What is the Purpose of (Written) Fiction

[A. Sterling]

So, I've come to butt heads with my creative writing professor who has a very specific view of what fiction should be. Parts of her view is that a book should be comparable to a movie and be like a movie in most ways. A piece of fiction must be character driven, realistic, the most interesting thing must be the character, the character must have some sort of time limit, a decision to make, and a "quest". It must be very sensory with lots of imagery and should not wander off into paragraphs of thought or psychological/philosophical discussion. 

 

I, of course, agree with many of her points and I think we agree on how to preform fiction for the most part, but we do not agree on it's purpose. From what I understand, she very specifically views the purpose of fiction as being a form of entertainment. If it is not engaging, entertaining, and enjoyed by the reader it is not good fiction.

 

I, on the other hand, like reading fiction that makes me think and think back on the story... and to think outside of the story. I have no problem with long threads of thought and reflection without action as long as the thoughts are complex, in fact, I prefer them (as long as things are happening before and after). I think the world of a character can be more interesting and more of the focus of a piece than the character if it's done right and the meaning of the story calls for it. I think fiction is written to share something with the world, either raise a question that needs to be raised or teach something that it thinks should be taught. I have never found myself judging the books I read based on how much it is enjoyed (that is more the quality of the writing than the quality of the story). I have often found the writing of a book very good but despised the book and vice versa. Furthermore, I resent a book or movie for pulling me along and making me want to read more when it does not pay off with a very interesting topic/question/lesson, whereas my prof seems to think that pulling the reader along is more important than giving them something deeply valuable. 

 

So, my question, what do you think? Why do you read/write fiction? What is it's purpose? What does it have to offer? 

[Karst]

I think that the "entertainment" and "message" qualities of a work of fiction are equally important.  If a story is amusing, but raises no questions for the reader to think about, it's mindless.  Without being entertaining, on the other hand, a story is hardly readable, no matter how strong its message.

[Guest]

That is a question that's been asked for about 2500 years now and I still don't think there is a definitive answer. I would be wary of anyone who claims to have a definitive answer. But being they are your teacher I guess you should try and write as she asks at least for the term. 

[A. Sterling]

25 minutes ago, Ardoise said:

I think that the "entertainment" and "message" qualities of a work of fiction are equally important.  If a story is amusing, but raises no questions for the reader to think about, it's mindless.  Without being entertaining, on the other hand, a story is hardly readable, no matter how strong its message.

The thing for me, personally, is that it's the "message" as it were that I find entertaining. For instance, I enjoy Victorian literature very much but many people don't seem to. I do think it's better for writers to write something they would enjoy reading more than what other people request, though. 

[Hamsterlover]

14 minutes ago, Ardoise said:

I think that the "entertainment" and "message" qualities of a work of fiction are equally important.  If a story is amusing, but raises no questions for the reader to think about, it's mindless.  Without being entertaining, on the other hand, a story is hardly readable, no matter how strong its message.

Excellent point. I also think that A. Sterling's point about good writing and a good story being distinct and that some people judge a book by one and others by the other. Of course, the best books have both. 

 

25 minutes ago, A. Sterling said:

I have no problem with long threads of thought and reflection without action as long as the thoughts are complex, in fact, I prefer them (as long as things are happening before and after). I think the world of a character can be more interesting and more of the focus of a piece than the character if it's done right and the meaning of the story calls for it.

I also really like getting into the characters' heads. It makes me much more able to empathize with them. 

 

Finally, my own thoughts. The professor thinking that a reader should enjoy the experience of reading seems a little strange to me, because that basically blocks off whole genres. A reader might not enjoy reading a tragedy, because it's sad, but that doesn't mean it can't be a good experience.  Also, I think the two types of stories have different places. The stories intended to send a message are ultimately more important and powerful, but they also tend to be heavier. When someone is more in the mood for light reading, they might just want to read a book intended mainly for entertainment. It's also totally fine to be entertained by the "message" part. Everyone has their own ways of appreciating fiction. But generally, there is no right or wrong way to write, especially not in this context. The categories aren't even mutually exclusive. Either style or a book/story that's a mix of the two has the potential to be great writing and a great story, and many people probably read a mix of both.

 

Thanks for making me think and sorry for the essay.

