I get the feeling that Foster, and most serious readers,
believe that ambiguity can be an important literary device. I, however, do not
like ambiguity in a text. I like to know exactly what happened in the story.
For example, in The Poisonwood Bible it is never explained if Axelroot
deals in blood diamonds or if the diamonds are part of the pay for his work-
while the distinction seems small it actually affects the story a fair amount.
This bothered me throughout the text. While many would probably make the
argument that this way the reader can choose whichever explanation they prefer.
But by that logic a reader would just be better off by inventing entire stories
exactly how he or she wants them to be and never actually reading anything. We
read to have a story given to us. By leaving ambiguity, I feel that the author
has not upheld their end of the deal. My favourite story of all time is called FC2
and my biggest problem with it is that the story never explains what happens to
the antagonist. There is an implication that he dies before the end of the
story but that is never actually stated. That bothers me because how it ends
really affects the message of that story.
However,
there is good ambiguity. The best example that I can think of is in the book Skeleton
Key. It ends with the antagonist (a Russian military leader) finding his
son sending war secrets to the UK. There are lines in the book that are
something to the effect of “so [the antagonist] put the gun to his head and
pulled the trigger.” Then the story cuts to the UK government talking about how
they lost an important asset in the Russian military. It is only later in the
story that it is revealed that “his head” refers to the antagonist’s own head
and not his son’s and that the British government lost an important asset
because the child no longer had access to top secret material. (It was a really
cliché book.) The point is, the ambiguity had an interesting literary effect
but only because the ambiguity is later cleared up.
Will, I really like how you said when there is ambiguity, "...the author has not upheld their end of the deal.", but just because the author does not answer a question definitely does it really mean they let the reader down? I'm not sure where, but somewhere in "How To Read Literature Like a Professor", Foster mentions that reading is supposed to be almost just as imaginative as writing itself. Giving the reader some imaginative freedom to decide what the story means to them can be a comforting and also allows them to get more out of the text than if everything simply did have one meaning.
ReplyDeleteI understand the reason for your dislike of ambiguity, and your examples depict that reason quite well. Even slight differences in interpretation can indeed change the entire plot of a story by a great amount. Your explanation on the difference between good and bad ambiguity is also quite interesting. I agree that ambiguity is best when later cleared up and wish for at least a hint in the novel of the intention of the author. Ambiguity can come across as lazy in some cases, because it depicts a lack of thought in the author’s plan for the novel. It does have merit in the literary world though.
ReplyDeleteYour examples of good and bad ambiguity were enlightening, and I enjoyed your views on why you do not believe that ambiguity has a place as an important literary device. But I have to disagree with you on that. In my opinion, ambiguity should be welcome in a text because it adds a sense of uncertainty and mysteriousness which can keep the reader intrigued and interacting with the story. When a part of a story is up to the mindset of the reader, it becomes open to many perspectives and interpretations which can add to the overall mystique of the story. In the end, reading is a personal activity and ambiguity is literary device that is an acquired taste not for every man.
ReplyDeleteWill,
ReplyDeleteI had never seriously considered the implications of ambiguity before reading How to Read Literature Like a Professor. These blog posts seem to have a fairly even split between those who prefer ambiguity and those who detest it. Perhaps the quarrel over its worth is based on whether a person is left-brained or right-brained. For example, logical, analytically-minded people may prefer stories which have a definite beginning, middle and end, while subjective, creative people enjoy the uncertainty. Personally, I enjoy ambiguity, but that does not mean that either of us is incorrect. Stories can be interpreted in stark contrast to each other based on this predestined mindset of the reader, which is why having different perspectives adds a higher value in analyzing literature.
I appreciate your points, Will, and agree that some things really don't require ambiguity to make the story seem deep or artistic, I guess you could call me a literary cynic. However, I also agree with Jake. Some things need to be left to the audience to think about, conclude, discuss, etc. This ambiguity leaves more room for intellectual flourishing. Whereas you may be upset by the author's use of ambiguity as a reader, surely more readers would be dissatisfied by the author's choice of resolution or explanation. As foster similarly expressed, readers and the experience of reading are just as integral to the realm of literature as the text itself.
ReplyDelete