# When Is A Story Just A Story?



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 8, 2014)

Back in 1988 or so, I picked up a relatively new novel by Stephen King called 'It'. It was, in my mind, one of his best stories. 

There are many images from that novel that rattle through my mind occasionally, but there is one particular part that has never really left my mind in all the years since I first read it.

In this chapter, Bill Denborough is sitting in a college Lit class listening to his fellow students and the professor discuss the relative merits of some novel. They were discussing theme at the point where Bill finally asks "Why can't a story just be a story?" He winds up getting kicked out of the class for asking that question.

That was the single most relateable moment I have ever read.

That was the question that had been running through my head during the deathly boring book discussions my English teacher was so fond of.

I didn't give a damn that this author based his main character on Hitler's freaking dog or whatever such bollocks someone had decided to read into someone else' work. All that mattered (and matters now) to me is the story.

Why can't a story just be a story? Good or bad. Why do people feel the need to dissect everything in the story looking for a "theme"? Is it a superiority thing?

How many of you sit down and decide that there is going to be an "underlying theme" to your story?

Do you find one a necessity to good storytelling?

Or

Do you just want a good story to BE a good story?


----------



## Greimour (Jul 8, 2014)

A story is never _just_ a story because of interpretation. 

Not dissecting each line and phrase or finding underlying themes or even marveling at plot twists... but the reaction of each individual reader. 
People, especially those considered experts in particular fields, like to study why certain words affect us in certain ways. Why does this sentence make me feel happy but makes him frown? Why does this one make her smile but makes me roll my eyes? Why did I walk away from the conclusion happy and refreshed, yet all these people say it was a terrible ending?

Through the many feelings, opinions and interpretations of a single story - people start to look into what is actually written. Then they ask why... 
Was it intentionally written with such flowery effort or was it his natural style? Did he know or hope this would be quoted as a sentence of pure poetry when he wrote it, or was it just a sentence like any other? Is this author a literary genius or just a person with a good story to tell?

I too don't look at writing by supposed 'geniuses' and marvel at their literary prowess. Nor do I believe comments or speculation that can't be proved without the authors admittance. So to me... stories are just stories. But authors are not always just story tellers... some of them are amazing wordsmiths with supernatural literary powers. So whilst I have no desire to turn a story into a piece of dissected trash - I do have to sit back stunned and amazed by the authors abilities as a writer.

In the end, those studying such stuff become opinionated. They teach others to see and ascertain what they 'discovered' and they in turn pass on that same nonsense. IN the end it's just teaching people to be opinionated and verbose as far as I am concerned. But I like it anyway. The people studying and teaching all this jargon provide me with insight and I find the whole thing to contain a bit of human interest. Whatever anyway, I am as opinionated as any of them and I like to break things down to express to the author what it made me think and feel... and why. ^_^


~Kev.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 8, 2014)

That's cool, Kev. I won't disparage those who do the dissecting.


----------



## aj47 (Jul 8, 2014)

hahahaha, it was 3/4 of the way through the semester that I *understood* what literature class was about.  We were reading a Vonnegut story on that day and I spotted an irony and said it and got good feedback from the instructor.  That had never happened before.  Oh, we're supposed to say what this makes us think of; what it reminds us of.  

Until then, I loved the class but struggled.  About then I started disliking it but got better grades.  I still am uncomfortable with the vocabulary about writing. I mean, I can spot a protagonist, I think I know what a plot is and how it's different from setting.  But dayum, if some of the weirder ones make any sense.

This is probably why I'm not successful with my fiction.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 8, 2014)

astroannie said:


> hahahaha, it was 3/4 of the way through the semester that I *understood* what literature class was about.  We were reading a Vonnegut story on that day and I spotted an irony and said it and got good feedback from the instructor.  That had never happened before.  Oh, we're supposed to say what this makes us think of; what it reminds us of.
> 
> Until then, I loved the class but struggled.  About then I started disliking it but got better grades.  I still am uncomfortable with the vocabulary about writing. I mean, I can spot a protagonist, I think I know what a plot is and how it's different from setting.  But dayum, if some of the weirder ones make any sense.
> 
> This is probably why I'm not successful with my fiction.



If that kind of thing is any indicator, I am just wasting my time writing.


----------



## Sam (Jul 8, 2014)

Because if every story was "just a story", there wouldn't be any work for English teachers.


----------



## aj47 (Jul 8, 2014)

This was high school <mumble> years ago.  I don't remember the name of the book/story, but it was like a light switch when I realized we're not supposed to talk about what happens but about how we react to what happens.  I hope my work never ends up in a literature class. I've had my work in a poetry class, but it was as an example of structure and rhyme, not about the "meaning" of it. (I was asked for permission is how I know.)

On another forum, I posted my poem "In Space" about an astronaut in a situation similar to _Gravity_ and got some really weird feedback about how it was a metaphor for terminal illness.  That soured me on their "critique" space.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 8, 2014)

astroannie said:


> This was high school <mumble> years ago.  I don't remember the name of the book/story, but it was like a light switch when I realized we're not supposed to talk about what happens but about how we react to what happens.  I hope my work never ends up in a literature class. I've had my work in a poetry class, but it was as an example of structure and rhyme, not about the "meaning" of it. (I was asked for permission is how I know.)
> 
> On another forum, I posted my poem "In Space" about an astronaut in a situation similar to _Gravity_ and got some really weird feedback about how it was a metaphor for terminal illness.  That soured me on their "critique" space.



A clear example of why I don't listen to 'experts' on what the story is, represents, means or states. 

I think it was Roosevelt who was told: "If I was your wife, I would poison your tea."
And in turn he replied; "If you were my wife, _I'd drink it._"

If that was in literature, it would suddenly be dissected as the author trying to represent likes, dislikes and wit and a million other different factors would start piling on. When in reality, it was just one person responding to another with equal hostility that just happened to be funny.

If my characters say something that is funny, it is not because I thought of something funny to make them say - it is because the character is funny and said what s/he said. Nothing more complicated than any other person saying something without my control. The difference is, I can go back in time and force them to say something else if I want to.



> This is probably why I'm not successful with my fiction.



So don't think of it as fiction. ^_^

My stories might go into the fictional section of a library. They might be labeled as fantasy or sci-fi. They might be put into the young adult section or new adult section... but whatever the case. My stories, my characters and my worlds... they are real. As real to me as anyone else I have met and any place I have been. 

Real. Therefore; non-fiction. ^_^

Write a fictional story the same way you would a non-fictional one. Whatever you write is simply because that is what actually happened ^_^


~Kev.


----------



## aj47 (Jul 8, 2014)

Greimour said:


> Write a fictional story the same way you would a non-fictional one. Whatever you write is simply because that is what actually happened ^_^
> 
> 
> ~Kev.



  I meant fiction as opposed to poetry. But yes.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 8, 2014)

astroannie said:


> I meant fiction as opposed to poetry. But yes.



Ah, that makes a little clearer. But I still find that most poems can be expanded into a story. 

I am really interested in seeing you write a story piece now. ^_^ <3


----------



## aj47 (Jul 8, 2014)

I just did my third LM piece.  (Over the course of three months -- no sock puppetry here.)  I've also got stuff in the Prose workshop.

I'll put more there....soon.  This pesky "school" thing is keeping me busy though.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 8, 2014)

Yep found that and read it pretty much right after I said I want to read something of yours. 

Suppose I shouldn't really comment on it until the judging and what-not is done. But I liked it and I only seen one error.
When peter said "tomorrow is my day off.." there was only an 'm' ... no 'y' or apostrophe or any indication it was his accent or speech pattern. So just to me looks like a typing error. 

Anyway, it impressed me and I am glad I read it. 

[EDIT]

Seems we have gone off topic a little, 8-[.

Sam. Your comment made me laugh and I couldn't help but remember a few of my English teachers that made the comment just seem too true. :lol:


----------



## garza (Jul 8, 2014)

T.S. - I've mentioned earlier what Mr Wilkes at the Daily Herald told me: Just tell the story. That cuts through all the rules and gets us down to what counts. I was exposed to, and was hung up on, all the rules and interpretations of writing at university, then forgot all that as a journalist where I followed different sets of rules according to circumstance, and continued in my innocence until recently when the word 'arc' and its associated complexities suddenly reminded me of why I walked out of university years ago and forgot about teaching English. That's all nonsense. Just tell the story. 

Greimour - It was Churchill, not Roosevelt, but for the moment I can't remember the lady's name. It'll come to me, I'm certain.

My intention on starting university was to teach English at university level and to research and write about the literature of the past. My special interest was the 18th Century and my masters thesis was an analysis of the themes in _Tom Jones_ by Fielding. I was in the midst of preparing a doctoral dissertation on the influence of Blake on later writers. A growing dissatisfaction with the whole academic business erupted one day and I gave it up to go away and watch  people shoot at one another. I was already established as a stringer for half a dozen newspapers in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee, and used those connections to establish my _bona fides_ with the wire services. My father called me an idiot for quitting school at that point. I think he was looking forward to having a professor in the family. 

If I'd not quit when I did, I'd be a retired English teacher today so watch what you say about English teachers.

You say _Write a fictional story the same way you would a non-fictional one_ and that's what I do. Almost any police situation report can be turned into a bit of flash fiction with little effort and, in fact, my technique in rewriting what the PC put in the sitrep was always to turn it into a bit of flash non-fiction, though I didn't know the term at the time.

Now, for the second time in my life, I'm going to forget the rules, knock down the arc, and just tell the story.


----------



## Apple Ice (Jul 8, 2014)

Writing is an art and just with all art its open to interpretation and study. I find myself spotting themes, metaphors etc when I'm reading now thanks to my English class. I couldn't care less if I did or not, though. I think there's many more pressing matters in the Earth than what an author meant. Coincidentally, I've started adding themes and covert metaphors in my writing to try and appease those sorts as well. Because the casual reader won't be put off by it, they may not even notice it, but the others may be actively seeking it.

I've basically become something I hate. Someone who is not direct. I would quite like it if the author said "look, I could make a metaphor for the current education system, but I'm just gonna say its shit. That's my message." But anyway, I'm digressing a bit here. A story can be anything to anyone, you could write the most basic story but if someone wanted to, they could squeeze out hidden messages and metaphors like a constipated shit. Just part of the game, I suppose.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 8, 2014)

Pretty much all the time here at WF.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 8, 2014)

I once wrote a story and got this long, detailed comment on it, basically stating how "awed" the reader was with all the various things I'd done in the story. I, in return, was awed by how profoundly I'd written - without even knowing it!

I tell a story and put it out there. People will dissect it and discuss it and form opinions about it - and there's not a damn thing I can do about that, so I don't worry about it.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 8, 2014)

garza said:


> Greimour - It was Churchill, not Roosevelt, but for the moment I can't remember the lady's name. It'll come to me, I'm certain.



Churchill!! So it was... haha.. <3

I too wanted to be an English teacher. Not a professor or anything. But when I fell in love with the English language (written mostly but all forms) I thought it was the ideal job. I didn't want to go into dissecting stories and meanings and all that though. I wanted to teach more along the lines of a how-to, why and what's so good about it all.. that type teacher - the same kind that nurtured my love of the language in the first place. I have had 3 such teachers... the rest completely bored the crap out of me and made me think of their lessons negatively.


----------



## aliveatnight (Jul 8, 2014)

I couldn't care less honestly. But if someone feels the need to over analyze a story then more power to them. I don't write thinking about it, and I don't think I ever will. I just write to tell a story, is there is more there then that is an unintentional thing.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 8, 2014)

I must be the only one on this forum who, when reading my story months later, finds that I've subconsciously slipped some of my own personal opinions about the world into the story.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 8, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> I must be the only one on this forum who, when reading my story months later, finds that I've subconsciously slipped some of my own personal opinions about the world into the story.



Not at all. I do it both intentionally and unintentionally. Sometimes I throw in views I disagree with... sometimes I will even make my characters view decide that opinion is correct - even though I personally disagree with it. Of course I might then let that character die, but that is the wont of a writer in a fickle mood. 

Most of the time I just use real life stuff to add familiarity.
For example, I made all my Dwarves in one story becomes adults at 14 based on nothing more than Jewish Bar/Bat Mitzvah's


[EDIT]

Garza, was it Nancy Astor?


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 8, 2014)

A story can be a story, or not, although I tend to think that for a 'just a story' to resonate it requires some degree of commonality that people can relate to, which may or may not make it more than just a story. Then again, having a lovable-ordinary-person-underdog as a protagonist is probably not exactly what you mean about a story that is not a story.

I have tremendous respect for those who write to entertain. I have enthused on here rather a lot about my love for pulp, which traditionally would be mostly on the 'just a story' side of things. I promote Ian Fleming's original Bond books to lots of people, and they will not often be mistaken for much more than just a story.

I also very much enjoy the deeper stuff, although I tend to like my depth under at least a decent veneer of story. _Fahrenheit 451 _is a good example of a book that I read when I was younger and really liked for the story, but with depth obvious enough for me to appreciate even at a more tender age.

Both of those styles of writing are damn hard. I have tried to intentionally pursue both approaches (at different times), and the results of a few of those intentional exercises are in the workshop. 

So, heck, I am fine with either approach, but I do prefer good execution.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 8, 2014)

A story is never "just" a story. Let's take _It,_ since you mention that one. Good vs. evil, right? Well, that means there is an idea here about what _good_ is and does, what _evil_ is and does. Those are big concepts, the kind of thing that seems obvious and given until you realize it isn't, because different people represent good and evil differently, and this is (in part) determined by their time and place and culture. We can also see a certain representation of childhood in the 1950s, and we could compare it to our own ideas about childhood, or ideas of childhood in the 18th century, or whatever. Does King mean to create a certain image of childhood? Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't matter--it's there.

The main thing to remember is that the author's intention and the reader's interpretation are never going to match up. The writer puts words on the page that mean something to him/her (and the meaning may not be intended, the writer might see it later--this has happened to me several times). The reader comes to those words with a different set of assumptions and interests, and interprets accordingly. There are better and worse readings (and that's what literature classes are for) but the writer has to accept that people will find things in his/her work that s/he didn't "put" there--but they might be there nonetheless for the person who sees them. And the reader does not have to care what the writer "meant". So, take astroannie's poem--she wasn't writing about terminal illness, but some reader finds a metaphor for terminal illness in it. From a writerly standpoint, maybe that's not a useful critique, but if the reader finds the poem compelling and beautiful as that metaphor--well, what's wrong with that?

So Bowman, the upshot is--if you want to write "just" a story, go ahead and do that. Your readers will do with it what they wish, and you have to accept that, as does every writer in the world ever.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 8, 2014)

All of this has made me conclude that;

A story is just a story when it makes a reader think and feel nothing. Just added a bit crumpled and used paper to their pile of irrelevant material that has accumulated over the years.

I don't think any writer wants their readers to neither think nor feel something about their work. 
We all want our readers to be engaged with our work, do we not? 
We all want our readers to walk away with something upon completing what we have written, do we not?

^_^


----------



## spartan928 (Jul 8, 2014)

Inspiration and motive for writing changes for me all the time. I'll think of a "theme" and imagine people and situations revolving around it. Or not. I think your last question begs the response; what IS a good story? The answer to that gets debated here and elsewhere ad nauseum. Truth is, as others here so eloquently suggested, writing is wholly subjective for the reader. Yet, from the perspective of the writer you have to ask; why write a story at all? What do you want out of the experience? If a theme creates passion in you to write, use it. If a character does, use that. If its rent money, run with it. To me, theme is just a concept to describe a kind of human condition blanket thrown over a piece of writing (or whatever). There is no necessity to focus on it, but because all writing is a reflection of some aspect of the human experience, themes emerge for the writer and reader alike regardless. Its inevitable.


----------



## garza (Jul 8, 2014)

Maybe Mr Wilkes advice is being misunderstood here. He said, _Just tell the story_. He never said, _Write something that's just a story_. He made his comment when I was 15 and had started adding ruffles and flourishes to my writing. What he meant was to use language that's _clean, clear, simple, direct, _and_ strong_. He emphasised _precise_ and _concise_ - say exactly what you mean to say using the fewest and simplest words possible. .

That was the same time I stopped trying to write stories like Faulkner, though I continued to love his writing, and began to study the way Hemingway wrote. Within a few years I'd given up trying to write fiction at all, and didn't pick it up again until I came here. Now I've gone back to those early lessons and try to tell the story as precisely and concisely as I'm able.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 8, 2014)

garza said:


> Maybe Mr Wilkes advice is being misunderstood here. He said, _Just tell the story_. He never said, _Write something that's just a story_. He made his comment when I was 15 and had started adding ruffles and flourishes to my writing. What he meant was to use language that's _clean, clear, simple, direct, _and_ strong_. He emphasised _precise_ and _concise_ - say exactly what you mean to say using the fewest and simplest words possible. .



