To interpret, you must first consider that the elements you are given can be seen on two levels.
Imagine you have a man named John who has kids and they live in a house:
Level 1 – the surface level – is what those elements are in the story: John is John, his house is his house, his kids are his kids, the story happens to him, it is about him.
Level 2 – the referential level – is what they stand for at a more general – and therefore conceptual, and therefore interpretative – level: John is a man like millions, his job is shared by millions, his worries are shared by millions; his house is like so many other houses, where what happens happens in so many other houses; his kids are kids in general, not only his. The story happens to all of us (potentially), it is about all of us (potentially). John is a symbol for all men; his house means to him what ours means to us. To understand the character ‘John’, we must remember that he’s a man before he is a character.
The surface level of the story is made up of the elements you need so as to understand what is going on.
The referential level (or the interpretative level if you prefer, the name hardly matters) is what those elements refer to in the world, as general categories – beyond the surface of the
The take-away here is to remember that you must not focus on the wrong aspect of the story, and mistake a plot-device for an important, meaning-laden item. Remember that old meme about a (probably completely apocryphal) Chinese saying: ‘When the wise man points to the moon, the fool look at the finger’? There are many fingers in a story, but only a few moons: make sure to look at (and for) the moon, and don’t get distracted by all the fingers.
Consider this story:
John Smith lives in a house in Surrey, England, he works at a bank, has two kids (15 and 12) and a wife who’s an attorney. John and his wife have been married for 18 years. One day a man shows up: he’s Lucas, an old school-friend of John’s. John starts hanging out with him, goes to the pub and drinks too much, begins to neglect his work, has fights with his wife and his kids: his life seems to be spiralling out of control. In the end, John ditches Lucas, makes amends to his family and picks up his job again; as a family they buy a new dog and the four of them are planning a holiday together on Majorca this coming summer.
At level 1, this is the story of John, and you can spend hours asking yourself questions about who he is, what he’s like, why he likes to hang out with Lucas; you can berate him for being a fool to go out drinking rather than be with his loving family. All this is good to do, but it’s even better to realise it’s only level 1.
Level 2 starts with saying: ‘John is one person among may who are like that, and his situation is nothing I’ve not heard before – it happens every day to countless people’.
It continues with asking factual questions:
Lucas is a school-friend: what does that mean in the real world, not just in the story?
Well, it means they go back a long way, when they were both young;
Young is not like old: what characterises youth then? (the stage John was at when he first met Lucas)
(in general) Living in the moment; few worries; future open: everything remains possible; few responsibilities; parents who tell you what to do, society that tells you what to do; desire to rebel against those (and other) authorities; not conform; freedom; few regrets yet, but lots of hope, aspirations and dreams. Life is still eternal.
Ok then: what characterises middle age? (the stage John is at now)
(in general) Work; work responsibilities; family; having kids; the responsibilities that come with that; fear of not being able to pay the e.g. rent; boss that tells you what to do; commitment to one’s wife and family; freedom restricted; expectations of others like family, friends, society; a certain need to respect authority and conform; future not that open anymore; regrets (of youth, of things not done); fewer hopes for oneself, fewer aspirations and dreams. Thoughts of death.
So if Lucas at level 1 is a school-friend dropping by unexpectedly, at level 2 he stands for YOUTH, which itself stands for some or all of the things listed above – take your pick. Or rather, you could collect information about Lucas to find out which aspect of youth he’s more likely to be representing. For example, Lucas could be an artist (so ideas of freedom one has lost; perhaps John wanted to be one too and veered off to the banking world instead). Lucas could be single with loads of different partners (so idea of potential of sex, desire, a different kind of freedom which then would relate to his wife). Lucas could be a world traveller, someone writing tourist guides say (so idea of not being restricted by one’s job, not being stuck in one place with the same people).
Seeing it like this, it becomes easier to understand why John’s life starts going to pot: being reunited with his school friend is being reminded of the youth he’s lost, and all that has happened (or not happened) between then and now. It reminds him of middle-age, too, and the burden of it, and the fears of it – is this it? Is my wife it, my kids it, my job it? Will there be nothing else?
Now we have enough to start asking interpretive questions - note we have not decided which answer may be the right one, nor have we settled for any one 'meaning' to the story.
Why would he start drinking?
To do what he did then (when he was young); his fights with his wife can be both because he’s feeling the pressure of a marriage, or a rejection of the restrictions on his freedom, or because his wife represents stability, responsibility and reason while his youth is the antithesis of these things.
What could be the reason for him to fight with his wife?
A symptom of his rejection of paternal duties, and his youthful temper ignoring social (and familial) demands; the impossibility of reconciling married life with youthful exuberance;
Why would he get into trouble at work?
Obviously a result of drinking late, but equally symbolising a rebellion against societal expectations and demands (getting up at 7 every morning to work at a desk all day is not a young person’s idea of bliss); rebellion against his boss is rebellion against authority (i.e. a common youthful thing).
