At 08:56 PM 29/08/2006 +0100, you wrote:
>I honestly don't think writers (particularly those
writing from
>character-specific points of view) do a lot of
instructing, intentionally
>or otherwise. More likely, readers do a lot of
interpreting.
Sure, both. Protagonists have objectives. Readers identify
with the protagonist. Achieving the objective involves
overcoming impediments, usually represented by an antagonist.
Conflict is inherent in western story-telling. That implies
values and morals.
> The reader may interpret a moral message from a
story, but it certainly
> doesn't mean that the author intended it.
The author's intentions, on this level, are irrelevant.
> That's even assuming that the author's in agreement
with his
> point-of-view character's worldview, which is often
not the case.
No, it isn't. You give a character a gun. The assumed value
shared between the author and the reader, is that the gun can
shoot, might be used to achieve certain objectives. You, the
author, might not agree with the use of the gun, or the
objectives your character might use it to achieve, but
readers might reasonably assume that the gun in the hands of
the character will have some purpose or value. Of course,
they may be wrong. The gun may jam, suggesting the gun is not
reliable in sorting out these objectives. Or a number of
other things might happen that readers might interpret while
the author only intended to show that the character was armed
and dangerous
(dangerous- isn't that a moral evaluation?) But if one of the
characters in your book suddenly spurt blood and fall to the
ground, and no gun is introduced, no explanation or
interpretation is given to these events, the reader might
conclude that the story has no meaning.
To some extent this may be the curse of a communicative
species- but all actions, imagined or sensed, imply values.
This is certainly the curse of a judgemental species. And, of
course, I'm interpreting "moral value" broadly as well, but I
think that's possible to do.
True, the noir genre may be used to express a world of random
acts without moral value, but for a species obsessed with
right and wrong, with what works and what does not, how and
why, that is also a moral vision. Not moral "good", but moral
as in involving moral issues.
Anyway, that's my poison. Kerry
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Kerry J. Schooley
>To: <mailto:rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com>
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:59 PM
>Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Name Your
Poison
>
>At 05:16 PM 29/08/2006 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >A 'lesson', you say, Kerry? I'm sure there are
many novelists who would be
> >mortified to hear that they're giving lessons in
morality. I certainly am.
> >I hate didacticism. Apart from which, I'm
unqualified as a moralist, being
> >as how I'm a sick bastard. Doesn't stop me
telling stories, though.
> >Probably helps a little.
>
>Sorry Al, you can't get around it. Your work reflects
values from your
>culture, either reinforcing them or challenging them
as a consequence. You
>might not have intended to instruct me that nice guys
don't hit their
>friends with a baseball bat, but you did. Mind you,
that pretty much
>confirmed suspicions I already held, but then I tend
to empathize with
>innocent victims even though I don't believe such a
creature exists in
>"real" life.
>
>Of course, I could be wrong about this. Maybe being
nice doesn't matter,
>and folk can get ahead by threatening their friends
with a baseball bat and
>that's all that counts, but I don't think your "Kiss
Her Goodbye" supported
>that idea. Of course, I could be wrong about that
too.
>
>I don't mean to suggest that writers intend to
instruct. Only that any
>literature (and I use the word broadly- anything that
has been published in
>one form or another) inherently reflects values from
its culture,
>positively or negatively. If the baseball bat had no
purpose of effect in
>Kiss Her Goodbye, you wouldn't have used it, because
then the book would
>have been as entertaining as it was. Kevin might have
argued that it is
>unreal to have people threaten their associates
without some weapon at
>hand. Or otherwise.
>
>A shameless attempt at self-promotion, even by a sick
bastard, affirms the
>value of shameless self-promotion, by it's mere
existence. I could debate
>that further, of course, but it would simply be more
of the same. You're
>right about didacticism though. The tone's
off-putting (he said didactically.)
>
>one sick bastard to another,
>Kerry
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Kerry J. Schooley
> >To:
>
<mailto:rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com>
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:25
PM
> >Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Name Your
Poison
> >
> >At 07:52 PM 28/08/2006 -0400, you
wrote:
> >
> > >And, of course, there's entertainment. It's
awfully puritanical to
> > >claim literature must give a moral
lesson.
> >
> >I don't think the question is whether literature
should give a moral lesson
> >so much as that it does and unavoidably
so.
> >
> >Literature is produced within a culture and one
way or another it addresses
> >the values of that culture, often by assumption,
as it must to be taken as
> >"real" or "meaningful" or even "entertaining" by
its consumers.
> >
> >Culture defines reality or truth for its
members. Morals are the guidelines
> >for dealing with those realities. These truths
and morals vary from culture
> >to culture, and in large, complex cultures,
there is room for variation
> >within as well. Specific morals may prove to be
wrong and the culture carry
> >on, but in the long run, any culture without
sufficient values and morals
> >to support its survival will disappear, along
with its literature.
> >Individuals that leave their culture, never to
return, are dead to that
> >culture. If they do return and write about their
experiences, they've
> >returned to the debate about cultural
values.
> >
> >Among the prime values of western civilization
are those that support
> >communication. The culture of communications has
grown so large and complex
> >it supports increasing numbers of competing
truths, values, morals. By
> >understanding that its content is composed of
these "competing truths" or,
> >if you prefer, lies, fiction becomes the only
truthful literary form.
> >
> >my two cents and welcome to it,
> >Kerry
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------
> >Literary events Calendar (South Ont.)
> ><<http://www.lit-electric.com>http://www.lit-electric.com>http://www.lit-
> electric.com
> >The evil men do lives after them
> ><<http://www.murderoutthere.com>http://www.murderoutthere.com>http://www.
> murderoutthere.com
>
>------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
> >
> >
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Literary events Calendar (South Ont.)
><http://www.lit-electric.com>http://www.lit-electric.com
>The evil men do lives after them
><http://www.murderoutthere.com>http://www.murderoutthere.com
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
Literary events Calendar (South Ont.) http://www.lit-electric.com
The evil men do lives after them http://www.murderoutthere.com
------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 29 Aug 2006 EDT