The Writers' Corner

[Darth_Slaine]

Not really... everyone knows that the Twilight books aren't good from a literary standpoint, they just have a huge following. Like other things that are no good(Lil' Wayne, The MLB, people who shouldn't be in spandex in spandex) people just support them, it doesn't mean any of them should be accepted as okay. ^_^

 

They seem to be very good at what they do. Twilight has certainly managed to reach a large audience with its message.

Wouldn't that be considered a literary success?

[General_Malor]

They seem to be very good at what they do. Twilight has certainly managed to reach a large audience with its message.

Wouldn't that be considered a literary success?

 

If by what they do you mean promote co-dependent and abusive relationships with older men then yes, they are very good at it. ^_^

 

I don't think success denotes quality though, so while they have been successful (in my opinion) still means the books are garbage.

 

I would say that the untold number of Twilight fans would take exception to your statement that "everyone knows that the Twilight books aren't good." You may think this, I may suppose this (since I haven't actually read any of the books, so couldn't say for certain), but the fans of that series would tell you that the books are quite "good from a literary standpoint."

 

I've read them... they are not good. I've honestly read better fiction on these boards. Just sayin'...

[Kharnis]

If by what they do you mean promote co-dependent and abusive relationships with older men then yes, they are very good at it. ^_^

 

I don't think success denotes quality though, so while they have been successful (in my opinion) still means the books are garbage.

 

 

 

I've read them... they are not good. I've honestly read better fiction on these boards. Just sayin'...

 

And the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of fans would say that they're quite good, regardless of what you may think. Since, you know, your opinion on a work of fiction has just as much weight as mine, which is to say, none at all. Just sayin'.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Kharnis

[Darth_Slaine]

If by what they do you mean promote co-dependent and abusive relationships with older men then yes, they are very good at it. ^_^

 

I don't think success denotes quality though, so while they have been successful (in my opinion) still means the books are garbage.

 

I've read them... they are not good. I've honestly read better fiction on these boards. Just sayin'...

 

This is leading to a good discussion...

 

How can we tell whether a book is "garbage" or great? How do we measure the success of a written work? What is the goal of literature?

 

But to come back to the specific: what does Twilight do, or fail to do, that makes it, in your opinion, garbage?

[General_Malor]

And the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of fans would say that they're quite good, regardless of what you may think. Since, you know, your opinion on a work of fiction has just as much weight as mine, which is to say, none at all. Just sayin'.

 

I've noticed a lot of people think they've made a point when they say something I've said to punctuate their point. Just sayin'...

 

This is leading to a good discussion...

 

How can we tell whether a book is "garbage" or great? How do we measure the success of a written work? What is the goal of literature?

 

But to come back to the specific: what does Twilight do, or fail to do, that makes it, in your opinion, garbage?

 

Are you asking me specifically? No? Thought not, I'll answer anyway though...

 

To your first part I think we can judge a work of literature by its impact not only on current popular media but how greatly it can change/redefine/bolster/improve the world of written words in general. Basically by judging what it adds to everything. Sales have nothing to do with quality, how fine of a work it is has to do with quality.

 

I would say the goal of literature is to add something, to carry a lesson to its readers and expand their view of what is possible. By that I feel Twilight is garbage in that it actually bastardizes a lot of its inspiration(folklore, vampire lore, fae lore) and really gives a half hearted representation.

 

As for what it does I think it really does paint a viciously unhealthy portrait for how a loving relationship should be. And I really don't hate to say it but a whole heap of idiots out there will think that that's romantic relationships are and how one should behave while in a serious one to boot. Not to mention that it promotes people marrying early, nothing wrong with that, I just think its a right stupid idea. That's a personal issue that.

 

Also the books have a terribly shallow character development, by the middle of the second book I was cheering for Bella to just off herself already and have the series follow Jacob and his wild Wolf Pack cohorts. Basically Bella's whole attitude for the first three books and most of the fourth is one of psychological self-loathing and contempt, until she's magically turned into a beautiful creature thanks completely to her boyfriend, thus another example of pop culture reinforcing that women aren't good enough as they are and need to change to please their mate. And also that a man is the only way they will be good enough.

 

All in all there were a lot of things about the books I didn't like... like anything to do with Bella and Edward. Now Alice, Jasper and Jacob, they are damn fine characters and interesting to boot. I would read a book about the three of them, or just Alice and Jasper or just Jacob, even if it was by Stephany Moyer. I think that's how you spell her name.

