posted
This is about theater, but I'm posting here because I think it applies directly to writing as well.
I was talking to a friend today about empathy, and he smacked me upside the head with a very fresh concept (to me). I've heard before that one of the main purposes of theater is to evoke emotion, but this was new. Paraphrasing (probably badly):
"One of my drama instructors [university level] told our class that the true purpose of theater was to help people empathize with those in situations they will never, ever be in."
(It's a paraphrase of a paraphrase, but I think the idea is intact.)
I like it because it's such a concrete goal. Also, it seems to fit: almost all the fiction I think is greatest does just that.
I don't like it because it seems narrow. If it's true, the fiction that doesn't is at best a waste of time, and at worst an cheap inversion (or even perversion). (I'm thinking of fiction that specifically tries to evoke emotion but for no reason, or for bad reasons.) My beloved comedy often falls into the waste-of-time category.
At any rate, it seems like a noble goal.
Anyway, I just thought I'd toss that out here to see what the rest of all y'all thought about it.
posted
You don't want to impose, to force emotion onto your reader. You want to draw emotion out of them. Help them discover depths in themselves. Which makes me wonder about the novels which delve into the minds/emotions of psychopaths. Shudder.
Posts: 1580 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Theater isn't the only vehicle that seeks to stir emotion. My career field has been in advertising & graphic design. Advertising is about stimulating emotions; the product is often secondary. In fact, you can find ads that don't mention a product at all.
Emotions are how we connect with the human experience. We don't want to read stories (or watch them on the stage) about a character who does A, then does B, then does C... we want to know how the character FEELS when they do A, B and C. It is the emotion that hooks us in.
posted
Well, I disagree with that drama instructor. The purpose of theatre is and always has been for entertainment -- the same could probably be said for fiction. There are many ways to entertain an audience.
That said, I saw an excellent play in London called "Smaller" a week ago or so. It touched me in a lot of ways, mostly because I could relate to or empathsize with the characters in situations that I recognized. It also showed me how powerful dialogue can be when written and performed very well. Well, the show was no Shakespeare production, but it was heartfelt and honest. I was thoroughly entertained.
posted
It's hard to say what is the "true" goal of any art. Sometimes it's just to make money, sometimes it's to push an agenda, or distract the audience while you sneak out the window, or whatever.
There are a very few artists who honestly have no goal beyond enabling their audience to have good time. It's a very unselfish motive, but it isn't a particularly important goal. And it's easier to accomplish by throwing candy. Or drugs.
I think that a lot of artists take it as their mission to make everyone "understand" some condition that is personal to the artist. I've decided to eschew that goal, but I understand the motivation.
Card talks a lot about helping the audience understand their own story. I think that's nice work if you can get it, but again, it's not really for me.
The main problem I have with the idea as you stated it is that there is no purpose in empathizing with those in situations we will never, ever be in. That's why I've decided against trying to make people understand my situation. You'll never be in that situation, so there is no point in you understanding it. Besides, the reason you won't be in my situation is because it is impossible for you to experience it in the first place.
It's only possible to get people to understand a situation if the theoretical possiblity of being in a similar situation exists for them. Understanding that situation is only important to them if there is a definite probability they might (or already have) encounter it.
I think that the person that said that is of the "ordinary people can't possibly understand the artiste's experience, therefore..." school of art. Which is always going to be popular with unsuccessful artists, but isn't the most useful school of thought.
Empathy is a tool of communication. Art is a form of communication, therefore it requires the development of empathy. Communication isn't the sole purpose of empathy, nor is empathy the sole purpose of communication. They are impossible to separate, because each requires the other. Indeed, each presupposes the other. I don't think that you can meaningfully say that one is the means and the other is the end.
posted
IMHO the purpose of any medium is to communicate.
I personally prefer communication to be entertainment. So, I write to entertain. Occassionally, I'll slip my social and politial views into my entertainment. Sometimes, I'll satirize the oppossing views.
But, I can honestly say that as for experiencing things through books/theatre/movies that I have not experienced in real life...well, lets just say that would be a short list. Reality being stranger than fiction is the story of my life.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
I didn't know the meaning. 