 

P.S. A. Sterling, I like your location.

[Alejandrogynous]

Your teacher sounds rather small-minded when it comes to the scope of fiction. A piece of fiction should be entertaining insofar as that's usually what keeps a reader engaged and wanting to continue reading, which is important, but it doesn't have to be the sole purpose in and of itself. Like all art forms, fiction can be written for a myriad of reasons. Entertainment, philosophy, social commentary, etc. And to say every story has to follow the same format (i.e. a character-focused quest) is ridiculous.

 

Also, a book should not be "like a movie." They're different mediums which use different tools to tell a story, you can't hold one to the standard of the other. There's a reason why movies need to be adapted from books and vice versa, and why novelists usually make awful screenwriters. 

[A. Sterling]

3 minutes ago, Hamsterlover said:

Finally, my own thoughts. The professor thinking that a reader should enjoy the experience of reading seems a little strange to me, because that basically blocks off whole genres. A reader might not enjoy reading a tragedy, because it's sad, but that doesn't mean it can't be a good experience.  Also, I think the two types of stories have different places. The stories intended to send a message are ultimately more important and powerful, but they also tend to be heavier. When someone is more in the mood for light reading, they might just want to read a book intended mainly for entertainment. It's also totally fine to be entertained by the "message" part. Everyone has their own ways of appreciating fiction. But generally, there is no right or wrong way to write, especially not in this context. The categories aren't even mutually exclusive. Either style or a book/story that's a mix of the two has the potential to be great writing and a great story, and many people probably read a mix of both.

I agree. And, to be fair to her, I don't think she's saying it shouldn't have both (I don't think either of us are), but she is very clear about thinking that one is more important and more the focus than the other. More like the enjoyment of (or rather, the sensuality of it)  is the goal and the message (or greater idea) is inconsequential but should still be there. 

 

3 minutes ago, Hamsterlover said:

P.S. A. Sterling, I like your location.

Thanks. 😊

[A. Sterling]

6 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

 Like all art forms, fiction can be written for a myriad of reasons. Entertainment, philosophy, social commentary, etc. And to say every story has to follow the same format (i.e. a character-focused quest) is ridiculous.

I am trying to be fair to her, and also to make sense of her advice and meaning, but she did specifically say that if a work is all about the philosophy then there is no reason to write it as fiction and it should be written as an essay instead, which I do not agree with. And she also said all stories must be character-focused quests. Speaking specifically to what I was writing (for context), I had a protagonist who was caught in a culture he was disturbed by but he could not change to culture. She was telling me that he must do something beyond deciding he disagreed with the society. I said he was likely to commit suicide but for some reason she said that was not a realistic choice or not a real choice at all. So I don't know what to make of that. 

 

6 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

Also, a book should not be "like a movie." They're different mediums which use different tools to tell a story, you can't hold one to the standard of the other. There's a reason why movies need to be adapted from books and vice versa, and why novelists usually make awful screenwriters. 

This was another thing that bothered me with her approach. She repeatedly said to imagine the story as a movie and that is how it should be. I don't think movies and novels are at all the same formats, they use very different techniques, and usually approach things from very different angles. 

[Tasha the demi squirrel]

I think there are many purposes for fiction and which one is valued more differs deppending on the reader some prefer deep thought provoking books with a message they can relate to some prefer fun decriptive books where they can use their imagination some prefer light hearted entertaining books that help them escape reality and some like a mixture of all of these 

 

You'll never please everyone so it's often best to do what makes you happy so write the the type of books you like 

[MLJ]

If your teacher says there is one main purpose of all fiction, then she is wrong. There are a number of purposes fiction can have and all of them are important.

 

I would agree that being engaging/entertaining is an important purpose of pretty much all fiction because if readers don't like it, then what is the point? No one will read it. The thing is "engaging" is very subjective. My students are reading "To Kill a Mockingbird" right now, which I think is a great novel, and lots of them say it's "boring" because they are determined to hate everything we do in class. Does that say anything about the value of the book? No, no it does not. Different people just like different things, and what one person finds engaging might be boring to someone else.  As long as some people find a book entertaining, it has some value. If your teacher assumes a book must be engaging to a mass audience to have value, then I think that's wrong. Some books have a smaller intended audience who find them entertaining and that's okay. Not all books need to have car chases and bombs going off in them.