 

Honestly though she should have just made the Cullens fairies like they were supposed to be and not vampires. The being in sunlight, the sparkling, the sweet breath, the golden eyes... all of it screams fae. But young women want to the bad boy with the heart of gold, so vampires they became. Must be a nice fantasy because in the real world the bad boy has a mean right hook, no heart of gold to be found.

[TheGreatNeechi]

This is leading to a good discussion...

 

How can we tell whether a book is "garbage" or great? How do we measure the success of a written work? What is the goal of literature?

 

But to come back to the specific: what does Twilight do, or fail to do, that makes it, in your opinion, garbage?

 

Any writer who's tried to get published knows that one publisher's masterpiece is another's kindling.

 

I remind everyone, the core objective of a publisher is to sell books. They aren't interested in your opinion or your agenda. They want material that an audience will take too, and shell out cash for.

 

Twilight is a very well written success for the audience it is marketed (young adult, girls). The fact it has such a wide adult following makes it an even greater outstanding success.

 

As writers we tend to poo poo the mass marketability of our works, and think of them as singular objects of achievement. In fact, the opposite is true. Our work is mass-produced, copied, and distributed. For an author who makes a living writing for an audience it is imperative to write what sells, because that's where the real work lies, even beyond the execution.

 

For us execution is easy. We've been writing for decades. We have our voice. We know how to word our prose and how to phrase our dialogue. Finding the audience that buys it, good luck.

 

Twilight sells.

 

Mission accomplished.

[General_Malor]

Yeah, what's art matter against currency. You know what!? Let's base our whole view of the world on how much we sell... for everything, decency at a price, morals at a bargain, scruples that must go, go, GO!!!

 

I get it... all most people care about is how much it sells... next question please, this one is depressing... oh god! Now I'm turning into Bella with all the depression!

[Kharnis]

Yeah, what's art matter against currency. You know what!? Let's base our whole view of the world on how much we sell... for everything, decency at a price, morals at a bargain, scruples that must go, go, GO!!!

 

I get it... all most people care about is how much it sells... next question please, this one is depressing... oh god! Now I'm turning into Bella with all the depression!

 

I love how you sneer at the very quantifiable success of a work, yet fail to offer up any examples of works that you consider "literature." Which is not surprising, really, because by the definition you gave earlier on what makes "good literature," not even Tolkien's works can possibly be considered "good literature," since they offer no lessons to the reader or expand our view of what's possible.

[General_Malor]

I love how you sneer at the very quantifiable success of a work, yet fail to offer up any examples of works that you consider "literature." Which is not surprising, really, because by the definition you gave earlier on what makes "good literature," not even Tolkien's works can possibly be considered "good literature," since they offer no lessons to the reader or expand our view of what's possible.

 

"Can possibly be considered"? Please tell me this is a joke, because it's ridiculous. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is loaded with metaphors and hidden meanings, not to mention that its very nature brought/kept folklore and myths in people's minds for years after it was published.

 

Tolkien's works have inspired, altered and impacted countless lives, giving them something different each time, and opening their minds to fantasy and adventure. His works helped set the stage for the continuation and return of epic fantasy tales. I mean you do realize that so much of what we deal with in the fantasy world is inspired by him to some extent? No? Thought not.

 

You completely and utterly disregard everything that Tolkien has done for the fantasy world at large because of what... you think Twilight is better? Is on the same level with it? Is as artful?

 

I'm sorry if you think that Twilight is the bee's knees and where it's at, and that I offended you by slandering one of your favored fictions. But if you follow your logic of sales equals quality then Justin Bieber is a bigger star than Fredric Chopin and Franz Liszt. Lil' Wayne is more important, by your definition, than Robert Johnson. And Twilight surpasses The Lord of the Rings. And for that, for your argument depending and current popular trends, for the fact that you hold sales above artistry, for the sheer nerve that you would think to devalue what Tolkien did for the fantasy genre, for all of that... I am sorry.

 

Now if I could only figure a way to type out a sigh of flippancy and boredom I would, but I don't think I could accurate capture the tone... oh well.

 

Slaine... come yell at me for being difficult or ask a new question... I think I may have upset Kharnis... he no likey da General no more.

