I waited until I had the time and attention to focus on your essay properly, Michael (I'm not fooled by the modest amount of time Substack calculates is required to read and understand one of your pieces!)
This is a great worked example applying the Essay Architecture metrics. You demonstrate their value very well in your assessment of "Against Interpretation". Sontag was always an inexplicably over-valued intellectual and you've crisply and objectively established the merits and demerits of her iconic essay.
Reading it made me realize I STILL haven't allocated enough time to fully appreciate your essay. I'm going to go back in the next day or two and click on all your links to refresh my understanding of each criterion, and the re-read the essay in the context of those clarifications.
What would be really helpful and cool would you videoing a lecture of yourself teaching your application of Essay Architecture to "Against Interpretation", popping up the meaning--with further examples--of each criterion, as you go. There's a lot to unpack in your methodology and a meta tutorial would be a great way to help readers fully appreciate your thinking.
Otherwise, the danger is a reader may breeze through your very deep thinking about each metric and not fully appreciate your achievement. I think the score for Sontag's essay is correct and unequivocally establishes the value of the Essay Architecture approach.
This was so fun to see in action. I love that I didn’t need to have read the essay to follow along and understand your points (personal stories for the win, obvs). The scoring was a little confusing and mathy but I trust you!
Where have you written about “loops” in storytelling? Would love more on what that is in reference to.
Personally, meaning making is my jam. I can’t resist and it’s integral to my reading and writing. I’m interested in form because I’m weaker in that area. Good stuff!
I read Against Interpretation in February, and even though the essay's topic is straight up my alley, my reading experience was plain boring, which ruined the content for me. Also, it took me long to get through.
I think the Penguin Classics collection of Sontag's work has far better essays ("Reflections on the Deputy" left an impression on me. Have you read it?).
By the way, I love this review format, Michael. Maybe I should give Sontag another chance.
Glad you mentioned this Ben! On my Dean's List page (of all the scored essays), I almost clarified how I derive each score, but removed it because I thought it was too detailed. It you add up all 27 points, she scores a 90 out of 135. So out of 5, 90/27 comes to a 3.33. But since I want the overall scores to be out of 10.0, I put the scores through this formula to convert the 1-5 scale into a 1-10 scale.
Hi Michael, I enjoyed this read very much, both your review and seeing your model of evaluation in action. I went to film school and have an MFA in Studio Art, with an emphasis on queer/gay/AIDS-era art-making. Sontag has towered throughout that 35 year journey. Nevertheless, I found her work hard to read (enjoyably). I never made it through Against Interpreation. I found On Photography a much easier read.
Thanks Andrew. Sontag actually gets into film in Against Interpretation, but only near the very end (I think end of Section 7). Given you went to film school, might be worth checking that part out. In her essay book (of the same title) there are a few film critiques too, but On Photography is definitely the next read for me.
Such a fan of the verve and chutzpah of Sontag's writing. Her authoritative tone is compelling, and she's intimidatingly well-read.
As an analyst by day job (who, years ago, created a simpler but similar framework for analysing narratives in the public sector) I admire your project. I would quibble with your weightings (story as in personal stories I don't think is strictly necessary in every good essay), but I respect your overall approach.
By the by, I'm thinking of starting an essayists writing club in London, and if it gets going in the Autumn, will introduce your framework for discussion.
Thanks for the message, David. Any other essays from Sontag you'd recommend?
Re: the necessity of personal stories - my next two chapters are focused on this, and so I'd appreciate your thoughts and/or pushback when they come out. Some factions of essayists go as far as saying that personal story is *all* that matters, but I'd say stories (interiority) and research (exteriority) have an equal weight in supporting a thesis. There are many ways and scales that story can come through (from full narratives to scattered anecdotes). I agree that an essay can be good or great without the author on the page, but their absence is felt. I feel that if the author isn't on the page, then another writer can theoretically put their name on top and get away with it. By putting yourself on the page, you write something that only you can write, and I think that will only become more important through time (especially if our future involves machines writing).
Keep me posted on your essayist club in London. Specifically, what are you thinking for the format? I've had an interest in starting something similar, in-person in NY, but haven't acted on it yet.
Very interesting Michael about interiority / exteriority. I have heard a genre named "memoir plus" for the hybrid you describe. No specific essays from Sontag come to mind, though two authors who I believe are engaging without putting themselves on the page are Roland Barthes, and Isiah Berlin. The former (in Mythologies) describes seemingly mundane artefacts of culture in illuminating detail, the latter (Against the Tide) writes a history of ideas, and in other works, puts forward a political philosophy of his own (Four Essays on Liberty) The format of an essay club in London, I was thinking ideally around 4-8 people, some appreciation and analysis of classic essays, and feedback for two attendees per session. What I haven't decided yet is how strictly to gatekeep to non-students and aspiring amateur writers.
