Serving the Story
Jul. 12th, 2009 10:46 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethI am a writer, so I read a lot of stuff about writing, by writers. And one of the lines people use that makes me wonder if my world is inside out of theirs is the one about 'serve the story not the reader'.
James Moran said it today, as you'll probably have seen linked. I'm making a more general observation, but I'll quote off him. His post says
Please feel free to pass this on, I encourage you to do so, to make my position clear to everyone - but you must include the link to the full post here: http://jamesmoran.blogspot.com/2009/07/stepping-back.html
So you can see the context. The bit I wonder about is
Everybody wants different things from a story, but this is not a democracy, you do not get to vote. You are free to say what you think of my work, even if you hate it, I honestly don't mind. But the ONLY person I need to please is myself, and the ONLY thing I need to serve is the story. Not you. I will do my work to the very best of my ability, in an attempt to give you the best show, the best movie, the best story, the best entertainment I possibly can. Even if that means that sometimes, I'll do things you won't like. I won't debate it. Either you go along with it, or you don't. None of it is done to hurt you, or to force some agenda down your throat, or anything else. It's all in service of the story.
Taking it point by point:
Of course we get a vote, we get to not buy it.
What's the point of writing to please yourself? You can daydream to please yourself. Saves on typing.
And how do you serve something that doesn't exist?
A story exists between the writer and the reader. It's a communication. It doesn't exist as a thing in itself, it comes into being when the reader puts it together in their head. The symbols, signifiers, words, images, those exist in a stored form for recorded fiction, but the story happens in us, writers and readers.
How can you chop that away, serve the story without serving the ones making it?
As for the agenda, I hear that a lot. But the plain fact is *everything* has an agenda, encodes an ideology, makes one set of things seem normal and natural and excludes others. If you say it hasn't, you probably haven't consciously thought about it, because your subconscious built it from the your dominant parts. It's an invisible agenda because it matches. But every story is selling something. You get an initial setup, you get something that changes it, you get something they're trying to save. Children good drugs bad is an agenda. It's one of a set of options. The story pushes that one option.
But 'the story' isn't existing on some platonic level waiting to be teased out and poured into the world. It isn't truly 'the story' that chooses options and puts emotional weight behind them. That is always people, writers, and readers. Writers try and do the choosing and the weighing and put it all to readers.
And 'best'? Doesn't exist as a thing in itself. Value judgements again. 'Best' is 'most fit for purpose'. Writers define the purpose. What is the purpose of these stories? Ratings? Impact? And why is it best to pack the most punch?
What does it mean to be in service to a story?
A story is a communication created between writer and reader.
A story is something you do with an audience. Or sometimes to it.
There's writers, and there's audience. A writer who ignores the audience is only serving themselves. To say 'serve the story' puts making the point of the story ahead of the impact it makes on people, especially on those on the pointy end.
Your writing, my writing, every communicating act, pushes a particular agenda, value set, choice. So do that - consciously, aware of what and who you're pushing, and how hard.
Be aware that if the reader thinks the great punch you packed in just landed on their face they're not going to be mightily receptive to whatever the idea you meant to send was.
And next time they see you writing they're just going to duck.
Aim carefully.
(Personally I prefer shooting compassion in their face. You get the warm glow of moral superiority and stuff. And it works better.)
James Moran said it today, as you'll probably have seen linked. I'm making a more general observation, but I'll quote off him. His post says
Please feel free to pass this on, I encourage you to do so, to make my position clear to everyone - but you must include the link to the full post here: http://jamesmoran.blogspot.com/2009/07/stepping-back.html
So you can see the context. The bit I wonder about is
Everybody wants different things from a story, but this is not a democracy, you do not get to vote. You are free to say what you think of my work, even if you hate it, I honestly don't mind. But the ONLY person I need to please is myself, and the ONLY thing I need to serve is the story. Not you. I will do my work to the very best of my ability, in an attempt to give you the best show, the best movie, the best story, the best entertainment I possibly can. Even if that means that sometimes, I'll do things you won't like. I won't debate it. Either you go along with it, or you don't. None of it is done to hurt you, or to force some agenda down your throat, or anything else. It's all in service of the story.
Taking it point by point:
Of course we get a vote, we get to not buy it.
What's the point of writing to please yourself? You can daydream to please yourself. Saves on typing.
And how do you serve something that doesn't exist?
A story exists between the writer and the reader. It's a communication. It doesn't exist as a thing in itself, it comes into being when the reader puts it together in their head. The symbols, signifiers, words, images, those exist in a stored form for recorded fiction, but the story happens in us, writers and readers.
How can you chop that away, serve the story without serving the ones making it?
As for the agenda, I hear that a lot. But the plain fact is *everything* has an agenda, encodes an ideology, makes one set of things seem normal and natural and excludes others. If you say it hasn't, you probably haven't consciously thought about it, because your subconscious built it from the your dominant parts. It's an invisible agenda because it matches. But every story is selling something. You get an initial setup, you get something that changes it, you get something they're trying to save. Children good drugs bad is an agenda. It's one of a set of options. The story pushes that one option.
But 'the story' isn't existing on some platonic level waiting to be teased out and poured into the world. It isn't truly 'the story' that chooses options and puts emotional weight behind them. That is always people, writers, and readers. Writers try and do the choosing and the weighing and put it all to readers.
And 'best'? Doesn't exist as a thing in itself. Value judgements again. 'Best' is 'most fit for purpose'. Writers define the purpose. What is the purpose of these stories? Ratings? Impact? And why is it best to pack the most punch?
What does it mean to be in service to a story?
A story is a communication created between writer and reader.
A story is something you do with an audience. Or sometimes to it.
There's writers, and there's audience. A writer who ignores the audience is only serving themselves. To say 'serve the story' puts making the point of the story ahead of the impact it makes on people, especially on those on the pointy end.
Your writing, my writing, every communicating act, pushes a particular agenda, value set, choice. So do that - consciously, aware of what and who you're pushing, and how hard.
Be aware that if the reader thinks the great punch you packed in just landed on their face they're not going to be mightily receptive to whatever the idea you meant to send was.
And next time they see you writing they're just going to duck.
Aim carefully.
(Personally I prefer shooting compassion in their face. You get the warm glow of moral superiority and stuff. And it works better.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-12 11:19 pm (UTC)I'm glad you wrote this, cos I've been wanting to but couldn't really find the words.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-13 07:19 pm (UTC)We write for ourselves up to the point other people is reading it. After that not so much. It's not just pro writers that need audience, it's that writing only becomes communication once there is audience. For therapy writing makes sense. But for story for an audience there's more involved.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-13 07:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-13 08:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-13 08:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-13 10:34 pm (UTC)Of course professional writers have to write for an audience. Even the most successful writers don't get things made unless the appeal is clear to those with the funding. Who does he think he is? Woody Allen? (Even he has to write for others, not just for himself! )
As you say, daydream, write for personal therapy, fine, but you won't make a living unless someone likes it.
No one has the right to be aggressive towards him, or make threats, but then he has to ignore those who are out of order, and delete them. I have a friend who is well known for some telly, and does a lot of writing, and he was saying a while back that you always regret engaging with those who put ranting onto your blog or website. He just ignores it, doesn't flounce and remind them that he is a professional. Being a professional involves having boundaries, and you don't get too involved, it will come back to bite you.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-14 12:32 am (UTC)And I wasn't talking about making a living, I was talking about making a story. You make a story with people. It doesn't work if you break them.
no subject
Date: 2009-07-14 08:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-07-14 11:38 am (UTC)