We might be saying the same thing. Here's how I would put it. You have to have stories to have a meaningful life. And all our stories are ancient, one way or another.
As a writer, I find it is very useful to read ancient stories because it helps you make better stories. Otherwise, all you are getting is the embers of the original spark, …
We might be saying the same thing. Here's how I would put it. You have to have stories to have a meaningful life. And all our stories are ancient, one way or another.
As a writer, I find it is very useful to read ancient stories because it helps you make better stories. Otherwise, all you are getting is the embers of the original spark, which probably isn't very good. But if you can get to the spark of what inspired many people who came after, maybe your chances of doing something new and original with it go up.
You might not need to read ancient stories, but your life will be more meaningful if you do.
Ok yes, totally. There is nothing new under the sun, so to speak. There, I agree!
But, I lost your metaphor because I don’t believe the original stories are the best ones. They are not the original spark with everything that comes after mere embers. They are only the first stories we wrote down. That certainly doesn’t make them the best stories, or the source of all the best metaphors, we have perfected many things since then.
If we are going to study astronomy, we don’t go back to Copernicus. Though he advanced ideas as far as he could get them, with the limited tools he had, we have since advanced them. And shouldn’t we start there? Rather than going back to the very beginning when we didn’t know?
The stories aren't the best (in fact, 'best' is a weird term to apply to stories) but Homer, Ovid, Shakespeare, the Bible and much more echoes through every story in the West. For good or ill. And to be conscious of those influences, to get command of them so you don't make choices unthinkingly, I think you have to read them.
The Guardian just asked Lee Child what his favorite thriller was and he answered, "Theseus and the Minotaur, as told by Plutarch. That 3,500-year-old tale has been endlessly reproduced – Ian Fleming’s Dr No is structurally identical – and never really improved upon."
As far as your astronomy analogy, it's certainly true of the hard physical sciences, and I'd like it to be true of the social sciences (google: replication crisis and lament) but it's not true of art and certainly not true of story.
Another way to look at it: You seriously want to suggest that Beyonce is better than Bach or vice versa? They both have occasions and usages -- and their own goals. As Tacitus wrote, "There is no worse fault for in criticism than to blame a work of art for lacking qualities to which it makes no pretension."
He wrote that nearly 2000 years ago. And I'm not sure that the postmodern criticism is an advance from that. I am certain that postmodern criticism is not more useful to a working writer than that simple idea.
What you are arguing for (which I have heard referred to as the Whig Theory of History) would seem to mean that every poet writing today would be better than Whitman (or any other poet in the past) because poetry exists as some kind of technology that is improved and passed on through time. And if you choose to object on the grounds that individual talent varies from poet to poet and age to age, I would suggest that even the worst Doctor today is better for almost everything than the best Doctor 300 years ago. But art doesn't work that way.
Which is why canonicity matters. I think to disagree is to rob yourself of sources of power as a writer.
Hahahahahaha. Ok ok!!!! You're right!!!!! The worst doctor now, is better than any doctor 300 years ago. That's a good point. And true: it's different in art.
BUT: The symbolism has evolved. For instance: Jesus as the sacrificial lamb from the bible (and before him, the actual sacrificial lamb). The idea of one person sacrificing themselves for the many has been used over and over again in literature. But I'm not sure that metaphor is relevant anymore. Because we have changed how the world works, there are very few (if any) instances in which one person needs to sacrifice themself for the many.
The story is powerful because it evokes an earlier story (when sacrificing one for the many was a real and powerful thing) but to use it in a book that takes place in modern times doesn't really work anymore. Like in most cases, we could avoid that death (or the death would be meaningless in the long run). I think authors need to be more creative and come up with better ways to save the world than self-sacrifice.
That being said, I'm taking advantage of the global warming story for my utopian novel and imagining that the world has flooded, essentially allowing us to start over. SO I GUESS THAT'S BIBLICAL SYMBOLISM AND I'M JUST KEEPING IT GOING DESPITE EVERYTHING I JUST SAID 🤣🤣🤣
(Also, I just wanted to thank you for engaging me in this discussion, I'm having a ball.)
I think you're reading the Christ story too literally. There are pieces of it everywhere. It's Iron Man's arc in the Marvel Movies. You know why you like Katniss Everdeen -- she steps in to, Christ-like, save her sister. Find me something hugely popular that doesn't have pieces of the Christ story in it. Find me a novel that doesn't use a phrase from the bible.
Here's one way to look at the story -- Do what is best, even though society will unjustly persecute you for it. Sacrifice everything to the highest good you can imagine.
In fact, that's what William Tyndale did. He thought it would be good to be the first person to translate the Bible into English so people could know God and escape the corruption of the Church. And they happily martyred them for it. Same damn story.