Great analysis, thank you. And Sontag's essay itself is quite interesting. Reading this for the first time, I found myself agreeing with her observation - even for arts that are highly sensory, such as music, modern critics tend to focus on *what it means*, e.g., what it says about the artist's inner experience, or what the artist is saying about world events or politics.
I thought this was an insightful observation, too:
"It is always the case that interpretation of this type indicates a
dissatisfaction (conscious or unconscious) with the work, a wish to
replace it by something else". I recently read Kafka's The Trial, and honestly, my experience was something like this. I was reaching for deeper meanings because the surface level reading just wasn't doing it for me. But this attempt at interpretation did two things for me: it made the book more interesting, and it made it make more sense. Interpretation has a way of 'opening up' works that might otherwise be overlooked.
I can't say I fully agree with Sontag's conclusion, but it does highlight an important gap in literary criticism. Do you think, 60 years later, critics have responded to her call?
Great points, Dan. Sontag mentions that not *all* types of interpreting meaning is bad. It can span between aggressive revisionism and "liberation" (in some cases, interpretation can save a work). Maybe it's not about rejecting interpretation, but not neglecting form.
I also wonder if there's a difference between critics and the general reader. I could see a case for why a critic or creator should pay as much mind to form as content (she says that content should be dissolved into and considered through form). But a reader, watcher, listener likely doesn't have the interest or language in formally dissecting everything.
That's a good point. I think that's right - a critic should have a solid grasp of the formal elements of the art they are critiquing. Ultimately this understanding should result in a better/more interesting interpretation anyway.
This is supremely helpful. I heard this on my daily walk to the physiotherapist and felt a spring in my step. This is remarkable because I’m going to physiotherapy precisely because my steps are springless and painful. Thank you. You made this accessible. That’s a gift.
I waited until I had the time and attention to focus on your essay properly, Michael (I'm not fooled by the modest amount of time Substack calculates is required to read and understand one of your pieces!)
This is a great worked example applying the Essay Architecture metrics. You demonstrate their value very well in your assessment of "Against Interpretation". Sontag was always an inexplicably over-valued intellectual and you've crisply and objectively established the merits and demerits of her iconic essay.
Reading it made me realize I STILL haven't allocated enough time to fully appreciate your essay. I'm going to go back in the next day or two and click on all your links to refresh my understanding of each criterion, and the re-read the essay in the context of those clarifications.
What would be really helpful and cool would you videoing a lecture of yourself teaching your application of Essay Architecture to "Against Interpretation", popping up the meaning--with further examples--of each criterion, as you go. There's a lot to unpack in your methodology and a meta tutorial would be a great way to help readers fully appreciate your thinking.
Otherwise, the danger is a reader may breeze through your very deep thinking about each metric and not fully appreciate your achievement. I think the score for Sontag's essay is correct and unequivocally establishes the value of the Essay Architecture approach.
I want the author on the page btw. Anything else is pretentious.
This was so fun to see in action. I love that I didn’t need to have read the essay to follow along and understand your points (personal stories for the win, obvs). The scoring was a little confusing and mathy but I trust you!
Where have you written about “loops” in storytelling? Would love more on what that is in reference to.
Personally, meaning making is my jam. I can’t resist and it’s integral to my reading and writing. I’m interested in form because I’m weaker in that area. Good stuff!
“Without opening loops or setting stakes out of the gate, the reader has to muck through a lot of detail without knowing why…”
I get setting stakes but what do you mean by “loops?”
I read Against Interpretation in February, and even though the essay's topic is straight up my alley, my reading experience was plain boring, which ruined the content for me. Also, it took me long to get through.
I think the Penguin Classics collection of Sontag's work has far better essays ("Reflections on the Deputy" left an impression on me. Have you read it?).
By the way, I love this review format, Michael. Maybe I should give Sontag another chance.
Dropping by to clarify that 6.2 out of 10 translates to 3.1 out of 5, not 3.3. Love you all! Sorry for being pedantic.
Glad you mentioned this Ben! On my Dean's List page (of all the scored essays), I almost clarified how I derive each score, but removed it because I thought it was too detailed. It you add up all 27 points, she scores a 90 out of 135. So out of 5, 90/27 comes to a 3.33. But since I want the overall scores to be out of 10.0, I put the scores through this formula to convert the 1-5 scale into a 1-10 scale.
