Duh, Tell Us About The Rabbits, George
Jay Tomio of Fantasy Book Spot recently posted his reaction to a message board thread on his blog. His reaction is, to my mind, perfectly sensible but not nearly vitriolic enough, not as far as my id -- or Jack, as I like to call him -- is concerned. So Jack and I thought we'd supply some more vitriol.
So what was Jay reacting to? Well, I won't quote the full shebang of philistine fuckwittery here -- just go and read Jay's quotes from it --but the basic argument is that Fantasy is intrinsically shallow vacuous pap that neither requires nor deserves the critical engagement of the reader, and that that's a good thing, hurrah! I'm not gonna beat up on the source here by tearing into the argument, because, frankly a) it's not much of an argument, b) some of it is tangential to my point, c) either I'd be downright rude or Jack would, and d) at the end of the day it would feel like kicking a sick puppy. However… there is one statement that I want to pick up on, because I've heard variations of this used widely, by fans and writers alike. I think Jay's Font of All Stoopidity puts it just perfectly in their very first sentence:
I do believe that sometimes, one can read to[sic] much into things
Yeah, that's right. Lemme run that past you again:
I do believe that sometimes, one can read to[sic] much into things
Yuh-huh.
Sound harmless to ya? Well, I don't get it.
I mean, I've always wondered how you define "too much" in those sort of statements. Is it "too much" in the sense that the majority of meaning a reader (for some strange unfathomable reason) thinks they've just gleaned from a novel is not in fact there? You know… you read a book and you think it explores some really interesting questions about the human condition, but, hah! Gotcha, sucker! You've been duped. It doesn't really. Yeah, so it looks like an intricate pattern of mirrorings and parallels and recurrent symbolism, whereby the individual actions and general development of different characters, the metaphoric language used to describe settings, and generally all those things what them literary types kinda like to put in their books -- whereby all of those kinda sorta seem to combine as kinda sorta explications and /or explorations of an abstract concept, offering multiple perspectives, contrasting or contradictory reflections on the general topic, and maybe even some sort of resolution into a basic statement on the core idea which all of these different takes somehow pivot around. Well, newsflash, buddy. It only looks like a pattern. Like the weaving in that Persian rug looks like a pattern, but it's not really. No. Even if it's all symmetrical and intricate, like. With, like, repetitions and reflections and shit. No. No, no, no. The meaning isn't actually there. You're reading too much into it.
Riiiiiiiight. Pardon me for skimming over the philosophical complexities of whether the meaning of a book lies within the book itself or within the mind of the reader, but, gee George, if da pattern is a pattern den is it really a pattern? If da book is all patterny and stuff den does dat mean da book got a meaning, George? Are we gonna have rabbits and raise alfalfa and live off da fatta da land, George? Huh, George, huh?
Or is it that, yes, those patterns which are blindingly obvious if you actually look at the text are there, but, you know, that doesn't mean the author meant to put them in? Or that we should actually be extracting them. Like that subtextual racism you get in some High Fantasy whereby the hordes of Evil largely consist of ugly, brutal savages with coarse features, flat wide noses with flaring nostrils, and dark skin covered in primitive daubings of white war-paint (you know, like in LOTR?), whilst the defenders of Good largely consist of attractive, noble sophisticates with refined features, flowing locks of fine hair, and white skin under their silken tunics and shining armour(you know, like in LOTR?)? I mean, I'm sure the author didn't mean the implicit racism so it doesn't matter, does it? It's only a story, after all. No, that's an unpalatable meaning which one should simply gloss over, sweep under the carpet, in order to properly enjoy the book without it leaving a nasty bad taste in your mouth. I mean, for God's sake man! You don't want to notice a subtext that might actually disturb you, when you could be innocently enjoying the glorious victory of the Aryan Knights over the Nigra Horde. You're reading too much into it.
O-o-o-o-o-o-kay. I mean, I wouldn't want to come over all politico and radical here but FUCK THAT SHIT! You wanna jerk off over some kiddie porn while you're at it? Can I getcha a snuff movie or three. Yes, let's all hold hands and traipse off to the movies together to see Birth of a Nation in the late night, bring-yer-own-bedsheet, audience participation show where you get to boo and hiss every time a n*gger comes on screen and cheer for the KKK! Wanna come to a Skrewdriver gig with me? Hey, don't bother with the lyrics, man. The music rocks. Just don't read too much into it.