Edited February 22, 2012 by General_Malor

[AlyxDinas]

"Can possibly be considered"? Please tell me this is a joke, because it's ridiculous. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is loaded with metaphors and hidden meanings, not to mention that its very nature brought/kept folklore and myths in people's minds for years after it was published.

 

And yet to quote the author it was written with "no allegorical intentions …, moral, religious, or political." The stories, according to him, "were made … to provide a world for the languages."

 

Which, coincidentally, brings us back to your comment about setting over character in terms of value. Tolkien becomes a poor example in this regard because not only is his work largely linguistic in concern but also because it has the additional purpose of recreating something. On Fairy Stories explores his further.

 

When Tolkien writes and devotes so much time to setting, it is because he's engaging in a very specific process. He is, according to his literary theories, using fantasy (ie. imagination) to literally recreate part of Earth's history.

 

The intent behind the work matters quite a bit in these discussions. And to discuss the relative work of character or setting and appeal to Tolkien is not quite the best idea because Tolkien's really only writing with one of those things in mine to begin with.

 

...then Justin Bieber is a bigger star than Fredric Chopin and Franz Liszt.

 

Right now? Absolutely.

 

I'm sorry if you think that Twilight is the bee's knees and where it's at, and that I offended you by slandering one of your favored fictions.

 

I don't recall him ever making his personal tastes known, really. Address him honestly or don't speak at all.

 

... the fact that you hold sales above artistry...

 

Define artistry. Now explain if this concept is necessarily separate from something like sales in terms of quantifying it. Things sell for a reason. And often things containing measures of "artistry".

 

To be honest, all this discussion really tells me is that you've never gone though a publishing process, worked with an editor, or really had any exposure to a large portion of the writing world and its realities.

 

Now if I could only figure a way to type out a sigh of flippancy and boredom I would, but I don't think I could accurate capture the tone... oh well.

 

There's no need. The general lack of respect you've afforded others in this conversation have proved more then expressive enough. Your tactic has been to make a statement, preemptively play the martyr, act nearly morally affronted when people don't agree, and then belittle or outright scorn any comment they make. Your tone is clear by now and it is one lacking any concern for courtesy.

Edited February 23, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[Kharnis]

"Can possibly be considered"? Please tell me this is a joke, because it's ridiculous. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is loaded with metaphors and hidden meanings, not to mention that its very nature brought/kept folklore and myths in people's minds for years after it was published.

 

Tolkien's works have inspired, altered and impacted countless lives, giving them something different each time, and opening their minds to fantasy and adventure. His works helped set the stage for the continuation and return of epic fantasy tales. I mean you do realize that so much of what we deal with in the fantasy world is inspired by him to some extent? No? Thought not.

 

You completely and utterly disregard everything that Tolkien has done for the fantasy world at large because of what... you think Twilight is better? Is on the same level with it? Is as artful?

 

I'm sorry if you think that Twilight is the bee's knees and where it's at, and that I offended you by slandering one of your favored fictions. But if you follow your logic of sales equals quality then Justin Bieber is a bigger star than Fredric Chopin and Franz Liszt. Lil' Wayne is more important, by your definition, than Robert Johnson. And Twilight surpasses The Lord of the Rings. And for that, for your argument depending and current popular trends, for the fact that you hold sales above artistry, for the sheer nerve that you would think to devalue what Tolkien did for the fantasy genre, for all of that... I am sorry.

 

Now if I could only figure a way to type out a sigh of flippancy and boredom I would, but I don't think I could accurate capture the tone... oh well.

 

Slaine... come yell at me for being difficult or ask a new question... I think I may have upset Kharnis... he no likey da General no more.

 

So, metaphors and hidden meanings are your only criteria in determining if a work is "good literature?" I sure hope so, because your other reasons are, quite frankly, not as sound as you might hope. I suspect you know this, though, or you wouldn't have given a vague "countless lives have been influenced and inspired" defence.

 

You see, you need actual examples of these "countless lives" who have been influenced. Unfortunately for you, there are no examples outside of personal experiences. There have been no changes in the way we as a society think thanks to Tolkien. There have been no shifts, either seismic or subtle, in the way we as a society operate. There have been no social movements whatsoever that can trace their origins back to The Lord of the Rings. Hell, if societal influences and changes are going to be your criteria, then Star Trek has had more of an impact on Western society than Tolkien has.

