 |
| Kurt Vonnegut knows the moral of Mother Night. |
Another question relevant to this first paragraph concerns the relation between narratives and meanings. The author of
Mother Night claims to know the moral of this story. We may choose to believe that this is an honest account of Kurt Vonnegut’s thoughts about his novel
Mother Night. Or we may we choose to believe that this claim is but another piece of fiction like all the others contained with the covers of this novel. Either way, we are left with this question:
do authors know what their stories mean better than readers do? Vonnegut may be able to speak about what motivated him to write
Mother Night. And he might tell us what effect he hoped it would have on readers. But that is not the same thing as knowing what the moral of the story is. A reader might reach a different conclusion about
Mother Night’s moral than the one recommended by Vonnegut. Would Vonnegut always be right in such disagreements? Some would say, “Yes. He wrote the book; he knows what it means.” Others might say that when it comes to the meaning of books, truth is in the eye of the beholder. Still others would argue that truth is communal property. In other words, it’s not true because you say it’s true; it’s true to the extent that you can convince others that it is true. What do you think?
The author of a book has a certain view point on his or her material. He or she is never wrong or right, he or she only has an opinion on the matter. The reader is left to interpret the meaning and message that the book conveys to him or her. Morals, messages, and meanings are all just opinions that can not be right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Nik on this question. Morals are simply your perception and interpretation of a particular subject based loosely on your values and opinions. I may come to one conclusion about the motivation, morals, and messages contained in a novel, however, the next person to read the same novel may pick up and interpret things in an entirely different way. The way that we, as readers, understand and interpret things is completely contingent on our lives and the experiences that have helped shaped our lives as individuals. Though Vonnegut may suggest what he may think is the true moral of the story, it is entirely up to the reader to reach the same moralistic conclusion or to think completely otherwise.
ReplyDeleteJennifer L. McMahon said...
ReplyDeleteI DO NOT think that authors have “cornered the market” on the meanings that can be taken from their texts; however, it makes sense to listen to an author when he or she asserts: “X is the moral or message of my story.” Certainly more can be taken from a text than that moral. Every reader comes to a text with his or her own experiences, experiences that will shape his or her interpretation and make his or her reading unique. At the same time a certain amount of credit should be given to a text’s creator. For example, while I think that texts mean more than their authors ever intend, authorial intention (when it can be known) can serve as a useful guide (since figuring out what a given text means isn’t always easy!) and help keep us from projecting our own story onto everything we read. After all, isn’t one of the most magical things about literature its ability to move us beyond ourselves?
I would be in the group of people who think that the meaning of a book is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of literature is that it doesn't just have one meaning! Everyone is different and everyone has different thoughts. The meaning that I find in a book is probably not going to be the same meaning that the author has. In a sense, yes, the author does have master over his/her "personal" meaning because he/she wrote a book about it. But that meaning for the author doesn't have to be the same for me. What I'm trying to say is that if I were to have a debate with an author over his/her "personal" meaning on the book; the author would most definently win. And if the situation was flipped, I would win. I don't believe that authors write with the mindset of "my meaning is the only meaning of the book." I think that authors write to entertain, to inform, and to challenge us. This may sound silly/corny, but the way that I look at it is: 'Writing' the book meant somthing to the author, and the author wants 'reading' the book to mean something to us. The more interpretations we have of the meaning; the better the debate and discussion will be!
ReplyDeleteI think to every story there is a meaning or moral the author hopes to convey to the reader, but that, essentially, meanings and morals maybe be comprehended alternatively depending on the readers personality and perception capabilities. I agree with Jennifer in that unique experiences shape an individual’s interpretation, especially of fictional text, and I agree with Kendall that these interpretations are what make debate and discussion possible.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the statement about convincing others. For instance, we all know 1+1=2. However, if one succeeded in convincing enough people that 1+1 actually equals 3, then by definition that would become truth and 1+1 would equal 3...of course, this example depends on whether one considers math as an absolute truth or as a societal truth.
I think that anyone can take their own personal moral out of a story, and it could be completely different from the moral that the author of the book was going for. It all just depends on the reader. Not everyone is the same; so not everyone is going to take the same thing from a book. The author can only write what they have to say and hope that readers get the message they were trying to give. Although, I do also think that some authors would love to hear the morals that different readers took from their books. I really like Heather Smith's comment and I completely agree that what a person takes from a book depends on who they are as an individual.
