Quote:
Originally Posted by tompe
But in both example you are using the meaning of the words.
|
I accept that my example is not perfect. Literary fiction is rarely so lacking subtlety that quoting a single paragraph will give it away. If you take a look at that Wikipedia link you will see comments like:
Quote:
|
One of the early critics of the Melville Revival, British author E.M. Forster, remarked in 1927: "Moby-Dick is full of meanings: its meaning is a different problem."[16] Yet he saw as "the essential" in the book "its prophetic song," which flows "like an undercurrent" beneath the surface action and morality.
|
From what I've read of Melville, much of what is said of his work is in response to a deliberate attempt at literary allusion by the author; things he was trying to say without saying them directly. This, for me, marks the work as a literary one.
Generally I prefer such meaning in books to be less obtuse. It's one of the reasons why I like Pratchett's work, especially once you get well into the Discword series. Each book contains a great story with mystery and drama, and each carries Pratchett's humour in what he sees in the world (the Discworld and this one) - and these remain the focus - but not far beneath that are more serious statements of morality. In some respects I see him a little like Charles Dickens in this way. And, like Dickens, all these things are elements of the story he is telling; they aren't hidden messages for which the story is just a construct to hide them, they are an integral part of the story.