On that note, I'd like to say that I have use the same four words countless times. "Just tell the story" or alternatively "just write the story" ... as people have a great fondness to pick up on certain details. So the word 'tell' suddenly became a debate about show vs tell. -.-''

Just Write It! is practically my motto... a mantra almost that pushes aside doubts, fears, self criticism and hesitations. When I 'just write' instead of focusing on all the tiny details and everything else, my writing tends to get cleaner, more precise and more natural all be its self. 

Basically, its my own version that amounts to the same thing as 'Just Tell The Story' ... though there may be differences to what I mean and what Wilkes said and meant, the ideal result is the same.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 8, 2014)

Agreed. So many times new writers get all caught up with tense and POV and syntax and theme and all these other things to the point where they aren't actually writing anything. I always tell them "Just tell me a story.".


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 8, 2014)

For me, a theme makes the story easier to write.  I know what the midpoint is going to look like and from there what all the other "pivot points" look like.  I also know what the protagonist's flaw is and what the antagonist looks like.  Starting from a theme makes my writing more productive.  It gives me the skeleton of the story.  I just have to add the flesh.

But, I don't always know what the theme is.  Or, sometimes my subconscious thinks the theme is one thing while my conscious thinks it is something else.  So, I have to do a lot of work to figure out what I'm trying to say.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 8, 2014)

Nothing is ever just 'nothing'.  A door may be a door, but it is not just a door when you swing it at someone's face as they try to walk through it. Once you do that, it becomes a hazard (for them) and a weapon (for you).



> I must be the only one on this forum who, when reading my story months later, finds that I've subconsciously slipped some of my own personal opinions about the world into the story.



Every writer does this. In fact, every _person _does this. Personality leakage is part of being human.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 8, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:
			
		

> For me, a theme makes the story easier to write. I know what the midpoint is going to look like and from there what all the other "pivot points" look like. I also know what the protagonist's flaw is and what the antagonist looks like. Starting from a theme makes my writing more productive. It gives me the skeleton of the story. I just have to add the flesh.



Same here. I think it also comes from studying screenwriting, where understanding—and utilizing—thematic structure is an important part of the learning process.

Novel and story writing is a bit looser, a bit freer. In prose-writing, theme will always be there, in one form or another. 

Some writers deliberately craft their stories around theme.

Other writers intuitively imbue their stories with theme.

Other writers, still, just write stories they want to tell, and let the thematic messages surface on their own. :encouragement:


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 8, 2014)

I do, though, think that, for a writer, understanding theme (whether consciously, or intuitively), can yield better stories.

Something to think about for those who think "theme" is irrelevant:

*What if The Boy Who Cried Wolf had gone this way?*

Boy cries there's a wolf near the sheep. Everyone panics. Boy laughs.

Boy cries there's a wolf near the sheep again. Everyone panics, again. Boy laughs, again.

Boy cries there's a wolf near the sheep, yet again. In a nearby county, a girl eats a delicious apple pie.

I've taken the thematic climax of the story and changed it to something that's thematically irrelevant. In other words, I've deliberately abandoned _thematic structure_. As a result, the story is (in my opinion) not as good as it could be.

So, to me, theme, and thematic structure, are relevant when it comes to telling a good story. If a story is about a samurai seeking redemption, and the climax of the story ends up being about the samurai learning to appreciate the ways of the Western world, the story might still be a good one, but not as strong as it could be.

Giving the story a thematic resonance, in my opinion, can make the difference between a story that's "just a story" and a story that's "something more." :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 8, 2014)

Wow. I go to bed for a few hours and come back to 30 or so replies. 

@Sam - That was one of the funnier comments I have seen in a while. LOL

@Justin - There are a few paragraphs in my book that relate to a news story from years ago that I found ridiculous. My character finds it equally so. I did, sort of, do it on purpose. Being the pantser I am, the character wound up saying it without my having planned it. But, I definitely didn't edit it out.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 8, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Wow. I go to bed for a few hours and come back to 30 or so replies.



This is a topic that inspires a lot of thought, clearly. I bet there is some deeper meaning here. Maybe the plethora of posts is symbolic of something . . .


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 8, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> This is a topic that inspires a lot of thought, clearly. I bet there is some deeper meaning here. Maybe the plethora of posts is symbolic of something . . .



HAH!!!  Where are the Lit professors when we need them? LOL


----------



## Neith (Jul 8, 2014)

Greimour said:


> All of this has made me conclude that;
> 
> A story is just a story when it makes a reader think and feel nothing. Just added a bit crumpled and used paper to their pile of irrelevant material that has accumulated over the years.
> 
> ...



I agree! I'd like my reader to walk away with _something_ and I've found I do the same with a good book, even if it's been described as a "beach read."

I guess I agree to the idea of a monomyth (Joseph Campbell), which states there are common patterns in all narratives. Perhaps this is because of a shared human experience, or what-not. Whatever it is, I think stories have archetypes, themes, metaphors, etc. because of this desire to communicate a human experience (which is why writing books and authors and what-not harp about character-driven storytelling instead of plot-driven). And when we analyze a story (if we want to), we can find these patterns. But I also believe there is no "right answer." Red doesn't have to always symbolize love just as black doesn't always symbolize evil. It's what _we _take away from it, and the freedom to do that is what I like about analyzing anything. Of course, in a class, you have to give reasoning for what you say (evidence from the text that made you feel or think a certain way). It's always annoying to hear people who say they think something "just because" but can't back up what they're saying. 

Does the author intentionally put these interpretations into the work? No, I don't think so, but the monomyth says that these things are subconscious. I remember I had a friend critique my story once and the interpretations he came up with were awesome! I was really happy, because I was trying to tell an entertaining story and by doing so, he could take something away from it.

And, of course, you can just read something for fun because it's fun to do so! But then maybe a writing/literature class isn't what you're after.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 8, 2014)

Writing is art.  Art reflects the artist.  So no, a story is never just a story.  A story is, by virtue of existing, a mirror into the mind of the artist that created it.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 8, 2014)

Neith said:


> Red doesn't have to always symbolize love just as black doesn't always symbolize evil.



I get what you are saying but... Black is just commonly a symbol of Evil. On top of Evil there is also Mystery, Secrecy, Bold, Power, Elegance, Strength, Sinister, Death 
And Red, though commonly love... so is hate, warmth, immediacy, passion, sale and even hunger...

In all walks of life you will see the many forms colours match their meaning. From funerals to house sales. So yes I get what you are saying but I frowned at the colour comment which was a kind of weak example to use. 

How about:
 Demons don't always have to be evil and blob monsters don't always have to be good? ... Wait are blob monsters bad? 
Er.... Cats? They're good, right? 
*Thinks of my cat.* 
Maybe not... 
What are those winged things with human-like faces and bodies... ... ... _Harpies!_ ... err... no that's not right. 
Well, you get my point anyway. 
Angels don't have to be bad and Demons  don't have to be good. And vice versa... I think that's a stronger example  

<3


----------



## Neith (Jul 8, 2014)

I think we're saying the same thing, Greimour. I just used color examples (as they are frequently used for analysis in English/Lit classes) and you used character examples.


----------



## garza (Jul 8, 2014)

I am a craftsperson. I am in no way an artist. Nothing I do - my writing, my photography, my drawing, my painting - can be called 'art'. Not one bit of it. The word does not in any way apply to me or to what I do.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 8, 2014)

garza said:


> I am a craftsperson. I am in no way an artist. Nothing I do - my writing, my photography, my drawing, my painting - can be called 'art'. Not one bit of it. The word does not in any way apply to me or to what I do.



Just curious Garza, what does the word "art" mean to you and what would it mean to you if someone called your writing "art"?



KyleColorado said:


> Same here. I think it also comes from studying screenwriting, where understanding—and utilizing—thematic structure is an important part of the learning process.



Perhaps. I know that when I started studying writing the year before last, I sort of tumbled into studying screenwriting first. I spent entirely too much time studying Dramatica *shudder*. I, also, studied Save the Cat and Truby. So, I was trying to learn screenwriting and apply it to writing novels.


----------



## Nickleby (Jul 8, 2014)

Unfortunately, once you finish the writing part, a story doesn't really belong to you any more. It's like watching your child start dating. You'd like her to find someone respectable and well off, but she may bring home a guy who smells and talks funny. And the more you complain, the worse it gets.

I tell stories. I put things into them that echo my experiences and my thought processes, but I don't expect anyone else to notice them, much less appreciate them. Most of the time the readers are too busy putting their own experiences and thoughts into the story.

Every once in a while you hear from someone you touched. I read so I can be touched. That sharing makes all the rest worthwhile.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 8, 2014)

garza said:


> I am a craftsperson. I am in no way an artist. Nothing I do - my writing, my photography, my drawing, my painting - can be called 'art'. Not one bit of it. The word does not in any way apply to me or to what I do.



Perhaps, but I respect the hell out of a talented craftsperson, and sometimes the line between craft and art is thin. I dare say the world should value a well executed craft more highly than it does.


----------



## aj47 (Jul 8, 2014)

Let's talk about technoi and genii.  

Technoi is about skill/ability/execution ... crafting.  Related words are technology, and technique.
Genii is about ideas/inspiration/creativity ... designing. Related words are ingenuity. and genius.

Some people do one, some the other but most are a mix. Leonard (not the ninja turtle) was superb at both.

I have both design skills and execution skills. 

My mother knits. Very well, but she couldn't design an original pattern. I don't knit, but I've designed patterns for her.

My execution skills are verbal and programmatic.  I'm a Web spinner -- I design and craft Web sites from scratch.  For fun.  I'm not persuasive enough to be employed doing it (and with software that cranks out pseudo-custom Web sites, no one wants a handcrafted site anymore).  Of course, I'm also a word spinner (why I'm on this forum).

Own your ideas.  Own your genii. Very few people have no genii at all.  If you've ever had an idea or inspiration--you have it.


----------



## garza (Jul 8, 2014)

Justin Rocket - In the 60s and 70s I spent a good deal of time, off and on, in New York. Had to. That's where the money was and where a young fellow needed to be to make the right connections. That's not so much the case today. The whole business has changed, magazines that were good markets for writers have died or are dying, technology has made face-to-face contact a bit less important, and being seen at the right table at '21' carries less weight today than it did 40 years ago. 

Anyroad, there I would be, stuck at some cocktail party with a room full of 'artists', each with his own spiel and with his own line of blather (to mix two of my cultural inheritances), endlessly going on about art this and art that and art the other until finally I rebelled and quit going to the parties where I was supposed to meet all the right people. There's a bit of flash that gives an account of a conversation I had with my agent on the subject at the time. It's posted here somewhere, put up last year I think. 

So I got sick and tired of hearing about art, and remembered also my Grandfather's admonition never to allow myself to be called an artist and never o call anything I did art. 

I am a writer by profession. I practise the craft of writing. My writing is not art.


----------



## garza (Jul 8, 2014)

Institute Man - Thank you very much. May I be protected from ever stepping over that line.

astroannie - You are one of the most skilled and creative crafts people I know. I always welcomed the chance to include some of your work in the Newsletter. You give a good explanation of the relationship between inspiration and execution. We can all profit by what you have written, both here and in your poems.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 8, 2014)

garza said:


> Justin Rocket - In the 60s and 70s I spent a good deal of time, off and on, in New York. Had to. That's where the money was and where a young fellow needed to be to make the right connections. That's not so much the case today. The whole business has changed, magazines that were good markets for writers have died or are dying, technology has made face-to-face contact a bit less important, and being seen at the right table at '21' carries less weight today than it did 40 years ago.
> 
> Anyroad, there I would be, stuck at some cocktail party with a room full of 'artists', each with his own spiel and with his own line of blather (to mix two of my cultural inheritances), endlessly going on about art this and art that and art the other until finally I rebelled and quit going to the parties where I was supposed to meet all the right people. There's a bit of flash that gives an account of a conversation I had with my agent on the subject at the time. It's posted here somewhere, put up last year I think.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks, Garza.  I can totally empathize with what you're saying here.  I'm more focused on what art -should- be.  But, I've seen some pretty ridiculous "art" and pretentiousness.


----------



## garza (Jul 8, 2014)

Pretentiousness. Yes, that's the word I needed to describe much of what I was exposed to in New York. The very word 'art' acquired for me a greasy, unhealthy, connotation and that has combined with my Grandfather's admonition to make me keep my distance.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 8, 2014)

garza said:


> Pretentiousness. Yes, that's the word I needed to describe much of what I was exposed to in New York. The very word 'art' acquired for me a greasy, unhealthy, connotation and that has combined with my Grandfather's admonition to make me keep my distance.



When I was studying anthropology, the greasy, unhealthy spoon of pretentiousness was postmodernism *shudder*.  It still pisses me off that I paid tuition for that crap.  Even the true blue believer/professor (at my alma mater) of that crap has now turned away from it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 9, 2014)

I have nothing against artists - Michelangelo was one, after all. But I do think writers are more craftsmen than artist. When I think artist, I think of painters and sculptors, who produce something wonderful/beautiful - but something that one is interested in for a relatively short period of time. The 'viewer' may like to have it in the house, will stop and admire it for a few minutes, contemplate on it - and then move on. A craftsman produces something wonderful/beautiful, but it's something people will engage with, and for extended periods of time. Furniture they will use over and over; jewelry they will wear because it goes with so many outfits or sets off their eyes; books they will take hours to read and come back to re-read, over and over again.

JMO, of course.


----------



## aj47 (Jul 9, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I have nothing against artists - Michelangelo was one, after all. But I do think writers are more craftsmen than artist. When I think artist, I think of painters and sculptors, who produce something wonderful/beautiful - but something that one is interested in for a relatively short period of time. The 'viewer' may like to have it in the house, will stop and admire it for a few minutes, contemplate on it - and then move on. A craftsman produces something wonderful/beautiful, but it's something people will engage with, and for extended periods of time. Furniture they will use over and over; jewelry they will wear because it goes with so many outfits or sets off their eyes; books they will take hours to read and come back to re-read, over and over again.
> 
> JMO, of course.



See, that's the problem. We're taught by snobs that "Art" is something aesthetic without substance.  This is wrong.  It's a word-heist perpetrated by people who sell paintings/sculptures as an attempt to extort more money from patrons. It only works because the world lets it.

There's an article in Make magazine about why there aren't more women "makers" -- I'll answer that.  Because their definition of "maker" doesn't include making food or clothing.  If a guy makes his own toaster, he's a "maker"; if a gal makes her own prom dress, she is not.

That couch or recliner or desk chair was originally designed by an artist.  Just because it also functions as something to rest your bum on doesn't mean it's not art. And that jewelry.  It didn't assemble itself into a pleasing configuration -- it took an artist to make it.

I don't know why I'm trying to explain this to folks who should know better.  Words are our medium.  We should know all their subtleties.  Art isn't something you hang on the wall -- it is the act of creation.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 9, 2014)

Wait. I thought the snobs were the ones who insisted stories had to have themes. Now the snobs are the ones who say art has no meaning? What? At least we can all agree the post-modernists are terrible, right? If we agree right up front, none of have to actually, y'know, read Lyotard and try to understand the idea.

The less you know. :rainbow:


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 9, 2014)

lasm said:


> Wait. I thought the snobs were the ones who insisted stories had to have themes.



Snobbery, everywhere! Even the snobs are snobs against snobs. 

Getting back on topic, though, I believe themes are to stories as keys are to songs. :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 9, 2014)

astroannie said:


> See, that's the problem. We're taught by snobs that "Art" is something aesthetic without substance.



Where did I say it was something without substance? I was, if anything, defining _my view_ of the difference between art and craftsmanship. I disagree with those who think art is something to be ashamed of, something to disavow, something that only the pretentious lay claim to - vehemently. But that doesn't mean I can't see a difference between artists and craftsmen. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make me a snob or ignorant of the English language.


----------



## Newman (Jul 9, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Why do people feel the need to dissect everything in the story looking for a "theme"?



It's one of the things you do to figure out how the story works.

Understanding how theme works help you write.


----------



## spartan928 (Jul 9, 2014)

garza said:


> I am a craftsperson. I am in no way an artist. Nothing I do - my writing, my photography, my drawing, my painting - can be called 'art'. Not one bit of it. The word does not in any way apply to me or to what I do.



For me, art is wholly original, beautiful in it's own right, evocative and having perhaps little utilitarian value, if any at all. In the case of writing, I suppose being entertained could be construed as utilitarian, but that's murky water and I don't subscribe to it much in the case of fiction. That said garza, I find your writing rich in theme, wholly original, at times beautiful in it's own way and evocative. I see your writing as art. So, I'll let you have your perspective if you let me have mine...lol.