 

If you want to get published nowadays, you do need to pay a lot of attention to the "engaging" factor. Writers can no longer get away with long passages of scenery or philosophizing where nothing much happens. (I do tend to think those are signs of sloppy/lazy writing, though there are ways to write them well.) It is a very competitive marketplace, and you need to know a lot about how to craft a story to be "entertaining" if you want to sell a book. A lot of the things your teacher mentioned sound like things geared towards writing for the current marketplace - and if that is the kind of class she's teaching, that's why. Many classic novels wouldn't get published today because they don't meet the demands of the marketplace. That doesn't means they are "bad" books, just that the reality of publishing has changed.

 

As for why I read, I like to read books that are entertaining (well crafted, tightly written, and suspenseful) and about characters I care about. I especially like books on themes I think are important. "Breaking Dawn" is one of my favorite novels because it is about two issues I care deeply about - mothers protecting their children and people standing up to evil "governments." I like writing the same kinds of books that I like to read.

[MLJ]

7 minutes ago, A. Sterling said:

I am trying to be fair to her, and also to make sense of her advice and meaning, but she did specifically say that if a work is all about the philosophy then there is no reason to write it as fiction and it should be written as an essay instead, which I do not agree with. And she also said all stories must be character-focused quests. Speaking specifically to what I was writing (for context), I had a protagonist who was caught in a culture he was disturbed by but he could not change to culture. She was telling me that he must do something beyond deciding he disagreed with the society. I said he was likely to commit suicide but for some reason she said that was not a realistic choice or not a real choice at all. So I don't know what to make of that. 

 

This was another thing that bothered me with her approach. She repeatedly said to imagine the story as a movie and that is how it should be. I don't think movies and novels are at all the same formats, they use very different techniques, and usually approach things from very different angles. 

I'm a little confused by the phrasing because "quest" has a particular meaning as one kind of story plot. But the idea that a story is a character trying to accomplish something is correct. It's not enough for a character to just come to realize something. It's not enough to just describe an interesting and thought-provoking society. A story begins with a character being faced with a crisis that he/she has to respond to and the story relates what happens as the character attempts to resolve the problem. In a story, a character needs to have a goal - something he/she is trying to accomplish.

[Sure rants alot]

I read all kinds of fiction. Sometimes I like horror, especially if it has a religious twist. I like big, sweeping romance such as Jane Eyre, Far From the Madding Crowd. Sometimes I am in the mood for a mystery or something with lots of dragons/spells/magic. Sometimes I like Ray Bradbury or H.G Wells. Sometimes I like thought provoking stories like Catch-22 or 1984.  Sometimes I feel like a good cry. Sometimes I feel like a good laugh. 

I read fiction to get transported into another realm, another life. Sometimes I don't want to think or analyze, I want only to enjoy the journey.

 I write fictional short stories.  My favorite part of that is I can base the story in a real life event but it be can rewritten any way I want to. It can be a happy ever after or I can run someone through a wood chipper. The monster under the bed can be feared or it can be sucked up and held captive in the vacuum cleaner bag by an irritated, post menopausal, hot flashy old crank.

[A. Sterling]

2 hours ago, MLJ said:

If you want to get published nowadays, you do need to pay a lot of attention to the "engaging" factor. Writers can no longer get away with long passages of scenery or philosophizing where nothing much happens. (I do tend to think those are signs of sloppy/lazy writing, though there are ways to write them well.) It is a very competitive marketplace, and you need to know a lot about how to craft a story to be "entertaining" if you want to sell a book. A lot of the things your teacher mentioned sound like things geared towards writing for the current marketplace - and if that is the kind of class she's teaching, that's why. Many classic novels wouldn't get published today because they don't meet the demands of the marketplace. That doesn't means they are "bad" books, just that the reality of publishing has changed.

This is probably what she's doing. I suppose I just find myself hesitant to accept a particular way of writing as the "right way". I usually like reading things that are a bit outside the box.

