# The science of deeper meaning



## Foxee (Oct 24, 2012)

For the most part I've been content with writing stories that are entertaining for the reader and enjoyable to write but now I'm finding that isn't really enough. There's a huge difference between the satisfaction that I get from reading a story that is a good adventure or thriller and from reading one where the storyline is every bit as thrilling but also has more dimension and meaning. The latter option makes me think about it for the next week and probably will come back to me after that. It doesn't matter whether it's flash fiction, short story, or novel, there are some that serve up such a tasty feast of truth along with the great presentation that they're just more satisfying overall. 

This is what I'm aiming for next. The problem is that considering how to do this is paralyzing. I feel like I've got bits and pieces of a mysterious DIY kit and tools lying around all over the place and I want to build...something...but I'm not properly sure what yet much less how I might fit the pieces together.

So these questions are really only for those who strive for deeper meaning into their writing (the rest of you are off the hook):

What process do you go through to weave this meaning into your work? 

Do you feel that you're successful at it? 

What do you think might help to improve your process?

What resources (if any) could you recommend?

Thanks in advance, I'm looking forward to the discussion of this.
F.


----------



## Jon M (Oct 24, 2012)

I assume you don't mean deeper meaning as in just symbolism, but as in that intangible feeling that certain works are better, fuller, richer, _more important_ than others. 

Creating that impression I think has a lot to do with confronting universal themes and emotional responses as they occur to characters in real, specific situations. Why do some have the impression that literary fiction is boring, that we're all writing about our families, our grandmothers, ad nauseum? Because it's true somewhat -- there's real poetry there in the mundane, big and often conflicting forces at work. 

For example, I'm dabbling in sci-fi right now (totally out of my comfort zone, even though I'm envious of those literary sci-fi writers, i.e., Margaret Atwood, etc.), and about a half hour ago I wrote part of a scene where this group of three kids are wandering around in an 'off-limits' area, basically the underground ruins of a research facility, and at one point they look up through a huge opening in the ceiling (a sinkhole) at the skyscrapers looming over them, and one kid says, What do you suppose it's like up there? And they go on to talk about how different they imagine it is, the way kids do, and at that moment I felt like I was touching on something universal, just briefly -- this idea of different classes, of wanting to know what it's like for the people in the clouds and why it's so different and why it can't be that way for the kids below, why they couldn't have that same opportunity. 

So I think, first and foremost, it requires an awareness of what is universal, common among all human beings regardless of culture.

As for my process, I don't go looking for it. I don't set out to write _something important_ because I already know I'll fail, right away. Not smart enough, maybe, at least not yet. Instead I write the story as if everything is literal, as if, for example, pink unicorns _really_ exist, and when the first draft is done I go looking for those moments in the prose where, inexplicably, it's elevated, in the atmosphere -- scratching at universal themes -- and then I do my best fleshing those out more.

As for success, maybe 0% to 33% of the time, _maybe_.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 24, 2012)

Jon M said:


> I assume you don't mean deeper meaning as in just symbolism, but as in that intangible feeling that certain works are better, fuller, richer, _more important_ than others.


Right on the money. Exactly.



> So I think, first and foremost, it requires an awareness of what is universal, common among all human beings regardless of culture.


Yes! That would cause that tug as you're reading, you're right.



> As for my process, I don't go looking for it. I don't set out to write _something important_ because I already know I'll fail, right away. Not smart enough, maybe, at least not yet. Instead I write the story as if everything is literal, as if, for example, pink unicorns _really_ exist, and when the first draft is done I go looking for those moments in the prose where, inexplicably, it's elevated, in the atmosphere -- scratching at universal themes -- and then I do my best fleshing those out more.
> 
> As for success, maybe 0% to 33% of the time, _maybe_.


This kind of process makes sense to me and I've had a few (very few) 'hit and miss' moments as well with this though I think I've mostly missed and I know I haven't followed up on it enough. Thanks for the explanation, that helps!


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 24, 2012)

Figure out the deeper meaning you want to pursue (it needs to be something specific; simply a desire for the concept of "deeper meaning" will get you nowhere), and attack it from every angle you can.  Consider your topic often, and challenge your own perceptions on it.  Find out where you stand, or if you even have a stance at all.  You can learn a lot about yourself from how you choose to approach the topic.

Here's an example from my current work.  The title is (tentatively), "The Burden of Humanity," and the story explores the nature of people and relationships.  What does it mean to be human? What is the value of human life? Is killing ever justifiable? Is humanity linked to a body, or a soul, or a personality, or something else? Are we defined by our primal desires or our elevated place in society? How can (and should) humans relate to each other? What is the nature of sacrifice, and is it ever justifiable? Is someone allowed to act only for himself, or does he have an obligation to others?

You see, even a relatively simple concept ("humanity") has substantial depth, if you're willing to probe.  In my case, I chose something that I was interested in, and I incorporated it into my story with an appropriate plot/setting (conscription and participation in a war).

Though this is only my first work, I consider it my masterpiece.  It's so satisfying to read it again and again, and I'm continually stunned by how well everything came together.  I've only had one reader so far (and she was reading as a casual reader rather than an editor), and she loved it too.  I have no idea how I'd improve this process, but I do know what got me to this point: I wrote from the heart.  Every character and every plot point was crafted based on what interested me personally.  I'm deeply invested in my world and characters, and I think that was what made my story as satisfying as it is (to me, anyway).

The only resources I can recommend are the ones that inspired you to take this step.  There must be a reason that certain stories touched you deeply, and it's likely because they address issues that are important to you.  Take those issues and put your own touch on them.  Write about them as a way to explore them (I've considered my own work my "personal psychological profile").  If you take what's truly important to you and write honestly about it, the result will be a profound work that speaks right to your readers' hearts.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Oct 24, 2012)

"Deeper meaning" is something I try to think about, but I find it's not so much a matter of deciding to think about X or Y or how I want to send a message or whatever, as it is writing and then stepping back, looking at the text as a reader, and asking myself, okay, so what is significant here? What larger issues might be at stake in this work? and those might be universal, big Issues (like class, as Jon M mentions in his example), or they might be more specific to your interests, or even simply related to your own personal experience. Once I've identified something that I think is important, I'll generally try to emphasize it in small ways - not to make it obtrusive, or a "message", but just so that the question or issue is more visible. 

So to give an example, I recently (for LM) wrote a story about a woman watching a tape of herself having sex with her ex-boyfriend. Reading the first version, I found it made me think about the way that visual media and these representations of ourselves create a sort of split temporality and a split experience of the self. So I tried to bring that out more, mostly through verb tense in that case. I don't know if that was entirely successful, but then I don't necessarily expect people to get out of my writing exactly what I put into it, either. 

So my advice would be to really examine what you've already written, because "deeper meaning" is almost certainly already present in your work if you look for it. Your work shows what you think the world is like and how you understand human experience. It's just a matter of bringing those things to the surface.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 24, 2012)

I can see what you're saying, Gamer, though I'm not sure I would have considered "humanity" as a simple concept. That is a lot to tackle.


> (I've considered my own work my "personal psychological profile").  If  you take what's truly important to you and write honestly about it, the  result will be a profound work that speaks right to your readers'  hearts.


Also very helpful. Thank you, Gamer!

Believe me, I may not have a lot to say about the advice I'm getting but it just means I'm mulling it over and holding it up to see how I might go about it.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 24, 2012)

> Once I've identified something that I think is important, I'll generally  try to emphasize it in small ways - not to make it obtrusive, or a  "message", but just so that the question or issue is more visible.


That's what I'm aiming for. I dread being preachy in any way, adding more of a message appears to be a subtle art.



> So my advice would be to really examine what you've already written,  because "deeper meaning" is almost certainly already present in your  work if you look for it. Your work shows what you think the world is  like and what human experience is. It's just a matter of bringing those  things to the surface.


This is very encouraging...I'm actually beginning to believe I might be able to develop this.

Thank you as well, lasm, very thoughtful response.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 24, 2012)

Foxee said:


> Also very helpful. Thank you, Gamer!



It's something I learned from the fellow behind our signatures.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 24, 2012)

Foxee said:


> What process do you go through to weave this meaning into your work?
> 
> Do you feel that you're successful at it?
> 
> ...



I use a formulaic approach, not to the writing itself, but in the planning process.

I figure out two things for my character(s): An external goal, and an internal problem.

My plan is to have the external goal reach a state of crisis (things get to the breaking point), at this moment, my character either solves his internal problem--or fails at it.


So for example, the movie, "The Wrestler." I haven't seen it, but I can tell from the trailer that it's about a guy who has an external goal--the struggles of being an entertainment wrestler--and an internal problem--his desire to reconnect with his estranged daughter.

I'm sure there's a lot more to the movie than that, but that's generally how _I_ approach my stories, by identifying those two things.

So, while the character is pursuing his external goal, his internal problem keeps resurfacing. 


It's my opinion that the internal problems are where the depth in stories come from. _Saving Private Ryan_, for instance, was about the war. The external goal of the characters was to survive and to kill the bad guys. But the most poignant moments were where internal problems surfaced, if even for an glimpse.

