< no clickbait link ~ u r welcome dot com >


OK ~

so ~

re: ~ those poems and storys and books exmos read in school ~

OK ~

the teacher talks about the deep meanings and alegories and stuff contained hidden inside the author's work ~


¿ does RfM think that the authors put that stuff in their works on purpose ? ~

¿ or are the authors just writing stuff for fun like exmos do on RfM ? ~

¿ or are the teacher just pulling sh!t out they asses ? ~


plz respon RfM ~

thx ~

I start with an interesting story and a few key characters. Then other elements enter in as the story moves forward,* and the characters gain depth.**

But you're asking about meaning. In my experience, meaning and theme sort of develop on their own. The story and characters grow, and the more subtle meanings, messages, and themes sort of develop under the surface. I may treat them with deliberation once they emerge, or just let them evolve.

For example, I have an off-and-on project involving the Biblical characters of Ahab and Jezebel. I was surprised to see how aggressive paganism was as I researched and depicted it. Many writers are surprised when reviewers take note of things they (the writers) did not intend--but showed up anyway.

*I always have my ending in mind, fairly specifically. This is necessary for some genre, such as mysteries. Some writers like to see where their story and/or characters take them. But not me.

**I know my characters fairly well from the very start, but I also find that as the story and other characters are woven in, a certain character may surprise me and sort of force me to re-draw or re-direct her.

ziller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> re: ~ those poems and storys and books exmos read
> in school ~

I hope exmos (and everyone else as well) continue to read OUT of school, too--meaning (hopefully): For the rest of their lives!

> the teacher talks about the deep meanings and
> alegories and stuff contained hidden inside the
> author's work ~

Yup.


> ¿ does RfM think that the authors put that stuff
> in their works on purpose ? ~

Yes, and also No.

This can be a very complicated question. In many cases creative works are written/produced to address a subject deemed (by the creators; or by whoever pays the creators for their work) important: racism, slavery, overpopulation, global warming, loss of natural resources, crimes of particularly concerning kinds, social inequality, poverty, public health issues, values and morals and ethics (private, community, and corporate), etc.

The complicating factor is that creators are also part of society, and are part of the zeitgeist ("the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history, as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time"). They may be led to create a novel or a film or whatever, without them realizing the deeper "why" of what in this topic captured their attention.

It is not uncommon for someone at an author signing, for example, to say to the author: "I am so glad you wrote this book," or: "This book is so important to me because you explained exactly what I was seeing/feeling/observing, but was unable to express." And a surprising number of times when this happens, authors realize that they DID have "this" or "that" subliminal feeling, of which they were consciously unaware when they created the project.

[This used to happen to Ray Bradbury all the time, but he NEVER agreed that a reader, or a number of readers all feeling the same way, were EVER able to analyze his work better than HE was! He got into some fairly heated arguments at signings and lectures, arguing with the reader who (in many cases) largely DID understand Ray's work better than Ray himself did, and was often voicing a valid conclusion.]

So creators can create "beyond" themselves, without their conscious awareness of what they are actually doing....and then, later (possibly after their deaths), the deeper levels of Truth in the work are gradually revealed to the world.


> ¿ or are the authors just writing stuff for fun
> like exmos do on RfM ? ~

Sometimes.

Sometimes this is true, and sometimes the fact that a future payment (or, in the case of screenplays, paymentS plural) is involved, prompts some occasionally rather ridiculous creative works from "name" authors/screenwriters. I can think of a number of short stories which appeared in PLAYBOY, for example, which I know for a fact were written because they were fun for the writer to write....not ever forgetting the payment on acceptance, PLUS that all-important published credit to add to the "chonkable" list.


> ¿ or are the teacher just pulling sh!t out they
> asses ? ~

Nope. Whether the creator is consciously aware of his/her inner creative process or not, both zeitgeist and the inner wisdom of the creator count enormously (as does the personal character of the specific writer involved: think Aldous Huxley with BRAVE NEW WORLD, or with ISLAND).

The bottom line is: No matter how confident a writer may be that THEY are in conscious control of what they write, often (in fact) they are NOT.

