors are very powerful beings in the commercial world, particularly in the 1950s.
In the FAQ, I learnt that Lewis held critics who searched for hidden meanings in contempt. Thus, I would doubt that if he had put a puzzle or riddle into each of his books, that he would have done so to the degree that Ward suggests. Also he would have been targeting a single person/specific group of people particularly with the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It could be that the correspondance has not survived.
In addition to Father Christmas, this book is the book where the world most reflects English values -- umbrellas, books in a library, sewing machines are all mentioned in this book but not again. It was also geared towards the Christmas book market and someone may have felt that including Father Christmas would help increase either the chances of publication or sales.
You can tell there was some discussion with his editors about order etc and that Lewis lost the argument. This is because he turned in books in a different order to the publication (Horse and His Boy was sent in fourth and published fifth), and indeed apparently began the books in a different order. Although knowing what I know about world building etc and discussions with editors, the later point is not necessarily significant but the sending in of the manuscripts is.
Editors have a habit of saying -- well we would like you to... or can you possibly think about writing this one first. Then they may change their mind.
I know there is a question about the order in which to read the books. I started with Prince Caspian as that was the book my mother bought for my brother. I then borrowed the rest from a neighbour. So because they are stand alone, in one sense the order does not matter. In another, they were edited (and therefore revised by Lewis) in a specific order. Going by order of publication, this puts Voyage of the Dawn Treader third which if you believe Ward's theory is dedicated to the Sun. Sunday is also the Lord's day and this is the first book where Aslan specifically goes on at the end about being Christ. The Christian allegory is a bit clunky at times imho. and as a child, I skipped over it in my rereadings. But because of the trinity and the importance of three, plus the use of sun imagery, you could say that it helps prove the publication with The Lon, The Witch and The Wardrobe being first.
But Mr Ward and I do agree one important point -- Lewis created a magical world that stands the test of time. And he had the right to create the world however he wanted, and not to the dictates of Tolkien.
I am a writer and not a literary critic. I create worlds for my books. But ultimately the most important thing is the story and the story dictates all.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
codes and Narnia
First of all, Ashes to Ashes was really fun last night. They have given Alex Drake hope that she might be saved. And they have made things more complicated. It looks good.
On Sunday night, I finally started to watch The Narnia Code. I adored the Narnia books when I was growing up and was interested. About half way through, I turned it off. The theological Phd student Micheal Ward who *discovered* this code obviously has never written a fictional novel, particularly not one for children. Neither did he bother to read CS Lewis's letter to his stepson -- the one which says that he never set out to write seven books. He started with one and they grew. It is difficult to have an overarching code where each book is devoted to a planet if you didn't intend to write Narnia as a set of seven. It would meaning starting out, then writing a sequel (Prince Caspian) and then the Voyage of the Dawn Treader. And then seeing that ah, I have done this, so I will continue. That is very difficult on a subconscious level. If it is on an overtly conscience level, why was the Planet code not discovered in his notes and papers?
Also, because in these books, the story is paramount, it would be very difficult to weave in that amount of symbolism where each book is devoted to a different planet (planet as defined by medieval cosmology). The stories, particularly the later stories would have felt forced, particularly the imagery. The Horse and His Boy which is one of the last ones that was published is at its core an adventure story. You get more overtly Christian symbolism with the final two books.
Equally, if he had done that, Lewis would have had a precise ordering to the books. There are two different orderings. Lewis himself is on record as saying that it does not matter in which order the books are read. Given Lewis's deeply held Christian beliefs, if he did have a code, then he would have made sure that the one devoted to the Sun was the first book in one of the orderings. This is because the seven planets are also related to the seven days in medieval cosmology. In the Christian calendar, Sunday is the first day of the week. It is also called Dimanche (or the Lord's day) in French. It is easier to see the correlation between the days and the planets if you use a Latin based language rather than English.
And why choose to start this code with Jupiter and Mars? Because if you believe Lewis, he had only started off to write two books.
