🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov13.220821.11453@thinkage.on.ca>, jim@thinkage.on.ca (James Alan Gardner) writes:
|> In article <YAMAUCHI.92Nov10233951@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
|> >On the other hand, not all authors try to "convert" readers to their
|> >own views of right and wrong.  To take three very different examples,
|> >consider Camus' _The_Stranger_, William Gibson's _Neuromancer_, and
|> >Dave Sim's _Cerebus_.  Would you say that these works project a "moral
|> >stance", and if so, what?


 
|> A writer may or may not intend to convert readers, but the fall-out
|> still occurs.  I blush to say I haven't read "The Stranger", but a
|> number of my friends have and it affected them powerfully.  It seems
|> to have left them feeling bleak and depressed, and the phrase
|> "existential despair" comes naturally to mind.  On the other hand,
|> I have read "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Camus, and the essay unquestionably
|> deals with a clear moral outlook.  Camus implies that the world is
|> hell and all of us damned, but we can find a sort of peace of mind
|> and even a kind of triumph if we are strong enough to face our
|> damnation.  That is a moral stance, and I would expect to see it
|> reflected in his fiction,


	Maybe first you should consider the need to write when looking at theme.
  Most write because they need to express something about their environment.  
It may be subconscious, however.  The expression of the themes in a novel or
 short story or play or movie are the result of a writers need to express themselves.
  That is why a writer`s work often contains things that bothers him or her, things that
 they consider important.  A writer`s work is very personal, and therefore apt to have
the sense that they feel that they are right and that you should believe what they say. 
It is not conversion.  Most of us have developed a moral system, which is usually very
hard to change.  People who read and enjoy books by a certain author are usually being
shown the themes and morality which they already subscribe to or believe is corrupt,
(depending on the how it is shown).  Accusing writers of intentionally or unintentionally
"converting" people is looking at writing from the wrong side.  Writers write what they
know and/or what they believe to be true.  Asking them not to is like asking any one of
us to abandon out values just for the sake of others.  It's impossible. 
	Perhaps we should also consider the theme vs. moral.  Theme is the often
confused with what the person is trying to say about life, which is a moral.  Moral are
often stated and simplistic.  Black and White. It by itself. The main Theme of a story, is often
contributed to by many smaller themes developed throughout the story.  These are always
subjective. 
	The first sin of writing is moralizing and philosiphizing.  It may not sound that
much different than what is done when writing but there is a difference, however fine the
line may seem.
	I realize that there are books, film, etc., that are written only convince people
that certain things are true or corrupt, etc.  But in the myriad of published literature
and film, these are fewer than you might expect and are usually non-fiction.
	To moralize is to preach.  To preach is to lose your audience.  When you use a
theme, you are stating your case, for everyone to consider.  Do it well and those who
 believe it already, will probably say you are right, those who don't may consider your
 arguments, and then disregard them.  Those that are changed by it, probably had already
rationalized it out for themselves subconsiously. 
That's just human nature.