NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/misc/writing/3483

Text File | 1992-11-10 | 4.4 KB | 84 lines

Newsgroups: misc.writing
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watmath!thinkage!jim
From: [e-mail] (James Alan Gardner)
Subject: Re: Theme ~ Moral
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:02:36 GMT
Lines: 73

In article <[e-mail]> Jon L. Campbell <[e-mail]> writes:
>   A story is just that.  Nothing more than one persons idea of reality or
>un-reality (i.e. lack of reality).  High school english or college writing,
>it doesn't matter, but wherever theme is taught it is an abuse of mankinds
>free choice.  The freedom to choose what is moral or not, the freedom to
>decide for themselves what is morality and what is immoral.  To write a
>moralistic theme into a story is equlivent to artistic incest.  Think
>about it.

The goal of any story is to implant part of the writer's mind into
the reader's.  I'm sure that most writers would like their work to
be unforgettable, which is to say that the writing has a permanent
effect on the reader.  The reader's mind is permanently rewired.  If
you think that's overstating the case, think about the books that
have really affected you throughout your life.  Books have the
potential to change the lives of strangers.  A lot of external
factors influence the extent and nature of the change -- the
circumstances of your life will make you receptive to one kind of
book and not another -- but the book itself precipitates the
change.  Some people would judge the "greatness" of a book by the
amount it changes its readers; the point is certainly worthy of
discussion.

At any rate, writers simply have to accept that their words will
change people and perhaps change people forever.  Sure, the change
is probably going to be infinitesimal...for most readers.  But some
people may be hit hard.  That's obvious to anyone who reads the net.
Some people begin to foam at the mouth over postings that the majority
of readers find unremarkable.  No matter how careful you are as a
writer, your writing may get under someone else's skin.

Once you realize that your writing may have this effect, you have
to take responsibility for it, within the limits of what you can
reasonably foresee.  No, you shouldn't blame yourself if some lunatic
goes off the deep end after reading your work and starts committing
atrocities.  But you also shouldn't pretend your hands are clean if
you write something provocative and people get upset.  You have to
think about the likely consequences of what you write, and ask
yourself if you're willing to accept those consequences.  If you're
not, tear up the page.

Note that I'm not saying that writers should strive to be bland or
ineffective.  That's nonsense.  It's perfectly valid for writers
to decide that their readers desperately need a smack upside the head.
Upsetting or goading people isn't necessarily bad -- you just have
to think about it seriously and decide for yourself that in this
particular case, your end justifies your means.

And this is where morality comes in.  If you're writing something
that's going to have a strong effect on readers, can you live with
that effect?  Is the end result in keeping with your own morality?
Strong writing can "convert" people; probably it won't produce a
major change in their lives but it may nestle down in a corner of
their brains and make itself at home.  Given this possibility, I
for one make sure that I'm comfortable with the moral stance
underlying everything I write.  The moral stance is there.  It's
inescapable.  Only computers can write without projecting a moral
context.  Since a human writer can't do this, we humans have
to make sure that the projected moral context is one we can stomach.

One last comment: projecting a moral context is not the same as
preaching.  For one thing, preaching doesn't usually work.  It
often drives people in the opposite direction.  Furthermore, a
moral context doesn't have to be absolute.  The original poster
talked about "Love conquers all" as a theme, and dismissed such a
theme as potentially dangerous.  What about such themes as "Sometimes
love is enough" or "Sometimes love isn't enough"?  I personally
believe in both those statements and I think I could write good
fiction based on them -- not fiction that cons a bunch of readers or
subliminally manipulates them, but fiction that makes the reader
a little more alive and conscious.

        Jim Gardner, Thinkage Ltd.