attempts at meaning

[tertiaryapocalypse]

i've noticed a trend amongst recent storytelling wherein there's a really heavy focus on the sentimental aspects of the piece to the point where it almost fails to be what it's trying to. sorry, i have no idea how i'm trying to explain this.

in a lot of highly acclaimed films there are hard-hitting scenes that really impact the viewer, with cinematic angles and well-timed lines. they cut to the core of the movie, you know? like, the best example i can come up with is everything everywhere all at once-- there's funny bits that don't take themselves seriously, and there's really heavy parts that convey some sort of message, but they're balanced in a way that works really well.

i've noticed in a few stories now that there's no space between the hard-hitting scenes, that it's all supposed to be incredibly artistic and meaningful. all of it is a masterpiece. i'm writing about this right now because i watched 'i saw the tv glow' earlier today and i've heard good things about it! don't get me wrong, i definitely enjoyed it, but it felt almost shallow to me with how focused every scene was.

i'm sure there's more academic terms for this, and i formally know strikingly little about literary structure, but i think the lack of levity really impacts how well a story's hard-hitting moments work. i feel that if the entire work is chock-full of artfully crafted lines and cinematic moments, it takes away from the work's effectiveness because it's almost too perfect, you know? in part, the characters just become empty vessels to convey a theme, not people we as listeners/readers/viewers can relate to, not really.

(i think part of it may be an effort to be taken seriously as a storyteller, since a lot of critics and art snobs tend to equate meaning with value, at least as far as i've observed. but that's just speculation!)

i try really hard to write a story that'll make an emotional impact on my readers, but i also try and balance that with fun characterisation and moments that (while not entirely plot related) lighten the mood. i want my work to be able to be fun and memorable, you know?

anyways. i was wondering if anyone else here had noticed this in stories they've enjoyed lately, or if you disagree with anything i've said! what are your thoughts on this? do you think storytellers should work to balance meaning and levity? how should they go about that?

[wodaro]

This reminds me of the other day, I was scrolling youtube's recommended page (bad habit, I know) and saw a video with the a title like "Why are there no good Christian Games?" the thumbnail promising all kind of unpolished, "cringe" games teaching the gospel. It put me off so I didn't click, but the title got me thinking. I grew up Baptist so I've seen my share of bad Christian video games, movies, shows, etc. I grew up reading the Left Behind series,  God's Not Dead was a meme and popular punching bag for several years when I was in high school. But I also encountered Christian art that made me ache with its spiritual significance, with the heart and soul put inside. I could connect with them on a human level despite not personally identifying with Christianity since I was 12 years old.

The difference was that the pieces I connected with seemed to be the expression of a feeling the artist believed in so greatly they were compelled to make art to express it. It often felt like they didn't care if an audience heard them at all, they just needed to create.

The art I was put off by almost always felt like it was primarily made out of a desire to spread their beliefs to other people.

This can be extrapolated out to other things as well, political beliefs are another common one. I've played video games that are really political and also really good! Disco Elysium comes to mind immediately. It's witty, ruthless, and powerful, and it's also clear it was a labour of love.

The line between these two is thin, I've seen people accuse games of "pushing an agenda" for simply including a gay character. But I wouldn't say pushing an agenda is even a bad thing, again Disco Elysium clearly wants the player to consider what it's saying and engage with its politics accordingly.

The greatest sin is having nothing to say EXCEPT the "moral" of the story. And I think that's kind of what you're getting at here.

it takes away from the work's effectiveness because it's almost too perfect, you know? in part, the characters just become empty vessels to convey a theme, not people we as listeners/readers/viewers can relate to, not really.

(i think part of it may be an effort to be taken seriously as a storyteller, since a lot of critics and art snobs tend to equate meaning with value, at least as far as i've observed. but that's just speculation!)

If a writer is just focused on injecting "meaning" into their story (a moral or theme) but doesn't have a strong artistic vision, it's going to feel very shallow. I've fallen victim to this in my own work, it's an easy trap. Like you said it's a balance. Meaning vs. Levity is a decent starting point, though I don't think all work requires levity, it's more an issue of the art not containing a soul. I haven't made enough things to have a clear answer to the problem, but I think something that helps is focusing on making things that you love, and writing things that fascinate you. If you're fascinated by political theory and geopolitical tensions then it WILL show in the types of stories you write, a fixation on reincarnation or death will alter the artwork you produce, etc. The problem arises when artists and writers try to artificially inject meaning into their work.

[Kolo]

All emotions and meaning in a story need space to breathe. I think... people writing stories sometimes forget that meaning can be simplistic. A story is a lean thing; everything included in it must be done so for a good reason. It conveys or shows or supports something.

There are ways to make things impactful without trying to shove it down your reader's throat by packing the story full of moments that seem big without any meaningful connection or payoff. It's very... hm... I think it comes off as insecure and uncertain. An author who is not sure the audience is, in a way, smart enough to understand their vision.

I think it's natural to want to cling to one's vision at first. To insist that the authorial intent is the king of a story, to a degree. After all, without the author this particular story would not be told. But in the same way I think it is reductive and selfish. A story is not dictated to a reader, a reader (or watcher) becomes part of the story as they engage with it. They imprint on it and see themselves reflected in it. They assume, misunderstand, reinterpret, love, change. The story changes and becomes a part of them, so whatever meaning they find is important, too. (There is obviously some separation that should happen here, with say, a reader taking bad faith interpretations is not necessarily the author's fault, but that's a whole other can of worms)

I find the most magical moments for me is when someone reads my stories and makes a connection there that I never did or could, and tells me about it. Sometimes they think I did it purposefully (I did not). Sometimes their idea is better than mine and I thief it. Heheh. This exchange could not happen if the stories suffocated and beat the reader upside the head with a particular theme or idea that I wanted to convey. I am happy if they understand, say, 40% of it, and fill in the rest themselves. Room for them to dream and imagine I think is so much more gripping and emotional. I say this and think of the lyrics of my favorite band. I spent a lot of today talking about them with my partner and the intended meanings/readings and how they can change due to the abstract poetic authentic/genuine lyrics. I'm meandering again...

But I do think every part of a story has a meaning, or a "message" in a way.

Even the bits of stories that don't take themselves seriously still have meaning to them - they're levity, they're a chance to understand the characters, they're foundations. Every part of a story is still building towards that meaning and communication of a feeling or a thought or a moral. The curtains are blue for a reason, y'know? But... there's a line between meaning everywhere, and drenching/forcing that meaning... I think it can be hard to toe at times.

Because, well, the curtains are blue for a reason, but continually calling attention to them feels... demeaning. You don't think the audience can think, and see for themselves, and interpret? Remember anything included in a story is, to some degree, deliberate... if you're writing and you write that the curtains are blue, that should be important in some way. Every part of the story should be arcing towards your goal for it. But all you have to say about that is... the curtains are blue. If someone connects to your story, they will find the threads in it to weave together.

After all, an authentic emotional connection to characters does leagues more for making an idea impactful than a thousand artistic words or scenes or what have you. I would honestly say that connection is more important than anything else in the story, to a degree, because that authentic connection is what the entire conceit lives or dies on.

But that connection can be deepened and magnified by the underlying depth of the story's meaning. They work in tandem. How many people gush essays dedicated to their favorite literature and characters, analyzing them and trying to understand them? The narrative was packed with meaning and depth that allows that, but gave the story space to allow the connection to form as well.

Though, I don't generally have a problem with stories that are intended to be vehicles for expressing an ideal or a moral in some way. There is room for that in the world and they are sometimes needed. But... they are not to my taste :P