OP tie-in; don't think of discussion of theme as pretentious. People seeing a larger meaning in a story doesn't mean they are inflating their ego or trying to elevate their self-importance most of the time. Think of it as some aspect of your own human experience that connects you to a piece of writing. Or, that you as a writer want to use as inspiration to fuel your story. It's all good. Keep the perspective that makes you want to write and read; theme, craft, art, whatever it is. Also, don't let others tell you what is right or wrong about your perspective and let them have ownership of their own.


----------



## Apple Ice (Jul 9, 2014)

We're all snobs to be here in the first place.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 9, 2014)

Apple Ice said:


> We're all snobs to be here in the first place.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 9, 2014)

Apple Ice said:


> We're all snobs to be here in the first place.




I think I've got too much redneck in me to be a snob.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 9, 2014)

Newman said:


> It's one of the things you do to figure out how the story works.
> 
> Understanding how theme works help you write.



My 80K words plus a couple of short story starts would beg to differ.

I don't know the first thing about theme. Does that mean I am wasting my time writing? Does that mean I can't write a good story?

Everything I know about writing, I have learned from reading fiction. I write according to what works for me when I read. 

Perhaps I have picked up some things that stick around in my subconscious, but as far as my thought process when I am writing...I keep things as simple as possible.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 9, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> I think I've got too much redneck in me to be a snob.



I resemble that remark. LOL


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 9, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> My 80K words plus a couple of short story starts would beg to differ.
> 
> I don't know the first thing about theme. Does that mean I am wasting my time writing? Does that mean I can't write a good story?
> 
> ...




Just as you don't know the first thing about theme, some carpenters in the backwaters of Asia don't know the first thing about power tools.  They may well take pride in their skills and, if they ever see a power tool, may protest that they are already working as efficiently as they can.

In my opinion, a professional (or want to be professional) author should be open to exploring and testing all techniques which come their way.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 9, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> Just as you don't know the first thing about theme, some carpenters in the backwaters of Asia don't know the first thing about power tools.  They may well take pride in their skills and, if they ever see a power tool, may protest that they are already working as efficiently as they can.
> 
> In my opinion, a professional (or want to be professional) author should be open to exploring and testing all techniques which come their way.



I've never said that I was against exploring all avenues to improve one's writing.

I have done some exploring myself. But, I have found that the more "exploring" I do, the more of a detriment it is to my writing because I win up thinking too much instead of just writing the story.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 9, 2014)

Apple Ice said:


> We're all snobs to be here in the first place.



Indeed, in contemporary society reading is snobbish enough, affirmatively writing is beyond the pale snobbery.

Of course, _Amusing Ourselves to Death_ and _The Age of American Unreason _are currently in the reading rotation in the Institute house, so maybe I am extra attuned to the anti-intellectual aspects of culture at the moment.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 9, 2014)

> Just as you don't know the first thing about theme, some carpenters in the backwaters of Asia don't know the first thing about power tools. They may well take pride in their skills and, if they ever see a power tool, may protest that they are already working as efficiently as they can.



I'd rather have the table from the Asian carpenter. I like the feeling of something hand-crafted.

Your analogy implies that productivity and efficiency is king. Anyone associated with wine fraud (or a similar scandal), however, would beg to differ; if we're only pursuing ways of making our work easier, we'll start sacrificing real quality for fake impressions. But an artist pursues ways to make their quality better, and sometimes this involves makes things inefficient for the benefit and growth of the work.

Maybe it becomes harder to make a living as an artist when one does not put efficiency first; but if we're making art, then I believe the art should be more important than the life of the one who makes it. Though that might be just my Christianity talking.

I guess people should have a choice, and make that choice depending on what they want to get out of their work, or what they want that work to become.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Jul 9, 2014)

I think I add layers to my poetry quite often. But as far as my WIP I haven't really thought about it. I think a lot of times people add their own underlying themes. Which can beautiful or horrifying as an artist. For example I was just listening to Tom Morello talk about how Paul Ryan's favorite band is Rage Against the Machine and how Paul Ryan clearly doesn't understand the message of the music. As well as all these conservative talk show hosts using his music which for him, is not ok. And the otherside of that is the Wachowski's (The Matrix) who would much rather leave the underlying themes to the viewer. So I think the message is only somewhat in your hands. Unless make so dry and clear there could be no other message, people will take your art in whatever direction that they want. I remember when I was a point where I had just dropped religion and I absolutely hated it. Everything I consumed had an anti religious message through my eyes. Now I go back and see that the message is clearly completely unrelated. Sothere's just so many variables when it comes this kind of thing.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 9, 2014)

I help read submissions for an online publication so I get to see a lot more flash fiction than in the past, and the truth is it's immediately clear just from the stories the writers who take theme seriously and apply it to their work, who consider themselves artists and take pleasure not only in the arrangement of the words but the sounds and connotations and the unusual, delightful quality of a good word used unexpectedly, and the writers who have a very bland, utilitarian approach to story-writing. 

So, and speaking generally here, you can leap to the defense of your own ignorance, and you can curl your lips at theme and say it's for those other guys, those elitist suckers, and you can say that analyzing a story is for those wanna-be scholars and academic jerks, but in my opinion you do so at your own creative detriment.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 9, 2014)

Cadence said:


> but if we're making art, then I believe the art should be more important than the life of the one who makes it. .


 
You can't make much art if you can't afford the tools (paint, paper, etc.) or are too hungry, sick, whatever or are dreadfully exhausted from working two jobs just to make ends meet.
Money is critical.  
There.  I said it.
Yes, I value efficiency.  The difference between a good artist and a great artist is how much stuff they throw away.  So, yeah, make lots of stuff as efficiently as you can so that you can learn and improve faster and throw away the stuff that's not great.
Or, alternatively, go out and chop down a tree so that you can make your own pencils and paper.  It might make your writing better if you put in all that sweat equity, right?  Certainly if you feel it is important, suffer for your art.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jul 9, 2014)

Stephan King -- whose character asked why a story can't be just a story -- said something like that after he writes his first draft, he looks for a theme. (I don't remember his exact words.) To me, you want good characters and a good story. (And I will settle for just one of those.) But if thinking about a theme and maybe bringing it out makes a book a tiny bit better -- why not try?


----------



## Greimour (Jul 9, 2014)

The whole "art" vs "craft" in writing to me is as stupid as 'show' vs 'tell' and pants vs planner.

I completely acknowledge all points concerned. I do not debate against any of it... all arguments I have seen[read], and heard have seemed entirely valid to me. Of course people have twisted meanings or words - got overly pedantic on moot points and flared them up into raging bonfires...

But to me, since I was just a wee little bairn... Art has been a craft. There are many _many_ forms of art, but each one is a craft. Among the _many_ art _forms_ is writing....

So you are a wordsmith? Great.
You craft your work? Great.
For this reason your work is not art?... Huh? Does your writing not paint pictures? Does it not convey emotion? Does it not have a statement? Can it not be viewed and interpreted differently by different people?

 In what way is that not art? I can even categorize news articles the same way (meaning even news articles are forms of art where the writer uses his craft to show, tell or enlighten a reader). Even the photography is art... The newspapers Title and the way it is presented is part of that art... the way the columns are styled and the news lay out ... all art. All ''designed'' to draw in the attention of people. Just like art in a gallery would.

Writing to me is an art form and I see no reason to change my view and have never once (_ever_) heard an argument that even makes me consider that I might be wrong in that view. 

An artist is a craftsman, art is his[or her] craft. 
Writing is a form of art in my eyes. As is sculpture, clay moulding, pottery, painting, papier-m_â_ché, 
[list goes on and on and on]


That's _*my*_ view on this whole craft vs art stuff as far as writing is concerned. (Both the same: thing to be one is to be the other)


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 10, 2014)

Jon M said:


> I help read submissions for an online publication so I get to see a lot more flash fiction than in the past, and the truth is it's immediately clear just from the stories the writers who take theme seriously and apply it to their work, who consider themselves artists and take pleasure not only in the arrangement of the words but the sounds and connotations and the unusual, delightful quality of a good word used unexpectedly, and the writers who have a very bland, utilitarian approach to story-writing.
> 
> So, and speaking generally here, you can leap to the defense of your own ignorance, and you can curl your lips at theme and say it's for those other guys, those elitist suckers, and you can say that analyzing a story is for those wanna-be scholars and academic jerks, but in my opinion you do so at your own creative detriment.



Where does concentrating on just telling a good story versus deliberately thinking about a theme turn into "a very bland, utilitarian approach to story-writing"? Are we really going to go down the path of "the way I think you should write is the only right way" (or the variation "The way you write isn't the way I would so you're wrong")? 

Maybe we all need to remember that people do things differently and that's a _good _thing. No writer is guaranteed success - or failure - simply because of the method they use.


----------



## aj47 (Jul 10, 2014)

Jon M said:


> I help read submissions for an online publication so I get to see a lot more flash fiction than in the past, and the truth is it's immediately clear just from the stories the writers who take theme seriously and apply it to their work, who consider themselves artists and take pleasure not only in the arrangement of the words but the sounds and connotations and the unusual, delightful quality of a good word used unexpectedly, and the writers who have a very bland, utilitarian approach to story-writing.
> 
> So, and speaking generally here, you can leap to the defense of your own ignorance, and you can curl your lips at theme and say it's for those other guys, those elitist suckers, and you can say that analyzing a story is for those wanna-be scholars and academic jerks, but in my opinion you do so at your own creative detriment.




It's like "real" poetry  It's not just a collection of words for one's edification.  It may or may not follow *all* the rules but it will follow some of them.  Now, I see some saying that any collection of words that someone calls a poem "is" one if it "comes from their heart" or somesuch.  The pros know.  That's why they're pros.


----------



## aj47 (Jul 10, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Where does concentrating on just telling a good story versus deliberately thinking about a theme turn into "a very bland, utilitarian approach to story-writing"? Are we really going to go down the path of "the way I think you should write is the only right way" (or the variation "The way you write isn't the way I would so you're wrong")?
> 
> Maybe we all need to remember that people do things differently and that's a _good _thing. No writer is guaranteed success - or failure - simply because of the method they use.



I think it might be that the difference between "a really good story" and an average or dull one is not whether there's a theme, but whether the writer knows the theme and works with it or against it in telling the story.


----------



## Pluralized (Jul 10, 2014)

Lots of prattling about this issue (no offense meant to anyone), but it sure seems like for a story to be considered a 'story' it must embrace a theme in some fashion, no matter how subtly. Why does everything we discuss have to be considered to be mutually exclusive?

To consciously imbue a story with elements of underlying thematic substance shows maturity and skill on the part of the writer, no question. But also, some stories are built around a theme subconsciously and the writer thinks they're just 'tellin' a good ol' story.' 

To the OP, a story can just be a story if that makes it feel pure and untainted to you, but it probably contains at least one major theme even if you don't want to think about it or try to understand it. But, we all need to feel like we're part of a camp here, and it gives us stuff to argue about.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 10, 2014)

I believe it's possible to botch the handling of theme. I believe, to those who understand writing at a professional level (such as literary agents and acquisitions editors) it's obvious when a writer doesn't understand theme or how to use it.

Fortunately, for those who don't care to think about theme, I also believe it's possible to reach a level of thematic expertise through intuition and experience alone.

The key word there is experience, though, in my opinion. Lots and lots of writing. Lots and lots of reading.

Theme, to me, is the unifying concept, or argument, that the story hinges upon.

Just like a well-written thesis paper, every scene in a thematically well-written story works to support, or challenge, the theme.

If I'm writing a thesis paper about why I believe cigarette smoke is bad for one's health, a section about which roller coasters are more fun than others would be thematically irrelevant. My professor would scratch the section out in red and tell me, "Stick to the topic."

Similarly, I believe well-structured fiction sticks to the theme. Poorly-structured fiction wanders all over the place, unsure what it's about.

My wife and I just watched the recent _Vampire Academy_ movie. Thematically, it was all over the map. The screenwriter had no idea how to handle theme to unify the piece. It was a hodgepodge of quips and unrelated conflicts—no unifying thematic structure to bind it all together, no unidirectional undercurrent to pull the story along.

We both stopped watching halfway through from a lack of interest.

Botching theme can affect the story.

Am I saying writers must learn about theme to write a good story? Not at all. Intuition is a marvelous thing, and many writers understand theme on an intuitive level. They can tell when something "doesn't fit," even if it's written strongly. They can tell when something "resonates," even if they can't put it into words. These writers understand theme and use it well, even though they may never think about it consciously.

Not all writers have this ability, though. To expect theme to automatically work itself out is, in my opinion, a roll of the dice. It might. It might not. If it doesn't, you may find your readers saying that certain parts of your story, while written well, lose their interest. You might find sections that seem to "wander", like some abstract roadmap upon which you've lost the trail. You might start looking for spots where things begin to derail, and asking yourself why, at this point, were things going okay and why, at the next point, were they losing steam?

You might, in other words, start trying to find the theme. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Jul 10, 2014)

Two quick thoughts after reading through this thread:

1.   Snobbery is like farting, everyone does it sometimes, but no one admits to it.

2.   There is a theme in every piece of writing. A writer may be conscious of inserting it, or it may develop naturally through the creation process, but it's always there. Another sneaky trait of theme is that the theme the author works to insert, may not be the theme the reader perceives (see, _I am the Walrus_).


----------



## Bishop (Jul 10, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Two quick thoughts after reading through this thread:
> 
> 1.   Snobbery is like farting, everyone does it sometimes, but no one admits to it.
> 
> 2.   There is a theme in every piece of writing. A writer may be conscious of inserting it, or it may develop naturally through the creation process, but it's always there. Another sneaky trait of theme is that the theme the author works to insert, may not be the theme the reader perceives (see, _I am the Walrus_).



Well said. No matter what intent you have with a story, there will be a perceived theme, because that's just how stories work, and just how people view them.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 10, 2014)

astroannie said:


> I think it might be that the difference between "a really good story" and an average or dull one is not whether there's a theme, but whether the writer knows the theme and works with it or against it in telling the story.



I'm going to point to the various comments above which point out that one does not have to "know" and "work" a theme to write a really good story. Now, if one has a 'problem' story, theme is certainly something to look at as the culprit, but to say that one _has _to know/work a theme or their story will be dull or average is erroneous. And, as evidenced earlier in this thread, the theme can 'change' based on who's reading it and _their _interpretation.

I also agree that the more experienced one is (both with reading and with writing) the more intuitive writing becomes.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 10, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I'm going to point to the various comments above which point out that one does not have to "know" and "work" a theme to write a really good story.



I'm not convinced that the personal use/lack of use of theme by an unpublished author is sufficient to prove/disprove the relevant hypothesis.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 10, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> I'm not convinced that the personal use/lack of use of theme by an unpublished author is sufficient to prove/disprove the relevant hypothesis.



Themes always exist, whether the writer intentionally inserts them or not. There have been plenty of really good stories that have been published that had no theme present in them. For me, most of these stories are pulp sci-fi's, and I LOVE reading them despite the fact that the author was clearly just writing a space adventure just to push out a few pages for a buck, no theme, just 'bad guy shoots at good guy, good guy eventually wins'. But that in itself is a theme of good versus evil, so while the intent was clearly just for $$$, they still had a theme. And while I don't think it's a 'good story', 50 Shades is proof of this; and unfortunately many, many people disagree with me about that being a 'good story'. The point is that a lot of things without any intended and driving theme can be very successful, and any published author will tell you that.


----------



## aj47 (Jul 10, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I'm going to point to the various comments above which point out that one does not have to "know" and "work" a theme to write a really good story. Now, if one has a 'problem' story, theme is certainly something to look at as the culprit, but to say that one _has _to know/work a theme or their story will be dull or average is erroneous. And, as evidenced earlier in this thread, the theme can 'change' based on who's reading it and _their _interpretation.
> 
> I also agree that the more experienced one is (both with reading and with writing) the more intuitive writing becomes.



This is true.  The working with the theme doesn't have to be a conscious process. I didn't express that aspect. It's not about "trying" but about "doing" the theme work. Whether the author is aware of it _in those terms_ or not, authors who work their themes well are perceived as more readable by most readers.  I think that's the point.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 10, 2014)

It's funny how this thread has evolved into a discussion of theme. 

In my OP, I was referring more to the pretentiousness of assuming what a writer "meant to say" without benefit of asking the author.

I was asking why the people who take it upon themselves to do so can't just let the story be a story. 

I am using theme (and I only know that based on stuff I have read here and in the thousands of fiction novels I have read) but never once have I sat back after reading a particular section or chapter of a book and thought anything about what the writer was "trying to say". 

What I think about.."Is it a good story? Was it worth reading?"

I suppose in some people's mind this means that I don't pay enough attention and therefore won't be a good writer. According to at least once of the posters here, he'll be able to tell how much my writing sucks as soon as it's submitted.

