in indexing and so forth allow me to look up other books and works by an author I like.The first question: “What’s the difference?” I would love to say there is no difference, but that would be a farce.
On the one hand, categorizing fiction make sense. There are simply different kinds of stories. Some stories are about solving a crime. Other stories are about ghouls and goblins. And other stories have to do with space travel. Why not clump similar stories together and give them a name? Additionally, most readers like certain kinds of stories, and most authors usually write those kinds of stories they grew up liking. I doubt at 25 an author would say, “Though I’ve never read a mystery before, I think I’m going to write mystery now.” A broad category helps both author and reader find the books like to write and read. And as long as we recognize a genre is, in a sense, self-defining, then the idea of genre, if not a healthy concept, is at least innocuous.
On the other hand, the notion of categorizing fiction is very dangerous. It boxes in both the author and the reader as well as creates unnecessary stereotypes. Stephen King, for example, is known as a horror author, though he has written several science fiction and fantasy novels. If a reader reads a particularly genre (say, SF) and discovers that he or she doesn’t like it, they are unlikely to return to that genre, believing, unfortunately, that SF stories are carbon copies. A person may never again read SF because, after reading Niven, they believe all SF is like Niven.
Enough for “genre.” What deems a story, novella, or novel “literature”? If we’re speaking of the kind of literature one reads in college, then we have at least the consensus of people and time. People throughout the ages have recognized that Homer, Shakespeare, and Dickens are worth reading. Just as it is unjust of a reader to read Niven and dismiss SF altogether, it is unjust to read George Elliot and dismiss “literature” altogether.
If we say that literature is a genre comparable to SF or mystery (It seems to me that this is what most people are saying when they speak of “literature”—it is another genre) we have a bigger problem on our hands. The word “literature,” for most people, connotes quality. A genre reader will often humbly admit that he or she hasn’t the intelligence to read or understand literature. (This is a sad sentiment, probably left over from high school English classes, taught by teachers that don’t understand the basics of storytelling.) And if “literature” connotes quality, a story doesn’t fall into this genre isn’t a quality story.
I find this conclusion to be reprehensible. The fact is that in every genre—even in the “genre” of literature—there are bad, good, and great authors. A bad author is an author who can’t write clear and lucid sentences, who can’t tell a coherent and meaningful story. We can find these kind of authors in every field, but most of them nowadays seems to reside in the “literature” genre. For whatever reason, the more obscure the writing is, it is deemed all the more intellectual. But this notion shouldn’t compel us to say that all contemporary literature is bad. Sophists, i.e., false intellectuals, have been around since the time of Socrates. We live in an age where false intellectuals can be found in every field of endeavor. The best thing to do is to ignore them, because the Common Reader is ignoring them as well. If they want to read and think about bad stories, let them waste their time.
A good writer is a writer who can write clear and lucid prose and can tell a coherent story. They story may lack emotional, spiritual, or intellectual depth. That doesn’t mean the story is bad. If it means anything, it means that the story is pure entertainment. That isn’t bad. Its fulfilling a purpose—namely, to help people escape from reality for a few hours and, as C.S. Lewis has noted, to bring mirth to people’s lives. If that’s not a good thing, I don’t know what is.
A great writer—or a great book—has several qualities. The writing is not only clear and lucid; it also elegant and graceful. It has emotion, spiritual, and intellectual depth. But all of these are, really, intangibles. What makes writing elegant and graceful? What is the requirement for emotion, spiritual, and intellectual depth? The question that has passed on this board—“What makes a book great?”—is, in a sense, an unanswerable question. On the objective level, a book is great if a number of people over a number of years find in a book emotional, spiritual, and intellectual depth. On the subjective level, a “great” book may do absolutely nothing for us; we may find it bland and unreadable. That doesn’t mean it’s not a great book; it’s just not a great book for us. This distinction is often overlooked, but it shouldn’t be. Reading is a highly subjective endeavor, and, if I’m a careful and thoughtful reader, who has the right to tell me what I should or should not like?
One of my points in all of this is that I disdain the modern-day sophists who dismiss a writer like Stephen King as a hack when, if the truth be told, they have probably never read a word he’s written. I also disdain “genre readers” (some of whom are members of Hatrack) who dismiss “literature” as pretentious drivel when, if the truth be told, they haven’t read a word those authors have written.
If we’re going to be honest readers, we have to forget that there are genres. The only legitimate category is fiction, and within this vast realm of fiction we can find quality authors who tell deep and meaningful stories who happen to write about vampires, or space ships, or crime, or family and social matters. We can also find hacks who imitate the great authors. And we can find good and solid entertainment that brings mirth, escape, and excitement to our otherwise ordinary lives.
There, I’m done pontificating.
I read fantasy and scifi all the time. This is a choice I make for myself. It is not that I feel no other form of fiction is any good, it is that I live in a real world with real problems. When I open a book I want more than just a story, I want something that will make me think, or see situations from a different perspective, and at the same time I want to be entertained.
I have read some standard fiction which did not give me the same enjoyment as fantasy/scifi does. So if I go to a book store and head strait for the fantasy/scifi section that is my choice. It makes it easier for me to find books that are my preferred type of reading. To me this far outweighs the negative aspects. I would hate to search 20 shelves of books to see what I might like to read when I can have four or five to go through.
While I do not disagree that classifying books can have bad points, it does have quite a few positive aspects for those of us that are looking for that style of writing. I have read hundreds of fantasy and scifi books over the years and I know that there are good and bad books out there. But that does not discourage me from going back.
I have watched many movie critics that would rip a good scifi movie to shreds while follow with a raving review of a drama movie which looks like it would only serve as a good sleeping aid. Different people have different views of what is "good" and what is enjoyable. If I only listened to the people who love drama I would probably give up movies all together.
I remember reading a note Lary Nivnen wrote in his one fantasy book. He specified that he had a problem writing fantasy because he had a hard time with the concept of magic. This makes lots of sense if you realize that people read what is most acceptable to them as an individual. For those of us that find the real world dull and boring we might turn to fantasy/scifi/horror to get a look at something other than normal. Most respected fiction tends to stick to reality regardless of its quality as a story I would still find it dull and boring. Give me the magic, and the space travel, the new worlds full of the unknown and different, that is what makes me happy.
So a "Genre" has a few negatives, it also has for me many positives.
I am not truly disagreeing with you, I just want to point out some people like the classifications which makes my time at the bookstore far shorter.
I agree, but at the same time I have to say that it is a little naive to expect this to happen, for the very reasons that Lord Darkstorm pointed out.
A few people like books of all genres. More people like books of several different genres. But an awful lot of people are very limited in the scope of what they read. Most hard core scifi/fantasy readers I know won't touch "literature" or whatever you want to call it. (I'm just talking fiction categories, most scifi and particularly fantasy readers I know also like to read some nonfiction topics.) Heck, some of them won't cross from sci/fi over to fantasy!
