I like messages and themes in novels I read. In fact, to such extent that I start looking for messages when it's likely that there are none I guess, because of this, I (and T.Trian) always ask "what do we want to say with this?" and I guess that's what I consider "my message" to the reader. It's not supposed to be preachy, and it's fun to find several point-of-views to a certain opinion while writing the story. On a sidenote, it's probably very difficult not to insert something of your own world-views into the story.
I feel like that's the right way to do it. Haha I think it's pretty much impossible if we're all honest with ourselves. It's your voice so of course it will be tinged with your own views and opinions.
It seems we approach writing from opposite directions. My (and KaTrian's) stories always start with "what do we want to say?" That's how I approach all of my art, be it stories or songs for my band: if I don't have anything to say, it's better if I don't say anything at all. Hence I always have a theme first, what I want to say, and then I do the casting. Sometimes the characters come first, but even then it stems from having an idea of a character that would work well as a tool to say something. How deep I bury the theme or my opinion regarding it varies a lot, but I see no intrinsic merit in being cryptic or blatant, nor do I see either as negative by default either: whatever route serves the story best is the one I choose.
I believe that a truly great book cannot happen without it containing an equally great/interesting message. Sorry, but a book without a philosophical message is entertainment at best, nothing more. Is a book being pure entertainment a bad thing? No. But entertainment without a useful message makes a book "forgettable" in my opinion. You finish the book and never think about it again or come back to it. A book like "1984", on the other hand can be re-read a dozen times, and each time you will find something important that you missed in the previous reading.
"Hunger Games" seems like a warning to governments. I love reading books more than once and finding passages that suddenly hit me as being very deep. For a book club, I read "Simon's Night". No one else got that the entire book and the main character's situations were symbolism for his love for his wife. I stopped going to that book group, after that.
I have and always will prefer works that have a meaning behind them, regardless of my own views upon the meaning. So long as the story is written in such a way that the characters and plot are more prominent than the meaning and it isn't just preaching the authors beliefs. A good example of this is Starship Troopers. Admittedly I have never read the novel but I have seen the films. The first one got a lot of criticism because people believed it was pro fascist when actually the viewer or reader was supposed to question the characters and the backstory.
"Starship Troopers" was GREAT! The movies sucked. It's good you watched them first otherwise you'd have been writhing in agony as the book was butchered. I want to see the jumpsuits! I heard a guy's platoon in the Marines were required to read that book because it explained chain-of-command so well. Also the politics of the book were fascinating. You cannot vote or hold office if you have not served in the military. If you are not willing to lay your life down for your country, you are not allowed to decide what direction it will take by voting or leading.
I re-read my favorite novels all the time. In fact, I'm having a bit of phase now (ranted about it in a blog post) that I'm for some reason returning to my favorite novels instead of starting something new. I've no idea how many times I've read Dina's Book at this point... One thing I like about reading fiction is that even though it's fiction, it does make me think about the real world and it does widen my perspective, always teaches me something new about the world (and myself). Yeah, sounds sappy, but that's kind of how I feel and also why I find it important -- as a reader especially -- that the author has a message, a theme, something meaningful to say.
it should be up the author personally with their writing, it is their creation, it they want a message in their story, so be it, if not, thats fine too! each writer has their own way of saying things
I discovered I re-read when I am feeling overwhelmed, in my personal life. There is comfort in a book you know a bit. You don't have to think as hard, but are still entertained. It's probably the smart-person-version of watching TV.
David Gerrold's A Matter for Men , the first in the War on the Chtorr serries (a book he dedicated to Heinlein) contains some features very akin to Starship Troopers, particularly the above quoted doctrine. The MC goes through a kind of training course (in CA I think they're called "workshops") where this kind of citizen mindset is taught. The first edition printing of the book lacks these elements because the publisher requested it be removed along with some other content (the MC has brief fling with another fellah'). Gerrold later signed with Bantam and this book and also the second book in the series, which had undergone the same treatment as the first, were republished in their complete forms. The only good thing about the situation is that it gives one the opportunity to see a book in it's "no message" state and also in it's "message intact" state. The edition with the removed content is a meaningless, lobotomized block of reformed cellulose with some die and glue. The characters are robbed of purpose and motive for their actions. This doctrine is so intrinsic to what happens in the story (not unlike Starship Troopers) and so present in the book that I am sure many readers would feel that the book was trying to indoctrinate them. Clearly the original publisher felt that way. Gerrold, in fact, gives a small forward in the intact versions that this "workshop" is not a real thing, that he is not professing anyone should follow these teachings, but to simply take it as part of the world in which the characters live. This is what is happening to them, not to the reader. I don't agree with parts of the doctrine that was taught to the MC, but that's where critical thinking comes into play. OTOH, there are large parts of the doctrine with which I do agree, and again, critical thinking comes into play as a reader. Am I enjoying because it's well written, or am I enjoying out of a "Yeah! You tell'um, David!" frame of mind? I just started reading The Sparrow the other day. From an interview with China Miéville in which he speaks about this book, I get the distinct impression that I am not going to agree with a rather heavily "sold" message within this book. I'm reading it precisely because of that. I don't have to like the message. I'm free to detest and disparage it. But the fact that the books has a message makes it intriguing to me.
That is something I am inclined to agree with. In my opinion if someone has not served a country then they are unqualified to lead it. I would love to read the book though it is something I haven't got around to. Other books keep taking my interest. I put off reading The Art of War for several months because of other things. Starship Troopers is where I've drawn inspiration for a novel I intend to write in the form of a similar government. It'll be like a mix of the Imperium of Warhammer and Starship Troopers with that very controlled, propaganda driven feel about it. I'd forgotten about this. It's a podcast about Starship Troopers which is quite interesting to listen to. Apologies for the outside link but it was my only means of communicating it. http://www.toysoldiersunite.com/archives/17346
I think context is everything. There are some societal scenarios which demand overtly polemic/didactic art. It's easy for us to project our western literary fashions onto the rest of the world, but in reality it's not always relevant or clear-cut. As someone who loves the art of argumentation - be it rhetoric or dialectic - I openly welcome this kind of novel. Persuade me (if you can).
I think some writers are so scared of being coined preachy / didactic that they take such an aloof handle on things that the novel's message can actually become muddled. I really felt this way about Judy Blume's Blubber - I never felt she acurrately portayed the whole don't-tease-others-or-you-might-wind-up-in-their-shoes scenario. Instead the whole thing turned into - fatso had it coming for being such a wimp. On the other hand other writers try to tip the scales to keep people on their side of an argument. All liberals or all conservatives are evil jerks, only villians to make the opposite side look fairy-tale perfect. Both wind up published but who cares. Do you really want to be that writer hopping on your political soapbox in the middle of your zombie-carny-horror-fest? For me the secret for handling any message is hiding it in the small moments that seem on the surface insignificant - like a woman refusing to give up her bus seat (Rosa Parks ) It's beyond monologues and speeches - it's reactions, unchaining a previously muffled instinct.
