Theme first has never worked for me:

BtVS, seasons 1-3, even?

Hmm. Thinking back, the literal "must write a book!" moment varies from project to project for me:

First Book: I saw that Mansfield Park adaptation from a couple years back and started picking over why it didn't work for me. At some point I said, "I know it's Austen's most challenging work for the modern reader, but if I were adapting it, I'd do things a lot differently." So I started playing with it, and next thing I knew I was pulling it apart, putting it back together, and picking up a pen. So I guess it kinda did start as an idea book, but as soon as I'd determined what sort of person the heroine should be, she took on a life of her own and seized control of the story. And the story changed a lot as a result, though you can still see the MP skeleton buried within.

Second Book: A character from my first book started out as a plot device and something of a stereotype, but as I wrote she turned into an individual. I started liking her, and I realized she'd be utterly miserable in the marriage the plot required her to make. So I had an "Aha!" moment where I decided to do her justice by writing a sequel where her husband dies in the first chapter. Then I started playing around with what might happen to her, and what combination of events would give her a happy ending, but an exciting, rocky ride to get there. So that one is more character-based.

Third Book: Often I'll read some nugget of history and think, "There's a novel for me there." In this case it was a book about women aboard Royal Navy ships, including women who disguised themselves as men for various reasons. I filed it away in my mental "interesting scenario" file and went about my business. Then I was thinking about the romance cliche of a young woman disguising herself as a boy to run away from home, and wondering how you could put a new twist on it. Without conscious volition on my part, the ideas mated, and I literally shouted "Press gang!" Fortunately I was alone in my car at that time. And somehow the instant I had the idea, a set of characters fell into place as though they'd been waiting for an author to come up with a story for them. Though no doubt they'll evolve in unexpected ways once I actually start writing them.

OK--baby woke up and is demanding food. Will return at soem point today.

BtVS, seasons 1-3, even?

We don't have any reason to believe that theme was the very first thing in the writing process for each episode.

This person is saying that you should know "This is a book about Cruel Fate" before you ever type "Chapter 1".

We don't have any reason to believe that theme was the very first thing in the writing process for each episode.

In the commentary for A New Man (which is S4, but nevermind), they pretty much say explicitly that. They didn't start from "Giles gets turned into a demon," they started from "Giles is feeling misunderstood and alone." The plot grew out of the metaphor.

Nowhere did I say that they decided on a theme before writing each adn every episode, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that the show was, generally speaking, more about themes than events.

This person is saying that you should know "This is a book about Cruel Fate" before you ever type "Chapter 1".

Okay. Why is this bad?

They didn't start from "Giles gets turned into a demon," they started from "Giles is feeling misunderstood and alone." The plot grew out of the metaphor.

True, but it also grew out of the character.

Okay. Why is this bad?

It's not necessarily bad, but it's not how a lot of people work. I think it's a bad idea to state as a rule of writing that one MUST have a theme before setting pen to paper.

Everyone writes their own way. Making rules like that scares people away from writing, if their creative process doesn't work that way.

Because it's a blanket statement about writing process; these are almost always incorrect for at least one successful writer.

I know several published writers who say that they only realize what the book is about after they finish the first draft. They say that when they try to write a book about, say, Freedom, they discover that they've actually written a book about Failure. Or whatever.

Because it's a blanket statement about writing process; these are almost always incorrect for at least one successful writer.

I didn't realize it was being presented as a blanket statement. I'm only trying to argue that it's an individual matter, and one of taste, not quality.

Then we're in agreement, Jessica. Because that's what I was saying. I refuse to comply with any rule of writing that doesn't mesh with my personal experience of the process.

::shrugs::

This person is saying that you should know "This is a book about Cruel Fate" before you ever type "Chapter 1".

As much as I love novels of ideas, I don't think this is so. I may love the interplay and exploration of ideas in a work - but I doubt that is how any decent writer begins. Even two writers I loved who claimed to work that way did not in practice. For example according to Brechts intention "Mother Courage" was the villain of the piece, but most people see her as the heroine in the actual play. Similarly the reaading people end with of Shaw's actual plays is usually quite different than his proclaimed intentions. That is because both were good writers (sorry Plei) and their characters were full and real, and not just puppets for their "themes". I'm not even sure allegory is an exception. Most allegories that survive any length of time do so due the beauty of their images and language (Faerie Queen) or the quaintness of their cardboard characters (pilgrims progress).

However once a story is written, as a reader you can appreciate the play of ideas as much or more than the plot and characters - if you are so inclined.

In terms of Kushiel:

I think Mary Sue should be used narrowly - in the sense of being an unneccesarily overly perfect chacter - which I think Kushiel was, or say Spenser in Parkers series (and thanks to the Buffistas who pointed out that example a few weeks back ).

Also I think Kushiel had the flaws of an overly ambitious first work; Carey lost control not of her characters but of her world. Or if you want to look at storytelling as a game she made a wrong early move in building her tale, and never really recovered.

From certain things that came through in the writing, I suspect Carey shares my opinion. You will note that this second trilogy is really tightly controlled; I suspect that the first trilogy was not written from an outline, and that this one is, or that the first was written from a pretty general outline and this second from a more detailed one.

Phedre turned me off as quickly as the lynx porn heroine. They shared many qualities, come to think of it. Every single one of my Mary Sue buttons got pushed hard twice. Thus the part where I gave up on the book, because if the narrator makes my inner voice go, "oh, PLEASE," it becomes obvious that I'm not going to enjoy it.

To be fair, first person is far more likely to have that effect on me. It's not that I don't like it, it's just that it has to be very, very well done for me to be able to read and enjoy it, more so than any other voice. It takes more for it to ring true.