Back in 1963, a 16-year old high school student named Bruce McAllister was tired of looking for symbolism in his high school English assignments. Instead of complaining, he decided to be proactive. McAllister wrote to 150 writers from a wide array of genres, asking them four questions on the matter of symbolism in their own writing as well as the classics.
75 writers responded. Most offered thoughtful replies to McAllister's questions, if even just for a sentence or two. Some were downright chatty. Others were rude. (Responses can be found at the Paris Review.)
Jack Kerouac, Ayn Rand, Norman Mailer, Ray Bradbury, Ralph Ellison, Saul Bellow, John Updike, Isaac Asimov, and Joseph Heller were some of the famous names to reply.
McAllister's letter started out with a thought:
“My definition of symbolism as used in this questionnaire is represented by this example: In The Scarlet Letter there are four major characters. Some say that Hawthorne meant those four to be Nature, Religion, Science or other similar symbols in disguise. They apply the actions of the four in the story to what is presently happening or will happen to Nature, Religion, Science, etc.”
Ayn Rand responded: "This is not a ‘definition,’ it is not true—and, therefore, your questions do not make sense." (She proceeded to ignore McAllister's follow-up questions.)
McAllister's Question #1:
“Do you consciously, intentionally plan and place symbolism in your writing?... If yes, please state your method for doing so. Do you feel you sub-consciously place symbolism in your writing?”
Jack Kerouac: "No."
John Updike: "Yes—I have no method; there is no method in writing fiction; you don’t seem to understand."
Isaac Asimov: "Consciously? Heavens, no! Unconsciously? How can one avoid it?"
Norman Mailer: "I’m not sure it’s a good idea for a working novelist to concern himself too much with the technical aspects of the matter. Generally, the best symbols in a novel are those you become aware of only after you finish the work."
_________________________________________
McAllister Question #2:
"Do readers ever infer that there is symbolism in your writing where you had not intended it to be? If so, what is your feeling about this type of inference? (Humorous? annoying? etc.?)"
Ray Bradbury: "One critic once thought my vampire family story HOMECOMING was intended as a parable on mankind in he atomic age, under the kkk threat of the atom bomb. I was mostly amused. After all, each story is a Rorschach Test, isn't it?"
Saul Bellow: "They most certainly do. Symbol-hunting is absurd."
Ralph Ellison: "Yes, readers often infer that there is symbolism in my work, which I do not intend. My reaction is sometimes annoyance. It is sometimes humorous. It is sometimes even pleasant, indicating that the reader’s mind has collaborated in a creative way with what I have written."
__________________________________________
McAllister Question #3:
"Do you feel that the great writers of classics consciously, intentionally planned and placed symbols in their writing? ... Do you feel that they placed it there sub-consciously?"
Joseph Heller: "The more sophisticated the writer, I would guess, the smaller the use of symbols in the strictest sense and the greater the attempt to achieve the effects of symbolism in more subtle ways."
Jack Kerouac: "Come off of it—there are all kinds of ‘classics’—Sterne used no symbolism, Joyce did etc."
__________________________________________
McAllister Question #4:
"Do you have anything to remark concerning the subject under study, or anything you believe to be pertinent to such a study?"
Jack Kerouac: "Symbolism is alright in ‘fiction’ but I tell true life stories simply about what happened to people I knew."
John Updike: "It would be better for you to do your own thinking on this sort of thing."
Ray Bradbury: "Not much to say except to warn you not to get too serious about all this, if you want to become a writer of fiction in the future. If you intend to become a critic, that is a Whale of another color. [...] Playing around with symbols, even as a critic, can be a kind of kiddish parlor game. A little of it goes a long way. [...] Good symbolism should be as natural as breathing...and as unobtrusive. [...]"
__________________________________________
What do we take away from these answers? John Updike, Ayn Rand, and Jack Kerouac were kind of jerks.
At least Kerouac could blame the booze for his attitude.
Ayn Rand and John Updike had no excuse.
photos: The Paris Review
George Plimpton, co-founder of The Paris Review, once criticized Wishbone, a television show about a Jack Russell Terrier that reenacted famous novels. In short, Plimpton was not a fan.
As a snotty teenage brat, I wrote Plimpton (old school! stamps! envelopes!), taking him to task for being myopic about what Wishbone accomplished, namely reaching kids who might not think to read such literature otherwise.
Weeks later, a letter arrived from Plimpton. He was polite, charming, sweet--handwritten letter and all. He remarked at the fury he had received from young people like myself, apologized for not seeing how Wishbone might be beneficial to people years younger than himself, and that he saw the error of his ways.
George Plimpton > Ayn Rand.
No comments:
Post a Comment