The truth is that while a great writer is a great writer no matter what genre, if he (or she) is a sicence fiction writer my mother will never know about him. If I give her a book written by a great scifi author and force her to read it she still won't like it, even if she might see some strength in his writing style. Conversely, I can't stand Charles Dickens though many people regard him as a great writer.
I almost think literary award have to be sorted by genre. A panel of judges cannot possibly be unbiased enough to recognize those points you mentioned Balthasar, as true as they may be. If I want to read about aliens I will like that book better no matter the writing.
quote:
So if I go to a book store and head strait for the fantasy/scifi section that is my choice. It makes it easier for me to find books that are my preferred type of reading.
quote:
If we’re going to be honest readers, we have to forget that there are genres. The only legitimate category is fiction, and within this vast realm of fiction we can find quality authors who tell deep and meaningful stories who happen to write about vampires, or space ships, or crime, or family and social matters. We can also find hacks who imitate the great authors. And we can find good and solid entertainment that brings mirth, escape, and excitement to our otherwise ordinary lives.
Since we (as honest readers) have fogotten about genres, we must now wade through a lot of books we don't like in the search for those we do. If we enjoy books that involve a detective solving a crime, we have to read a lot of back covers that say things like "When he was banished by the corrupt Elven king, Grisselwort had no idea that he was starting a journey that would lead him to the Spatula of Ultimate Power..." or "When the handsome, mysterious man with an intriguing foreign accent and ice-blue eyes that seemed to pierce to the very heart of Heather's soul..." or "CIA analyst Mack Errol is the only one who believes the North Koreans are planning an attack on Pearl Harbor..." or "The old Gibson mansion had been abandoned for more than forty years before the Dusenberys bought it from the strangely pale real estate agent..." before finally getting to "Trailing another philandering spouse was all in a day's work for Dick Diamond, until the spouse ended up in the bay with two bullets in her head..."
Genres are a convenient shortcut to help us find books similar to those we like. The more specific the classification, the more useful it is. That's one reason why I love browsing for books on Amazon.com: they have more specific genre classifications than brick-n-mortar bookstores.
First of all, there are what are actually called "marketing categories" and those are the groupings of kinds of books for publishing catalogs and for placement in bookstores and libraries (if the bookstore or library so chooses). Science fiction, mysteries, historicals, romances, westerns, and mainstream are all marketing categories.
Second, there is the division between popular fiction and literary or academic fiction (as if literary or academic fiction can't be popular, too, and vice versa).
Finally, there is genre, which has come to refer to either of the above groupings, but originally referred to types of writing--as in prose vs poetry, or short story vs novel, fiction vs nonfiction, or personal essay vs book review.
Any of these groupings can become positions (comfort zones, perhaps?) from which writers and readers have been known to sneer at those in some other group.
And yet, the distinctions all have worth and can be useful. I don't think Balthasar was suggesting that we get rid of the distinctions entirely. I really think he was urging people to consider leaving their own comfort zones and trying to learn from what is good about the writing in some other group.
If he wasn't, then I am.
quote:
I really think he was urging people to consider leaving their own comfort zones and trying to learn from what is good about the writing in some other group.
I did get this concept, but some of us (I am) are very stuborn in what we like. I got a good taste of the standard fiction in high school and the liturature clases in college. Quite honestly I found fantasy and scifi what I enjoy and what I prefer.
Now I would like to see scifi and fantasy grouped in the best seller lists against normal fiction. That would be a boundry I would greatly like to see removed.
I think that the best thing would be to group works by authors, in chronological order. But that isn't the way that most bookstores find it easy to sell a lot of books. They find that people that read a lot of SF tend to pick up other SF books, and people that read Tanks/Weapons/Uniforms/etc. of the Third Reich tend to read other books about Nazi Germany. So they sell them that way.
I tend to read works by authors that I enjoy, regardless of genre (I even read a romance novel once, though it was more the comedic variety than torrid sort). I read several of the Aeul books before she finally turned me off (see torrid) and I found that most books in that catagory imitated only the elements that I found most annoying. Almost all the new writers that I learn to enjoy have written one or two outstanding SF books, which is how I usually first hear about them (this probably means that SF is the most competative genre in which to write, but I can't help it).
So, I'm glad there's an SF genre, and I'm glad that modern advances in indexing and so forth allow me to look up other books and works by an author I like.
I'm not glad that literary snobs exist, but what can you do? I'd rather not start a jihad over it (okay, this isn't precisely true--I'm just morally prohibited from starting a jihad, for the time being).
quote:
Yeah, but the people that control the best seller lists don't want to compare their "literary" stuff against "hack" SF and Fantasy (I don't like Fantasy as a genre myself).
Actually I would think some of scifi/fantasy would actually fair well against the "literary" fiction. I know I have been eagerly awaiting Salvator's next book. Anne McCaffrey does quite well also. I am sure there are a few more which would give the standard fiction writers more competition.
But since a best seller list is almost an equivalent to free advertising I doubt it would ever happen.
[This message has been edited by Lord Darkstorm (edited October 02, 2003).]
I am not implying that the classification of stories in to genre is inherently bad. As I said:
quote:
On the one hand, categorizing fiction make sense. There are simply different kinds of stories. Some stories are about solving a crime. Other stories are about ghouls and goblins. And other stories have to do with space travel. Why not clump similar stories together and give them a name? Additionally, most readers like certain kinds of stories, and most authors usually write those kinds of stories they grew up liking. I doubt at 25 an author would say, “Though I’ve never read a mystery before, I think I’m going to write mystery now.” A broad category helps both author and reader find the books like to write and read. And as long as we recognize a genre is, in a sense, self-defining, then the idea of genre, if not a healthy concept, is at least innocuous.
quote:
On the other hand, the notion of categorizing fiction is very dangerous. It boxes in both the author and the reader as well as creates unnecessary stereotypes. Stephen King, for example, is known as a horror author, though he has written several science fiction and fantasy novels. If a reader reads a particular genre (say, SF) and discovers that he or she doesn’t like it, they are unlikely to return to that genre, believing, unfortunately, that SF stories are carbon copies. A person may never again read SF because, after reading Niven, they believe all SF is like Niven.
One of my points—directed toward the Hatrack society—is that the same thing can happen in regard to literature. We get a bad taste for “literature-as-genre” because of high school or college English classes, or because someone like Jonathan Franzen likes to think that his work isn’t “mainstream,” but, rather, “highminded.” But that doesn’t mean that all “literature-as-genre” is bad, nor does it even mean that Franzen’s novel, The Corrections, is bad. Just because we’ve tried Hemingway and found that he doesn’t do anything for us, that doesn’t mean we should dismiss William Faulkner, James Joyce, Flannery O’Connor, Saul Bellow, William Gass, or any other 20th-century literary author.