 

You can't rely on the defence that Tolkien is important because he re-invigorated the fantasy genre, either. Because if you're going to use that argument, I've got some bad news for you. Twilight has also re-invigorated a genre, as seen with works like True Blood and The Vampire Diaries. In fact, the argument can be made that the series actually started the supernatural romance genre. The invention of an entirely new genre is something that not even Tolkien can boast.

 

Do you want to know what will help your argument, though? Actually reading what I write and not adopting ridiculous arguments for you to tilt at in an attempt to seem more learned. That way, you won't make embarrassing errors like assuming Twilight must be one of my favourite works when I very clearly stated that I have never read the series and probably never will.

 

So, having said that, I will continue on in the (probably vain) hope that you will actually read and understand what I'm telling you now. No, I don't think that L'il Wayne is more important than Robert Johnson. Neither will I say that he's less important, though. L'il Wayne is far more influential for today's music artists than Johnson is. In fact, I'll be more than willing to wager money that most of today's music artists have no idea who Johnson is.

 

And yes, the same can be said for Bieber over Chopin. There hasn't been too many cases of the Masters being drawn upon for inspiration. Coolio using Pachelbel's Canon in "I'll C U When U Get There" is a rather rare occurance.

[Valkuu]

Hi everyone,

 

As you may have noticed, several posts and their replies have been removed from this thread. Please ensure your posts are constructive and respectful to others, even if you do not agree with them.

 

Thanks!

[General_Malor]

No no, Valkuu, thank you. ^_^

 

Who has the next question?

Edited February 24, 2012 by General_Malor

[Darth_Slaine]

Before we get back into the thick of it, I'd like to say a few words about opinions. We all have opinions and we are all entitled to share our opinions. Opinions can be based on faulty premises, however, and it is not an attack on a person or their right to have an opinion to say, "Your opinion is based on a faulty premise"... that is if you can show that it is based on a faulty premise.

 

Let's say I told the forum I hate whales because I don't like fish. Now, someone comes in and says, whales aren't fish. I could say, well, it's my opinion and that's true but it might behoove me to re-examine my opinion now that the basis for it has been called into question.

 

Another issue that I have seen is that sometimes opinion is posted as fact:

 

Not really... everyone knows that Arthurian romances aren't good from a literary standpoint, they just have a huge following.

 

That is opinion presented as fact. People have the right to question the foundations for this "fact" that "everyone knows". When you present something controversial as fact you need to be able to defend your argument in an intellectually honest fashion.

 

Who has the next question?

 

We were going for something a few pages ago and I'd like to see if I can bring it back in a less heated fashion.

 

This is leading to a good discussion...

 

How can we tell whether a book is "garbage" or great? How do we measure the success of a written work? What is the goal of literature?

 

But to come back to the specific: what does Twilight do, or fail to do, that makes it, in your opinion, garbage?

Are you asking me specifically? No? Thought not, I'll answer anyway though...

 

To your first part I think we can judge a work of literature by its impact not only on current popular media but how greatly it can change/redefine/bolster/improve the world of written words in general. Basically by judging what it adds to everything. Sales have nothing to do with quality, how fine of a work it is has to do with quality.

 

I would say the goal of literature is to add something, to carry a lesson to its readers and expand their view of what is possible. By that I feel Twilight is garbage in that it actually bastardizes a lot of its inspiration(folklore, vampire lore, fae lore) and really gives a half hearted representation.

 

 

 

So, in this view good literature must:

1. have impact not only on current popular media but how greatly it can change/redefine/bolster/improve the world of written words in general
   
2. carry a lesson to its readers and expand their view of what is possible
   

 

Must a work of good literature carry a moral lesson? If so, must that be a positive moral lesson?

What do we mean by expanding the view of what is possible?

 

Before you answer, General Malor, I want you to know that I am glad you made the attempt to try and define the elements of good literature and I am not ready to say that what you identified is "wrong." However, before we can be sure if this is what it means to be good literature we must explore the concepts a little more deeply.

 

If you decide to use Tolkien as an example (though you don't have to) we will hold on one side for now the reasonable objection by Kharnis and Alyx that Tolkien said his works have no message - so don't worry about that yet.

 

 

Oh, and anyone else is free to add to or engage the criteria we are developing to judge which literature is good.

Edited February 24, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

[AlyxDinas]

...Alyx that Tolkien said his works have no message - so don't worry about that yet.