 

Though perhaps you could explain to me what she really means by a character-driven plot. She often speaks of a quest. My sense is that my characters are always doing something but it isn't always physical. Maybe it is because I'm a very cerebral person that makes me view ideas and thoughts to be as valid as actions (I frequently forget whether I thought a thing or said it out loud). My question then is, does the character have to have real world impact. How does this work with psychological pieces? What if a character feels that they can't make a choice, is not making a choice not still choosing something? By choosing not to choose? I always found characters like that fascinating when I saw them.

 

Additionally, I made a comment about identifying with a certain character because of something he said. She then asked what made me identify with the character and said that if it was just because I found him similar to myself it doesn't count for anything (or it's not good enough or something as a response to some writing). So my question then is what is identifying with a character supposed to mean if it is not finding similarities between yourself and that character. I just felt a little chewed up by her for things like that. Maybe I'm being unreasonable or not seeing her point? 

[Scottthespy]

If the purpose of fiction is to entertain, and you are entertained by philosophical engagement, then by that standard is philosophy not 'good fiction'?

 

There are many noteworthy writers who specially play with the WORLD being the most interesting thing...Lovecraft and Junji Ito come to mind. The characters are everymen, boring normal people caught helplessly in circumstances beyond their control...In Ito's work specifically, the characters are only there to be acted upon by the force the world is throwing at them, they aren't there to do anything. There are countless works by prolific writers who use this tactic to explore ideas...and they can be far more entertaining than a predictable 'hero's journey'. 

[Camicon]

What I think your prof is getting to is more about what characterizes successful, commercial genre fiction. Most successful, commercial genre fiction is paced such that Average Joe doesn't feel like it's a slog, that has engaging and relatable characters who undergo some kind of growth arc, and while there does not necessarily need to be a "quest" there does need to be a clear sense that there is some kind of endpoint that the story is getting to.

 

What you seem to be focused on are common characteristics of literary fiction. Whereas genre fiction is an escape from reality, literary fiction is a dive into reality. The Great Gatsby, To Kill A Mockingbird, Catcher In The Rye, Grapes of Wrath, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, and the like.

 

That isn't to say you can't write genre fiction where deeply philosophical questions are the focus of the characters and drive the plot the whole way through, but it's hard, which is probably why you don't see much of it. Another reason being that the audience for fiction that straddles the line between "enjoyable romp through a land of Fae" and "deep exploration of the human psyche" is comparatively small; when the premise of the story is escapist, and the core of the story is not escapist, what you end up with can be pretty niche (a niche which is exemplified by the Science Fiction genre. Frankenstein, anyone?).

 

As to the "purpose" of fiction, well, that depends on the intention of the author and the audience they're writing for. Seuss and Tolkien are both fiction, and are both excellent, but would anyone think to argue that the "purpose" of Seuss and Tolkien is the same?

 

When it comes to writing fiction, a good rule of thumb that I hear from pretty much anyone who's ever been published is to write what you would want to read. It's worth bearing in mind that, while we are all individuals, there are lots of people that think in the same ways you do, and enjoy the same things you do. If you write something you want to read, and are aggressive in marketing your work, you'll find an audience for it somewhere.

 

[MLJ]

20 minutes ago, A. Sterling said:

This is probably what she's doing. I suppose I just find myself hesitant to accept a particular way of writing as the "right way". I usually like reading things that are a bit outside the box.

 

Though perhaps you could explain to me what she really means by a character-driven plot. She often speaks of a quest. My sense is that my characters are always doing something but it isn't always physical. Maybe it is because I'm a very cerebral person that makes me view ideas and thoughts to be as valid as actions (I frequently forget whether I thought a thing or said it out loud). My question then is, does the character have to have real world impact. How does this work with psychological pieces? What if a character feels that they can't make a choice, is not making a choice not still choosing something? By choosing not to choose? I always found characters like that fascinating when I saw them.

 

Additionally, I made a comment about identifying with a certain character because of something he said. She then asked what made me identify with the character and said that if it was just because I found him similar to myself it doesn't count for anything (or it's not good enough or something as a response to some writing). So my question then is what is identifying with a character supposed to mean if it is not finding similarities between yourself and that character. I just felt a little chewed up by her for things like that. Maybe I'm being unreasonable or not seeing her point? 

