Hatrack River Writers Workshop: communicating to the reader

This is topic communicating to the reader in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002448

Posted by jinkx (Member # 2798) on :

In nearly every single book written, there is usually a message that the author is trying to get across through the story. In fact, whenever I read a book that doesn't seem to have any clear purpose or idea that the author is trying to convey, I put it on my mental list of pointless books never to be read again.

But, how do you go about weaving your "point" into the story? Do you make it so subtle that the reader has no idea what the point of the story is until the the very end? Or do you make it so incredibly obvious that only a dunce could not see it screaming at you? One good example that I can think of would be George Orwell's Animal Farm. This is a prime example where the reader is hit over the head nearly every page with it's meaning.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not saying that every book has to have some deep over-powering philosophy of life hidden within it's pages. Some books might just be something like "if you lie, alot of bad things happen." My measuring rod is: if there isn't anything that you can think about at the end of the story, then it was a complete waste of time.

So, any ideas?

Posted by maria102182 (Member # 2829) on :

I think I agree with your point. I like to read Terry Pratchett novels because they are hillariously funny, and I'm usually thinking about something at the end of them. However, I've found that pointless novels can help me blow off alot of steam. Meaning is all well and good, but you have to be able to enjoy the story. I did not like Animal Farm. I think I lost my point. Anyway

Posted by wbriggs (Member # 2267) on :

I think every book must have a point, and that convincing the reader of that point should be way down the list of priorities for the writer, well after telling a good story.

Here's the borderline for me.

Janissaries (Pournelle) had this point: being a nice guy really is a survival strategy. The story worked.

Janissaries II added: ...but sometimes being a nice guy isn't enough, and you have to be ruthless. This worked too, although it was sad.

Janissaries III added: no, being a nice guy really works best. At that point I gave up. I felt the authors were just jerking me around. I wasn't reading so they could convince me of a point, but I wanted them to have one.

Posted by djvdakota (Member # 2002) on :

So, do you suppose Pournelle went into those books with the intent of making those particular points?

I doubt it. I think he just wrote a story and his own values and experiences came through in them, so by the end there was a point to them that the reader could relate to.

I MOST often find that books that are written to intentionally get a specific point across are boring and sound like lectures. No one likes to be lectured. Often the only people who enjoy reading those kinds of books are those who completely agree with the writer's 'point'. Pick a specific message, though, and you have an instant fan-base of people who think like you.

The first Artemis Fowl book was rife with hard-line environmental lecturing. It ruined an otherwise great read. Cowlfer, fortunately, toned his 'point' down for subsequent books and they are, consequently, much more enjoyable reads.

Posted by hoptoad (Member # 2145) on :

Ditto Dakota.

edit:
Except maybe the instant fan base thing (but it is a maybe)

edit2: This is a lot like Christine's 'Symbolism' thread.

[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited September 13, 2005).]

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

"If you've got a message, use Western Union."

I think message fables make for weak stories. I remember reading "Animal Farm" when I was, oh, I must've been twelve or thirteen. Even as uninformed as I was at that age, I grasped that Orwell was expressing his views of Communism / Stalinism through the metaphors of barnyard animals.

(Still, I liked it better than "1984." I recently picked up a collection of Orwell's essays and his "Homage to Catalonia," which I liked better than both.)

I always thought if I wanted to write something like that, I'd stick with the real situation and use real names and places. What would that be, done that way? A "roman a clef?"

Posted by mikemunsil (Member # 2109) on :

Most good novels seem to have at least a premise. A premise is a statement that is presumed to be true, and from which a message can be drawn.

I don't have a problem with that at all. However, when the author starts hammering the message instead of just drawing it in words, that gets old. It is too much telling.

A good point in case is the novel I read a while back, written by a "Christian" author. He used ambush tactics to disguise his premise until he was ready to hammer on his message (no guesses what it was ) and at that point what had been a fairly good book went downhill.

Posted by JmariC (Member # 2698) on :

I'm in the "a message is all well and good" camp.

