The Next Best Book Club discussion
Revive a Dead Thread
>
Is it appropriate for authors to allow emotions to influence their work?
Kevin, you are going to have to first give an example of what you are talking about and then give your reasons. Frankly, I can't imagine a book where the author did not let their emotions influence his or her work. Unless of course you're referring to a computer manual, that, for example, explains the Windows operating system. Please explain.
When you are talking about Fiction, what would be the point if emotions did not influence the writing?You mention Adams. He wrote one of our group reads last month, and many of us love him. Maybe not the best vague example.
I'm with Tom here. I would NOT want to read an emotionless book. I want to read a book with personality, some defining character (not characters, although they are nice too), a point, a meaning, feeling, identity, an idea and originality. I want the author to be honest and write what he or she feels, whether I agree with those things or not. I think I know what you're implying by citing Douglas Adams. Could this perhaps have some bearing regarding his take on religion?
Spoilers, don't read the full comment if you haven't read Mostly Harmless..
.
.
I didn't say emotionless and I even said that there should be emotion.
I'm talking about writers who kill off characters because they got in a car accident that one day.
Sometimes there can be cathartic writing, such as Stephen King's Misery - which if I remember correctly dealt with his alcoholism. That's an incarnation of the Id, Ego and Superego - a fantastic metaphor.
But what I'm talking about is stuff like when Douglass Adams decides to kill off everyone in Mostly Harmless because he's throwing a little tempertantrum. For the record he bitterly regretted that and had he not died he was planning to bring them all back. That's when emotion driven writing crosses the line for me and becomes a reprehensible traitorous act against a writer's pact with their reader.
Ah, I see. I can understand where you're coming from, but why shouldn't emotions influence writing in that way? Adams was being true to his emotional state at the time. True, he may later regret it, but I would rather read writing that stems from an honest source than a planned, adjusted, replanned, revised and then certified model. You mention Stephen King, but I think that is a very poor example, as King has repeatedly put his characters in EXACTLY the same situation that he was in during the accident that nearly took his own life. Is that not the same thing?
Becky,Not to sound testy towards you (because I'm not), but just to be frank: I don't care about their true emotional state. I care about the emotional state of their characters.
Now, in cases such as Stephen King's Misery, the emotional state of him is shared with the emotional state of his main character. That's why he created the book - as a metaphor.
But Adams created his book as a comedy, separate from his emotional state. For him to interject his emotions in such an obtuse fashion, he betrays the concept of his book, and he betrays his readers.
You are right about Stephen King's other books, he does cross the line I described. That's why I hate his books. But in his one book Misery, it was very appropriate because it was a metaphor for his pain and in that case I wanted to show you an appropriate way for those emotions to influence a book.
I've said this elsewhere, but if a writer uses his talent to write a book, and then must rely on his audience to fork over cash to earn his living, he has the right to write whatever he wants to. He can incorporate his feelings or not as he sees fit.If you don't enjoy that style/type of reading, you as a reader, are not forced to read his books.
If you felt betrayed by Adams, it's unfortunate, but he had not made a deal with us, his readers, for a happy ending. He may have regretted his writing choice, but it was HIS choice to make.
That's certainly your right, Kevin. I'm not saying that one has to like the writing that stems from a certain emotional state, just that authors can, and in my opinion should, write according to their feelings. I feel that if an author writes contrary to their feelings at the time, the book will feel dishonest and will not appeal to me, but that's my own opinion.I can understand what you mean though if you're saying that Adams made the storyline in Mostly Harmless take a turn which you feel is untrue to the story itself. But that's again a personal determination. I would never have noticed anything off with Mostly Harmless, as compared to the previous books, without this discussion.
In the situation that you described, and you'll have to bear with me, it's been a while since I've read Mostly Harmless, Adams
*Spoiler*
killed off his characters in a fit of pique. People die all the time, whether by accident, natural causes, murder, whatever.
*End Spoiler*
If Adams felt that urge, then I'm ok with it. It is his story, after all, but it is also the characters' story. I would be more offended if he instead completely changed their characters in a way that was not true to them.