Fuckin breeders.
Or is it that the meaning is there -- because after all, every author puts meaning into their books whether they intend to or not, if not in the form of an implicit metatext then at least in the form of an implicit subtext -- but you know, well, you're not really meant to go digging too deep into the book for that meaning. After all, it's only pulp. But see, some readers tend to get a little more meaning than others, right? Maybe they've read the book twice, maybe they've read it slower, maybe they've read it with more concentration, hell, maybe they've just read so many other things that they've developed this uncanny ability to glean meaning from books on more than a surface level without too much brow furrowing and mouthing of polysyllabic words. Anyway, the point is, there's a correct level of intellectual effort to be applied here when it comes to, well, certain kinds of pulp book. And you're not measuring down to it. Damn you, you're putting far too much effort into your reading! You're trying too hard! Read it once rather than twice. And read it fast. Skim some chapters. Have the TV on in the background. Try drinking a few beers beforehand. But for the love of God, don't waste your precious time and energy trying so hard. Don't you see? It's pulp. It's not meant to be read like that. It's not meant to be enjoyed for anything more than the most superficial, readily apparent features. You're reading too much into it.
Ye-e-e-e-e-es. So someone puts a steak in front of me and I'm meant to lick the barbecue sauce off it and chuck the meat away, because once you've got past that surface flavour, well, why would you go to the effort of actually chewing? After all, it's just steak in a barbecue sauce. Or chicken in a barbecue sauce. Or pork in a barbecue sauce. Anyway, it's the barbecue sauce that matters. I mean… WTF? If I want to put more effort into reading a book in the hopes of getting more reward, then who, pray tell, has the right to tell me that I shouldn't be bothering -- not on the basis that the book doesn't contain the meaning I'm looking for, nor on the basis that I'd best not pay attention if the book raises some thorny issues, but because it's pulp and pulp isn't meant to be read in that way. Which is to say, with half a fucking brain, an ounce of critical faculties, and an iota of fucking attention to the meaty goodness fucking sitting there in front of you just begging for you to get yer teeth into it God forbid we actually treat any pulp book with such rigour; we might start to like it, and then start to expect it, and then realise it's not there sometimes, and then stop enjoying all our My Little Unicorn and Dragonfucker of Porn and Battlefield Mid-West and Chronicles of the Objects of Power Saga, Volume Umpty Fucking Ump.
Yeah, cause that would be a real fucking tragedy. See me weep.
Thing is, all of this sorta begs the question, anyway: How much is too much? Is there an upper limit on central themes? A quota on metaphors per chapter? Will something terrible happen to me if I notice too many instances of foreshadowing? If I detect a parallel between the hero's background and the villain's does that mean I should ignore hints of parallels between the hero's and the heroine's? Sorry, mate, I've done all me parallelism detection for this book; don't want to be reading too much into it. Ah, fer fuck's sake, now, we're backed up to here with insights into the human condition. Sorry, no. That doesn't count as satori; it's quite clearly a moment of apotheosis and ye've had yer fill of them. I'm going to have to expung that from me meory with a knitting needle up the nostril now. Oi, you, what's that yer trying to sneak in there? Perspective, mate? Too much bloody perspective! And as for symmetries, they're bloody fearful. Best keep well away from them entirely.
Or is "too much" measured in relative terms rather than absolutes? Like there's a perfect mid-point between too little and too much, a middle-brow approach somewhere between an academic treatise and bibble, bibble, bibble, pllrrrp? Come on, man. How much is too much? Is it more than a university professor, more than a literary critic, more than the average Joe Schmoe? Is it more than Random Cretin # 12 will pick up if he has the book read to him by a dyslexic with a stutter while they're sitting in a bar watching the WWF? Is it more than an eight-year-old child with Attention Deficit Disorder will pick up from their teacher shouting it at them while they run round the classroom screaming "I'm an aeroplane! I'm an aeroplane! Vrooooooom!"? Is it more than a chimp will pick up if you translate the book into "Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Ah! Ah! Ooh! Ooh!" and emphasise just how important a message this is for apekind by writing it on a wall with your faeces? Or is it -- is "too much"-- and here's an idea -- is it just that little bit more than any fucking brain-dead moron who uses that fucking phrase?