*shrug* I'm still not gonna give up.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 10, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> In my OP, I was referring more to the pretentiousness of assuming what a writer "meant to say" without benefit of asking the author.
> 
> I was asking why the people who take it upon themselves to do so can't just let the story be a story.



Once I put a piece 'out there' the ownership of it transfers from me to the reader. Each reader can do with it as they so choose. They may choose to read it for diversion and entertainment (the purpose for which most of my work is written), or they can dissect it like a frog in high school biology class. I don't think there is anything pretentious about evaluating any story in terms of theme, or any other characteristic of writing. It is the reader's story at that point. I agree that many people can be pretentious in the way they present their opinions, but as long as they are reading my work I don't care what their purpose is.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 10, 2014)

> You can't make much art if you can't afford the tools (paint, paper, etc.) or are too hungry, sick, whatever or are dreadfully exhausted from working two jobs just to make ends meet.
> Money is critical.



I beg to differ; you can make art with _anything_, as long as you remain alive. You always have the money to write as long as you have the money to stay alive.

Similarly, time is money. If an author invests time in developing a relationship with these 'tools', where does that leave their relationships with their characters? It's like if you went to a seminar about making friends instead of just talking to people; sure, you might learn a lot at that seminar, but there are plenty of people with plenty of friends that never went to a single one. In the same way, there are plenty of authors with fantastic characters who would look confused if you said writing had 'tools' or things that every writer should explore.

I'm not saying it's in any way a wrong outlook; every author is different. But calling some writers inefficient because they don't mechanise their craft or keep looking for new methods and practices is plain wrong, especially since the writers who don't do that are the ones I look up to the most. 

To get this back on topic, I'd say a story is more 'just' a story if a writer avoids all these new-fangled ways of engineering the craft. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 10, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I don't think there is anything pretentious about evaluating any story in terms of theme, or any other characteristic of writing. It is the reader's story at that point. I agree that many people can be pretentious in the way they present their opinions, but as long as they are reading my work I don't care what their purpose is.



Fair enough. 

I just would rather have someone ask ME what I meant to say with something I wrote.

Then again, they would probably be sorely disappointed with my answer.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 10, 2014)

Cadence said:


> To get this back on topic, I'd say a story is more 'just' a story if a writer avoids all these new-fangled ways of engineering the craft. But that's just my opinion.



I would (obviously) agree with this.

But it does beg the question...

Is one who doesn't do all that has been mentioned here an inferior story teller as opposed to one who does?


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 10, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I just would rather have someone ask ME what I meant to say with something I wrote.


Why? Rather possessive, aren't you? Once you put a text out into the world, it no longer belongs to you alone. It is open for interpretation. Can't help wondering why this bothers you so much.

Besides, if you have the great good fortune to be a published and successful author, people who read your work may have no access to you. If you are very fortunate indeed, people may read your work after you're dead. 



> Then again, they would probably be sorely disappointed with my answer.


Probably. Not because your answer would be bad, but because a reader will seek out whatever is most meaningful and interesting to him/her, which might not be interesting to you.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 10, 2014)

> Is one who doesn't do all that has been mentioned here an inferior story teller as opposed to one who does?



No; they should be judged on their storytelling alone, and there is no reason why they would tell an inferior story because they do not view the craft in such a way.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 10, 2014)

Cadence said:


> No; they should be judged on their storytelling alone, and there is no reason why they would tell an inferior story because they do not view the craft in such a way.



Based on some of the responses found in this thread, there are some who would disagree with that.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 10, 2014)

lasm said:


> Why? Rather possessive, aren't you? Once you put a text out into the world, it no longer belongs to you alone. It is open for interpretation. Can't help wondering why this bothers you so much.



Not particularly. But, having grown up in the environment I did, I find that having someone telling me what I mean never works out well for me.



> Besides, if you have the great good fortune to be a published and successful author, people who read your work may have no access to you. If you are very fortunate indeed, people may read your work after you're dead.



I'm pretty sure the only people who'll be reading my work after I'm dead will be my family in the process of trying to figure out what to do with my stuff. LOL


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 10, 2014)

Bowman said:
			
		

> someone telling me what I mean



Here's your problem. A reader who interprets a text is not trying to say what the _writer_ means. The issue is what the _text_ means to the reader.


----------



## CraniumInsanium (Jul 10, 2014)

GAHHH!!! Not reading through five pages and 90 different posts! Sorry, just sayin. 

If I understood correctly, I think T.S. Bowman was originally asking why can't I write a story about say any random topic. I asked my instructor a similar themed question. Why can't I end my story on a cliffhanger?! There's not supposed to be any hidden meaning behind the motives and the source of my story, its a horror/murder story plain and simple! 

When I write, its because I have a "theme" or a "I have a group or single person, and something is going to happen to them", that's the story! I just find it despicable that I can't write a story about two twins driving down a beach road, who accidentally go through a time warp, grab some grub, bring back a pet, and either/irrevocably change the past, or bring back something that might influence the future(by bringing the future item back to the past). It doesn't have to be about 'man vs society' or 'man vs man', or breaking down the actions taken during a story! Its about the FILLER!!!!!!!! What do you put in a story that's flashy, that makes you say "did he/she just do what I think they did?!" Stories are about grabbing your readers attention and holding onto it like a Nutcracker about to bust open a walnut! You're writing because you have a bloody story to tell! Some amazing story about whatever scenario your twisted little imagination concocted popped into your head one day and screamed "GIVE ME LIFE!!!" color that story in, scribble it out if you have to from start to finish. the point is that you write and don't frickin stop writing until you feel like the story is finished. that's the biggest error a writer can ever make. LOSING MOMENTUM. once you lose that you'll feel like a survivor of the titanic, adrift at sea and unsure if help will ever find you. write.write.write about what you feel like you need to. forget the ulterior undercurrents, and what the people or critics might think about your writing. its your story, you gave it life. kind of like a giant family tree. there's gonna be some popular offspring and some real stinkers. if you read this, congratulations you're a writer! 

p.s. - don't forget to revise. stories will always need cleaning up


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 10, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I beg to differ; you can make art with _anything_, as long as you remain alive.



The media for the arts aren't interchangeable.  A jeweler who runs out of gems so tries to make art with mud will see a drastic drop in his skill level.  There will be a noticeable reduction in his ability to express his artistic vision.



> You always have the money to write as long as you have the money to stay alive.



No.  You need a decent level of health - a level of  health not achievable without money.



> If an author invests time in developing a relationship with these 'tools', where does that leave their relationships with their characters?


  You've never heard of leveraging?  Your argument is akin to asking why doctors need to spend all that time learning how to use medical instruments instead of focusing on treating patients without those instruments.





> calling some writers inefficient because they don't mechanise their craft or keep looking for new methods and practices is plain wrong



Go ahead and chop down your own trees and make your own paper so that you can write.  All that extra work will make you no less efficient as a writer, right?  You can create your own pencil and paper and write your story in the same amount of time you could have bought a pencil and  paper and write my own story, right?  No, not really.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 10, 2014)

lasm said:


> Here's your problem. A reader who interprets a text is not trying to say what the _writer_ means. The issue is what the _text_ means to the reader.[/COLOR]



Hmmm...it seems I haven't made myself very clear here.

In my OP I was referring to those who read a novel and then go into whatever environment and tell people what the author "meant to say" when he/she wrote a particular passage.

I am well aware that every reader is going to take something different from a particular piece of writing. 

It's those who presume to be mind readers that I take umbrage with.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 11, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> I'm not convinced that the personal use/lack of use of theme by an unpublished author is sufficient to prove/disprove the relevant hypothesis.



So look at published authors then, if that makes you feel better. You might also want to remember that "published" doesn't necessarily make someone a better writer, any more than being unpublished makes one a poor writer. But that probably won't make you feel better.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 11, 2014)

> Your argument is akin to asking why doctors need to spend all that time learning how to use medical instruments instead of focusing on treating patients without those instruments.



Take it another way; your argument is akin to a person needing to find a complicated, state of the art machine in order to revive someone instead of just giving them CPR. But art and medical science don't have much in common, so I don't know where this comparison came from.



> Go ahead and chop down your own trees and make your own paper so that you can write. All that extra work will make you no less efficient as a writer, right? You can create your own pencil and paper and write your story in the same amount of time you could have bought a pencil and paper and write my own story, right? No, not really.



Judging by these comparisons, I think you're both missing my point and trying to derail this thread further, especially since you're repeating your _argumentum ad absurdum_. If you really think I'm advocating that a writer makes his own pencils, then I'm happy to leave you thinking that.

We've exhausted this subject; time to move on.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 11, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Is one who doesn't do all that has been mentioned here an inferior story teller as opposed to one who does?



Maybe yes. Maybe no. Depends on the storytelling itself.

It's like asking, "Is a pianist who doesn't want to learn music theory automatically an inferior musician?" Not necessarily. One can learn to play by ear.

However, when learning by ear, a musician may end up with holes in their technique, things which they might not even be aware of—things that classically trained musicians might consider fundamental, basic knowledge.

I use this analogy as I, myself, was a self-taught guitarist for years. I considered myself a decent musician—I performed my original songs in bars and on a few stage competitions. 

Then I took some classical guitar lessons. I did it, honestly, just to show off, to impress the instructor, to, essentially, stroke my own ego. 

Instead, my eyes were opened. I realized just how many bad habits and technical gaps I had in my playing, as well as the holes in my understanding of musical composition.

It's appealing to take the easy route, to say, "I don't need any of this stuff!" and learn through rote and experience. After all, many people do just that to reach success.

But here's the sad and honest truth: many people _fail_ doing that, as well.

I think there's a sort of reverse elitism, a type of snobbery where we naturally want to put up our noses at those who study the craft because we like to think that, "Hah! I don't need any of _that_ nonsense! Those fools. There's nothing I can't learn by doing it myself and figuring it out as I go!"

I consider that a unique combination of admirable ambition and stubborn egotism. It's essentially saying, "I know better than anyone else. I am smarter than anyone else. No instructor could teach me anything I can't learn myself."

I thought the same thing. Then I took lessons from Jeff Peterson—who is now a Grammy Award-winning guitarist—and I realized that, hey, learning the technical stuff really _can_ make a difference. :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 11, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> I think there's a sort of reverse elitism, a type of snobbery where we naturally want to put up our noses at those who study the craft because we like to think that, "Hah! I don't need any of _that_ nonsense! Those fools. There's nothing I can't learn by doing it myself and figuring it out as I go!"
> 
> I consider that a unique combination of admirable ambition and stubborn egotism. It's essentially saying, "I know better than anyone else. I am smarter than anyone else. No instructor could teach me anything I can't learn myself."



I'm sure that's the case for some writers. Then again, I don't see anyone saying "I don't need to study anything!". I see people saying that one doesn't have to _deliberately _determine what the theme will be before writing the story. And I've seen enough successfully published authors say they were surprised at what readers saw in their writing vis a vis 'theme' and/or that they were, indeed, just trying to tell a story, to know it is _not _necessary.

Personally, I think this whole discussion has moved into that contentious realm of "This is what I do and if you don't, you're doing it wrong.".


----------



## Kevin (Jul 11, 2014)

Everything has a theme, even the cereal box. They're unavoidable whether the writer or the reader thinks about them or not.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 11, 2014)

Kevin said:


> Everything has a theme, even the cereal box. They're unavoidable whether the writer or the reader thinks about them or not.



Not arguing there. The bone of contention seems to be that some say one _has to_ think about it to write a good story and others know it can occur 'naturally'.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 11, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I'm sure that's the case for some writers. Then again, I don't see anyone saying "I don't need to study anything!". I see people saying that one doesn't have to _deliberately _determine what the theme will be before writing the story. And I've seen enough successfully published authors say they were surprised at what readers saw in their writing vis a vis 'theme' and/or that they were, indeed, just trying to tell a story, to know it is _not _necessary.
> 
> Personally, I think this whole discussion has moved into that contentious realm of "This is what I do and if you don't, you're doing it wrong.".



Not so much right or wrong, just varying perspectives.

To me, theme has many similarities to plot. Yes, one can a write a story with no consideration of plot. In the end, a plot will emerge, regardless.

That doesn't automatically mean the plot will be a good one. It might be a best-seller. Then again, it might be all over the place—a narrative mess.

Theme execution works the same way (IMO). Yes, if a writer disregards theme and simply writes to tell a story, theme will come about naturally. But that doesn't mean it'll automatically be executed well. It might. It might not.

I think the reason disagreement keeps popping up here is because I'm contending that it's possible for a writer to _mishandle_ theme. The opposing viewpoint is that theme cannot be mishandled.

To attack this problem, we probably need to define _theme_ itself.

K.M. Weiland (award-winning, internationally best-selling author) offers her explanation of of theme: _Ultimately, theme is the lesson your characters have learned (or have failed to learned) by the end of the story_.

Themes like "love is more important than your career" are common to many romantic comedies. "Greed is bad" is the thematic lesson Scrooge learns.

Continuing with Dickens' _A Christmas Carol_, we see an example of how a thematically-structured story has staying-power. We still teach it in classrooms today. Part of the reason it's a classic, in my opinion, is because of how the entire story pulses with a driving, unifying theme.

So, to me, theme can make the difference between a story that's put down, and a story that readers can't get enough of. Some writers have the ability to give their work a natural, intuitive cadence. Others craft it consciously. And then there are some who blunder it.

I don't contend that theme needs to be approached in any specific matter. I do contend, though, that there are varying levels of thematic execution, ranging all the way from excellent... to poor.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 11, 2014)

Well, _any _part of the story can be mishandled. Good writers execute well, poor writers don't. That's kind of... obvious. What I was reading were comments to the effect that if the writer does not _deliberately _pay attention to theme, the story will be boring or average, and _that _is totally incorrect.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 11, 2014)

KyleColorado said:


> I consider that a unique combination of admirable ambition and stubborn egotism. It's essentially saying, "I know better than anyone else. I am smarter than anyone else. No instructor could teach me anything I can't learn myself."



Funny, I feel pretty much the same way about self publishing.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Jul 11, 2014)

Cadence said:


> instead of just giving them CPR.


 
CPR is a technique which must be learned.  So, your position can be accurately characterized by a first responder not using CPR because learning how to use it would take time away from being around heart attack victims.



> art and medical science don't have much in common



Makes me wonder what you think art is.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 12, 2014)

> CPR is a technique which must be learned.



Is there anything that isn't? No; but a story would be more 'just' a story if people didn't try to assign a technique or method to everything.

In this case, CPR is the equivalent of learning to hold a pen. You're missing the relativity of your own comparisons.

Regardless, my point is that storytelling is, at its heart, a simple craft; do you need a hundred 'techniques' to tell me how your day was? Of course, you might not gear it towards having certain effects, but this highlights my point: if a writer wants to do something in a story, he finds a way of doing it. He may learn it as a 'technique'. He may just recognize that X causes Y. He may do some third thing. The difference is what gives us the variety the great writers, living and dead, we have today, and they are all efficient (whether they want/ed to be or not). And again, I would say that their stories would be more 'just' stories if people didn't use them to support the mechanization of the arts.



> Makes me wonder what you think art is.



Art is telepathy, and this is off-topic.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 12, 2014)

> you refuse to define what you mean by art.



_[Writing is] telepathy, of course. It’s amusing when you stop it think about it—for years people have argued about whether or not such a thing exists . . . and all the time  it’s been right there, lying out in the open like Mr. Poe’s Purloined Letter. All the arts depend upon telepathy to some degree, but I believe that writing offers the purest distillation. 
_
-Stephen King, On Writing

While he may not be 'worth your time', he certainly is worth many people's time, considering how well he's done out of the writing business.

I think that closes the matter, but feel free to PM me if you have any questions.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 12, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Well, _any _part of the story can be mishandled. Good writers execute well, poor writers don't. That's kind of... obvious. What I was reading were comments to the effect that if the writer does not _deliberately _pay attention to theme, the story will be boring or average, and _that _is totally incorrect.


Why do you think good writers execute well? What makes them good in the first place? I am not suggesting writers must consider theme before they write their stories. Writers should use whatever technique works for them and helps them finish their stories. But I think the craft of writing is a wonderful thing to study, and it kinda depresses me to see so much anti-art, anti-intellectualism bullshit on Writing Forums [dot] com. Fuck yeah we should be excited to discuss other stories, to ponder theme and what the text is saying and what it means for us, the reader. That is how a writer grows. That's how I grew, anyway. 

