home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.writing
- Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!news.UVic.CA!sirius.UVic.CA!blundstr
- From: blundstr@sirius.UVic.CA (Byron Lundstrom)
- Subject: Re: Moral Context? (was Re: Theme ~ Moral)
- Message-ID: <1992Nov16.204106.6589@sol.UVic.CA>
- Sender: news@sol.UVic.CA
- Nntp-Posting-Host: quill.uvic.ca
- Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
- References: <92314.140929KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET> <1992Nov10.210236.10527@thinkage.on.ca> <YAMAUCHI.92Nov10233951@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> <1992Nov13.220821.11453@thinkage.on.ca>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 20:41:06 GMT
- Lines: 56
-
- In article <1992Nov13.220821.11453@thinkage.on.ca>, jim@thinkage.on.ca (James Alan Gardner) writes:
- |> In article <YAMAUCHI.92Nov10233951@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
- |> >On the other hand, not all authors try to "convert" readers to their
- |> >own views of right and wrong. To take three very different examples,
- |> >consider Camus' _The_Stranger_, William Gibson's _Neuromancer_, and
- |> >Dave Sim's _Cerebus_. Would you say that these works project a "moral
- |> >stance", and if so, what?
-
-
-
- |> A writer may or may not intend to convert readers, but the fall-out
- |> still occurs. I blush to say I haven't read "The Stranger", but a
- |> number of my friends have and it affected them powerfully. It seems
- |> to have left them feeling bleak and depressed, and the phrase
- |> "existential despair" comes naturally to mind. On the other hand,
- |> I have read "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Camus, and the essay unquestionably
- |> deals with a clear moral outlook. Camus implies that the world is
- |> hell and all of us damned, but we can find a sort of peace of mind
- |> and even a kind of triumph if we are strong enough to face our
- |> damnation. That is a moral stance, and I would expect to see it
- |> reflected in his fiction,
-
-
- Maybe first you should consider the need to write when looking at theme.
- Most write because they need to express something about their environment.
- It may be subconscious, however. The expression of the themes in a novel or
- short story or play or movie are the result of a writers need to express themselves.
- That is why a writer`s work often contains things that bothers him or her, things that
- they consider important. A writer`s work is very personal, and therefore apt to have
- the sense that they feel that they are right and that you should believe what they say.
- It is not conversion. Most of us have developed a moral system, which is usually very
- hard to change. People who read and enjoy books by a certain author are usually being
- shown the themes and morality which they already subscribe to or believe is corrupt,
- (depending on the how it is shown). Accusing writers of intentionally or unintentionally
- "converting" people is looking at writing from the wrong side. Writers write what they
- know and/or what they believe to be true. Asking them not to is like asking any one of
- us to abandon out values just for the sake of others. It's impossible.
- Perhaps we should also consider the theme vs. moral. Theme is the often
- confused with what the person is trying to say about life, which is a moral. Moral are
- often stated and simplistic. Black and White. It by itself. The main Theme of a story, is often
- contributed to by many smaller themes developed throughout the story. These are always
- subjective.
- The first sin of writing is moralizing and philosiphizing. It may not sound that
- much different than what is done when writing but there is a difference, however fine the
- line may seem.
- I realize that there are books, film, etc., that are written only convince people
- that certain things are true or corrupt, etc. But in the myriad of published literature
- and film, these are fewer than you might expect and are usually non-fiction.
- To moralize is to preach. To preach is to lose your audience. When you use a
- theme, you are stating your case, for everyone to consider. Do it well and those who
- believe it already, will probably say you are right, those who don't may consider your
- arguments, and then disregard them. Those that are changed by it, probably had already
- rationalized it out for themselves subconsiously.
- That's just human nature.
-
-
-