We're all entitled to our opinions about authors and their inspiration. I'm not an expert on Adams' life, or any other person's for that matter, including King, who is my favorite author. I read for the stories they are telling, and if the story works for me, that's all that matters. But that's just me. :)
In order to write with an authentic voice, I know a lot of writers actually have to put themselves mentally into their characters...to, in essence, become those characters. It seems inevitable to me that the process would be a two-way street, sometimes becoming a catharsis for the writer.
When I was younger, I wrote fictional stories to get my emotions out. In fact, I was so emotionally invested in my writing that I was embarrassed when my friend found and read the stories, because I felt like he would know me too well from my fictional characters. I do know what you mean though. The stories people write have a life of their own, and consistency is important. But I think that it's when authors stop allowing their emotions to influence their writing that the stories and consequently the readers suffer. I don't know the story behind whatever you're talking about with Douglas Adams, but I myself can't imagine that anything but apathy for the world/characters he created would allow him to do something so different or inconsistent.
Slightly off-topic, but I agree more with the comment about religion. I really don't like when opinions on controversial topics are treated as fact in books, like the Maximum Ride book by James Patterson that was basically a lecture on global warming.
C, Douglas Adams has peppered the series with some very controversial opinions on religion and god. But the series is humorous and very tongue-in-cheek, so even if you do not agree with his views, it is still possible to enjoy the story. I'm with you though, I don't particularly enjoy being lectured to while reading, so I tend to take books that claim an author's opinion is fact with a heavy pinch of salt.
When I first read the first post, I immediately thought about Stephanie Meyers who stopped writing Midnight Sun because some idiot leaked it online. I don't think that it is fair that she punish all of the fans who were eagerly waiting for it to come out! At the same time, I wouldn't want to read something badly written just because she had to finish what she started...
okay it's a little off topic- but how would Ms Meyer's book get leaked online if she hadn't already put it out there somewhere? From that short sentence, it sounds like she was being a spoiled brat.
Irene wrote: "okay it's a little off topic- but how would Ms Meyer's book get leaked online if she hadn't already put it out there somewhere? From that short sentence, it sounds like she was being a spoiled brat."well she had given it out to a few people she trusted to read it I think...its not like she put it online herself and got mad when it leaked. I know, for instance, she gave the guy that played Edward in the movie the draft to help him get into character. So maybe she wasn't careful enough with it...but I don't think its fair to think she doesn't have a right to be upset if she DID trust the people she gave it to.
Fiona wrote: "Lesson: Don't trust anyone! JKR didn't though her book also got leaked just before too I believe by some unsanitary jerk who should have his eyes pecked out by ravens for eternity. "LOL
It sounds like Ms Meyer was saying if I can't control my information, I'm not creating it. The whole world is going to suffer for something beyond my control and y'all are going to be sorry....You'll be sorry when you don't have Stephenie Meyer to kick around anymore.
Grow up! Decide whether you want to be an author or not. And then get on with it.
back to the topicI have no problem with authors who allow emotions to influence their work.
I think other than under assignment most authors do have emotions that influence their work. Even encyclopediac works where an unbiassed -forgive my spelling please- opinion is best must have some emotion from the author. Why would they choose to write on that subject?
From personal experience, I found the teachers in class the most interesting if they had strong opinions on what they were teaching. I didn't always agree. I had one teacher whose opinion was if you're not a woman, you just don't understand. I AM a woman and I didn't totally agree with her stance but twelve years later I remember it. There are many teachers whose names I can't even remember.So yeah I think authors and emotion are a good fit. That doesn't mean I'm going to agree or be attracted to a particular author just because they have emotion. But dang, how interesting would it be without emotion?
Just a fact for the record: Stephen King wrote Misery long and long before the unfortunate accident overtook him.I don't have any problem with the shock of emotional events in a story - they only disappoint me if they are portrayed as random snipes - where the impact on the characters was not played through, or, the event led to futility. I read a story for how the events shape the conclusions drawn, or where they lead to further challenge, and change.
An emotional "interlude" just for shock value makes me feel let down - but that's my take. I don't like my time wasted, unless there is going to be a discovery to reward the journey.
I liked Misery but I never understood what all fuss was about with Douglas Adams. Different strokes for different folks I guess. That's why there is such an abundance of different authors out there.
