Omybog should I wade through all 400+ lines? Sure swine not, it's
better than the usual faire... a crab floats on its back with frantic
mandibles aflutter...
Post by ichorwhip<snipped orig post>
Post by Leonard F. WheatYour comments and questions suggest that you believe three things: (1)
that symbolism cannot exist unless the person creating the symbols
says they are present in his work,
I don't think he said that at all.
I shot from the hip, and now you are shooting from the hip. If you
had read Darin's reply and my response before you posted, you could
have avoided your mistake.
You're wrong, I responded to his post and then responded to your's .
I have no obligation to read anything beyond what I respond to. In
later replies I may have well amended what I had to interject. Any
differences you worked out between yourselves are fine and dandy. But
it just so happens that I find your slating of Symbolism to be rather
askew in and of itself, so there!
Darin's requested evidence that Kubrick
admitted using symbolism. I misinterpreted Darin's request as an
argument that, if Kubrick didn't admit using symbolism he must not
have used it. Darin replied that he was not making that argument: he
didn't believe that failure to admit didn't mean Kubrick didn't use
symbolism. I then acknowledged my mistake and apologized.
I know I saw it, but what if you hadn't admitted your mistake? I
admit jocularity. In any event, what you two guys worked out is moot
when it comes to the actual discussion of symbolism.
And here you are, back at square one.
Post by ichorwhip(2) that "analytical symbolism" is
Post by Leonard F. Wheatsomehow different from unspecified other kinds of symbolism, and
...and why wouldn't it be distinguishable even if it's named wrong?
Again, you should have read Darin's reply to my first post and my
response to that reply.
Why? Am I a member of your fan club or something? You can only
somewhat retract what you say here, you know, and I feel like you need
to debate to the last brain cell because of your many errors, not just
this one.
Darin's reply showed that, when he said
"analytical symbolism," he really meant all symbolism. He was not
referring to a special kind of symbolism. I then replied that he
should not have used the restrictive adjective "analytical," since he
really did not intend to put some other "nonanalytical" types of
symbolism in a separate category. The correct term for what he
originally called "analytical symbolism" is simply "symbolism."
I read into this myself as is my wont. Said symbolism which Darin was
talking about seemed to me like the deliberate and crast kind or,
better defined, DEGREE so obvious that it smacks you in the face with
contrivance. Your semantic dialogue is still notwithstanding an
actual exegesis on symbolism.
Comes now Ichorwhip, stepping resolutely onto square one: "There
really is a special kind of symbolism that fits Darin's description of
'analytical symbolism' but has a different 'right' name [I'm
paraphrasing]." Very well, Father Peace, please tell us what kinds of
symbolism you recognize that do NOT fit the description of what Darin
called "analytical symbolism."
Father Peace is it? Well how about the kind that is subtle and crafty
and the work of a true artist? How about that kind of symbolism
rather than that "anal-lyrical" kind.
Darin, in his reply, indicated that what he wrongly called "analytical
symbolism" really was all forms of symbolism. But you think you know
of some other symbolism that is not covered by the term. Tell us what
that other symbolism is. And make sure it is really symbolism,
something used by the symbolist to represent something else besides
what the symbol actually is.
You make such a ridiculous request here that it just stuns the senses,
"like some dull opiate emptied to the drains." You think you can box
me into answering your wrong-headed regurgitation?
Post by ichorwhip(3)
Post by Leonard F. Wheatthat allegory, which depends on symbols for its meaning, is a "crude"
form of art for that very reason.
He never named what he was talking about "allegory" and professed his
own ignorance.
He didn't need to say allegory, because the context made it obvious
that allegorical symbolism was the topic. That's what we've been
arguing about on these 2001 threads.
I think you have an allegory on your right temporal lobe. I read a
substancial portion of the 2001 threads of late and chose to little
participate as much as my eyes were gored by your unrestricted
bullshit. But here we are now and I am anew.
Post by ichorwhip Let's consider your beliefs in that
Sounds like someone's going to have surgery...
Post by Leonard F. WheatSYMBOLISM REQUIRES ACKNOWLEDGMENT
WHAT? ALREADY I FIND MYSELF READY TO DOUBT YOU.