Tom Hank's character revealed, at one part of the story, that he's actually a school teacher. In a movie about bloodshed and death, this revelation should hold no comparison to the intense dramas. But actually, that moment is a powerful one. Because an internal issue is addressed, rather than the external ones. Here the captain is revealed as no longer just the captain--but just a regular man with a job educating children. It's a memorable scene because we see the characters no longer as just soldiers--but people, like you and me.

I think that's what revealing internal struggles can do, it can bring out the humanity of your characters, and make them seem more real, and profundity can follow.

Hank's characters is also repeatedly shown staring at his shaking hand, and his subdued recognition that he's got the onsets of what seems to be Parkinson's disease--a symptom he tries to hide from the other soldiers.

Again the internal problem surfaces in a scene when he is giving orders to his men about attacking a machinegunner on a hillside. While he's talking, his hand is shaking noticably. All the men notice and begin staring at his hand. Then he looks down too, and when he looks at the men, they are giving him looks of sympathy and pity.

For me, this was another one of the more powerful scenes in the film. Another instance where something the character is struggling with internally is brought into focus.

So how can you accomplish this in your writing? Well, figure out an internal problem first, I'd say! That's what I do, at least.

In my current WIP I have a group of characters that have an external goal relating to a rival sporting event. But the internal problem of my main character is that he is struggling with his identity as an adopted child of a different race. He also feels guilty about something he's been doing in secret.

While the story about the sporting event moves forward, I "ping" my character now and again with his internal problems, like pelting him with small pebbles. The issues resurface here and there and I let him try to ignore them or deal with them. Those, I think, are the deeper moments in my story--whenever the internal is brought to light.

That's just my approach, though, and I still have no formula for how to actually _write_ deep scenes, but I do use this approach to consciously provide _elements_ where depth can be drawn from.

Hope any of this helps! :encouragement:


----------



## Foxee (Oct 24, 2012)

Thanks, Kyle! That is really helpful, actually. You've brought to light some things that I know about but haven't really put into gear, I think. External goal and internal problem or struggle. 



> I "ping" my character now and again with his internal problems, like  pelting him with small pebbles. The issues resurface here and there and I  let him try to ignore them or deal with them. Those, I think, are the  deeper moments in my story--whenever the internal is brought to light.


Not so different than what I've done in RPG's really. Maybe all that time wasn't wasted after all.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 24, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> It's something I learned from the fellow behind our signatures.


A very, very wise man.  I just noticed you had that sig earlier today.


----------



## Nickleby (Oct 24, 2012)

One thing that's important to remember--you can very easily cross the line into preachy when you put a message in your work. Nobody likes to get hit over the head with moralizing, especially when they're trying to relax and enjoy a story. The term _deeper meaning_ literally tells you to bury your message. Some readers will notice it, some won't. Some will find their own meaning, and they'll surprise you by finding things you didn't put there.

Another risk is putting your words in a character's mouth. It's fine to make pithy comments on human behavior, but they're not very convincing if they come from a hooded dust demon from the Eighth Executive Subcommittee of Tartarus who's never met a human before. Unless, of course, you're going for surreal humor, or you're contrasting the demon's grasp of human nature with that of the other characters.

Those caveats aside, you have all sorts of options. At the most basic level, you can toss off a _bon mot_ in dialog or narrative. By repeating it at key points, you can reinforce the lesson, show other facets of it, or tear holes in it.

 Slightly less obvious is the Object Lesson. You can give a character a trait you admire (or detest) and then reward (or punish) the character for having it. Similarly, you can have a character do something you approve (or disapprove) of, with suitable results. Every such decision you make can tell the reader what you believe (or be interpreted as such).

A typical ploy in fantasy and science fiction is to create a culture with one trait exaggerated (or reduced) to a ridiculous degree, then show the benefit or harm.

It seems I've run out of time. Too bad, I was just getting started. Later.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 24, 2012)

Nickleby said:


> One thing that's important to remember--you can very easily cross the line into preachy when you put a message in your work.


Yep, that's one thing I'm very aware of and I definitely don't want to do.

Thanks, Nickleby, those options will go into the toolbox, too. I didn't even hear the buzzer sound, I was too wrapped up in what you were saying.  Thanks for your input!


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 24, 2012)

Foxee said:


> ...
> 
> So these questions are really only for those who strive for deeper  meaning into their writing (the rest of you are off the hook):
> 
> What process do you go through to weave this meaning into your work?



You  have to _bring_ a deeper level of writing into your work if you  want deeper meaning. That doesn't mean it has to be full of adult  situations, drama, literary themes and the like. It just means that you  have to learn to write behind the words.

Reading is a very  complex thing, one that combines uniquely wired human intellectual  abilities and our own dynamic culture. It's really amazing. That we can  communicate directly to another person who is removed in place and time  by scratching some symbols on a piece of paper is truly an astounding  gift. No other creature can do this.

But, not everyone can read  behind the lines and not every writer finds it easy to write there.  Archetypes, symbolism (a sort of metaphor writ large), even physical  descriptions can help set the stage. But, they won't do the job by  themselves. This is much more than "saying what you haven't said" in  in-between-the-lines sort of style. This is about crafting a message so  that it is, as you say, deeper than a hamfisted allusion to something  unspoken.

Take an "L" shaped room.

There's a door at one  end. Around the corner of the room is where a character sleeps. There's a  small window next to the bed that looks upon the cold brick wall of a  neighboring apartment building. Each day, the character wakes, dresses,  rounds the corner of their small tenement room and then leaves for work.  Sometimes, when they're sitting on their bed, eating a stale sandwich  for dinner and listening to a tinny radio, a neighbor will knock on the  door to see if they're home. They never answer that knock.

What  did I just say? Yes, there's a buttload of symbolism there. The L-shaped  room, the cold brick wall, the stale sandwich, the tinny radio and  their reluctance to cross into the part of the room that's visible, if  only briefly, to a neighbor when they open the door. But, there's also  something else you can build up aside from symbolism. Working within  such a setting, you can weave subjects that touch your audience in a  profound way. In such a setting, you have set the stage. An astute  reader will pick it up, immediately. Even the one's just along for the  ride will eventually expect it! Provided you have the right audience for  it, that is.

That's something else - You have to write for your  audience. A literary audience expects "deeper." If it's not "deeper"  than pulp fiction, they're not going to like it. (Unless that's a deeper  message, all its own.) But, what about someone expecting a pulp fiction  piece? Are they expecting to get blindsided by lonely guys in L-shaped  rooms? If you use such symbolism to help set the tone and build up a  deeper story behind the lines, it's got to be with an audience that will  appreciate it. Sure, you can "convert" someone to reading something  more profound than what they expected. But, you have to be sure not to  turn them off, along the way. That's hard.

It's why literary  fiction tends to get singled out for "literary" merit, even though there  are wonderfully complex messages hidden within pop-genres. If you want  to write literary fiction within a genre that is not generally built for  it, you've got a lot of work to do. But, if you're successful, you've written the next breakout novel!



> Do you feel that you're successful at it?



That depends on what I'm writing. In some pieces I've written, I feel vindicated in choosing certain sorts of messages.  But, by and large, I think it's easier to do in personal essays,  commentaries, satires and the like. At least, for me. For others, it may  be much easier. But, as you can see by my preferences, certain genres  lend themselves to deeper meanings.



> What do you think might help to improve your process?



Practice, of course!



> What resources (if any) could you recommend?



Read. Pay attention  to your own emotions. When something strikes you, pay attention to what  the author did. Learn how to identify the writing hidden behind the  writing that inspires and speaks to you. Your best resources are going  to be those things that you read which are immediately identifiable to  you as significant and meaningful. If it "speaks" to you, don't be lazy  and just soak it in - Learn "why" it spoke to you.

Practice  building a setting of metaphors. Build your own L-shaped room. "Feel"  why one setting could help project a certain message and why even a  small change might dilute that same message. Then, practice building  character relationships that have within then a dynamic that fits the  message you're trying to convey. What sort of situation would a man who  had a hundred best friends find himself in? What does his apartment look  like? When he goes to bed, what does he dream about? When does he have  time to brush his teeth or get his work done? In the end, when does he  have time to find himself and to realize that he has spread himself so  thin that there's nothing left? Maybe that realization will come while  he's trying to spread the last pad of butter across a stiff piece of dry  toast? Maybe it will only come to the reader?


----------



## JosephB (Oct 25, 2012)

Foxee said:


> This is what I'm aiming for next. The problem is that considering how to do this is paralyzing. I feel like I've got bits and pieces of a mysterious DIY kit and tools lying around all over the place and I want to build...something...but I'm not properly sure what yet much less how I might fit the pieces together.



To me it has to do with empathy -- and creating characters and situations to which people can relate on some basic level. I think it’s that core connection and recognition that creates depth and meaning. You’ve read enough of my work to judge whether or not I pull that off.

