I’d agree with this. I never meant to imply Springsteen was anti-US – just not the fist-pumping, America-fuck-yeah booster you might imagine if all you heard was the line “Born in the USA” in the most popular version of that song.
Similarly … I wonder how many grade-school music teachers led their classes in “This Land Is Your Land” without having a clue about what Guthrie truly intended. I know mine did.
Uh, how do you know the hard thing is getting them not to? ::slowly backs away from Bill_Door::
Ad nauseum …
At least 6 of the 10 examples of irony in Alanis Morrissette’s song “Ironic” are perfectly valid uses of the concept by any normal definition of what “irony” is. People repeating the hacky standup routine that the song doesn’t understand what “ironic” means aren’t paying attention to how words are actually used.
Good to know!
This is a perfect example of the sort of nonsense that led to the formulation of the intentional fallacy in the first place.
It does do a nice job of highlighting the difference between being good at writing literature, and being good at teaching it, though.
But the weird thing about writing is you can put all kinds of stuff in there you didn’t intend to. Many writers are unaware of the themes they are developing until well into a story. It’s entirely possible O’Connor’s subconscious made the hat black for a reason. While I think authorial intent should be considered, it can’t be the whole argument. I view it more as a thing that tips the scales.
Maybe that’s the point: how easy it is to deceive the audience into believing in something like patriotism when the truth is much darker. Kind of like the followers of 45 or proponents of the war in Iraq as an act of vengeance for 911. It happens more than we’d like to admit.
Maybe, but rain on your wedding day is just bad luck, not irony.
Although superficially upbeat (but actually nuanced and dark) songs are popular at political rallies, no one much cares. Most folks will take it at face value and not process the lyrics. The more astute might see irony or pragmatism in the choice of song, and a campaign promising sone sort of change. If you are willing to spend seven hours travelling and waiting in the rain or heat to see Trump, for example, the background music likely does not matter to you very much. (Why are they playing Wagner?)
Well, yeah. Most farmers do not have that much trouble keeping a constant supply of human corpses out of the pig pen.
I always get a kick out of that Teen Titans Go episode where Robin spends the entire time lecturing about verbal irony, dramatic irony, and irony of situation.
This seems like waaay overthinking things. ISTR from reading Bruce’s most recent memoir that, while he’d recorded the song much more somberly as a demo (see the Tracks version), he and the band discovered they loved rocking it out and recorded the album version in one take.
Couldn’t you just stand on a chair and look over the side of the tank?
Thanks; I was thinking of posting something like this myself. What authors say about their own work should definitely be considered, but it shouldn’t shut down further analysis or limit our thinking.
Creative artists aren’t necessarily reliable when discussing their own works. They’ll talk nonsense, they’ll cynically say their work has no hidden meaning or that they don’t remember what they were thinking, they’ll say different things at different times, or they’ll impute meanings later that they weren’t thinking about when they wrote the work.
The classic example is Poe’s essay “The Philosophy of Composition” in which he explains his process for writing “The Raven.” It’s widely regarded as ex post facto rationalization. Composer Arthur Honegger liked to claim that his Pacific 231 wasn’t really about trains, even though the guy was a huge train buff.
For me, the point in discussing art is to find other viewpoints that have information you didn’t know, or an interpretation that you hadn’t considered, that improves your understanding or enjoyment of the work. This can include the artist’s own viewpoint on their work, but it’s only important to the same extent that any other viewpoint is important - does it make your interaction with the work better? If it doesn’t, then there’s nothing wrong with ignoring it.
And, of course, they’re interpreted by someone who has never actually written a story and has no experience with how the process works.
Years ago, when I was in high school, I interpreted Robert Frost’s “Nothing Gold Can Stay” for an assignment . (The name of the poet was not included, BTW). I “interpreted” it as about about a protest as part of the free coinage of silver movement and justified everything I said. I got an “A” even though it was total bullshit.
Why? Because interpretation of literature is based solely on the interpreter’s whims and prejudices. You can say whatever you want as long as you can come up with a justification. It’s basically a Rorschach test that people get tenure for coming up with a story.
Damn, I wish I could find O’Connor’s letter.
I agree that the reinterpretation of 5 Little Piggies is forced. However, sometimes combinations are the best. I do think the first piggie goes to market of his own volition to engage in commerce. But since the third piggie procures roast beef and eats it, it’s presumptive that pork products and pigs are for sale at the market. A pig buying and selling other pigs at a market is far more insidious than an agencyless pig being sold for slaughter by an unnamed character.
But roast beef being a common food for pigs does not by itself imply that pork is also sold in a market patronised by pigs. We humans who shop would be surprised to find man meat for sale at the meat counter.
(Although you can buy a product called Manwich, but in a different part of the supermarket. I suppose you could use it to make manburgers, but the Hunt’s people might object.)
What should an A paper on that poem have said? What was the correct answer to the assignment? What do you think you were expected to learn from it?
Since you seem to be enamored of O’Connor, can you explain the point of the quote you posted earlier? What mistake did the young teacher make? Should one not look for allegory or symbolism in literature? If this is emblematic of the poor state of teaching in literature departments, what would be the proper approach? How is one expected to derive meaning from a text if one does not have direct access to the author to confirm or deny your interpretation?
Yes, exactly. What else should it be? What else could it be?
Sure, like those who interpret Oz to be about Free Silver. (it isnt)
But I believe that what the author meant is important.