ReplyDeleteMany authors write their pieces of literarture for one purpose; to spread the author's opinion through his work. But like most everyone here has stated, I agree that it is in the hands of the reader on how they interpret the particular writing. Some authors write so that their moral is plain and simple, with little leeway. Others, like Hawthorne for instance, seem to write in a manner that the moral of their stories are interpreted in many different ways. I believe that some authors have a particular writing style such that their work can be interpreted in many ways, allowing the reader to relate it to their individual lives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous commenters. I think the beauty of fiction is in its ability to mean so many different things to so many different people. Vonnegut does know the moral of his story, but that does not mean it is the only moral. Authors do not know the moral better than their readers, but perhaps authors have a more thorough understanding of the moral they have found. Often, authors know a whole host of things about the characters in a story and the surrounding events, things that are never directly mentioned in the book. This gives them an understanding separate from that of the reader. It is important to consider the writer’s interpretation of the book, but sometimes we do not have any explanation apart from the story itself. Some authors want a specific thought to be found in the story, and some want the reader to infer their own thoughts, even refusing to share their perspective. At any rate, it is up to us to consider other’s views and formulate our own.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the author of a work of fiction can know a "whole host of things about the characters in a story and the surrounding events, things that are never directly mentioned in the book," Melissa. When it comes to fiction, the character's only reality is the book. Howard Campbell has no existence outside Mother Night, and if Kurt Vonnegut told us that Howard was picked on as a child, that wouldn't make it true--if it isn't in the book. Authors may be perceptive critics of their own works; but their analysis of their work must stand beside--not above--the analysis provided by other perceptive critics.
ReplyDeleteThe challenge comes when fiction references events that happened in the real world: like the Holocaust. Is the Holocaust described in Mother Night to be analyzed as a fictional event experienced by fictional characters?
Every story is written for a specific purpose. It has a specific meaning or moral that the author was trying to convey. It's the same with songs, paintings, dance, etc. The creator adds his or her personal moral or purpose to their work. However, someone reading the book, hearing the song, studying the painting can find an entirely diffent moral in it. For example, in Kate Chopin's The Awakening, Chopin's protagonist Edna is a woman wanting to "awaken" from the role society has thrust upon her as a wife, mother, and woman, but say, for instance, a gay man reads The Awakening, and in it he sees that he should defy the rules and expectations of his parents and the people around him, and he decides to come out. This man derived a different purpose from Chopin's novel than she purposely wrote. I also believe that many authors probably want people to be open minded in reading their novels. They want their own morals to come across clearly, but they also want the reader to find other perhaps life changing ideas within its pages.
ReplyDeleteYour example of how Chopin's The Awakening may take on a different meaning for a gay man, a meaning that Chopin might not have imagined, is an excellent one, Micah.
ReplyDeleteIs every story is written for a specific purpose, though? Some are. But many story writers I've known don't think of a purpose more specific than entertaining the reader, exploring an situation, or simply expressing themselves creatively.
Dr. Benton's comment about if we should take the Holocaust in "Mother Night" as a real thing, or a fictional event experienced by made up characters, really interests me. I, myself, read historical fiction as the real place and the real event, but from a different point of veiw. (I think it's fun to read it that way. You can pick up a textbook and read the objective, fact filled account of it, and then you can pick up a piece of historical fiction and see it from a much more personal point of veiw of a character, and experience all the the feelings and sensations of what it might have been like to actually be there) But, when I think about the question further, I find myself pondering a paradox. I -want- to think of it as a real event, and I -believe- it's a real event, and I -know- it actually happened in history, but at the same time it can't be real, because I'm reading it in a book.
ReplyDeleteSo, I want to ask this: Does the act of recording something in writing, whether in fiction or non-fiction, make the event less or more real?
Good question, Brittany. I wouldn't say the act of recording something makes an event more real; I would say the event and the "recording" are separate events. Events shape and influence recordings but they do not determine them. And sometimes the impact of the recording surpasses the impact of the instigating event. Consider, for example, Homer's account of the Trojan War. The war itself would be largely forgotten today had it not been for Homer. But is it the Trojan War we remember today? Or Homer's poem, the Iliad?
ReplyDeleteMost texts are much more than neutral recordings of historical events; they shape events through the perspective of the writer.
