Proposition: Message Story is a dismissive and derogatory term.

I sometimes have a great time with theme/meaning in my stories. That's because no matter what I may see or intend as an underlying theme, the reader interpretations can be all over the place, even diametrically opposite to what I may have seen in the story. And that's because in some stories, the theme is subtle and well-blended within the story, and it gives the readers the opportunity to think it through. Not all stories are like this, but it does illustrate one aspect of theme, even when it is intended, and purposely emerges from the story. And that's not a bad thing because readers will bring different experiences into the stories they read. On the other hand, some stories will have unmistakable themes/meanings, and if they are still well integrated into the story, the stories will still resonate with readers.

In short, if the theme/meaning emerges from the story, or if initially identified, it still blends into that story, I have no problem, even if the theme/meaning is well defined and powerful within the story.

I do have a problem when it seems the story comes across as secondary to the message, and specifically designed to ensure that NO reader will have the slightest chance of slipping into any other interpretation. This is the soapbox approach, with the author spouting from that pulpit to an audience appropriately lined up in regular rows in a singular direction. I object if I feel like the author is trying to put me in one of those rows, with his/her soapbox pulpit the only view it get.

Obviously, there will exceptions, but those exceptions will usually be a result of writing excellence and/or innovation.

RichardGarfinkle said:

There seems to be a tendency for people to put in caveats against preaching or heavy handedness. Why is that?
When people talk about writing character driven stories they don't end every post with disclaimers against Mary Sue stories.
When they talk about plot based stories, they don't automatically disclaim forced story telling.

Why do stories with meaning require this promise that one is a good meaning writer.

And besides 1984 is as heavy handed as any book ever written. Guernica is as heavy handed as any painting ever painted. Yeats' Second Coming is as heavy handed as any poem. But these are all great works. A heavy hand has its uses in art.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have the best answer, but I want to tackle that question. My thoughts are still pretty unformed though.

First I feel like I've noticed more books with poorly executed morals than books with Mary Sues. And maybe part of the issue is that meaning doesn't seem as central to a novel and a story (as general concept, not any specific example--meaning can be central to a novel, but it doesn't have to even be intentionally included), whereas characters need to be. That means that a novel can get derailed by focusing too much on meaning--I've read novels where I've asked why did they write this as a novel instead of a piece of non-fiction. On the other hand, if a novel features a Mary Sue, that's not going to make it any less a story. (I suppose it would if it was just an extended character study on how great the main character is, but I hope that get written less, and I think it's less likely to get sold and then proclaimed to be a great novel. Ahem).

But the other idea occurs to me, somewhat related to the above, is that if an author tries to write a message story and does a poor job, they may overshoot and produced something that is poorly and uncomfortably done. On the other hand, if a writer set out to create a character driven story and spends a lot of effort developing the characters, I don't think that Mary Sue is likely to result from a poor job. Maybe I'll rephrase that for (hopefully) clarity: a Mary Sue is almost a polar opposite to an ideal well developed character, a poorly executed message is just a step beyond, overdoing this and that, from a well executed message.

Maybe there are other comparison that are closer, but I think that might explain why people aren't warned about Mary Sues in the same way.

I think whether heavy handed is good or not depends on first the definition (which is a whole 'nother question) and second context. Meaning works very well in science fiction, dystopia, and many other genres that don't display contemporary society because no one currently alive is coming under attack. A certain time of subtlety is a built in feature, to a degree. Such, especially, is the power of allegory--which at the same time allows a writer to cast a broader net. Satire cuts the edge off an attack with humor.

I also think it depends on the medium. Visual art demands a very different emotional reaction than novels. Shorter works of writing have less room for subtlety and un-subtlety.

I've been listening to a lot of Pete Seeger songs lately, and many are heavy handed; but with lyrics you don't have time to to get into subtlety, and it's also calling for a different reaction entirely. That said, on of his songs, at least, has a line where he admits that he might or might not be right.

lbender said:

Atlas Shrugged is an example of a message done both well and poorly, IMO. The story itself is great and gets Rand's point across very well. However, there's a part, later in the book, where John Galt gives a speech that lasts what seems like 100 pages, wherein he hammers home the message again and again and again. Still never got through that part and I've read the book multiple times (Forget the movie - not worth the time).