And it's not just the Christ story -- there are many dying and reborn God stories. We have been telling that story over and over again in every possible permutation almost forever. It's like we're fumbling to articulate something we only know subconsciously.
(I'm loving this conversation as well. I have sooo much other work I should be doing instead of this. And I'm joyfully not doing it!)
Hmmmmm, yes I suppose this is all true. There are elements of that story in a lot of stories. But then maybe that's because even that story was in some way relatable to human lives. So in that case, are we really writing from earlier stories, or from experience?
Like does the idea of stepping in to save someone, Hunger Games style, really relate back to the Christ story? Or are both stories just pulling from the fact that all of us would do the same in Katniss' position? That it's relatable to the human condition?
Maybe it's not so much that we are pulling from those earlier stories, but just that human lives still face the same struggles? So we are continuing to pull from the same material?
I guess what I'm struggling with here is the idea that the earliest books get the credit for inventing these stories that us artists just have to draw from forever. When even they weren't the originators, just earlier ones...
Well, you could say that Bram Stoker invented Vampires (but there was a folk tradition so he was just the first person to write it down) But for SURE Anne Rice knew Dracula and thought deeply about what made it scary and what might make a modern day vampire tale compelling. And for sure people like Stephenie Meyer and Charlaine Harris absorbed Stoker and Rice and figured out what they could do to update it further.
Because of these kind of influences the gravity of Stoker is inescapable if you want to write Vampire stories.
And what I would say about self-sacrifice, and certainly creative non-violence, is that it doesn't seem to exist in pre-Christian heroic tales. The world is pretty brutal and best you can hope for is glory that echoes through eternity because you killed someone or something. And if you were strong enough, and killed enough people, they would turn you into a god (Heracles)
We can ask the same question about romance as a genre. Romantic love in stories seems to be an invention of the Middle Ages. And, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Pride and Prejudice isn't in the running for best RomCom of all time.
So it's not that the earliest books get credit with inventing these things, it's that they start the chain of influence. So we can accept their influence, or reject their influence, but we can't escape it any more than a fish can escape the water. For me the only way to be thoughtful about how I deal with those sources is to understand them.
Right, that makes sense. We are all (and our writing is all) influenced by what came before. The vampire example is a good one. Even if there was always some inspiration that came before, there is still room for originality. And Bram Stoker is a great example of that!! I can totally get on board with that.
I can only hope as a writer to do all my research, to be inspired by those who came before me, and to somehow make it my own!!
We might be saying the same thing. Here's how I would put it. You have to have stories to have a meaningful life. And all our stories are ancient, one way or another.
As a writer, I find it is very useful to read ancient stories because it helps you make better stories. Otherwise, all you are getting is the embers of the original spark, which probably isn't very good. But if you can get to the spark of what inspired many people who came after, maybe your chances of doing something new and original with it go up.
You might not need to read ancient stories, but your life will be more meaningful if you do.
Ok yes, totally. There is nothing new under the sun, so to speak. There, I agree!
But, I lost your metaphor because I don’t believe the original stories are the best ones. They are not the original spark with everything that comes after mere embers. They are only the first stories we wrote down. That certainly doesn’t make them the best stories, or the source of all the best metaphors, we have perfected many things since then.
If we are going to study astronomy, we don’t go back to Copernicus. Though he advanced ideas as far as he could get them, with the limited tools he had, we have since advanced them. And shouldn’t we start there? Rather than going back to the very beginning when we didn’t know?
The stories aren't the best (in fact, 'best' is a weird term to apply to stories) but Homer, Ovid, Shakespeare, the Bible and much more echoes through every story in the West. For good or ill. And to be conscious of those influences, to get command of them so you don't make choices unthinkingly, I think you have to read them.
The Guardian just asked Lee Child what his favorite thriller was and he answered, "Theseus and the Minotaur, as told by Plutarch. That 3,500-year-old tale has been endlessly reproduced – Ian Fleming’s Dr No is structurally identical – and never really improved upon."
As far as your astronomy analogy, it's certainly true of the hard physical sciences, and I'd like it to be true of the social sciences (google: replication crisis and lament) but it's not true of art and certainly not true of story.
Another way to look at it: You seriously want to suggest that Beyonce is better than Bach or vice versa? They both have occasions and usages -- and their own goals. As Tacitus wrote, "There is no worse fault for in criticism than to blame a work of art for lacking qualities to which it makes no pretension."
He wrote that nearly 2000 years ago. And I'm not sure that the postmodern criticism is an advance from that. I am certain that postmodern criticism is not more useful to a working writer than that simple idea.
What you are arguing for (which I have heard referred to as the Whig Theory of History) would seem to mean that every poet writing today would be better than Whitman (or any other poet in the past) because poetry exists as some kind of technology that is improved and passed on through time. And if you choose to object on the grounds that individual talent varies from poet to poet and age to age, I would suggest that even the worst Doctor today is better for almost everything than the best Doctor 300 years ago. But art doesn't work that way.