Everyone has a different perspective and point of view, so no one person's is ever correct or wrong. Yes, the author knows what the meaning is behind his book (whether this be before or after it is written), but the reader may receive a completely different message because he/she is the third point of view. By writing a story, an author is endeavoring to persuade the reader to see and understand the moral in the exact same way. However, anything will be missinterpreted. From a distance, one man may see a rock, but another man might see a turtle.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, authors do know their story better than the readers because it is their own personal story produced from their own private minds. Readers may know the story just as well, but the meaning will never be the exact same understanding as the writer because they are merely recepients.
To me, words are living. What they mean to one person, may mean something completely different to another. Literature shouldn’t always be taken so literally. I admire authors like Kurt Vonnegut and Elie Weisel for writing such uprising novels. I think sometimes they don’t even know the effect some of their stories—fiction or non-fiction—has on some readers. I think that when an author writes, he has an ultimate piece of importance that he wants you to get. Whether you get it or not depends on how well the piece was written. And honestly, it doesn’t matter if you had a different outcome. There isn’t a right or wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe author of almost every book in existence had in their minds what the narrative would be about, and as they progressed farther into constructing their works they add the different elements that they want to include. I'm not saying that every author in the world or it's history knows everything that their works hold within, but I am saying that they know the general line that the book takes and the thoughts and ideas that they wished to convey through it when they work towards it's completion. Everybody in the world can look at the same thing at the exact same time and everybody would think or take something different from the object than the rest.
ReplyDeleteI think that the morale of a story is interpretted differently by everyone unlsess there is a widely accepted morale that everyone is taught to see, for example stories like Red Ridinghood or The Three Little Pigs. Therefore, the author can know what the morale of the story is. However, his morale may not be the same as my morale, or the morale of Bill Gates.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the moral of Little Red Riding Hood? What is the moral of Goldilocks and the Three Bears?
ReplyDeleteHeather: You say you agree with Nik that "Morals, messages, and meanings are all just opinions that can not be right or wrong." But if I said the central message Mother Night teaches us is that frogs are purple, would you just nod your head silently and think "that's his opinion and it is no more right than mine is or Vonnegut's is"?
ReplyDeleteKendall and Kaitlyn: how would you respond to someone who said Mother Night shows us that Church's makes the best fried chicken? Would you say that this is merely an opinion and it is no more right than anyone else's is?
ReplyDeleteFrom a literal standpoint I may simply laugh and shake my head and wonder where in the world you came up with such an idea (too much crack, perhaps?), but from a logical standpoint I would argue that although the central message that frogs are purple you derived from Mother Night might actually be correct, there is no evidence which backs your claim up. When I agreed with Nik’s assertion that “morals, messages, and meanings are all just opinions that cannot be right or wrong”, I was agreeing with the claim that although we may interpret a text differently than someone else, neither person is necessarily wrong.
ReplyDeleteHowever, where someone to make the claim that Mother Night teaches us that frogs are purple and that someone where to make a valid argument with solidifying facts to back such a claim, then I would be deigned to agree that although I may not necessarily agree with this conclusion, their claim is no more right or wrong than mine or Vonnegut’s. Just because you may have interpreted Vonnegut’s message differently than I, it does not mean that because the conclusion that you came to is different than mine makes mine invalid and vice versa.
Suppose I came to the conclusion that the central message of Mother Night was that giving yourself wholeheartedly to a false notion can lead to a miserable, unfulfilling life; this conclusion would be no more wrong than someone who concluded that Mother Night teaches us that the power of deception can be mutually beneficial to the deceptor and the deceptee. Just because one person reaches a conclusion about a particular moral or message within a story does not automatically strike down any other conclusions or perceptions of the same story. Morals and messages are simple opinions that you believe to hold true within a particular story and can vary widely from person to person.
Wait--you would say that "frogs are purple" might be the central message of Mother Night even if I had no evidence for it? (Where's my crack pipe when I need it . . .?)
ReplyDeleteI am with you that the existence of different interpretations does not necessarily mean that one is wrong. There may be differing interpretations that are right. But that is a far cry from claiming that any opinion is valid. When you allow for the possibility that someone might provide evidence to support the claim that "frogs are purple is the message of Mother Night," I think you are being too generous. I think it's OK to say, "No, it's not" and stick with that until given a reason not to.
Texts may be interpreted in many ways, but that is not the same as saying that all interpretations are valid.