Writing is like a performance art, like being on stage playing guitar. But it's not all bright lights and sweat and awesome riffs and living in the moment--or the page. It can be for some, I guess. Just plop down and write something fun, pulpy. Don't worry about _What It All Means_. I am not going to disrespect those people and say their method, or how they choose to spend their time (doing something fun) isn't good or "writerly" enough, even though I frequently find myself on the receiving end of similar insults, that I am pretentious, or an elitist, or "too serious". If their fun method of writing stories works--cool. Life sucks enough as it is, and people should be happy. But there are a lot of different kinds of writers here, and some of them, like garza, will go to their graves before they admit they are an artist, and some people, like me, have been calling themselves artists since they were kids, drawing superheroes with questionable anatomy and loving every minute of it. And I do consider writing an art, and I stand by my original comment: slush reading has taught me a lot. First, that only some are really good at following submission guidelines. But it's also shown me just how serious some writers can be with the words at their disposal, versus the ones who "just want to tell a story". It's obvious the ones who deliberately work with the techniques of the craft, and the ones who "just want to entertain". Again, nothing against the writers who just want to have a bit of meaningless fun, and not worry about high-minded techniques like theme. But if that writer has aspirations of one day being published, and actually hoping some editor pays them for their work, the work has to hit some level of quality, doesn't it? And so again the question is, How does a writer get 'good', how does he write stories that actually say and mean something important, that _force_ the reader to exit his life for a certain amount of pages and care about _another kind of life_, how does a writer harness that kind of power without studying techniques of the craft--like theme? How can he do this effectively if he does not do it _deliberately_?


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 12, 2014)

Jon M said:


> Why do you think good writers execute well?



Because that's one of the things that make them good writers?

And why do you assume that people who don't deliberately consider theme are just rollicking through their writing, having a good ol' time and luck out if the book sells? Why do you assume that people who don't deliberately consider "Should I use Technique A for this part and Technique B for this area", who just want to tell a good story, don't still sweat bullets getting their story just right?

Good grief. Yet another "if you don't do it my way"... As I've said before and will probably say again and again - just because you can't doesn't mean no one can.


----------



## stormageddon (Jul 12, 2014)

Twilight can be used to support either side of this argument ^-^

But I'm gonna roll with the Lord of the Rings.

These are Tolkien's words, taken from the foreword to the second edition:



> The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault[...]As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none.



I'm using that to prove that some of the best stories of all time have been written by writers just trying to tell a story. And to support the fact that readers will always infer things the author never intended them to, if that isn't obvious 

On theme:



> As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but it's main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit.



While he clearly considered theme, it seems only broadly, and that the story defined the theme - not the other way around.

From my own experience, I find that a large part of the writing process seems to occur in the subconscious. On re-reading my most recent English coursework, I found that the narrator was a direct parallel of myself, only with the nasty parts exaggerated. I hadn't given any thought to anything about it, just written out of boredom, and when I analysed it in my commentary I found themes, symbolism, subtext - all manner of things one might say were intrinsic to good writing, and none of them included intentionally.

In short, even if you are only writing for fun, the writerly stuff will worm its way in, no matter how hard you try to keep it out. What makes a good writer? I have no bloody clue. I don't think anyone truly does v.v


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 13, 2014)

Jon M said:


> I am not going to disrespect those people and say their method, or how they choose to spend their time (doing something fun) isn't good or "writerly" enough, even though I frequently find myself on the receiving end of similar insults, that I am pretentious, or an elitist, or "too serious". If their fun method of writing stories works--cool. Life sucks enough as it is, and people should be happy. But there are a lot of different kinds of writers here, and some of them, like garza, will go to their graves before they admit they are an artist, and some people, like me, have been calling themselves artists since they were kids, drawing superheroes with questionable anatomy and loving every minute of it. And I do consider writing an art, and I stand by my original comment: slush reading has taught me a lot. First, that only some are really good at following submission guidelines. But it's also shown me just how serious some writers can be with the words at their disposal, versus the ones who "just want to tell a story". It's obvious the ones who deliberately work with the techniques of the craft, and the ones who "just want to entertain". Again, nothing against the writers who just want to have a bit of meaningless fun, and not worry about high-minded techniques like theme. But if that writer has aspirations of one day being published, and actually hoping some editor pays them for their work, the work has to hit some level of quality, doesn't it? And so again the question is, How does a writer get 'good', how does he write stories that actually say and mean something important, that _force_ the reader to exit his life for a certain amount of pages and care about _another kind of life_, how does a writer harness that kind of power without studying techniques of the craft--like theme? How can he do this effectively if he does not do it _deliberately_?



You contradict yourself it would seem. You say you have nothing against those who write for the purpose of "just entertaining" (not entirely sure what that means...doesn't everyone write stories to entertain?) but then you indicate that you would dismiss those stories/writers as not taking the craft seriously enough to warrant publishing.

It would seem to me that a publisher would like to buy books/stories that entertain people. There are an awful lot of people who want to be effectively entertained in relation to the amount of dollars/pounds/whatever they have to spend. I would be willing to bet that there are an equal if not greater number of readers who pick up a book with the expectation/hope of being entertained without all the deep thought and hidden metaphorical stuff (this frog is a representation of Hitler's reign over the ducks of Dover...yadda yadda yadda...) as there are readers who buy a book looking for that stuff.

I am in no way anti intellectual. 



> I am not going to disrespect those people and say their method, or how  they choose to spend their time (doing something fun) isn't good or  "writerly" enough



And yet..you go on to indicate that those writers/stories would get bypassed, by you, because they weren't "writerly" enough.

Seems a bit disrespectful to me. 

I do have a question, though. As a slush reader, how much of a story do you read before passing judgement? Do you read a couple of chapters, see that the writer hasn't really used all the "proper techniques", and toss it aside? 

I'm not trying to be combative. I am genuinely curious.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 13, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Because that's one of the things that make them good writers?


So writers are good because they execute well, and they execute well because they're good. Awesome. We totally have that cleared up now. 



> And why do you assume that people who don't deliberately consider theme are just rollicking through their writing, having a good ol' time and luck out if the book sells? Why do you assume that people who don't deliberately consider "Should I use Technique A for this part and Technique B for this area", who just want to tell a good story, don't still sweat bullets getting their story just right?


I don't make any of those assumptions. I just didn't feel like making an exhaustive list of all writers and all of their processes and all of their considerations--I dunno, because I get bored easily.



T.S.Bowman said:


> You contradict yourself it would seem. You say you have nothing against those who write for the purpose of "just entertaining" (not entirely sure what that means...doesn't everyone write stories to entertain?) but then you indicate that you would dismiss those stories/writers as not taking the craft seriously enough to warrant publishing.


By dismiss, I am going to assume you mean I would vote 'no' on a particular submission that I was asked to read, since that is all the power I have as a first reader. I'm just one of a group of people who read stuff and offer their opinion, and the editor reads through those opinions and makes up his own mind as to whether he wants to purchase the story in question. But yes, I have nothing against writers whose aim is purely to entertain, and yes, I would also dismiss stories from those writers if they happened to suck. But the two are not necessarily connected; one does not lead to the other. A writer can write to entertain and produce something awesome. But it's not contradictory that I have my own opinion on what constitutes good writing. It's not contradictory that I have my own standards and preferences and rely on them to help me judge the work of others, to maintain a level of quality for a publication I support and want to see grow. 



> It would seem to me that a publisher would like to buy books/stories that entertain people.


Entertainment is secondary to all financial concerns.



> And yet..you go on to indicate that those writers/stories would get bypassed, by you, because they weren't "writerly" enough.
> 
> Seems a bit disrespectful to me.


Well, if you want to talk about disrespect, what is kinda sorta disrespectful in all of this is that you don't seem to understand the nature of publication, or even reading for one. The publication I help read for is relatively new, and--amazingly--is doing so much right already. The rejections are often personalized, which if you ask any writer who subs on a consistent basis is kind of like hitting the jackpot--getting feedback. Subbing writers crave that. Subbing writers also know there is an unspoken tier to rejections. Forms at the bottom, personalized rejections above that, and so on. This publication I help read for also pays its contributors, which is again awesome and rare. The art is good because the editor has good taste, and (surprise surprise), the stories are good because the editor did a good job selecting people whose ideas of a good story & evocative prose matched his own. Maybe not totally--there's some stories I voted 'yes' on that were not accepted--but a close enough match that there is no conflict. 



> I do have a question, though. As a slush reader, how much of a story do you read before passing judgement? Do you read a couple of chapters, see that the writer hasn't really used all the "proper techniques", and toss it aside?


The stories are all flash fiction, less than a thousand words. I read the entire thing.


----------



## thepancreas11 (Jul 13, 2014)

Every story has a theme. I interpret theme as the intention of the writer to create a resolution or at least an ending to their story. The way the story ends tells you a lot about the writer, why they wrote the piece, and their opinion on that little sliver of life they've just created. Now, there can be motifs and sidebars and all sorts of other hidden messages in a story. Adding more complexity does not make you a better writer, it just says you have a bit more to say on the matter, really. In the end, however, the major opinion (the resolution) constitutes the theme, at least for me. "The Hobbit" has a theme, as does "The Cat in the Hat", as does most everything I've ever read, whether the author intended to make it so or not.

Now as for caring about theme...? That's entirely on the back of the author. I like to include at least a little moral in everything I write because I believe in the power of writing as a motivator. I think that when people read, you can influence them in subtle ways, and I believe as a writer, I should be influencing in positive ways. Now, I don't preach, I don't shove it in anyone's face, and I don't want to make a reader do exactly what I want. I want to show them a point of view and let them decide for themselves. That's about as much moral as you'll see out of anything I write. Generally, my stories involve a choice that could go either way toward the end; that choice would change everything if made a different way. I only write this way because again, I find having a moral to be fun to write on my part AND I think a person or character is defined by their choices.

If you don't want to include a theme, then don't. Write a compelling story. Write what you want to write. The "theme" will work its way out of you. In other words, no matter what you do, someone will interpret it to mean something.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 13, 2014)

So here's a question: What would it mean, exactly, to treat a story as "just a story"? How would you talk about it? How would you _teach_ it?

Because, as someone who sometimes teaches literature, I'm having trouble imagining that discussion. And some stories, of course, really _can't_ be treated that way without missing a great deal. Last year I taught Camus's "The Host"--you can't just leave aside colonialism in Algeria, you know? That's leaving aside the central question of the story. And nobody's pretending to read Camus's mind or whatever--we're just reading the words on the page and considering the context in which they were produced, the when and where and what conversations were going on at that time.

When I teach a story, the first thing I like to do is nail down who's who and what happened. That's the boring part, and if we were working in English I wouldn't even bother doing it, but in French I think it helps the weaker students. And then in an ideal class, the students mostly lead the discussion, or I direct them towards the ideas and questions I think are important. And now and then I see a little lightbulb go off over some kid's head and that is pretty awesome, to see someone _get_ something.

It is rather disheartening to have one's profession called pretentious and arrogant. Especially one of the few parts of teaching that I personally enjoy and feel good about.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 13, 2014)

I wouldn't call it pretentious or arrogant. For some writers, it is necessary; but for others, it is not. And that's the only point I'm trying to make - not every writer writes the same way! It doesn't make one writer better than another. It doesn't make one story better than another. Does every story have a theme? Probably. Is it always deliberate on the part of the author? No. I've just seen too many new writers flummoxed by these things to the point where they give up, instead of being "allowed" to write the way they can. Acceptance of the fact that people do all kinds of things differently from other people is the only thing I'm pushing for.

Writers who do these things deliberately should not be called pretentious; writers who do not should not be called frivolous. The only thing that matters, in the end, is whether or not readers keep reading. How the writer got to that point is immaterial.


----------



## Kingstonmike (Jul 13, 2014)

That's funny. I often got the hairy eyeball from my English Lit. Profs for asking the same thing....Is it REALLY blasphemy for suggesting that Willy S wrote King Lear for a paycheque and because he needed another play for the fall season? I mean, accepting the fact that he was a working writer, not some literary demi-God in rapture of the muse...


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 13, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> The only thing that matters, in the end, is whether or not readers keep reading. How the writer got to that point is immaterial.



To me, it's kind of like automobiles. For some drivers, a car is a vehicle, a way of getting from point A to B. As long as the car is running well, these drivers don't see a need to spend any more time than is necessary looking under the hood.

Then there are the mechanics who like to know how engines work, who learn the various parts and the tools to work with them, who study the different methods of assembly and repair.

I can understand Jon M's apparent frustration because, quite simply, he sounds like a mechanic. It can get frustrating for a mechanic to discuss an intake manifold with a driver who isn't interested in what's under the hood.

It doesn't make the driver an anti-intellectual, nor does it make the mechanic an over-analyzer—it simply means the two individuals have different emphases upon which their focus lies. 

Theme is one of those slippery topics which some writers find useful to discuss, while others find it inconsequential.

This makes it polarizing when those who find it useful insist that it's useful. It's also polarizing when those who find it inconsequential insist that it's inconsequential. 

It seems to be boiling down to another one of those _to each his own_ types of deals. 

If you find it better to think about theme, more power to you. If you find it better to not think about theme, more power to you, as well. :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 14, 2014)

What is irritating to me are those who get all butt hurt when writers don't follow all the "rules" by using all the "proper techniques" and start suggesting that writers who don't do that aren't any good nor will they BE any good so they are just wasting their time.

That fella up there was right. I don't know how publishing works. That is why I was asking the questions I was asking. That is also why I didn't bother to reply to the pre edited version of the response to my questions. 

As to any opinion I had of your character...it wasn't formed until I saw the pre edited post.

Hopefully, I will never find myself in the position of having presented my work to the publisher that employs you.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 14, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Hopefully, I will never find myself in the position of having presented my work to the publisher that employs you.



I guess you don't have to worry unless you're writing flash fiction.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 14, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Why can't a story just be a story? Good or bad.


Because an original story is the writer communicating something about him/herself with his/her audience.  All art is about communication, so every story is communicating something about the writer.


> Why do people feel the need to dissect everything in the story looking for a "theme"? Is it a superiority thing?


It's not a superiority thing, it's a human thing.  We tend to ask "why" when we're reading, seeing or experiencing something.  I believe everyone has a theme to their writings.  If there's conflict, there's generally some kind of theme the writer is experience.

IMO, it doesn't have to be on purpose either.



> How many of you sit down and decide that there is going to be an "underlying theme" to your story?


I do.  I put my theme right out in front of my stories.  In fact, that's on the first things I figure out.  *What do I want to say? What the main point of this story?*



> Do you find one a necessity to good storytelling?
> 
> Or
> 
> Do you just want a good story to BE a good story?


Why are you breaking out the idea that a theme doesn't actually make a good story into a better story?  When you can breakdown exactly what you want to say, you're more able to express it succinctly.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Tettsuo said:


> Why are you breaking out the idea that a theme doesn't actually make a good story into a better story?  When you can breakdown exactly what you want to say, you're more able to express it succinctly.



Themes can develop as the story is written. Again, just because someone doesn't decide on a theme before writing the story doesn't mean it won't be a 'better' story. It works for you - great. Fantastic. I don't do it. Other writers don't do it. That doesn't mean our stories are not as good as the ones written by those who do. It only means we write differently than you do. Why is this concept so difficult?


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 14, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Themes can develop as the story is written. Again, just because someone doesn't decide on a theme before writing the story doesn't mean it won't be a 'better' story. It works for you - great. Fantastic. I don't do it. Other writers don't do it. That doesn't mean our stories are not as good as the ones written by those who do. It only means we write differently than you do. Why is this concept so difficult?



Why are you being so defensive?!

Nothing in what I wrote says that one can't develop a story as they go.  I can't.  But, that's me.  If you can, great!  Enjoy.  I wrote what I thought works best... IMO.

Is it not true that when you know what you want to say, you can express it more succinctly?  If you know overall what you want to express to your audience in a theme, it's bound to help your writing IMO.  But, some writers can just write, go back over the work and chisel away at their rough and focus it in the editing process into a wonderful piece of work.  That's the nature of a pantser, no?  To just go and let the subconscious and conscious mind play.  Then, once the play is done, the work comes in.  As a plotter, I HAVE to know beforehand what I want to say to produce something of value.

This does not mean you're a bad writer because you don't have an established theme.  It just means you're a different writer than me.  It also doesn't mean your work doesn't have an underlying theme because you didn't pre-plan it.  People often have an overarching emotion, thought or experience when they create.  That's the good thing about being a human with a subconscious mind, it sometimes speaks when we don't expect it to.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 14, 2014)

Tettsuo said:


> I put my theme right out in front of my stories.  In fact, that's on the first things I figure out.  *What do I want to say? What the main point of this story?*
> ...
> When you can breakdown exactly what you want to say, you're more able to express it succinctly.



I approach writing in a similar fashion. I like to start with an incorrect mindset (a "flaw", if you will) that my character is hindered with at the beginning of the story.

She doesn't love herself, for example. Or she's lost the ability to trust others.

