Grow Up! It's Just a Story!

Originally composed August 24, 2008

Every time you knock a fictional story for its untruth, whether you've read it or not, you're not thinking like a writer. How boring would it be if authors only wrote about things that could happen? Only wrote about our world? How sad. Just because it's a book doesn't mean the author expects us to believe every word it says. We see it's only a story and that those things (magic, for example, or vampires) only exist in the world of the story and the worlds of stories like it. We don't say, "Oh my gosh! Winnie the Pooh! Toys aren't alive! Shun!" So why should we have a problem with other stories with unusual elements? We need to not only read something before we bash it, we need to not freak out if something is scary or unnatural in the story.

Another thing: Just because a character says or does something the average reader wouldn't say or do doesn't mean the author says or does it or feels that way. Often an author doesn't share the views of all of his characters unless he says he does. We analize literature a little too much and we often get away from what the author originally intended. Ask Jack Harrell about his naming his character Lon Green and getting analyses about "the grass is always greener" when he just picked a name out of the blue. We don't name our children for what they'll be when they grow up, so why should we do that with our characters? Symbols in names are old and cliche. I only did it in Hole in the Floor to show how cliche it actually is (and get this; someone thought I didn't know what the names meant, so he wrote the meanings in the margins!). The big point is that our characters are not all versions of us. That would be boring. It would also show that our authors have a lot of conflicting personality traits. I admit that when I was younger I tried to write a story with all of the characters being versions of myself--many authors I have talked to have tried that experiment--but mostly our characters end up with attributes of us rather than being "versions" of us. If I wrote a story about a serial killer, that does't mean I have homicidal tendencies. If the killer had an affinity for cats, that would be an attribute I share with the character. The character is not a version of me. If I wrote a story based on my life, however, with a person who was supposed to be me, that would be another matter.

Jack Harrell said there are three sources for writers: Personal experience, borrowed experience, and fabrication. What's wrong with there being more fabrication? Not that experience isn't the best source for many people, but that fabrication is not as evil as some people make it out to be. It's not a lie. It's a story. Most authors probably understand that it's a story and that they're not trying to mislead you. They think you'll be smart enough and mature enough to understand that it's a story and not a manual for your life. Readers need more of an imagination, too. C.S. Lewis wrote about magic and yet so many supposedly religious people revere him because of his allusions and his life's work. Why not realize that even though other authors might not believe the in same things, they're doing the same thing, which is writing a story?

Willing suspension of disbelief is still willing, and if you're smart, it's only temporary.

So before you go off on how much you hate a story because it doesn't match your belief system, whether or not you've even read the dang thing, think about the fact that it's just a story. Like Cinderella was when you were a kid, if you were allowed to read or listen to that or watch a film of it without worrying you'd lose your religion. Twilight, Harry Potter, and The Golden Compass, to name only a few, are only stories. Grow up!