You really are mixed up. That isn't my position. That is what I
thought was Darin's position, the position I was about to refute. For
heaven's sake, Mr. I, look before you leap.
NO, you look! Since you leaped for judgement against our poor fellow
without even a question with your amazing pyrotechnic analysis, you
are open game for criticism, and such I will continue.
Post by ichorwhipPost by Leonard F. WheatAlthough you don't say so in so many words, you seem to imply that
symbolism cannot - and should not - be recognized in a novel, poem,
play, or film unless the author, poet, playwright, or auteur, says the
symbolism is there.
I slowly shake my head is disbelief that someone
would suggest this. Did George Orwell ever say that his allegorical
novel ANIMAL FARM contains symbols? If he didn't, do his symbols lose
their meaning? And does his book therefore cease to be an allegory?
You really need to settle down Leonard. You are shoving words in
mouths at this point and becoming shrill.
I infer that you think any argument you disagree with is "shrill."
Any thoughtful person can see that my argument is just that, an
argument.
It was a load of horseshit for the most part, if you want my
unadulterated opinion. Your style was bombastic, who do you think
your are? me? Unlike me you derive a lot of extra horseshit out of
thin air. When I do it it's a rather obvious joke, but you man,
there's something to be desired in your approach.
Post by ichorwhipPost by Leonard F. WheatI suppose that here and there a few artists, novelists, poets,
playwrights, and auteurs have identified symbols in their creations -
or at least uttered general statements acknowledging that there were
symbols to be found. Maybe Ingmar Bergman did; I'm not sure. But
this certainly isn't typical behavior. Artists put symbols in their
works and then let observers find and (they hope) appreciate them.
I really disagree with this on several grounds. First off, MAYBE
never gets it around here. Secondly, I believe that symbolism is only
an incidental component of any true work of art. An artist is aware of
symbolism of course, but when truly inspired to create, the symbols
come as a matter of course. I'd be glad to go on for pages here, but
I'll let this do for now.
You are still on square one. The argument I was refuting - the
argument that there can be no symbolism unless the symbolist
acknowledges its presence - was subsequently disavowed by Darin.
You are still one side of a square and so forth... In the paragraph
you choose to ignore what I really had to say about symbolism and the
way you should "comport yourself publicwise" in this newsgroup lest
you favor thrashings and the old mental ultraviolence.
Meanwhile, even if Darin had endorsed the argument I was refuting,
your own argument doesn't support "symbolism requires acknowledgment."
Of course not, I don't agree with your terminology or your
interpretation. You try to make symbolism seem like a discipline, and
I completely see it the other way around.
Indeed, your argument flies off into fantasyland.
So right here we draw a line. I'm defending the legitimacy of pure
creative artistry, and that inspiration is an indefinable source of
this, at least by mere mortals, and that symbolism is an incidental
component of true inspiration. Lesser outbursts of art employ
symbolism on varying degrees. I never once denied that writers employ
symbolism. What sets a great writer apart are those that AFTER the
creation has been penned realize the symbols they've created. What
you deem to be "fantasyland" may fit in well with your own beliefs and
that's okay, but you'll have to attack a much bigger belief system
than you're letting on when you attack me. Let's go.
Consider the
implications of what you just wrote. "Symbolism is only an incidental
component of any true work of art." If you really believe that, you
believe there is not such thing as allegory.
Faulty logic on your part. I know very well of allegory and consider
it a lesser form of symbolism. Symbolism is divisible into varying
degrees only in the way it is employed(low art) or in the way it just
happens(high art). Your flying off on your own invention. I am of the
opinion and with support from those highest in the history of art,
that truly inspired work comes from the artist with the purist intent.
Because symbolism is
anything but "incidental" to allegory.
Allegory depends on symbolism.
No shit fella.
Symbols are the building blocks of allegory. Without symbols,
Orwell's ANIMAL FARM would be nothing but a story, a piece of fiction,
bearing no relationship to Russian Communism.
If you think that allegory such as appears in 'Animal Farm' is the
ONLY DEGREE of symbolism than you really need a checkup from the
neckup. You act like you're so huge and proving points here, but
you've merely taken your own ignorance and flown towards the sun on
wings of wax only to perish in a blaze of confusion.
You'd be glad to go on for pages in support of your point? Please do.
