Savory Story (TM): Now stuffed with meaning!

There's an (apocryphal?) story people have plied me with many times over the past decade. It involves Robert Frost. A woman approaches him at a reading, praising one of his poems for invoking such-and-such metaphor or allusion. Robert Frost is surprised and says he didn't think about that when he wrote it. And so, the people who tell me the story conclude, poets just write poems and writers just write stories and have no idea the multi-layered meanings that readers take from it.

I've searched for the source of this story and haven't been able to find it. But assuming it's true, I question the conclusion. Surely no one believes Robert Frost just threw a bunch of pretty words together with no thought about meaning. Of course there will always be unique connections and meanings a reader will bring to a piece of writing. Readers have their own experiences, beliefs, needs. That's part of the magic of reading. But that doesn't mean a writer takes no thought, especially not one like Robert Frost who poured and ached over each poem.

I was on an author panel once when a teen girl in the audience asked if writers really intend to put in all those symbols and themes and such that their English teachers have them ferret out. I had to respond, "Sorry, yes, some of us do." She seemed disappointed. Her English teacher found me after to thank me. I empathize with the students. I was such a student once and worn down by having to tear apart stories instead of just read for pleasure, but I think it was an invaluable exercise. The ability to analyze a text has been a huge boon for me, both as a student of any discipline and as a writer.

Many times I've been somewhere to speak and the introducer has talked about one of my books, outlining the themes and giving a really lovely review of the significance and resonance of the story. This is always very flattering, since most introducers just read my bio from my website or book jacket. But then so often she or he will turn to me and say congenially, "You probably didn't even know you put all that in the story, did you?"

But of course I did.

When I'm writing, I'm not thinking about what an English class might study. I'm not thinking in words like "symbol" and "theme." But I do take careful stock of the story. I study early drafts to see what motifs have started to occur, what ideas seem to repeat themselves naturally. Then I examine what the story needs and nurture those motifs into what an English teacher would call a theme, and I do that in order to make the story stronger, to add layers of meaning that will make the book more intriguing as well to give it an emotional connection. I am very aware of creating connections--with other works, with historical events unmentioned, with other ideas within the story. I do this all with a great deal of thought and purpose. I or another writer might be unaware of one of a reader's personal interpretations, but that doesn't mean we're unaware of any allusion or motif.

It's important for me to clarify this because I don't want anyone to dismiss writers as blind typists. That's unhelpful and unrealistic for the sake of budding writers. If all meaning is accidental, what motivation would a writer have for the hard labor of rewrites upon rewrites? And if writers don't do the hard labor, the quality of books deteriorates. Selfish of me maybe, because I'm a reader first and I want good books to read. As a writer, I aim to imbue my story with as much meaning as the seams can hold and yet keep it open enough to allow a reader to make her own personal connections as well. I suspect most writers do the same. Even Robert Frost.

Comments

[Karen Adair]

Amen.

[Christen]

Agreed, Karen.

[Daron Fraley]

I totally agree. I like to write short stories for that very reason. It is easy for me to tie symbols together and add depth to the story.

[Helene]

In english class I always was one of those students who said, "Come on, did the writer ACTUALLY put in these themes on purpose?".
Then I started paying attention to my own writing, and I was suddenly worried about whether or not there were consistent themes and ideas and if my characters went through parallel experiences and I realized that these things are what make a sequence of events into a story. They need to be there, to some extent, under the surface, constantly.
Like veins.
Hmm...

[hwalk]

I do think that the best stories are sort of living, in that each reader can take a different idea from it, and that the layers are endless. Each reader finds something different in it. The reader still is bringing his/her own experience to the table too, making the story even more rich and even more layered.

That's why I think people hesitate to say that the author meant all of that--because the best stories mean something different to everyone.

[Marina Gibbs]

Of course the best writers masterfully craft their stories and poems. However, I also suspect that there are snooty groups of professors at snooty universties that decide upon what deceased authors of classics "meant to say" in their works. Then English Teachers force the often very unhealthy ideas upon their own students. I got sick and tired of existentialism, and humanism, among other philosophies. But maybe this is my own experience.

I wrote some carefully crafted essays on masterfully written, yet awful stories. Maybe I'm not open minded enough, but I found "Death of a Salesman", "The Sound and The Fury", "As I Lay Dying", and "Wuthering Heights" to be downers. They were full of unhealthy people with unhealthy relationships that I had to analyze. Then I had to write essays that pleased my teacher by parroting her ideals, rather than containing any interpretation of mine. I hope everyone doesn't have this experience in Honors English. AP English was slightly better.

By the way, your books DESERVE the honors that you have won.

[Angela]

Agreed; whole-heartedly. Whenever I begin to write a story, I don't plan any themes, motifs, or symbols but when I look back half-way through a story, I start to spot things (at the point I'm convinced my stories are smarter than me) and I do start building off of the one's I like. However, from the time I start writing, there are always messages I take an effort not to make, things I don't want my story to be, or people I don't want my heroes to be like.

[S Blackburn]

Thank you for sharing your perspective about writing! Being just a reader myself, it is fascinating to see a book from the author's view and how they do it all. And you sure do it so well! Thank you for sharing your talents.

[Julia]

That's interesting. I've never really thought about that before.