Does "reading too much into it" translate as, "getting more meaning from the book than me and therefore showing me up for the imbecile I am"? Cause, baby, that's what I hear under that phrase. You're reading too much into it. You think there's thematic complexity there? Well, you're wrong. I read the book. I don't see no stinkin complexity. You just gone and intellektshulized it, rashunalized it, doggone just plain thought about it too much, when in fact if you was self-righteously, arrogantly pig-ignorant like me, you'd clearly see that thut there book is just pretending to be complex. Nossir, there ain't nuthin in there but smart-ass ideas put together in no sorta real sense whatsoever, and you can join up the dots for me all day long and point to how, no, actually it really does make sense, but, heck, it's clear that you're just reading too much into it, man, it's gotta be that, it couldn't possibly be that you're right, and I JUST DIDN'T FUCKIN GET IT.
Beats me why anyone with a modicum of self-respect would make this argument. I don't mind someone telling me that they think a book is shallow if they can substantiate that argument by pointing out its flaws. But they have to read the book at a certain fucking level to be able to tell me that those flaws are real flaws and not just the blind spot caused in this particular reader by the crayon jammed up their nostril and pressing into their forebrain. If it just comes down to me saying this book is gnarly and interesting for X, Y and Z reasons, and the answer is that I'm "reading too much into it", well then, mes amigos, that's the answer of a mindless dweeb who projects their own intellectual inadequacies onto others, plastering over their own lazy vapidity with a self-serving delusion that nothing is really beyond their understanding, and if it appears to be so why then that must be an illusion. And I say unto them, brothers and sisters:
You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
So what was Jay reacting to? Well, I won't quote the full shebang of philistine fuckwittery here -- just go and read Jay's quotes from it --but the basic argument is that Fantasy is intrinsically shallow vacuous pap that neither requires nor deserves the critical engagement of the reader, and that that's a good thing, hurrah! I'm not gonna beat up on the source here by tearing into the argument, because, frankly a) it's not much of an argument, b) some of it is tangential to my point, c) either I'd be downright rude or Jack would, and d) at the end of the day it would feel like kicking a sick puppy. However… there is one statement that I want to pick up on, because I've heard variations of this used widely, by fans and writers alike. I think Jay's Font of All Stoopidity puts it just perfectly in their very first sentence:
I do believe that sometimes, one can read to[sic] much into things
Yeah, that's right. Lemme run that past you again:
I do believe that sometimes, one can read to[sic] much into things
Yuh-huh.
Sound harmless to ya? Well, I don't get it.
I mean, I've always wondered how you define "too much" in those sort of statements. Is it "too much" in the sense that the majority of meaning a reader (for some strange unfathomable reason) thinks they've just gleaned from a novel is not in fact there? You know… you read a book and you think it explores some really interesting questions about the human condition, but, hah! Gotcha, sucker! You've been duped. It doesn't really. Yeah, so it looks like an intricate pattern of mirrorings and parallels and recurrent symbolism, whereby the individual actions and general development of different characters, the metaphoric language used to describe settings, and generally all those things what them literary types kinda like to put in their books -- whereby all of those kinda sorta seem to combine as kinda sorta explications and /or explorations of an abstract concept, offering multiple perspectives, contrasting or contradictory reflections on the general topic, and maybe even some sort of resolution into a basic statement on the core idea which all of these different takes somehow pivot around. Well, newsflash, buddy. It only looks like a pattern. Like the weaving in that Persian rug looks like a pattern, but it's not really. No. Even if it's all symmetrical and intricate, like. With, like, repetitions and reflections and shit. No. No, no, no. The meaning isn't actually there. You're reading too much into it.
Riiiiiiiight. Pardon me for skimming over the philosophical complexities of whether the meaning of a book lies within the book itself or within the mind of the reader, but, gee George, if da pattern is a pattern den is it really a pattern? If da book is all patterny and stuff den does dat mean da book got a meaning, George? Are we gonna have rabbits and raise alfalfa and live off da fatta da land, George? Huh, George, huh?
