I listened with a mix of dismay and astonishment to a young adult in my family telling me her opinion on 'respect your elders.' Claimed she didn't respect people because they'd lived long - rather, because they'd earned her respect. She refused to grant her respect to a teacher, or a grandparent, for example, unless they'd earned her respect. She caused me to question and then justify my belief in the 'respect your elders' approach to life. It was a good thinking period for me, although deeply disturbing to hear someone so young and inexperienced apparently unable to see anything worth respecting in a life lived. She has grown up a lot since that time, it's been about (oh man) 20 years, and I find she's not making that claim any more. Time can open minds, perhaps?

But sometimes a ghost story is just a ghost story. I'll have to see if I can find the blog I wos reading about zombies on -- there was a serious disconnect between the literary and SF/F interpretation of a story because the SF/F crowd can deal with the zombies as zombies, whereas the literary group assumes they only exist as symbols.



Which isn't to say that SF/F doesn't also use them as symbols, but rather that there may be layers to the story. Maybe in the ghost story, Spunk's feelings enabled him to see the ghost. Why can't the story exist on both levels at once?

Seems to me that the only way a symbol works is if the story exists on both levels at once. A symbol that sticks out there screaming and pointing to itself is useless. If it's an integral part of the story, though, and makes perfect sense in a straight, non-symbolic way, then it's earned its place to mean something more.

Any given ghost story might be just a ghost story -- why not? a lot of TV is like that -- but if there are multiple meanings, so much the better.

An interesting debate, certainly. When I was in university, I took a number of English classes, from poetry and drama to short fiction to science and utopian fiction. We covered a range of genres and time periods, and on more than one occasion, I'd finish reading the work, put it down, and think to myself, "What the hell was that?" (Edward Albee's "The American Dream" comes to mind) I'd then look forward to the next class, when the professor would describe what was going on in the world at the time the piece was written, the author's personal background, literary trends, that sort of thing, and suddenly the symbols made sense. It was very interesting at that point, but prior to that, when I had finished the work on my own sans learned commentary, I was lost. Ineffective symbolism, maybe? Or my own lack of knowledge and experience?

This also brings to mind reading "The Great Gatsby" in high school. It was symbolism this, symbolism that. I thought then and still think now, "Can't a yellow dress simply be a yellow dress? Do authors really go to such lengths to create a symbolism bonanza?" It seems as though the author would get side-tracked in trying to be clever. Though I must admit, when it is intended and well-crafted, a symbol is a powerful tool indeed.

A couple of thoughts, reading the comments:

Any given story has multiple possible interpretations and layers of meaning, but sometimes (often, even) a story is not well enough written to survive a close examination or digging below the surface. So then a ghost is just a ghost, and it's best to leave it at that.

Regardless of what's in a story, a given reader sometimes skates along the surface and is satisfied with just that. It doesn't mean that there isn't something more there. The ghost is just a ghost to that reader, but not to the next one.

If that iceskater-as-reader ends up in a class where the topic is storytelling, a teacher will probably insist that he or she hang up the skates and pick up a shovel for the duration of the class. A student who says "I don't believe in symbolism" in a literature class is like a student who says "I don't believe in evolution" in a paleontology class. For the duration of the class, you'll have to do a good imitation of somebody who is open to those ideas. If you can't, you're in the wrong place.

Also, I don't think any writer consciously sets out with a list of symbolic meanings that need to be tucked into the story. I think Fitzgerald would be surprised if he could read all the work that's been done on the symbolism in Gatsby. He might be pleased (wow, I'm deeper than I thought) or horrified (these readers are leaving me not one shred of mystery). I'm usually surprised when a reader points out an interesting symbol in my own work.

I wonder if it is relevant here to ponder Tolkien's insistence that he didn't like allegories, and that there were no parallels to be drawn between his stories and contemporary life. Clearly he created a unique world, but it is difficult not to see echoes of his horror of industrialisation and the evils of tyranny etc in his epic. Can an author deny symbols in their work, even if unintentional and surprising to them?

Looking at this from an opposite direction – public (usually political) speakers use symbolism constantly rather than being concrete. Thus the listener identifies with his own interpretation of the symbol, and the speaker scores another hit. For instance, who isn’t in favor of family values? Any one would be foolish to say out loud that he is against family values. Now if we dig down a little, family values might mean anti- (or pro-) abortion, sitting down together at the dinner table, limiting bad language to a minimum of 5 syllables, or insisting your mother (or mother-in-law) live with you. Symbolism can be very, very good in literature, and can be very, very bad when used in public, purposeful obfuscation. Hmmm. I think this symbolic dormouse should go back to sleep in its symbolic teacup (FYI, Alice in Wonderland).

Interesting examples -- Tolkien's negative reaction to analysis of his work (many parallels to be found in people who reject psychoanalysis of their dreams or family histories), and then:

asdfg, I hadn't thought about symbolism from that direction. You're right that doublespeak and the manipulation of symbolic language require a completely different approach. If you take "I don't believe in symbolism" to mean "I reject doublespeak" -- but that feels like a stretch to me.