Click to expand...

Heh, I have to be in a total mood to read the whole Galt address. Otherwise I read the start and the finish and let it go at that.

Same thing with the War and Peace chapters in which Tolstoy goes all magisterial and pontificatey on his theme of historical tides shoving Napoleon around, etc.

Rhoda Nightingale said:

I think what bothers me about this whole Message Story = Bad thing is A) the backstory behind it (the idea that any story containing certain elements must, by definition, be a "message" story), and B) "message" stories are, by definition, preachy and boring. Neither of which are true.

The fact that the whole argument is coming from sci-fi just completely baffles me. The most didactic cautionary tales I've ever encountered come from that very place. And most of them (not all, but the ones I've read) are pretty awesome. The argument does not hold water.

Click to expand...

I think much of the most messaging pieces in sci-fi are also the greatest or highest of that writer's repertoire. It is no different than the grandest stories being at a writer's peak while the writer must slog through short, curt and highly restricted at the beginning of their career. Writers who dive into the screeds or the sagas first before "paying their dues" find great difficulty in establishing an audience.

As others have said, in my opinion it's like so many other things we debate. Later in the discussion, it becomes apparent that we are all defining the thing in question in a slightly different way and perhaps not even disagreeing at all. So, a "message story" that is didactic, obvious, let-me-teach-you-a-life-lesson,-dummies is not the same thing as a "message story" that just, well, contains a deeper meaning than just being for entertainment.

RichardGarfinkle said:

I think I disagree with this. A well developed meaning will be as integral to a story as a well developed character. I would argue that a poorly developed meaning, a Mary Sue, and a leaden plot, are all instances of the same writing error: trying to force the story.

A badly meaning idea will warp the events and characters to show the meaning.
A Mary Sue will warp the events, characters, and meaning to make her always right.
A leaden plot will warp the characters and meaning so that the events have to happen regardless of whether they make sense or not.

I do not see the first of these as standing out from the others. It seems the exact same mistake but applied to a different story aspect.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that what you're saying is true more from a reader's perspective than from a writer's perspective. At least, my point was that a writer is more likely to end up with a poorly written message when they try to develop a strong message, than they are to end up with a Mary Sue if they try to develop a strong central character.

The difference between a preachy message and a a well laid out message may really be a few extra speeches, a bit more this or that--basically too much of a good thing.

A Mary Sue is isn't an overdone good character in that same way. You don't end up writing a Mary Sue because you add a bit more back story, some extra flaws, etc. Nor are they just a few (N.B. few) flaws short of a good character.

From a writers perspective, I think that it's easier to accidentally end up with a preachy message than it is to end up with a Mary Sue.

Sure, the reader doesn't care how easy it was for the writer to make that error. They don't say--oh this books comes out as too preachy, but that's because they're just being ambitious and maybe the next one will be better. I imagine they're going to be no more likely to read more from the same author than if they dislike a book because of an annoying Mary Sue or a leaden plot.

But the question, as I understood it, is why writers are warned about creating preachy messages more than about creating Mary Sues.

ClaraBrooks said:

When you write the first question you should ask yourself is "why are you writing?" This should naturally lead on to "what am I trying to say?" and "What do I want my reader to think when they read this story?" "What messages am I trying to convey?"

The word 'message' is a little heavy-handed but I think it gets across the idea that fiction - good fiction - should really have a sense of purpose that carries it beyond the simple fact of 'I want to entertain'. As a reader, if I sense that an author merely wants to entertain then chances are that s/he will manage the complete opposite, the work will be generic, lifeless and dull. At the end of the day it's the literature - genre fiction or literary - that pushes ideas at me and expresses something interesting about the person that wrote it, that I think are interesting.

I'm no great shakes as a writer but personally when I do start to write a story I can't think of any other way to do it that start at an ideas level and work out from there. Sure, the idea might be in the character or the situation or the "message" but there should be a fundamental point to it or it won't get written. How earth else do people approach writing - can you approach your fiction writing by just saying "yeah, I want these characters and I want them to do this 'cause it'll be fun?' because if so then writing is probably just a glorified version of playing The Sims.

Click to expand...