I'm not positive what she means by a character-driven plot, but I'm guessing she's getting at the idea that in a story a character should have a goal that drives the plot. The goal is difficult to achieve and the character meets a lot of conflict trying to achieve the goal. The character repeatedly fails and ends up in a worse situation than before (this is one way you increase suspense), and at the very end the character achieves or fails to achieve his/her goal.

 

For example, in "Romeo and Juliet," Romeo just wants to find a girl to love. Then he meets Juliet who is perfect - and loves him back! But there are all sorts of obstacles keeping them apart like their families' feud, and Romeo killing Juliet's cousin, and Juliet's dad trying to marry her off to Paris. Romeo and Juliet keep struggling to be together but in the end they fail and both die.

 

Or in "A Christmas Carol," Ebenezeer Scrooge is happy in lonely, stoic, but very wealthy life. Then Marley's ghost shows up (the inciting change) and tells Scrooge that he is going to end up carrying a heavy chain around as a ghost if he doesn't shape up. Scrooge refuses to believe ghosts are real and insists he's fine just the way he is. But the ghosts keep working on him until finally, at the end, he changes his ways and becomes kind and generous.

 

Or in "A Cask of Amontillado," Montresor wants to kill Fortunato because Fortunato insulted him. He has to figure out how to manipulate Fortunato into traveling into his catacombs so he can murder him in the really horrific way he has planned.

 

(Can you tell I'm an English teacher, lol?)

 

A character with a goal + obstacles to achieving that goal (i.e. conflict) = story. Figuring out how to give your character good story goals that are strong enough to build a story on is one of the most important (and difficult!) things to learn in writing fiction.

 

Do you have an example of what you mean by a character not choosing or struggling to choose? I don't feel like I can answer your question without understanding exactly what kind of character you mean.

 

I also don't know what she means by "identifying with a character." I do think you can identify with a character because of similarities you have with the character. But I think it's more than that because I can strongly identify with characters I don't have a lot in common with. I think identification in fiction has more to do with the writer detailing the character's life and thoughts so well that I'm "in the character's head." I can see things from his or her point of view and I can come to understand and relate to someone who may not be like me at all.

 

I'm sorry she made you feel bad. I have no idea what kind of teacher she is - if maybe she's not explaining things well enough or if she's being too critical and impatient. But just know learning how to write well is really, really hard and can be very frustrating. Not everything people tell you about "how to write" is going to be correct, but things that sound wrong may turn out to have some value. Just stay open-minded to ideas you don't understand at first and don't feel bad if you don't understand everything right away. It takes a long time and practice to understand how to write fiction.

 

 

[MLJ]

8 minutes ago, Camicon said:

What you seem to be focused on are common characteristics of literary fiction. Whereas genre fiction is an escape from reality, literary fiction is a dive into reality. The Great Gatsby, To Kill A Mockingbird, Catcher In The Rye, Grapes of Wrath, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, and the like.

As a genre writer who loves genre fiction, I take issue with the idea that genre fiction is inherently escapist. True, some genre fiction doesn't have a lot of depth (and the same can be said for "literary" fiction). But I do think many works of genre fiction deal with important issues and ideas. I'm just saying. ☺️

[Camicon]

11 minutes ago, MLJ said:

As a genre writer who loves genre fiction, I take issue with the idea that genre fiction is inherently escapist. True, some genre fiction doesn't have a lot of depth (and the same can be said for "literary" fiction). But I do think many works of genre fiction deal with important issues and ideas. I'm just saying. ☺️

Escapist doesn't mean shallow. For example, Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive is about as escapist as you get, and is also an incredibly heady dive.

 

Maybe the perception that genre fiction is shallow is due more to the proliferation of fanfiction? Because good fiction is never shallow, as that would preclude it from being good.

[MLJ]

17 minutes ago, Camicon said:

Escapist doesn't mean shallow. For example, Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight Archive is about as escapist as you get, and is also an incredibly heady dive.

 

Maybe the perception that genre fiction is shallow is due more to the proliferation of fanfiction? Because good fiction is never shallow, as that would preclude it from being good.

Genre fiction has been viewed as shallow pretty much since it's inception (well, since back in the early to mid twentieth century when it became "genre" fiction). That fact that it was "pulp" fiction (published in magazines) meant that it wasn't taken very seriously (and admittedly a lot of the fiction wasn't very good). Genre fiction has much more respect now than it used to thanks to some writers who've received critical acclaim. But there still are a lot of people who think if a novel is a romance or a fantasy or a science fiction novel then it isn't "real" literature.