The theme of the piece, then, would be about her learning to love herself, or learning to trust others.

Usually, I have an external conflict going on as well (the plot). In order for my main character to resolve the plot, she'll have to learn the theme, first. She'll have to learn to love herself, or to trust others.

Whatever her flaw is at the beginning, she'll have to overcome it in order to conquer the external conflict.

So, for me theme is not just an abstract concept that I allow to sort itself out on its own. Theme is intricately linked with my handling of the story. Knowing it allows me to decide what's relevant and what's not.

For me, I find knowledge of theme a necessity to good storytelling. _That doesn't mean I consider it a necessity for others_—just myself. :encouragement:


----------



## Kingstonmike (Jul 14, 2014)

astroannie said:


> hahahaha, it was 3/4 of the way through the semester that I *understood* what literature class was about.  We were reading a Vonnegut story on that day and I spotted an irony and said it and got good feedback from the instructor.  That had never happened before.  Oh, we're supposed to say what this makes us think of; what it reminds us of.
> 
> Until then, I loved the class but struggled.  About then I started disliking it but got better grades.  I still am uncomfortable with the vocabulary about writing. I mean, I can spot a protagonist, I think I know what a plot is and how it's different from setting.  But dayum, if some of the weirder ones make any sense.
> 
> This is probably why I'm not successful with my fiction.




Ok, I say this as a guy with a degree in English Lit.....It is NOT about writing.....It's about argument and ass kissing.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 14, 2014)

Tettsuo said:


> Is it not true that when you know what you want to say, you can express it more succinctly?  If you know overall what you want to express to your audience in a theme, it's bound to help your writing IMO.  But, some writers can just write, go back over the work and chisel away at their rough and focus it in the editing process into a wonderful piece of work.  That's the nature of a pantser, no?  To just go and let the subconscious and conscious mind play.  Then, once the play is done, the work comes in.  As a plotter, I HAVE to know beforehand what I want to say to produce something of value.



The part that bothered me was the idea you put forth that if you had a theme thought out ahead of time, you could write more succinctly. And that is not true. Nor is it the 'nature' of a pantser to write a bunch of stuff and then edit away the crap. What I write is precisely what I want, precisely what the story needs, and I don't have to think ahead of time in order to write more succinctly. And saying "once the play is done" is quite insulting. I work at my writing from word one.

If something works for you, fine. But don't infer that someone else's work would be better if they did it your way. And that's why I may sound "defensive" (when actually I'm just plain frustrated), because people can't seem to accept that it is _not _necessary for _every _writer to do that.


----------



## Kingstonmike (Jul 14, 2014)

I'm of the opinion that the 'best' way to write for a writer is the way that works for them...period.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 14, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> *The part that bothered me was the idea you put forth that if you had a theme thought out ahead of time, you could write more succinctly.* And that is not true. Nor is it the 'nature' of a pantser to write a bunch of stuff and then edit away the crap. What I write is precisely what I want, precisely what the story needs, and I don't have to think ahead of time in order to write more succinctly. And saying "once the play is done" is quite insulting. I work at my writing from word one.
> 
> If something works for you, fine. But don't infer that someone else's work would be better if they did it your way. And that's why I may sound "defensive" (when actually I'm just plain frustrated), because people can't seem to accept that it is _not _necessary for _every _writer to do that.


I neither implied that or actually wrote that.  That's your personal baggage feeding into something I did not say.  The question itself does not mention anything about a theme.



> Is it not true that when you know what you want to say, you can express it more succinctly?







> But, some writers can just write, go back over the work and chisel away at their rough and focus it in the editing process into a wonderful piece of work. That's the nature of a pantser, no?



Again, you've created an argument I didn't make.  The vast majority of writers go back over their work, chisel away at the rough to create their work.  A plotter does not write without a plan.  A pantser can just write.  Isn't that the definition of a pantser?


----------



## Jon M (Jul 14, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> What is irritating to me are those who get all butt hurt when writers don't follow all the "rules" by using all the "proper techniques" and start suggesting that writers who don't do that aren't any good nor will they BE any good so they are just wasting their time.
> 
> That fella up there was right. I don't know how publishing works. That is why I was asking the questions I was asking. That is also why I didn't bother to reply to the pre edited version of the response to my questions.
> 
> ...


My pre-edited comments were pretty tame, I thought. I deleted them because drama gives me heart burn. Anyway. I am not sure who you are talking about up there ^ but it isn't me. Truthfully, I am only interested in the creative processes of writers I admire, and that list is not very large compared to the amount of people out there writing stories. So I am not bothered if most writers follow rules or proper techniques or not. And I am not suggesting any of what you suggested up there, either. 

And I couldn't care less what you think of my character, Mr. Bowman sir. I have been through quite a lot and you know too little of the specifics for your opinion to matter.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 15, 2014)

Tettsuo said:


> I neither implied that or actually wrote that.  That's your personal baggage feeding into something I did not say.  The question itself does not mention anything about a theme.



Look at the sentence before that, in the same paragraph:

"Why are you breaking out the idea that a theme doesn't actually make a good story into a better story? When you can breakdown exactly what you want to say, you're more able to express it succinctly."

Why would I not think you were referring to themes?




Tettsuo said:


> Again, you've created an argument I didn't make.  The vast majority of writers go back over their work, chisel away at the rough to create their work.  A plotter does not write without a plan.  A pantser can just write.  Isn't that the definition of a pantser?



That has to do with editing, not with being a plotter or a pantser. It is not the definition or nature of pantsers. But you also stated "once the play is done" - and that's still insulting.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 15, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> But you also stated "once the play is done" - and that's still insulting.



I honestly don't think that the reference to "play" wasn't meant as an insult. It could certainly have been seen as one, though.

I choose to give Tettsuo the benefit of the doubt on this one. I have said many times that for me, pantsing is pure joy and I don't really consider writing to be "work" while I am doing it. I find it fun when my characters do unexpected things.

That could be the kind of thing the word "play" was referring to.

However, for those who may think that pantsers are just sort of playing around while writing, I can assure you that is completely inaccurate. At least for me it is. Itake my writing very seriously. Contrary to popular opinion.


----------



## Newman (Jul 16, 2014)

Pidgeon84 said:


> And the otherside of that is the Wachowski's (The Matrix) who would much rather leave the underlying themes to the viewer.



Not true at all. 

That movie's written around theme.

Theme isn't left to the viewer to decide. It's what the writer sets it to be. Everything's built around theme.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 17, 2014)

Newman said:


> Theme isn't left to the viewer to decide. It's what the writer sets it to be. Everything's built around theme.



Are you talking about the movie or just in general? If the former, I wouldn't know; if the latter, I obviously disagree.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 17, 2014)

> Theme isn't left to the viewer to decide. It's what the writer sets it to be.



The problem is, we're not always that aware of what's going on around us, or of what our readers may be like. The thought that a writer can identify every possible theme that can be seen from their work and only expand on the ones they want, ensuring that the others don't get noticed, is ludicrous, especially since audiences change every year. And with modern criticism often taking the author out of the equation, there is now no necessity to see the author's intention as law when it comes interpreting the text. Writing is all about communication, after all, so if a writer fails to communicate something, or communicates something different, that's part of their storytelling; it defines heir story, and it defines them.

Also, not everything is built around theme. In fact, hardly any of my work is. A lot of stories are built around a central character; people naturally see themselves as the center of their own universe, after all, so it's no stretch to have this translate to the art of storytelling whether the writer wants it to or not.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 17, 2014)

True, everyone has their own interpretation and their own approach.

From what I can tell, Newman uses a screenwriting approach, so this is probably where the disagreement comes from. In screenwriting (and in storytelling using a screenwriting approach), understanding your character's thematic arc is a necessity. It's what you use to plot the story. :encouragement:


----------



## Newman (Jul 17, 2014)

Cadence said:


> The thought that a writer can identify every possible theme that can be seen from their work and only expand on the ones they want, ensuring that the others don't get noticed, is ludicrous, especially since audiences change every year.



You're confusing theme with symbol, motif, subject, patterns, associations and so on.

From a story construction point of view, theme is some variation of argument.

Pick the number one movie at the box office right now (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - http://www.imdb.com/chart/?ref_=nv_ch_cht_2 ). Believe it or not, this story is constructed around a theme / argument. As are tons and tons of the top movies (and novels).

That theme / argument is set by the writer and is not audience-dependent. It's the writer's point of view regarding an argument expressed through a story. 



Cadence said:


> Also, not everything is built around theme. In fact, hardly any of my work is. A lot of stories are built around a central character



The character's journey is a product of theme. It's very worth trying to figure out why.



T.S.Bowman said:


> I don't know the first thing about theme. Does that mean I am wasting my time writing? Does that mean I can't write a good story?



You've probably asked yourself questions like: Why this story? Why these characters? Why these situations? What am I trying to say with this story? Those are the beginnings of trying to work out your theme and writing to it.



Kyle R said:


> From what I can tell, Newman uses a screenwriting approach



Novels too.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 17, 2014)

Newman said:


> You've probably asked yourself questions like: Why this story? Why these characters? Why these situations? What am I trying to say with this story? Those are the beginnings of trying to work out your theme and writing to it.



But I haven't. As hard as that may be to believe. 

The reason I'm writing the story I am...because it's fun.

Why these characters...because they are fun to write. They are bringing me enjoyment.

Why these situations...because they are making for a good story.

I'm really, seriously, not trying to say _anything_ with the story. I'm not looking to make people think too deeply or ponder life's great questions. When they finish my book, all I want them to say is "Hey, that story was well worth the (fill in the dollar amount) I spent on it. I really enjoyed it."

If a "theme" gets in there without my intending on it, so be it. I won't fight it. But I don't go searching for it or consciously putting one forward.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 18, 2014)

Newman said:


> That theme / argument is set by the writer and is not audience-dependent. It's the writer's point of view regarding an argument expressed through a story.



Actually, for a lot of us writers, that theme is a product of that character journey.



Newman said:


> The character's journey is a product of theme. It's very worth trying to figure out why.
> 
> 
> 
> You've probably asked yourself questions like: Why this story? Why these characters? Why these situations? What am I trying to say with this story? Those are the beginnings of trying to work out your theme and writing to it.



Nope, the answer to all of that is because "it's cool". Okay, more specifically, it's "this is the kinda stuff I'd want to read" and that's it. Sure, once my novels were finished, I started to reread them and found some (and expanded on) thematic elements that had formed all on their own, but I never went into it with that intent. And when I try to? It turns out horribly cheesy and I want to shoot myself with the business end of a rusty shotgun.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 18, 2014)

Newman said:


> You've probably asked yourself questions like: Why this story? Why these characters? Why these situations? What am I trying to say with this story? Those are the beginnings of trying to work out your theme and writing to it.



I don't ask those questions, either. Especially that last one. So no, we don't all work out a theme and then write to it.

I have tried a couple times to write to a theme, actually. Then I got into the story and I don't know, the theme went south (although the readers found a few others instead).


----------



## Terry D (Jul 18, 2014)

Theme is not always determined by the author. He may try, and sometimes he may succeed, but once the writing is done, its interpretation--including its theme--belongs to the reader. I've started stories with theme in mind. Most of my flash fiction starts with a theme, but none of my novels do. The 'character journey' in my long fiction is very definitely *not* a product of theme. how can it be if I have no theme planned for the book?


----------



## Jeko (Jul 18, 2014)

> You're confusing theme with symbol, motif, subject, patterns, associations and so on.



No; theme is a product of those things and/or a cause of them.

The telepathy of literature goes something like this:

Author ----> reality ----> text ----> reality ----> reader.

The author writes what he wants to write (eg. a theme) through his/her perception of reality. The reader then reads what the author has written through his/her own perception of reality. Therefore, though the writer may construct a story around a certain theme, the reader may interpret that theme differently.

Every story builds theme; but not every story is built around theme. What the writer considers is entirely up to them, as is what the reader receives when they read the story.


----------



## Newman (Jul 18, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> But I haven't. As hard as that may be to believe.
> 
> The reason I'm writing the story I am...because it's fun.
> 
> ...



I'm sure all your scenes are genuinely fun and interesting. 

But a story has to have some purpose in the telling. And that's where theme comes in.

It's fine if you disagree with me, but recognize that theme-led is a BIG part of the craft and you owe it to yourself to figure out how it works. It's not snobbery.

I just don't think people recognize just how focal theme is to story.



Bishop said:


> Actually, for a lot of us writers, that theme is a product of that character journey.



Sure. You can start character-led and find your theme and integrate. They're not mutually exclusive. They work in unison.



Bishop said:


> Nope, the answer to all of that is because "it's cool".



You're keeping the wrong company. None of it is done to be cool or to be a snob. It's done to figure out how a story works.



shadowwalker said:


> no, we don't all work out a theme and then write to it.


I'm not suggesting that you have to have theme at the very beginning. You can find it as you go along and then write to it.



Terry D said:


> once the writing is done, its interpretation--including its theme--belongs to the reader.





Cadence said:


> the writer may construct a story around a certain theme, the reader may interpret that theme differently.



If a writer says that he (or she) has written a story around theme X, then you cannot say that the theme is Y.

When Cecil B. DeMille introduces _The Ten Commandments_ (with Charlton Heston) and says that the theme of the story is "whether man should be ruled by the laws of God or the laws of a dictator," then that's the theme. You cannot turn around and say that the theme is "loss of innocence" or whatever. If you do that, then you do what some people here are objecting to - finding meaning where none was intended.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 18, 2014)

Newman said:


> It's fine if you disagree with me, but recognize that theme-led is a BIG part of the craft and you owe it to yourself to figure out how it works. It's not snobbery. I just don't think people recognize just how focal theme is to story.



The last book I finished, I looked at it and thought, "Hah! That was fun." I didn't go, "You know, I think they're trying to say something about capitalism..." I just read to enjoy a story, and I think the vast majority of people who actually buy the books do the same. Especially my sort of stuff 



Newman said:


> You're keeping the wrong company. None of it is done to be cool or to be a snob. It's done to figure out how a story works.


I'm not saying I do this to be cool, I'm saying I write what I write because I think sci-fi is cool. I think it's cool that my characters fly to the ass-end of the galaxy and get caught up in a government conspiracy; and that's it. There's no theme aside from the ones that came out of it once it was done. I never went in with a theme, I never thought "my character will do this, because it develops his sense of morality" or "it feeds into an overarching..." blah blah blah. In fact my writing process consists of two questions:

1) If I were my character X in situation Y, what would I do? The answer usually involves poor decisions and explosions in the pursuit of nudity.

2) Man, wouldn't it be cool if they bumped into massive space-dwelling death creatures? Yeah. Yeah, that'd be cool.

And while I don't want to toot my own horn, I've been given positive feedback since displaying my work to people, so I think I have a fair enough grasp on crafting the story. 

I have an English degree, I studied theme and meaning in stories for over a decade. I know that it's there. I know that some people go into it with that in mind. My point is that to make a good, enjoyable story, you don't have to start, or necessarily even finish with theme in mind. Themes come out on their own, through how people read it a lot more than you expect.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 18, 2014)

Newman said:


> If a writer says that he (or she) has written a story around theme X, then you cannot say that the theme is Y.
> 
> When Cecil B. DeMille introduces _The Ten Commandments_ (with Charlton Heston) and says that the theme of the story is "whether man should be ruled by the laws of God or the laws of a dictator," then that's the theme. You cannot turn around and say that the theme is "loss of innocence" or whatever. If you do that, then you do what some people here are objecting to - finding meaning where none was intended.



Sure I can. It happens all the time. Stories, movies, songs say different things to different people and all are valid interpretations of the piece *whether or not it was what the author intended*. That's what art is all about.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 18, 2014)

Ok. Since I seem to be getting nowhere with anyone other than those who actually write in a fashion similar to myself I suppose the only thing left is to ask...

Does the "battle between good and evil" count as a theme? If it does, then I'm in good shape because that is the basis of my entire story.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 18, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Does the "battle between good and evil" count as a theme? If it does, then I'm in good shape because that is the basis of my entire story.



Yes, it does.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 18, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Ok. Since I seem to be getting nowhere with anyone other than those who actually write in a fashion similar to myself I suppose the only thing left is to ask...
> 
> Does the "battle between good and evil" count as a theme? If it does, then I'm in good shape because that is the basis of my entire story.



Theme is the lesson your character learns, the big "ah-hah!" moment that happens at the climax of your story, where your character looks deep into his soul and finds the answer to the seemingly impossible conflict bearing down on his world.

Theme is the grand epiphany, the message that shakes your character's whole foundation, the big idea that's been in front of him the whole time, the notion that breaks him apart at the seams so he can be reborn again.

