Story Writing Technique

[Prometheus98876]

I do, given the context of someone who understands the principles of literature. Ayn Rand strived to be clearly understood in everything she wrote (and she did a damn good job, too!). This means making explicit connections between very abstract ideas that might be overlooked by the average reader.

Think of the scope of Atlas Shrugged. It's theme is: the role of the mind in man's life. What an immense topic to cover! It permeates into every corner of human existence. To comprehensively show what that role is, in all of it's manifestations, is one of the most immense tasks imaginable. For a reader to integrate all of it into a managable number of concretes is near impossible, so Ayn Rand presented an integration for us: in the form of Galt's speech.

Theme is one of the fundamental aspects of literature, and ensuring its clear understanding is literarily necessary.

*points to the entire body of stream-of-consciousness literature*

My advice: don't try it as a budding novelist. Wait until you are a master; my guess is that once you've mastered the art of the novel, you'll have a pretty good idea what you need. I'm not a master, so I'm not even going to attempt giving any criteria.

I agree fully with the above. The role of Galts speech was to integrate the points throughout the novel that one might not have realised as connected, or clarified how they fit into the whole. Considering how much there was too integrate, I do not as one whom has read the novel carefully, see how Miss Rand could have made the speech significantly less than what it is now without comprimising the extent of integration that the speech provides.

[jrs]

If that alternative form does not look exactly like someone else, then I would not object to it. The point is not to violate the law of Identity. Unlimited variability violates that axiom.

I don't think that perfectly mimicking someone's physical form would be a violation of the identity axiom. In fact, I doubt the axioms can be violated by any literary effect anyway. That's not to necessarily say the same for the axiom's derivatives, though.

Perfectly mimicking someone's form by accident would be an unbelievable coincidence. To do it intentionally would require unlimited variability which as I said violates the axiom.

The axioms cannot be violated in reality. But it is quite possible to create the illusion that they are violated: on TV, in a movie, in a book, in a painting, etc.. For examples, I refer you to the works of Salvador Dali.

http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Dali.html

If any "derivative" of the axiom is violated (say the law of causality), that must also constitute a violation of the axiom itself.

I agree with you here. It is impossible to even conceive of a violation of identity, much less portray it artistically. An exact physical clone is not a violation of identity, because there is still the fact that they are two separate entities. In the case of a shape-shifter in fiction, there is still the fact that one is the actual person, and one is a fake--important aspects which give each a different identity.

On the contrary, portrayals of violations of the axioms are quite common nowadays. Of course, they all rest on contradictions and so they could not be spelled out in complete detail coherently.

I disagree about shape-shifters, but to go into more detail would require taking this into the Metaphysics forum.

Physical form is a major part of an entity's identity. By identity, we mean the attributes that make an entity what it is.

Well I tend to go off the dictionary definition for words rather than altered ones, which only includes personality not appearance. Appearance isn't who we are but what we look like. Who we are is determined by our personality, not what we look like. At least that's what the dictionary says.

Since I am talking about an Objectivist axiom, I must use the Objectivist concept of identity:

A thing is -- what it is; its characteristics constitute its identity. An existent apart from its characteristics would mean an existent apart from its identity, which means: a nothing, a non-existent.

... so they proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists but change, and blank out the fact that CHANGE presupposes the concepts of what changes, from what to what, that without the law of identity no such concept as 'change' is possible.

[DPW]

It is unreasonable to say that I do not understand it because I think it is too long. All that indicates is that I am of the the opinion that it could be shorter or broken into smaller peices that tie together, without lessening its impact or effect. I obviously do not find it to be so economical. And on what basis do you say there is no grounds for a rational person to conclude she "drones on" in that speech? I assume you mean because of its message. Which implies that you think that the message overrides the weither or not more words than neccessary. That is irrational. Weither or not someone drones on is based on weither or not they use an excessive number of words not what there message is.

