One of Eco's points (
As a result of reading these lectures, I went back and reread Little, Big by John Crowley. This is a very dense book. It's beautiful, powerful, and something that I will undoubtedly come back to many more times -- but I get very lost when reading it. This is a book for which I feel I need Cliff's Notes or heavy annotations; I can catch some of the allusions in structure, language, characters, and so on, but I keep getting the sense that there's even more to it, that because of my own ignorance I have missed some major meaning in the text. Thus even after multiple readings, I understand part of the story -- but I'm not sure I understand all of it. Or even if I'm capable of doing so.
On the one hand, it seems I'm falling into the overinterpretation trap Eco describes; each discovery only leads to more questions. On the other hand, I think this may be an integral part of the novel; the allusions are not there by accident, nor am I just seeing what I want to see in them.
And aside from all that, should this affect how I read the novel? Would I be happier not knowing the allusions are there?
What other novels (or movies, or other works) strike you in this way -- full of not-always-understood meaning, rich in allusions, puzzles for the careful reader? Do you ever get frustrated by them?
no subject
Date: 2006-08-18 04:45 pm (UTC)but ultimately we the readers get left outside, never get a clear picture of why that world works the way it does; just a very strong sense that it does work
Yes. Yes, exactly -- and I think this is why the very end of the book, the last few paragraphs, affects me so much.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-18 06:57 pm (UTC)