Over Analyzing Literary Figures

Over Analyzing Literary Figures

By Tim Holland

The difficulty with studying literature and its authors is the great temptation to make more of what an author has written than the author intended. We often idolize an author and dream our way into "what were they thinking when they wrote that?" "Why did they say it that way?" "Why are those two people sitting where they are?" "Why is there a sofa in the room instead of two chairs?" "Why is the sun coming in the window?"

This all came to mind upon reading the most recent edition of The Bronté Society Gazette, the official newsletter of The Bronté Society of Haworth, England (the society is dedicated to the preservation and scholarship of all things related to the Bronté family - primarily Charlotte, Emily and Anne). Contained within the April 2010 edition is an article entitled "The Empty Chair..." by William Callaghan who muses about a drawing attributed to Emily Bronté and the placement of chairs around a table.

With all the pen and ink that has been spent analyzing the Bronté family over the past 150 years, it becomes particularly difficult to come up with something new to say about people who did not live past the age of 40, and for the most part 30, (this essay being a prime example, of course) when it would appear that everything has already been said. However, as long as there are literary figures of which we are not only in awe but also have an appealing personal history, the writing and musing will continue.

The particular short piece in the Gazette to which I refer, offers an interpretation of Emily's drawing that shows Anne and Emily sitting at the dining room table with papers strewn about, presumably in the midst of the creative writing process. The questions being raised are: Why are Anne and Emily sitting so far apart? Why are they sitting in the places they are? Where is Charlotte? Answers are, of course, suggested.

Now I am not suggesting that asking such questions are not legitimate investigative approaches to literary biography or criticism but I don't think one should make icons of ordinary people and thereby neglect to attribute ordinary attributes to them. Admittedly, I will surely be criticized for suggesting the Bronté sisters and family members were ordinary but, alas, they were.

Daughters of a Vicar, as were thousand of others; trained to be governesses, as daughters of clergy were; members of a large family where more siblings died in childhood than lived to old age - yes all that is true. Were they exceptional? Yes. Did they achieve great fame as authors? Yes, they did. Could they, as children, get into trouble by squabbling at the dinner table and be told where to sit? Absolutely! My own experience often recalls the complaint: "He's sitting in 'my' chair again." "That's the pencil 'I' was using." "They're playing a game and won't let me play." "Charlotte and Branwell are reading and sewing again, let's you and I go do something."

I have attended a number of writers' meeting and conferences and I'm always fascinated by questions such as "What time do you start to write each day?" "What kind of paper do you use?" "Do you write with a pen or with a computer?" Why would anyone really care?

So yes, it's nice to muse about one's favorite author but let's not over do it. The personal traits of writers are always interesting to think about but in the world of great writing, it's what you actually put on the page that counts not where you sat when doing it.