Kathleen accurately summarized my point:
quote:
I don't think Balthasar was suggesting that we get rid of the distinctions entirely. I really think he was urging people to consider leaving their own comfort zones and trying to learn from what is good about the writing in some other group.
quote:
I am glad there are literary snobs, because if there weren't any, I'd have to find someone else to sneer at.
This does not mean that we won’t have likes and dislikes. There comes a time when we have to choose how we’re going to spend our reading time. If I’m handed a mystery and a piece of literature, chances are I’ll take the piece of literature. That not because I think mystery is a genre for hacks; it means that from my previous reading I found that I prefer literature over mystery. How many academics and literary critics will spend the time reading OSC or Stephen King as carefully as they do other writers? And how many people here on Hatract would give a piece of literature—say, Faulkner’s Light in August—serious attention?
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited October 02, 2003).]
I've read books from several different genres. I find that my problem is that I get into moods. I get into a mood for scifi that eliminates everything else including fantasy sometimes. But after a few months I get in the mood for a mystery or even (shameful secret) romance.
But your point is well taken. As writers in particular we should be familiar with what makes a good story cross genre. Especially since science fiction and fantasy often contains elements of other types of fiction. For example, a good mystery is a good mystery whether set in modern times or future times. Having seen very few good scifi mysteries, if I want to write one I will actually need to go to the mystery genre to learn. (And this is something I intend to do one day.)
Scifi and fantasy are somewhat bad at romance at the moment too. If you want to learn how to forge a bond between two people in your story it would be good to go look at some of the romance out there. Not the Harlequin stuff either, the good quality stuff. Believe it or not it exists.
So yes, people become snobbish in their own genres and, in fact, the genre suffers for it.
Terry Brooks' last assignment to us when we left the retreat was to read a book from a genre we would never read. He said as writers we need to always expand our world and be looking for ideas. If you only read hard Science Fiction then your writing will be like all other writer's of hard Science Fiction. He said the best places he gets ideas for his books is in reading novels from genres outside of Fantasy fiction.
I believe that, as writers we always need to be willing to be stretched.
Also, I see novels by Fantasy, Horror and Science Fiction writers on the Best Seller list all the time. These are the writers that are commercially successful. It doesn't mean it is a great book or that they are great writers. Best Sellers are just that...they sell.
I think the same type of folks that sneer at King to day will call him a great master of literature 20 or so years after he's dead.
I don't think it's anything to get worked up about. Steven King seems to be doing alright for himself, save for the van-hitting incident. (I wonder if anyone ever hit shakespeare with an ox-cart...)
I guess I'll just be happy to get my novels finished, published and read. The critics, elitists or whatever you want call them are welcome to call me a hack who doesn't write "true literature." Because if they're paying enough attention to insult me, I'll be doing alright.
I hope this post doesn't come across as angry. It's really just a matter-of-fact description of how I believe the world works. Cynical is what I am, I suppose.
1984 and Animal Farm come to mind as a great example of genre and literature coming together. I'm sure all of you can think of many more examples.
If you have a person 10,000 years in the future, and he is solving a crime it is still a mystery. Does the fact it is not happening today in our current reality change what it is? Does the scifi lable wipe out the mystery lable? I do remember in the beginning of OSC's "Characters and Viewpoints" he points out the major story types. By his definitions the time and reality did not seem to be as important as what the writer is doing with the story.
I just want to know if there is something in other "literary" works that I am not going to find in the books I enjoy reading. I want to know what I am supposed to be missing.
It doesn't have squat to do with the quality of your story or the themes treated, but only with certain superficial aspects that even a marketing department can find in the text. Spaceships=SciFi, heaving bosoms(rather than breasts)=Romance, swords&magic=Fantasy, and so on and so forth.
"Literary" fiction is marketed to English departments and so forth, and is not supposed to be profitable, just as SF is marketed to techno-geeks and is not supposed to portray real relationships
If I choose to aim my story--no matter what the actual content of the text--solely at English departments, with notes describing the subtextual themes and so forth, and only accept publication in "literary" journals, then no matter how many spaceships I put in there it will be "literature". In fact, if you really want to look around the "literary" genre, there are plenty of stories where the spaceships/vampires/magic/elves/etc. are all symbolic, not because anything in the text necessarily makes that clear but because the publisher includes author's notes or a statement or something like that to make it clear that everything in the story is a symbol.
And there are plenty of SF stories full of deep questioning into the nature of the soul, and plenty of Romance that looks at the effect technology has on our lives, and plenty of Fantasy that really seems almost allegorical.
In short, literary fiction isn't actually different from genre fiction in any other sense than how and to whom it is marketed.
If there is a good reason for me to try the plain fiction then I would like to know. Other than it lacks what I prefer to read (the fantasy/scifi aspect) I doubt I will agree.
It has been suggested to cross to other shelves for my reading. I was hoping someone would have a reason that would convince me.
This is an unfortunate state for literature-as-genre. And I think because of it true and honest authors are not going to be part of this community. That’s sad. (If you want to read more about this, see John Gardner’s, On Moral Fiction.)
Now, let’s get to the question at hand:
quote:
So for those of you who enjoy "literary" fiction, just what does it have as far as story writing that is not to some degree put into fantasy/scifi?
This is a very difficult question to answer. On the one hand, you have clear-cut SF stories, such as Brave New World and 1984, that are going to be found in the literature-as-genre section. As far as I can tell, the placement of these books into the literature-as-genre category has to do with the fact that their authors are British, and somehow the British didn’t develop the snobbery towards literature as quickly as we did here in the states.
Another example—and this one isn’t SF—is Graham Greene. A lot of his stories are about crime, international intrigue, etc. But again, he’s British, and so you don’t find him next to Tom Clancy, but, rather, in the literature-as-genre section.
Now let’s take the case of an American author. Stephen King is a good one. He is known as a horror author, and rightly so: His few three books deal with a telepathic girl that destroys her school, vampires in a New England town, and a haunted hotel. But he has also written SF (The Stand, The Dead Zone, Firestarter, The Tommyknockers) and fantasy (Eyes of the Dragon, The Dark Tower series) as well as literature-as-genre (Shawshank Redemption, The Body/Stand By Me), but you’ll find every one of his works under horror. Once an author gets place somewhere, that’s where you’re going to find all of his or her works. This is why you have to look under literature-as-genre to find A Clockwork Orange, which is clearly a SF story.
Thus, any answer to this question must admit to a certain amount of ambiguity in circumscribing genres.
(Maybe one of the problems with contemporary literature-as-genre is that because they reject genre as the works of hacks, they aren’t really left much to work with, so they are, in essence, creating their own genre.)
At any rate, based on this discussion, I’m going to rephrase the question: Once you separate those works which, if they were first-time novels published today, would fall under a genre other than literature-as-genre, what is there about literature-as-genre stories that one finds enjoyable?