(((Score-27)/108)*9)+1).
Very well! I’d argue that a percentage is a percentage no matter the denominator, but I love how you worked this thru! Thanks for the note!
Hi Michael, I enjoyed this read very much, both your review and seeing your model of evaluation in action. I went to film school and have an MFA in Studio Art, with an emphasis on queer/gay/AIDS-era art-making. Sontag has towered throughout that 35 year journey. Nevertheless, I found her work hard to read (enjoyably). I never made it through Against Interpreation. I found On Photography a much easier read.
Thanks Andrew. Sontag actually gets into film in Against Interpretation, but only near the very end (I think end of Section 7). Given you went to film school, might be worth checking that part out. In her essay book (of the same title) there are a few film critiques too, but On Photography is definitely the next read for me.
Such a fan of the verve and chutzpah of Sontag's writing. Her authoritative tone is compelling, and she's intimidatingly well-read.
As an analyst by day job (who, years ago, created a simpler but similar framework for analysing narratives in the public sector) I admire your project. I would quibble with your weightings (story as in personal stories I don't think is strictly necessary in every good essay), but I respect your overall approach.
By the by, I'm thinking of starting an essayists writing club in London, and if it gets going in the Autumn, will introduce your framework for discussion.
Thanks for the message, David. Any other essays from Sontag you'd recommend?
Re: the necessity of personal stories - my next two chapters are focused on this, and so I'd appreciate your thoughts and/or pushback when they come out. Some factions of essayists go as far as saying that personal story is *all* that matters, but I'd say stories (interiority) and research (exteriority) have an equal weight in supporting a thesis. There are many ways and scales that story can come through (from full narratives to scattered anecdotes). I agree that an essay can be good or great without the author on the page, but their absence is felt. I feel that if the author isn't on the page, then another writer can theoretically put their name on top and get away with it. By putting yourself on the page, you write something that only you can write, and I think that will only become more important through time (especially if our future involves machines writing).
Keep me posted on your essayist club in London. Specifically, what are you thinking for the format? I've had an interest in starting something similar, in-person in NY, but haven't acted on it yet.
Very interesting Michael about interiority / exteriority. I have heard a genre named "memoir plus" for the hybrid you describe. No specific essays from Sontag come to mind, though two authors who I believe are engaging without putting themselves on the page are Roland Barthes, and Isiah Berlin. The former (in Mythologies) describes seemingly mundane artefacts of culture in illuminating detail, the latter (Against the Tide) writes a history of ideas, and in other works, puts forward a political philosophy of his own (Four Essays on Liberty) The format of an essay club in London, I was thinking ideally around 4-8 people, some appreciation and analysis of classic essays, and feedback for two attendees per session. What I haven't decided yet is how strictly to gatekeep to non-students and aspiring amateur writers.
Great analysis, thank you. And Sontag's essay itself is quite interesting. Reading this for the first time, I found myself agreeing with her observation - even for arts that are highly sensory, such as music, modern critics tend to focus on *what it means*, e.g., what it says about the artist's inner experience, or what the artist is saying about world events or politics.
I thought this was an insightful observation, too:
"It is always the case that interpretation of this type indicates a
dissatisfaction (conscious or unconscious) with the work, a wish to
replace it by something else". I recently read Kafka's The Trial, and honestly, my experience was something like this. I was reaching for deeper meanings because the surface level reading just wasn't doing it for me. But this attempt at interpretation did two things for me: it made the book more interesting, and it made it make more sense. Interpretation has a way of 'opening up' works that might otherwise be overlooked.
I can't say I fully agree with Sontag's conclusion, but it does highlight an important gap in literary criticism. Do you think, 60 years later, critics have responded to her call?
Great points, Dan. Sontag mentions that not *all* types of interpreting meaning is bad. It can span between aggressive revisionism and "liberation" (in some cases, interpretation can save a work). Maybe it's not about rejecting interpretation, but not neglecting form.
I also wonder if there's a difference between critics and the general reader. I could see a case for why a critic or creator should pay as much mind to form as content (she says that content should be dissolved into and considered through form). But a reader, watcher, listener likely doesn't have the interest or language in formally dissecting everything.
That's a good point. I think that's right - a critic should have a solid grasp of the formal elements of the art they are critiquing. Ultimately this understanding should result in a better/more interesting interpretation anyway.
This is supremely helpful. I heard this on my daily walk to the physiotherapist and felt a spring in my step. This is remarkable because I’m going to physiotherapy precisely because my steps are springless and painful. Thank you. You made this accessible. That’s a gift.