This is where the obsessive businessman _finally_ realizes that what he really wants is to go home to be a better husband to his lonely, depressed wife, instead of traveling on yet another business trip. *"Love matters more than professional success."*

This is where the popularity-obsessed student finally chooses to stand beside her nerdy, outcast friend instead of ignoring her to fit in with the cool kids. *"Being a friend is more important than being popular."*

Theme the realization your character makes that puts the whole struggle into perspective. 

Theme is a *statement*, one that brings about the elevation (or downfall) of your character at her epic moment of truth. 

:encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 18, 2014)

Newman said:


> I'm not suggesting that you have to have theme at the very beginning. You can find it as you go along and then write to it.



Or we can just do what we do - tell a story that interests us and let readers decide what the theme is for them. 



Newman said:


> If a writer says that he (or she) has written a story around theme X, then you cannot say that the theme is Y.
> 
> When Cecil B. DeMille introduces _The Ten Commandments_ (with Charlton Heston) and says that the theme of the story is "whether man should be ruled by the laws of God or the laws of a dictator," then that's the theme. You cannot turn around and say that the theme is "loss of innocence" or whatever. If you do that, then you do what some people here are objecting to - finding meaning where none was intended.



Once the book or movie or play or poem is out there, available to whomever wants to read/view/listen to it, what the author intended doesn't matter. It really, truly doesn't. Because the book/movie/play/poem no longer belongs to the author - it belongs to the audience.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 18, 2014)

Although the OP specifies it, I think dealing with meaning in fiction just in terms of theme might be a misleading tangent. Almost all writers put something of themselves on the page, whether they intend to or not, even if they deliberately try not to. The activity (which I'd be inclined to call making art) sort of requires this. I've just read an excerpt of a piece by the OP, and find it's full of personal view about cooperation and diversity, which certainly qualifies as meaning, if not almost agenda. I think a _good_ story always has meaning(s), in many different forms and from many different intentions, and I'm not sure why anyone would prefer it otherwise.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 18, 2014)

ppsage said:


> I think a _good_ story always has meaning(s), in many different forms and from many different intentions, and I'm not sure why anyone would prefer it otherwise.



I don't think anyone is saying they prefer stories with no 'meaning'. The debate seems to be whether or not one _has to decide_, at some point in the writing, what theme or 'meaning' they intend.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 19, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Theme is the lesson your character learns, the big "ah-hah!" moment that happens at the climax of your story, where your character looks deep into his soul and finds the answer to the seemingly impossible conflict bearing down on his world.
> 
> Theme is the grand epiphany, the message that shakes your character's whole foundation, the big idea that's been in front of him the whole time, the notion that breaks him apart at the seams so he can be reborn again.
> 
> ...



Hmmm....

I guess my story i going to pretty well suck then.

I may need to find a new outlet.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 19, 2014)

ppsage said:


> I've just read an excerpt of a piece by the OP, and find it's full of personal view about cooperation and diversity, which certainly qualifies as meaning, if not almost agenda.



Ummmm....which piece would that be?? Cuz I have NO idea what you are talking about. LOL




> I think a _good_ story always has meaning(s), in many different forms and from many different intentions, and I'm not sure why anyone would prefer it otherwise.



I'm not really saying that I _prefer_ it to be otherwise. I was more just wondering why people would go looking for something that the author never intended to put in the work.

I do like (other than a couple of posts here) the way this thread has gone. It has shown me a few things.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 19, 2014)

Such a big conversation on theme. I wish I stayed active in the conversation but oh well.

I am going to rewind time a bit to address something Kyle said, 



Kyle R said:


> It's appealing to take the easy route, to say, "I  don't need any of this stuff!" and learn through rote and experience.  After all, many people do just that to reach success.
> 
> But here's the sad and honest truth: many people _fail_ doing that, as well.



This is I think the first time you said something that made me frown.

The sad and honest truth; many people _fail_ no matter what they do to succeed. 

I would hazard a guess that more people with learning fail than those without. That's because in all probability, it is more likely that the ratio of learned people attempting to write than those without learning will be higher. People without learning mostly believe they can't, so don't try. Whilst those believe with learning, they can - yet despite learning, still can't. Then there are those who try anyway and still fail. If we had every book submission failure tallied, then split them into two piles "those submitted by people who learned the craft" vs "those who submitted that didn't learn the craft." I would bet money the people who learned the craft would have a higher pile. Equally... if you check the "success" pile. The "learned the craft" pile would be higher... for no other reason than more people with learning send in submission.

Though obviously that is a guess and mostly it would depend on what you considered to be "learned in the art(or craft if you prefer)"

The point however, is I would also hazard a guess that the ratio for both piles is equal. If 1 in 1,000 people with all the learning you are speaking of are successful... then  1 in 1000 people that 'taught themselves' are probably successful too. Meaning the difference is the same.

The analogy I will use is "we insure women because they have less accidents"
- No duh! There are less women driving. If 9/10 accidents are by male drivers, that's probably because 9/10 drivers are male! 
That basically equates to the same ratio of women causing accidents as men. Which directly explains the same ratio for the point I was trying to make with writers who study themes and such vs those that don't.

50,000 submissions by people who went as far as Universities studying the craft - 10 successful.
5,000 submissions by people who didn't go to university - 1 successful. 

10 times higher successful applicants, but also 10 times more unsuccessful ones... Ratio is the same.



Kyle  R said:


> I think there's a sort of reverse elitism, a type of snobbery  where we naturally want to put up our noses at those who study the  craft because we like to think that, "Hah! I don't need any of _that_ nonsense! Those fools. There's nothing I can't learn by doing it myself and figuring it out as I go!"
> 
> I consider that a unique combination of admirable ambition and stubborn  egotism. It's essentially saying, "I know better than anyone else. I am  smarter than anyone else. No instructor could teach me anything I can't  learn myself."



I know this isn't aimed at me, but really I could easily apply it to myself.

Going  with Christmas Carol by Dickens. Nobody taught me about themes when I  read that book. Nobody taught me about "morale of the story" before I  watched the film. But I grasped both those concepts before I left  primary school and that book (and film) was one of the reasons I was  able to do so. 

I read Red Riding Hood (brothers Grim version -  Little Red-Cap) when I was about 11 and perfectly grasped the 'don't  talk to strangers' warning and even found myself wondering if it had a  deeper more sinister warning because I felt that it did. Reading it  again when i was older I determined the sinister thing I was missing  when I was younger had probably been rape.

Quote:


> The wolf had scarcely finished speaking when he jumped from the bed with a single leap and ate up poor Little Red Cap. As soon as the wolf had satisfied his desires, he climbed back into bed, fell asleep, and began to snore very loudly.


Attention drawn to: 'satisfied his desires he climbed back into bed' ... equally, 'ate up' can be metaphorical. Most of it can be and is metaphorical. The wolf is simply 'a bad man' or 'a stranger' 

Quote when the hunter enters due to grandmothers snoring (which is actually the wolf snoring)


> He stepped into the parlor, and when he approached the bed, he saw the wolf lying there. "So here I find you, you old sinner,"


... helps show the wolf for the metaphorical representation that he is.

~~~

My  point is, I grasped themes, moral of the story and so forth long before  I was taught about them. Whilst many of my class were struggling to  come to terms with it, I was struggling to understand how they couldn't  already know what it was. 

I often say "I teach myself" but  truly, nobody teaches themselves. We teach each other as a collective.  Be it looking stuff up online, attending classes, going to seminars or  anything else. 

The first man to speak; did he speak only to  himself? or did he convey the meaning of his words so that his people  might understand him...? He may have taught them that "big cat" meant  danger or lion, but but they collectively passed on the knowledge. None  of them would have told their children, "big cat means danger, a lion is  nearby and you should run or be careful" ... the children learned  language by ear... as children do to this day. We can grasp the meaning  and subtleties of language by ear. The difference with writing comes  largely (from my experience) with spelling and grammar. 

I may  not have gone to college to learn more about writing (creative, craft,  art, whatever...) but I still learn from others. I learn from all of  you; every day. I also learn thanks to wikipedia, the dictionary, books, etc. All of which  written and created by other people who as part of the collective help  me learn. 

So: "Hah! I don't need any of _that_ nonsense! Those fools. There's nothing I can't learn by doing it myself and figuring it out as I go!"

No such thing. Those who think like that are the ones mistaken for thinking they haven't already learned it. Whether they need it or not, they do learn it. They have mostly already learned it to some degree or other by simply living life. When they told their friend about something funny that happened on the way to school. When they listened to their friend tell about the date the night before. 
[list goes on...] Throughout our lives we share stories and we grasp themes very early. Even people that don't realize it may still ask "What's the point?" after listening to someone ramble on for 20 minutes. They want to know the purpose of what they are listening to. In other words, the moral of the story. 

The reason I bat on about 'moral of the story' is because I have never come across a story that has a moral (a point / purpose) that doesn't consequently have a theme by either choice or happy coincidence.

~~~

Nobody 'teaches themselves' and learning doesn't guarantee success. 
And a little toward the counter argument. Sometimes learning _is_ detrimental to success. When I was first taught how to plot I tried and tried and tried again. To try and get me to succeed in using a plot my teacher ran me through techniques, arcs, prompts and a load of other crap. I couldn't write anything with all that stuff in my head. But as soon as I dropped it all, I got a B for the story I produced. He thought I had finally grasped plotting - but in reality - I totally threw it out of the window.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 19, 2014)

Greimour said:


> The sad and honest truth; many people _fail no matter what they do to succeed.
> _[...]
> learning doesn't guarantee success.



Hey Kev. Interesting discussion points you have there. We're getting away from _theme_, though, so it probably belongs in a different thread.

I'd be happy to discuss this with you more if you want to make a new thread about it. I believe the discussion can bring about some good learning opportunities for everyone involved. :encouragement:


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 19, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Hmmm....
> 
> I guess my story i going to pretty well suck then.
> 
> I may need to find a new outlet.



Oh, don't mistake my definition of theme as something necessary for story quality. Whether or not you agree with it, or whether or not you choose to use it, is entirely up to you.

I'm merely offering a clarification of what theme is, as you explicitly asked for one.

It's not a definition I invented, either; it's how many professionals (both in novel writing, and in film) approach and use theme. 

If anyone would like to learn more about it, I'd be happy to offer reading material on the matter. :encouragement:


----------



## Newman (Jul 19, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Does the "battle between good and evil" count as a theme?



Not as it stands. There's no indication of your argument. 



T.S.Bowman said:


> I was more just wondering why people would go looking for something that the author never intended to put in the work.



You'll have to ask shadowwalker, Terry D and some of the others who believe that theme is left to the audience to decide.



Kyle R said:


> If anyone would like to learn more about it, I'd be happy to offer reading material on the matter. :encouragement:



I highly recommend y'all take up this offer. Kyle's on the right track in this instance.

Highly recommend y'all investigate how plot, character, dialogue, world etc grows out of theme.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 19, 2014)

Newman said:


> Highly recommend y'all investigate how plot, character, dialogue, world etc grows out of theme.



"Can"grow out of theme.  :deadhorse:


----------



## Jon M (Jul 19, 2014)

Greimour said:


> I would hazard a guess that more people with learning fail than those without. That's because in all probability, it is more likely that the ratio of learned people attempting to write than those without learning will be higher. People without learning mostly believe they can't, so don't try. Whilst those believe with learning, they can - yet despite learning, still can't. Then there are those who try anyway and still fail. If we had every book submission failure tallied, then split them into two piles "those submitted by people who learned the craft" vs "those who submitted that didn't learn the craft." I would bet money the people who learned the craft would have a higher pile. Equally... if you check the "success" pile. The "learned the craft" pile would be higher... for no other reason than more people with learning send in submission.


One of the most confusing paragraphs I have read in awhile. Congrats. 

Maybe clarify what these people are _failing at_.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 19, 2014)

> If a writer says that he (or she) has written a story around theme X, then you cannot say that the theme is Y.
> 
> When Cecil B. DeMille introduces _The Ten Commandments (with Charlton Heston) and says that the theme of the story is "whether man should be ruled by the laws of God or the laws of a dictator," then that's the theme. You cannot turn around and say that the theme is "loss of innocence" or whatever. If you do that, then you do what some people here are objecting to - finding meaning where none was intended._



But that's the joy of literature! Finding the _intended _theme is only one part of the literary puzzle.

The main question is, what if the writer fails? What if they intend one theme, but create another? The moment that occurs, your argument falls to pieces.

I suggest you read some Barthes and become better acquainted with modern literary theory and how an author can be disconnected from his/her work, to avoid keeping this very limited view of art.

Another good example is Waiting For Godot, a play with success that has, to paraphrase Beckett,  'arisen from misunderstanding'.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 19, 2014)

Jon M said:


> One of the most confusing paragraphs I have read in awhile. Congrats.
> 
> Maybe clarify what these people are _failing at_.



Heh, my bad. 

Failing to get their submission (manuscript) published - that was what I was referring to. 

And I addressed Kyle's post for learning purposes. (My own really, I am kind of selfish like that.) I didn't feel I understood Kyle's view, or maybe I misinterpreted the message he intended or various other. Either way, I couldn't understand his side of the "argument". I take pride in seeing both sides of the argument and then coming to my own understanding, view or belief... so when I fail to see 'both sides' I argue against the side I don't understand until I do understand their view. 