That’s something I’ve thought about, and I don’t know if I can give a good answer. The best answer I can give is this: Literature-as-genre stories are more concerned with the character than the event. In other words, it’s what happens to the character and how the character is affected throughout the story rather than the character finding himself in an exterior situation that he must resolve. I think OSC would call one a character-driven story and the other an event-driven story.
But this isn’t a hard and fast rule. The best event-driven stories are also character-driven stories. The Lord of the Rings or Ender’s Game are two examples. In fact, what separates The Lord of the Rings from most other heroic fantasy is that the characters are greatly changed by the events.
This difference with literature is that the Event is either totally absent or is put into the background. The difference between a John Grisham lawyer story and Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird is that Grisham would have made Atticus the main character and the thrust of the story would have been the trial. But for Harper Lee, the trial plays a small role in the story. The main character is a little girl, and the story's about how she is dramatically changed by events in which she is indirectly involved. Grisham would have ended the story perhaps with the funereal of Tom Robinson and with some kind of overt reference to the evils of prejudice. Lee, however, ends the story with Scout Finch standing on the porch of Boo Bradley seeing her world from a totally different point of view. It’s a subtle and powerful ending because that scene itself symbolizes what the whole novel is about.
This leads to another aspect of literature-as-genre: Theme. I want to avoid getting into a discussion about what a theme is, and even if a story should have a theme. I think it should, and I agree with Damon Knight, Stephen King, and John Gardner (very different authors) on the fact that the theme of a work must evolve out of the work itself. A piece of fiction is not an illustration of a theme, but, rather, the theme is the recognition that the events in a story have a collective meaning.
Genre fiction, for whatever reason, is not very thematic. Perhaps genre writers shy away from the notion of theme. Perhaps genre writers lack the philosophical acumen to understand the meaning of their story. Perhaps genre writers don’t give a shit about theme. I don’t know—each genre writer is different.
What I do know is that literature-as-genre authors care about theme. They understand that fiction is a way to understand the world and to communicate the verities of life (to paraphrase Faulkner). They understand that fiction has a certain way of thinking about the world, and they are not afraid to allow their fiction to think. But this isn’t peculiar to literature-as-genre authors; any quality story is going to have this element to it. Unfortunately, this aspect of literature-as-genre has been taken to an extreme by the literary sophists of today.
There’s my take on it, for what it’s worth. Literature-as-genre is a character-driven genre and a heavily thematic genre. I don’t know how true this is, but that’s they way I am seeing it right now. Who knows, I may change my mind sooner or later.
quote:
It has been suggested to cross to other shelves for my reading. I was hoping someone would have a reason that would convince me.
If you aspire to be a writer, then you’re doing yourself a disservice by not reading outside your genre. You’re not going to have the resources to write good stories in any genre because all you know is that genre. You need that critical interaction.
If you’re not a writer, then the best reason I can think for reading outside your genre is to broaden your mind and your understanding of the world.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited October 03, 2003).]
) in a fairly clear-cut fantasy setting, despite the fact that I dislike most Fantasy.As a writer, you can't let the marketing department push you around. And as a reader you have no excuse for doing so. Tell 'em to stick their little catagories up their collective inputs and claim the whole store for your own. Fight the power, rage against the machine, cross the aisle.
quote:
As a writer, you can't let the marketing department push you around. And as a reader you have no excuse for doing so. Tell 'em to stick their little catagories up their collective inputs and claim the whole store for your own. Fight the power, rage against the machine, cross the aisle.
I actually do not see the categories as a limitation to me. I rarely even pay attention to the hype of new books either. Since I usually have 4 or more books I want to read at any point in time I get books more at random than by any form of marketing. Friends who suggest books, new books by authors I have enjoyed for years. The impulsive stops at used book stores where I grab a handful of books mainly because they are dirt cheap keeps me reading books I would never planned to get. I never seem to run out.
OSC wrote Saints which I would not classify as either Scifi or fantasy. I still enjoyed the book and the characters. But I enjoy most of OSC's work. I am not stuck on a requirement of needing magic or space to keep my interest. I like off the wall, I like to see new perspectives and different viewpoints about more than just people. People are chaotic creatures in which I can believe them capable of almost any action.
Give me the humans dealing with aliens that don't think like us, or feel like us (or not feel at all). Show me those people dealing with problems that do not have a standard answer, requiring luck, skill, and thought to resolve or survive. In 18 or so years I have read over 500 scifi and fantasy books (never really kept count but I have more that that number on my bookshelves and I have read almost all of them), as well as a few standard fiction. Besides the book store grouping those books into one nice convenient section for me, the stories have been different, the plots have varied greatly. To sum it up I have read from simple to complex and enjoyed most of them.
Most of my close friends which I respect their opinion are probably worse than I am about their reading preferences. So to walk into a book store and roam the vast section of "fiction" and randomly select a book…I doubt I would enjoy it. If I did the same thing in the scifi/fantasy section (which I do too frequently) then I have a good chance I will enjoy it. Even some of the more poorly written books have been worth it for their sometimes unique perspectives.
Maybe I am just stubborn (which is likely), or too far gone. But common drama just is not enough for my free time. Will it hurt me as a writer? I'll let you
know in sometime in the future.
quote:
But common drama just is not enough for my free time. Will it hurt me as a writer? I'll let you know in sometime in the future.
This comment has been bugging me since I read it. It's almost like saying, "Yeah, doctors tell me that being overweight can have serious effects on my health, but I'm just too damn stubborn to listen to them. Will it hurt my health? I'll let you know in the future."
I am NOT saying that I (or anyone else on this board, save perhaps Kathleen) are in the position to speak to aspiring writers from a place of authority. Yet, writers who have found the land of milk and honey, writers who are reaping the fruits of their labor -- these writers exhort that one MUST read outside one's genre if one wishes to become a good writer. These writers are telling us from on high that our writing will be negatively affected if we don't read outside our genre.
Why wouldn't you listen to them?
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited October 05, 2003).]
Are you specifially interested in trying literary fiction or a different genre, such as mystery, romance, or horror?
I know I am stuborn, but one try won't hurt me...I guess....
Give me a day or two to think about it.
I think I can be a bit less stuborn once.
Suspense/Thriller: Thomas Harris, Silence of the Lambs
Mystery: Agatha Christie, Murder on the Orient Express
Mystery: Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (short stories)
Historical fiction: Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose
Ancient Greek: Homer, Iliad or Odyssey
Ancient Roman: Virgil, Aeneid
Medieval: Anon, Beowulf or Dante, The Divine Comedy or Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales
19th-century British: Charles Dickens, David Copperfield
Early-20th-century British: W. Somerset Maugham, Of Human Bondage
Mid-20th-century British: Graham Greene, The Heart of the Matter or Brighton Rock
19th-century American: Mark Twain, Huckleberry Finn
Early-20th-century American: William Faulkner, Light in August
Mid-20th-century American: Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird or Flannery O'Connor, Collected Short Stories
Contemporary-20th-century American: John Irving, Cider House Rules
Enjoy!!!