Or is it that, yes, those patterns which are blindingly obvious if you actually look at the text are there, but, you know, that doesn't mean the author meant to put them in? Or that we should actually be extracting them. Like that subtextual racism you get in some High Fantasy whereby the hordes of Evil largely consist of ugly, brutal savages with coarse features, flat wide noses with flaring nostrils, and dark skin covered in primitive daubings of white war-paint (you know, like in LOTR?), whilst the defenders of Good largely consist of attractive, noble sophisticates with refined features, flowing locks of fine hair, and white skin under their silken tunics and shining armour(you know, like in LOTR?)? I mean, I'm sure the author didn't mean the implicit racism so it doesn't matter, does it? It's only a story, after all. No, that's an unpalatable meaning which one should simply gloss over, sweep under the carpet, in order to properly enjoy the book without it leaving a nasty bad taste in your mouth. I mean, for God's sake man! You don't want to notice a subtext that might actually disturb you, when you could be innocently enjoying the glorious victory of the Aryan Knights over the Nigra Horde. You're reading too much into it.
O-o-o-o-o-o-kay. I mean, I wouldn't want to come over all politico and radical here but FUCK THAT SHIT! You wanna jerk off over some kiddie porn while you're at it? Can I getcha a snuff movie or three. Yes, let's all hold hands and traipse off to the movies together to see Birth of a Nation in the late night, bring-yer-own-bedsheet, audience participation show where you get to boo and hiss every time a n*gger comes on screen and cheer for the KKK! Wanna come to a Skrewdriver gig with me? Hey, don't bother with the lyrics, man. The music rocks. Just don't read too much into it.
Fuckin breeders.
Or is it that the meaning is there -- because after all, every author puts meaning into their books whether they intend to or not, if not in the form of an implicit metatext then at least in the form of an implicit subtext -- but you know, well, you're not really meant to go digging too deep into the book for that meaning. After all, it's only pulp. But see, some readers tend to get a little more meaning than others, right? Maybe they've read the book twice, maybe they've read it slower, maybe they've read it with more concentration, hell, maybe they've just read so many other things that they've developed this uncanny ability to glean meaning from books on more than a surface level without too much brow furrowing and mouthing of polysyllabic words. Anyway, the point is, there's a correct level of intellectual effort to be applied here when it comes to, well, certain kinds of pulp book. And you're not measuring down to it. Damn you, you're putting far too much effort into your reading! You're trying too hard! Read it once rather than twice. And read it fast. Skim some chapters. Have the TV on in the background. Try drinking a few beers beforehand. But for the love of God, don't waste your precious time and energy trying so hard. Don't you see? It's pulp. It's not meant to be read like that. It's not meant to be enjoyed for anything more than the most superficial, readily apparent features. You're reading too much into it.
Ye-e-e-e-e-es. So someone puts a steak in front of me and I'm meant to lick the barbecue sauce off it and chuck the meat away, because once you've got past that surface flavour, well, why would you go to the effort of actually chewing? After all, it's just steak in a barbecue sauce. Or chicken in a barbecue sauce. Or pork in a barbecue sauce. Anyway, it's the barbecue sauce that matters. I mean… WTF? If I want to put more effort into reading a book in the hopes of getting more reward, then who, pray tell, has the right to tell me that I shouldn't be bothering -- not on the basis that the book doesn't contain the meaning I'm looking for, nor on the basis that I'd best not pay attention if the book raises some thorny issues, but because it's pulp and pulp isn't meant to be read in that way. Which is to say, with half a fucking brain, an ounce of critical faculties, and an iota of fucking attention to the meaty goodness fucking sitting there in front of you just begging for you to get yer teeth into it God forbid we actually treat any pulp book with such rigour; we might start to like it, and then start to expect it, and then realise it's not there sometimes, and then stop enjoying all our My Little Unicorn and Dragonfucker of Porn and Battlefield Mid-West and Chronicles of the Objects of Power Saga, Volume Umpty Fucking Ump.
Yeah, cause that would be a real fucking tragedy. See me weep.
Thing is, all of this sorta begs the question, anyway: How much is too much? Is there an upper limit on central themes? A quota on metaphors per chapter? Will something terrible happen to me if I notice too many instances of foreshadowing? If I detect a parallel between the hero's background and the villain's does that mean I should ignore hints of parallels between the hero's and the heroine's? Sorry, mate, I've done all me parallelism detection for this book; don't want to be reading too much into it. Ah, fer fuck's sake, now, we're backed up to here with insights into the human condition. Sorry, no. That doesn't count as satori; it's quite clearly a moment of apotheosis and ye've had yer fill of them. I'm going to have to expung that from me meory with a knitting needle up the nostril now. Oi, you, what's that yer trying to sneak in there? Perspective, mate? Too much bloody perspective! And as for symmetries, they're bloody fearful. Best keep well away from them entirely.