Irene wrote: "It sounds like Ms Meyer was saying if I can't control my information, I'm not creating it. The whole world is going to suffer for something beyond my control and y'all are going to be sorry...."
And rightly so. She doesn't owe us her work, the whole world isn't entitled to it. Piracy is no small issue. I'd be pissed off to the point of not wanting to finish if my intellectual property were leaked without my consent too.
You're right, Janny, Misery was long before King's accident. I was just pointing out that King routinely allows his emotional state to influence and sometimes even inspire his work. And, perhaps, that is why I love his work so much. :)
No Stephenie Meyer doesn't OWE us her work. And I guess she can choose to stop writing for any reason that works for her.
But NO author is penalizing me for their decisions and they shouldn't make it sound so. It seems unprofessional. And no, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because she was treated badly (and I don't know the circumstances of the leak) doesn't mean it's okay for her to respond in kind.
She should be grateful if I buy her books. It's good customer service if nothing else.
Irene wrote: "No Stephenie Meyer doesn't OWE us her work. And I guess she can choose to stop writing for any reason that works for her.
But NO author is penalizing me for their decisions and they shouldn't m..."
I don't think she stopped the work on that book to punish anyone. She was hurt and felt emotionally unable to continue. That's her right, as you said, just as it's your right to choose not to purchase her work in the future as a result of her decision.
Spoilers for Twilight and H2G2Ooh my. I am in agreement with the people who feel writing needs an amount of emotion to make it believable. If the author can't put emotion into the characters they are going to be flat and no one will want to read about them.
Also, the lecturing in fiction is a good point. I don't really appreciate being lectured to through fiction. It is one thing to take a topic of interest and incorporate it into the work, giving the characters emotional standing on those topics and creating a plot progression based on that, but the author would have to restrain their emotion to a point to avoid a feeling of pontification leaking through to the reader. It must be a fine balance between the authors' emotions and the characters' reactions because of their own emotions.
Another negative aspect of an author being guided by emotion is when a character becomes inconsistent because when the authors' mood changes, the character changes (although I can't think of an example off the top of my head at the moment, I may later).
That said I think there must be a certain amount of emotion put into a novel. I actually can give an example of a novel not having enough emotion (imo). Twilight seemed to me to be about people obsessed with not growing older. The characters all seemed really flat to me. Yes they had their love obsession, but that wasn't enough emotion for me as a reader. Their only drive is romantic love and youth. Not very interesting.
On the subject of H2G2, killing off the characters was important because the books are about cycles. They lived and died many times. Maybe he never got around to bringing them back, so what? The cycle is still complete and had the potential to be brought back.
I agree with those of you who talked about being lectured through fiction. I HATE being given a political viewpoint, moral viewpoint etc. that an author feels like he/she can beat me over the head with just because they have a big name. I don't read those authors anymore. I haven't read the book under discussion so I can't comment on it, but I'd like to just give my general opinion: a writer who wants to be a pro will focus on getting the story right and the characters right because they want the story to be the best it can be--not because they have a moral or political or even a personal emotional agenda. Anything else, imho, is contrived.
Writers are encouraged to write "what they know". Nobody has given readers similar advice, yet I think it's sensible to "read what you know", or what calls out to your heart.For me, a writer's emotions are not problematic with fiction, unless they're trying to inject actual facts into the story, and they allow their emotions to skew those facts into fallacies. Like others here, I won't buy books if I feel the author is going to hit me over the head with certain political/religious/social opinions.
However, I can see a conflict when it comes to nonfiction. Truman Capote's In Cold Blood certainly stirred up a lot of controversy about his objectivity when writing the story. In fact, it was one of the good starting places where we recognized creative nonfiction as a genre. And a wonderful new genre, at that.
When it comes to fiction, I say let the writer spill all of her/his emotions on the page...good for them. If I weren't so reserved with my feelings, maybe I could write something that would capture the interests of other readers.
I'll buy a Wally Lamb or Amy Tan any day, and yes I know it's their emotions coming through their stories. Read any of their nonfiction about their writing process, and you can see where their stories are going to go. However, I'll keep coming back for more because I can identify where they're coming from.