Helps me keep an open mind but does occasionally get me in trouble. >.<

~~~

Kyle. <3

I thought about that 'off topic' dilemma before I posted but figured... this is in discussions... discussions take you away from the original issue but they almost always go full circle and give a conclusion to whatever the topic was. The topic dragged in themes and so forth, but does that not indirectly address the issue anyway? The reason as to why people can't just enjoy a good story and insist on dissecting and analyzing the work put in front of them is directly related, no?


----------



## Terry D (Jul 20, 2014)

Newman said:


> You'll have to ask shadowwalker, Terry D and some of the others who believe that theme is left to the audience to decide.



I never said that, nor did I imply it. I said that the theme the writer intends (if she intends one at all) may not be the theme the reader perceives, and that's okay. It is the reader's prerogative to take away anything he wants from a story. Many writers, as has been made clear here, do start with a theme in mind, but the story can mean something different to different people. That's what makes reading some books so interesting. You can take away something different each time you read it. Sometimes, regardless of the intended theme, others, which the writer may not even be aware of, creep into a story.


----------



## Newman (Jul 20, 2014)

Cadence said:


> But that's the joy of literature! Finding the intended theme is only one part of the literary puzzle.
> 
> The main question is, what if the writer fails? What if they intend one theme, but create another? The moment that occurs, your argument falls to pieces.
> 
> ...






Terry D said:


> I never said that, nor did I imply it. I said that the theme the writer intends (if she intends one at all) may not be the theme the reader perceives, and that's okay. It is the reader's prerogative to take away anything he wants from a story. Many writers, as has been made clear here, do start with a theme in mind, but the story can mean something different to different people. That's what makes reading some books so interesting. You can take away something different each time you read it. Sometimes, regardless of the intended theme, others, which the writer may not even be aware of, creep into a story.



You're not responding to me. You're responding to the OP:




T.S.Bowman said:


> I was more just wondering why people would go looking for something that the author never intended to put in the work.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 20, 2014)

> You're not responding to me. You're responding to the OP.



By your argument, I should be the one who decides who I'm responding to, not you. And I'm responding to both you and the OP.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 20, 2014)

Greimour said:


> The reason as to why people can't just enjoy a good story and insist on dissecting and analyzing the work put in front of them is directly related, no?


For some, myself included, the enjoyment comes from first reading and then analyzing a story, not necessarily to figure out why it works in a general sense, or to confirm that the rules of the craft were indeed followed (who cares), but to determine why the story worked _for me_, why _I_ found it resonant and evocative. This approach acknowledges that I, as a reader, have a vast pool of personal experiences, both good and bad, tragic and uplifting, and that I bring those experiences to any story I read (unavoidable). In my opinion, this ... offering of mine, this personal investment in someone else's art, is the highest compliment an artist can receive. 

Totally selfish approach, Jon M admits.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 21, 2014)

Jon M said:


> For some, myself included, the enjoyment comes from first reading and then analyzing a story, not necessarily to figure out why it works in a general sense, or to confirm that the rules of the craft were indeed followed (who cares), but to determine why the story worked _for me_, why _I_ found it resonant and evocative. This approach acknowledges that I, as a reader, have a vast pool of personal experiences, both good and bad, tragic and uplifting, and that I bring those experiences to any story I read (unavoidable). In my opinion, this ... offering of mine, this personal investment in someone else's art, is the highest compliment an artist can receive.
> 
> Totally selfish approach, Jon M admits.



I'm not trying to be combative, nor am I just being an ass with this question. I am genuinely curious because I need to gt better insight into how things work.

You mentioned in an earlier post (the way I understood what you were saying) that, in your job, you can tell which writers are familiar with theme and develop it well.

My understanding of flash fiction, which is what I understand your employer publishes, is that it is a few hundred words at most.

How can you tell? How much of a theme could possibly be developed in just a few hundred words? I mean, there sure wouldn't seem to be a whole lot of room for deep development.

Again, I am genuinely curious.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 21, 2014)

Jon M said:


> For some, myself included, the enjoyment comes from first reading and then analyzing a story, not necessarily to figure out why it works in a general sense, or to confirm that the rules of the craft were indeed followed (who cares), but to determine why the story worked _for me_, why _I_ found it resonant and evocative. This approach acknowledges that I, as a reader, have a vast pool of personal experiences, both good and bad, tragic and uplifting, and that I bring those experiences to any story I read (unavoidable). In my opinion, this ... offering of mine, this personal investment in someone else's art, is the highest compliment an artist can receive.
> 
> Totally selfish approach, Jon M admits.



Ya Jon, I said in my very first response - the very first response to this thread even - I do it too, to some degree. Because I like to.

Quote of what I said:


> But I like it anyway. The people studying and teaching all this jargon  provide me with insight and I find the whole thing to contain a bit of  human interest. Whatever anyway, I am as opinionated as any of them and I  like to break things down to express to the author what it made me  think and feel... and why.


----------



## Sam (Jul 21, 2014)

Newman said:


> I highly recommend y'all take up this offer. Kyle's on the right track in this instance.
> 
> Highly recommend y'all investigate how plot, character, dialogue, world etc grows out of theme.



I'd highly recommend you stop saying "y'all".


----------



## garza (Jul 21, 2014)

They ain' nothin' wrong with 'y'all' 'cep when Hollywood actors use it to mean one person. We can 'scuse them on accont of they's ignernt.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 21, 2014)

Newman said:


> You're not responding to me. You're responding to the OP:



I was responding to the quote I posted... from you.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 21, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I'm not trying to be combative, nor am I just being an ass with this question. I am genuinely curious because I need to gt better insight into how things work.
> 
> You mentioned in an earlier post (the way I understood what you were saying) that, in your job, you can tell which writers are familiar with theme and develop it well.
> 
> ...


Flash fiction can be up to 1,000 words, and a lot can be done in that amount of words. Just depends on so many aspects of the story. Like, some writers seem to be stuck on the advice to "show, not tell", and typically (not all of the time) their stories read as a scene from a larger story, the dialogue pings back and forth between characters as if they were actors on stage, and in general there is little sense of the world beyond--which I personally think all good flash fiction strives to convey. 1,000 words goes pretty fast when stories are written that way, all in-the-moment, or very descriptive, laden with adjectives and adverbs. And then there are the stories that are the opposite. They give the advice to "show, not tell" the middle finger and they sort of dance among the details of the story, refusing to get sucked into the mud of one particular scene but creating a broader view, telling the story of a person over a lifetime, or creating a portrait of a place or a time--all in 1,000 words. 

So it depends on the writer's approach, the kind of story he wants to tell, how he wants to tell it, what he chooses to focus on. And theme comes out of all of that. It's inevitable, really. When a writer begins to tell stories that speak for him on some personal level, theme arises naturally. If you have opinions about the world, and you write, you are using themes.


----------



## Newman (Jul 21, 2014)

Jon M said:


> It's inevitable, really. When a writer begins to tell stories that speak for him on some personal level, theme arises naturally. If you have opinions about the world, and you write, you are using themes.



Fair enough. But it gives the impression that theme is some kind of reflection of whatever you do, so you don't have to worry about it.

It's really the opposite of that, because when you've got it, it becomes central.

It's the central argument / idea / choice around which everything else is built. For example, it tells you who the protagonist will be, who the antagonist will be (see Justin Rocket's post #28 ) and so much more.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 21, 2014)

Newman said:


> For example, it tells you who the protagonist will be, who the antagonist will be (see Justin Rocket's post #28 ) and so much more.



Theme has never, nor will ever, had anything to do with "who my characters are". All I do is create a character that I think would be interesting to watch do stuff, and go from there.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 21, 2014)

I think I see what I was missing before.

In my WIP, there is a scene where my MC is asked about things back home and he goes into some of the things he misses. There is a point in the relating of this that the MC mentions a real life news story that was against wind farms because some environuts said that birds would fly into the vanes and die. He relates that he thought those birds that died would prove Darwin's position that animals adapt or die. The ones that fly into the vanes wouldn't produce offspring that would do the same thing.

Now, if I chose to continue that, I wouldbe relating an theme based on environmental issues would I not?


----------



## Greimour (Jul 21, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I think I see what I was missing before.
> 
> In my WIP, there is a scene where my MC is asked about things back home and he goes into some of the things he misses. There is a point in the relating of this that the MC mentions a real life news story that was against wind farms because some environuts said that birds would fly into the vanes and die. He relates that he thought those birds that died would prove Darwin's position that animals adapt or die. The ones that fly into the vanes wouldn't produce offspring that would do the same thing.
> 
> Now, if I chose to continue that, I would be relating an theme based on environmental issues would I not?



No. At least not in my opinion and understanding. Maybe my brain is dysfunctional and though my understanding is occasionally fundamentally wrong, I still usually achieve the right result; which is why I am fond of the term, 'whatever works.'

What you would be doing is one of two things. Though the statement for what those two things are could be made into long essays, I will try to keep it down to a simple sentence for each:

1) Adding to your character. The history, opinions, views, beliefs and views of your character.

2) Inserting your own opinions (bias or otherwise) into the story to tell your reader something that does little-to-nothing for your story. This one is less likely to be the reason but it is not that uncommon for writers to actually throw in their personal views for some kind of self gratification. Keeping the story separate from the authors views and opinion is difficult, maybe impossible, but how blatant those views and opinions are varies greatly. This possibility is also when you have to start considering if it is a theme - because this is when the story/author is conveying something, intentionally or otherwise.

~~~

A theme to a story is what you are trying to convey from the story. Usually as a whole. Short stories will often have only one, whilst larger stories and novels may have several. In short, the theme is the central idea of the story. Though you _could_ turn Darwin's theory into a sub-theme; in the example you presented it would only be your character. If you raised a debate and discussion about it in order to convey your own opinion and possibly bias the discussion towards your own views and beliefs - that is when it becomes a theme in the story. 

His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman was, in my opinion, an attempt to open peoples eyes in regards to religion and fanaticism. The themes then being Biblical (Adam and Eve), Religion, Boy meets Girl, and others - which essentially boils down to one single theme "Humanities struggle with Free Will". 

The confusing part with themes is that it is not to be confused with 'plot of' or 'moral of' the story. The plot is what happens and in what order whilst the moral is the lesson learned at the end (by either character, reader or both).

As example:

The theme for Peter Pan in my opinion was 'not wanting to grow up' and 'Coming of Age'; whilst depending on which version you take into account, the moral of the story changes but for me usually equates to 'take/taking responsibilities' (which is shown when he chooses to grow up), 'life is a game' and 'love is [everything]'.  

I can't really see how your Darwin theory thing could be made into a  theme unless you were using it as a base point for your entire story.  This is why I don't focus on 'themes' ... Did J. M. Barrie want to tell a  coming of age story, or did he want to write a boy meets girl story? or  did he want to write a boy who never wanted to grow up and got that  chance - yet despite that, thanks to a girl (love) he gave it all up -  in which case the theme could be considered to be "Sacrifice".

As people have stated, themes will often arise so long as a story unfolds. It is why I get fed up of common discussions about methods of writing. What it generally boils down to is Structure or story architecture. No matter the how, why or inspiration - if the structure is sound then you are on the right track. You could have the best story in the world with all the plotting you could have ever done and all the planning you could have ever needed - but without story structure you won't get anywhere. Likewise, you could make it up as you go from start to finish and using only intuition get the structure perfect; in which case the chance of publication is far higher. A story will only be published if the structure/architecture is right. I have not seen a case where this is not true (outside of self publication at least)

I think that in part explains why people insist on breaking stories down - which goes back to your original discussion. Finding the structure of a story -the pivotal points- is very informative and can help (especially those who are intuitive and write by the seat of their pants) with the creation of our own stories.


I think in my ramble and explanation I digressed a bit and may have gone off point a few times. I believe however, that I did keep in mind your question and addressed it. I hope that I did. I also hope that this provides some insight for you.

~Kev.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 22, 2014)

It definitely helped, Kev.

But it also made my head hurt. Not so much your words as the fact that this kind of thing is exactly why I sucked as an English student.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 22, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> It definitely helped, Kev.
> 
> But it also made my head hurt. Not so much your words as the fact that this kind of thing is exactly why I sucked as an English student.



Super simple version then:

The central idea for a story is the theme. Think of any prompt and that essentially is a theme. Your Darwin theory problem is an aspect/topicc within the story - but that doesn't make it the central idea of the story, so not '_the _theme'.


The central idea (or prompt) is in mind and woven into the story from the start to the end. Whether you plan it out or make it up as you go; as long as you have that central thought in mind then your theme is already set. But even if you don't have any central idea or theme or whatever... one will usually appear before long and at that point, you will (in all likeliness) continue running with it. You may not have started with one, but in almost all cases (if not all) one will arise.


Hehe, hope that helps ^_^ :love_heart:


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 22, 2014)

Like a well-written thesis paper, all sections of a thematically streamlined story will either support or challenge the thematic argument.

If your thematic argument is, "Modernization is harmful to wildlife," then every scene in your story should (technically) work to either support, or challenge, this argument.

Any scene that doesn't argue, challenge, or hint at this statement is (again, speaking on a technical level) thematically irrelevant.

Fortunately, fiction is a creative process, not a technical one, and all the math doesn't need to compute in order for a work to be emotionally resonant in a reader. For this reason, I don't (personally) concern myself with making _every_ scene thematically relevant—I just focus on having _enough_ thematically relevant scenes to give the work thematic weight.

How many scenes are "enough"? That depends on the author's discretion. One author might consider a single thematic scene in a story of thirty scenes to be enough. Another writer might want twenty out of thirty scenes to be thematically relevant.

It all depends on the writer.

But, for those looking to better understand how to use theme in your writing, you can think of it as an "argument", one that takes a moral stance.

It's not simply, "Love and money," but digging deeper to take a stance on the subject, such as, "Love is better than money."

It's not just, "Greed and politics," but, again, digging deeper to find the argument, the moral stance, you're making, such as, "Greed breeds evil."

It's not just a topic, it's a _statement_.

The thematic argument of a short story I'm working on is, "Self-aware robots deserve the right to live." Clearly, it's a science fiction. The story has five scenes, and three of the scenes directly relate to the thematic argument.

One other way to approach it is to treat the thematic argument (the moral stance you've decided to put out there) as a question. 

"IS love better than money?" 

"DOES greed breed evil?"

Handling it this way still has the same approach: your thematic scenes will be the ones that directly relate to the thematic question. :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 22, 2014)

Well....it looks like I am going to have to make a decision.

From what I have read here, and my inability to figure out theme vs whatever, it seems that no matter what, my work will not be as good as it could be.

I was never a good English student. This thread proves to me that I am no better now than I was before. 

My mind simply does not seem willing to work in a way that is conducive to "good" writing. 

My mind wants me to just sit down and write the damn story.

But, if doing so isn't going to give me a good piece at the end, then what is the point of putting in the effort to write it?


----------



## Greimour (Jul 22, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Well....it looks like I am going to have to make a decision.
> 
> From what I have read here, and my inability to figure out theme vs whatever, it seems that no matter what, my work will not be as good as it could be.
> 
> ...



Nope, thematics don't matter in my opinion. I've read plenty of books where _them__e  _is not self evident. Only structure/architecture matters. There is a few minor disagreements as to whether structure and story architecture is the same thing, but whether it is the same or not - it is agreed by both parties that you must have one or the other in order to have a publishable story. To me, a traditionally published story is good enough to be considered good. Even if you personally don't like the story and disagree - a best seller is still a best seller and you can't please everyone. Least of all literature philosophers and their kin. 

I know a traditionally published story doesn't mean best seller - but the big publishing houses should at least be able to know if a story is worthy and potentially capable. That's a good enough opinion for me to conclude the story must be good. (At least to a populous I am not necessarily part of and one that consists of people in the hundreds of thousands)


----------



## Tettsuo (Jul 22, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Well....it looks like I am going to have to make a decision.
> 
> From what I have read here, and my inability to figure out theme vs whatever, it seems that no matter what, my work will not be as good as it could be.
> 
> ...



You can't help BUT to have a theme!  That's the awesome part about being an artist.  You are always front and center in your art.

I say this because I believe that everyone tells who they are and what they are about as a default.  Writers, because we are communicating to the reader, always find a way to tell the reader who we are and thus what the story is about... truly about.

So write your story.  Your theme will be in there somewhere even if you don't write it down or know it.  You can't help yourself!  That's the beauty of a powerful subconscious mind.


----------



## Bishop (Jul 22, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> My mind wants me to just sit down and write the damn story.
> 
> But, if doing so isn't going to give me a good piece at the end, then what is the point of putting in the effort to write it?



Yes. Write the damn story.

It'll be a good piece, theme/intent/story or not otherwise, so long as it entertains. People tell stories to entertain, and sometimes to get a point across, but it's never "you must have both." You can write a good story and have it just be a story. If people want to try and find meaning, or want to say "I think Bowman was trying to tell us..." that's their interpretation. At the end of the day you can write or not write, all elements of the story be damned. Your call.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jul 22, 2014)

Tettsuo said:


> You can't help BUT to have a theme!  That's the awesome part about being an artist.  You are always front and center in your art.
> 
> I say this because I believe that everyone tells who they are and what they are about as a default.  Writers, because we are communicating to the reader, always find a way to tell the reader who we are and thus what the story is about... truly about.
> 
> So write your story.  Your theme will be in there somewhere even if you don't write it down or know it.  You can't help yourself!  That's the beauty of a powerful subconscious mind.



This times 1000. 

This whole discussion has illustrated why I get so frustrated when people start saying you have to worry about "mechanics" versus craft - because then writers, still trying to find their way, lose heart and quit. It's like asking a centipede how it walks - once they have to think about it, they can't.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 22, 2014)

I apologize, Bow, if my enthusiasm for theme has discouraged you. 

Some writers like to work with it, other writers like to ignore it. It sounds like being aware of theme shuts you down, creatively, more than it helps you. So, your best plan of action would probably be to ignore it.

As you eloquently stated, "just sit down and write the damn story." 

Though, I have to be honest, I find it a little discouraging, myself, to not be able to talk about thematic structure (or other technical methods of story-crafting) without frustrating or intimidating members here. Sometimes, a writer wants to be able to talk about these kinds of things. 

But, leave that to me to worry about. All that matters is you get on that horse and write! :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 22, 2014)

It's not your enthusiasm that has gotten me discouraged, Kyle.  I would never hold someone's enthusiasm against them.

It's the fact that I just can't seem to understand the whole deal. I hate feeling like an idiot.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 22, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> It's not your enthusiasm that has gotten me discouraged, Kyle.  I would never hold someone's enthusiasm against them.
> 
> It's the fact that I just can't seem to understand the whole deal. I hate feeling like an idiot.



I don't think anyone would object to a talk/discussion on thematics. I certainly wouldn't and when it comes to some aspects of writing and even reading - I would not object to lessons, advice and discussions.

Bowman, I don't think you should let yourself feel like an idiot. Not understanding or comprehending doesn't make you stupid. Some things simply don't sink in for some people. Despite that, they often make up for it in other ways... as I am sure you do too.

Usually though, when something doesn't make sense... it often means it hasn't been explained in a way [the person in question] can understand. I thought perhaps prompts would do the trick. 
LFM Competitions for example - when you write based on a prompt - that is pretty much the same as writing to a theme. Though not identical, the similarities are compatible enough for blood transfusions. 

At any rate... even if you don't understand themes, there will be things you understand that I never will. I don't feel stupid for it though. To me it is perfectly naturally that such things happen. Our minds are different and they are filled with different knowledge and experiences. We are wired differently and perceptions and conceptions are processed differently. Strength in numbers doesn't always mean physical. 2 heads are better than 1, after all.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 22, 2014)

> It's really the opposite of that, because when you've got it, it becomes central.
> 
> It's the central argument / idea / choice around which everything else is built. For example, it tells you who the protagonist will be, who the antagonist will be (see Justin Rocket's post #28 ) and so much more.



I think the theme of this thread has become 'thinking everyone writes like me'. By your argument, you would make an excellent protagonist; but this also shows that, since you already are the protagonist of your own perspective on the discussion, theme has arisen from character, not the other way around.

Unless you want to argue that I've got the theme wrong. But it my mind, I've got the theme right, and any English student worth his salt would say that we've both got the theme right. So there's no argument to be had.


----------

