People in this thread are latching on to it for the same reason the author used it; it is not clear how else to talk about the larger issue.
Different interepratations of the prototypical example leads to different interperatations of the larger issue.
If you must use examples to communicate your point, the normal solution to this is to use many different examples.
Thank you! I knew there had to be a better word to describe it but all I could think of was "exemplary" and that didn't feel quite right.
> I always hated how much teachers would drill symbolism and literary device analysis into you in school but then I come across threads like this I wonder whether we aren’t focusing on it enough.
I feel, the inability to treat the glass solely as a symbol, is more related to the form of writing.
This sort of confessional writing, it does not tolerate symbolism well because the author is also the protagonist. The symbolism of the glass, in this article, it's more of a protective screen. The author explicitly writes the glass wasn't really the issue, but then we never actually learn about all these other things that were the real issue. Like, dedicate some paragraphs to it dude, don't leave us hanging! In the writing, he's a kindly, oblivious man. We get hints that he wasn't. Disrespect, what's that exactly, that can be downright cruel, where on the spectrum are we here? Beyond the glass, honestly, there's nothing. Like, was he rolling his eyes when she was talking to her. "communication issues", what's that, did they share meals in silence, or where they fighting like cats and dogs, but then making tender love to make up, what's going on?!?! Tell me. The glass really is the thing here. (Maybe his book has more, I don't know). For all intents and purposes, yeah, it was the glass. The reader can only understand their divorce in vague generalities, and since we get nothing more than the glass, it feels more like a distraction. Also, like come on, we need to hear from his ex-wife!
Symbolism in fiction, functions more like an anchor, around which the mind can wander, which invites us to contemplate. And we can, because, honestly, right or wrong, it doesn't matter. There's less of this need to get it right, make sense of it. The motives of the author are just less important, a reader has less of this curiosity or nosyness, in the sense, that we're tickled to take a peek behind the curtain.
I think, if the article were written as fiction, say a short-story, that glass would be great symbolism, and there would be less this need to come up with solutions, or try to pinpoint who was right and wrong, ... But in that article, I don't know, it feels more like a dodge.
In that case there’s two options:
1. The author is not mentioning more consequential problems that happened in their marriage, or doesn’t know the real reason their marriage ended.
2. There were no more consequential problems and the author is blaming themselves for what seems like an unreasonable spouse.
Sometimes compromising requires thinking far outside the box. For example, buy this guy a in-home water bottle that he alone is responsible for cleaning. Give it a permanent place in a cupboard. Boom boom everyone compromised and showed the other one “I care about your needs”
Why is that the case?
The more I think about it, the more I think the author is trying to be deep by being shallow. Taking something we consider mundane and transforming it into a grand life lesson. Creating a parable. The problem is that he chose something that doesn't work. I, for one, will not be buying his book.