 

I ought to note that my appeal to Tolkien's own words were simply to make a discussion point. Personally, I hold Word of God to be pretty vapid. If someone finds it in the text, regardless of author intent, I generally accept it as a valid interpretation of the work. But that's a whole different can of worms.

Edited February 24, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[Darth_Slaine]

I ought to note that my appeal to Tolkien's own words were simply to make a discussion point. Personally, I hold Word of God to be pretty vapid. If someone finds it in the text, regardless of author intent, I generally accept it as a valid interpretation of the work. But that's a whole different can of worms.

 

I agree. We should try to keep that discussion for another very long and rainy day. Though I will say, because I can't shut up, that I find Tolkien to be an especially funny case because he said so many wise things about literature in general and so many silly things about his own work.

[General_Malor]

Must a work of good literature carry a moral lesson? If so, must that be a positive moral lesson?

What do we mean by expanding the view of what is possible?

 

I don't think a lesson should be only in morals. Philosophical, spiritual, social, political... okay basically if it gets you thinking, and hopefully about the world around you. But that also ties into expanding view points.

 

When I said expanding the view and comprehension of what is possible I meant, more or less, just broadening horizons. It may sound kind of cheesy, but something that takes people out of their box and places them somewhere they didn't know they could go. Or something that takes an established real world object or norm and twist them so that people will have to reexamine what they've held on to.

 

Things like that I think make good fiction.

 

But they also don't have to be that drastic, they could be little things that just stick with you. Like how the hero will overcome the villain in some cunning way, or how these people will repair their relationship by growing both as a couple and individuals.

 

Basically something unique and intriguing. Hopefully to make it reach a status akin to art hopefully there will be a very real and present emotional connection to it. Something that engages the mind and rouses the soul. A book that makes you weep with joy, cry from sorrow, cheer at victories, laugh at a great one liner.

 

A good book, in my opinion, should engage a person on every level. Regardless of the amount of impact it might have on each level. It should be an experience, not just something you did.

 

I mean I read a lot of books, but I wouldn't say I've experienced many. I wouldn't say they've all impacted my life, but I cherish the ones that have.

 

I hope that clears up how I define a good bit of literature. ^_^

[tehjai]

Ohai, I just found this thread, so I'm just gonna chime in on the discussion that seems to have been going on with the last few posts, basically "what defines good writing/literature"?

 

It's funny that people bring up Tolkien as a benchmark of "good" writing; despite the fact that his books sold well, that his Middle-Earth is an astonishingly developed world, that people read his works generationally (I know people whose parents read them The Hobbit as a bedtime story, and now that their kids are growing, they're doing the same)...

 

All of this and yet I don't find his works readable. I am not certain what it is; the man is insanely detailed in his prose, it's certainly not flowery and it's mechanically very good, but I just found it boring. It didn't engage me. The characters didn't grab me. I didn't feel anything.

 

Years on and it still hasn't engaged me to the point where I still have the back half of Return of the King to read. Personally, for me, I found that Tolkien's prose was too dry, too tangential (if I forget what's going on after you describe the damn door to the Mines of Moria, something's off.), and just not... inspirational enough.

 

And yet I have had people get legitimately angry with me for not immediately falling to my knees to worship at the altar of good ol' JRR.

 

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that "good" and "bad" writing is at first completely subjective; then once you factor in stylistic choices, genre, demographics, character-driven vs plot-driven stories, world-building, and all of the other things that go into crafting a story... it can all become such a crapshoot.

 

I guess the answer is, I don't know if "good" writing can be objectively defined, even for me, personally. As much as I disliked Tolkien, I'm in love with A Song of Ice and Fire, which is the same genre: long-format fantasy. I judge literature based on how engaging I find it; on how well it draws me in and makes me not want to put the damn book down!

 

(And for the record: my main problem with the Twilight books -- from a technical standpoint -- is arguably the damn first-person viewpoint. Your writing and characterization better be damn well phenomenal in order for me to get into a book written that way. First person viewpoint allows an author to choose to stick with vapid characterizations and glorified, unrealistic assessments of situations, and those are both my two hugest gripes with that inexplicably successful book series.)

[Darth_Slaine]

 

More questions...

 

I don't think a lesson should be only in morals. Philosophical, spiritual, social, political... okay basically if it gets you thinking, and hopefully about the world around you. But that also ties into expanding view points.

