NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/misc/writing/3472

Text File | 1992-11-09 | 3.6 KB | 70 lines

Newsgroups: misc.writing
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watmath!thinkage!jim
From: [e-mail] (James Alan Gardner)
Subject: Re: Theme?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:34:06 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]> Jon L. Campbell <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>   I know this subject has probably been hacked to death, but I
>have been struggling with the concept of theme since reading what
>John Garner wrote in his guide for the beginning writer.  He points
>out that stories need a theme if they are to be effective(?), etc.

I assume you mean John Gardner, not Garner.  And Gardner was a strong
advocate of moral context in fiction.  See, for example, his book "On
Moral Fiction", in which he encourages writers to take a moral stance
in their work.  He thinks writers should praise the good and lament
the bad...not in a propangandist way, but honestly facing the strengths
and limitations of morality.
>
>   My problem with this, is that writing a story with a theme implies
>that every story has a moral to be told.  Or should have a moral, but
>I have problems with this concept because I believe that the essence of
>truth is chaotic...
>   If one is to imply that love, murder, hate, jealousy, or any of the
>other human qualities can be packaged into a neat little bundle and
>explained in the context of a theme, they're wrong.  There is no theme
>to explain the serial killer in todays society, nor is there any way
>to unlock the deep physiological torture of chaotic rationale and say
>that murder doesn't pay or that you'll be caught eventually...

First, a personal note: just because random things happen doesn't
mean that you can't take a moral stance.  For example, I take the
moral stance that kindness is better than cruelty.  Sure, I recognize
that kindness may backfire and have horrid results due to random
influences; but since *anything* I do may blow up in my face, I'd
rather be acting from (intelligent) kindness than from motives I
consider repugnant.  One can strive, even if one's efforts are
ultimately doomed.

But even if you don't think it's worth striving, you can still write
good fiction from your own moral viewpoint.  You can, for example,
write about people who strive for "higher things" only to be squashed
by random chance.  "Romeo and Juliet" immediately comes to mind.
Teenagers falling in love and doing the most impetuous things,
utterly senseless things that they'd probably regret if they lived
another year or two.  And why did they die?  A messenger happened
to enter a town just before it was quarantined.  And even then,
they might have lived if Juliet had recovered from the sleeping
drug 30 seconds earlier.  The whole story could be written in a
very cynical way.  It wasn't, of course; Shakespeare believed in
true love, at least while he was writing this play.  But R&J is
an immediate example of a strong play where random events have a
strong influence on the final outcome.

By the way, I think John Gardner would call "Romeo and Juliet"
moral fiction, according to his definition.  Tragedy laments
that no matter how hard you try, Things Don't Always Work Out.
At the same time, tragedy can celebrate the struggle and the
urge to struggle.  Literature would actually be impoverished
if good intentions *did* guarantee success.  It's the chance of
being squashed that makes literature meaningful.

        Jim Gardner (no relation to John)
        Thinkage Ltd.