Thoughts on this

Graz · Mar 1, 2012

'A story is never really about anything. Always it concerns instead, someone's reactions to what happens. Their feelings, emotions, impulses, dreams, ambitions, clashing drives and inner conflicts. The external only serves to bring them into focus'

RichardGarfinkle · Mar 1, 2012

I can't really agree with this.
All the things you mention, the reactions are themselves part of the story.
Sometimes a story is about how people react to events, but often those reactions are folded into the story.

It is, however, true that what a story is about is not necessarily what the subject matter is. This can be easily seen in some of Shakespeare's tragedies.

For example, Othello is less about Othello then it is about jealousy.

Hamlet is less about Hamlet then it is about the cycle of revenge.

etc.

Graz · Mar 1, 2012

'I can't really agree with this.'

I'm grappling with it myself. I read it to mean or imply that the story is told/seen through the eye's of the focal character(s) and that is why we continue to read. It's what happens to the character and his reactions that comply the story itself.

RichardGarfinkle · Mar 1, 2012

Graz said:
I'm grappling with it myself. I read it to mean or imply that the story is told/seen through the eye's of the focal character(s) and that is why we continue to read. It's what happens to the character and his reactions that comply the story itself.

I see the point of this idea, although I think of it differently.

To me the characters are what makes the story memorable, so that the characters carry the point of the story rather than being the point.

HoneyBadger · Mar 1, 2012

Sometimes a car chase is just a car chase.

Graz · Mar 1, 2012

HoneyBadger said:
Sometimes a car chase is just a car chase.

Wouldn't make me want to read

HoneyBadger · Mar 1, 2012

Graz said:
Wouldn't make me want to read

Me neither, though, actually, this reminds me to buy Drive.

Dr.Gonzo · Mar 1, 2012

I think someone said that to sound clever, rather than make sense. It's literary masturbation.

jjdebenedictis · Mar 1, 2012

No, I think a story has to make sense. The character should react to events, but that's not a story.

I suspect it's just what that writer happens to enjoy most.

flapperphilosopher · Mar 1, 2012

Isn't it a contradiction to say "a story is about nothing", then to follow by with "a story is about 'feelings, emotions, impulses, dreams, ambitions, clashing drives and inner conflicts' "....?

Radio_Resistance · Mar 1, 2012

I've always written by what I was told by a professor, at the end of a story, the protagonist should learn something. In the barest of terms, and by going off this, the TC's statement is true. To me, the story is done when something changes. You can't write a story around the idea of conflict exclusively (adversity for the sake of adversity). What makes a story is the effect that that particular conflict has on people/characters.

kuwisdelu · Mar 1, 2012

Graz said:
'A story is never really about anything. Always it concerns instead, someone's reactions to what happens. Their feelings, emotions, impulses, dreams, ambitions, clashing drives and inner conflicts. The external only serves to bring them into focus'

I don't see how the latter really contradicts the former.

RichardGarfinkle said:
Hamlet is less about Hamlet then it is about the cycle of revenge.

Is that what it's about?

I always thought it was about existential angst.

gilesth · Mar 1, 2012

I think I'd have to disagree. The characters have to react to something, feel some way about something, interact with something, etc.. Yes, a great book needs to have great characters, emotions, ambitions, what have you, but it also has to have a catalyst that makes those other things important.

Even if there's only a McGuffin to draw all of those things out.

SomethingOrOther · Mar 1, 2012

Stories aren't about anything you can capture with a word or phrase or sentence or paragraph. They are about what they are, namely all of their words and the experience of reading them. Any sort of summary fails to truly capture what a story is.

I can't remember whether it was William Gaddis, William Gass, Nabokov, or David Foster Wallace who said that. It's most likely one of the former two and DFW. The interviews and essays of theirs I've read blend in my memory into a sort of a beef stew. (Well, not DFW's essays, which are like carrot cake, mmmmmmmm.) Some bits of knowledge stand out like chunks of meat or potatoes--I can discern their origin easily. Others are part of the stew, and I can't attribute them. That possibly unneeded analogy and this long digression aside, I agree completely.

Oh yeah, Flannery O'Connor also said it:

Some people have the notion that you read the story and then climb out of it into the meaning, but for the fiction writer himself, the whole story is the meaning, because it is an experience, not an abstraction.

[...]

A story is a way to say something that can't be said any other way, and it takes every word in a story to say what the meaning is. You tell a story because a statement would be inadequate.

It's entirely possible that all four of the aforementioned said it, I suppose, because it's so true.

catian · Mar 1, 2012

I agree with this totally.
I think a story has more baggage to it then one wants to admit.
To write is something within us all.
It is a mean of communication and it is like a relief (pain killer) that we all to exerce in order to let out steam of whatever it is within us to let out.
Some 'more aware' writers know already what it is they wish to take out and so engage in writing something to express it and others still unsure or unaware albeit also take to writing.
Such is the thrills and compounds of the art of expressionism or story making.

Orchestra · Mar 1, 2012

At their core stories are about presenting and solving (or trying to solve) problems. The characters have personal problems, there's often a general, society-level problem and, of course, a good book deals with a thematic problem, a problem common to human experience. No problems? No story.

