Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The FRED Workshop => Topic started by: mjn.mixael on March 20, 2013, 09:39:20 am
-
I'm sorry, I just have to say it. NGTM-1R, yeah.. you should go read some Fitzgerald.. or watch some Nolan movies. They are purposefully laced with theme and symbolism by the creators.. and that's part of what makes them great.
Unless we are talking about something completely different... it sounds to me like you want Transformers 2, while I want The Dark Knight. Take your pick.
-
Breathe, Axem. Just breathe
-
They are purposefully laced with theme and symbolism by the creators.
And at least in Nolan's case, can be quite easily enjoyed without it. I'm going to assume you're just not a writer and you don't know what you're talking about because it's probably the most generous thing I can say about this little outburst of yours.
Symbolism is in the hands of the consumer. It's something they read out of a text. You get all deep and symbolic and you have three options: it works and is recognized, it doesn't work and it's recognized, it doesn't work and it's not recognized at all. One of them makes you look like you're blowing on a broken whistle, one of them makes you look like you're trying to show off, and one of them still makes you look like you're trying to show off but we'll forgive you for it.
That's symbolism. Getting thematic is even more dangerous because the next thing you know you're writing the second half of The Jungle and it's impossible to take the work seriously anymore because it's being clearly engineered. (For FS2 examples, see the violent reaction one of TopAce's efforts got about this very problem.)
Good fiction is good narrative first, anything else second. Good narrative is not beholden to symbolism or theme or any other literary device. It is based solely on the ability of the writer to present a coherent and engaging story. Nolan is a good storyteller because he knows how to do that. Micheal Bay is not a good storyteller because he's not yet figured out how to be coherent, though on his good days he's engaging until the next screwup.
F. Scott on the other hand is selling a gimmick. It's a good gimmick, quite well done, but it's only a gimmick. Once it fades the core of his work just isn't worth the mentioning, unlike, say, Hemmingway. (Who I hate, but on a philosophical rather than a craftsmanship level; it's not that he writes poorly but what I read out of it in terms of theme is both alien and abhorrent to me.)
-
I think the reason I have a general distaste for so many of the literary "classics" I've been exposed to is because so many of them seem to fall into the trap that NGTM-1R is talking about: they eschew the basic narrative for the sake of presenting some sort of over-arching theme, and in the process they abandon the good storytelling that makes something worth reading in the first place, at least to me. Nolan's films may be rife with themes, but as NGTM-1R noted, you can enjoy The Dark Knight just on the level of a damn good comic-book movie, and it works just fine.
-
*SNIP*
Yeah... OK.
Foolish of me to try.
(http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk264/mjnmixael/Private/ImageBin-13_zps8656c216.jpg)
-
NG is such a haturrr.
-
Symbolism is in the hands of the consumer. It's something they read out of a text. You get all deep and symbolic and you have three options: it works and is recognized, it doesn't work and it's recognized, it doesn't work and it's not recognized at all. One of them makes you look like you're blowing on a broken whistle, one of them makes you look like you're trying to show off, and one of them still makes you look like you're trying to show off but we'll forgive you for it.
There's another option: the audience creates whatever symbolism it wants out of whole cloth, disregarding the author's intent. As a writer, if I want a story to mean something, I get annoyed if people construe it to mean something different. The author of the story is the final authority on what meaning is supposed to be there, if any. Symbolism isn't in the hands of the consumer at all.
Good fiction is good narrative first, anything else second. Good narrative is not beholden to symbolism or theme or any other literary device. It is based solely on the ability of the writer to present a coherent and engaging story. Nolan is a good storyteller because he knows how to do that. Micheal Bay is not a good storyteller because he's not yet figured out how to be coherent, though on his good days he's engaging until the next screwup.
This I agree with. There's no point in trying to insert symbolism, message, or meaning if you're not first a good narrator. Otherwise you might as well just write a philosophical tract instead of tell a story.
-
Symbolism is in the hands of the consumer. It's something they read out of a text. You get all deep and symbolic and you have three options: it works and is recognized, it doesn't work and it's recognized, it doesn't work and it's not recognized at all. One of them makes you look like you're blowing on a broken whistle, one of them makes you look like you're trying to show off, and one of them still makes you look like you're trying to show off but we'll forgive you for it.
There's another option: the audience creates whatever symbolism it wants out of whole cloth, disregarding the author's intent. As a writer, if I want a story to mean something, I get annoyed if people construe it to mean something different. The author of the story is the final authority on what meaning is supposed to be there, if any. Symbolism isn't in the hands of the consumer at all.
I got bad news son
-
I don't agree with Goober there, but don't count me in as a full on Derridáist (I hated that guy). I think that there exists such a thing as a "hierarchy of quality" of opinions on the matter, even though I would disagree at any "official" "standartized" attempt at defining it. And mostly, the author is a very important provider of data regarding if whether the work is embebbed with "symbolism" or not.
What really makes it really hard to discuss these things is the fact that the consumer isn't passive. He is creating his own work on his own mind when he is "consuming it". And his own work may well be filled with symbolism, or a different one, why not. And then, it matters not one jolt if Goober gets pissed that he missed or confused the symbolic nature of his work.