As an aside, apparently one of the clues that Ward to his conclusions was in the picture of Mr Tumnus carrying Christmas parcels when he first meets Lucy. This shows a deplorable lack of knowledge about British shopping habits in the early 20th century. As a visit to the Co-op at Beamish Museum shows, ordinary shopping was wrapped up in brown paper and tied with string. They did not use paper bags...Equally I am not certain how much control Lewis had over the pictures. Authors often have far less control over such things than readers imagine.
And then Ward mentioned the trees moving and the fact that the moving trees only appear in Prince Caspian. Actually, they also appear in The Lion,The Witch and the Wardrobe. Going from memory, Mr Tumnus says to Lucy that some of the trees are on the Witch's side. The Magician Nephew also has something about the trees, and the tree that Digory planted moving along with some of the trees in Narnia. It is out of this tree that the wardrobe is created. Personally I always figured that Tolkien and Lewis both were drinking from the same well with the trees.
Anyway, interesting theory but I doubt it. it is looking at stories from the outside in rather than inside out As McKee makes clear in his book, Story, this sort of analysis does not really start until the early 1970s/late 1960s. Lewis worked on the books in the late 1940s/1950s when the literary theory about structure was paramount. So he would have been thinking about plot, structure, conflict rather than the language.
And people should just enjoy the books rather than searching for third meanings.
Literary theory should look at how storytellers write stories before pronouncing on codes. Attempting to give order to randomness can lead to false assumptions.
Browning's statement about once Browning and God knew the meaning of the poem but now only God knows always has struck me as an accurate representation on how writers work.
On Sunday night, I finally started to watch The Narnia Code. I adored the Narnia books when I was growing up and was interested. About half way through, I turned it off. The theological Phd student Micheal Ward who *discovered* this code obviously has never written a fictional novel, particularly not one for children. Neither did he bother to read CS Lewis's letter to his stepson -- the one which says that he never set out to write seven books. He started with one and they grew. It is difficult to have an overarching code where each book is devoted to a planet if you didn't intend to write Narnia as a set of seven. It would meaning starting out, then writing a sequel (Prince Caspian) and then the Voyage of the Dawn Treader. And then seeing that ah, I have done this, so I will continue. That is very difficult on a subconscious level. If it is on an overtly conscience level, why was the Planet code not discovered in his notes and papers?
Also, because in these books, the story is paramount, it would be very difficult to weave in that amount of symbolism where each book is devoted to a different planet (planet as defined by medieval cosmology). The stories, particularly the later stories would have felt forced, particularly the imagery. The Horse and His Boy which is one of the last ones that was published is at its core an adventure story. You get more overtly Christian symbolism with the final two books.
Equally, if he had done that, Lewis would have had a precise ordering to the books. There are two different orderings. Lewis himself is on record as saying that it does not matter in which order the books are read. Given Lewis's deeply held Christian beliefs, if he did have a code, then he would have made sure that the one devoted to the Sun was the first book in one of the orderings. This is because the seven planets are also related to the seven days in medieval cosmology. In the Christian calendar, Sunday is the first day of the week. It is also called Dimanche (or the Lord's day) in French. It is easier to see the correlation between the days and the planets if you use a Latin based language rather than English.
And why choose to start this code with Jupiter and Mars? Because if you believe Lewis, he had only started off to write two books.
As an aside, apparently one of the clues that Ward to his conclusions was in the picture of Mr Tumnus carrying Christmas parcels when he first meets Lucy. This shows a deplorable lack of knowledge about British shopping habits in the early 20th century. As a visit to the Co-op at Beamish Museum shows, ordinary shopping was wrapped up in brown paper and tied with string. They did not use paper bags...Equally I am not certain how much control Lewis had over the pictures. Authors often have far less control over such things than readers imagine.
And then Ward mentioned the trees moving and the fact that the moving trees only appear in Prince Caspian. Actually, they also appear in The Lion,The Witch and the Wardrobe. Going from memory, Mr Tumnus says to Lucy that some of the trees are on the Witch's side. The Magician Nephew also has something about the trees, and the tree that Digory planted moving along with some of the trees in Narnia. It is out of this tree that the wardrobe is created. Personally I always figured that Tolkien and Lewis both were drinking from the same well with the trees.