For me, that mostly has to do with the subject. For example, I wrote a story about an old lounge singer with a terminal illness who’s coming to grips with the fact that he has to quit singing – and live out his remaining months not doing the only thing he’s ever done and that he loves most. Another was about a young pregnant girl running away from her abusive husband because she wants her child to be safe and happy. Another is about a couple facing the empty nest when their daughter goes off to college -- and realizing that they have to deal with the problems and feelings and emotions they’ve been sweeping under the rug while they focus on raising her. Maybe my favorite is about a young father whose wife has a serious mental illness and he’s facing the fact that he’s going to have to raise his two children on his own. I think one of the stories of mine you really liked was about a young "Yankee" girl who moves to a small southern town in the 1950's, she's trying to fit in and one of her biggest obstacles is she doesn't like Elvis Presley. Who hasn't felt at one time or another that they don't fit in?

I can relate to these people because I can imagine myself in those situations -- most of them just have to do with facing loss and big change --  and I’ve done that. Most people who have lived a little have in one way or another – and when I rekindle those emotions and how I felt -- then I have a good idea that I’m on to something. And then it’s about whether or not people reading my stories will feel the same thing. It’s not about science or formula or breaking things down, it’s just a gut feeling. I don't worry about themes or bigger metaphors or symbols -- I write what feels real and true to life -- with the expectation that those things will emerge on their own. Lot's of times people will bring things to my attention -- what something means to them -- and it won't necessarily be something I did intentionally.

Maybe you need to try and write something out of your comfort zone (Sci-fi?) that has to do with people facing more mundane life issues -- go for that feeling in your gut that you feel when you’re facing something difficult or even something that brought you joy or contentment -- but you had to go through something to get there -- or maybe that's just a realization. Because most of us want basically the same things, I think. Maybe something will come out of it that you can take with you into your other stories.


----------



## HarryG (Oct 25, 2012)

JosephB said:


> To me it has to do with empathy -- and creating characters and situations to which people can relate on some basic level. I think it’s that core connection and recognition that creates depth and meaning. You’ve read enough of my work to judge whether or not I pull that off.
> 
> For me, that mostly has to do with the subject. For example, I wrote a story about an old lounge singer with a terminal illness who’s coming to grips with the fact that he has to quit singing – and live out his remaining months not doing the only thing he’s ever done and that he loves most. Another was about a young pregnant girl running away from her abusive husband because she wants her child to be safe and happy. Another is about a couple facing the empty nest when their daughter goes off to college -- and realizing that they have to deal with the problems and feelings and emotions they’ve been sweeping under the rug while they focus on raising her. Maybe my favorite is about a young father whose wife has a serious mental illness and he’s facing the fact that he’s going to have to raise his two children on his own. I think one of the stories of mine you really liked was about a young "Yankee" girl who moves to a small southern town in the 1950's, she's trying to fit in and one of her biggest obstacles is she doesn't like Elvis Presley. Who hasn't felt at one time or another that they don't fit in?
> 
> ...



  I wonder if it's necessary to think of a deeper meaning in our writing, and won't such a consideration distract us from our primary function - story telling?  

  Like most of us, I've studied literature and taken part in numerous writing courses over the years; I'm still studying now and probably always will, even if it just means reading books with a critical eye, but I sometimes feel that the critical eye and striving for a deeper meaning in my writing gets in the way.

  It takes away the innocent rawness of writing, the beauty of it is distorted by constantly sticking to the rules and dwelling too much on deeper meanings, which only makes us part of the herd, whether we like it or not.

  I'm not advocating sloppy writing, far from it, but sometimes I yearn for the time before having to write an essay on 'to be or not to be'.


----------



## JosephB (Oct 25, 2012)

HarryG said:


> I wonder if it's necessary to think of a deeper meaning in our writing, and won't such a consideration distract us from our primary function - story telling?



That was my point more or less -- I suppose I was thinking that the story telling aspect of it goes without saying. The stories of mine I was describing have plots -- things actually happen in them. What I was driving at is that I DON'T necessarily go for some deeper meaning -- if it feels real then perhaps some deeper meaning will emerge. Obviously, if there are no bones in the way of a good story -- "meaning" alone likely won't cut it.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Oct 25, 2012)

HarryG said:


> I wonder if it's necessary to think of a deeper meaning in our writing, and won't such a consideration distract us from our primary function - story telling?


This is our primary function? What is the point of storytelling if not to help people think about the deeper meaning of things?

I've taken a lot of literature courses and I feel like it makes me a better, more thoughtful writer (than I otherwise would be). Innocent rawness is for the first draft. The critical eye is for the second.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 25, 2012)

To refer to "The science of deeper meaning..." makes it sound like a focus group or a think tank project, an artificial construct to improve the quality of your writing, when you should really be concentrating on the truth of your writing. Engineering a philisophical or moral debate within your prose tends to sound either false or didactic, apart from frequently having the tendency to stall the plot. Deeper truths should flow from the writing, you shouldn't modify your writing in order to sound deeper, more thoughtful; it can end up sounding pretentious - Write what you want to write, say what _you_ mean to say, not what you think someone else thinks you should say - It is your work, your thoughs, use them wisely don't try and pretend that you are someone else, write from the heart, it tends to be more truthful...


----------



## Foxee (Oct 25, 2012)

*Morkonan* Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough response. This makes sense to me, especially the bit about being aware of what reaches me when I read. Your points regarding scene-setting, metaphor, and symbolism are well taken, too.


*Joe B* You're someone I had in mind because your writing often sticks with me for a while. In fact I still remember the story about the girl who didn't like Elvis quite clearly, probably because I went through a lot of that struggle, trying to fit in without really being able to. Empathy worked very well for me right there.


> Maybe you need to try and write something out of your comfort zone (Sci-fi?) that has to do with people facing more mundane life issues -- go for that feeling in your gut that you feel when you’re facing something difficult or even something that brought you joy or contentment -- but you had to go through something to get there -- or maybe that's just a realization. Because most of us want basically the same things, I think. Maybe something will come out of it that you can take with you into your other stories.


 I really like sci-fi but I haven't written much of it (at least not that I've shared here) so trying that would be fun. Good suggestions, thank you!


*HarryG* As someone who has preferred to write instinctively I understand where you're coming from. Very occasionally deeper meaning shows up in my writing but it's not something that I can count on to happen. My thinking here is that there is something to be learned here. For instance, my last LM entry overcame some barriers that had been keeping me from writing but, honestly, it's a pretty thin story. A bit of entertainment that barely rises to the level of a wordy joke. I'm looking to improve beyond this.


 I expect that my efforts to consciously bring more richness to my stories might be hamfisted at first but I'm hoping that with practice (thank you, Morkonan) it'll become a second-nature reflex that flows into my writing just as instinctively as anything else I do. I guess I'm viewing it not much differently than learning to play the violin; just keep adding new skills and working on them until they become natural.


*lasm* Thank you for chipping in your two cents.  


> Innocent rawness is for the first draft. The critical eye is for the second.


 As I'm working on my next project I'm in phase two right now...and that's where I'm having a look at symbolism, metaphor, and even where empathy can be tugged more strongly with better wording, all while editing the prose to clean it up as well. This discussion led me to make a brainstorming, questions & notes page. Now if I can just keep from screwing it up.


*Bloggsworth* 


> focus group or a think tank project, an artificial construct to improve the quality of your writing,


 I can't really work on the truth of my writing in a discussion but I can tear apart craft and get a good look at what everyone thinks of the subject. So, yeah, think tank it is. It might not be pretty but it's getting the job done.


> Engineering a philisophical or moral debate within your prose tends to sound either false or didactic, apart from frequently having the tendency to stall the plot. Deeper truths should flow from the writing, you shouldn't modify your writing in order to sound deeper, more thoughtful; it can end up sounding pretentious -


 I agree. I'm not confusing how we're discussing the subject with how I will approach it.


> Write what you want to write, say what _you_ mean to say, not what you think someone else thinks you should say


 Absolutely, I've no intention of trying to use someone else's message in my writing. I'll keep it real (and count on a critique from you in case I didn't  ). Thanks!


----------



## ppsage (Oct 25, 2012)

*Stardate 121025.0623a … Re: Meaning*

In the first place writers probably go both ways on this. Some write entertainingly and wish to write more meaningfully but the work of others might be naturally imbued with deeper meaning but struggle to amuse even a handful. So one might be cautious, looking a gift horse in the mouth. The grass is always greener, they say, but I find the pipe always goes out, if it's not dried enough. You don't want your pipe going out. 

I'm not sure that other scholarly types will back me very far on this, but my thought is that the historically accepted model for literature to have meaning is metaphor. Not just the inclusion of metaphor in the writing, but the metaphorical consideration of the work as a whole and of its constituents—character, setting, plot, etc. I'm not sure this is necessarily saying much more than thinking about what the meaning is and how it is demonstrated, but it seems to me, especially considering, at one extreme of literature, poetry, there is something fundamentally literary about the identification of image with meaning as done with metaphor. That it's a purpose of literature to use these imagery-hooks to bubble into the mind ideas which elude ordinary thought.

Another thing—found at the mundane end of the scale—that I think may be important in an increasingly technological information culture is research. The skillful inclusion of real information, whether it be from psychology or geography or culture or mechanics or theoretical physics—there's so much to choose—may not constitute meaning in itself but in this day and age it might go a long way to preparing the bed. This seems somewhat timeless to me—think for instance of Hesiod—but maybe now, with so much credulity lost from things like myth and superstition, with so much emphasis on rationality, maybe it's more important.