As an example: they may write a warm memoir about a teacher or a wise person in their community when they grew up, but the words being composed may ACTUALLY reveal a view into the writer's inner character, or may (in hindsight) reveal an illuminating perspective into a serious problem (personal, in society, in government, etc.) which the author did not even consciously realize was the actual point of the completed work. (Think about writers of maybe two centuries ago who wrote lovely, "heartwarming" stories about their idyllic growing up and coming of age on beautiful plantations....yet what we, today, read in those same words, the author's self-chosen words, is a horrifying expose of the inhumanity and cruelty of slavery.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2019 10:33PM by Tevai.

ziller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> < no clickbait link ~ u r welcome dot com >
>
>
> OK ~
>
> so ~
>
> re: ~ those poems and storys and books exmos read
> in school ~
>
> OK ~
>
> the teacher talks about the deep meanings and
> alegories and stuff contained hidden inside the
> author's work ~
>
>
> ¿ does RfM think that the authors put that stuff
> in their works on purpose ? ~

Some authors put themes in their works from the start, others just write and refine what themes appear from the work (Stephen King recommending the latter).

>
> ¿ or are the authors just writing stuff for fun
> like exmos do on RfM ? ~

Some pieces can start out as pieces written for fun, as fanfiction, or start as a "I need to get the writing juices flowing," burner piece.

And I studied creative writing because I enjoy it. Most of the best authors love writing, almost as much as reading.

>
> ¿ or are the teacher just pulling sh!t out they
> asses ? ~
>

And some pieces do act as written Rorschach tests. One joke I've heard in English classes

Book: "The sky was blue."

English teacher: "The author is trying to express the mixture of the feeling of sorrow in the color blue with the appearance of normality in seeing a blue sky."

Author's actual meaning: "The sky was blue."

And after studying creative writing, I found that joke funnier.

I started BYU as an English major, but quickly learned that the English department was no good.

Now, I think "Mormon literature" is an oxymoron. I think of the "Twilight" books, which is BYU's literary claim to fame.

In a BYU English class, I won a poetry contest. I didn't know I was entering it. I just found out that a poem was due that day, and I quickly wrote whatever, to hand in something.

So, the teacher analyzed my poem for the class. Ziller is right! The teacher said I had done things deliberately, that was just--random. For example she praised my use of certain word (I have long forgotten the forgettable poem), and I had used that word because it rhymed and fit in well with a more important word I was going to use in the following line. She read not just a double meaning, but a triple meaning into my poem as a whole--but my real meaning was not any of the three, but something much more straightforward. The teacher praised my abrupt, shocking ending! Wow, it just cut you off, leaving you in mid-air, in ambiguity, asking all kinds of questions, making the reader fill in the blanks. The truth was that I had run out of time! I had to end the thing to hand it in!

In a BYU literature class, we had an essay test, on the meaning of a book--I can't remember which book--I can't remember much about BYU, except that I didn't like it. Anyway, I got a D on the test, because the teacher had a completely different meaning. Well, I had read the book before, in high school, and I felt I was very clear on the meaning, and I had backed up my interpretations with specific techniques the author used. The teacher seemed to be completely off, and in opposition to my high school teacher, who was a far superior teacher--so I raised my hand, and asked THE CLASS, to raise their hands if they agreed with MY meaning--and almost the whole class raised their hand! With something as subjective as "meaning", perhaps there's not just ONE TRUE WAY of interpreting something. Plus, if a class were searching for "meaning," the best way would be to arrive at a majority consensus. The BYU teacher changed her grading, to include the majority idea as "correct".

Another BYU English teacher teacher accused me of plagiarizing our fist assignment, which was 1-3 descriptive paragraphs. I was outraged, as my integrity meant a lot to me. I denied it, and he didn't believe me. I asked him why he thought that, and he said that I didn't LOOK like someone who could write like that. He said I was too "pretty and girl-y". He said I seemed too "happy-go-lucky." I controlled my temper and said, "So, you would not have accused me of copying out of a book--if I had fit YOUR stereotype of a writer?" I would have had to be a male, and a brooding recluse, or whatever. He finally agreed to let me try again, and I wrote 3 paragraphs, describing something else, in his office, with him watching, and he read them, and gave me an A. I went to the administration building and dropped the class.

