Are Interprative Writings Taken More Seriously?

Since our class has now been introduced to quite a few examples of interpretive literature I've begun to notice something. Pieces of fiction such as the Metamorphosis and The Life You Save May Be Your Own seem much more sophisticated then other stories. This may seem obvious to some of you, but it's kind of strange considering the plot of both stories is rather odd and kind of surreal. Why do people (including myself) hold these interpretive stories in higher regard than literature that may be story/intrigue centric?
Some may argue that interpretive literature is more sophisticated than "regular" stories for the sole fact that it takes more thought and dissection to comprehend. This as some merit, but there are also "regular" stories that are very cleverly written and keep you engaged for hours.
It seems the books our culture (and many others) hold in the highest withstanding regard are those with the most themes. Books like Harry Potter and Twilight may prove to be fun and interesting reads but in twenty years I doubt you'll see them on many "best books of all time" lists.
You will see though, books like The Metamorphosis and Heart of Darkness, which are packed full of different themes and motifs. Perhaps this is because they can be interpreted in so many different ways. Maybe the open ended nature of these stories is what makes them appeal to such a wide audience. Also, a highly interpretive read can be discussed for years and years and continue to be dissected in new and creative ways. Perhaps its not a question of how sophisticated the stories are, but how well they age with our society.
All in all, there's a place for both kinds of stories, but at the end of the day interpretive ones seem to stand the test of time.

Phew...finished

Last night I finished a short story that, believe it or not, wasn't assigned in this class. The book being (as mentioned in my first post) "Heart of Darkness". I have to say, it was a pretty interesting read.

However, it was a pretty tough read as well. Because the entirety of the story is literally being told by a character in the book, most of the story is in walls of text page after page. There are only a few actual breaks for dialogue, as the character telling the story is only quoting what he heard others say.

Another thing that made the book difficult to drudge through was the fact that it's quite realistic. By that I mean the plot doesn't fall into place like you would expect it to. There is no (clear) rising action, compromise, and falling action. Things just unfold as they do, which makes sense because (if I recall) the story is a true recollection of author Joseph Conrad's experiences in the Congo.

Also, it was quite eye opening to see how utterly racist this book is. The author, and the characters in the book view the Congo natives as nothing but un-evolved human beings. They took it upon themselves to "salvage" them. By this of course I mean, turning them into slaves and taking their resources. The author stated these views as if they were fact too, not acknowledging the ignorance of such beliefs. This of course, was probably the common opinion at the time "Heart of Darkness" was written.

However, if you enjoy hearing stories about the morality and complex nature of the human mind I suggest you read "Heart of Darkness" too. My only recommendation is that you don't go into it expect a romanticized adventure story with a clear-cut conflict and resolution. I know this is a turn off to most people, but it's a fresh deviation from standard novels.

Style vs. Theme

Ever Since I began reading for my own sake rather than for school, I have started to think about what (for me) separates an enjoyable read from a dreadful one. Throughout the years, the only criteria I'd use to distinguish whether or not I would enjoy a book or movie was the subject matter. I would tend to lean towards science fiction or comedic literature when choosing what to read. However, as of late I've become interested in more humanistic, psychologically themed stories.

This is what got me thinking; why now, all of the sudden have I diverted my attention to a completely different style of literature and enjoyed it through and through? Not only this, but what other types of stories might I enjoy?

After pondering this for awhile, and reading more books, I've come to the conclusion that my literary preferences aren't genre based, they're based on the author's writing style. I could read about anything as long as its written in a way that keeps me entertained and more importantly, engaged. I know for a fact I'm not alone on this

For example, most recently I was recommended Lord of The Flies by William Golding for its underlying political commentary. Though this book is supposed to be right up my alley, I found myself uninterested and bored after a few chapters. Golding's writing style was to romantic and fluffy for my taste. Not only that, but the descriptions and dialogues were far too British for me to grasp, as funny as that may sound.

On the other hand, I'm currently enjoying the novella "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad because of his interesting motifs and innovative ways of portraying human interaction. It just goes to show, maybe its not so much the subject matter that determines your interest in literary pieces, but the way its written. Consider this next time you pass on a book merely because of its subject matter.