 

I don't think people who use the word "escapist" generally mean it in a complimentary way (other than maybe "yeah, it was a fun beach read"). But, more than that, I don't think genre fiction really is inherently about "escaping" reality. Even though the trappings may be another world or the future, genre fiction is about creating "realism" and creating realistic characters, settings, and problems is just as important as it is in "realistic" fiction. (I wrote my Master's Thesis on this, so I just feel rather strongly about it, lol.  )

[Camicon]

2 minutes ago, MLJ said:

Genre fiction has been viewed as shallow pretty much since it's inception (well, since back in the early to mid twentieth century when it became "genre" fiction). That fact that it was "pulp" fiction (published in magazines) meant that it wasn't taken very seriously (and admittedly a lot of the fiction wasn't very good). Genre fiction has much more respect now than it used to thanks to some writers who've received critical acclaim. But there still are a lot of people who think if a novel is a romance or a fantasy or a science fiction novel then it isn't "real" literature.

 

I don't think people who use the word "escapist" generally mean it in a complimentary way (other than maybe "yeah, it was a fun beach read"). But, more than that, I don't think genre fiction really is inherently about "escaping" reality. Even though the trappings may be another world or the future, genre fiction is about creating "realism" and creating realistic characters, settings, and problems is just as important as it is in "realistic" fiction. (I wrote my Master's Thesis on this, so I just feel rather strongly about it, lol.  )

You're right, genre fiction isn't inherently escapist, though certain genres (like science fiction and fantasy) lean far more towards escapist elements than others (like romance and mystery). But making your fictional universe internally consistent and resonant with the reader is just another mark of good fiction. That doesn't make something like The Way of Kings any less escapist. "Escapist" is simply a label that denotes a story which is built upon on fantastical, magical, or "impossible" elements.

 

And if someone uses the word "escapist" to describe a story in a derogatory manner then I'd tell them to go get stuffed. I have no time for those powder-wig opinions.

[A. Sterling]

1 hour ago, Camicon said:

What I think your prof is getting to is more about what characterizes successful, commercial genre fiction. Most successful, commercial genre fiction is paced such that Average Joe doesn't feel like it's a slog, that has engaging and relatable characters who undergo some kind of growth arc, and while there does not necessarily need to be a "quest" there does need to be a clear sense that there is some kind of endpoint that the story is getting to.

 

What you seem to be focused on are common characteristics of literary fiction. Whereas genre fiction is an escape from reality, literary fiction is a dive into reality. The Great Gatsby, To Kill A Mockingbird, Catcher In The Rye, Grapes of Wrath, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, and the like.

 

That isn't to say you can't write genre fiction where deeply philosophical questions are the focus of the characters and drive the plot the whole way through, but it's hard, which is probably why you don't see much of it. Another reason being that the audience for fiction that straddles the line between "enjoyable romp through a land of Fae" and "deep exploration of the human psyche" is comparatively small; when the premise of the story is escapist, and the core of the story is not escapist, what you end up with can be pretty niche (a niche which is exemplified by the Science Fiction genre. Frankenstein, anyone?).

I think you're right. But my goal has never been to right popular fiction. I want to write literature. 

 

1 hour ago, Camicon said:

As to the "purpose" of fiction, well, that depends on the intention of the author and the audience they're writing for. Seuss and Tolkien are both fiction, and are both excellent, but would anyone think to argue that the "purpose" of Seuss and Tolkien is the same?

 

When it comes to writing fiction, a good rule of thumb that I hear from pretty much anyone who's ever been published is to write what you would want to read. It's worth bearing in mind that, while we are all individuals, there are lots of people that think in the same ways you do, and enjoy the same things you do. If you write something you want to read, and are aggressive in marketing your work, you'll find an audience for it somewhere.

I only want to write things I would actually enjoy reading. The problem is there aren't a lot of people who think like me. I think maybe I could be intriguing to the right audience but I tend to like reading classic literature that is often loathed by my peers. 

[Calligraphette_Coe]

6 hours ago, A. Sterling said:

 

So, my question, what do you think? Why do you read/write fiction? What is it's purpose? What does it have to offer? 

