Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Sometimes I Like Preachy Writing
I dunno. I feel like the old adage for good fiction which says “Don’t preach” is a few shades off the mark. Just look at all the amazingly successful and beloved novelists (even if they are loved by different audiences) who wear their ideologies on their sleeve: Ayn Rand, Kurt Vonnegut, C.S. Lewis, Aldous Huxley, Chuck Palahniuk (Fight Club especially), Philip Pullman, and many more. I would even argue that George R.R. Martin flies his nihilistic banner high for all to see. His message seems to be “Power is for those who are strong enough to seize it, and that’s the end of it.” But he’s got incredible prose, and is fantastic story teller, so it’s not a problem. I mean, doesn’t it really come down to that? You can preach all you want in a story, as long as you’re interesting and entertaining. Some people will get annoyed of course, because in general we feel uncomfortable when we encounter ideas/ messages/ ideologies that clash with our beliefs. But that doesn’t mean it is bad writing simply because it is ideologically driven. (It also doesn’t mean it’s good writing, of course.)
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think what rubs people the wrong way about preachy storytelling is the heavy handed nature of the preacher. John Grisham's The Chamber comes to mind. Not that John Grisham is of the caliber writer that you referred to. But it basically was a story to tell why he is against the death penalty. I will say I haven't read through The Chamber since I was 15, so perhaps a re-read would change how I see his preaching. I just know it was a major turn off at the time.
As for Rand, you really have to buy into her brand to stick with a 75 page sermon from John Galt. To be fair, I did make it through about 50 pages before skipping to the rest of the action.
Amy is right: it's all about the heavy-handed nature of what's written. I only got through one of Martin's books, but my impression is that even though his point about power is coming through clearly, it's not coming through via a character's or narrator's heavy-handed preaching about power.
Heinlein is guilty of that all the time, which is why I can't stand reading him. Two characters will essentially have a socratic dialogue, with one character clearly believing everything that Heinlein believes and stating those beliefs, right there, super clear, like a sermon. H. G. Wells does this a bit too, if I remember correctly (his film Things to Come certainly does).
tl;dr: there's a difference between a story having a clear point and a story that has characters/narrators STATE that clear point in a heavy-handed way.
Post a Comment