[Sheri]

Thanks so much for writing this. I have often wondered how deep the themes go and it's helpful to have one author's persective. The thing that's puzzling to me are the opinions of the critics. They all give so many layers to the classics, and they all disagree. Many of them claim that authors from 200 years ago are advocating ideas that were completely foreign to the mindset of the author's time, making the author not merely advanced, but alien to their own culture (if they did indeed intend such meaning in their works). That's where I personally tend to get a little skeptical regarding authors and layers of meaning.

[Ginger J]

Amen and amen.

[Burgandy Ice]

Oh, I seriously love all that interwoven layers upon layers of stuff. I guess I was the geek that chopped up the story before the teacher asked. I love it when I get a sense that the author added more than I can see and if I just keep looking, there will be more to find.

It does make more sense when someone tries to duplicate it, you know? Suddenly it's hard work just to tie loose ends, never mind themes and references.

Thx for putting all that work into your books!!! :-)

[Kathleen Dalton-Woodbury]

I was the same kind of geek, Burgandy Ice--loved analysis and symbol searches.

As for the Robert Frost story, Isaac Asimov, in his autobiography, tells about something similar happening to him. He heard that someone was going to lecture on his short story, "Nightfall," and upon attending, was amazed to hear all of the things the lecturer said he had put into the story. Afterwards he went up and introduced himself to the lecturer, and said that he really didn't think he put all of that into the story. The lecturer told him that just because he was the author, that didn't mean he was the only one who could say what was in the story.

The lecturer was correct as long as he didn't try to assert that he knew what Asimov had put in on purpose. A story is almost a collaboration between the writer and the reader, because it takes both of them together to make the story experience whatever it is for the reader.

Maybe people get a little confused when authors resist the idea of someone else setting themselves up as the authority on what an author has written. Of course authors put things into their stories on purpose, but there may be all kinds of other things that readers can find in there that the author didn't consciously include, but were still included.

Truly good storytelling is much more complicated than many people (who have probably never tried to do it) realize.

[Cathy]

Thank you. Thank you. And thank you again!

[WriterChick]

That was really well put. When I write, I do put in certain things for symbolism or a particular motif, but often, when reading back, I realize that I've put more in there than I originally thought, and upon that realization can expound on that thought and create a deeper meaning that was really there all along.

[Kate Coombs]

Oh, very well said! What gets me, too, is when people try to force symbols and associations that aren't there just to sound clever. Like the Shakespeare class I took in which a woman student went on and on about Othello's childhood. What's more relevant, of course, is connections readers make between their own life experiences and the events and themes of the book.

[Faith]

You make an excellent point that most of the themes and motifs only become clarified during revision. Certainly as I writer I spend a large chunk of my revising time making sure that the themes are clear, that allusions are present, that motifs are present but subtle.
I suppose where the story came from is the truth that writers do indeed often set out to simply tell a story and only realize later the themes that are intrinsic to the story. When you decide to tell a story with truth to it, and focus on that truth, themes will necessarily happen in that first draft, "as if by themselves."
I'm looking forward to the year of Hale! :)

[Lauren]

I surely hope Robert Frost always wrote with intention and meaning! He's one of my favorite poets of all time. I absolutely love this post.

[ruthie]

Interesting discussion, thanks! It reminded me of this article about Bruce McAllister, who as a teenager in 1963 sent a survey about symbolism to 150 authors. An amazing number of them wrote back, including Jack Kerouac, Ayn Rand, Ralph Ellison, Ray Bradbury, John Updike, Saul Bellow, and Norman Mailer. And several said they did not consciously place symbols in their work. (Maybe it's more as you say - that as you review a draft, you see what has come out naturally and nurture it? I find it hard to believe that it just happens otherwise!)

The link has copies of some of the replies - it's fascinating! http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2011/12/05/document-the-symbolism-survey/

[Lisa C]

I am an admitted book fanatic. It's my profession, my hobby, and my joy. Somewhat frequently, the people I encounter through all of this say, "You should write a book!" My response is usually a squinted look of disbelief because running through my mind are things like you have described. The love of something does not mean the ability to create its beauty in all of its complexities. That's what truly great writing is. As a reader I revel in those fathomed depths. But, to be the creator of such intricacies does not, cannot happen by happenstance or luck--only by conscientious and cognitive endeavor. And few there are that have that ability. Happily, Mrs. Hale, you are one of them. : )

[Lily]

Love these periodic explanations of writers and the craft of writing!

I think everyone who has been required to perform literary analysis (autopsy?) eventually wonders if it isn't all just a bunch of mumbo jumbo somebody invented to make them loathe all literature. But as you say, these are invaluable exercises that teach us to be better readers (and writers!)

Making all those themes and connections appear effortless is a great writing skill. It also shows respect for readers who deserve more from a story than mindless entertainment. Thank you for doing that and doing it well.

[Bridget]

Wow, I would think it'd be the height of rudeness to tell an author to his/her face that s/he "probably didn't mean" to put such-and-such meaning into a text.

However, while I think sometimes meaning can be directly attributed to authorial intent, I think it can just as easily be something that occurs subconsciously on the author's part.

Perhaps, as a student, I held authors in too high a regard; it never once occurred to me that English teachers were "digging too deep" or "making up meaning" that wasn't there. I just assumed that authors were just brilliant like that!

Of course, now I'M the English teacher who tells the students what to look for in each book :p Touche, students!

[Christy Grigg]

I love it that you put so much effort into your books. The end product is beautiful. Also, I always learn so much when you do posts like this one. Thank you!

[Eva Graalman]

Of course we LIKE you!