Look, I'm not going to debate this point with you because you haven't shown in the least that you have any grasp of Objectivism whatever. That would be no sin on your part, except that you keep making pronouncements about it. As Dave pointed out, given the theme of Atlas Shrugged, Galt's Speech was as long as it needed to be. This is not my opinion, it is a fact. I would ask you what you would suggest Rand cut from that speech, but please don't answer that question. I do not have the stomach to watch someone such as yourself try to edit Galt's Speech.

[hunterrose]

As an aside, this reminds of the scene in Amadeus when Mozart performs a piece of music before some important people (can't remember who they were) and they decided that the music had "Too many notes."

Touche. Amadeus is one of my all-time favorites. From the perspective of Rand was on a higher level than myself in terms of literature, and thus I can't know what "too many notes" are, that might be a valid point.

OTOH, if analysing great works of fiction is impossible, it'd make for rather lame Lit classes

Perfectly mimicking someone's form by accident would be an unbelievable coincidence. To do it intentionally would require unlimited variability which as I said violates the axiom.

If any "derivative" of the axiom is violated (say the law of causality), that must also constitute a violation of the axiom itself.

A literary character being able to mimic any human isn't necessarily unlimited variability, since the possible characteristics of humans are themselves limited.

IMO violating a derivative doesn't equal violating an axiom. E.g. writing a novel involving a god would violate primacy of existence, but it wouldn't violate "existence exists." The axiom only states that something exists, not what exists.

I too would rather keep this a literary, as opposed to metaphysical, question. So I'll just leave this at that.

Think of the scope of Atlas Shrugged. It's theme is: the role of the mind in man's life... For a reader to integrate all of it into a managable number of concretes is near impossible, so Ayn Rand presented an integration for us: in the form of Galt's speech.

Theme is one of the fundamental aspects of literature, and ensuring its clear understanding is literarily necessary.

The role of Galts speech was to integrate the points throughout the novel that one might not have realised as connected, or clarified how they fit into the whole. Considering how much there was too integrate, I do not as one whom has read the novel carefully, see how Miss Rand could have made the speech significantly less than what it is now without comprimising the extent of integration that the speech provides.

Did the speech cover anything that wasn't depicted in the novel? Anything covered in the speech but not the novel's progression couldn't be considered part of the novel's theme IMO. If the speech is meant to be a clarification of the novel's theme, then in a strict sense, the speech wasn't necessary, as the novel sans speech makes the same points.

As Galt's speech is probably the single best instance of Rand's ideas, I am glad she wrote it, even IF it had been less than ideal to place it in AS. Whether the speech did in fact clarify the theme isn't something I'm going to touch.

I would also rather not make this technique topic into a question solely about AS, so unless this issue is spun off, I'll try to refrain from Galt's speech too.

Okay, on to more techniques?

Conflict

A novel should take its characters from one point to another. By the end, characters should have succeeded or failed at some task, and it should be important. Who wants to read a book about a housewife's efforts to get to the bank before it closes?? Without some more significant reason for caring whether she gets to the bank or not, why does it matter to us?

IMO a general example of lack of conflict is "a day in the life of" books. Take Woolf's To the Lighthouse. Its action takes place on two days (about ten years apart, if I remember.) Now, what kind of conflict can one build up in the span of a day? It's not impossible, but generally such novels end up IMO as exercises in the mundane - petty squabbles, passive unhappiness, squelched desires, etc. I don't think it coincidental that novels with poor conflict tend to end up with poor themes.

Edited October 23, 2005 by hunterrose

[RationalBiker]

OTOH, if analysing great works of fiction is impossible, it'd make for rather lame Lit classes

You present a false alternative. Analysis of a great work of fiction need not be impossible for that analysis to be wrong. Touche again?

[hunterrose]

You present a false alternative. Analysis of a great work of fiction need not be impossible for that analysis to be wrong. Touche again?

Well, I didn't mean to present it as an either/or case. It just seems to me that presenting an esthetic decision as "objectively correct", or presenting any disagreement with a particular esthetic choice as unquestionably wrong seem rather dicey positions.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Not a fundamental or required part of story writing, but I see it in some form frequently.

Often a story will have good guys, bad guys, and guys who fall in between.