That's your opinion as a writer and reader, but mine is just the opposite. I find writers who write just to entertain not only usually do entertain, that very often write far more meaningful fiction than those who try to include some message or sense of purpose.

I approach fiction very simply. I decide which genre I want to write, and I firmly believe that "literary" is just one more genre, and I start writing. I throw what I hope is an interesting character into what I hope is an interesting situation, and I let him work his way out of it. . .or not.

I don't want the character to do anything. I just tell the story that arises from having an interesting character in an interesting situation.

Just like real life. In real life, few things start with meaning or message or purpose. We find ourselves in a situation that needs resolved, often through no fault of our own at all. We then do whatever we can to get out of the situation we're in.

For me, this is real life, and this is good fiction. If someone wants to read something more into an event that transpired in my life, one I really had no control over getting into, fine, let them do it.

But I was just trying to survive. To me, this is real life, and this is good fiction.

In all honesty, I usually find far more meaning, far more real "message", far more purpose, and certainly far, far more "This is the kind of person I want to be, this is how I want to live my life" in a story by Louis L'Amour, or Dean Koontz, or Lawrence Block, than in most the literary stories I've read put together, with Hemingway being a strong exception.

I'd much rather be Tell Sackett or Captain Kirk than Holden Caulfield or Harry Rabbit.

The question is, does the message pull you out of the story? If not, it's done well. If it does, then it appears unnatural. Sitcoms in the eighties did this. Suddenly in the middle of the show, I felt like I was watching a public service announcement.

MookyMcD said:

Although this sounds trite and quippy, it occurs to me that the good message books are usually focused on the question or the problem. The bad ones tend to focus on the answer or solution.

Click to expand...

I think I agree with this. One of my big problems with "message" stories is that the message is too often just the writer's opinion of how something would be, and more often than not, I think his or her opinion is wrong, and often silly.

To me, good fiction does not send a message, it simply asks a question, and trusts the reader to think for himself and come up with an answer. An answer, not THE answer.

Bad writing gives the writer's opinion, provides what the writer thinks is an answer to this or that. Good writing just holds up a mirror that allows us to see ourselves, and simply asks, "Is this how you want to be? If not, what are you going to do about it?"

It never says, "This is how you are, and it's wrong. Listen to me, and I'll tell you what you should be doing."

Jamesaritchie said:

In real life, few things start with meaning or message or purpose.

Click to expand...

...

But in all seriousness, my experience is the exact opposite.

There are tons of people who lives their lives driven by purpose.

There are many people who believe things happen for a meaning.

I dislike preaching as much as the next person, but some of my favorite fiction is in some way didactic.

And some of it isn't.

(Yeah, I'm that guy who didn't like 1984.)

Jamesaritchie said:

I think I agree with this. One of my big problems with "message" stories is that the message is too often just the writer's opinion of how something would be, and more often than not, I think his or her opinion is wrong, and often silly.

To me, good fiction does not send a message, it simply asks a question, and trusts the reader to think for himself and come up with an answer. An answer, not THE answer.

Bad writing gives the writer's opinion, provides what the writer thinks is an answer to this or that. Good writing just holds up a mirror that allows us to see ourselves, and simply asks, "Is this how you want to be? If not, what are you going to do about it?"

It never says, "This is how you are, and it's wrong. Listen to me, and I'll tell you what you should be doing."

Click to expand...

What I'm getting from this is that we should just question things endlessly without trying to provide a solution.

Jamesaritchie said:

Bad writing gives the writer's opinion, provides what the writer thinks is an answer to this or that. Good writing just holds up a mirror that allows us to see ourselves, and simply asks, "Is this how you want to be? If not, what are you going to do about it?"

It never says, "This is how you are, and it's wrong. Listen to me, and I'll tell you what you should be doing."

Click to expand...

Let's say I'm writing a character and part of the way he changes is that by the end of the story, he has moved on from a failed relationship. Let's say that process makes up a great deal over the internal conflict.

Suddenly, I have a dilemma. If he gets over it, am I giving my opinion that people need to learn how to move on from failed relationships? Is that a message? Should I try to avoid doing that, and just hold up a mirror, and end it without him ever changing, because if I do that, I could be sending a message that what he does is the right choice? Or the wrong choice?

