So, theme, what is it?

And that's theme, right there. <Whatever the MC did during the third act> leads to happiness. It doesn't have to be a teaching thing.

Also, I think a few people in this discussion have confused 'teaching' with 'preaching.'

 

Sorry to disagree, but Stallone's theme was: Maximum effort, even from the underdog, leads to triumph over the self.

Those may not be the words Stallone himself would use, but at the time, he was an underdog. He was a total nobody in the acting world at the time and the screenplay was a reflection of his life.

And that three-day marathon was only for the first draft. Stallone, under the guiding hand of the director and producer, spent as much time in his trailer doing rewrites as he did in front of the camera while the film was being made. And the biggest changes were to accentuate theme.

 

We're definitely going to have to disagree on what theme is!

 

I think another reason why we miss theme in stories whether they're in the form of novels, TV shows or films is because of the happy ending.

Happy endings weren't always the norm and since they've become so, since every MC gets the guy or the girl or gets justice or saves the farm/business/neighbourhood, we as readers/watchers don't notice theme because it almost always amounts to the same thing: Being heroic leads to getting what you want.

And as long as 'what you want' falls within a narrow spectrum of wants—all of which are guided by the Ten Commandments—we're okay with that and don't give theme a second thought even though it's at the heart of every single popular story.

Theme is simple, teachy, not preachy.

 

Okay, but the definition I use was laid out by Lajos Egri. Are you familiar with it?

 

Nope.

 

A theme is a thought or idea (not sure if there's a difference, just covering my bases here) that isn't directly stated, but must be read between the lines.

Except in anything i write, I'm no where near talented enough to write a story and say something about the world at the same time.
It's like trying to walk and eat; unless i want to run into something, drop my food, and then convince myself many respectable people live by the 5 second rule, it shouldn't be attempted.

 

Okay.

Would you post your definition, please? Maybe it'll help me understand your side of the discussion better.

 

I think of it as a message/idea/lesson the author wants to get across. Taking your example: "Crime doesn't pay."

 

I have to disagree. You, like everyone else on this planet, have lived a life, have (and have had) relationships, made goals, etc. Making a statement about life is simply showing what the world looks like from your point of view.

 

I'd have to reread my earlier posts to see if I actually said that was an example of a theme (I may have) but that statement actually isn't.

Theme is stated in a specific form: <action> leads to <outcome.>

So, rather than, 'crime doesn't pay,' it would be stated as: crime leads to punishment.

On the surface, this looks like nitpicking, but it really isn't. Taking the bald statement, 'crime don't pay,' there's no inspiration for storytelling. It sits by itself and does the job without another word written.

But 'crime leads to punishment,' on the other hand, can inspire. Who's the criminal? What's the crime? How does he/she get punished? And when you consider that punishment might not come from authorities, the subject opens up. Old episodes of Twilight Zone and Night Gallery were filled with stories about people who got punished in unusual ways. For instance, the bookworm who wished the world would leave him alone so he could read and ended up sitting in a pile of rubble after a nuclear attack... with broken glasses.

 

You said a theme occurs when authors set out to prove something, e.g. that crime doesn't pay. As you say, they would do that by showing that characters who commit crimes are punished.

I don't do that when I set out to write a novel. I'm not trying to prove anything, or teach anything, or make a point about the world. I have individual character arcs that lead to that individual character's happiness, but those aren't themes because they are individual. In my books, if one character learns that she needs to trust in order to be happy, that's only true for her and not of humanity in general. The other MC will have a totally different character arc. Nor is it my personal opinion, or something I want the reader to go away with and apply to real life.

I think anybody has to really, really stretch a definition of theme to say any character arc shows a theme. Themes are broader than one character.

 

Now that I've got more involved with this thread than I intended to, I might as well say what I held back earlier...

I think this is totally the wrong way round. One aspect of literary fiction, for me, is that it has a theme. There may be some that doesn't, but in general. Whereas for genre fiction, theme is very much optional.

 

Okay, point taken. I agree that themes are broader than character arcs.