 

When I said expanding the view and comprehension of what is possible I meant, more or less, just broadening horizons. It may sound kind of cheesy, but something that takes people out of their box and places them somewhere they didn't know they could go. Or something that takes an established real world object or norm and twist them so that people will have to reexamine what they've held on to.

 

Things like that I think make good fiction.

 

Could we boil things down then and say that the goal of literature is to transform the reader -- to make sure that the reader putting down the book is not 100% the same person who picked up the book?

 

Edit: Alyx asks:

Could we boil things down then and say that the goal of literature is to transform the reader -- to make sure that the reader putting down the book is not 100% the same person who picked up the book?

I'd wonder if I could add another question to that: is this intentional on the part of the writer? That is, what if I writer doesn't set out to do more than create a form of entertainment but still transforms the reader? What then? Does that, in any way, make the work less good knowing it wasn't the author's intention?

 

 

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that "good" and "bad" writing is at first completely subjective; then once you factor in stylistic choices, genre, demographics, character-driven vs plot-driven stories, world-building, and all of the other things that go into crafting a story... it can all become such a crapshoot.

 

I think that even within a subjective range there are some general rules we might be able to find. Everyone has a different personal definition of what constitutes "hot" but most people would agree that ice was not hot. We don't all need to agree at which temperature something becomes "hot" but we can all agree that things become hotter the higher one goes in temperature. It is subjective experience but we can see general trends.

 

We might not be able to say that no one will ever find a good book to be boring, but we could probably say that people who find a book boring will not think it is good. We can't say there is an objectively good book and it will connect with every reader, but we can say that readers will not find books that they can't connect with to be good.

 

 

Your post reminds me of something we have probably all read or heard when discussing story writing -- when an author is asked what the message of the work is they say, I'm just trying to tell a story. Related to this you will see things described as just entertainment. Do such stories not qualify as good literature?

Edited February 25, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

[AlyxDinas]

Could we boil things down then and say that the goal of literature is to transform the reader -- to make sure that the reader putting down the book is not 100% the same person who picked up the book?

 

I'd wonder if I could add another question to that: is this intentional on the part of the writer? That is, what if I writer doesn't set out to do more than create a form of entertainment but still transforms the reader? What then? Does that, in any way, make the work less good knowing it wasn't the author's intention?

[Darth_Slaine]

I'd wonder if I could add another question to that: is this intentional on the part of the writer? That is, what if I writer doesn't set out to do more than create a form of entertainment but still transforms the reader? What then? Does that, in any way, make the work less good knowing it wasn't the author's intention?

 

I've added your question into the previous post so that people can think about it as they read.

[General_Malor]

 

More questions...

 

 

 

Could we boil things down then and say that the goal of literature is to transform the reader -- to make sure that the reader putting down the book is not 100% the same person who picked up the book?

 

Will elaborate further to the other questions.

 

For this one I'd say I'd think it would generally fall under good literature if the reader is improved, better than before in some way. If they learn a negative behavior from a piece then I feel it's counter productive.

 

Sound fair?

[AlyxDinas]

Will elaborate further to the other questions.

 

For this one I'd say I'd think it would generally fall under good literature if the reader is improved, better than before in some way. If they learn a negative behavior from a piece then I feel it's counter productive.

 

What happens when someone is "bettered" by a work and someone else learns a negative behavior from it?

Edited February 27, 2012 by AlyxDinas

[Kharnis]

Well. Since this topic seems to have come to a screeching halt, I think it's time for a new question.

 

 

Theme is a constant point that critics of stories will come to again and again to illustrate the "value" of a particular work. You'll see this constantly in reviews of films where the critic will savage a movie based on (for instance) "lots of visual candy, and breakneck pacing, but there's no heart or soul" (I'm looking at you, Transformers 2). Now, leaving aside the idea that theme is as vital as some critics will have you believe (and I happen to be one that thinks it is vital), here is my question:

 

 

Do you write a story with a theme already in mind and create the story around that, or do you come up with a plot first and let a theme "organically grow," adjusting the plot to accomodate?

[PiElord]

Depends.

 

Sometimes I start writing a story and the theme coalesces as I write, but other times I have an idea in mind and write the story to fit it accordingly.

 

I'm actually rewriting my SWTOR fic right now, and the minor revisions serve to both foreshadow future plot events, and to better show the theme I have in mind.