Anyway, interesting theory but I doubt it. it is looking at stories from the outside in rather than inside out As McKee makes clear in his book, Story, this sort of analysis does not really start until the early 1970s/late 1960s. Lewis worked on the books in the late 1940s/1950s when the literary theory about structure was paramount. So he would have been thinking about plot, structure, conflict rather than the language.
And people should just enjoy the books rather than searching for third meanings.
Literary theory should look at how storytellers write stories before pronouncing on codes. Attempting to give order to randomness can lead to false assumptions.
Browning's statement about once Browning and God knew the meaning of the poem but now only God knows always has struck me as an accurate representation on how writers work.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Getting things out of my head
Certain people sometimes think this blog is a code. Unfortunately I am far too tactless for that. Yesterday's post was an attempt to get something out of my head after reading a book. I could have written a post on addiction and the hero but need to think about how to approach it as I do not agree that an addict makes a good hero. No subtext here -- just that Nicola Cornick's blog made me think about things and the ever present why.
Sometimes things just strike me between the eyes. One thing is that the necessity of tying up subplots, particularly when certain things have been foreshadowed. Readers do wonder.
Readers do want the emotional payoff. They also want to believe that people are capable of being redeemed.
I know that I avoid bleeding on the page because it hurts. It is the old 10 percent rule -- the vast majority of readers will only get 10 % of the emotion you put in the book. In order to make sure that emotions are fully engaged, the writer needs to bleed. If you do not care passionately about characters, how can anyone else? It is something I do struggle with and when it is brought home to me, I go -- oh. it makes perfect sense now. Whether I can actually execute on that is another question. And each time I write, I do wonder if I will give enough blood.
Last evening I watched a programme we had taped about Sir John Mortimer. Like many driven people, he worked hard. When he was a barrister, and indeed I think for most of his life, he rose at 5:30 am and wrote. He also wrote before court. In other words he worked hard. His success was far from effortless, although he did like to pretend.
As some may know, he had a secret child. An affair with the actress Wendy Craig resulted in a baby boy who grew into a man before John Mortimer ever met him or indeed knew of his existence. He only learnt when a biographer interviewed Wendy Craig and she felt the need to confess. His son was grown and it turns out they get along very well. My dh turned me and said that he thought such things only happened in romance novels... I remarked that he had forgotten Peter and Dan Snow. Secret babies do happen. It annoys me when people say they are unrealistic... It is the motivation that is interesting.
Sometimes things just strike me between the eyes. One thing is that the necessity of tying up subplots, particularly when certain things have been foreshadowed. Readers do wonder.
Readers do want the emotional payoff. They also want to believe that people are capable of being redeemed.
I know that I avoid bleeding on the page because it hurts. It is the old 10 percent rule -- the vast majority of readers will only get 10 % of the emotion you put in the book. In order to make sure that emotions are fully engaged, the writer needs to bleed. If you do not care passionately about characters, how can anyone else? It is something I do struggle with and when it is brought home to me, I go -- oh. it makes perfect sense now. Whether I can actually execute on that is another question. And each time I write, I do wonder if I will give enough blood.
Last evening I watched a programme we had taped about Sir John Mortimer. Like many driven people, he worked hard. When he was a barrister, and indeed I think for most of his life, he rose at 5:30 am and wrote. He also wrote before court. In other words he worked hard. His success was far from effortless, although he did like to pretend.
As some may know, he had a secret child. An affair with the actress Wendy Craig resulted in a baby boy who grew into a man before John Mortimer ever met him or indeed knew of his existence. He only learnt when a biographer interviewed Wendy Craig and she felt the need to confess. His son was grown and it turns out they get along very well. My dh turned me and said that he thought such things only happened in romance novels... I remarked that he had forgotten Peter and Dan Snow. Secret babies do happen. It annoys me when people say they are unrealistic... It is the motivation that is interesting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)