These in-betweeners are the Ugly. Ugly-ness comes from a conflict within that prevents them from fully aligning themselves with one side or the other, and the longer this disintegration lasts, the more they tend to suffer from it.

Examples:

Good - Roark

Bad - Toohey

Ugly - Dominique (chooses good in the end) and Peter

Good - Cosette

Bad - Thenardier

Ugly - Javert, Jean Valjean

These, particularly Les Miserables, aren't my personal standards of Good/Bad/Ugly, but as I see the author's intentions. I personally dislike Cosette anyway

[RationalBiker]

Well, I didn't mean to present it as an either/or case. It just seems to me that presenting an esthetic decision as "objectively correct", or presenting any disagreement with a particular esthetic choice as unquestionably wrong seem rather dicey positions.

Speaking for myself, no argument. That's why I said to DragonMaci;

You do realize that is a value judgement on your part, and not an objective fact?

[DragonMaci]

Given how well Atlas Shrugged has sold, given how well it continues to sell today (for example, it's in the top 800 books in sales on Amazon) some 48 years after it's introduction into the market, given that it's one of the most influential books ever written (at least for Americans), I think the novel is in very little "peril". I think it would be difficult for you to pick a worse example of a novel to criticize based on the criteria listed above.

Well for starters was referring to generically ignoring the desires of the readers and secondly I still think most people would not want to read a speech that long. The book's success only indicates that there are lot of people willing to read a speech that long, not that most people are willing to read one that long.

Edited October 23, 2005 by DragonMaci

[RationalBiker]

Well for starters was referring to generically ignoring the desires of the readers and secondly I still think most people would not want to read a speech that long. The book's success only indicates that there are lot of people willing to read a speech that long, not that most people are willing to read one that long.

But I assume you still agree that the book is not in "peril"?

[dondigitalia]

I disagree about shape-shifters, but to go into more detail would require taking this into the Metaphysics forum.

Start a thread in the Metaphysics forum if you like; I'm sure I'll join in. But first, make sure you brush up on Miss Rand's own words regarding two entities which possessed exactly the same physical form. It can be found in the appendix to ITOE. I don't have a page number handy, but it's the part where she talks about different kinds of tires.

[dondigitalia]

Did the speech cover anything that wasn't depicted in the novel? Anything covered in the speech but not the novel's progression couldn't be considered part of the novel's theme IMO. If the speech is meant to be a clarification of the novel's theme, then in a strict sense, the speech wasn't necessary, as the novel sans speech makes the same points.

I don't know if the speech offered any new concrete points, and I'm not going to go make a catalog of all the points covered in the speech and the rest of the book. In any event, you are dead wrong about such a point's inclusion in the theme. ANYTHING, by virtue of inclusion in the book, is part of the theme. Galt's speech was included, so every word of it contributes to the total package.

I have to ask a question now, so I can judge everyone's context and make better replies. Who all participating in this thread has read _The Romantic Manifesto_? There have been some assertions made which contradict the Objectivist esthetics, and as moderation has pointed out numerous times in other (more contentious) threads, the purpose of this site is for the discussion of Objectivism; it has been suggested that any opposition to Objectivism be directed to the Debate Forum.

[Michero]

Did the speech cover anything that wasn't depicted in the novel? Anything covered in the speech but not the novel's progression couldn't be considered part of the novel's theme IMO. If the speech is meant to be a clarification of the novel's theme, then in a strict sense, the speech wasn't necessary, as the novel sans speech makes the same points.

The speech was the climax. Galt said out loud to everyone in the world the very things the badies were trying to avoid saying in explicit terms. Their power (the badies) came from the fact that they never identified what they were doing. When Galt said it out loud, the game was over. Dagny got the point right then (if I remember correctly). Galt couldn't have said anything else-- it made good plot sense (not just philosophic sense). The speech was completely necessary. What made Galt the hero was his ability to understand exactly what was happening in the world--the motivation and effectiveness of the badies' actions. It wasn't Rand making a speech remember--it was Galt, the character.

Everything after the climax followed as a result of it.

Edited October 23, 2005 by Michero