One might need to be cautious judging the success of one's efforts in this area, which will perhaps have a tendency to be highly individual. People speak of universality pretty facilely, and perhaps a big chunk of the audience can be roped in with ambiguous portent, but work with wide appeal strikes me as always fairly low-common-denominator, meaning-wise. 

I find underlying this discussion a lot of questioning of the utility of intentionality in the process of incorporating deeper (why not higher as well?) meaning in creating one's work. This might again vary widely according to the particular author and so some self-examination might be in order. And caution and skepticism. The idea of looking back at work already finished, for signs of incipient deeper meaning, seems sound to me, and a little trial revision, to see if the bugger can be deliberately coaxed further into the light possibly not amiss. This might bring one to a decision, on the value of the effort, more efficiently than starting something fresh. Or not. Maybe just jumping the fence and mowing as much as possible before the owner intervenes is the way to go. Much appreciation for a reasonable topic, pp.


----------



## HarryG (Oct 25, 2012)

A lot of excellent writers fall at the hurdle of commerce, when the people in power dare to interfere with someone's masterpiece.  I'm sure it has happened to many of us, and my hand is right up in the air.  I once got to the stage of harbouring thoughts of killing an editor.

  But it's back to the age of innocence when the writing flowed, against the pressures to write convoluted, philosophical pieces, perhaps to impress readers?  

  Do readers want to be impressed, or entertained?  I've yet to find the answer and suspect I may never discover the truth.

  Do you write with sex at the end of each chapter, or ignore that sex even exists?  As far as I can remember, there is no sex in Twilight, yet I still enjoyed reading the book - most of it anyway.  I'm reading another John Grisham at the moment, he doesn't bother much with sex or any deeper meaning that I can detect, but he makes me want to turn the pages.  Me and millions of others.

  Therein lies the rub.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 25, 2012)

ppsage said:


> *Stardate 121025.0623a … Re: Meaning*
> 
> In the first place writers probably go both ways on this. Some write entertainingly and wish to write more meaningfully but the work of others might be naturally imbued with deeper meaning but struggle to amuse even a handful. So one might be cautious, looking a gift horse in the mouth. The grass is always greener, they say, but I find the pipe always goes out, if it's not dried enough. You don't want your pipe going out.


This is a good point and I don't want to abandon what I already have. _(Incidentally, my daughter looked into a horse's mouth and got doused with whiskey but that's a story for a different time.)_


> I'm not sure that other scholarly types will back me very far on this, but my thought is that the historically accepted model for literature to have meaning is metaphor. Not just the inclusion of metaphor in the writing, but the metaphorical consideration of the work as a whole and of its constituents—character, setting, plot, etc. I'm not sure this is necessarily saying much more than thinking about what the meaning is and how it is demonstrated, but it seems to me, especially considering, at one extreme of literature, poetry, there is something fundamentally literary about the identification of image with meaning as done with metaphor. That it's a purpose of literature to use these imagery-hooks to bubble into the mind ideas which elude ordinary thought.


I've read this twice and I think I'll be reading it over again. I especially like the last line, that is intriguing.


> Another thing—found at the mundane end of the scale—that I think may be important in an increasingly technological information culture is research. The skillful inclusion of real information, whether it be from psychology or geography or culture or mechanics or theoretical physics—there's so much to choose—may not constitute meaning in itself but in this day and age it might go a long way to preparing the bed. This seems somewhat timeless to me—think for instance of Hesiod—but maybe now, with so much credulity lost from things like myth and superstition, with so much emphasis on rationality, maybe it's more important.


Research is the wax on the surfboard of storytelling? I've known it to be especially important for putting your reader into the moment (or at least not knocking them out of it) and achieving their trust, I hadn't considered it as important to what we're discussing here as well. This makes sense, though, especially, as you point out, the appeal to the rational (literal?) mind.


> One might need to be cautious judging the success of one's efforts in this area, which will perhaps have a tendency to be highly individual. People speak of universality pretty facilely, and perhaps a big chunk of the audience can be roped in with ambiguous portent, but work with wide appeal strikes me as always fairly low-common-denominator, meaning-wise.


Going for the wide appeal of the low-common-denominator unfortunately seems to work. It's not what I'd like to aim for, though. I would guess that some who are immersed in this kind of writing/reading might find positive, hopeful themes either trite and boring or novel and inspiring. The only thing I can control is my story (if that!). 


> I find underlying this discussion a lot of questioning of the utility of intentionality in the process of incorporating deeper *(why not higher as well?)* meaning in creating one's work. This might again vary widely according to the particular author and so some self-examination might be in order. And caution and skepticism. The idea of looking back at work already finished, for signs of incipient deeper meaning, seems sound to me, and a little trial revision, to see if the bugger can be deliberately coaxed further into the light possibly not amiss. This might bring one to a decision, on the value of the effort, more efficiently than starting something fresh. Or not. *Maybe just jumping the fence and mowing as much as possible before the owner intervenes is the way to go.* Much appreciation for a reasonable topic, pp.


Good point! "Higher" might be a better descriptor for some of what I want to do. I see what you're saying here and I enjoyed this immensely. Thank you, ppsage, for weighing in.

PS. Do you wear a toga? Because that's my mental image of you.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 25, 2012)

HarryG said:


> A lot of excellent writers fall at the hurdle of commerce, when the people in power dare to interfere with someone's masterpiece.  I'm sure it has happened to many of us, and my hand is right up in the air.  I once got to the stage of harbouring thoughts of killing an editor.
> 
> But it's back to the age of innocence when the writing flowed, against the pressures to write convoluted, philosophical pieces, perhaps to impress readers?
> 
> ...


Ohh I have to admit, if I want to be published and I'm close to it, I'd probably make some changes to my work for that. However, I think I'd only go so far because, after all, my name's goes on the work in the end, no matter how it ends up.

So far, just as a reader myself, I want to be entertained AND impressed. I'm spending my time (which is in short supply as a mom) to read the story so I want as much from it as I can get. This is where I'm now getting to as a writer, too, it's my time, it's my writing, I'd like to make it something that people will read, enjoy, then think about for a long time after.

As Jon M said:


> I assume you don't mean deeper meaning as in just symbolism, but as in  that intangible feeling that certain works are better, fuller, richer, _more important_ than others.



And this from Morkonan:


> there  are wonderfully complex messages hidden within pop-genres.



I still want to entertain and I know that some of my original story will get warped at the edges of an editor's requests, I'd just like to serve up something that has substance as well as laughs and/or thrills.

Edit: I like Grisham, too, and I think his work does carry more meaning than just a thrilling story, maybe in the same way Joe B's stories do. Empathy with the characters to a great extent.


----------



## GonneLights (Oct 25, 2012)

I don't read anything if it doesn't have _meaning. _It could be artistic meaning (like Gysin), political meaning (like Orwell), philosophical meaning (like Sartre), esoteric meaning (like Crowley), or just the grit of being true (like Miller), but if it doesn't have purpose I don't like it. There is a dichotomy that I and my hundreds like me call 'Works of Literature' and 'Books'. Naturally it follows I wouldn't write it if it had no meaning either.



> What process do you go through to weave this meaning into your work?



An arduous one. I do a lot of sketches and short vignettes, and they're bursting with meaning immediately because they're all taken from a single idea and express only that - one of my pieces is called Trainsteps and it's about a guy taking his first step off a platform and onto a train, about to set off to a brand new town, and a brand new life. The entire, extremely long, piece of writing details the frozen moment of that first step onto the train. One foot on the platform, one foot on the train, and everything that contributes to THAT feeling. Worry, regret, nervousness, excitement, fear, awe, inspiration, arousal - the whole damn set. And that's expressed by a series of frantic hallucinations. It's all nonsense, I specialise in writing nonsense really, but that's the point. That's a really beautiful moment in someones life and there is a lot that feeds into that, and I managed to get several thousand words out of less than a fraction of a second. That kind of thing just comes up instantly, I mean that kind of thing is just a flash of 'Ooh!' and a cup of coffee later writing it. 