By the way, I like the differing interpretations of Mother Night that you lay out in the last paragraph.
in answer to mr. Bentons questions, "what is the moral of red riding hood and goldilocks and the three bears, i believe that one of the morals that could be ( sorry no spell check so correct if i misspell) interpreted from the red riding hood story is one along the lines of dont always believe everything that your told especially if your instincts and senses tell you something different. One of the morals i could find in goldilocks and the three bears, atleast the story that ive been told as a kid, is stealing is wrong even if the people you steal from dont get really upset about it. I hope i answered your questions to the fullest degree that you wanted Mr. Benton.
ReplyDelete(Response to Dr. Benton's question to me)
ReplyDeleteThat is an excellent question! When answering the original question, I didn’t think about the possibility of someone finding a meaning that had no relevance to the book at all. After some thinking, I still stand firm in my first claim. The meaning is in the eye of the beholder. If someone found the meaning of Mother Night to be that Church’s has the best fried chicken, then that is his/her opinion. I may think this opinion is pointless and silly, but that is why people are so diverse! We all have our own thoughts and experiences that contribute to “meanings.” Everyone has their own views, who am I (or the author) to say if it is right or wrong? (Another example could be the Bible. Psalm 51 is David’s confession after Nathan has confronted David about his act of adultery with Bathsheba. This Psalm could bring comfort and peace to one person and could bring conviction to another.) Like I said in my first response, the more interpretations we have equals the more conversation and debate. And with this new added “meaning,” it would no doubt be a unique discussion!
Kendall, your Psalm 51 example is a good one of how one text may affect different people differently. I would not deny that this is true. A paranoid person might read Psalm 51 and think that it was put in there because he recently stole some cookies from the cookie jar. I wouldn't say that this "meaning" of Psalm 51 deserves a place at the table beside other reasonable interpretations of the text. Some interpretations may depend on the eye of the beholder, but that does not mean that all interpretations are equally valid. Literature is like a language. A word may convey a variety of meanings. But that doesn't mean that there are no wrong answers on the SAT.
ReplyDeleteDr.Benton:
ReplyDeleteOkay, maybe I wasn’t exactly clear in the first part of my response. I meant that I would likely disagree with the initial claim that Mother Night’s central claim is that frogs are purple if you couldn’t provide any evidence to back your claim up. However, if the person making this claim could provide substantial evidence to back up their interpretation, then I would likely accept their claim.
Maybe I shouldn’t have so readily jumped on board with Nik’s claim that “morals, messages, and meanings are all just opinions that can not be right or wrong,” but then again, I wasn’t really expecting anyone to challenge that claim by proposing the idea that the central theme of Mother Night was that frogs are purple. What I should have stipulated that I agreed with Nik in the sense that morals, messages, and meanings are all just opinions that, when relevant, cannot be right or wrong. But I also don’t think that you should be so quick to shoot down a conclusion that, however outlandish sounding, someone else makes should not be so readily shot down if you do not immediately understand or agree with how that person reached such a conclusion.
Heather:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the greater clarity of your revised statement. The "when relevant" addendum to your original claim is important. There is a big difference between saying that there is no right answer because everything is just an opinion and saying there may be multiple "right" answers, and that a reader may have an opinion about which interpretation is more persuasive or appealing.
And I agree that it is not advisable to shoot down outlandish-sounding conclusions without hearing them out first!
Response to Dr. Benton:
ReplyDeleteGosh! This is not cool! :)
You make me question my own thoughts, and then I get confused. . . I really don't have an answer. You have a really good point. And I have personally experienced the SAT example, because I usually pick the wrong answer!
But then again, I highly doubt that Vonnegut meant for his book to be used in an Honor's class for the theme: Happiness. Isn't it all about an individual's interpretations? Would Vonnegut tell us that our "happiness interpretation" is as silly as the "best fried chicken interpretation?"
In response to Dr. Benton: Yes, every piece of literature is written for a specific purpose. Sometimes, that purpose is to entertain, or explore a situation, or express the author’s creativity. In my first comment I wrote that every book has a “specific moral or meaning that the author was trying to convey.” However, I believe I misspoke. A moral or meaning can be found in every book, but the author may not have been TRYING to convey it. For example, in Stephanie Meyer’s The Twilight Series, Bella Swan, a human girl, falls in love with Edward Cullen, a vampire of sorts. Throughout the series, Meyers writes of the difficulties the couple faces due to their physical differences. Probably these books were written to entertain an audience. But a person could find the meaning that no matter how different two people are, or what worlds they come from, true love can bond them together.
ReplyDelete