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.

Hmm. The kind of stuff I'm talking about now would probably be more at home in Great Write than here, but the discussion is here, so....

I'm still experimenting to find the best balance of structure and freedom in my own writing. I have a knee-jerk rebellion against "musts," whether it's "you must determine your theme before writing," "you must outline first," or "you must do detailed character biographies first." My gut instinct is to just sail in and write by the seat of my pants, and as a result I have a certain natural fondness for writers that I know (e.g. Diana Gabaldon) or suspect (e.g. Jacqueline Carey) of doing the same thing. Yeah, it gets sloppy at times, but there's a certain creative exuberance there that resonates with me.

That said, if I'd planned my first novel better beforehand, I might not have had to rewrite it three times. So I'm trying to find the right balance (at first I typed "write balance") of just enough structure to keep the stories in control, but not so much that it takes all the joy from the process. Because if I did all the things you're "supposed" to do with pre-determining themes, making a detailed outline, building my characters and structuring my plot around the protagonists' and villains' goals, motivation, and conflict, etc., I'd feel like I was writing about automatons rather than human beings.

That said, I know very well that my characters are purely figments of my imagination. I'm too practical to really buy into any mystic ideas about the characters having lives of their own and taking over the story. But I write better if I pretend that's true, and it's more fun to carry on mental conversations (and occasionally shouting matches) with my characters than to painstakingly build them around themes and laws of writing.

I know several published writers who say that they only realize what the book is about after they finish the first draft.

With regard to theme versus plot and/or character, I know for me, it's definitely a character in a situation that first comes to me when I write. As I write, I find myself figuring out *why* I wanted to write the story, whether it's a theme of freedom or risk or penguin-worshipping or whatever. There's usually (hopefully) a little *ping* when I understand why a certain character appealed to me.

My problem with putting Theme first, is that stories written that way (or ones I suspect were written that way) feel forced to me. Manipulating the characters to make a theme work almost always, to me, makes the story feel artificial. It might just be my own superstition, and like Susan I don't truly believe characters have a "life" of their own, but if you regard them as real, and let their actions flow a little more naturally from the way that kind of person would behave, the story always seems to ring more truly to me.

re: theme from character.

Bob winds up in trouble, then the writer should think, "OK, why is Bob is this mess? OK, he's got problems with gambling with money he doesn't have. So he's fond of risk. Why? OK, how about he doesn't feel he's got anything to live for, so why not take stupid chances with mobsters? So now we've got to figure out how to a) save him from Tony the Shark and b) get his mind untangled to keep him from doing this again."

I'd read it.

My problem with putting Theme first, is that stories written that way (or ones I suspect were written that way) feel forced to me.

I guess the issue I have with this line of thinking is that it assumes you can know the author's thought process from reading the finished product. Why not just say, "I don't like writing that feels forced"?

Why not just say, "I don't like writing that feels forced"?

Oh, that's true, definitely. I was thinking more about authors like Hawthorne, and The Scarlet Letter. Which works as a novel, but is pretty anvilicious, in my opinion.

And yeah, I don't like writing that feels forced. ::sheepish smile::

Jane E. told me that working with Joss, the choices were always guided by metaphor (which is a way of playing with theme). When the writers were tossing around story ideas, he would say "That's a cool idea, but it contradicts high school as hell" or whatever they were exploring that season or that episode. She found it disheartening to work on another (unamed) series, where story choices were made based on whether they were cool or dramatic only. I think this is analogous to the SECOND draft of a novel, becayse TV writers already know the characters and the setting and the tone, and that's the time when theme can really be explored without it draining the story of depth and life.