Truth and Fiction

[pathoftheturtle]

New thread, per Jean's request to keep others on topic, about philosophy of literature, the proper role of theme, style and criticism.

Popular approaches to writing fiction have shifted in various ways over the centuries. Ancient classics such as the fables of Aesop are still powerful, but not so relevant to current sensibilities. Very rarely do new works overtly pronounce a moral.

What is the point of storytelling?

Before I ask the best way to analyze novels, it might be good to start with the question of whether they should be analyzed at all. I have some sympathy to the idea that most really cannot be. Moral issues are generally very complicated in real life, and of course I feel that people should make their own decisions. However, I am a rather politically impatient type, and I don't think that frank propaganda is always bad. I have reached a point that most of the time, honestly, I prefer to read non-fiction.
Mostly. Anyway, when it comes to writing, I'm certainly more an essayist now.

Again, didactic fiction seems to be largely out of favor these days, although postmodernists claim that it's basically unavoidable. I have issues with some assumptions of post-modern critics, but I also have my own doubts about various literary schools. I happen to have been conflicted about the whole subject of art for some time now.

How about the rest of you? Is allegory good? Or would you rather just read books with no message and books with meanings only when they're quite subtle or totally open to interpretation?

Seems to me that Stephen King has sent a somewhat mixed message on this subject over the years. Feel free if you like to refer to his work and opinions along with other examples. We're all different, but I am still well aware that this is a TDT site.

[The Road Virus]

Well, recently I read On Writing and he talks about letting the story take control and just uncovering as much as you can like unearthing a fossil. He also says on some of his books on addiction (Tommyknockers and Christine are mentioned, I believe) he did not even know he was writing about his own afflictions until after it was written.

That being said, I think it can go either way. Like some writers can start out with an agenda and just try to pound the overall message to the reader or their particular stories can just lead them to a theme naturally.

It is still up to the reader how to take a work and percieve the messages in it and what exactly the author is trying to tell us. That's why I think it is perfectly fine to debate over books, but over analyzation can be a very bad (ridiculous) thing.

This thread reminds me of a South Park not to long ago in which the boys write a dirty book and blame it on Butters when they believe they are going to get in trouble. Instead, Butters is hailed as a literary genius and writes another book (while enjoying all the fame) which is total crap but at the end people love it and look for hidden meaning into it. I really loved that episode, how funny it was and the subject matter. Which is why I also very much enjoy this thread, nice post Turtle

[ICry4Oy]

I would never analyze a book. I judge them on one criterea only: do they hold my interest and entertain me. Critics annoy me more than a crusty booger.

[Jean]

I really think that an author writes "with a message" only if he lacks the talent to write without. Writing is always abstracting, by definition - you can't just take the whole world and place it on a page - but the message will induce him to abstract for reasons other than creative. You don't really hear the voices of your character when you know what they are supposed to say and why they are supposed to say it, and sooner or later you start putting your words into their mouths, your ideas in their head, and however true the ideas themselves, they will end up sounding shallow, forced, and false. The most notorious example for me is Lord of the Flies, which I hate with a passion. Really great fiction exists (can I omit the IMHO part? whose else opinion can I express if not my own, anyway?) only where the author can surpass himself and be true to the story.

[pathoftheturtle]

(can I omit the IMHO part? whose else opinion can I express if not my own, anyway?)

Of course you can. And IMHO, you definitely have a point there. Just look at how corny nearly every modern Christian movie is.

I guess it's just that I was initially attracted to writing by its power to express ideas. As a liberal progressive, I kind of depend on that. I don't want the government to enforce good behavior, but I do want good behavior. It's fine if you judge fiction solely on whether you find it entertaining, (maybe that is indeed the most important thing in that medium) but I'm sure it would be very bad for society if we judged EVERYTHING by such personal whim. Consider Dr. Suess's children's book The Lorax with its obvious theme of environmental responsibility. I think it's great, doesn't sacrifice form for substance, and I wish that more people would pay attention to the issue.

[Jean]

It's fine if you judge fiction solely on whether you find it entertaining.

oh, I never said that. I consistently fail to get my point across, I know - since we talked about why people watch movies.

Do you remember that part in It where Bill and his creative writing class disagree on the meaning of fiction? I am totally with Bill there.

