The Analysis Namespace.

So we have a namespace for analysis. Having it is a great idea. Something to build on the cataloging of tropes that's the site's primary goal. But...it's really underused. So this thread's for a project to build up the namespace and promote awareness of it.

The first things we need to establish, I think, are how to write good analysis (if we wind up creating a short guide on this, that'd be excellent) and what works would benefit the most from analysis.

edited 3rd Aug '11 6:59:21 PM by INUH

Speaking as someone who knows absolutely nothing about literary analysis, I support this project. This is something I would like to contribute to if I can get to the point where I feel that they would be quality contributions.

I also support this project, since the Reviews section is for reviews, not analysis.

I support this since we need to establish what makes a review and what makes an analysis.

A guide as to how to write an analysis, and perhaps a few good examples, would help immensely.

Ok, I think that what we need to know first is what we're analysing.

Looking at the Analysis pages, I see we have four categories:

• Works
• Tropes
• Creators
• Meta Concepts

Of these, only tropes and works have more than one analysis. Now, in my opinion, analysisn a creator and a meta concept is entirely valid, and it may in fact justify the author/creator pages (Which have been, admittedly, a bit of an issue of mine)

But I think that what we need to prioritize is the analysis of works. With that in mind, we should see the list of works in Analysis and see what is missing and what can be analyzed.

At the top of my head, works that could be analyzed and aren't are:

• The Great Gatsby
• One Hundred Years Of Solitude
• Lolita

I think at least one of us has read one of these and can give an insight into the book's inner trappings. It'd be also preferable if said person who decided to do so would post it here so we could discuss it, bring our own thoughts and then edit it in properly.

Thoughts?

edited 3rd Aug '11 7:49:58 PM by juancarlos

Haven't a clue how to do this. I've mostly been using it as a dumping ground for Trope Trivia that snuck into the description.

Analysis can be defined differently depending on the reader, but above all, I think it should be a text that goes in depth in at least one aspect of a work and explores its implications as well as what the author meant with and what the author said with it (Meaning and communicated message are not always the same. Especially if you apply Death of the Author)

At least, that's the definition I think would work in our case.

...Wait, how is One Hundred Days Of Solitude a redlink?

edited 3rd Aug '11 7:47:59 PM by EnglishIvy

We could probably also use a thread for looking into works of literary significance that are redlinks and/or poorly-described.

edited 3rd Aug '11 7:49:18 PM by INUH

Brainfart. It's One Hundred Years of Solitude. My apologies.

Oh, that's a relief. I was concerned.

I also support more use of the analysis namespace, especially for works that lend towards this sort of thinking. However we MUST make sure to differentiate this from WMG and Reviews, both of which I can see Analysis incorrectly being used for.

I'd like to preemptively put Charles Dicken's Hard Times on that list. I'm not a fan of Dickens but come on it at least needs a summary.

edited 3rd Aug '11 7:56:25 PM by Neo_Crimson

If you already have a work for the list, you might just want to start that thread yourself.

hmm, how do we define WMG?

I would think WMG is more related to plot points, i.e. "I think the person who mailed the evidence to the detective was character X."

If an analysis relies on Epileptic Trees and Death of the Author to get its point across, I might classify it as a WMG. However, if the arguments are well researched and well presented, then I would say that it should be kept on Analysis.

I don't think Death of the Author invalidates an argument...it is after all used in more serious, academic analysis, and it comes from a respected author and literary critic (Umberto Eco)

I do think that Epileptic Trees does invalidate an argument, for obvious reasons.

edited 3rd Aug '11 8:05:38 PM by juancarlos

Actually it was Barthes who wrote the essay "Death of the Author". He was advocating a move away from using the author as a basis for criticism of a text, but more generally, the phrase is sometimes used to refer to the transition within the field of literary criticism from analysis based on authorial intent to analysis based on the work's effect upon the reader. It's an extremely important concept in the field of modern literary analysis, and definitely should not disqualify an analysis from going under this namespace.

edited 3rd Aug '11 8:16:51 PM by BobbyG

Or that...

I should really use more than the page quote more often...>_>

Anyway, I think that we have a definition already, don't we?

edited 3rd Aug '11 8:18:40 PM by juancarlos

Well, note the phrase "Wild Mass Guess", and see also the page description. It's not about actual analyses, it's about wild guesses. An analysis is based on a close reading of the text. Pretty crucial difference.

edited 3rd Aug '11 8:28:46 PM by BobbyG

Yeah, I should have clarified and say, "Definition on Analyses". But your point is also taken.

Oh, right. Well, to my mind the distinctions are:

• Wild Mass Guessing - wild guesses, do not need to be closely supported by the text itself. Usually pertain to some element of the plot.
• Trivia - interesting, relevant information which doesn't fit on the main page.
• Analysis - close readings, in-depth analyses of what works and tropes signify, attempt to convey, are influenced by, their cultural significance, all that shit. Basically, the serious, more complicated side of things.

Of those three, trivia should be easiest to separate, as it's factual. And I think most people can probably figure out where something falls on the WMG / Analysis line.

edited 3rd Aug '11 8:44:52 PM by INUH

Is there a way to prevent one person's analysis to be warred over another? Some people might mistake analysis as "interpretation".