What's In A Book?

What happens when we critically analyze a novel? Can the average reader engage in such things? Or are they just supposed to be pawns of the author, enjoying the story while in the background their opinions and emotions are being manipulated? Hopefully that’s a rhetorical question to which the answer is emphatically “no.” But readers don’t also need a PhD in literature to truly engage a piece of fiction.

(Now there are several ways to interpret a text, at least in the literary critique circles; I have my own kind of blend, so what I say here is my own, and not necessarily the only way.)

First I look for the theme of the work; what is the author reacting to? Speaking against? Speaking for? Exhorting toward? They all do, to some extent; so what is it? Why does this story need to be told? Speaking as a writer, I know that there are a multitude of reasons why I feel compelled to write – and I know those show up in my stories whether I want them to or not.

Now, this probably doesn’t apply to genre fiction: pure fantasy, romance – stuff like that. Those take the form from their literary counterparts and reduce them to mere form. But I am speaking of literature – “news that stays news” as Ezra Pound once put it. It stays news because it speaks to the human condition – and the human condition – once you strip away time, culture, and ideology – has stayed very much the same for thousands of years. And that is why, dear friends, literature is so important, and critical analysis of it is just as important. True literature, regardless of genre, should be walked away from with a sense of “why is this fiction? It seems just like real life.”

Once the theme is determined, it must be found what all the supporting pieces are. Here is where it is critical to not just look at what exists in the novel, but how it is treated. Is wanton sex engaged in by the hero, or the villain? Or graphic violence? It is not enough to just say: “It exists; the author supports it.” The author must make claims on both sides of the fence, upholding some positions while condemning others. But he cannot simply say: “this is bad; this is good.” That’s what dissertations are for. Instead he or she must use the framework of the story itself; if one mode of thought leads the character toward destruction, that thought is condemned by the author. If another thought leads to restoration, that claim is upheld. Often it’s as simple as that – what survives is held to be true by the author, what fails is false.

Consider it the next time you read; you may be surprised by the experience.

See you Monday.