You don't have to say please. Since you want to throw down your
highly distorted gauntlet, I will go on as long as I feel like it.
Tell us in great detail why you believe that symbols are only
incidental to allegory.
No you ninny, I will teach you of the depth of the varying degrees of
symbolism in art the best I can and not be penned in by your rotten
little conclusions and wretched requests.
Tell us why, and how, allegory could strip
itself of these "incidental" decorations and still be allegory.
Your distortion here is just plain insulting, well done!
Or was it your point that allegory is not "a true work of art"?
Oooo, maybe he's starting to get it? I doubt it.
Post by ichorwhip, he was intensely secretive. He wasn't giving hints
Post by Leonard F. Wheatto anyone, not even his screenwriters. In the case of 2001, his
allegorical masterpiece, he never revealed any of his symbols or even
provided the general information that the film was allegorical. It
wasn't until several years until after the film was released that the
screenplay's co-author, Arthur Clarke, became aware that the name
Bowman alluded to the fact that Odysseus (symbolized by Dave Bowman)
was a bow-man (archer), master of the Great Bow with which he slew his
wife's nasty suitors.
Bowman is a referential name such as the literary lingo would have it.
There are all kinds of referential names in SK's films, Doctor
Strangelove being at the top of that pillar. Referential names are
symbolic. So what?
So what? So Dave Bowman symbolizes Odysseus, the bow-man. And if
Bowman symbolizes Odysseus, we certainly have reason to believe that
2001 is an allegory. We do, of course, need supporting evidence: one
symbol does not make an allegory. But the other evidence has been
presented.
For one who thinks so highly of their literary aptitude, I can not
begin to believe that you are not going to acknowledge referential
names as being a legitimate literary device. They are symbolic by
definition. Some are more creative than others. Referential naming
goes back as far as the 'Everyman' allegory from the middle ages. I'd
say that they are akin to allegory and therefore a lesser degree of
symbolism. Seeing the eye of HAL as the eye of the centaur, ah...
that's a bit more sophisticated. I should love to believe that the
look of HAL's eye is highly inspired and chock full of symbolism. Did
Kubrick say to himself, "Gee I wonder how I can show symbolically that
HAL is the centaur in the Odyssey?" I doubt he ever had such a
seriously contrived thought in his life.
<snip ai garble>
Post by ichorwhipYou really don't make a good point, as one thing is not really linked
to the other. You seem to be saying that because Kubrick was
secretive he was a master of symbolism.
You're still standing on square one, totally mixed up about what's
being said.
No, you're still making excuses to cover up for how you jumped the
gun. I'll even bet that you think you're bothering me and succeeding
at intimidating me with this brusque tone, another of your failures.
In the first place (but for the third time)
Like Hemingway, I love repetition, especially in threes...
, Kubrick's
being secretive is no longer relevant. Darin clarified his position.
He said he did not mean to imply that failure by Kubrick to
acknowledge symbols would mean Kubrick did not use symbols.
I think he would have admitted it. Any good artist is bound to use
them whether they like it or not. In plotting a story, things come to
you. However truly inspired the symbols are dictate the quality of
them. What Kubrick wouldn't do is discuss symbolism to any great
extent. The most I'd ever read that he'd said about symbolism exists
in the famous 1968 Playboy interview and it's all about 2001. Now I
know you read that!
In the second place, you completely missed my point. I was giving a
reason (Kubrick's penchant for secrecy) why Kubrick did not
acknowledge his symbols. That is a far cry from saying that being
secretive makes one a master of symbolism. Talk about putting words
in a person's mouth!
Okay, you're plucky enough to deserve one retraction then...
Post by ichorwhipI think the reason he was so
secretive was that he wanted to protect his ideas.
I agree, but again you miss my point. My point was the very point you
must<sic> made. Where did you get the idea you were disagreeing with
me?
Oh it's just something I do for kicks... seriously I have issue with a
much larger schematic of yours.
Post by ichorwhipOne can never be
original if all your ideas are already out there. Just so happens
that a lot of his ideas contained symbolism.
Why do you say HIS [Kubrick's] ideas?
Because I'm talking about Kubrick? durr!
Just about any idea can be
symbolized if a person wants to symbolize it.