RichardGarfinkle · Mar 2, 2012

kuwisdelu said:
I always thought it was about existential angst.

Hamlet's famous soliloquies are about existential angst. The play itself is framed by and actions motivated largely by revenge.

Backstory:
Hamlet's father deposes Fortinbras' father and becomes king of Denmark.
Claudius kills Hamlet's father.

In play:
Hamlet's father's ghost tells Hamlet to avenge his death.

Hamlet plays crazy in order to investigate whether or not the ghost was telling the truth in the process alienating Ophelia.

Hamlet, once he decides to kill Caludius loses his best opportunity because Claudius is praying and Hamlet does not want to risk Claudius being forgiven and going to Heaven. He wants to maximize vengeance by delivering death and damnation.

Hamlet accidentally kills Polonius thinking he's Claudius. Net result: Ophelia goes insane and commits suicide and Laertes vows revenge on Hamlet.

Dueling scene has Laertes' thirst for revenge being used by Claudius to take out Hamlet. Fatality rate: 100% except Horatio.

End of play: Fortinbras is on the throne of Denmark restoring things to how they would have been in the first place except for the horrendous fatality rate.

Reasonable analysis: Revenge is the primary driving force in the play and is shown to be futile at the end.

Expand to 20 pages for college paper, 100 for overdone doctoral thesis, or keep in short form for these sorts of threads.

randi.lee · Mar 2, 2012

flapperphilosopher said:
Isn't it a contradiction to say "a story is about nothing", then to follow by with "a story is about 'feelings, emotions, impulses, dreams, ambitions, clashing drives and inner conflicts' "....?

I agree.

brianjanuary · Mar 2, 2012

A well-written story has both plot and character, character arcs, emotional responses, etc. Even if you could manage to write a story that was nothing but a series of emotional reactions, still the the story would have to necessitate some kind of plot, because the MC would be reacting to some kind of external event.

Chiron · Mar 2, 2012

I agree to a point. I am always more interested in who is in the story than the background events of the story. At the same time you cannot separate the events from the character and preserve the character.

Toothpaste · Mar 2, 2012

See if we're talking Shakespeare, I'd actually agree more with the OP. Sure he has plots, but his plots, in my mind, have always been secondary to his brilliant character development and the characters' external struggles. I mean some of his plots are rather ridiculous. I truly believe that's why they stood the test of time, not because some guy named Hamlet needed to avenge his father's murder.

I do think though that a good plot is a good plot. And I love an action packed novel. I've always been a fan of mysteries where the detective gathers everyone together at the end and reveals whodunnit. So I disagree that all stories can't be about what happens. But I will agree that I don't give a hoot about what happens if I don't give a hoot about the characters.

Phaeal · Mar 2, 2012

I'm also in the school that says Hamlet is about Hamlet.

If plots were what people wanted from literature, books would be a lot shorter. It's the journey (with the characters, through this place, at this time, with this slant, in this voice), not just the destination.

RichardGarfinkle · Mar 2, 2012

Phaeal said:
I'm also in the school that says Hamlet is about Hamlet.

If plots were what people wanted from literature, books would be a lot shorter. It's the journey (with the characters, through this place, at this time, with this slant, in this voice), not just the destination.

This is one of this figure - ground arguments that can degenerate quickly. I tend to see it as two ends of the same stick:

1. The story is about the characters and the plot is what they do.

2. The story is about the plot and the characters make the plot real.

Each reader sees each story in some way that is a combination of these two aspects.

Writers and lit crit people then argue about which is true when in fact its personal to the reader.

Yes, I'm being a hypocrite having posted that plot analysis of Hamlet.

gothicangel · Mar 2, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
This is one of this figure - ground arguments that can degenerate quickly. I tend to see it as two ends of the same stick:

1. The story is about the characters and the plot is what they do.

2. The story is about the plot and the characters make the plot real.

Each reader sees each story in some way that is a combination of these two aspects.

Writers and lit crit people then argue about which is true when in fact its personal to the reader.

Yes, I'm being a hypocrite having posted that plot analysis of Hamlet.

I suggest reading Aristotle's Poetics, in particular his analysis of tragedy.

I have an English Lit degree, and I've never read a critic say 'this is true', but 'this is what I think, and here is why.'

As for Othello, it's about Othello's [and Iago's] jealousy. The plot stems from this character trait. [Also remember he's being fucked with.]

Same goes for Hamlet. It's about Hamlet's need for revenge. The plot stems from his character. It's also wise to view Hamlet as a ghost story. The vision of his father may, or may not be real.

I believe a good story is a combination of 'what happens,' which is driven by strong character action.

RichardGarfinkle · Mar 2, 2012

gothicangel said:
I suggest reading Aristotle's Poetics, in particular his analysis of tragedy.

Done a long time ago. Actually, read way too much of Aristotle.

Thoughts on this

Second Edition and Second Laughter

Second Edition and Second Laughter

terribly loud, emotionally distant

terribly loud, emotionally distant

Wonderfully Irreverent

is watching you via her avatar

Revolutionize the World

-

practical experience, GTFO

Second Edition and Second Laughter

Certified Non-Genius

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

Whatever I did, I didn't do it.

Second Edition and Second Laughter

Toughen up.

Second Edition and Second Laughter