Which is why canonicity matters. I think to disagree is to rob yourself of sources of power as a writer.
Hahahahahaha. Ok ok!!!! You're right!!!!! The worst doctor now, is better than any doctor 300 years ago. That's a good point. And true: it's different in art.
BUT: The symbolism has evolved. For instance: Jesus as the sacrificial lamb from the bible (and before him, the actual sacrificial lamb). The idea of one person sacrificing themselves for the many has been used over and over again in literature. But I'm not sure that metaphor is relevant anymore. Because we have changed how the world works, there are very few (if any) instances in which one person needs to sacrifice themself for the many.
The story is powerful because it evokes an earlier story (when sacrificing one for the many was a real and powerful thing) but to use it in a book that takes place in modern times doesn't really work anymore. Like in most cases, we could avoid that death (or the death would be meaningless in the long run). I think authors need to be more creative and come up with better ways to save the world than self-sacrifice.
That being said, I'm taking advantage of the global warming story for my utopian novel and imagining that the world has flooded, essentially allowing us to start over. SO I GUESS THAT'S BIBLICAL SYMBOLISM AND I'M JUST KEEPING IT GOING DESPITE EVERYTHING I JUST SAID 🤣🤣🤣
(Also, I just wanted to thank you for engaging me in this discussion, I'm having a ball.)
I think you're reading the Christ story too literally. There are pieces of it everywhere. It's Iron Man's arc in the Marvel Movies. You know why you like Katniss Everdeen -- she steps in to, Christ-like, save her sister. Find me something hugely popular that doesn't have pieces of the Christ story in it. Find me a novel that doesn't use a phrase from the bible.
Here's one way to look at the story -- Do what is best, even though society will unjustly persecute you for it. Sacrifice everything to the highest good you can imagine.
In fact, that's what William Tyndale did. He thought it would be good to be the first person to translate the Bible into English so people could know God and escape the corruption of the Church. And they happily martyred them for it. Same damn story.
And it's not just the Christ story -- there are many dying and reborn God stories. We have been telling that story over and over again in every possible permutation almost forever. It's like we're fumbling to articulate something we only know subconsciously.
(I'm loving this conversation as well. I have sooo much other work I should be doing instead of this. And I'm joyfully not doing it!)
Hmmmmm, yes I suppose this is all true. There are elements of that story in a lot of stories. But then maybe that's because even that story was in some way relatable to human lives. So in that case, are we really writing from earlier stories, or from experience?
Like does the idea of stepping in to save someone, Hunger Games style, really relate back to the Christ story? Or are both stories just pulling from the fact that all of us would do the same in Katniss' position? That it's relatable to the human condition?
Maybe it's not so much that we are pulling from those earlier stories, but just that human lives still face the same struggles? So we are continuing to pull from the same material?
I guess what I'm struggling with here is the idea that the earliest books get the credit for inventing these stories that us artists just have to draw from forever. When even they weren't the originators, just earlier ones...
Well, you could say that Bram Stoker invented Vampires (but there was a folk tradition so he was just the first person to write it down) But for SURE Anne Rice knew Dracula and thought deeply about what made it scary and what might make a modern day vampire tale compelling. And for sure people like Stephenie Meyer and Charlaine Harris absorbed Stoker and Rice and figured out what they could do to update it further.
Because of these kind of influences the gravity of Stoker is inescapable if you want to write Vampire stories.
And what I would say about self-sacrifice, and certainly creative non-violence, is that it doesn't seem to exist in pre-Christian heroic tales. The world is pretty brutal and best you can hope for is glory that echoes through eternity because you killed someone or something. And if you were strong enough, and killed enough people, they would turn you into a god (Heracles)
We can ask the same question about romance as a genre. Romantic love in stories seems to be an invention of the Middle Ages. And, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Pride and Prejudice isn't in the running for best RomCom of all time.
So it's not that the earliest books get credit with inventing these things, it's that they start the chain of influence. So we can accept their influence, or reject their influence, but we can't escape it any more than a fish can escape the water. For me the only way to be thoughtful about how I deal with those sources is to understand them.
Right, that makes sense. We are all (and our writing is all) influenced by what came before. The vampire example is a good one. Even if there was always some inspiration that came before, there is still room for originality. And Bram Stoker is a great example of that!! I can totally get on board with that.
I can only hope as a writer to do all my research, to be inspired by those who came before me, and to somehow make it my own!!
P.S. I'm going to write about this.
We already are ;-)
And I'm telling you. Long podcast conversation about this. I'll edit and produce the whole thing, you just show up.
Anytime, though I'm much better at writing than I am speaking. 🤣