May 4, 2005

Foster and Symbols

I partuculary liked the chapters 16&17 of the Fosters book because it was intresting to see how a story didn;t have to be a story and a symbol or an object could have a more entoned seductive meaning. In a way it made me understand a lot about literatire and the subjestive way the Victorian Era treated taboo terms like sexuality in literature and how many writers of this time found ways to explore this topic while at the sametime trying not to be too...explicit on the content of the book or story.

Yet at the sametime a sense of melancholy filled me as i read this, as i saw most of the descriptions i realized that my idolized notion of the Victorian Literature is not as modern and romantic as i once thought it to be. Like now i can't help to think that the sublime undertones that once made a novel whimsical and romantic where secret undertones to reveal some very explicit and private act between the characters. Like the curtains in the example of the book altho a sweet undertone in the movie are bluntly telling the viewer that the main characters are going at it.

Yet at the same time there where some interpretations of some stories that for me sounded a bit too far fetched at least for me. Like in the story The rocking Horse Winner, personally i read the story and i dont think that the story had any sexual allegory in it and if it did i think that i dont know...it kinda ruinsit for me i guess. i mean i saw it as something sad a boy that was just trying to keep his family together and the death in the rocking horse was a more sacrificial allegory for everybodies else happiness. i dont i will feel the same way about it if it would had been a odepal complex and he was well 'masturbating' to the horse, it sounds a lil too creepy to me.
but the rest seem pretty much on point

nevertheless i liked the other interpretations of the stories, despise the fact that i dont think is possible to catch sexual meanings in all works of literature that we read.

Posted by MisheilaPellot at May 4, 2005 2:21 AM | TrackBack