[pathoftheturtle]

I don't think I'm completely missing your point. It was ICry4Oy who just said that. --

I would never analyze a book. I judge them on one criterea only: do they hold my interest and entertain me. Critics annoy me more than a crusty booger.

[The Road Virus]

(Wish I has been able to finish it already, It's about 3rd or 4th down on my reading list) . It is really up to the author but I am with Jean in the fact that I believe the best stories are not forced but flow natural and any themes that arise from natural char development were meant to be there.

Of course (this was mentioned On Writing as well), on your edit if you are working towards an apparent theme you can add more story relavent dialogue etc. Ultimately, it is up to the "Constant Reader" how to read and interpret the meaning of a story and (as is life) to each his own.

[flaggwalkstheline]

I really think that an author writes "with a message" only if he lacks the talent to write without. Writing is always abstracting, by definition - you can't just take the whole world and place it on a page - but the message will induce him to abstract for reasons other than creative. You don't really hear the voices of your character when you know what they are supposed to say and why they are supposed to say it, and sooner or later you start putting your words into their mouths, your ideas in their head, and however true the ideas themselves, they will end up sounding shallow, forced, and false. The most notorious example for me is Lord of the Flies, which I hate with a passion. Really great fiction exists (can I omit the IMHO part? whose else opinion can I express if not my own, anyway?) only where the author can surpass himself and be true to the story.

I feel like if an author is consciously trying to imbue their work with a "message" then the work will fail
Truly great writing creates the message naturally, it's something that the reader draws from the words like the deeper meanings one finds in Hemingway's "The Old Man and The Sea" which is technically a very simple story. the author may or may not intend it to be there but if they put enough of themselves into it then it's gonna happen. a less skilled writer beats into the reader's head like say ayne rand does in atlas shrugged.

[Jean]

yes, right... very, very true... I realize now, by the way, that my sentence you highlighted is unintentionally ambiguous: writing as a conscious effort or writing as a result thereof. I meant the former... I think.

[OchrisO]

Being an English Literature major on college, I tend to side with the critics. However, I think that the reader does as much to create a message from a literary work as does the author. Marxist critics with take something very different from a work than a feminist critic or a psychoanalytic critic or a formalist critic, but I think that all of those approaches are valid and speak as much to the time and mindset of the reader as they do the time and mindset of the author. While an author my not purposefully set out with a specific message and purpose beyond the narrative of the story, one will almost always be woven into the story anyway, because it is the nature of art to have them to some degree. It is a group effort between artist, reader and time period to create them, though.

I am on my way to work and can't say much about it right now, but I am quite fond of Oscar Wilde and would point folks to The Critic as Artist: http://www.online-literature.com/wilde/1305/

[candy]

Is analyze the same as discuss? For me they are two diferent meaning, one of the reasons I joined this forum was to discuss the Dark Tower books and the characters. To get different views from you all on what you thought of the plots/characters etc.

What i never wanted to do with teh Dark Tower was analyze them, by which i mean, why did King write this, what point was he trying to get across when he wrote such a scene.

The power of the written word is what gets you discussing, talking. But for me, I don't like dissecting books, novels or even films. it takes away teh mystic if someone tells you what the message/reasons are behind it all.

Most books I read for the sake of enjoyment and if I feel there is something of a message in them (Farenheit 451 I am looking at you) I prefer it to be personal to me. (If you ask I will tell you, as in the Book Club) and yes we can discuss plot lines and characters, but I don't want the book analysed to death and to tell me the author wanted me to feel this way not that way.

If I am off track with what you wanted to get at Path I apologise

[pathoftheturtle]

No need to apologise: that seems very relevant. I'm actually fairly distrustful of analysis myself. Often, a whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

But then, if there's no quatifiable points that make a story good, then is there any possible way to identify one reliably? Surely I can't be the only person who sometimes reads fiction about nothing and still ends up feeling that I just wasted my time.

Of course, even if we merely say of a given book, "The conversation between those two characters beside that lake in the middle of the first chapter is one 'scene.' " and "What is said in that scene does little for the 'plot' but greatly develops 'characterization.' " then we're already doing some basic analysis. I think that there are limits to its usefulness, but it is not entirely a worthless technique.