If I don't want to write the kind of "message" story that you don't like, how much should I try to avoid sending a message or giving my opinion? Should my characters never change? Should nothing ever happen?

After all, by deciding on a plot, I'm either giving the reader my opinion of the way the world works, or the way I think it should work. Is that bad?

kuwisdelu said:

Suddenly, I have a dilemma. If he gets over it, am I giving my opinion that people need to learn how to move on from failed relationships? Is that a message? Should I try to avoid doing that, and just hold up a mirror, and end it without him ever changing, because if I do that, I could be sending a message that what he does is the right choice? Or the wrong choice?

Click to expand...

This feels to me like unfair extension of the argument. Not that James needs me to stand up for him at all. But I think he's talking about the difference between moving on being presented as right for that particular character in that particular situation, and it being presented as being right for all people at all times.

The difference, if you like, between, "She was ditzy and scatty, always putting something down and never being able to find it again' and 'Like all women, she was ditzy and scatty....'

Buffysquirrel said:

The difference, if you like, between, "She was ditzy and scatty, always putting something down and never being able to find it again' and 'Like all women, she was ditzy and scatty....'

Click to expand...

Even if I'm writing a didactic story, I'm not going to be so heavy-handed as to write the latter.

And if it fits the voice of my narrator, I might write the latter anyway, even if I don't believe it.

RichardGarfinkle said:

At the risk of derailing a thread a started with the extra sin of linking to my own blog, her's something I wrote a few years ago entitled Mary Sue is The Root of all Evil.

And I think I still disagree. Most beginning writers tend to make Mary Sues of what they imagine strong characters to be. This is a far more common problem than overdone meanings. Even the best writers have to watch out for creeping Mary Sue ism.

As far as I've seen, preaching stories are far more of a phantom menace than Mary Sue and forced plot stories.

I wonder if the problem may in part be that fewer writers have figured out how to make meaning work in their stories than have figured out how to desparkle Mary Sue and unblock their plotlines.

ETA: Properly done meaning is rarely brought out in speeches. It's not the number of declaiming characters it's the story, world, characters, and plot that reveal the meaning.

Click to expand...

I get the impression that maybe we're talking at cross purposes. I was ignoring more novice mistakes (I may have hinted at that in an earlier post, but didn't say it out right), the ones that will get someone's work rejected out of hand. Someone with more experience finding stories to publish may be able to speak to this better than I, but a preachy story may be a less immediate reason to reject when an editor is considering stories. I can think of a pro magazine story that I read recently that came off as preachy (but another part of the problem may be that what is preachy to one person isn't preachy to another).

Perhaps the problem is that everyone has to deal with Mary Sues. Not everyone has to deal with problems of meaning. Preachy stories end up being an advanced writers problem because, as many people here have pointed out, you can write a perfectly good story without thinking at all about meaning.

Maybe part of what you're complaining about--that it doesn't show up when people want to write character driven stories--is that the Mary Sue problem is such a well known problem, at least for anyone on a writer's forum, that it almost goes without saying.

That said, I think there's still a difference between Mary Sue and a preachy plot. I think there may be message related story problem that is more akin to Mary Sue. There are stories (much fewer in number), that end up saying something that an author didn't intend, and perhaps something very bad, that the author wouldn't want to be associated with. (Horrible lessons about how to solve life's problems, for instance). I think that's the equivalent novice message error to compare to a Mary Sue. It is, like a Mary Sue, an error that comes from not thinking as much about issues relating to story telling, an error that is more novice.

There are other character errors, being unrelatable, unlikeable for certain reasons, or whatever, that are more akin to the kinds of error that lead to preachy stories.

Maybe the point that I left off, or took for granted, is the assumption that when a thread turns to the errors that are possible when creating a story with a message, or when creating a character driven story, is that we're talking about writing at a level that has moved past some of the novice errors that come from the lack of introspection about one's writing. (Or at least the readers are already cognizant of the possibility for those errors). Creating a strong message, whether it goes over the line or not is a deliberate act. Creating a strong character for a character driven story is also a situation that requires a great deal of consideration of who a character is, whereas a Mary Sue is probably most likely to arise from not thinking about the implications of a character, from not putting in sufficient planning.