This example is more about policy than liberal arts, but I want to tell it. I returned to BYU, and wanted a job, to put my husband through school. I was interviewed by a BYU administrator, to be his secretary, and he said, "Your application says you are married, right?"

I answered, "Yes."

He asked me, "Are you using birth control?" I started to choke, and failed to answer.

He said, "I need to know what kind of birth control you are using. The rhythm method doesn't work, you know. You have to use the pill. Are you taking birth control pills?"

It was the sixties, and I was taught that Mormons did not believe in birth control at the time. Anyway, felt violated, that he had asked the question. I had had enough work experience in California to know that this line of questioning was inappropriate, and maybe illegal, so I remained silent, wondering how to handle this.

He said, "I have to ask this, before I hire you, because I have had too many secretaries quit because of pregnancy."

I thought that there probably was another reason why they quit! Good BYU jobs were scarce, and it was a nice office, but I knew I could not be happy working for this person."

I said out loud, "I feel your questions are inappropriate, and would probably be illegal in California. If I have to answer your questions, in order to get the job, I don't want the job." and got up and walked out. I found a job, outside of BYU, that paid twice as much. I figure that BYU gets away with stuff like that, because they are a "private" university, and the women are desperate for jobs.

It was a dark and stormy night.

It was a stark and dormy night! The light were out at 10:00!

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was a dark and stormy night.

Most of you won't even know where this came from. I present to you, the opening of Bulwet-Lytton's novel:-

"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."

Sometimes, sometimes not.

A famous writer once told an anecdote of his daughter studying a story of his in school. When she came to him telling him what the teacher had said, he opined, "That's not what I meant."

As a writer of published fiction, I do and don't put things in. Sometimes they enter consciously, sometimes unconsciously and sometimes they are the fantasy of a particular reader/critic.

As the old saying goes, no one built a statue to a critic. This is not entirely true, but the point stands.

The first thing my editor told me after reading my first manuscript was to "show, not tell." I got it.

The great writer can bring you to understand with the actions of their characters. They know this is much more powerful than just "telling" what the character is thinking or desiring.

Jane was distraught, vs, Jane threw finally threw herself on the briars.


*Some teachers* and others do indeed "pull stuff out of their asses" in order to illustrate their own brilliance as they "tell" you the correct interpretation. Of course, no one can know exactly what the author was feeling or attempting to illustrate.

I hope someone who reads my writing feels something, or is given pause. I know that what they are feeling will be a combination of my own words and their life experience up to that point. Collaborative. Or in other words, sometimes the whole is a whole lot greater than the sum of its parts and that is because each reader brings something to the experience. Potluck!

With some writing is it better to feel than to think---just not with the Book of Mormon haha.

Show don't tell is a creative writing cliché. The best writers evoke don't show... And the great novels are full of telling.

I used to be frustrated that people could find all kinds of meanings in literature (e.g. "The house in the story represents the stability of...blah, blah.")

I don't think some of the interpretation was intended by many authors but no doubt some was. It seemed to me that with enough "interpretation" people could make it mean anything they want. (That's kind of like the Bible and parables, Ziller.)

The first English lit class I had in high school was definitely one reason I gravitated toward science where what was written was not as ambiguous.

I wanted things written at least in essays or something closer to technical writing. I wished I could ask authors what they really meant or if people are making things up. It took a while before I realized authors often WANT the readers to make their own meaning.

Over the years, I've come to appreciate literature and the interpretative quality of it.

If God wanted to make Himself clear about what He really wanted about things, He wouldn't use stories (like written mythology in holy writs). In church, I was told God wanted us to think more and glean the meaning for ourselves. That's great, but not helpful when different groups make the stories fit what they want them to mean. Human story telling and how we interpret the meanings for our present situations has been interesting to study. It's not a great way to arrive at factual knowledge though.

Whale

J.S., Jr. pulled Mormonism outta his ass's hat. What about that?

And

Then there's the (not so) hidden meanings and (twisted) beliefs in the "faith", ironically, and the oxy-moronic symbology, (would-be) synergy and lifeless practices simply tricks, trips up, ticks off and traps the end user; the member [would-be] investigator.

The whole big surprise for members/ followers is that IT (mormonism) is the evil it warns you about.