What the crap is this all about?!
And any idea can also
be presented without symbolism. Kubrick chose to use symbolism in
2001 because he wanted to create an allegory.
I think the story of 2001 CALLED for an allegory. It's far from the
only element in 2001 of course, and in some ways the lesser strictly
in terms of symbolism. Don't you see the chicken and egg quagmire
yet?
Post by ichorwhipThe guy even professed his own ignorance and still you carry on like
this.
You're still at square one.
You are at circle negative three, make your bearing 3 right and
polygonish...
For the fourth time,
This is the shrillness aforesaid... for the fourteenth time...
Darin later
clarified his position, saying he didn't believe there was any form of
symbolism not covered by his term "analytical symbolism."
gargle! gack!
Meanwhile,
you also missed my point.
Too dull to make much of a point but better than duhbasco...
I did not argue that "analytical" was the
wrong adjective; I did not say that Darin used the wrong term to
describe a special kind of symbolism. Go back and read the paragraph
you think you are refuting.
Are you asking me or are you telling me?
Pay attention to my last sentence in that
paragraph: What Darin wrote "says absolutely nothing about how
'analytical symbols' differ from nonanalytical symbols." In other
words, Darin never got around to providing an intelligible description
of what sort of symbols he was talking about.
Yeah Darin was a Durrrrrr-wood!!!! I knew you didn't have any
respect for him, and here is more ironclad proof!!!
Also read the paragraph immediately following my words here.
I think Hitler said the same line a few times in reference to 'Mein
Kamph'... you are so pushy Lenode, you make me want to tear my eyes
out whilst weeping tears of blood...
They
amplify my point,
amplify? like a sub -woofer? durrr?
the point that Darin hasn't said what he means by
"analytical symbols." My point isn't about improper terminology.
If's about failure to define.
Failure to define, yes, that would be a good point if you hadn't
blathered and dithered needlessly with much pompousness and not really
made it.
Post by ichorwhipPost by Leonard F. WheatYour two examples of analytical symbols are shapes (hexagons) and
colors (red). Are you implying that only symbols that are shapes or
colors are "analytical"? If not, your two examples are pointless.
They are examples of symbols in the broad sense (symbols in general)
but not of those particular, more narrowly defined symbols you call
"analytical symbols."
Elsewhere I have grouped the types of symbols used by Kubrick in 2001
into fourteen categories. It will help if you tell us which of these
fourteen categories belong in the "analytical" group and which belong
in the other group or groups. Here are the categories and some
Animal Farm is NOT that big of a deal. The Symbolism therein is so
obvious and so forth... Why you feel like you need to stick it in with
2001 symbols...I just don't know.
Whether ANIMAL FARM is a "big deal" is not an issue.
Oh I think you lie. You love 'Animal Farm' like a pet.
I use examples
from that story because they are good examples of symbols.
What does a fart symbolize to you?
But you
really go overboard when you call Orwell's symbols obvious. Frankly,
I never would have recognized them if I hadn't known before I read it
that the story was an allegory describing the Russian revolution and
post-revolutionary Communism. And despite your blatant hint that you
knew this without being told, I don't believe you. There is nothing
obvious, for example, about Snowball's symbolizing Trotsky.
Well you're only right to certain extent. I was schooled in 'Animal
Farm' and taught to think by professors of high esteem that 'Animal
Farm' is pretty hackish and obvious within the context of the
historical period that Orwell attacks. There are much finer
allegories to be had apparently, but I don't know them all in a row
for you. Allegories are seldom just that, a drama or western or
something most always accompany them in film. That is in a film that
more than 1000 people see. Is 2001 the greatest allegory of all time?
Well I'd say it's the greatest, and it has elements of allegory
interwined with symbolism derived through literary allusion among many
other facets and splendours.
Indeed, Matthew Ryder (see his post on this thread) has argued that
symbols must be literal, containing detailed correspondence between
the symbol and the thing symbolized.
Symbols must literal, news alert!, repeating ... symbols must be
literal
Matthew thinks Frank Poole
(2001) can't symbolize Odysseus's crew because O's crew was "scraggly"
(he actually used a similar adjective that I can't recall but that
suggested a bunch of ruffians). Implicitly, he indicated that any
allegorical symbol for Odysseus's crew would have to speak Greek,
carry a sword, walk an actual ship (not a spaceship), and so on. In
short, he ruled out the possibility that a pig (curly tail, pointed
ears, blunt snout, hoofs, walking on all fours) could symbolize a man.