But remember it could be around a month before I get them and have a chance to read one (maybe both). I have been poking my nose in grammar books lately and have more to learn from them as well.
The four "novels" Greene wrote are: The Heart of the Matter, The Power and the Glory, The End of the Affair, and Brighton Rock.
You don't have to agree with Greene's assessment of what constitutes serious ficton. I don't. However, Greene's four "novels" would be classified under literature-as-genre as opposed to thriller.
So my only point is this one: I'm sure Our Man in Havana is as good as Jules says, but The Heart of the Matter is an excellent choice if you want to read literature-as-genre.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited October 17, 2003).]
quote:
Genre fiction, for whatever reason, is not very thematic. Perhaps genre writers shy away from the notion of theme. Perhaps genre writers lack the philosophical acumen to understand the meaning of their story. Perhaps genre writers don’t give a shit about theme. I don’t know—each genre writer is different.
I have to state my disagreement with the idea that, in general, genre writers don't care about theme. I read a lot of science fiction, a lot of fantasy, some horror, and quite a few mysteries. And I have to say that I haven't run across many novels in any of these genres that don't in some way try to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we lead - even if they seem to be talking about creatures far different from us, living in places and circumstances far different from ours, they are still in the main talking about us, here, now (or whenever and wherever each author was writing).
Maybe I have just happened to pick up "quality" genre novels by "quality" genre writers. But I don't think so. I haven't agreed with the visions, the themes, of some of these books and writers, but I have seen them there. And I think that is part of the problem; sometimes we tend to see themes - in any kind of fiction - only when we agree with or identify with those themes.
Or maybe I just see theme in places where it really isn't. But I don't think that's the case either.
I have only read a little mystery, but I have found them to be far less thematic. As for romance, if they have themes then I think the author's message is all wrong. (Love at first sight, easy romance, beauty over brains...)
So whether or not genre fiction is thematic depends upon the genre and, of course, the quality of the author.
The division of literature into various subgenres is a viscious cycle that has a fantastic benefit and a horrible cost. The benefit, of course, is that the existence of genres greatly increases the sales of books. Think about how many books you are presented with when you walk into a Barnes and Noble. Suppose those books were arbitrarily arranged, say, by authors last name. If you have one author that you really like, this is convenient, but odds are good that the books surrounding that author will not have much in common with each other. By arranging books by genre, when I go to the bookstore and am looking for a book by Card, I will find the books surrounding his work to be worth investigating.
The downside, of course, is that genres encourage repetition and imitation and make it difficult for real innovation to find a market. There is a great degree of creativity and flexibility within a genre--obviously "Enders Game" is a vastly different work from, say, "Dune" or "Ringworld"--but most SF books must share a fairly narrow category of settings--another planet, another time, or a here and now threatened by advanced technology (or, in the case of Hitchhikers Guide the Galaxy, all of the above). Break the formula, and you will have a difficult time finding readers.
One thing that I've always admired about Card is that he is one of the few writers that doesn't seem content to write the same book again and again. Obviously, he does pay the bills with the Ender's series and the Alvin Maker series, but he's also willing to put out non genre books like Lost Boys and the book of Christmas stories he published last year.
On a completely different angle for the literary versus genre argument, I would say that the two major diffences dividing the world are that literary works place a primary goal on enlightening the world, while genre works are mainly interested in being entertaining. Both fail at their goals frequently, I admit.
"Literary" writers often make the mistake that for a work to have merit, it must be difficult, and start believing that obscurity and inpenatrability are, in and of themselves, the highest mark that a work has merit. They judge a book like "Finnegan's Wake" to be a great book because it is so difficult no one can read past the first page. They regard literature as a mystic cult whose secrets can only be revealed by initiated priests.
On the other hand, genre writers sometimes fall into a similar trap. They've read great works filled with new terms and words and strange names. And they come to think that the mark of great science fiction or fantasy is that it is filled with strange words and names. You'll pick up a book and find sentences like, "Griznak piloted the hopdan into G'nar D'nath to see a Zorkon about a dovnid." So you wind up with a similar preisthood. You can go to a literary conference and find people talking about the deconstructed paradigms of the manifest subconcsious, or you can go to a science fiction convention and find people speaking Klingon. Both groups take delight in excluding those who don't understand their secret language.
And, of course, both of these are the extremes of each group. I don't want to say that all writing in each category is crap. There's fantasitic work in each category.
Do I have a point? I don't know. I warned you at the start this was going to be disjointed ramblings.
I really shouldn't write before I have caffiene...
--James Maxey
Definitely. SF, particularly, is heavily thematic. Possibly more so in terms of short stories than novels, but its still true of novels.
Many SF stories are actually intended as dramatic illustrations of some point that the author wants to put across. This might be considered a little too direct by some people. I have heard it said that theme shouldn't be put into a story, but should arise naturally out of it during the writing process. I don't know whether this is good advice or not...
[This message has been edited by Jules (edited October 21, 2003).]
I can understand that having one can be good, but not having a theme does not put the book in the catagory of worthless. If we look at why people read that might be of interest to this point. People read to learn, for entertainment, or possibly to see things from a different point of view. I have computer books to learn from, but rarely do they fall into anything close to entertainment. My sci-fi and fantasy fill the entertainment role, and if the story is good I could care less about a theme.
How many movies are produced that have absolutly no theme or meaning? Quite a few. People want to be entertained. If it requires some moral or intelectual reason to produce a show, there would not be a single sitcom. I can't stand most of the crap on tv since it fails to require anything other than watching. Most books do spark thought, and encourage the reader to think.
With or without a theme, a good story will do the job it was intended.
Lord D, almost all stories have a theme. It may not be overt, like the dreaded thesis statement of a term paper (did anyone else hate that thing? Anyway…), but every story choice the writer makes creates a certain world view within that story. In that world view, certain themes are present. Love stinks. Good triumphs over evil. Good kids doing bad things can be redeemed. Nancy Kress does a good treatment of this in Beginnings, Middles, and Ends, although she calls the theme a throughline.
[This message has been edited by GZ (edited October 21, 2003).]
quote:
So let me take your sentence and twist it around to the point where it becomes, if not true, then closer to the truth. You said "A book without an inner lesson isn't worth writing except for the reader's pleasure." What I say is, "A book that gives a reader pleasure does so because the reader cares deeply about issues that the characters face in the tale."
Yes, we can derive a theme, but for fiction I think the story is what is important. I couldn't imagine writing based on a theme, it is a story that leaves it up to the reader to determine what it means.
As a matter of fact, I believe that this is what OSC meant in that passage you quoted.