And there you are: now the story reads on two levels: John’s life as if John was real; John’s life as representation of other lives (where John is a symbol, a representation of many JohnS, and many lives). Now you have given additional meaning to the story, simply by asking a couple of questions linking the characters (and situation) with the everyday world you and I know.
Observe that I have not philosophised, I have not used literary terminology or theory: I’ve simply drawn general, life-like conclusions from the information I was given. Remember also that the conclusions I draw above are some among others – there could be other real-life reasons why he fights with his wife etc. This is not about which reason is correct: this is about finding real-life reasons to explain behaviours in a text.
Once we have all this in place, it becomes equally easier to answer:
What is this text about then, if it’s not just about John, his problems and his solution?
We simply need to oppose the two situations that we know happen in the story: factually speaking, what do we know?
Situation 1: he starts hanging out with an old friend, gets into troubles at home and at work.
Situation 2: he ditches the old friend, makes up with family (planned holiday) and work.
What we can also say for sure is that John eventually makes TWO decisions:
Decision 1: He rejects his old friend and his ways.
Decision 2: He turns back to what he had and cherishes it.
Now we just need to ask a couple of very basic, clarifying questions, like:
What does it mean when you reject something, or someone?
It means (among other things) you don’t want it anymore, you don’t like it, you think perhaps it’s bad for you, or not appropriate, or you look silly doing it, or your tastes have changed (there could be many other reasons)
What does it mean when you go back to something you’d left behind?
It means (among other things) that between leaving something and going back to it, you realised you quite liked that thing – or perhaps you miss it, or you need it, or you can’t live without it, or not having it would make you sad, or you feel compelled to have it back (there could be many other reasons).
So let’s turn back to our two decisions above, and link them back to what we said at the beginning about being young and being middle age:
Decision 1: he rejects his friend = he rejects the youthful behaviour and all that comes with it
Decision 2: he turns back to what he had = he embraces middle age and all that comes with it.
And that‘s us done, more or less: symbolically, John’s story is one we’ve heard countless times, to the extent there’s an expression for it (mid-life crisis), and its interpretation is clear. John as John does what he does; John as person makes a choice. He chooses not to act like he used to when young. He chooses to act like his age seems to require.
Finally, we must ask an evaluative question here: what do we think of his choice? What does his choice mean symbolically? At level 1, his choice is just his choice – but what about Level 2? Can his personal choice be interpreted morally, socially, globally?
After all, there seems to be an argument made by the text: if we follow the development of the story, John starts off well-established and probably well-off (his job, his wife’s job), then he goes to pot for a while, neglects his responsibilities (job and family), then goes back to being a good husband, good worker, good father. And the planned holiday in the sun with everyone is a clear sign that the re-building of his life is well underway – happiness seems at hand.
Clearly then, John gives priority to one thing over another; he prioritises middle age life over a youthful one. But remember: we identified many aspects of what it is to be middle age and to be young, not just one. So even though we could say: ‘Yeah, ok, he prefers one thing over another, so what?’ and be done with it, we must on the contrary move on to Level 2 again and consider those aspects once more. When John gives priority to his former middle age life, he also automatically gives priority to (all of some of): Taking responsibility; to Restricting his freedom; to Being loyal to his family and wife; to Renouncing liberal sexual affairs; to Conforming; to Facing old age and death.
And that is where the evaluation of the story’s interpretation can take wings, by asking further evaluative questions relating to each facet (or just a few), for example:
· Is it then better to conform, in the end, and do as others do? Is that needed to have stability and happiness?
· Should we learn to accept our fate (mortality) in order to live fully and happily? Is it not better to look at reality full in the face rather than lying to oneself?
· Loyalty to yours is important – crucial perhaps? You must do well by yours, and you cannot abandon them on a whim, or because you would like to be young again. In a way, your life is important but your individuality is not more important than your duties to others.
· Sexual freedom is all very good but there comes a point when you must be loyal about that too; there might be a moral element there too of course (sleeping around is just not on).
Equally, the following questions are not only possible but perhaps even necessary:
· Why do accept to conform if we don’t want to? Is it so dangerous for us not to conform?
· Why should I give more importance to others when I only have one life?
· Why should I do as society expects when it’s my life, my desires, my dreams?
· Is youth the only time when we can dream big and wild? Is that not also what makes the world go, instead of conformity to social ideals?
All these are themes emerging from the story, or that can be linked to the story; in that sense then, the story itself is nothing but a springboard. In itself the story does not matter, but as a vehicle for generating ideas it’s fine: it reminds you that a reader is not limited in their interpretation and generation of ideas. It reminds you that the surface of a story (level 1, as it were) is like the surface of the sea: you don’t bathe in it, for that you need depth. The surface of the sea is only the point of entry into the depth, it is the first point of contact between the swimmer (= the reader) and what lies beneath (= ideas, themes). You must absolutely deal with the surface, but remember: it’s only the first step, the real gems lie below.