I think some people misunderstood what I meant, so maybe I wasn't clear.Everyone has emotions, and there are books which are emotional.
What I'm talking about is a difference between emotive writing, and emotionally driven writing.
That Stephenie Meyer is a perfect example of what I don't care to see or read about in a novel concerning a writer.
Stuff like that's great for metaphoric pieces - such as misery (a book I don't care to read but I will respect its origins), or poetry.
but when an author uses his or her emotions to justify drastic changes in plot just because they're pissed at something that has nothing to do with their novels, and it doesn't fall in the category of metaphores or poetry, then I drop the book (and the reader).
Yes, even encyclopedias have emotional content from their writers, but that's not the same type of emotional content I was addressing.
I read from an interview that Misery wasn't concerning his accident but alcoholism. It was another book he wrote which dealt with a car accident (but I couldn't remember which one that was).
Becky wrote
I can understand what you mean though if you're saying that Adams made the storyline in Mostly Harmless take a turn which you feel is untrue to the story itself.
It's not what I feel, he admitted it. In fact, he came out regretting it - a little too late for me especially since he died before he wrote the 5th book he was outlining.
Part of Douglass' Adams problem was his depression and fights he had with his editors and the publishers. They had threatened to find someone else to write the fourth book if he had refused. So what you're reading is a giant middle finger on the last ten pages of mostly harmless. As a reader I find that insulting. If you're going to flip someone off like your publisher, I'm of the opinion that the author should do it in a fashion of Oscar Wilde, Chaucer or Shakespeare - do it with flair in such a way your reader thuroughly enjoys it.
Instead he flipped off not just his publishers but his readers, came out "apologizing" for it, and died before he fixed his mistake.
In the first print of some Mostly Harmless copies there's a letter he wrote to the reader which has a sour undertone to it.
I didn't misunderstand you, I just really feel that an author has the right, as the creator, to do whatever he wants with his characters/stories. As readers we can hate it, love it, or remain indifferent. Yes, he admitted regret, but that was his right. Maybe he would have liked to rectify what he felt was a mistake. He didn't have time. The same thing could have happened, had it been an intended story arc.
Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes because he was sick and tired of writing about him, but the public made such an uproar that he had to bring Holmes back. I'd say there's a case of emotion getting the better of him, but he may have been justified. Who but the writer can tell when a continuing character's getting stale? At least Conan Doyle wasn't a Robert Jordan, pumping out book after book simply for the paycheck.
Kevin, I don't believe I misunderstood you either. I didn't dispute the fact that Douglas Adams wrote a big "F-You" into Mostly Harmless and then regretted it. I can't dispute that, because I haven't researched it. I was introduced to the series, read the series, enjoyed the series, and that was it. I do not personally feel the need to investigate the author's underlying reasons for writing or lack thereof. I read for the story.
I rarely take the time to acquaint myself with an author in order to determine what made them write what they did. To me, that is unimportant. What is important to me, is whether and how what they wrote spoke TO ME. I don't personally care how it spoke to them as they were writing it, as long as it doesn't feel contrived.
The point that I was getting at in the quote you mentioned, was that if something in the story felt "off" to you, and caused you to find out the reason for the shift, that is something I can appreciate. That is a disappointing change in the story stemming from the author's emotional state. But if you are saying that you LIKED the story until you found out about it's origins, that is different. If I like the story, then I like it. The author's motive in writing it really has no bearing on that, to me.
But again, we all have different tastes, and different styles, so what is important to you or me does not necessarily need to be important to others. Neither of us is wrong, because opinion cannot be wrong.
I am curious though, as to what you mean by this statement:
"but when an author uses his or her emotions to justify drastic changes in plot just because they're pissed at something that has nothing to do with their novels, and it doesn't fall in the category of metaphores or poetry, then I drop the book (and the reader)."