Or is "too much" measured in relative terms rather than absolutes? Like there's a perfect mid-point between too little and too much, a middle-brow approach somewhere between an academic treatise and bibble, bibble, bibble, pllrrrp? Come on, man. How much is too much? Is it more than a university professor, more than a literary critic, more than the average Joe Schmoe? Is it more than Random Cretin # 12 will pick up if he has the book read to him by a dyslexic with a stutter while they're sitting in a bar watching the WWF? Is it more than an eight-year-old child with Attention Deficit Disorder will pick up from their teacher shouting it at them while they run round the classroom screaming "I'm an aeroplane! I'm an aeroplane! Vrooooooom!"? Is it more than a chimp will pick up if you translate the book into "Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Ah! Ah! Ooh! Ooh!" and emphasise just how important a message this is for apekind by writing it on a wall with your faeces? Or is it -- is "too much"-- and here's an idea -- is it just that little bit more than any fucking brain-dead moron who uses that fucking phrase?
Does "reading too much into it" translate as, "getting more meaning from the book than me and therefore showing me up for the imbecile I am"? Cause, baby, that's what I hear under that phrase. You're reading too much into it. You think there's thematic complexity there? Well, you're wrong. I read the book. I don't see no stinkin complexity. You just gone and intellektshulized it, rashunalized it, doggone just plain thought about it too much, when in fact if you was self-righteously, arrogantly pig-ignorant like me, you'd clearly see that thut there book is just pretending to be complex. Nossir, there ain't nuthin in there but smart-ass ideas put together in no sorta real sense whatsoever, and you can join up the dots for me all day long and point to how, no, actually it really does make sense, but, heck, it's clear that you're just reading too much into it, man, it's gotta be that, it couldn't possibly be that you're right, and I JUST DIDN'T FUCKIN GET IT.
Beats me why anyone with a modicum of self-respect would make this argument. I don't mind someone telling me that they think a book is shallow if they can substantiate that argument by pointing out its flaws. But they have to read the book at a certain fucking level to be able to tell me that those flaws are real flaws and not just the blind spot caused in this particular reader by the crayon jammed up their nostril and pressing into their forebrain. If it just comes down to me saying this book is gnarly and interesting for X, Y and Z reasons, and the answer is that I'm "reading too much into it", well then, mes amigos, that's the answer of a mindless dweeb who projects their own intellectual inadequacies onto others, plastering over their own lazy vapidity with a self-serving delusion that nothing is really beyond their understanding, and if it appears to be so why then that must be an illusion. And I say unto them, brothers and sisters:
You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
posted by Hal Duncan | 3:25 pm
18 Comments:
Dude, I think you're reading to [sic] much into that first sentence.
Your right - I defintely wasn't vitriolic enough:)
Jay
I wrote a long and tedious screed basically agreeing with you, and it bloated to include, oh, why I hate everyone, why I hate nearly everyone who writes genre, and why I hate nearly everyone who reads genre, &c. Including, at times, myself.
Then I deleted it, on the suspicion that you'd read and thought it all before, and probably far more eloquently.
Nice William Blake reference, by the way.
All the best,
Nels.
PS: When's Vellum out again?
And I shall tender unto thee my cookie of agreement :-)
Victoria (Duanawitch@FBS)
taleswapper: Dude, motto of the SubGenius: Too much is never enough!
jay: Reasoned & intelligent works just as well. It's just that vitriol is more fun. :)
nels: Aw, ye shoulda posted it. A good snarl from the heart is never tedious. (tis out August 5th, btw... or sometime next year if yer in the US)
duanawitch: I shall munch on your cookie with some milk to calm my bilious stomach. :)
Hal, the world is better for your vitriol. Bravo.
You had me, right up to here Fuckin breeders.
http://www.superdickery.com/seduction/7.html
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
-doug
Very nice vitriolic spewing. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
Cheers, Jason, Gabe.
Suzi: sorry, coulda used some sorta irony markup on that "look, bigotry ain't nice" demonstration.
Some of my best friends are hetero, as they say.
Doug: Not if it's Cuban.