But usually, if I want to do something it begins with a single idea, and it takes _weeks _of constant development. One piece of which I'm particularly proud is called 'Stations' (train themes?) and it's nothing more than a drama - almost a sitcom. 3 people live in a bedsit and it deals with their love lives and drug habits, and their little failures and victories. And it's a very rich melodrama that is basically just people trying to find themselves, desperately, in each other. The basic idea behind it was: People who abuse the Welfare System are People Too. Only one of the whole cast has a job, and the rest of them just abuse the system and sell drugs on the side. _Absolute scum. _And everyone hates people like that. don't, of course, ALL PROPERTY IS THEFT, but most people really hate people like that. And, that's the excitement; make them love the scumbags. There is a lot to that idea; first of all, it gets inside their skin. It creates a dissonance, within the reader, they love the characters but the characters are everything they hate. And by that token they are especially compelled. Secondly, it pushes my controversial Anarchist/Slacker agenda - now it's got emotional and political death. When they like the characters, they'll be more sympathetic to the slacker ethos. Thirdly, it makes the reader question their preconceptions. Opens them up, changes them inside. That's about as deep as you can blow - _change the readers soul. _Now you've got emotional, political and psychic depth. It's also a great playing field for a story - if that was an LM Prompt, you could get a million stories out of that. So, that's one of those divine sparks. So when you have a solid set-up like that, the easiest thing to do is to push that constantly, but I didn't do that with Stations, the concept was quite inherent in everything already. So, I had a lot of things within each character, like; Greg develops Schizophrenia (which I am well-qualified to write about) and has nightmarish hallucinations (Meaning 1; dealing with Hallucinations), begins to see a Doppleganger that is himself, but extremely successful, and he realises he's just a bum and becomes extremely depressed (Meaning 2; exploring the psychological reasons behind his Schizophrenia, using fairly recent discoveries and my own realisations in dealing with and understanding Schizophrenia), in the final arc of the plot he merges with his Doppleganger and becomes successful, which is what he always wanted - but the Doppleganger was always just a part of him, projected (Meaning 3; a didactic allegorical explanation of Jungian Alchemy and it's application, and deals with Solomonic aspects of the Soul). Basically, using the characters Internal Knot to deal with psychology. It's tied, here we present a psychological problem. And on his journey we push the psychology as much as we can, being very didactic. And by the end of it, theres a resolution - Greg is almost a Self-Help aside within the book, in allegorical form. But he's also a perfectly fleshed out and very important character.

Psychology is extremely important. I often deal with mental illness and drug addiction, but psychology has many aspects. Everything from insecurities to sexuality, psychology will make a character an archetype, a labyrinth of exploration and will allow you to push ideas eternally. If you want meaning you can find it in a psychology textbook. All of Stations dealt with psychology - Noah, the main character, was a pedophile with genuine romantic feelings for an underaged girl, Paula, one of the Bedsit Character's lovers, was a pre-op transexual who hadn't come out to her boyfriend yet, and dealt with depression and self-loathing and self-harm from the shame and guilt and dysphoria, Natasha, Noah's love interest, was a sociopath manipulating Noah's affection for her _for cigarettes, _etc. etc. It really blew as deep as you can blow. It got right inside the head of all of the characters, as deep inside their head as you could ever get, explained why they were all such a mess, and provided a resolution for them. That's a book chocked full of meaning, first of all by it's original principle, second of all by it's characters.

Excuse the modesty. [snicker] 

Then, the next level. I had, basically, an entire wring-bound folder that wouldn't even close, filled with 'Motifs' as I called them. Basically, ideas that were dealt with within the text - philosophical ideas, thought experiments, all explained within the confines of the story. For example, in one scene they're all taking drugs, but are still sober because the drugs haven't taken effect yet. Noah observes that it's a _real 21st century ritual. _And later on in the book, he realises it isn't a 21st Century ritual, it's a 20th Century ritual, and it's been done for hundreds and hundreds of years, and that the 21st century has no personality of it's own, it's clinging onto the identity of the 20th century. This is expressed many times in the book, the notion that the 21st century hasn't started yet. This was just expressed in occasional interior monologues, conversations between characters - but also personified in all of them by their lazy, slacker lifestyle that never took them further than the off-license. Another concept, where Noah and Natasha are sitting in a playground and talking on the swings. They joke that they're truly rebels, because they've gone to the playground and aren't playing. They realise, then, that playgrounds aren't there to promote play, but instead restrict it. Because of playgrounds, kids can't play anywhere they want to play, they have to play in the playground. But theres a whole world out there to play in. They resolve to go just outside the playground gates and begin to play, just to spite them - *but don't. *That kind of thing... They were just thrown all around and the place. Some were very seriously resolved, some were very seriously considered and personified, and some were just touched on in throwaway conversations. 

And another level still - the work was entirely didactic. It taught people how to be shy and awkward and still very cool; the lesson of Noah. It taught people how to deal with their deepest insecurities, delusions and fears, and turn them into positive, creative change; the lesson of Greg. It taught people how to come out to their boyfriends about having a penis, and deal with the self-loathing and shame through honesty and communication; the lesson of Paula. It showed people how to get over their aversions to such things, and accept the darkest secrets of their loved ones; the lesson of Grant (her boyfriend). And most sadly, I think, it showed people that I don't know how how sociopaths can save themselves, and I'm not sure if they can; the resigning sigh of Natasha. Also, it taught people how to live communally and not go nuts. I was making arrangements to live with 2 friends in a single room Bedsit at the time (me a schizophrenic, one of them a sociopath), and I wanted to develop a method of dealing with the obvious insanity. It was much like Warhol's early films, where he tried to teach people how to talk to each other. 

Now, some people criticised the massive barrage of ideas in the novella, and a lot of people felt it was contrived and disjointed. Although I disagree with it, it might be good to note that you can overdo meaning, and fill something with too much symbolism and seriousness. Some people try to stick simply to one idea, and express it perfectly during the length of the novel, and that's more than enough. It's all just different approaches. 



> Do you feel that you're successful at it?



*Yes.*



> What do you think might help to improve your process?



My process? The more I learn, the better concepts I'll be able to include in my literature. Right now I'm tackling the concepts of reader-character separation and reader-character voyeurism, the paranormal and Possibilities in general. I'm eager to try and explore Jungian Archetypes, rather than simple Freudian personality connotations. I've been incorporating more and more occultism into my work in recent years. I go a little far with that sometimes - for example one of my stories, the introduction of which is on this website, I have 4 main characters representing the Four Noble Truths, their internal knot being the negative observations and their untying of it representing the buddhist solutions to them; 5 secondary characters representing the Five Aggregates, and the entire plot mapped out on a non-linear scatter graph in the perfect shape of the Wheel of Dharma, in the hope that it might subliminally convey the messages of Buddha into the subconscious mind of the reader. [snickers]



> What resources (if any) could you recommend?



Non-Fiction. Anything that isn't a book. My recommendations would be the works of Freud, Jung, Crowley, Levi, Blavatsky, Alexandra David-Néel, Sartre, Proudhon, University-level Psychology Textbooks, Medical Textbooks, introductions to Astrophysics and Pharmacodynamics, biopsychology, the outstanding texts of Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism and Kabbalistic Judaism, the works of Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Leon Trotsky, linear Art History books and quotes from philosophers and scientists, and recent Genetics, Medical, Archaeological, Historical and Psychological news feeds. But who knows where _your _interests lie. Meaning takes many, many forms, and each writer's particular flavour will be defined by their fetishes. In order to write this way, you have to not only be a writer, but a scholar.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 25, 2012)

I've tried togas but they get stuck on my quills.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 25, 2012)

KarKingJack said:


> In order to write this way, you have to not only be a writer, but a scholar.


Holy heck, KKJ, you really threw yourself into that answer and I appreciate it! I know I didn't catch everything on the first read but I'll be back later (have to head off to an appointment or I'd do it now) and read it again. You're dealing with some things here that I've brushed over without really studying (other than real-life observation). Thank you very much for that. 

Edit: *Ppsage*, maybe you need a quillt instead, then.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 25, 2012)

Morkonan said:


> You  have to _bring_ a deeper level of writing into your work if you  want deeper meaning. That doesn't mean it has to be full of adult  situations, drama, literary themes and the like. It just means that you  have to learn to write behind the words.



This brings to light the important distinction between deeper "meaning" and deeper "truth."  Until your post, I wasn't even aware that there were multiple interpretations of Foxee's request.  However, it's very possible to have all sorts of symbolism without any deeper truths, or a profound message without a word of metaphor.


----------



## GonneLights (Oct 25, 2012)

Foxee said:


> Holy heck, KKJ, you really threw yourself into that answer and I appreciate it! I know I didn't catch everything on the first read but I'll be back later (have to head off to an appointment or I'd do it now) and read it again. You're dealing with some things here that I've brushed over without really studying (other than real-life observation). Thank you very much for that.



I'm just really long-winded. Believe me, if I actually make a short answer to a question someday, that'll be the most effort I put into an answer ever ;D But you're welcome! I wanted mostly to introduce you to the idea of psychology in character and philosophy in theme and plot, if you weren't already aware of how to do that, and include a little bit on how I do it =] I think including your knowledge of people in your people and of the world in your world is the best way to blow as deep as you can blow.


----------



## Nickleby (Oct 25, 2012)

To those of you complaining that writing shouldn't involve a moral, read  the original post again. This thread is for those who have already made  that decision. Also, read my previous post. Your story has meaning  whether you intend it or not. You can write with your heart, but you  should edit with your head.

Part 2. I reread part 1, and it all seems to be about incorporating a lesson (some call it a moral). What we writers call _meaning_ (or _truth_ or whatever) has to be subjective, that is, something we believe to be true. A statement can be true for one person but false for another. What makes a story effective is finding a truth that applies to as many people as possible as often as possible.

To take an example everyone will know, _Hamlet_'s meaning includes the truism that "he who hesitates is lost." It's not true for all people in all situations, but in Hamlet's case, his indecision leads to a worst-case scenario. Anyone who's ever postponed a decision can appreciate this story, especially those who have missed an opportunity by doing so. Those who absorb the meaning of _Hamlet_ will attempt to behave more decisively in the future. Stories can have power. That is why parables are a big part of several religious texts.

