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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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. )

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.