Great link, btw. Never knew Superman could be so, well, like this:
http://www.superdickery.com/seduction/12.html
You can read any damn thing into any damn thing, as far as I'm concerned. If it turns your crank to read LOTR as if it were an expression of Tolkien's deep-rooted Catholic guilt over the atrocities of the Crusades (after all, the Franks used the catapult-the-severed-heads trick at the siege of Edessa, right?), complete with crafty color reversal and Aragorn as Saladin, then I say, rock on. It may not be true, but like the man said, what is truth?
Very nice screed, although I only got about 1/2 way before m.e.g.o. But I think you went the wrong direction in excoriating the anonymous poster.
"I do believe that sometimes, one can read to[sic] much into things"
Looks to me here that the problem isn't that the poster thinks that one shouldn't read pulp deeply for the subtexts and hidden meanings. He's making the trite and obvious observation that some people find subtext that isn't there. LOTR as whity against the dark hordes? LOTR as catholic guilt? (elsewhere) LOTR as yearing for aristocracy against the modern democratic trend?
Sometimes, a blond hero is just a blond hero. And a catapult of skulls is just a catapult of skulls.
And sometimes a fag getting stripped, tied to a split-rail fence, beaten, burned with cigarettes, pistol-whipped and left for 18 hours to slip into a coma on a hillside in Wyoming is just a fag getting stripped, tied to a split-rail fence, beaten, burned with cigarettes, pistol-whipped and left for 18 hours to slip into a coma on a hillside in Wyoming.
Cause it's "just a story", isn't it?
What I mean is, if that happens in pulp, and in the context of a narrative where it's clearly a Good Thing, are we supposed to say, hey, it's just pulp, so it's OK?
Doesn't work for me. That's my main point in the rant because I do think, in this case, "the poster thinks that one shouldn't read pulp deeply for the subtexts and hidden meanings". I think that's exactly what they were saying.
But, OK, forget pulp. I do think that was the drift of the statement, in regards to Fantasy being, as a genre, something which shouldn't be read too deeply (don't analyse it, just enjoy the rousing pistol-whipping of the faggot); but, OK, let's assume it was about fiction in general. If that happens in fiction are we supposed to say, hey, it's just fiction, so it's OK? It's all subjective, right? So if you're looking at a work politically when the majority of readers aren't, and you see a subtext that they don't, well, you're probably just "reading too much into it". Right? I mean, you could be wrong. You could be over-reacting, in your touchy-feely, left-wing, liberal, PC, paranoid over-intellectualisation of the words on the page in front of you. Right?
Fuck that shit.
If nobody else sees that subtext are you supposed to just shut the fuck up and let them get their rocks off on what you see as facist apologism? To me, that's the crux of the argument. Reader #1 says "Hey, this is fucking dodgy shit; look at X, Y and Z; this is bigoted bullshit". Reader #2, #3, #4... #n say "No, you're reading too much into it". They don't say "X, Y and Z are not the case because of This, That and The Other". No, it's just "you're reading too much into it".
That's a fucking cop out.
To be honest, maybe I'm just an inveterate politico but I find a lot of those "you're reading subtext into it that isn't there" arguments highly dubious. If the black guy dies 3/4 of the way through the movie, saying "leave me here, go on without me", sorry, but that's a fucking subtext. Yes, it's largely dumb, cheap, easy, thoughtless, formulaic writing that isn't intended to be racist bullshit, but that's the whole feckin point of the concept of "subtext" -- it's the message under the text that the writer may well not have even considered. So the writer is just writing a story. So it just so happens that the hero is blond. So it just so happens that the hero's sidekick is a black guy. So it just so happens that the sidekick sacrifices himself 3/4 of the way through the story so the hero can save the day. If I point out the fact that, hello, that's a big pile of cliched, racist, stereotyping, fuckin shite, well, I want to hear some fucking arguments as to why I'm wrong. I don't want the lame-ass, cretinous response of "You're reading too much into it". All that amounts to, in my book, is "I like it. I don't care. I haven't analysed it to the same extent that you have. In fact, I don't intend to, and I'm right to not look at it that deeply. You're just being all smart and shit"...
To me that sounds like:
"You're reading too much into it. I, on the other hand, am reading it with a knitting needle shoved up my fucking nostril, wiggled about occassionally so I can enjoy it without any fucking thought whatsoever. I'm not going to actually defend it in any way whatsoever. I'm just going to tell you you're over-analysing it and go back to getting my rocks off over this really cool scene where the faggot gets pistol-whipped into a coma cause he's, like, a Bad Guy."
