As a writer myself (well, soon) I both agree and disagree. It's a piece-by-piece thing to judge. Most writers would do a lot better to remember that symbolism so complicated it cannot be interpreted easily is failed symbolism. Nine times out of ten, the most concise way to say something is the best way to say something. That is not to say the diction and syntax should be basic, but that it should aim to be as clear as possible unless there is undeniable artistic gain for not being so.Hatta wrote:Why should I have to analyze their deep symbolism, if they have something to say, they should just say it. Any novel I've read that actually had a point to make, would have made the point much better in the form of an essay or treatise.
However, sometimes the message is intended to be hidden to a degree so the symbolism doesn't show its hand too early on (a novel that painted an event as negative wouldn't be overly enjoyable if it began with "the following events are horrible and you should hate them", for example). There are also situations where an author doesn't want to enforce their own viewpoint on the reader, just have them appreciate it. And much could also be said about a constructed meaning whose point is entirely to get the reader into a frame of mind that they can comprehend the hidden messages - sometimes the journey is more important than the ending.
It is also good to remember that a plot is not the most exciting part of a novel. A plot is just an idea, and ideas are cheap. Good plots act as enablers for characterisation and metaphor, the complexities that surround a sequence of events. Removing the hidden depths and symbolism just leaves you with the literary equivalent of Spot The Dog.