I don't agree with tryin to find a message in every book, nor the statement about a writer whos values and experiences come through. I understand and support writers telling storys that take the point of view opposite of what the writer believes. I think people should be careful of ascribing a message to an author because they might not have had that intention or even share that philosophy.
I'm not saying that's the case in all books, there are many out there with a message the author believes in (ie Sword of Truth from Terry Goodkind).

Posted by thexmedic (Member # 2844) on :

I feel that the point has to be integral to the story. So integral that if someone in the story was not convinced by the argument then the story's conclusion couldn't come.

The most obvious person to have experience this change of opinion is, of course, the main character. Every main character is (or should be) flawed, and they all need to change before the end of the book. This is essentially a place for your 'point' that's organically built into story structure.

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

If, at the end of a book, I have not been made to think or grow or even just reaffirm something I already believed then I wasted my time.

But I also believe two other things: First, that you must have a great storyline that entertains, enthralls, carries me through, and causes me to think about the "point" without shoving it down my throat.

I also believe you have to work awfully hard not to have any point in your story at all, even if you didn't do it intentionally.

Posted by Silver3 (Member # 2174) on :

I agree with Christine, but I think writing a story specifically to get a point across is bound to come across as propaganda. I think if you just write the story, some of what you believe in and some of what matters to you is going to come across. It's up to the reader to work it out.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

Let's face it, none of us are doing this for the money. Of course we have a "message" in every story.

The whole point of the art is to make that message seem complicated and interesting enough to support a story. That's why pulling out a single line "moral of the story" is to debilitating to our enjoyment of both reading and writing it.

Posted by BuffySquirrel (Member # 2780) on :

A roman a clef (literally, novel with a key) does have real people, places and events, but they are disguised. If you have the key, you should be able to figure out who's who.

I think dakota is right--beat the reader over the head with a message and you'll probably lose them. Too many 'message' stories are one-sided and set out to prove a point. Well, you can 'prove' anything with fiction. You're the author and what you want to make happen, happens! But when you've 'proved' something with a story, you haven't really proved anything at all.

I prefer it when stories raise issues and examine opposing viewpoints without using the story to establish that one viewpoint is right.

[This message has been edited by BuffySquirrel (edited September 13, 2005).]

Posted by JmariC (Member # 2698) on :

I'm not seeing how we have a message in every story.
If I write a 'good old yarn' of a story, where's the message?

Posted by Corky (Member # 2714) on :

If each character in a story has a particular way of looking at things, and those ways come into conflict, wouldn't their expressions of their own ways serve as messages, of sorts?

And wouldn't the resolution of the conflict between the different ways of thinking also be a message?

Posted by jinkx (Member # 2798) on :

Survivor, I think you're right that there shouldn't be just one basic "moral" to the story. It should be complicated with different twists and turns so that it grows along with the characters of the story.

quote:
I prefer it when stories raise issues and examine opposing viewpoints without using the story to establish that one viewpoint is right.

I agree, now that I think about it. I hate reading books where the author is obviously prejudiced and has taken no time to show that he's really thought about what he is saying. In such books all the good people believe this, and all the bad people believe that, and there's no room to explore the different possibilities.

Posted by djvdakota (Member # 2002) on :

JmariC: First, Whether the author intended it or not, every story has an underlying message to it, because every author, intentionally or no, brings their life experiences, their beliefs, their values, morals, judgements, into the story. Those are the very things that you are dredging up when you invent a story. Nothing new, really. Pretty much the same stuff dredged up over and over, but with slightly different window dressing.

Second, every reader, whether THEY intend to or not, searches for (and finds) truth, meaning, messages, in the literature they read. Whether the author PUT it there or not doesn't matter. And most often the reader is interpreting 'messages' out of the text based on THEIR own life experiences, beliefs, morals, values, judgements.

Essentially, the story you write is NOT the same story that your readers read. It can't be, because you can't be your reader. You can't see the story from their persepective any more than you can see it from theirs.

And yes, hoptoad, this thread IS very much like the one on symbolism. (By the way, how the heck are you doing? Oh, don't answer here. I'll email soon.)

[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited September 13, 2005).]

Posted by jinkx (Member # 2798) on :

I haven't read the thread on symbolism. Maybe I should check it out since it seems to be so similar.