Hell, I'm quite interested in the idea of LotR as Catholic guilt. But I'm damn sure not going to listen to any motherfucker who likes "Triumph Of The Will" because it's a really gorgeous piece of cinema, and responds to any comments on the dubious politics contained therein with "You're reading too much into it".
And sometimes, taking a single post out of the context of an entire thread is "fuckwittery". Perhaps, just maybe, the original post was but a part of an entire conversation?
Anonymous: If someone makes a statement along the lines of "I don't care about the subtext of a work; I don't care if you intellektchalls say it's facist or racist or homophobic or whatever; all I want is stuff what ROCKS MY WORLD WITH COOL SHIT! I mean, really, with all this subtext stuff, you're reading too much into it", which is how I parse that particular statement, in the context of the thread or otherwise, well, I see no problem with singling out this specific idea, this particular expression of willful ignorance (vis-a-vis the import and purpose of fiction) for derision and scorn.
The point is simple. "You're reading too much into it" is a cretinous, cowardly, or at best lazy excuse. It's an explicit rejection of interpretation, of the use of critical faculties, because this is assumed to be "unnecessary in this context" (i.e. in the context of populist commercial fiction). Cause, yeah, God forbid we approach populist commercial fiction with any sort of ethical scrutiny. God forbid we even imagine it has a message, never mind question what that message might be, whether it's one we agree with.
I'm not talking about some isolated individual instance which is understandable only in the context of a specific conversation; I'm talking about the attitude it exemplifies. I'm talking about an attitude I've heard expressed over and over again, in this context or that, in those exact words: you're reading too much into it. That attitude, as an accusation of an excess of thought, is one I don't have a whole lot of respect for. Sue me.
I certainly agree that should someone just say the remark, without any contextual meaning behind it, it certainly is a stupid remark to make. However, to say that the "basic argument is that Fantasy is intrinsically shallow etc. etc." is taking the post, and twisting it to suit your meaning. The original post was created by someone who manages a messageboard for a New-York Times Bestselling FANTASY author.
You are leaving out the fact that it was in part due to a specific discussion in which people were indeed taking notes, both on a pad of paper, and in the margins of their novels, in which to compare, cross-reference, and otherwise "rip-apart" a 17+ book series.
All this, WITHOUT anyone bothering to mention that many times, editors/copy-editors will make a change that should never have been made.
One other thing I'd like to mention, Jack, is that the conversation was not about meaning behind the books, but about the meaning behind some readers to go on some seemingly ridiculous theoretical tangent about how perhaps character A's hair is brown colored because it is supposed to reflect how such-n-such event has changed his heart from innocent, to a darker, more "evil" thing.
As was said, sometimes, hair is just hair.
All that aside, I plan on picking up Vellum on Friday. Looking forward to it.
Cheers,
Anon
Anon: to say that the "basic argument is that Fantasy is intrinsically shallow etc. etc." is taking the post, and twisting it to suit your meaning.
Am I reading too much into it, then? Sorry. Joke.
Seriously, though, I don't think I'm twisting the meaning of that statement; I'm isolating and analysing the statement, breaking it apart to see what sentiment it expresses, and to what purpose.
My argument is that this is a stock phrase; it's one of those "I'm right and you're wrong, end of story" statements. The specific context is largely irrelevant, because what we're looking at here is not an argument, but rather a strategy of non-argument. It's like an ad hominem attack, or a straw man. This is part of why I distanced my own post from the original thread -- see above: "b) some of it is tangential to my purpose" -- to address the issue on a more abstract level. I'm not out to beat up on anyone in particular, and I'm not interested in the original debate; what I'm interested in is challenging this kind of conversational gambit, trying to show why it's invalid, and explain why it pisses me off to see it used so often in discussions about Fantasy.
So how does this gambit work?
OK, X advances a critique of a work, Y, with assumptions and conclusions: "A and B therefore C".
Instead of arguing with those assumptions, the conclusion, or the relationship between them, Z simply dismisses the act of critique itself:
You, X, are reading too much into Y.
So, as far as Z is concerned, X's argument can be dismissed as a product of an interpretation of Y which is excessive. Not erroneous, mind, but excessive; this is the crucial distinction. The amount of interpretation that X has applied to Y is not, in Z's opinion, warranted. Y is not a work that merits such a degree of scrutiny. In fact, to apply such scrutiny to Y is wrong. Z is basically saying that X's higher level of attention to the text, of scrutiny and interpretation, of observation and theorisation, is entirely inappropriate for this work, Y, with the implication that Z's lower level of interpretation is the correct approach.