I'll disagree with him later, which is sure to drive you crazy as I
make my way through this thread...
Likewise, when I asked Darin on an earlier thread - twice - to say
what the symbolism was in the name Snowball, he couldn't do it. Or,
at any rate, he refused to do it. The idea that he couldn't is just
my inference, but I strongly suspect it is correct.
Yeah, the Darren the Durrwood theory! I'm sure he appreciates how
deeply you scar for him.
Post by ichorwhip<snipped the whole pointless litany>
Post by Leonard F. WheatALLEGORY IS A CRUDE FORM OF ART
Your third belief is that allegory is a "crude" form of art, because
it is based on the use of symbols, which are a crude form of art.
You have really derived more here than should be legal.
Your statement could be made only by a person who doesn't understand
allegory. I was pointing out that, by calling symbolism a "crude"
form of art, Darin was implicitly calling allegory a "crude" form of
art. Why is this so? Because allegory depends on symbols for its
existence. To repeat, symbols are the building blocks of allegory.
And allegory is loaded with symbols. So if symbols are "crude," that
makes allegory crude.
Uh lenode, you seem to sort of be arguing with yourself here buddy...
All allegories aside, those cheapest forms of symbolism.
Yet anyone with a modicum of understanding of good literature knows
that allegory is not crude.
Yeah they would also know from your last sentence that you can't write
to match your ego.
Some of it may be crude, yes. I'm not
about to embark on a survey of allegory in search of examples of crude
allegories, but I suspect they exist.
Have a good trip, say hello to the folks back home!
But there<sic> existence does (or
would) not mean that all allegories are crude. Allegory is a refined,
artistic type of literature that is not intrinsically crude. Yet
Darin implied that it is crude.
It is crude in comparison to a truly inspired symbol. Beginning to
catch on?
Post by ichorwhipPost by Leonard F. WheatWell, that's your opinion, but it is not one that many people who are
knowledgeable about allegory are likely to share. Personally, I think
that allegory is what raises 2001 to the level of a masterpiece.
You know Leonard, you lord your "knowledge" of allegory here so much
that I almost wish I didn't know anything about it.
I gather that you think anyone who expresses an opinion on a topic and
defends that opinion with argument and evidence is "lording" knowledge
of that topic. By that criterion, you are doing the same thing - or
at least you would be if you could come up with better arguments are
real evidence to support your position, whatever it might be.
Oooweee! Even the "real evidence" and "support" you cultivate all has
your spore all over it. You write with a nasty tone, and now I'm
showing you yourself.
Post by ichorwhipPost by Leonard F. WheatYou say there are other "more powerful ways" to embed meaning in a
work. Well, sure. Allegory relies on artistry and subtlety.
Appreciating it requires intelligence, because only by grasping
analogies can you recognize the symbols and their meanings.
Are you some kind of sophomore? You write like it.
So it is sophomoric to refute the idea that allegory is not a
"powerful" way "to embed meaning in a work." You know, Mr. I, the
more I read of your statements, the less substance I see. In your
last two comments you spiral downwards from mere lack of substance to
name calling: "lording" and "sophomoric."
Both of which you are, what do you think of me now? I speak what I
feel is true, which ain't much, and attack which I think is false,
which is a lot, but not all!
Post by ichorwhipPost by Leonard F. WheatSo
allegory does lack the power to be easily recognized, and this means
that the meaning may be lost.
What? Allegory seems to me to be the easiest form of symbolism to
recognize because you know to look for it right from the first
identification.
What a strange statement, coming from a man who can't recognize
allegory even when it's pointed out to him.
What a stranger statement coming from a man who can't even seem to
argue properly or understand anything right.
Part of the problem is
you can't even grasp what you call "the first identification." "A
Space ODYSSEY," Bowman = bowman, all of Bowman's crewmen dying just
like those of Odysseus, Bowman's killing the one-eyed monster (the
symbolized cyclops) - none of this can you recognize as pointing to
THE ODYSSEY's being symbolized. Face it, Mr. I, you can't recognize
what you call "the easiest form of symbolism to recognize."
