Literary Allusions in The Fault in our Stars
These are just a few examples of Green's allusions in the novel.
For more complete references, see Tumblr's Metatext to The Fault is in Our Stars.
For more complete references, see Tumblr's Metatext to The Fault is in Our Stars.
Also . . .
See John Green's discussion on his use of allusions and symbols at his long FAQ on The Fault in our Stars.
In response to a question about his intentionality in using these literary devices, he says:
Q. What do you think of Laurence Perrine’s claim that the problem with symbols is we believe they can mean anything we want? He argues that symbols are confined to an area of meaning, defined by the author, in which the interpretations are infinite, but not unlimited.
A. I don’t think the area of meaning is defined by the author—at least not exclusively—but otherwise I agree.
When i say books belong to their readers, I do not mean, “If you think Huck Finn is a novel that defends slavery, you are entitled to your opinion.” That reading is wrong. It’s as wrong as thinking that 2 + 3 = 7.
I mean that readers should not define reading as the act of divining an author’s intents. Readers are co-creators of a fiction, and should be empowered.
As a thought experiment: Imagine that Huck Finn contained the exact same words that it currently contains, but that Mark Twain insisted it was a book about how slavery is a great idea. I would argue that Mark Twain would be every bit as wrong about the novel as anyone else who thinks that it is a pro-slavery novel.
The author defines the area of meaning through choosing the words in the novel. But beyond the words in the novel, the author is not in the defining-an-area-of-meaning game. Readers do that collectively.
(All of this stated with the caveat that I might be wrong and have been wrong before.)
See John Green's discussion on his use of allusions and symbols at his long FAQ on The Fault in our Stars.
In response to a question about his intentionality in using these literary devices, he says:
Q. What do you think of Laurence Perrine’s claim that the problem with symbols is we believe they can mean anything we want? He argues that symbols are confined to an area of meaning, defined by the author, in which the interpretations are infinite, but not unlimited.
A. I don’t think the area of meaning is defined by the author—at least not exclusively—but otherwise I agree.
When i say books belong to their readers, I do not mean, “If you think Huck Finn is a novel that defends slavery, you are entitled to your opinion.” That reading is wrong. It’s as wrong as thinking that 2 + 3 = 7.
I mean that readers should not define reading as the act of divining an author’s intents. Readers are co-creators of a fiction, and should be empowered.
As a thought experiment: Imagine that Huck Finn contained the exact same words that it currently contains, but that Mark Twain insisted it was a book about how slavery is a great idea. I would argue that Mark Twain would be every bit as wrong about the novel as anyone else who thinks that it is a pro-slavery novel.
The author defines the area of meaning through choosing the words in the novel. But beyond the words in the novel, the author is not in the defining-an-area-of-meaning game. Readers do that collectively.
(All of this stated with the caveat that I might be wrong and have been wrong before.)