, I realized my novel-in-progress had a theme, though I hadn't planned it. I was just writing to get my mind off some things and amuse myself.Out of curiosity, looking at whatever you're working now, is there a theme to it, and if so, did you plan it or did it just happen?
I tend to think Jules is right. SF, by nature, is strongly thematic. In what other genre can you take life wholly as it isn't and ask "What if?"
I may have misunderstood what was being said. Hasn't been the first time, I doubt it will be the last...
Intentional is a hard word to define when you talk about the deepest and most meaningful elements of a story. Did the author deliberately set the theme and choose the milieu and characters on that basis, or did the writer find certain aspects of his characters more interesting and concentrate on them, thus creating a recognizable theme?
If the writer is any good, we shouldn't be able to tell. The meaning of the story should speak to us as clearly as if the writer knew us personally and wrote the story with a lesson in mind for us, and it should be as naturally implicit in the story, developing out of the characters and the situations they encounter, as if he were totally unconscious of what he was preaching.
I would guess that there are few authors who would accept one interpretation of their works as well as the utterly opposed interpretation. Most would accept more than one, but they remain consciously aware of which ones they think are in their works and which ones they would argue are not in their works.
On the other hand, I doubt that most good authors plot out the exact wording of the commentary they want you to apphend as an analysis of the meaning of their works.
We're just beating on you because you didn't want to read outside of the SF/Fantasy shop.
quote:
We're just beating on you because you didn't want to read outside of the SF/Fantasy shop.
That’s ok, most of you should know by now I enjoy a good disagreement, or would that be an opposing discussion?
Whichever, I don't mind.
Three very different authors -- Damon Knight, John Gardner, and Stephen King -- have all spoken of theme. They all agree (remember, Gardner was an English professor and wrote literary novels, including meta-fiction) that theme is highly overrated. Gardner says that one reason is that English professors are too dim-witted to talk about the merits of a finely crafted story, so they have to talk about theme. These three gentlemen all agree that a theme emerges from the story.
John Steinbeck is the only writer I know of who couldn't write a story until he could state his theme. I've talked to several knowledgeable people about this, and they all concur that this is what makes Steinbeck a "hack" in the literature-as-genre field. It's so obvious that he's trying to deliver a message that he has to manipulate his characters to get the message across.
I do believe that a story with a theme is better than a story without a theme because the essence of storytelling is to explore and communicate the verities of life and existence in a dramatic way, and a themeless story doesn't fulfill this primary function. I stand by my original statement that most genre authors don't give a flip about theme; or if they do the themes in their stories are either undeveloped or, if they are developed, they are overt as well as trite and banal.
One of the problems I have with OSC's comments on theme is that he seems to think a theme is the MESSAGE of a story, or that a story is an ILLUSTRATION of a theme. That's fine if he thinks that, so long as he'll accept my view that he is not only wrong on what theme is, but that he is one of the most thematic authors I've read -- an author who writes stories with deep meaning.
Is SF/F thematic by nature? I don't think it is. It's more prone to writing to a thesis, delivering a message, or being an illustration of a theme than other genres. Once the SF/F author starts thinking, "This alien is a symbol for...," then that author is on the precipice of failure. More than that, because SF/F is such an Event driven genre, it's quite easy for the theme, the deep-meaning of a story, to get forgotten in lieu of the Event.
The Event itself might have a meaning; each story is different. But what I've found is that the more action in a story, the less intelligent the story is. There is a remedy, however, and that's having an equal amount of contemplation within an Event-driven story. For every siege on the castle, you should have the characters sitting around the campfire talking about their lives, their hopes, and their dreams. This is one reason why The Lord of the Rings is such an incredible fantasy. There's enough contemplative time for us to get to know the characters and for the characters to discern the meaning of the Event; in the process, we both understand and experience the deep-meaning -- the theme -- of Tolkien's work.
I want to close with this point: Everything that has been said about authors, stories, and themes need to be understood in light of the essential fact that, if a story is to remain honest and true, its theme, its deep-meaning, emerges from the story itself -- it is not superimposed by the author.
quote:
Is SF/F thematic by nature? I don't think it is. It's more prone to writing to a thesis, delivering a message, or being an illustration of a theme than other genres. Once the SF/F author starts thinking, "This alien is a symbol for...," then that author is on the precipice of failure. More than that, because SF/F is such an Event driven genre, it's quite easy for the theme, the deep-meaning of a story, to get forgotten in lieu of the Event.
Now I understand. You have been burned one too many times in the sf/f section.
I agree there are some authors out there that put more time into the creation of props for their stories than for the story itself. But maybe if you look at some of the better authors that know how to put together a story and the props are just that. Wies and Hickman wrote a nice seven book series "Death Gate." Not only did each novel have it's own "theme" the whole series had a global "theme" or point. There is also the Black Company series by Glen Cook that was incredible also. You would think that a company of mercenaries would be a bit dull, but the effort to portray the people of the company and the problems they faced was very well done.
R.A. Salvator and his Dark Elf books have strong implications on prejudice and how some people can overlook appearance and stereotyping to see the individual. Not to mention some other not so nice human failures he hits upon also. All this wrapped in a nice fantasy world where action still happens quite a bit. The Cleric series was just as good.
As for sci-fi, Andre Norton has a slew of books which range from time travel to exploring new worlds. All her space books were about people, not the technology. OSC has quite a few himself which are enjoyable.
Why do you think I am so determined that sf/f is not all just props and action? It is because the selective readers realize that there are garbage books mixed among the good ones, just like there are bad books in the standard fiction section.
R.A. Salvatore is on my list of authors I won't read unless I'm paid. I've read three different works by him -- The Sword of Bedwyr, his Star Wars novel, and the first 50 pages in his first Dark Elf trilogy -- and I found each one virtually unreadable: his characters are shallow, his writing is stiff and banal, and all he seems to care about is putting D&D on paper.
Once an author burns me three times in a row, I won't read him or her again unless I'm paid to do so. Mr. Salvatore is the only one on this list so far. Perhaps I've chosen three really bad novles, or perhaps he's just an awful writer. I tend to think it's the latter.
Now that I'm done with my tirade on Mr. Salvatore, I know there are excellent SF/F writers out there. Why do you think I participate in this forum? But I haven't read too many SF/F authors I would consider "great" authors. Hell, I haven't read too many authors I would consider "great." There are, however, more "great" novels than there are authors. But this is a different topic.
Just to clarify matters, my understanding of theme is that it is what emerges when you look at the decisions characters make, the situations they find themselves in, and possibly the scenery of the world they inhabit.
It isn't what the story is about... the theme of an SF novel is unlikely to be related to, say, discovering alien life.
In a good story, you will find just a few coherent themes. They may or may not have been decided by the author before he wrote the story. Maybe he got halfway through the story and saw the pattern emerging so went with it. Maybe it was entirely subconscious, showing some aspect of his world view.