Maybe that's actually why I let that assumption go unsaid until now. You opened this up asking about what type of advice is given to people writing character driven stories. I'd be curious to know how the distribution of Mary Sue's occurs between plot driven and character driven stories. I would guess Mary Sue occurs significantly more in plot driven stories. The problems that you talk about a Mary Sue jumping in and magically resolving in your blog post seem to me to be more external and plot related problems. I'm having trouble seeing a Mary Sue having a moral dilemma (but I don't want to dismiss the possibility of a character driven Mary Sue story). If that's proportion is right, maybe that's the kernel of the answer to your question, at least as asked.

ETA - I had meant to finish that off by saying that as I wrote that my thinking developed and that may be visible in what I say and the order I say it.

kuwisdelu said:

Let's say I'm writing a character and part of the way he changes is that by the end of the story, he has moved on from a failed relationship. Let's say that process makes up a great deal over the internal conflict.

Suddenly, I have a dilemma. If he gets over it, am I giving my opinion that people need to learn how to move on from failed relationships? Is that a message? Should I try to avoid doing that, and just hold up a mirror, and end it without him ever changing, because if I do that, I could be sending a message that what he does is the right choice? Or the wrong choice?

If I don't want to write the kind of "message" story that you don't like, how much should I try to avoid sending a message or giving my opinion? Should my characters never change? Should nothing ever happen?

After all, by deciding on a plot, I'm either giving the reader my opinion of the way the world works, or the way I think it should work. Is that bad?

Click to expand...

To me, a message story is if you're using that story to tell me he's right or wrong, that people should or shouldn't do this or that in a given situation.

It's fine to have characters change. It's fine to have characters do anything, as long as it's something they would do in real life. What I don't like is when the writer tells me that characters SHOULD change, because that change is the right thing to do.

The way the world works isn't a message, it's simply reality, if you get it right. Message is when you tell me how the world SHOULD work, how people SHOULD act, think, and believe.

If you simply put your characters in realistic situations, and have then think, act, and believe in realistic ways, without making judgments, it's something else completely.

Let me, the reader, make the judgments.

As I said, I think every story comes with a message, with a theme, but the good ones come without being judgmental, without the writer telling the reader what is and isn't right or wrong. Instead of telling me that this or that is right or wrong, they ask me whether I think this or that is right or wrong.

All too often, stories written with the intent of sending a message don't ask me anything, but try to tell me everything.

Just hold up a mirror and show me what people really do. Let readers see their own reflections. We can then look at ourselves, and decide for ourselves whether what we're doing is right or wrong.

Okay, this may not help things at all, but throughout this discussion I have been trying to think of examples of a category I feel is not being well represented here, and I think I just remembered one.

Has any of you read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis? It is a parable, it is entirely purposed to deliver, by means of a story, the message Lewis wishes to convey, about the relationship between the Divine and humans, and at least at the time when I read it (a few years ago) I thought it was beautifully done, moving and powerful.

Which is not to say I am in agreement with it. I am not a Christian. But I have a taste for certain types of preaching, and I do believe the idea of intentional message = poor writing, or poor fiction, dismisses a whole class of books and writers that I personally value.

Everything can be done poorly or done well, and most things are done as well as the doer of them can manage and fall somewhere in that range. I did get the message (ha!) when I was young and first looking at how one writes well, that attempting to put a message into one's work was not considered a good thing.

I really have to say I don't agree with that at all, at this point.

I think part of the distinction between the two forms of advice is that one is nigh-universal while the other is specialized and far more difficult. Put differently, I think if you did a survey of 1000 writer and gave them two tasks, "Write a character who is not a Mary Sue" and "Come up with a message and build a story around advocating it without being didactic", far more writers would succeed at the first than the second. I'd like to believe that I'm pretty good at avoiding Mary Sues, but I don't think I'd be able to write a good 'message story' because that's fundamentally not my approach to storytelling.

Being able to not write Mary Sues is, I would say, a prerequisite for good writers of all genres, but being able to build a story around a message is a specialized skill that is quite difficult and speaks to a narrower range of tastes. I think most readers would say they prefer stories not about Mary Sues, but many readers are turned off by stories driven by message. Again, that doesn't mean it's bad, by any means, just like many readers are turned off by romance or violence or stories about the fantastic. It just means it's narrower in application. I think every 'rule' of writing can and has been broken by brilliant writers. But I do think, in terms of skillsets/approaches, the two aren't equivalent.

kuwisdelu said:

...

