You, Me, and the Theme

[Steerpike]

I'm curious about how you would go about starting with a theme and building a story off of that. Can anyone give me a hypothetical example of what this would be like? I think I would like to give it a try.

There are different ways to go about it. Take Melville's Billy Budd as an example. It is interpreted by some as thematically addressing tension between positive law and natural law (positive law being man-made law; the law is what it is and is valid because it was set down according to a legitimate process. Natural law, on the other hand, being a law or nature or (more commonly) set forth from the divine, so that it is unalterable regardless of what humans say).

If you decided at the outset that you wanted to explore the theme of natural law v. positive law, you might start thinking up a situation where the outcome would differ depending on which type of law was applied. That gives you tension right there. In Billy Budd's case, under a natural law theory, the idea is that he might well be morally innocent of any crime (a killing, in this case), whereas under the positive law in effect at the time, he is guilty and the punishment is death.

So you go from theme to simply fleshing out a fact scenario that illustrates conflict relating to your theme. Not saying that Melville did this, but you could do it that way and arrive at a story like Billy Budd.

 

[Scribble]

I suppose I'm more like those Italians Devor mentioned. I'm an ideas person, and so I tend to start with an idea and then see where it goes. Characters and story spring up from that.

My current WIP started from a rumination on the idea of... what if Isaac Newton in his searching for answers discovered active, working principles of alchemy rather than physics. What would our society get to? What would alchemical industrialization look like? Humans would be still obsessed with averting death, automating mundane work, and not thinking about the future costs of the resources they draw on today. At 42 years old, with children, a broad knowledge of science, a wife in cancer treatment, these ideas of death and the future of our world are dominant in my mind.

This leads me to ask questions... What are we? What is a human? What is the destiny of humanity? Do we have one? Is there a soul? Is there a god? Is there any point to all of this suffering and foolishness?

I don't propose to give answers, not even a glib "42", but I have questions to ask and I can ask them through the process of writing. I can't imagine any other approach for me to follow.

 

[Devor]

When writing an essay or project like that, I'm always told to start with a thesis.

I think the word "thesis" is a problem with discussing themes.

When I was in college, they made us take a course called "Writing the Essay," which was all about breaking with the concept of a "thesis" in order to discuss ideas. With a thesis, you have a statement that you then attempt to prove. You can't write a book like that. It's far too limiting.

So instead, we were supposed to come up with something called an "Idea statement." You start with a simple statement, "An emotional truth can be more real for a person than the actual truth," and a piece of evidence to support it. Then you add another piece of evidence, and based on that evidence, you adjust the idea statement a little bit. "An emotional truth can be more real than the actual truth, but it can also be more perilous." And you continue to add evidence which changes or challenges the idea statement, piece by piece, until you have something that feels powerful and complex.

"Life is about finding and embracing an emotional truth that reflects the happier part of the reality of your life."

Or some other, y'know, philosophical babble.

So applying that to the themes of a novel, you would start with a character's home life, and begin with a simple statement. And the first challenge to that statement would come in the inciting incident and the call to action. And in the resolution, the new idea statement would reflect a developed outlook on life.

I think that could be an interesting way to develop a character arc around that character's theme. It reminds me of books like Siddartha or movies like "Slumdog Millionaire," with complicated life journeys instead of a basic flaw-to-strength arc.

 

[Helen]

Yeah, but themes are rules, an idea of "how you're supposed to do it," and Americans tend to recoil from that. I didn't mean that Americans have a different idea of themes. I meant that American authors don't think of it as being as important as a starting point.

Americans like rules less than Italians? C'mon.

I was listening to a podcast recently where a lady from Pixar said that every story there starts with a theme in mind. In TV you do it all the time. The majority of American writers absolutely think of it as a start point and as a fundamental consideration.

Besides, we're not talking about rules. We're talking about mechanics.

You don't need to start with a thesis.

It's a bit like the outline vs pantsing argument. People come at it from different directions.

But once you've got it, you start using it as a unifying concept.

If a character has an arc, where they start as a youth and mature into a hero, then somebody's going to identify the theme as "coming of age." But the author didn't need to think about "coming of age" as a theme that everything ties into. The author didn't need to look beyond his character, and the character's outlook, and how that character develops and grows over time.

You don't even need to think about themes too much if you're building your character effectively.

Theme is arc but arc doesn't always give you theme.

In The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy has two arcs - she learns to appreciate home and she learns self-belief. Theme was needed to build all those characters effectively.

("coming of age" isn't a theme. It's more like a class/genre. All of these are coming of age stories, each with its own theme: The 25 Best Coming-Of-Age Films, According To 'Spectacular Now' Director James Ponsoldt | James Ponsoldt)

There are different ways to go about it. Take Melville's Billy Budd as an example. It is interpreted by some as thematically addressing tension between positive law and natural law (positive law being man-made law; the law is what it is and is valid because it was set down according to a legitimate process. Natural law, on the other hand, being a law or nature or (more commonly) set forth from the divine, so that it is unalterable regardless of what humans say).

If you decided at the outset that you wanted to explore the theme of natural law v. positive law, you might start thinking up a situation where the outcome would differ depending on which type of law was applied. That gives you tension right there. In Billy Budd's case, under a natural law theory, the idea is that he might well be morally innocent of any crime (a killing, in this case), whereas under the positive law in effect at the time, he is guilty and the punishment is death.

So you go from theme to simply fleshing out a fact scenario that illustrates conflict relating to your theme. Not saying that Melville did this, but you could do it that way and arrive at a story like Billy Budd.

Good post.

Which begins to suggest just how fundamental theme is - it's the root of conflict, the soul of the story, tells you where to go etc etc etc.

Ignoring theme is folly.

I'm curious about how you would go about starting with a theme and building a story off of that. Can anyone give me a hypothetical example of what this would be like? I think I would like to give it a try.

Steerpike's post above.

But it's a much more precise science.

Best way is to analyze your favorite stories and try and figure out how every character, action, scene, bit of dialogue is built around theme. I highly recommend you do this.

I think the word "thesis" is a problem with discussing themes.

When I was in college, they made us take a course called "Writing the Essay," which was all about breaking with the concept of a "thesis" in order to discuss ideas. With a thesis, you have a statement that you then attempt to prove. You can't write a book like that. It's far too limiting.

On the contrary, it's liberating. You just have to understand how thesis and theme work.

 

[Devor]

On the contrary, it's liberating. You just have to understand how thesis and theme work.

I don't understand. How is it liberating? And could you address your understanding of what a "thesis" actually is and how that would compare to my interpretation in the post you've quoted?