NATION

PASSWORD

Thematic Power and Closure: What Does It Mean To Be "Deep"?

A coffee shop for those who like to discuss art, music, books, movies, TV, each other's own works, and existential angst.
User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 38272
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Thematic Power and Closure: What Does It Mean To Be "Deep"?

Postby The Rich Port » Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:38 am

I'm a beautiful lady sir who is also a Cyclopean morass of contradictions.

I have to remind myself that someone misinterpreting my writing doesn't matter so long as... It doesn't harm them, I suppose? I used to care a lot that my work had a message or a theme to follow, but it's also quite possible that theme emerges organically, whether you wanted it to or not.

At the same time, I'm a human being, and I feel the need to correct people.

As such, I find myself trying to correct... Myself. And this ends up in me not finishing any of my art, because perfectionism plagues me, while Stephanie Meyer and E.L. James roll their sweaty butts all over a stack of hunneds.

Which got me to wondering: what does it mean to have a meaningful, impactful work of art? Because the nature of art criticism has gotten to the point that anything can be ascribed some greater meaning... Even those works that don't have anything to say, whether it's Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Ekaterina, or some surreal dadaist whatever.

As a writer, I prefer happy endings, because I feel it's a nice reward for the audience for having put up with the plot. At the same time, some artists have made amazing statements that were rather depressing, but also at the same time, people have found hope even in the darkest places. I have also noticed that other works of art end up having some kind of story or plot to them. Dances, paintings, sculptures, action and reaction syncing together into a cohesive, coherent meaning.

Lovecraftian fiction, Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (said by Stephen King himself to be "a movie meant to hurt people"), paintings that I used to gawk at when I was a younger boy because it was basically porn, only for them to now be censored because obscenity has now been mandated to be subjective, and bad parents are taking that in full stride.

It made me wonder just how entirely valid the death of the author is, and just how important, IMO, audience discourse is. Because if you think about it, everyone becomes an artist sometimes, especially when they get to the point that they're analyzing art and wondering how they could do it better, IF they could.

What do you guys think? Are messages in art necessary? Inevitable? Obscene? Should artists strive towards it, or avoid it or something in the middle? Is it pointless? Is being deep good? Can being a shallow work be a good thing? Can there even be such a thing as art with no theme?

IMO, I feel that you should at least be thinking about what you want to say. The voice of the author matters, at the very least, before you publish your work for others to experience...

Or fucking does it I honestly don't fucking know anymore.

For those of you wondering, Ghost Recon: Wildlands is a video game where you play a team of special forces soldiers tasked by the CIA to get... Revenge? For a double agent assassinated by a global superpower drug cartel. It was written by people pretending to be Tom Clancy. As is typical of blockbuster video games, there was never meant to be a theme or message to the work, as that would mean they would sell less copies. While I can appreciate the hustle, goddamn the story is boring and I have no idea who I'm supposed to root for, which results in the story feeling kind of pathetic, since it's rather painfully obvious the writers didn't really care or have passion for the story they were writing, which is sad and depressing.

Ekaterina is a strange novel, essentially a homage to Nabokov's Lolita, about a former Baltic princess who moves to the United States and has trysts with young boys as a teacher and artist, a best-seller in it's day but forgotten today. Unlike in Lolita, however, the main character, who is a bare bones pedophile, ends up simply abandoning the boys she abused, moving on with her life, almost as if it was the boy's fault. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a deconstruction of Nabokov, if we're meant to sympathise with a pedophile or realize their lives were empty as pedophiles, it's weird, whereas Humbert Humbert was indeed always a farcical, if bumblingly tragic, character.

Both of them prompted me to ask this question.
Last edited by The Rich Port on Sat Nov 30, 2019 2:57 am, edited 8 times in total.
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS
CONSERVATISM IS FEAR AND STAGNATION AS IDEOLOGY. ONLY MARCH FORWARD.

Pronouns: She/Her
The Alt-Right Playbook
Alt-right/racist terminology
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

User avatar
Xmara
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5373
Founded: Mar 31, 2014
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Xmara » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:44 pm

Some works aren't really meant to have a deeper meaning and should just be taken at face value. A lot of my writing can be described as such because I worry that people will think I'm trying too hard. Some works have a deeper meaning, and the author does it well. And then some have a meaning, but it's so forced that it becomes less of a story and more of a blatantly obvious attempt on the author's part to proselytize to their audience.

You don't have to be deep, and quite frankly, trying too hard to be deep is cringey and annoying. But if you can be deep and do so in a way that feels natural and not forced, then do so. Just don't come off as pretentious when you do it. You're never as enlightened as you think you are.
/ˈzmaːrʌ/
Info
Our Leader
Status- Code Green- All clear
I mostly use NS stats, except for population and tax rates.
We are not Estonia.
A 16.8 civilization, according to this index.
Flag Waver



Support
Ukraine

User avatar
Slammus
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 4
Founded: Sep 03, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Slammus » Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:46 am

Ok first I must assure you that no matter what your intention your readers will misunderstand your work. A simple read of the comments in sites like Goodreads and the vast field of literary critique will give you a clear view of the different opinions concerning this type of art. This is why the popular saying "Every reader reads a different book" concerning the exactly same novel is true. The more complicated the work, the more far off the interpretation generally is.
Every author has his own set of necessities regarding not only massages in art, topics, but the form of the sentences, general form of the whole creation, allegories, metaphors and sound of the sentences. You can be " Deep" in many ways, but if you don't have an answer that you can justify to yourself of why you want to be "Deep", the answer is don't be.
I think one of your problems is that you don't have a perfect reader in your mind and you are trying to satisfy everybody in your mind which is an impossibility. If you write for yourself( or a loved one; a madman that loves cherries) you will have pretty good grasp of what is meaningful and the direction in which you need to improve. For this problem "perfectionism plagues me" I suggest you finish your work and know that it will be bad at first and it will improve slowly. Staying on a single piece will not improve your writing even after 20 drafts.
Being shallow can't be good thing from my point of view, because it assumes that its made for a shallow person. Since I am a critically minded person, I can't stand lack of thought in anything I read and it doesn't matter in the slightest if the whole world loves or doesn't love cheap romances. And yes "The voice of the author matters" not because someone one day will think you are the greatest, but because your writing justifies an existence.


Return to Arts & Fiction

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads