I don't think I've ever read a religious/fantasy novel nor can i think of any.
Does this sort of endeavour perform some sort of important role for new writers?
Has anyone else noticed it?
And for SF you rarely see a more bold Humanist than Heinlein
Too many new writers try too hard to mean too much. (The same goes for stories about childhood trauma). The fact is that when a writer thinks he is being deep, meaningful, insightful or profound, he usually isn't and should probably just stop it -- for everyone's sake.
Maybe postpone the angsty/introspective stuff until they are better writers and see if they still want to do it.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 06, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 06, 2006).]
Remember boys and girls, if you don't have anything nice to say....
:P
We are -- virtually all of us -- new writers.
It's just a close look at something that seems to be a phenomenon. Who was it that said that we all have ten thousand pages of trash to get out of our system before we start writing something good? I think this thread addresses some of those ten thousand pages, some pages/ideas that are common to many new writers.
Edit: and I think there is a kernel of truth to what Matt Lust has said, even if I would have phrased it differently.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 06, 2006).]
Like somebody said, "I don't care what you believe, just believe."
I don't write a story unless I believe in it. If I don't feel like I've touched a truth that matters to me, then why am I writing?
The mistake isn't trying to find a truth that's worth writing about, the mistake is thinking that only certain truths matter.
As for trying to say something . . . I can't imagine going to the tremendous amount of work involved in a novel, if I meant nothing by it.
quote:(The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, p. 142).
"a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."
As J said: the battle of Good versus Evil, but also the triumph of humility over pride, (think of the hobbits versus the elves), death versus Immortality, repentance, sacrifice, free will, brotherly kindness, resurrection and Salvation...on and on. Take a look at Wikipedia.
I said many new writers try to mean too much. And that is what I mean.
Edit: Deleted a few lines.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 07, 2006).]
On the basis of eight-and-a-half-chapters of "Seventh Son," I'd say the book (and probably the rest of the series) is, to put it crudely, "religious fantasy." (or perhaps "religious / fantasy" with a dash between it.) Further comment on that would require me to finish it and read further volumes, something I intend to do...eventually.
When you're young you think, I've got the perfect idea to tell just the perfect story that will make you laugh and cry and change your life.
As noted by others, most of us have thought that at one time or another. It may just be that some of us are better as impulse control than others.
(Heck I did sappy not less than 2 months ago and I'm still picking the syrupy mess out of my writing psyche.)
But really. Half of writing is about the meaning--its one of the things that I love so much about it. And Science Fiction, in particular is so condusive for this type of thing.
So I mean, can you really blame us?
I mean, I know I still try to make it an awesome story. It is important to have a cool story after all, but its always so much cooler when it has some meaning in it. I mean, you can chill in your shallowness if you want, but I like the meaning
(btw...that was not meant to offend you, I was just playing)
I mean, I have yet to read a book that I don't find meaning in. So I don't see what's the big deal.
(lol...I said "i mean" 3 times in this post...)
[This message has been edited by ethersong (edited February 07, 2006).]
At least, that's how I view it. I just think many n00b writers just have the wrong viewpoint.
If what you care about is religion, go for it.
If what you care about is deep and thoughtful, go for it.
Stranger in a Strange Land was, inarguably, one of the best books of the last century precisly because it was deep, thoughful and religious.
And yes, I went through a phase of preaching (I hope I got rid of that by now, but sometimes it resurfaces in unexpected places ) as well. I guess you're just trying to say something that matters, and that often involves religion or preaching of some sort.
Anyway, there's good religious fantasy out there. I'm not against it, it's just sometimes the preachiness is too overwhelming. LOTR is religious. So are the Chronicles of Narnia, and much good epic fantasy has religious overtones (good/evil dichotomy, a savior/messiah) but also roots in older myths.
Basically, I guess my only thought on the matter is: don't preach, and your belief will make it through anyway. (and I apply it whole-heartedly to myself). Or we'll all be writing commercial, soulless SF/fantasy
Unless, of course, you want more novels like Eragon out on the market...
[EDIT:] Of course, I don't mean that we should preach. Preaching narrows the audience even further than genre does, and that could ruin a fledgling career.
[This message has been edited by scm288 (edited February 07, 2006).]
Novice golfers take their driver to the range, and say that they'll worry about their nine iron after they figure out how to hit the driver.
But I think that giving a work meaning should not be something that you consciously try to do- otherwise it'll seem superficial or superimposed.