You stupid man, heh heh heh, you twist a most atrocious falsehood of
my understanding. I feel easy and with my case already rested. but
I'll continue nevertheless.
Post by ichorwhipAllegories are most always "exposed" before you ever
read them. I think it's fair to say that Kubrick's films can be seen
as being allegorical in certain ways, but it's all within the range of
subtext.
You seem to be saying that allegory can consist of occasional allusion
to the antecedent work, a narrow (implied) "range of subtext." But
what you describe is not allegory; it's called allegorical tendency.
Friedman writes (in THE PRINCETON ENCYCLOPEDIA OF POETRY AND POETICS):
SHOCK!
"We have allegory when the events [I would say 'elements'] of a
narrative obviously and CONTINUOUSLY refer to another simultaneous
structure of events or ideas [the hidden story]." He adds that
continuity is what distinguishes allegory from mere allusion.
Allegory displays a continuing series of incidents or other symbols
that represent other incidents, things, or ideas. If the symbols are
only occasional, as you suggest 2001's symbols are, we have what
Friedman calls "allegorical tendency.
Well I like that. You can call it whatever, but "allegorical
tendency" is a bit closer defined than allusion.
Post by ichorwhipPost by Leonard F. Wheat Kubrick's films ARE. Everything after this is a footnote.
At the other extreme is the alternative you seem to prefer: smack them
with a 2 x 4. Be blatant in expressing the message. Yes, that's more
likely to get the message across. But I think the artistry - and
maybe respect for the message - suffers.
Ya think so?
This sort of flip, neo-Wordsmithian remark is a good example of what I
meant by your lack of substance.
Well Mr. Fussypants, if you can not grasp the wierd reality of fine
art, I certainly see no way to change you. Wordsmith understands art
I think; what you are doing is overwrought and totally misses the
point of creativity. I'm guessing you were a total flop in art class.
<snip>
Post by ichorwhipHe NEVER came up with an identification of allegory to begin with.
That's your words.
You still can't recognize how closely allegory is identified with
symbolism.
Nasty little parry. How would you know what I or anyone else can't do
Lenoard? Are you God? If you are you are doing a suck job!
If symbolism is bad or "damaging" to the work in which it
appears, it is damaging to allegory, because allegory is based on
symbolism.
Screwy logic seminar: August 10th featuring Leonard
Darin didn't have to mention the word allegory.
You have now said "allegory" 1500 times in the last 24 hours and are
subject to penalty if you exceed this limit.
Even if
his remarks had not arisen from the context of threads about allegory
in 2001, the implications for allegory would be there. And I was
pointing out those implications. If what he says is true, i.e., if
symbolism is "damaging" and "crude," then allegory - any allegory
whatsoever - is damaged goods.
I understood this fourtieth time I read it.
Why do you find it so hard to grasp the connection between symbolism
and allegory?
'Cause I'm TARDDDDDDD!!!! yupyupp phelgm ugh uk!
Post by ichorwhipI think what he was saying was that if 2001 et al
had symbols "deliberately buried" in it, then it would be a lesser
work of art.
How can you think that when you denied it a moment ago? I pointed out
that Darin was saying that deliberately buried symbols would
"seriously damage" 2001 and would be "crude." If so, that makes 2001
a "lesser work of art," doesn't it? Yet when I said essentially just
that, and then disagreed, you chose to disagree with me. Which is to
say, you agreed with Darin.
I think I might need to hit a bong to understand that last bit of
spittle. Wheat? did you ferment into beer? I disagree with bullshit
and you have plenty of it. Darin is excused although he probably owes
me a few insults because I'm a smart ass unlike the dumb ass that you
are. Get in touch with your inner child or something. You come out
harsh and you shall be treated harshly. "So it is written and so it
shall be done."
Post by ichorwhipI say that Kubrick never was so obvious, and that his
work remains aesthetically intact.
Well, at least we can agree that his work remains aesthetically
intace.<sic>
You really need to learn to spell at crucial moments Leonard...
"Left over the right, right over the left, left over the right, right
over the left..."
Ichorwhip
"Peace is our Profession"