Ambiguity in Literature
I am told that great literature is
something that can be interpreted differently at different times, often by the
same person. Does that mean great literature has to be ambiguous? Or does it
mean that the characters are complex enough to make it possible for the reader
to ponder what William Empson describes in his book, Seven Types of Ambiguity:
“People, often, cannot have done both of
two things, but they must have been in some way prepared to have done either;
whichever they did, they will have still lingering in their minds the way they
would have preserved their self-respect if they had acted differently; they are
only to be understood by bearing both possibilities in mind.”
Tim
Parks wonders if this complexity is a good thing because it makes us think:
“Ambiguity, uncertainty, multiplicity are
positive in literature in so far as they act as a corrective against a dominant
and potentially harmful manipulative hubris.”
Keats called this “negative capability”:
“When man is capable of being in
uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and
reason.”
The other reason why such literature is
valued is the difficulty in writing it, says Parks:
“We prize someone who has managed to put into
language, with its relentless and crude semantic segmentation of experience,
some of the density and indeed perplexity we feel as we try to get a grip on
what is going on around us.”
And like a magician has to make it look
natural, so too does literature:
“Nothing is less attractive, in a poem or
novel, than the feeling that “ambiguity” has simply been constructed or
contrived.”
Put all of that together and it’s a tough
ask indeed.
Ambiguity is of course an aspect of life, hence it should be of good literature too. In a sense, building ambiguities with respect to situations, implications and expressions [In humor, ambiguities have a fabulous niche!] are attempted by many litterateurs and I am of the opinion this task is relatively an easier one. Hence it has (again, in my opinion) lower value in literature.
ReplyDeleteThe higher aspects in my perception are these two ingredients: (1) subtlety/fuzziness and (2) objectivity
By subtlety/fuzziness what I mean is that the character, situations, thought processes, implications etc. all or definitely some are portrayed without the obvious black-and-whiteness about it. The observer (as is the case with movies, which can have literary class) or the reader initially hazily but always gently is led to the grasp. There is some slowness in the whole process therefore, which can be looked upon as some kind of awakening to the "inner depths" - something subtle. I know that this is a difficult task hence sets apart ordinary writers from classy writers.
The other thing, objectivity, is another breed altogether. What is done by a good litterateur is the presenting of the "entirely subjective" characters of the individuals (that are part of the narration) in a lovely "objective or as-they-are" way. That is to say, each character appears (in a good literature) exactly as he or she is and not what the author unknowingly projects "his/her idea". The point is difficult to understand because all characters are "his/her ideas" anyway. But the uncanny ability of gifted authors to 'stand outside' and express their deep understanding of nature (psychological essentially here) through their characters has extraordinary merit. Shakespeare, as far as I know, remains unparalleled in this gift.