Explore...absolutely. shove down the readers throat, not such a good idea. Take one of the most preachy books you can think of, the Bible, and its central theme, "Am I My Brother's Keeper." There in the in the end the theme is not shoved down ones throat but offered as a reasonable way of understanding the situation we find ourselves in that offers the best chance for a peaceful existence within a dualistic universe. "Do un to other as you would have them do un to you." "Love your brother as you love yourself." and "Turn the other cheek." all presented as examples of goodly behavior that multiplies back on itself many times over whenever applied to life's situations.
When it comes to themes when I write, I've written and discovered themes, and I've tried to write around a theme. I say I've tried to write because focusing on that theme drew away from my writing a bit. I will attribute most of that to my inexperience as a writer. I can also say that when I have an idea that motivates the story, I feel that letting the story unfold and develop in the first draft made discovering more themes and symbols to either play up or play down in rewrites. When it comes to the theme of a story, I feel like the writer is allowed to discover it while they write just as a reader discovers it while they read. Once you realize the them and have a draft, you then have a story and characters to build on and can weave thematic moments in more subtly than you could by writing every scene to blatantly play off one scene. Now if you know the theme of the story you want to write before your first draft, I still say craft the story with minimal thought to theme because it becomes a distraction. Definitely keep it in mind when creating your story, but let it rest while writing.
Where does exploration end and preaching begin? I think there can be no clear demarcation. You mentioned Octavia Butler in another thread as suggested reading. I could not agree more with your suggestion. Her work is, to me, benchmark, but many view her themes as outright sermon at the pulpit. Her exploration of Humans as victim of their own pack-animal origins in Lilith's Brood (Dawn, Imago, Adulthood Rights) has been equally lauded and canned.
I'm just going on my personal beliefs and not those that other writers may have--even though I disagree with many of my favorite writer's views, I still recognize and appreciate their writing talent.
The point I make using Butler's work is not that the theme itself was lauded and also canned, but the vehemence with which she explored it, which speaks to the conversation at hand, the difference between exploration and preaching. The same can be said for much of her more feminist works, which I also adore and hold dear. Many see it as profound exploration, others as feminaziism.
When did this: Become this: Were "1984", "Brave New World", "Fahrenheit 451", "Animal Farm", "Lord of the Flies", "The Poisonwood Bible", "To Kill A Mockingbird" and "The Color Purple" all "preachy"? Did they shove anything down any readers' throats? Yet they had incredibly strong themes and no doubt the authors were very self-invested in the themes they intended to write about. The point is, you can have a theme, you can even preach your beliefs, how you write your sermon is what makes it preachy or not preachy. Going back to the OP, I ask, what's your story about? What do you want to write about? It might be as simple as a hero triumphing over evil and winning the girl. In that case, perhaps designing your story around a theme has no real purpose. But if you are writing something like I am, that is intended to be a good story that also includes a sermon, then you want to keep your theme(s) in mind as you craft the story. But while doing so, you need to let your reader figure it out, that's how you keep from sounding preachy. Let the story tell the sermon so the reader doesn't realize they are being preached to.
Yes. I believe she is too heavy with her application of theme. Though, she is so brilliant I feel like who the hell am I to say she is wrong. Yet I still believe so: which sets-up in me an odd push-me pull-you type reaction to her writing. :\
Ginge...this is the most narcissistic thing I've seen you say yet. "[snipped false beliefs about what's really in the Bible. ]." All biblical scholars: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim agree the central question of the bible is: "An I My Brother's Keeper."
Wrong thread but I'd be happy to take it up with you on another one. It might give the mods a few headaches, but since I did say it, if you start the thread, I will try to discuss it calmly and politely. BTW, narcissism, really? No, it's about what the Bible actually says and the fact I have read it. So be prepared to address things like: According to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, the only verse in the Bible where "brother's keeper" is found is Gen 4:9 That surprised me. I fully expected to find it in more than one verse. Maybe there's a better search string you suggest to turn up the verses that support your assertion?
I think of a theme or main, deeper point I want to convey. Then I write a parable that becomes my story.
Thinking about this thread, it dawned on me, the greatest works of literature have themes, of course they do. Works that don't, aren't great. What great work of fiction can anyone name that doesn't make some significant social statement? But you don't hear any preachy sermon, the reader discovers the 'theme' from the characters and the story. Just a thought.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant for screenwriting. Like I said, the best works usually pose some sort of thematic question that provokes thought in the audience. I think it comes down to whether or not the author conveys some sort of truth through their narrative. If they present a very opinionated view on whatever it is they're exploring, it can be interpreted as preachy or propaganda.