Also (here comes the truth part of the thread title) if it's no good to use fiction as parables to teach values and communicate morals, then by what means should these be transmitted?
But maybe this is not the right forum to literally address that question...

[LadyHitchhiker]

I really think that an author writes "with a message" only if he lacks the talent to write without. Writing is always abstracting, by definition - you can't just take the whole world and place it on a page - but the message will induce him to abstract for reasons other than creative. You don't really hear the voices of your character when you know what they are supposed to say and why they are supposed to say it, and sooner or later you start putting your words into their mouths, your ideas in their head, and however true the ideas themselves, they will end up sounding shallow, forced, and false. The most notorious example for me is Lord of the Flies, which I hate with a passion. Really great fiction exists (can I omit the IMHO part? whose else opinion can I express if not my own, anyway?) only where the author can surpass himself and be true to the story.

Is this true just for fiction in your opinion, to write intentionally a message? I imagine a lot of non-fiction would be non-existent without trying to make a point.. including my book "Linus's Blanket".

[Jean]

but that's what non-fiction is about. Ultimately, it is expressing the author's opinion (which may or may not be true, which he may or may not impose, which may or may not be substantiated by facts etc), and exposing the public to the points he wants to make.

[LadyHitchhiker]

Thank you for the explanation.

[pathoftheturtle]

Now if I could just figure out a concise explanation of what fiction is about.

To repeat what basically I wanted to get at here:

What is the point of storytelling?

[Jean]

I think, like any kind of art, it is a tool to make the reader's soul work.

[The Road Virus]

Not to mention the writers. I think story telling is an artform and what comes to be in the story is the product of the writer's imagination/genius.

[LadyHitchhiker]

Well my point in writing my fiction wasn't to get any kind of point across. It was just for fun. I hope there are a lot of authors out there just writing for fun, and happening to make money in the process.

[pathoftheturtle]

Sorry; I believe that the idea "No need to worry, just try to have fun" is itself a message, a theme, an ethic, a theory about life. If we're not trying to examine and propose different values, then we're probably reinforcing unexamined popular ones.

[LadyHitchhiker]

Oooooooooooh nice point!

[pathoftheturtle]

Thanks. I mean, I really believe that it is great to have a good attitude about what you do and not obssess over material rewards, (which, I think, was your main point ) but it's still important, IMHO, to pay some attention to the politics of the economy. If a whole lot more people became full-time writers then books would become cheaper and other products more rare. I'd just hate to take advantage of global trade with no appreciation of the factors securing our good fortune.

[Adumbros]

King himself has stated this (although I can't for the life of me recall offhand precisely where; maybe a foreword, maybe an afterword, maybe in a chapter of nonfiction): A writer can only be true when s/he writes about what s/he knows. Which is infinitely true. If i were to attempt to write the book on which i currently am striving to complete and all my friends/associates were happy tree people, it would utterly suck, b/c the focal character (i refuse to say protagonist; just b/c the story takes place largely from his perspective by no means makes him the "good guy") is brooding, aloof, schizophrenic, claustrophobic, and, at times, horrifically cruel in manners such as would make a film producer blush. those who attempt to convey a "message" are not going with what they know, but rather what they think, or feel. Take the Left Behind series of novels, for example. By attempting to convey a "message", Jenkins and LaHaye assert themselves as false prophets, attempting to convey their belief that, in the time of the Great Conflict during the Tribulation, God will shutter some of the rules and will openly endorse such un-Christian behavior as spying and murder by His un-Raptured apostles. While it is duly noted that wars cannot be won without subterfuge, I don't see the Holiest of Holies goin, "ah fuck it guys, ol' Luc wants to play it that way then let's bring it to 'im." Whereas The Stand, while by no means a perfect representation of Revelations, acknowledges the oft-misrepresented fact that NOT all things serve the will of God, by Mother Abigail's own assertion, just prior to Stu, Larry, Glen, and Ralph's departure, that "do as thy will" has always been God's way, and that those who oppose God's will shall simply be punished for their avarice.

Simple concept, really; sadly enough, it seems far too difficult for the ego of man to grasp. But then again, there are a plethora of maxims about truth, are there not?

[The Road Virus]

One of the first thing King states in On Writing is "write what you know" (I'd say within the first 50 pages def). Bros, this might be where you read it/ what you are talking about (and I agree with this/your point )