storytelling

One younger woman to another: "I don't believe in symbolism."

I can't stop thinking about this. It strikes me as funny and sad for reasons I haven't been able to articulate to myself very well. To try to sort it out, I have been making substitutions, trying to come up with a parallel:

I don't believe in gravity.
I don't believe in mathematics.
I don't believe in the alphabet.

None of these feels quite right, or helps me understand (a) the statement; (b) my reaction to the statement.

Edited to add: I figured it out. If she had said "I am not interested in symbolism" I probably wouldn't have remembered the exchange. It was the idea that she could believe or not believe in symbolism. By saying "I don't believe in" she is claiming the authority to sanction (or banish) a way of thinking. I hereby declare her a twit. What abominable conceit.

But anyway, the rest of the original post:

Next step: a dictionary definition, from the OED;

The practice of representing things by symbols, or of giving a symbolic character to objects or acts; the systematic use of symbols; hence, symbols collectively or generally.

The human mind deals in symbols. Symbols = basic building blocks of communication and cognition. How can you not believe or not believe in symbols?

Back to the original statement. My sense was that the two women were talking about literature, which reminds me of an episode while I was teaching.

The class was introduction to creative writing, and they had been assigned the short story "Spunk" by Nora Zeale Hurston. (Short version: One man kills another man to get his wife; the killer is tormented by the ghost of the man he murdered, who takes revenge from beyond the grave. Very Hamlet.) In the class discussion, somebody suggested that there was no ghost at all, that it was Spunk's own suppressed feelings of guilt and wrong-doing at the bottom of what he was experiencing. The black bob cat which so frightens the previously brave Spunk is a symbol: he is confronted by his own darker side and can't face it.

A young woman in the class was not having any. She said something like: it's a ghost story. Why can't it just be a ghost story? Why do you have to look for something beneath the surface? Does everything have to stand in for something else? It's a cat, for heaven's sake.

In other words: She didn't believe in symbolism.

This kind of thing fascinates me, the fear of looking below the surface. I have a feeling I'm going to be thinking about this for a long time.

That's enough geekishness for one day, I think.

Posted by at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Robyn just reminded me of something I've been meaning to say here: If you post a comment with more than one link, it will be held for review. You'll see this message:

Thank You for Commenting. Or trying to.

Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, MT has included an overly pious and rigorous screening system that may decide to hold your comment hostage until I sacrifice a dozen sheep. I am trying to convince MT that this is not strictly necessary, and that people who have posted here many times in the past are indeed safe, and not casino managers hiding in friend's clothing.

However, MT is a tricksy beast and deeply paranoid at heart. If you are reading this message, it could be that it has found a way around my demands that it relax and cut back on the caffeine, and gone back to pouncing on perfectly innocent commentary. Please don't submit the comment again, as this will only encourage further bad behavior on MT's part. I check (with great regularity) the hidey hole where MT puts all the comments it whisks away, and should yours end up there, I will restore it to its proper place in the universe in short order.

If you happen to be someone with a deeper understanding of the newest release of Movable Type than mine (which is a very large club) and you know why MT refuses to take my "trusted commenter" list into consideration, please do let me know.

Posted by at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I have a not-so-secret fascination with Wikis. To me, a Wiki embodies the real potential of the internet. So over at the new RBA forum (hint hint) I posted about the possibility of creating a Wiki for the romance genre. I'm going to reproduce the post here in part, because I want to raise some questions. Here it is:

I'm thinking there's something we can start as a community that has potential for real, wide-reaching positive effect for the genre.

A Wiki is an open source encyclopedia type website where any registered participant can add material, and everything is cross referenced and linked. It's easy to use -- no knowledge of any coding language required -- and easy to administer. There is Wiki software built right into this site, we only would have to activate it and do some initial setup.

'Wiki' means "quick!" in Hawai'ian Creole, in part because once a Wiki is established, it can grow exponentially. People suggest categories for articles, write new articles or add to existing ones. Comments to existing articles are a necessary part of the process and evolution.

An excellent overview article about wikis, what they can be and their potential, is here. Here is a shorter, "plain English" explanation. For an excellent example of a hugely successful Wiki, there's Wikipedia.org, which is a good place to explore to see how the whole concept works. Wikis can be small or large, confined to a single topic (many professors and teachers are now setting up Wikis for a particular class) or expansive and inclusive (Wikipedia is the best example of that).

So tell me the truth, is this the ultimate in geekishness? Am I the only person who sees this possibility as fun? I have ideas for a couple different Wikis. My fondest dream is to do one for Dorothy Dunnett's novels. Particularly (or at least, the part that would interest me most) would be the Niccolo novels, but the wondrous think about a Wiki is that when they work, you've got enough people to cover everything. I can leave Lymond for the Lymond lovers.

Or I could, if I weren't the only person in the world whose heart beats faster at the idea.

Posted by at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)