For the most part I agree with mammamaia and Cogito. Personally I'm not a big fan of putting a moral into my story. I try to stay true to life when I'm writing. Real life isn't filled with morals sometimes terrible things happen to good people who did everything right and vice versa. I also don't care for pushing my ideals onto people or having their ideals pushed onto me. I've read books I would have really enjoyed if not for the preachiness over varying topics. If I want a sermon I'll go to church or listen to a podcast. If I want a moral I'll go read a parable. It's probably also a personality thing. If I feel like someone is trying coerce me to do something via guilting or shoving it down my throat they are practically guaranteeing I will do the opposite. Sometimes symbolism can be good but I think it gets overused an awful lot. I prefer to let people draw their own conclusions from what I write. I think that reading is like looking at a painting. Everyone will get something different from it and that's the beautiful thing about it. I don't try hard to put themes or symbolism. If they are in there they are not deliberate. I think it's best that way.
It's about provoking thought, not preaching a moral. I'm still not sure how "theme" equates to "moral". I suppose I shouldn't have used the term, "sermon". Take the novel, "1984", since it came up recently in another thread. The theme is thought provoking. You can think of it as moralizing if you choose to see the aspect of government overreach into our lives as 'wrong'. If I were to describe the 'sermon' I'd say the theme was a warning. Not every theme in a story is about provoking a political or social thought. Sometimes the theme is about relating to a protagonist or other character. There might be a theme about society or the human condition without any judgement, the reader relates or empathizes with the theme and the character. In "Lord of the Flies" the story reveals underlying human nature. It provokes one to think about that nature. It's very strong commentary about our nature but I don't see anything preachy about it.
I think the difference between theme and moral is going to be rather fluid, depend on how you the reader feels about what the author is saying, and how you the reader choses to take the message. To use the example I used last night, amongst the many concepts Butler explores in her Ooankali series, the one that travels the full arc of the story is human folly springing from our evolutionary heritage. The basic premise being that since we are naturally a pack animal, our hardwired drive to pay respect to social hierarchies will always be at odds with our intelligence, and since our pack animal-ness is a much older trait than our intelligence, intelligence tends to lose the battle. The Moral of the Story is: Humans are doomed because we have a mismatched set of traits. To hell in a chromosomal handbasket with us. The Theme of the Story is: We fail to pay attention to our natural, animal selves because we tend to refuse to see ourselves as animals. This is a trait which leads to much human folly. We need to respect our animal nature to avoid the foibles to which we are prone. Someone willing to ponder Human as Animal is going to receive the message very differently from someone to whom the idea of Human as Animal is offensive. An optimist is going to read Butler talking about a way out. A pessimist is going to read Butler talking about our eventual demise. I hold to my premise that what is thematic exploration and what is literary 'bible thumping' is completely in the eye of the reader. It's not cut and dry.
It was pretty obvious that you were talking about screenwriting, sanco: though perhaps some may be too focused on their argument to notice find distinctions--which is funny when you think about what this thread is about don't you think? But I think theme posed as a question sometimes comes off a bit heavy hand--too obvious. But then in screenwriting there may not be enough time to be subtler I suppose.
Threads will naturally diverge and conversations will naturally follow the paths they follow. Thanks for bringing your spray bottle of Snark-2000 to clean the edges of the garden and kill the conversational "weeds" that you perceive. Just when I think I'm relating to you, you go and be you. AWEsome. Have fun with that.
Which is why if one wished to merely only argue, one would merely only need to turn slightly one way or the other in their argument and never need worry about it ever ending.
This is you, yet again, telling forum members to basically shut up when they don't agree with you. You make a statement, I (or another) make(s) an opposing statement wherein I (they) make use of empirical examples and you then retreat to the argument that everyone is just being argumentative for the sake of argument. I see your kungfu. You travel The Path of Misdirection. I will not follow you.
I totally agree with this, but perhaps in a different context. Rather than theme and moral being on a continuum or two sides to one coin, I would say not every theme is a moral lesson, but it can be one or include one. I do agree there are multiple ways to look at a story's theme.
I am glad you are not going to follow me. Maybe that's the problem here: everyone is looking for a following.
