I read an article by Steve Pressfield not long ago in which he laid out clearly (for me) the importance of theme and setting, and the distinctions between them. I'm writing a short story now in which that distinction came home and made a real difference in how I tell the story. I hope what follows proves useful to my compatriots here.
The story is called The Carrotfinger Man, about a monster in a forest, two dwarves trying to take a shortcut, and three pixies who lead them astray. The premise derives from Breton folklore, so I had the setting almost from the start. I chose dwarves because I arbitrarily decided not to use humans. I needed them to get lost, so pixies were an easy choice. They pull pranks. The plot just about writes itself, doesn't it?
I wrote a draft, then did a revision. Only that late in the process did I realize that I had not done much of a sketch of my protagonists. They had little backstory, other than that they were bladesmiths delivering a job to a human Count. On the other side of the forest, naturally. But who were they, and why care? Without that, this story couldn't hope to be much more than a horror story. In which case, lose the pixies.
I had two dwarves because that afforded opportunity for dialog. It was obvious to give them contrasting personalities, so Manus is responsible while Ki is impulsive and feckless. But there's still no theme. I had the setting in detail, but there was no theme and that's important. I'll come back to that in a minute.
Somewhat randomly, I decided that when pixies do a prank, once the joke is revealed, the prankster must be held harmless. The victim can counter-prank (which leads to pixie versions of vendetta), but no violence or legal action ensues. At the same time, if the prank does actual harm, the prankster must make amends. There is an obligation there.
And with that word, obligation, I had my theme. It was about Manus' sense of obligation, Ki's lack of same, and how the encounter changes them.
But it is more important than that. Now it's not a horror story. The horror is simply the catalyst. But the theme now gives focus to the backstory. Manus is a man burdened with obligations he wishes to escape but is too responsible to duck. Ki is feckless, but in truth longs for some way to commit himself to something. But, being feckless, it has to be something immediate. There can be lots of other aspects to their backstory, but the theme provides a filter. Only the stuff about responsibility matters.
Same for dialog. There are a hundred things the two could talk about along the way, including eek! monster! But I can now center the scenes around obligation.
It even affects word choice. In a horror story the vocabulary would lean one way. Now it leans in a different direction.
Armed with this new understanding, I'm working my way back through the story. Entire passages I thought were fine, are not. Mostly they're simply not needed. At the same time, places where I had made notes along the lines of "too abrupt" or "why" regarding character actions, I now know exactly the context to provide.
The theme of this post is, "theme"
The story is called The Carrotfinger Man, about a monster in a forest, two dwarves trying to take a shortcut, and three pixies who lead them astray. The premise derives from Breton folklore, so I had the setting almost from the start. I chose dwarves because I arbitrarily decided not to use humans. I needed them to get lost, so pixies were an easy choice. They pull pranks. The plot just about writes itself, doesn't it?
I wrote a draft, then did a revision. Only that late in the process did I realize that I had not done much of a sketch of my protagonists. They had little backstory, other than that they were bladesmiths delivering a job to a human Count. On the other side of the forest, naturally. But who were they, and why care? Without that, this story couldn't hope to be much more than a horror story. In which case, lose the pixies.
I had two dwarves because that afforded opportunity for dialog. It was obvious to give them contrasting personalities, so Manus is responsible while Ki is impulsive and feckless. But there's still no theme. I had the setting in detail, but there was no theme and that's important. I'll come back to that in a minute.
Somewhat randomly, I decided that when pixies do a prank, once the joke is revealed, the prankster must be held harmless. The victim can counter-prank (which leads to pixie versions of vendetta), but no violence or legal action ensues. At the same time, if the prank does actual harm, the prankster must make amends. There is an obligation there.
And with that word, obligation, I had my theme. It was about Manus' sense of obligation, Ki's lack of same, and how the encounter changes them.
But it is more important than that. Now it's not a horror story. The horror is simply the catalyst. But the theme now gives focus to the backstory. Manus is a man burdened with obligations he wishes to escape but is too responsible to duck. Ki is feckless, but in truth longs for some way to commit himself to something. But, being feckless, it has to be something immediate. There can be lots of other aspects to their backstory, but the theme provides a filter. Only the stuff about responsibility matters.
Same for dialog. There are a hundred things the two could talk about along the way, including eek! monster! But I can now center the scenes around obligation.
It even affects word choice. In a horror story the vocabulary would lean one way. Now it leans in a different direction.
Armed with this new understanding, I'm working my way back through the story. Entire passages I thought were fine, are not. Mostly they're simply not needed. At the same time, places where I had made notes along the lines of "too abrupt" or "why" regarding character actions, I now know exactly the context to provide.
The theme of this post is, "theme"