For an example to illustrate my earlier point about fantasy worlds, _Gulliver's Travels_ is practically just a series of such exercises. For an example of how stories have power, note that _lilliputian_ and _brobdingnagian_ have become part of the language.

Back to business. Another way to give meaning to a story is with symbolism. If you're a C.S. Lewis fan, you've no doubt read the _Narnia_ books, and you know that they're full of Christian symbology. However, you have to be extremely careful with symbolism. Often people use symbolism because they're more interested in spreading the message, so they'll let it override the characters or the plot. For most readers that will violate suspension of disbelief, so they've not only lost casual readers, they've lost the chance to spread the message. I'm not very familiar with Lewis, but I believe he succeeds with his symbolism because he bases his characters on recognizable figures from scripture and gives them consistent personalities as well. In other words, Lewis tells a coherent story and still manages to present his message.

Another type of symbolism is less structured. There's the old weather=conflict trope, where a storm gets more powerful as the story's intensity does. Theoretically, anything can serve as a symbol for anything else, but it helps if the signifier and the signified share some traits. Fire, for instance, makes a great symbol because it's a force of nature and yet can be controlled for many purposes. A symbol can also serve as an Object Lesson (see part 1), that is, you tie its fate to whatever it represents.

You can add meaning by allusion, that is, by referring to another work or some component of it. Personally, I consider this lazy writing, and it can fall flat if your reader isn't familiar with that other work.

There's got to be much more. If I think of any, I'll come back with part 3.


----------



## JosephB (Oct 25, 2012)

Foxee said:


> I really like sci-fi but I haven't written much of it (at least not that I've shared here) so trying that would be fun. Good suggestions, thank you!



Oh -- OK -- I thought sci-fi was your comfort zone -- so I was suggesting that you write something that relates more to your direct experience.


----------



## HarryG (Oct 25, 2012)

Nickleby said:


> To those of you complaining that writing shouldn't involve a moral, read  the original post again. This thread is for those who have already made  that decision. Also, read my previous post. Your story has meaning  whether you intend it or not. You can write with your heart, but you  should edit with your head.
> 
> Part 2. I reread part 1, and it all seems to be about incorporating a lesson (some call it a moral). What we writers call _meaning_ (or _truth_ or whatever) has to be subjective, that is, something we believe to be true. A statement can be true for one person but false for another. What makes a story effective is finding a truth that applies to as many people as possible as often as possible.
> 
> ...



  I struggled with Hamlet many years ago, but it was an enjoyable struggle, and I've just realised that my two previous posts, unintentionally, took me back to that time.  Maybe the points is that we can't escape our past lessons in literature, we're stuck with them.

  I often curse the creative writing courses I undertook, I believe they actually harmed me.  I never knew what purple prose was at the early, innocent stage; now it haunts me; instead of getting on with the story I tend to prevaricate in my search for the perfect sentence.

  The desire to impart a deeper meaning to my words, the endless doubts leading to some silly search on the internet which leads to nothing sensible.  Stephen King's books on writing techniques - I wish I had stuck with his horror stories instead.

  But it's all too late.  I'm in the middle of doing a Tom Wolfe.  Five years in and halfway there.  

  (I have a sneaking suspicion that my Bonfire of the Vanities is merely an excuse for being lazy).


----------



## Nickleby (Oct 25, 2012)

HarryG said:


> I struggled with Hamlet many years ago, but it was an enjoyable struggle, and I've just realised that my two previous posts, unintentionally, took me back to that time.  Maybe the points is that we can't escape our past lessons in literature, we're stuck with them.
> 
> I often curse the creative writing courses I undertook, I believe they actually harmed me.  I never knew what purple prose was at the early, innocent stage; now it haunts me; instead of getting on with the story I tend to prevaricate in my search for the perfect sentence.



Sometimes, to learn useful things, we have to unlearn some not-so-useful things. Writing classes tend to assume that there's a "right" way to write. If you want to become good at it, you have to try different things, because what's right for one person is oh so wrong for another.

 I suppose it's something like picking a lock. You have to fumble around until one of the tumblers clicks into place. That lets you move on to the next tumbler and more fumbling. Finally, the last tumbler clicks, the lock opens, and you have your own voice.

Don't be afraid to make mistakes. Don't get lazy. If you're positive you'd never write a decent romance, sit down and write a romance. You may surprise yourself.


----------



## HarryG (Oct 26, 2012)

My chosen genre is crime fiction, the gritty hard hitting stuff, full of sex and violence - but always with a romantic angle.  I thought hard about glamourising badness, but occasionally went ahead and did just that, reasoning that a Mafia godfather still goes to church and falls in love in between blowing up his rivals.

  Maybe there is a deeper meaning amidst flailing suspender belts and flying bullets, the serial killer stepping into a confession box, and the bent city detective collecting bribes from drug dealers.

  But philosophising is a fraught business. I recently read Cathy Cash Spellman's Bless The Child, a bestseller by an acclaimed author.  After a few pages I started speed reading rather than putting the book down altogether when she went off on lectures about ancient religions.

  It's easy to fall off the tightrope when searching for the high ground and I try to keep my feet on the ground.  And Googling should be banned for writers, it warps their minds.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Oct 26, 2012)

Harry, I think you're misunderstanding what is meant here. When I speak of there being a deeper meaning in a text, it's not necessarily a message or a conscious declaration of a philosophy. When you write your crime novels, you are inscribing in them your own world view (including ideas about sex, class, religion, etc.), your ideas about morality and what it means to be a good or a bad person, to kill another person, to love someone who is criminal. I don't see how you could avoid these things. You don't necessarily have to interrogate those ideas or expand on them, but if you do, you may potentially produce a richer text.


----------



## HarryG (Oct 26, 2012)

lasm said:


> Harry, I think you're misunderstanding what is meant here. When I speak of there being a deeper meaning in a text, it's not necessarily a message or a conscious declaration of a philosophy. When you write your crime novels, you are inscribing in them your own world view (including ideas about sex, class, religion, etc.), your ideas about morality and what it means to be a good or a bad person, to kill another person, to love someone who is criminal. I don't see how you could avoid these things. You don't necessarily have to interrogate those ideas or expand on them, but if you do, you may potentially produce a richer text.



  It won't be the first time I've misunderstood a topic and ploughed on regardless, it's how I write.  And I've always aimed for the higher ground, not always finding it.  Maybe seldom finding it would be even more accurate.

  But we have examples of what to aim for in our writing lives, the reading public keep us informed of what they want to read.  The examples from recent years have been Harry Potter, Vampires and currently Fifty Shades of Grey, which I would suggest gives all of us plenty of hope, or scope.

  Having got totally fed up with my soulless  Kindle, I'm now back scouring the second-hand book shops, and living in recession-hit Spain with charity shops on every corner, I'm spoilt for choice.

  Only yesterday morning I was sipping my morning coffee on the terrace of a Spanish cafe, eagerly waiting to visit the animal rescue shop next door, which is always full of books for sale at give-away prices.

  An elderly English lady came tottering towards the shop carrying a cardboard box which I suspected was full of books.  I thought she was English because she looked like the Queen and it was confirmed when I offered to carry her box up the steps to the charity shop.

  She told me to 'piss off' in a very upper class accent.

  I waited until after she had deposited her cardboard box in the shop and tottered away to wherever she came from, before hurrying into the shop.  The cardboard box was indeed full of books and the harassed assistant was too busy with an assortment of ladies shoes to even look at the books.

  I offered ten Euros for the box and the books therein which was immediately accepted.  When I got them home, I found a treasure trove of books in four different languages, all in pristine condition, and many signed by the author.  

  Apart from reading the ones I can, I haven't yet decided what to do with my treasure.  And I'll never forget that tottering old lady's face, I've seen it often enough, on stamps, coins, all over the place.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 26, 2012)

lasm said:


> Harry, I think you're misunderstanding what is meant here. When I speak of there being a deeper meaning in a text, it's not necessarily a message or a conscious declaration of a philosophy. When you write your crime novels, you are inscribing in them your own world view (including ideas about sex, class, religion, etc.), your ideas about morality and what it means to be a good or a bad person, to kill another person, to love someone who is criminal. I don't see how you could avoid these things. You don't necessarily have to interrogate those ideas or expand on them, but if you do, you may potentially produce a richer text.



And I think YOU'RE misunderstanding what is meant here.  If deeper meaning was merely something that flowed from all of our writing due to our human nature, no one would have to ask how to include it in their work.  The fact that Foxee started this topic leads me to believe she's looking to add a message or philosophy to her stories.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 26, 2012)

There's deeper meaning in everything, even a lack of deeper meaning. It says everything about who writes it, and who reads it.


----------



## JosephB (Oct 26, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> And I think YOU'RE misunderstanding what is meant here.  If deeper meaning was merely something that flowed from all of our writing due to our human nature, no one would have to ask how to include it in their work.  The fact that Foxee started this topic leads me to believe she's looking to add a message or philosophy to her stories.



I don't know that she is. We can leave that up to the OP for clarification, but I think for some people deeper meaning does flow naturally from an underlying understanding of human nature. For others, not so much – so they may ask, how do I tap into my understanding, and bring it out in my writing?


