Writer's Fallout Shelter

A symbol can be used for almost anything. It's simply something that stands for something else, and can be nearly anything.

This is not accurate. To be effective, a symbol must have meaning that the reader can understand. They must be able to recognize or figure out what it is symbolizing. While it is true that all readers will not understand the symbolism and others may not consciously interpret it, the symbol still must have a meaning that majority of readers will get at some level. Because of that, it can't really be anything. It has to have some sort of significance. That significance may be cultural, historic, or literary.

Take for example national flags, in particular, let's look at the US Flag. We are taught in school to show it respect. We turn toward it and salute it (covering your heart is a form of a salute) while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or if the national anthem is playing. It is used to pay honor to fallen service men and women and there are forms of etiquette, additional signs of respect, for how to handle it. When protesting, some individuals deliberately violate these protocols in order show the depth of their anger or to create an emotional reaction in observers.

Given all that, my question for anyone reading this to consider is this: Are they really showing respect and disrespect to the flag, which after all is just a collection of brightly colored cloth sewn together in a recognizable pattern? No, they're not. The flag is not the thing they are respecting/disrespecting. It is a tangible representation for their real focus, which is the United States of America, its government, its ideals, and its people. As the Pledge of Allegiance says, the flag stands for, or symbolizes, the country.

The Christian cross, the Jewish Star of David, and the Bahá'í nine-pointed star all serve the same functions for their different religions. They are not the religions themselves, but symbols of it and are honored or disrespected only for what they represent, not for what they themselves are.


(Or maybe they do. That's the tricky thing about themes; it often depends on your point of view.)

Not so. There has to be support for that POV in the text. It's your job as the writer to supply that support and guide things the way you want them to go. Will there sometimes be things in there that surprise you? You betcha, but I'd lay odds that once they're pointed out, you will see them and realize what you've done, too.


Just a short while ago there was a thread dealing with how actions can symbolize moods and such.

You are giving too broad a definition to the word 'symbol'. Actions are not symbols. Actions are one way we as writers reveal, or show, mood and character.

I don't typically like to use examples from film to show literature, but sometimes it is the fastest and easiest way to find something everyone is familiar with. In this case, I hope many of you are familiar with the short-lived television show Firefly. In the beginning of what was supposed to be the first, two-hour episode, the character Malcolm Reynolds takes a cross he is wearing and kisses it. When we catch up with Reynolds again, a couple of years later as far as the storyline goes, we're made aware that he's no longer wearing the cross.

The cross is a symbol of Reynolds' faith and his spiritual beliefs. His treatment of that symbol reveal the changes in his attitude toward faith and religion in general.


Not to say that symbolism can't play into the theme; it does a lot of the time. They just don't absolutely have to relate to each other.

This sounds like what you're saying is that a symbol can stand alone, separate and apart from anything else in the story. That's not so. Every component of a story is interconnected and must support each other. Whether you are talking about theme, character, plot, or symbols, they all matter and are all related to one another.