Now, I appreciate that this may be intended as shorthand for "Your argument is spurious and fanciful", but look at what's actually being said here and at the implications. In essence, it's not X's argument that's being dismissed, but the applicability of any argument of that level with respect to Y.
Why is that level of interpretation not applicable to Y? Is it because Y is "just" Fantasy, because Fantasy is "just" entertainment, and God forbid we "over-intellectualise" such literary candy-floss? That really does seem to be the justification offered. It's Fantasy. It's not meant to be analysed to fuck. It's just a bit of fluff, a bit of fun.
I see this attitude from condescending motherfuckers outside the genre, and it annoys me. I see it from uncritical readers within the genre, and it annoys me. It's one thing to simply enjoy a book without analysing it -- fair enough -- but it's quite another to say the book shouldn't be analysed in any depth, that another reader is wrong to do so. And if there's a sense that this low standard is meant to apply not just to a specific book, Y, but to Fantasy in general, well, that really brings out the snark in me.
I stress: the point is that this statement is saying not that the interpretation is erroneous, but that it is excessive. And to apply that attitude to Fantasy in general is basically saying it's wrong to "read too much" into my books. That's not an attitude I want to see propagated. And, hell, to see it from someone deeply immersed in the field (running a BNA's forum)... well, damn right, I'm going to challenge it.
Because what I'm saying is that there is no such thing as reading too much into a work. Oh, you can read the wrong thing into a work, but it's not that you've gone too far ("too much", "too deep"), it's that you've misread the textual signposts and gone off in the wrong direction -- what you call a "ridiculous... tangent". That hair colour example... thing is, in VELLUM the hair colour of a character is symbolic at times. Jack Carter is blond because I wanted to play around with a certain "heroic" character-type, subvert the cliche. So if X points this out on a thread, or suggests that Joey Pechorin's dark hair goes along with his "black heart", and Z responds with "you're reading too much into it", well, Z is talking shit.
Now maybe this is not the case in the 17-book series you're talking about, but how does "you're reading too much into it" in any way address a hypothesis that the dark hair-colour of A is a little writerly touch meant to suggest an inner darkness? If you don't agree with the hyothesis, you could ask whether the hair-colour actually changed at the time of the event. If not, it seems unlikely the two are related. You could argue that brown is too mundane to be symbolic; if it had gone jet-black the reading would be more valid. A dark streak would be a much more striking image and therefore far more suggestive that the author is up to something. But to just dismiss any such interpretation as "reading too much into it"... as I say, that's not an argument, just a conversational gambit.
Hell, if you said "you're talking bollocks" at least that wouldn't be an implicit slur on the book as being undeserving of such studious attention.
Anyhoo, I don't want to personalise this with respect to the particular Z on that particular thread, but I hope this goes some way to explaining what I'm on about in terms of that statement and the implicit attitude. I hope you can at least see how this statement might spark off my snark.
And all that aside -- as you say -- I do hope you enjoy VELLUM.
Cheers to you to, Anon.
Don't get me wrong, I perfectly understand why you went off, and the reasoning BEHIND going off about such a statement, however, as I said, sometimes, it seems as if people are reading between lines that don't exist for the purpose of finding fault within the prose.
I don't know you, obviously, but would you want someone to analyze every phrase, in every one of your books so that they could come to YOUR site, to point out that YOU made a mistake somewhere, and "he" somehow, in chapter 18 of book 2 on page 324, became a "she" for one phrase? It's YOUR fault. YOU did it. Over and over, the person comes to a place that YOU pay for, to put YOU down for something that was probably not your fault, but a mistake by some copy-editor somewhere along the way. Now, compound that by the fact that the person is now complaining that 17 years ago, you wrote a novel, and someone is tearing THAT apart in a seeming effort to find flaws in your writing. Of course your writing would change over the years. Or, at least, I would hope after close to 20 years your writing had improved.
Anyways, when all is said and done, yep, for the most part, I agree with the overall sentiment in WHY you went off. Just don't happen to agree with the comments you made about the original poster. To each their own though.
Anon.
Post a Comment
<< Home