Stories are, for humans, the Walk of Life. They tell where your fellow travellers have been, where you can go, what was and what could be. They use words for paintbrushes, thoughts as the scultors' chisels, and feelings and emotions as the sidewalk chalk on the way through your dialy life.

 

Like all art, they are food for the soul. They are the 'e' in the  E=MC^2 equation of human hopes and dreams, That Which Survives ourselves, our gifts given to posterity.

[Camicon]

1 hour ago, A. Sterling said:

I only want to write things I would actually enjoy reading. The problem is there aren't a lot of people who think like me. I think maybe I could be intriguing to the right audience but I tend to like reading classic literature that is often loathed by my peers. 

I guarantee, there are more people like you than you realize there are. They might not be in your immediate peer group, no, but they are out there.

[Dreamsexual]

.

[Skycaptain]

I'm of the school that the primary function of fiction must be to entertain, otherwise you wind up with highbrow drivel that nobody reads. What differentiates quality writing is the ability to convey the author's opinion within the story. 

As to a book being realistic, that instantly removes many whole genres. Sci-fi, fantasy to name but two. Is anyone really going to say Animal Farm by George Orwell is bad fiction simply because the lead character is an unrealistic talking pig? 

[Camicon]

29 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

I'm of the school that the primary function of fiction must be to entertain, otherwise you wind up with highbrow drivel that nobody reads. What differentiates quality writing is the ability to convey the author's opinion within the story. 

As to a book being realistic, that instantly removes many whole genres. Sci-fi, fantasy to name but two. Is anyone really going to say Animal Farm by George Orwell is bad fiction simply because the lead character is an unrealistic talking pig? 

I find that most people, when they say "realistic", refer more to the characters acting like actualized people, rather than caricatures, or to the internal logic of the fictional world remaining consistent, even if it is a world of magic or hyper-advanced technology.

 

It's not that they want these fictional worlds to be like our real world, it's that they want these fictional worlds to feel as real as our world. They want to be immersed in the story to the point where that fictional universe feels every bit as real as the one we live in. Poorly written characters and inconsistent plot elements break that immersion.

[Karst]

22 hours ago, MLJ said:

As a genre writer who loves genre fiction, I take issue with the idea that genre fiction is inherently escapist. True, some genre fiction doesn't have a lot of depth (and the same can be said for "literary" fiction). But I do think many works of genre fiction deal with important issues and ideas. I'm just saying. ☺️

To quote Ursula Le Guin, the existence of Muzak does not disprove the existence of music.

[Epitaph]

I think fiction can and should encompass both if it wants to.

 

As for why I write my stories? For a lot of reasons. Every story I write, I express myself. With every story I write, I create something. I give life to the characters I see in my head and help breath life into what I see as another world from scratch. To me, writing my stories is about raw creation. I have all of these ideas and concepts trapped in my head and I have to let them out. I have to see them come alive.

 

I can't actually be damned to care about my audience if I garner one that likes or dislikes my work. I appreciate criticism, but at the end of the day, I follow what I consider to be the most important rule of pursuing a hobby.

 

I do it for myself and nobody else.

[what the face]

On 2/6/2019 at 6:13 PM, A. Sterling said:

So, my question, what do you think? Why do you read/write fiction? What is it's purpose? What does it have to offer? 

 

I believe we as humans have developed to first hear stories,  spoken.  

        think - parents/teachers reading to their children

In recent centuries with literacy, more of us can read stories ourselves.

We hear or read or watch visual stories because these stories can connect us to other(s).

        other ideas, individuals, events or worlds.

 

That is fiction's purpose.

It offers gifts from the imagination of others, 

        as in ideas, individuals, events or collective wisdom.

 

I/we write not as creation so much as invocation.

The best parts of writing are received as gifts.

       (credit "The Gift"  by Lewis  Hyde here)

 

For me, I might create characters or a situation first,

then the gift might come

where the characters come to life

and the situation develops as if on its own.

In that space I am an artist,

a conduit of something much greater than

just me.

 

 

 

[uhtred]

I think the best fiction both entertains and induces new thoughts.  When done well, the ideas / thoughts just appear naturally as the story naturally flows.