3 Things I Learned
1. One of the reasons we read stories is to make life more bearable. By reading tales of how people are affected by both good and bad fortune, readers can derive hope.
2. Not all stories follow the same pattern. The hopeful stories have the main character ending in a state that is better off than where they began (after overcoming some bad stuff). But, some stories, like those by Kafka actually have the main character end up in a state that is worse in the end.
3. A truly great story, like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, cannot be adequately described or plotted against the good and bad axis. In such a story, what is good or bad isn’t easily discernible. A masterpiece transcends the simplistic categories of what is good or bad and tells us the “truth.”
2 Things Needing Clarification
1. Is the truth always ambiguous in terms of good news and bad news? Mr. Vonnegut implies that good writing should tell us the truth and uses Hamlet as an example of a masterpiece. In Hamlet the readers don’t get a clear distinction between what is good or bad. Through his characterization of Hamlet, is Vonnegut suggesting that stories that depict this ambiguity are better? In other words, can a story that clearly distinguishes between good and bad be considered as a good story?
2. If the mark of good writing is to write about truth, and we as mere humans can never really know The Truth, why bother writing at all? Or, is it sufficient to write about the truth as we, or our characters, see it?
1 Question
1. Is the pursuit or depiction of truth the raison d’etre behind every good story, or can there be other reasons to write? For example, if I write about a character that is being tormented for some reason (a clearly bad thing), and the purpose of my story is to create empathy for the character and to journey and grow with that character, is that sufficient for a good story?
No comments:
Post a Comment