----------



## Foxee (Oct 26, 2012)

Argh, the multi-quote thingie just let me down and I don't feel like going back for everything so just forgive me.

*JoeB:* oops, I misread. I see what you're saying. Challenging myself by writing something unusual for me is on the to-do list, definitely.

*Nickelby:* You're writing me a series, love this! Incidentally, going back to Part 1 where you're talking about having the message come from an otherworldly source, I have to say I've seen it done though it was by Terry Pratchett who's a master of weaving together pretty much anything into his satire. Not sure I could pull it off in the same way, though, so you're probably right and this is an exception.

*HarryG:* Are you a Jesse Stone fan by any chance? I've never read the books but I've watched the movies (at first because they star Tom Selleck), if you're not familiar they're a series of detective stories centering around a washed up alcoholic police chief. It's got a film noir spin to it with themes of isolation and addiction. It's a series that proves that even when bullets are flying, underworld bosses are pulling strings, and other people aren't all they seem, there are some familiar struggles and longings. In fact, the action, fights, and intrigue usually serve to stir these up and bring them to the surface. After all, when you've seen too much and you can't stop seeing it anymore, you have choices for how to deal with it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think even with the stories you think have no deeper meaning, they're lurking there. You've got characters who have wants, needs, desires, and problems. Your writing doesn't have to be profoundly literary to touch on this and I don't expect mine to be, either. I've no plans to obscure a good story with a stifling message, I just want to bring out the significance of what drives the characters and the story more. 

There still should be plenty of bullets, cars flipping over, and characters trying to escape from impossible situations, because that's fun to write and read.

Here's a bit of dialogue from a Jessie Stone movie I like:


> _Chief Jesse Stone_:    You shoot, you always shoot to kill. It's not like in the movies.  You've got about a half a second to figure out what needs to be done.
> _Abby Taylor_:   I guess you need to be that way if you're a policeman.
> _Chief Jesse Stone_:   Maybe I'm a policeman because I am that way.



Also, great job nabbing those books, that's awesome.

*lasm:* 


> When I speak of there being a deeper meaning in a text, it's not  necessarily a message or a conscious declaration of a philosophy.


Well said.


----------



## Jon M (Oct 26, 2012)

Wondering if you've ever read the short story _Everyday Use_, by Alice Walker. It's a good example (and the only one my little brain can think of at the moment) of writing that operates on two levels simultaneously -- the literal and the figurative, the specific (as in, characters, scene) and the universal (inheritance, sense of person / identity). Basically the story centers around the conflict between Mama and her daughter, Dee, who returns home for the first time after being away to pick up some items that she can use to dress up her place at college. One of those items is a quilt, basically a family artifact, and you can probably imagine the significance of that, why her reasons for wanting it (decor, something neat to look at) are totally 'wrong' and inappropriate.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 26, 2012)

Just looked that up and read it, Jon, and thanks, it's a good story. Really a struggle there between what we do with our heritage, too, venerate it by putting it on display to admire (but ignore) or live it out? Move on to being someone else or be who we already are? What is authenticity and what do you value? 

Very intriguing, thanks for pointing me to that.


----------



## HarryG (Oct 26, 2012)

I suppose aiming for a deeper meaning, and struggling to reach the high ground goes back to the oft discussed basic whether writers and philosophers are interchangeable.  

  I think they are.  Much as I don't want to, I need to refer to history.  Robert Burns, the Scottish poet, wrote only about what he knew, a small part of a small country written in the local dialect, which appealed to the entire world and if he wasn't a philosopher I don't understand the meaning of the word.  

  Maeve Binchy, the Irish writer, was a philosopher, a qualified one.

  And Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea?  It's not even a book in the real sense, just a well written short story sitting on the shelf behind me.  

  How can I even describe it as a well written short story?  It's a masterpiece, written by a philosopher.

  Aim for the stars has to be the answer, it is for me, as soon as Fifty Shades of Grey appears in the local charity shops, I will buy it; although I'm toying with the idea of firing up the Kindle and trying to make sense of it on that horrible flickering screen.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 26, 2012)

Hm, are writers and philosophers interchangeable, I agree that they can be. Don't they both write about life and doesn't that require thinking about it? 

That sounds like the question posed about artists, does art imitate life or vice versa? Into the Matrix.

While I'm unlikely to chase up Fifty Shades of Grey to read it, I'm sure the same idea goes for other work I am interested in. Thanks for your thoughts!


----------



## empresstheresa (Oct 27, 2012)

Hidden meanings are revealed in what characters say.  

Characters’s actions tells us something about them. but not everything.  We can see that a brave soldier is brave, but how did he get that way?  Unless he tells us we’ll never know.  It would take five hundred pages of his early life experiences to show us what he could say in five lines.

      In Shakespeare’s Macbeth,  the first words Macbeth says in the play are “So fair and foul a day I have not seen”.   What the heck is that?  It’s a comment on the weather.   Shakespeare means that Macbeth is a mediocrity, like a modern day bourgeois businessman making small talk.   Sure,  he’s a brave soldier, but what else does he have?  Nothing.  As we’ll see later he has no conscience, and is stupid.  Ambition, amorality, and stupidity are a dangerous combination. 

      In my story,  Theresa says on page one:



> I had good parents.  By the time I was ten they convinced me I should get myself through the school years without drug or boy problems.  There are girls like that, you know.  You wouldn’t think so to look at the news.  I find it strange that people are interested in news about troubled girls, but wouldn’t want to associate with them.


      Much later, in chapter nine,  Theresa has suddenly come on the world stage.  She has an important mission.  Everybody is depending on her.  The world wants to know what kind of girl they’re dealing with.  Reporters corner her priest who has a prepared answer:




> “Let’s hear atheists explain a miracle like Theresa!  She is a very bright girl but she has a simple personality.  She knows there is evil in the world.  It doesn’t affect her.  She has simple needs.  She doesn’t seek what is not hers.  She accepts what God gives her.  She has borne a great burden for eight years with no complaints.  She is the sanest person I know.  We will see if a good girl with no unreasonable ambitions can do good in the world. I have hope she succeeds.  I have hope she is a benevolent power.  I hope.”



      In other words,  one of the universal truths is that the best can be expected from good people.  The priest knows that and hopes ( that she well succeed in her important mission and treat people well. ).


----------



## Newman (Oct 27, 2012)

Foxee said:


> What process do you go through to weave this meaning into your work?



Integrate theme into it.

For meaning, you could try/say you're asking and answering an intellectual, moral, philosophical etc question.



Foxee said:


> What resources (if any) could you recommend?



See the link in my signature.


----------



## Mutimir (Oct 27, 2012)

Deeper meaning...an interesting problem. I would hope, as the writer, you already grasp the meaning of your story. The next step would be to try to be implicit throughout regarding that meaning. Then once your reader ponders over all those implicit suggestions and begins to link them together, that is when you have a revelation and a story worthy of reading.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 28, 2012)

empresstheresa said:


> Hidden meanings are revealed in what characters say.


Thank you for your insights, empresstheresa. You've made a lot of sense with this.



Newman said:


> Integrate theme into it.
> 
> For meaning, you could try/say you're asking and answering an intellectual, moral, philosophical etc question.
> 
> ...


Thank you, Newman!


Mutimir said:


> Deeper meaning...an interesting problem. I would hope, as the writer, you already grasp the meaning of your story.


Yeah, me too, right? If I don't grasp the meaning of my story there may be no hope.


> The next step would be to try to be implicit throughout regarding that meaning. Then once your reader ponders over all those implicit suggestions and begins to link them together, that is when you have a revelation and a story worthy of reading.


Thanks, Mutimir, this is also good advice.


----------



## bazz cargo (Oct 28, 2012)

Hi Foxee,
interesting thread. A lot of it is way over my head. I am more of an entertainer rather than an artist. At least I won't have to wait until I'm dead before anyone pays me. Besides, most of what is now considered high art started out as entertainment.

I have noticed that my story sniffer works on what pushes my psycho buttons. Any kind of meaning will be misread, misinterpreted or disagreed with.

The Devil's Advocate strikes again!


----------



## Foxee (Oct 28, 2012)

bazz cargo said:


> Hi Foxee,
> interesting thread. A lot of it is way over my head. I am more of an entertainer rather than an artist. At least I won't have to wait until I'm dead before anyone pays me. Besides, most of what is now considered high art started out as entertainment.


That's how I've been approaching things myself. And I can write an enjoyable story that way. I'm just to the point where I'd like the story to really stick in someone's mind and keep coming back to them. I think it can be done with popular genres and that's the goal. A story that's a page-turner that is satisfying on more than one level.

Right now I'm approaching it from the 'can I learn to do this?' standpoint, worrying about being paid and published will come later when and if I seem to have that nailed down.


----------



## Nickleby (Oct 28, 2012)

empresstheresa said:


> Hidden meanings are revealed in what characters say.
> 
> In Shakespeare’s Macbeth,  the first words Macbeth says in the play are “So fair and foul a day I have not seen”.   What the heck is that?  It’s a comment on the weather.   Shakespeare means that Macbeth is a mediocrity, like a modern day bourgeois businessman making small talk.   Sure,  he’s a brave soldier, but what else does he have?  Nothing.  As we’ll see later he has no conscience, and is stupid.  Ambition, amorality, and stupidity are a dangerous combination.