An example: a story of mine that a few people here critiqued a couple of months back was about a situation where two races of aliens living in the same star system discover each other as one is threatened with destruction by a collision between their home world and a rather large planetoid. None of these aspects of the story are theme. (Somebody mentions thesis: are any of these thesis? If not, what is thesis?)
Once I had written the story, I noticed that at two points in the story I had powerful characters who cannot act in particular ways, despite the fact that doing so would solve the central problem of the story, because their power is structured in a way that prevents them from doing so. This is what I call a theme. I think themes ought to be susceptible of statement in a single phrase. In this case, I state the theme as 'power comes with restraints'.
Having discovered the theme, I then realised that it could easily be applied to the ending (which I had previously been concerned about not fitting with the rest of the story), so found that a third powerful character was similarly restricted. So in that story, the theme was both accidental and intentional.
Does everyone else agree with my definition of theme? Or are other people talking about something else?
As for Salvator, he does write 3rd person omnipresent which can take some getting used too. But one of his books delt with alcoholism, and reasons people become alcoholics. It showed some reasoning behind alcoholism that I had never thought of. Theme? I don't really care. I loved the story, how it was resolved, and the things it taught me about something I had never truly understood.
Maybe there are themes in the books I read. I never give it much thought. I look at how enjoyable the book was, and what concepts that are valuable to me. I used to ponder the meaning of life, until I determined there wasn't one. Why bother with themes?
Lord D., I don't think nihilism is compatible with authentic artistic expression. If life has no meaning, then why bother with anything -- especially with the creation of stories that bring either illumination or merriment to others' lives?
Reading for me is equivalent to people watching TV. The primary reason is for entertainment. If I gain a better understanding of a concept or situation, then I am happier that I read the book. There have been a few occasions where after finishing a book I would think about it for weeks after I was finished. But did I didn't go looking for a theme, I will think about the situations and why they stuck with me, but I don't feel the need to have a theme to give the story purpose.
Just to make sure I make myself clear. This is just my view of it. I am not denying themes can exist, or that they can be worked into a story...I am not looking for them. I can agree that good characters make the difference between a great book and a ok book.
Let me throw out a few points on one of my favorite sci-fi books, The Forever War. The author did put in a note that explained it was created based on the Vietnam war, but it was the extra details he added which got to me. He brought out the point that someone who goes off to war for years can come home to find their home is gone. Not physically gone, but the environment, the attitude of the people in their community can change. The main character comes home to find the world has changed so much he no longer fit in. This goes along with many soldiers of the Vietnam War when they returned home to find it different from when they left. Attitudes had changed, and instead of coming home a hero they returned as unwanted misfits. The book also goes on to speculate at some of the problems of overpopulation and how the human race might deal with it. First Homosexuality was encouraged, and then it was the only form of sexuality. Children were created in a facility which kept the population under complete control. Eventually the book changed humans to a race of clones, but kept a few "stock" planets just in case the clones failed. The main character was placed in situations that, I'm happy to say, I will never have to deal with.
So what is the theme? I don't know, don't really care. I do know that I enjoyed it, and it gave me insight that I did not have before reading it. For me, that is enough.
I do think there are some valid points all of you have made, I'm just being stubborn as usual.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited November 26, 2003).]
quote:
So, Lord D., have you read The Heart of the Matter or The Name of the Rose yet? Or even both?
I am currently reading "Name of the Rose", and I am about halfway through it. I think what surprised me is that if I actually tried to write that way I'd be ripped to shreds.
The details sometimes are a bit on the overkill side, and the Latin and other languages that I don't know tend to be a bit annoying. Since I am not catholic, I could use a glossary which explains the varying religious terms.
Of course I am only pointing out the things I don't like. I am still reading it, and overall it isn't bad. It does show why a writer should avoid writing anything that heavily relies on current concepts and terms to be automatically understood by the reader. I guess for me I feel left out on some of the concepts, because I do not have an understanding of the religious terms or their implications I felt I missed something.
On the good side, I have enjoyed the logical process that William goes through to analyze the information he gathers.
By the way, The Heart of the Matter is also a novel with Catholic overtones. The key "Catholic conflict" in this novel is that you can't receive the Eucharist if you're in a state of serious sin.
Perhaps God is trying to tell you something.
The parts that were confusing is the many daily events that have different words: vespers, matins, lauds, and a few more I have already forgotten. There is an assumption that the reader will know what they are. Well, having no clue, I just grouped them all as some event and go on.
While I'm at it, what does "Eucharist" mean? Since at the moment I'm feeling too lazy to look it up.
"Vespers, matins, lauds, etc." . . . I don't know what all of them mean. But you're correct: they have to do with the way the monks divided they day according to formal times of prayer.
The "Eucharist" is a Catholic term for Communion or the Lord's Supper. In Catholic theology, it is a serious sin to receive the Eucharist if you are in a state of serious sin. If you die in a state of serious sin, you are condemned to hell. (It is far more complicated than this, but I don't want to write a 10,000-word essay.) The only way to get out of serious sin is to go to Confession -- that is, to confess your sins to a priest. You don't have to believe this to enjoy The Heart of the Matter. You just have to believe that the main characters believe this.
In fact, The Heart of the Matter is a serious piece of religious fiction, and what I mean by that is this: the moral conflict between and within the characters are deeply religious.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited November 26, 2003).]
quote:
In fact, The Heart of the Matter is a serious piece of religious fiction, and what I mean by that is this: the moral conflict between and within the characters are deeply religious.
I don't have a problem with the many religious aspects of the book. Sometimes they can be quite interesting as long as they are explained. So it is more the items that are not explained, or translated, that I dislike. Although I personally dislike "religions", I am not upset by them. (Just a note, I do believe in God. I just have a different perspective and don't trust someone to do my thinking for me. )
As for the references to the different fractions and disputes within the Catholic Church, do you know if they are historically correct, or at least close? If it is I might do a bit of looking at some history I never knew might interest me.
In an earlier post you made a reference to Eco's writing. I couldn't tell if you liked it or disliked it or what. What you need to know is that Eco is Italian and The Name of the Rose was written in Italian, so don't be so quick to judge him by the stylistic concerns of good English prose. This is also why he freely uses Latin, French, and other languages: His primary audience would have been able to read them with little or no problem.
I glad you're enjoying it.
quote:
In an earlier post you made a reference to Eco's writing. I couldn't tell if you liked it or disliked it or what.
I do like it, I just have a few issues with overdescription of things that, so far, have little relevance to the actual story. A big no no for anyone now that wishes to have a chance at publication.
It is nice to know that it does follow history. I knew that the catholic church had issues in thier past, but never the extent of how bad it was. It does show a bit of how human nature can turn a belief into a major conflict. I found it interesting that William's explination of the way new followers gathered to alternate sub-fractions, could make sense today with the various religious based terrorists.
