Quote: Original post by sunandshadow

Quote: Original post by Oilers99
I'm not sure if you can have a unified theory for fiction, if I understand the term correctly. Fiction is essentially meant to recraft the world as the author seems fit in order to improve the world somehow. It could be anything from pointing out the flaws in society, to making the reader excercise their emotions, to making people happier by making them laugh, to creating an ideal man to creating something that will sell so that the author can cash a cheque. Writing is motivated by trying to somehow make a better world.

Where it gets interesting is in what exactly makes a better world. Despite thousands of years of debate, there has never been a general consensus on what makes a better world. Every writer has their own opinion, and express themselves differently as a result. But as long as the specifics of what makes a better world remains elusive, so will a unified theory for fiction. If there's no common goal, how can there be a common method?

There can be a common method without a common goal because there is a common _type_ of goal. It's like speaking English - you probably have a different goal every single time you build an English sentence, yet you follow the same rules of grammar to build them all. My theory says little about what would improve the world except to define a range of possibilities anyone might want to argue for or against. I am interested in _how_ a piece of fiction argues for and against various visions, but I'm not interested in telling people _what_ to write about. That why I think my theory _is_ appropriate in the context of how one puts together a story - precisely because it's about the _how_, about technique like all the other technique books out there, not about the _what_ which makes every story unique.

Actually, I write intuitively, so I have no idea when I'm violating the rules of the English language. But I think I understand what your saying. Still, the rules do change depending on what you are trying to say. If you want to relate it to grammar, think of it this way. You'll use different words depending on whether you're refering to something that has happened, or will happen in the future. For example, it's common for authors to associate what they consider destructive behaviour with death. But if they want to say that death isn't such a bad thing, then they can't use that method, can they? I'm sure there are better examples, but you get the point. In the same way, the methods you use will depend on the message greatly, so I don't think it's possible to totally isolate the "how" from the "what". Still, I think it is more important to focus on the "how".