Maybe it's in application where I stray from what most people think of as theme. Or maybe it's the fault of English teachers for pounding the idea into our heads that theme is a lofty thing. I don't think of it that way.

I spent more time trying to understand theme than any other aspect of writing, more even than plot (which is saying a lot, and please forgive the rhyme). Ironically, when I finally got it, it was a very simple thing and had nothing to do with all that sesquipedalian buffoonery (unmitigated bullshit, in other words) crammed down our throats in Literature Appreciation class.

The way theme is taught in schools and universities makes us think we have to be Rhodes scholars to recognize one, let alone understand it. And maybe they do it that way to maintain the exclusivity of the ivory tower literary club, to keep us common rabble out of their conversation circles. I don't know.

And from a certain point of view, a rock-solid theme is about keeping the ruling class in place. I mean, look at some of the common subjects of theme (keep in mind these are subjects of theme, not statements of theme):

• don't steal
• don't steal someone else's mate
• don't lie
• don't envy others

That looks familiar, right? It's like theme became an extension of the church (and Christians can look away now) which was invented to keep us all in line just as government was later.

So, I understand your rejection of theme. I've simply decided to reclaim it and use it for good rather than evil.

 

That's what I said. Pals?

 

Hi @Tenderiser, more or less as I said on the previous page, you and I see this subject from different viewpoints - and I still think our definitions of what theme is are at variance.

No worries. Variety is the spice and all that...



(I am backing out, but I'm happy to rejoin if asked)

A hug for all...

 

@Sack-a-Doo! I don't reject theme. I don't think only pretentious literary types should consider it, or that including theme is a bad thing. I just don't think it's necessary for a good book (far from it) and it's not something I'm interested in including. Maybe in the future I'll write a thematic novel as an experiment. What I really do object to is you saying it's a mistake not to think about it, or Wayjor saying no novel is going to be a bestseller without a theme. I see no evidence for either claim.

@Oscar Leigh Si is MY pal, hands off. I'm not interested in sharing him or he won't have time to answer my 3,000 daily questions about his expert subject [air of mystery invoked]

 

This may have been hashed already, but I don't think that having an idea of a theme one wishes to explore has to be synonymous with loftiness. I think it's a mistake to assume that thinking about theme is the same as preciousness. That makes theme answer more to polemic, imo.

 

I think it's the ones that do theme badly--i.e. shoving it down the reader's throat--that give this impression. Because they ARE probably doing it to look clever and literary. Good theme should be subtle, IMO, and for the benefit of the story and reader rather than the author's ego.

 

I really, really advocate contemplation of ideas, feelings and questions as the way to do themes. It's my general rule of writing. Don't just do - play with it. I play with characters and their arcs and I play with the ideas, feelings and questions that my story involves, even the smaller ones that are less intentional. I.e. Strange Days is about my philosophy of life (as mentioned earlier) but it's got some significant thinking about death it could provoke because that subject comes up, among others.

 

If I interpret this post correctly, I agree. Don't tell or even show readers what your view is: show them a few different angles and make them think about it.

 

More or less. The idea is that theme is what they think about. What you explore more deeply than the other thoughts in your story. That's what I'm proposing. Avoid straight messages although your opinion might be presented, it should be presented if you do in a more contemplative way. And anyway, I think it makes a better argument to lead the other person in a direction than do it more directly.

 

I'm realising the novel I'm currently outlining could have a theme, if I want it to. It wouldn't be one I actually believe in myself, but who cares? It could be a fun experiment to try and include it. Then I could see if beta readers find it a more satisfying/complete novel than my others.

Pondering...

 

!Economy sense tingling: demand just outweighed supply!
Let the bidding begin!
(Nah, plenty of me to go around. Just be nice to me and talk to me and I'll... oh, you all left already.)

Interesting you say that, because in my previous post, that was almost exactly how I defined a novel that explores theme, which I'd have taken as the kind of 'lofty' stories you were against...

Having kept an eye on this thread, I think a lot of the conflict lies in that some people (like me) think a theme is a neutral thing, whereas others think it has to push some agenda.