Why is having too many symbols a bad idea?
I'm writing a speech on using symbols, and I've just made the statement that you should generally stick with one, maybe two, symbols that span the story (smaller symbols that arise and fade quickly don't apply to this limit so much).
I now have to back my statement up. I know why you don't want too many symbols in a novel, but I'm having trouble articulating the exact reason. I feel it isn't just that the reader might become confused (though that could be part of it).
When I say 'symbol,' I'm speaking of a large symbol, something that spans the majority of the novel and plays a large part. Think the One Ring in LotR. It wouldn't be quite so strong if Frodo had to also destroy a jacket and five pebbles, but I can't quite say why.
Can anyone tell me the main reason you don't want too many symbols in a novel?
3 answers
The more symbols you have, the more your story becomes an allegory --a conceptual or abstract argument conveyed through metaphor and narrative --and the less it functions in its own right as a piece of fiction. Having one or two symbols in an otherwise realistic story can add psychological depth and resonance, but more than that and you run the risk of ruining the reader's suspension of disbelief and ability to enjoy the narrative directly.
If your story is driven more by demands of the symbology than by the plot or characters, then you've written an allegory, not a story. That's not always a bad thing, but it's not what most writers are striving for.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/20135. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I absolutely agree with @Mike.C.Ford. The importance of each individual symbol lessens in your reader’s mind the more you throw into your story.
However, there is also a more practical aspect from the author’s perspective: it just takes a lot more work to explain why each symbol is critically important in its own right. It is also far more difficult to maintain each symbol’s importance throughout the story, so as to keep your reader from wondering what the big deal would be in losing one of them.
So I think those are the two sides of the coin that make multiple symbols a challenging proposition.
As @Mike.C.Ford underlines, a common solution lies in binding the multiple symbols together, showing how they form a single unit. Think of the Deathly Hallows in Harry Potter: each Hallow is powerful in its own right, but when they are combined, their power is magnified to provide dominion over death itself.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/20138. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
The ring in LOTR is not a symbol. Because of the timing of its publication many took the ring to be a symbol for the bomb, but Tolkien denied this, and the history of composition makes it impossible. (Lewis talks about this a length in one of his essays.)
A symbol is simply an idea or image that stands for another idea. What matters in a work is that you have a certain unity of theme. Many symbols that point to the same theme will reinforce it. Many symbols pointing in different directions will muddy it. It is not the number of symbols but the way they are used that matters.
The ring, on the other hand, is a McGuffin. The is the thing everyone wants that drives the plot. Too many McGuffin's can fragment and fracture a plot.
LOTR would not be as strong if Frodo had to destroy a jacket and five pebbles because the point of the book is not the objects, but the temptation of power and the capacity of love to resist it (Sam, who acts purely out of his love for Frodo, is the only ringbearer to voluntarily give it back, and the only one able to remain in Middle Earth after carrying it.) The ring is just the object of temptation.
Additional McGuffins would do nothing to add to this theme, and would take the focus away from the central theme and place it in the mechanics of destroying magical objects. And then it would be an ordinary run of the mill fantasy and not one of the great books of the 20th century.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads