posted
I guess the question that bugs me is this: why do so many new writers try to be deep and meaningful instead of just writing a story?
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think the ideal would be to just write a cool story, and then have everyone tell you it was deep and meaningful. Posts: 818 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Susannaj4; I have not, my interests are elsewhere. BTW: Narnia Books were religious and LOTR.
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).]
posted
I'm a new writer yet I do not take offence to this. I guess at one time I admit to it, but as you mature as a writer you see your old faults.
Posts: 384 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think its because most (if not all) young/novice writers are bleeding hearts who want to change the world with their word.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rcorporan; I don't think we are 'trashing' new writers.
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).]
posted
If I want to write about religion, I'll write about religion. But the whole "inspirational/disillusionment" catagory of fiction doesn't really interest me, either as a writer or a reader.
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.
posted
I'm sure one day someone will explain how LOTR was religious. I'm fairly sure some religious people would describe it as sacrilegious.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well . . . Tolkein was a very serious practicing Catholic, and the LoTR only makes sense in the context of some very Catholic ideas about reality--e.g., that absolute good and evil exist, that no one should "do evil that good may come of it," that personality is unitary and competence cannot be separated from character.
Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tolkien once described LOTR to his friend, Father Robert Murray, as:
quote:"a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."
(The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, p. 142).
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).]
posted
Perhaps there is some confusion here between religious and belief systems. Yes LOTR is naturally imbued with a certain belief system, but religion???
Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It took me a long time (and the aid of several commentaries) to realize that "Lord of the Rings" had religious overtones. To what Hoptoad and J said, I'll add the theme of the ultimate value of not giving in to despair, and that something is right or wrong is not determined by failure or success. And maybe more later.
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.
posted
That's right Matt Lust, I know I'm a bleeding heart trying to change the world! w00t!
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).]
posted
I've noticed the same thing... It's come in spurts... I am of the opinion that those who try to make their story seem religious or what-have-you will fail miserably. The only (successful) way I've seen this done is by imbuing the characters with those beliefs/etc and letting them behave as they will. You'll get your deep and meaningful story... and you'll also get very developed characters.
At least, that's how I view it. I just think many n00b writers just have the wrong viewpoint.
posted
I agree with the points made above: I like to think my stories are not just candy for the mind, but go a little deeper.
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
posted
Of course we young, new, ambitious writers try to give meaning to our WIPs. I mean, look at those who have successfully done so: their works are considered incredible, and have been around for a long while. I'd rather try to give my story meaning right away, rather than spew out a lot of crud first until I get better at it. You can't start writing well until you try to start writing well.
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).]
posted
I have to disagree. I think if you try too hard to give a story "meaning" you'll overcompensate and end up preaching. I think you should just start with the story and the characters (I'm a fan of character based works). Sometimes when you're doing that (as recently happend with my WIP) you'll reach a point where the reaction a character might have to a situation will end up being a topic with "meaning" to it anyway. Maybe a character will decide to sacrifice himself for his friends/loved ones. Maybe a villian will realize the errors of his ways. There are too many possibilities to count. But I do honestly believe the "meaning" behind a story works much better if the author wasn't creating the entire story as an excuse to make a point, or to preach to the audience. It just so happens that what a character says/does at one point in the story has universal implications/meaning that applies to our world.
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.
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).]
posted
Personally, I'd rather have no heart at all
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.
posted
This thread really makes a good point, I think that really helps me out. Before I thought that people like OSC who write with such blatant meanings must start with those purposes in mind. Yet, I suppose that it started with an idea and the meanings came as the situations presented themselves.
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.
posted
First and foremost, I think a writer should be writing to create a good story. However I believe that the story shouldn't be meaningless. Every great story has a message, or something that gets you thinking. Reading shouldn't be like watching a TV show. It should make someone think and reflect on the story. Of course we read for a good story, but I know I tend to look for the meaning. Of course, it doesn't have to be a conscious effort. I think most stories that you put hard work into turn out having some message or meaning that the reader can find, even if the writer didn't mean to put it there.
[This message has been edited by Valtam2 (edited February 07, 2006).]
posted
Thats why I said that often new writers try to mean too much. That they should try to be meaningless is not a logical extrapolation from my statement.
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).]
posted
...and, now that this thread has come up, I find myself writing what might be called a religious fantasy. At least, it has some religion in it.
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.
posted
Admit it, Partially Clips links are always great...even if they aren't always appropriate (either to the discussion, the audience, or both).
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).]
posted
No, it's about how Hi-Fi fanatics are much like other people that don't buy scientific methodology when it challenges their beliefs.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a few thoughts on the original question "WHY do many of us try to imbed religion into our WIP's, particularly when we are new?" And "Why try to be deep and meaningful instead of just telling the story?"
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...)
posted
KevinMac, Its a very good point. I think maybe knowing the boundary between 'enough' and 'too much' comes as a result of experience.
Posts: 1683 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I completely agree with Kevin Mac as well. However, I think that a lot of times us new writers try to portray our lessons and morals the wrong way. Lecturing just doesn't work all that well. My first attempt at a novel was about 50% lecturing and it just isn't working.
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*
Printer-friendly view of this topic
