Thematism: a new look at the writing process

[Jabrosky]

Link

Thematism, to put it succinctly, is the idea that themes are the best bases for stories due to their natural existence as the pith of and inspiration for a written text; plots are merely the byproduct of the means to establish and convey a story’s message. Authors who employ Thematist strategies pay little attention to outlining, let alone think about what should occur in a given chapter or section. Rather, by basing themes at the center of what they write, they keep constant the overall message and meaning of a piece while leaving its narrative side open to revision.

As someone who has always had difficulty devising plots, but has recently generated a number of theme ideas, I find this claim that theme rather than plot should provide the base for stories very appealing if not completely liberating. Reflecting on my own previous work, thinking about my themes or messages as I write does help me finish stories even if I don't begin with the theme already in mind.

Any thoughts on this article?

 

[Feo Takahari]

I believe that the argument goes wrong with this statement:

"In life, things do not merely happen; there is reason and motive, both of which determine just what event will occur."

While I would agree that this is true, I don't think you can pick a single reason for any event--a single "theme"--without a bunch of people thinking less of you and your story because they think some other reason is more to blame. Without the ability to assign definite cause in such a way that we can convince our readers of it, we're better off keeping our themes as broad and vague as possible so as to keep our audience wide.

I also fundamentally disagree with this statement:

"More than anything else, theme is the best thing on which to base a book because it exemplifies the very purpose of literature: the need to express a message, idea or truth through the means of a narrative."

It's often convenient to look like you might be expressing one or more messages, ideas, or truths, but I believe that the best stories are the ones where an objective meaning can't be discerned, and the subjective, personal interpretation reigns free. Themes are, inevitably, touched on, but questions are left unanswered, just as they are in real life.

(To be honest, this isn't a code I've always kept to--it's so simple and convenient to arrange a story around a neat, tidy message--but I think the best of my works are the ones with no clear interpretation. The one story I've actually managed to publish touches upon at least six themes, none of which could truly be called central, and none of which have a message about them.)

 

[CupofJoe]

I've heard similar ideas put forward under the guise of post-modern [revisionist] history theory.
In that context it seems retrospective [well it is revisionist]...
"post hoc ergo propter hoc" - after this, therefore because of this.
If you have a "message" to get across it might work but I find it hard enough to write a story with a plot...