It's been on my mind for a while about the role of images in (modern) literature. No, not children's books with illustrations, but books like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, You Shall Know Our Velocity, and Breakfast of Champions (the former two being better examples than the third). These are adult books who use images just like they would imagery- only they're eliminating the middle-man, so to speak, and cutting right to the visual side of the brain. No misinterpretations can be made there. This method has a really interesting affect on the way a reader perceives the meaning of the text. Not only does it provide them with the actual images, making it easier for the author to convey what they're talking about, but it creates a whole new sort of sub-text by combining two mediums of expression.
Now, the reason I had the word "modern" captured between two parenthesis at the top there is because this is a fairly recent development. This is not a method seen prior to the late 20th century (at least). In fact, I'm sure the authors of before would have scorned this use of "pictures" in serious works of fiction as "juvenile" or "amateur", maybe even going as far as saying it was "uncreative". In reading and analyzing Atonement in class- I became aware of another new(-ish) development which fits alongside image-usage into this interesting category of sub-text and understanding: intertextuality. Intertextuality is a really interesting concept- it subtly implies (underlines, injects into) so much more meaning to a character, or even the whole work itself, just through the mention of a name or title. It's a way of threading together two pieces of literature to create a new significance- an acknowledgement of a connection between different people, characters, and events. It's very reminiscent of Borges' belief that all works are based on a single plot "which runs through every imaginable permutation". (after re-reading Ficciones I realized that he provided an explanation in his Prologue for the nature of his stories. He said- straight out- "To go on developing an idea for five hundred pages whose perfect oral exposition is possible in a few minutes! A better course of procedure is to pretend that these books already exist, and then to offer a resume, a commentary." Slap of a palm to a forehead, Laura!)
This led me to question- is the establishment of new literary techniques (namely, the use of images and intertext) merely a product of time? After all of the books that have been written, all of the different ways in which events, people, characters, etc. have been described and used- is this what we've arrived at? No, I have no answers to the questions, and this is as far as I've come in developing my thoughts- but it's something I would really like to look more into.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Interesting question! I don't really know the answer, but I will offer one possible explanation for the rise of images in literature.
When writing was first created, it was a divider between the educated and uneducated. Far from being a tool to share ideas, it was a way to prevent ideas from leaving a certain group of people. It's like the Mike Birbiglia stand-up joke, "I really shouldn't say mean things about illiterate people...I should write them."
Due to the elitism of the written word, pictures became the only option for communication (other than speech) for the uneducated. Hence, bars and taverns, places for the commoners, are named after the image plastered on their sign ("Boar's Head," "Prancing Pony," etc.). Because of this, images have (as you mentioned) become seen as childish.
Maybe the literary elite had some reason to be snobbish, though. After all, visual art took a bit longer to develope than literary art did. The printing press was developed long before the camera, photocopier, and laser-jet printer, so for a long time, literature had art beat as far as sophistication, complexity, and distribution (even when art caught up on the former two, it couldn't match the last one; there's only one Last Supper by DaVinci).
Now we have digital cameras, giving us visual art as close to reality as it can be. We have Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, high quality printers, and copy machines which allow visual art to match literature in most of its aspects (and perhaps surpass it in some). It makes sense that writers are getting over their snobbery (no offense to them, we're all snobs in some way or another) enough to incorporate the not-so-lowly image into their texts.
Post a Comment