But in all seriousness, my experience is the exact opposite.

There are tons of people who lives their lives driven by purpose.

There are many people who believe things happen for a purpose.

I dislike preaching as much as the next person, but some of my favorite fiction is in some way didactic.

And some of it isn't.

(Yeah, I'm that guy who didn't like 1984.)

Click to expand...

I'm not saying any of the things aren't true, but when we're writing fiction, we're probably going to tell the story of all the things that go wrong in that purpose driven life. A purpose driven life where everything is always hunky dory may make for a great article or memoir, but it's probably going to make lousy fiction.

Fiction is usually about the things that go wrong, that we often have no control over. I don't care how purpose driven your life is, a crisis you didn't count on can come from nowhere, derail all your plans, and put you in a situation you have to deal with. This is where fiction comes in. Who wants to read a novel where everything always goes right for the MC.

If we could controls these things, we'd make sure they never happen.

I can handle the good times just fine. I can cruise along, be purpose driven, and never need anything, so long as nothing goes wrong. For me, fiction, like real life, is handling life when we lose control over events and everything goes to hell in a major way.

As for everything that happens having a purpose. I have no problem with that. I tend to believe this myself. But like everything else, let me decide what that purpose is.

buirechain said:

a Mary Sue is probably most likely to arise from not thinking about the implications of a character, from not putting in sufficient planning.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree with that.

A great deal of Mary Sues I've encountered have been planned very intricately. Lots of the authors seem to know everything about them.

A Mary Sue isn't the result of a lack of planning. It's the result of being so in love with your character you can't see their flaws (or lack thereof) and what makes them not work.

That strikes me as exactly the same risk with a "message story" becoming overly preachy.

Jamesaritchie said:

It's fine to have characters do anything, as long as it's something they would do in real life. What I don't like is when the writer tells me that characters SHOULD change, because that change is the right thing to do.

If you simply put your characters in realistic situations, and have then think, act, and believe in realistic ways, without making judgments, it's something else completely.

Click to expand...

But all of those things are judgments in one way or another. I chose to write about this character rather than another. By writing what I think is realistic, I'm giving you my judgment of reality.

The way the world works isn't a message, it's simply reality, if you get it right.

Click to expand...

How many people have thought "the world is sending me a message" at least once?

All too often, stories written with the intent of sending a message don't ask me anything, but try to tell me everything.

Click to expand...

Then they're simply badly written.

I would think the message of good didactic fiction fits the story in the same way an ending should fit a story. And in that way, you are right: the writer shouldn't come out and try to explicitly tell the reader anything. But finely crafted, pose the question, and construct the story so that their is only one possible answer.

I would agree that you shouldn't try to shoehorn a message in, in the same way you shouldn't shoehorn an ending in. But I would also think it's possible to begin with a message or an ending and write a story that leads naturally to it, without forcing, without "telling". The best way to preach is to make sure the person hasn't any idea they're being preached to.

Rina Evans said:

What I'm getting from this is that we should just question things endlessly without trying to provide a solution.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Whether the issue is gay marriage, farm raised chickens, or global warming, and "solution" you give will be one a number of people already agree with, and a number of others think is stupid.

But if you can show me what any of these things is really like, if you can show me the heartache, the suffering, the broken lives, the probable or possible disastrous effects that may happen, you can make me think about the problem without the bias of your solution.

You can make me ask the question "What can I do to change this?

That mirror of stark reality has more power than any biased solution you can offer, and it lets me come up with a solution, rather than arguing with yours.

Rina Evans said:

What I'm getting from this is that we should just question things endlessly without trying to provide a solution.

Click to expand...

To Kill a Mockingbird had a hell of a message. The message wouldn't have been stronger if Scout broke Tim Robinson out of jail. Or, for that matter if Atticus had won the trial. That's why I think the books that try to focus on the solution often trip themselves up. The greatest solution an author can provide is often to show the problem to the reader in an interesting and undeniable way.