I'm not sure what you mean by "and the reader". Are you saying that you cannot respect another's opinion when they enjoy something that you do not? I hope that I AM misunderstanding that.
isnt it the authors creation, are they not entirely free to write whatever the hell they want? they might regret it later or change their mind but its their creation, its up to the reader to like or not like i suppose. I must admit i was put off from re reading CS lewis after reading about the christian themes which i wasnt aware of as a kid and didnt really want to know about as an adult, but then theyre only there if you choose to see them i suppose and at the end of the day its his work not mine,
My God, I can't think of anything I've written that wasn't motivated by emotions.Now when I say emotions, I’m not talking about the kind that make you shake uncontrollably, seeking refuge in a dark corner, naked and petrified with fear.
No, I’m talking about the emotions that drive us to write in the first place.
Remember, desire is an emotion.
I think that every author is motivated by emotion. I am writing a novel right now on GR that I have he "good and bad" emotions with. The "good" ones drive me forward, such as enthusiasm and drive. The "bad" ones make me write things I don't want to write (kids beating each other up and such). I delete the parts I don't like (the ones I wrote while I was depressed), and keep the ones I like. I am hoping to publish this novel. If I don't, I can still hang my head high and be proud that at least I tried. I'll know more about what I did wrong and correct it for the next book.
Having written the first response to Kevin's initial comment, I've only just gotten notice this discussion was occurring. I've read through all of the comments and a perhaps not very original idea occurred to me:Isn't it a very good way to judge how good a book is by the author's ability to make you feel his or her emotions without your knowing what they are while you're reading?
If Douglas Adams is the baseline for this dicussion, then his book (which I admit I have never read) is obviously written very clumsily and perhaps not worth reading.
Compare that to, for example, Ian McEwan's Atonement where I was overwhelmed by my own emotional reaction to the book and it wasn't until long after finishing it that I began to understand what McEwan's emotions may have been - not that I know for sure.
I don't mean to be too didactic here, but hasn't this discussion really hit on perhaps the best definition of a good book?
How artfully an author makes you share his or her emotions without overtly letting you know what they are is the ruler by which we measure fiction.
Once the author's feelings become overt, the book stops being art or artful and becomes a polemic. It loses its magic.
Yeah, the subject or the 'question' is somewhat incomplete.I think for novels or stories, it's OKAY for authors to allow emotions to influence their work. It's where it usually starts - emotions. But it really depends on the emotion of the author. The author must think what would be the reader's possible perspective on what he wrote. And what do you think would happen to a book who doesn't have emotios? That's it.
Tom wrote: "Having written the first response to Kevin's initial comment, I've only just gotten notice this discussion was occurring. I've read through all of the comments and a perhaps not very original idea ..."I think that's partly true, but only insofar as how absorbed one gets in the book. Many people say that Plato was such a good writer because you begin to forget that it is he who is writing, and not Socrates himself. I generally agree with this guideline, though I personally don't think emotional influences themselves can define the quality of a book.
Tom, I would have to disagree with your assumption (theoretical though it may be as you have not read them) that Douglas Adams' books are "...obviously written very clumsily and perhaps not worth reading." What are you basing this assumption on, exactly? The fact that Kevin knows that Douglas wrote this book while in a different emotional state than the one in which he wrote the other books in the series?
I have stated that I have read the book in question, and would never have known anything was "amiss" (and I use the term lightly, because I still do not think that the events in the book are wrong or should have been altered) until it was brought to light by this discussion. Having read the books, Adams points out the randomness of life, and therefore it was NOT surprising to me that such a thing as Kevin mentioned previously should happen. Life is random and unpredictable. Art imitates life.
But even so, why is knowing that an author is depressed or elated, or nervous, or even perfectly content reason for avoiding the book that he wrote while in that state? Isn't an author supposed to make you feel something? If the author is supposed to wall their own emotions up, and at the same time be expected to write convincing emotions on the page, I would be suspect that everything on the page is contrived and fake. And that would turn me off to a book faster than ANY whimsical change that an author could make while being true to his or her emotions.
Kate wrote: "Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes because he was sick and tired of writing about him, but the public made such an uproar that he had to bring Holmes back. I'd say there's a case of emo..."This is wholly incorrect.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed sherlock because he felt guilt over his wife becoming deathly ill and him (as a doctor) not seeing the signs early enough. He felt that his story was what blinded him to the affairs of his life, and was striking out at the fictional character out of blame.
He admitted to this when he brought sherlock back. He gave a massive apology to his fans and admitted that his emotional affairs did not belong in his writing the way he wrote it.