The problem with creating a story to purposefully preach/teach a moral lesson to the audience is I think it's far too easy to get carried away to the point that the audience will stop listening. Once I'm reading something and I consciously realize that the author (not the character) is the one trying to make a point about life, I basically stop listening. The strings over the puppetlike character's head become visible and it pulls me out of the story, ruining it to at least some degree.
quote:
most (if not all) young/novice writers are bleeding hearts who want to change the world
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw not long ago: "I'd rather have a bleeding heart than no heart at all."
I consider myself a bleeding heart, and I'm proud of it. If that quality makes it into my writing, then my writing is so much the better. My job as a writer is simply to make the story entertaining, no matter what the preconceived ideas are that you hold when you pick it up to read.
quote:Dovetail: A Journal by and for Jewish/Christian Families
*contact details deleted*
HINTS: "No matter what we say, we can't seem to get people to stop sending us denominational, proselytizing material, especially specifically Christian preachy or 'inspirational' stuff. We cannot use it; sending it to us only wastes our time and yours."
Wow. They must get a lot of it.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 07, 2006).]
I like my "inspirational/disillusionment stories to be based on the author's personal experience rather than made up out of whole cloth. That's just me. Everyone's different.
I've found myself at times trying to plan meaning ahead of time...I suppose I can't do that. Cause philosophical ramblings absolutely suck in a novel.
[This message has been edited by Valtam2 (edited February 07, 2006).]
As others have said, whenever you write a story that you care about it will be imbued with assumptions, values and meanings from the writer's experience/life. That is true. It is just the way it works. However, it is a hazardous exercise to set out writing a fictional story with the intent to educate the reader in 'pet' moral principles.
I am confident that most readers can feel when an author has an ulterior motive.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 07, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited February 07, 2006).]
The religions aren't mine: New Age, and secularism. OSC said he tries to make his MC's have some other religion than his, so he won't write preachy books. I hadn't planned it this way, but the tension between secularism and New Age seemd ripe for humor.
About New Age religions and secularism, well, I just have to post this link. There are, after all, many different "sects" of secularism, and most of them are at odds with the others.
I'm not a secularist, because I think it's silly to make any distinction between religious and secular matters when it comes to decision making. There are plenty of "religious" truths that aren't terribily more important than your choice of kettle lead, after all.
And just to make sure you get the right article...
[This message has been edited by Survivor (edited February 08, 2006).]
Sol Stein says that there are 2 main veins of writers, those of melodrama and those of literary worth that examine deeper human nature. (Think of the movie Scream verses Hamlet. Can you see a difference?)
All stories have conflict and an overcoming of or a succumbing to that conflict. And because religion, faith, belief systems, or just ordinary morals tend to be the guiding light by which we face conflict, nearly every story is about morality (or immorality depending on the character). All of us experience conflict in the real world, and when we overcome we want to help others by sharing the knowledge. Hence we want to share our moral learnings or deeper insight with others.
The problem we newbies run into is that we are so passionate about the moral that we forget the story. This doesn't work. However, I see nothing wrong with supporting/using/showing/teaching a moral in a novel, so long as it doesn't override the story. In fact, I am drawn to these stories far and above those that do not have something to say. I have seen Scream countless times and only read Hamlet once, guess which one I remember more? It just has to be done right, subtly, and quietly. Let me enjoy the story so much it will churn in my mind for days until I can relate it to my life and apply the moral. I think in this case less is more - you'll get the point accross better if you don't try so hard - something I myself have yet to put into practice.
I'll get off my soapbox now. (pushes the crate to the side and steps down...)
On the other hand, you read works that have such powerful moral lessons (such as just about ANY classic) and they seem to have no problem. I think the main difference is that they don't lecture. There are no long passageways that are nothing but philosophical rambling (only exception I can think of would be Ayn Rand's the Fountainhead, if anyone's read it).
Most good works use situations, characters, metaphors, events, etc, etc to portray their lesson or thoughts. I mean OSC is the most "religious" writer I know of--if you think about it, ALL his work has very clear and major morals and philosophical/religious discussion and themes. But he does it all through the book not through himself.
quote:
I think the main difference is that they don't lecture.
My first short story was mostly lecture. Sad, really, but good that I got it mostly out of my system. The thing about lecture is that your only potential audience is the choir. People don't read your work to metaphorically sit at your feet and absorb your highest philosophies. They read to be entertained.
Heinlein comes to mind. Great writer, even greater lecturer. *sigh*