History does tend to repeat itself.
[This message has been edited by Lord Darkstorm (edited November 27, 2003).]
The reason I mention this is because I've heard that THE NAME OF THE ROSE is full of "signs" and "symbols" and is therefore accessible on several levels.
I'd love to read an annotated THE NAME OF THE ROSE that discusses at least a few of those levels.
Of course, the story works just fine without requiring the reader to go beneath the surface to any deeper levels, and I consider that the mark of a very clever and talented writer.
Some of that excess description is probably part of the semiotics Eco included for those who would "get" the deeper levels.
The natural tendancy (illustrated in the Bible ) is to have several competing religions that espose quite different codes of conduct and promise very different rewards for following said codes. Naturally, some or all of these religions may be false (i.e. the promised reward for the expected conduct is not actually available), but the point is that people decide which way they want to live their lives and choose their religions on that basis.
When you try to suppress this activity both at the individual and organizational level with a single faith, it simply becomes subliminated. The competition and conflict over what is right and wrong simply takes place inside your religious organization.
The Catholics' problems seem worse than they really were because they clung to the idea that the fundamental problem shouldn't exist. This is, of course, nonsensical. If everyone is supposed to go to heaven, then why is there a Final Judgement and a hell? Obviously, heaven is not for everyone. The problem is a misinterpretation of a very basic idea. In Christian theology, heaven is so good (in the eyes of the saved) that they cannot understand why anyone (the damned) wouldn't want to go there. And yet, some people, though willing to slod through the mud and filth of this sad little world, don't want a world without mud and filth. They like filth.
Sad, but true...which in an odd way kind of sums up the whole Christian philosophy. You have to embrace sorrow and suffering to understand the truth.
quote:
I found it interesting that William's explanation of the way new followers gathered to alternate sub-fractions, could make sense today with the various religious based terrorists.
I'm not sure what part of the novel you're referring to, but I wonder if your anti-religious stance is affecting your interpretation of Catholic history.
Since this is a writer's forum, I certainly won't reply to Survivor's mistaken comments about what the Catholic Church thinks. One is certainly free not to believe what the Church teaches, but please do not misrepresent what the Church teaches.
quote:
I'm not sure what part of the novel you're referring to, but I wonder if your anti-religious stance is affecting your interpretation of Catholic history.
Let me quickly explain my anti-religious concept. Since I have been to and disagreed with many religions, and most were not catholic. I discoverd that people twist the meanings arround to suit thier need, which is one of the points survivor was making. I still find religions fasinating, even though I don't accept the details of each one.
In the book William seems to have some problems with the concept of acceptance of what the "church" says without question. He questions the actions and positions of the leaders of the church. Since William basis his beliefs on logic and reason, he does not blindly accept anything without rationalizing it first. That gives me a closer connection to him since I understand why he would questions things that most would not question.
quote:
Since this is a writer's forum, I certainly won't reply to Survivor's mistaken comments about what the Catholic Church thinks.
I agree, but if you think about it, we do discuss a variety of subjects which are used (I'm reading one now), and will continue to play roles in stories in the future. Religion is a firm part of most peoples lives, and to ignore it in all stories created would be a loss. If a vast majority of people in the world believe in something, that makes religion one item that needs to be used to gain greater believability in a story world. To discuss religion from a outside perspective is one way to understand how they function. If Eco only used it as a basis for belief then a large part of what I have found interesting would have never been written. He understood the conflicts and disagreements within a religion. He does show that even in the most powerfull religion in the world at that time, they still could not keep everyone believing the same way.
So please don't take anything I say as a insult to Catholics, or any other religion. I like to see other points of view as well, how could I write a different religious point of view if I never see it? My thinking on the similarities between the fractions and the terrorists was a generilization based on the idea Eco explained. If a town had a religious fraction that most people agreed with, but that fraction is gone or no longer in that area, a new fraction comes along with similarities. Having important distinctions between the two people in the town will still follow the new faction not realizing, or not carring, that there are differences. Now the Muslim religion is based arround acceptance and peace (general concepts). But there are the fanatical factions that skew the religion to a degree of fanatisim that leads to violence and intolorance. So even though the muslim religion in itself is a non-violent religion, the sub fractions using the "muslim" name are almost a oposit of the original.
I believe the "pilgrams", refered to in the book, were so fanatical that they roamed through France killing Jews and killing people who did not agree with thier way of thinking. This has a similarity to the modern day terrorists who kill inocents because they do not believe the same way as the terrorist. The common bond between the two is thier fanatical behaviour. This does not mean the Catholic church, or the Muslim religion, is evil or necissarily wrong. They both have had groups using thier name to justify thier actions.
So far I have not used religion in my own writing since I have used worlds where religion does not exsist or has been removed. This doesn't mean it is not something that can play an important part of a future story. Religions, in general, have been the basis for many wars and great evil. This ties in to power corrupting, the desire for wealth, and the ability to control. Eco made a point of using the term "simple" to refer to the general population of the unlearned that could be encouraged to follow anyone even if they are wrong.
quote:
One is certainly free not to believe what the Church teaches, but please do not misrepresent what the Church teaches.
I can understand your dislike of someone misunderstanding what you believe, but if you look at any religion from the outside of that religion you will not see the same things as the believer. My view of the Catholic religion are going to be different. It does not mean you are wrong, just that I have a different view.
Eco, so far, has pointed out some of these concepts in the book. Fanatasism, confilicting beliefs, and even extreme viewpoints are mentioned and explained. If nothing else, the insight on how religions can split from within, and being historically correct, is worth the time.
I made a simple observation that total uniformity of religion is unnatural, and so it isn't suprising that it didn't exist even in a period moderns sometimes imagine to have been completely dominated by the Catholic Church.
Kathleen does have a point, a point I'd like to re-emphasize. I didn't recommend THE NAME OF THE ROSE because it is written by a Catholic and has medieval Catholic history as its backdrop. I recommended THE NAME OF THE ROSE because (a) it's a masterpiece in the field of historical fiction and (b) it's one of my favorite novels. (I think it's time to reread it.) So if you want to learn something from Eco's novel, it's not how to write a religious novel, but, rather, how to write a historical novel.
It was the same motive that compelled me to put down Graham Greene's THE HEART OF THE MATTER, which, I admit, is a religious novel. The essence of the conflict is religious and spiritual conflict, not on the external level, but on the internal level.
But that's not the reason I recommended THE HEART OF THE MATTER. I recommended this Greene novel becasue Greene is one of the few authors who have successfully written both "entertainments" (his term) as well as "serious or deep fiction." If you were to read his one of his memoirs, you'll see that he understood the difference.
Religion is something to concider, even if it has only a minor purpose. As an addition to the background it can give it more substance. Or it can be a major motivation that drives the plot.
So the better I understand it, the easier it will be to use correctly.