You can't go wrong looking for meaning in Shakespeare. Yes, Macbeth's comment shows his lack of imagination, but coming from him it also shows how topsy-turvy things have gotten. How can the weather be "fair" and "foul," complete opposites, at the same time? He foreshadows the carnival of the surreal that is the play, from dead children to a walking forest. His wife sets off a flood of chaos. They try to control it. In the end the chaos consumes her, and Macbeth loses everything by trying to have everything. Wrong becomes right, up becomes down, death becomes life.

I spoke to an English teacher who has some experience with literary criticism. One mechanism I left out is simile, a/k/a analogy. Upon further review, however, I realized that all those mechanisms have one thing in common. Meaning (as I understand it) involves telling two or more stories at once. Elements in your story stand in for concepts. How you manipulate the elements in your story tells the reader what you understand about the concepts they represent.

What I'm talking about here is code. Language itself is a code. The word _dog_ has no meaning in and of itself, and we know this because other languages use different words for the same idea. The word you use may change, but the dog itself doesn't change. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

In the same way, story elements are created through language. They are collections of concepts, but they are represented in code. The concepts you put into your story are not necessarily the ones I take out of it. We all speak the same language, we see the same elements, but we interpret them in different ways.

You can give a story meaning by creating a message, encoding those concepts in elements of the story, and expressing the message through the changes in those elements as the story progresses. There is a key that connects your set of signifieds with the set of signifiers in the story. A reader can decode the story with a key that is different from your key and get a different message. In a nutshell, the message is one story, and the words are another. They are the same story told with different elements.

If you don't give the reader your key, and if you don't leave hints about how to interpret your story, you can't predict what message a given reader will take from your story. A world-class writer knows how to leave those hints and can even put more than two messages in a story.

Any questions? My message may not be entirely clear. Which is another hazard of meaning.


----------



## empresstheresa (Oct 28, 2012)

nickleby wrote:



> Yes, Macbeth's comment shows his lack of imagination, but coming from him it also shows how topsy-turvy things have gotten. How can the weather be "fair" and "foul," complete opposites, at the same time?



'fair' and 'foul' reflect the duality of natures.  
For example:  a man may be good and good things will come from him.  Or, he may be evil, and evil things will come from him.  Yet whether he is good or evil he has the same human nature.

The play is full of references to nature, probably more than any other Shakespeare play.  The witches make may references to nature, but so do other characters.
Nature can be beneficial as when the sun shines or gentle rain helps crops grow.  But nature can be evil too when there are hurricanes, earthquakes and so forth.

Maybe, just maybe,  I don't know,  Shakespeare is saying that man can choose between good or evil since both are potentially in his human nature.  Our fate is not determined for us.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 29, 2012)

Nickleby said:


> ...Any questions? My message may not be entirely clear. Which is another hazard of meaning.



Your message is very clear to me. That's because we share a similar language, you have followed the commonly understood rules of that language (Grammar) and we share a similar culture. For a "writer", seeing an author's hand in a story requires a similar set of conditions. A "Reader", however, may not share a "Writer's Culture." They may not be able to interpret the messages that a Writer would immediately recognize.

Not long ago, I was talking with a good friend who shares my passion for certain genres of fiction. We usually talk about books, every time we get the chance. But, I know that I have a certain understanding, not necessarily superior, that he does not share. We'll joke about how horrible a book was, how funny a certain scene was, what a terrible character the protagonist was and all of those fun things. Then, I'll bring up how a certain character's actions ruined the theme or such-and-such didn't work because the author didn't properly build up this-and-that, etc... His eyes will glaze over, he'll nod his head then make a quip about how dumb the antagonist was. We see different sets of code, one shared and one that is not.

Most literary classics can be experienced on several levels. The best ones are good on every level of comprehension. Woven amongst the obvious, secondary interpretations lurk for astute readers to find. Hidden between the lines are devices that are transparent to most readers, or suitably benign in their view, but serve to enrich the story and garner interest, no matter your level of comprehension. Lastly, hidden behind the lines are the hands of the author, weaving little bits of magic most do not see, but all experience.

I watched this session with great stage actor, Sir Ian Mckellen, not long ago. It's a discussion of Macbeth and one of the most famous soliloquies ever written. McKellen is analyzing Shakespeare's master soliliquy "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow..."  for Macbeth. McKellen's analysis comes from the point of view of a stage actor. I am not a play write or actor, but I can clearly understand his point of view because I share much of the same culture from which his interpretation has evolved. I may not agree with all of it, given my own culture and understanding of writing, but his spoken interpretation exposes a wonderful example of what a true master will do in creating a literary work with meaning. McKellen lays bare what, to someone in an audience, would otherwise be invisible. Yet, The Bard's skill uses these tools to weave a masterful exhibition that, without them, wouldn't have been possible.


----------



## empresstheresa (Oct 29, 2012)

> Shakespeare's master soliliquy "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow..." for Macbeth.



Earlier in the play, Macbeth has expressed some belief in God and the afterlife.   He says, "mine eternal jewel [ soul ] give to the common enemy of man [ devil ], for Banquo's sons!" 

Now, with his enemies closing in on him and death inevitable, Macbeth talks like an atheist.  This may be wishful thinking on his part.

Shakespeare's purpose in the play is to show man's choice between good and evil.  Here, he shows that a man who chooses evil will try to fool himself about the consequences, hoping to "jump the world to come".


----------



## Foxee (Oct 29, 2012)

*Nickelby & emperesstheresa:* I have to come clean, I haven't studied Shakespeare extensively. There was Hamlet in Senior year English and then I read a couple other works in book form on my own. Other than that, I haven't really given Shakespeare much study (though obviously I should). Though I've never read Macbeth I would guess that if Will had him observe that it was a 'fair and foul' day it would encompass far more than the weather.



 However, Nickelby, I think I see what you mean regarding 'coding', especially the idea that what one person may infer from reading may not be what the author intended. This has happened several times with my writing (and especially with poetry) and it seems to be something that the author has little control over in the long run. Certainly they can try but there are those readers who dig a lot harder for meaning (and will make it up if they have to) than others.


 I'm still digesting your comments, realizing that there are plenty of technical aspects to the writing craft that I am probably only grasping (if at all) instinctively and/or by trial and error. The idea that I may have to stop writing to learn them all is intimidating to say the least so I have to keep rolling and pick up what I can when it becomes necessary.  



 At this point it is much easier for me to work on empathy and universal experience/desires than to try to figure out how to work the code and key idea. However! That may not be the case a little farther down the road, it may be just exactly what I'm looking for, so into the toolbox it goes.


*Morkonan:  *



> Most literary classics can be experienced on several levels. The best ones are good on every level of comprehension. Woven amongst the obvious, secondary interpretations lurk for astute readers to find. Hidden between the lines are devices that are transparent to most readers, or suitably benign in their view, but serve to enrich the story and garner interest, no matter your level of comprehension. Lastly, hidden behind the lines are the hands of the author, weaving little bits of magic most do not see, but all experience.


 I was watching Man From Snowy River last night and, though I doubt it is considered in any way a literary classic, I can see what you're saying. The movie would be a relatively simple romance and adventure if it didn't include the MC's struggle to prove himself to the men around him, achieving respect and the ability to rightfully not just own but also deserve his father's property in the mountains. The underlying theme of 'what makes a man a man rather than a boy' is a lot richer than what the story seems to be on the surface.


 (And the amazing feats of horsemanship really don't hurt either)  


 I appreciate the input from people who have studied far more extensively than I have and I appreciate your advice.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 29, 2012)

empresstheresa said:


> Earlier in the play, Macbeth has expressed some belief in God and the afterlife.   He says, "mine eternal jewel [ soul ] give to the common enemy of man [ devil ], for Banquo's sons!"
> 
> Now, with his enemies closing in on him and death inevitable, Macbeth talks like an atheist.  This may be wishful thinking on his part.
> 
> Shakespeare's purpose in the play is to show man's choice between good and evil.  Here, he shows that a man who chooses evil will try to fool himself about the consequences, hoping to "jump the world to come".



Nicely said! Thanks for that.



			
				Foxee said:
			
		

> ..I was watching Man From Snowy River last night and, though I doubt it is  considered in any way a literary classic, I can see what you're saying...



Actually, The Man from Snowy River is pretty highly regarded in movie circles. I don't know much about the poems it is based on, though. Still, I liked the movie and I'm not usually susceptible to those sorts of films. So, it must have had something there in it that turned my cold heart.


----------



## Foxee (Oct 29, 2012)

Morkonan, I doubt you have a cold heart. I bet you have a sharp intellect over a gooey center. Have a cookie, I just made them. And I don't remember much about the second Man From Snowy River movie other than that it wasn't as good as the first.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 29, 2012)

Foxee said:


> Morkonan, I doubt you have a cold heart. I bet you have a sharp intellect over a gooey center.



Sort of like a rotten candied-apple, eh? 



> Have a cookie, I just made them. And I don't remember much about the second Man From Snowy River movie other than that it wasn't as good as the first.



The second movie was definitely not as good as the first. And, thanks for the cookie!


----------