The way he wrote Sherlock's return restored Sherlock to a state of semi-neutrality while involving your emotions with the ethics/morals/characters presented in the book, rather than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's personal life.
Tom wrote: I don't mean to be too didactic here, but hasn't this discussion really hit on perhaps the best definition of a good book?
How artfully an author makes you share his or her emotions without overtly letting you know what they are is the ruler by which we measure fiction.
Once the author's feelings become overt, the book stops being art or artful and becomes a polemic. It loses its magic.
Yes that is a more concise way way to interpret what I was saying. Yes I did leave my question somewhat incomplete, I was also looking for more addage to the discussion.
Basically what my view boils down to is: an author's job is to make you feel emotion within the context of the characters and story. Unless it is a non-fiction biography, or a metaphorical piece, I do not care what's going on in the Author's personal life with their personal emotions. I bought a fiction not a biography for a reason. When I bought John Glenn's autobiography, I want to know his mental state growing up and all his person accomplishments and failures, etc..
but when I read Mostly Harmless, I could give a rat's butt about DA's depression because I want to be entertained outside of the context of his personal life.
So yes, I more or less agree with the statement you made in your post concerning overt emotional states of the author being displayed in the wrong context.
I know I'm a little late to the dicussion here, but I don't know that you can write a work without emotion, unless of course it's a manual or something outright informational. Literature is an extension of the author, inextricably forged from the thoughts, feelings, and yes, emotions of the person creating it.
And however close to the author's real life the work may be, it remains a product of the aforementioned properties. Twain and Kerouac wrote some largely autobiographical works of fiction, but am I supposed to respect them less than say, Stephanie Meyer, because she set out to entertain me with crudely conceived vampire drama? Just becuase someone takes a few more steps outside himself doesn't mean he put his emotions--and personal experiences--on the shelf while he wrote to entertain. There's a literay umbilical cord that exists between every writer and his work, and it cannot be severed, my friend. Not by the writer himself, not by anyone.
This is a good topic for a new author like myself. I never thought much about how my emotions impacted my work. I wonder if most writers are similar to me in that they never really viewed themselves as an author or sort of morphed into a writer before everyone's eyes. I am proud to say that emotions were the tools I used to write my book. I wrote a work of fiction, an allegory to be specific. The reason emotions are important to me is because I want the reader to connect to my characters and be motivated to do something about a troubling issue in our society.
As an author, I do believe we have to be mindful of our personal feelings or prejudices toward people in our past playing out on the page and taking away from the story. This can definitely happen. I edited my book 23 times before it went to my publisher. Three edits I spent examining if I gave minor or major characters a fair portrayal. You are not always able to develop each character's story and some are only mentioned in a scene. I deleted some words and sentences because I was too harsh on some characters because they reminded me of people I found to be hurtful to myself or others. I had to stay focused on the action and not allow for personal digs to happen on my watch. Just thought I'd share...
I believe the emotional response a reader has to a novel is often based on the reader's emotional state and needs at the time of the reading. It's therefore possible for an author to write something outside the influence of his or her emotions and still reach a reader on an emotional level but it's unlikely the novel will reach a large audience on an emotional level or that the reader will be reached emotionally by other of that author's work. When an author projects his or her emotions into the writing, the reader's emotions are more easily swayed. The best example I have of this is Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried. Without the influence of his emotions this would be nothing more than a description of a slodier's actions during a war. Writing from his emotions created a work which elicits an emotional response - positive or negative - from almost all readers about war and about living life. Writing and reading are two sides of a conversation. I would much prefer participating in a conversation in which the other party is emotionally involved than one in which he or she dryly states the facts of the story.
Dyin, Madison and Dan: Well said, all of you. I completely agree.
The Next Best Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Crow (other topics)The Amulet of Samarkand (other topics)
The Golden Compass (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
In Cold Blood (other topics)
Frankly I say no, and I don't care to read such books where authors allow their emotions to completely influence their work. I'll post my reasons why after others have posted theirs.
Obviously there is always some leeway, but I'm talking specifically about authors who don't seem to control their writing (i.e. Douglass Adams).