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.

Jane E. told me that working with Joss, the choices were always guided by metaphor (which is a way of playing with theme).

And I just watched the commentary for "Selfless," during which Drew Goddard says it was really good to know the theme of the episode and have each scene (with the exception of random troll nonsense) push that theme. Joss says something similar in the "Hush" commentary (incidentally, one of my favorites).

As far as how this applies to writing...well, maybe I'm not the person to ask. Because I think I'm frequently idea-driven. But it's not like I think of an idea and then come up with things to support it, it's just that I have it in the back of my mind and it subconsciously drives the story. Sometimes it's an idea, or the feeling evoked from a scene, or a very key line of dialogue...you've got to have something. But I disagree that it's necessary. Like many of you, I think the real theme will develop organically if you just write a proper story. Hell, the best themes...the best everything seems to happen when you let the story tell itself to you.

Dropping in with a couple of links:

• I read this and thought "Susan W must see this!"
• apparently, that author's story of Patriot Act investigation may not have been true. Which makes me incredibly angry since (if it's so) the first person who really gets screwed over by the Act will be met with disbelief.

Dani, I've bookmarked that music link for future reference at some point when I'm not running out of town for a week--thanks!

Fiction of ideas without a plot can't win me over, but I do find that a fiction of plot without any ideas behind it is rarely substantial enough to be satisfying.

I'm with Nutty on this point, although I think the process by which a fiction incorporates ideas into its plot can vary widely. Despite my love of Buffy & its central metaphor, I find I tend to like it better when the theme gradually emerges along the story, instead of being broadcasted from chapter one à la Ayn Rand.

BTW, I actually dropped by to ask questions about the Vorkosigan saga, which I've just started to read a week ago. It's got its hooks on me but good. I've read "Shards of Honor" and "Barrayar", and I don't think I even *breathed* reading the last 50 pages of "Barrayar". Sweet mother of Moses, how I love Cordelia. (And "Warrior's Apprentice" just arrived in mail today! Eeeeee!)

Anyway, on to the questions;

1. Is Bujold's universe supposed to be compatible with our own timeline, i.e., not some fantastical AU, but a plausible future from the Earth now? It appears so, since there have been several mentions of ideas, personages and philosophy from the history as we know it. If so, how far along from now is it supposed to be?

2. Barrayar is clearly modelled on Imperial Russia, what with all the real and quasi-Russian names and all. Is its Russian heritage ever overtly acknowledged?

3. Whenever I fall for a fictional universe, I have this nasty habit of immediately starting to cast the movie adaptation in my head. Micole, while discussing this on Shaye's LJ, mentioned that Victor Garber must play Aral, which has struck me as so perfect that I've started to read the novels with VG in mind in the role already. But what about Cordelia? I've been going nuts, trying to think of someone kickass enough to play her on screen. (Someone mentioned Sigourney Weaver, but I think she may be too old now to play Cordelia in the first book.)

Phaedre has become my textbook example of a Mary Sue - no matter who else is involved in the conflict, or what their intelligences or expertises are, it's Phaedre who always comes up with the right answer.

What is it about the "Mary Sue" character that people find so disturbing? That a woman should be able to make out on her own, without the need to be rescued? Is there no male equivalent? Perhaps there is something like the "Macguyver," "Marlboro Man," or "Bond" syndrome? No one seems too bothered when a male character "always" comes up with the right answer, is independent, self sufficient, etc. That's the way men are expected to be. I'm not trying to point fingers, pick a fight, start a debate, or make anyone feel badly. I just find it interesting that there seems to be a double standard. If anyone was taking a class on gender or literature in general, this would be a very interesting topic for a paper.

p.s. Raquel I'm not trying to single you out. I quoted your post, because it got me onto this train of thought.

Vonnie, I've only recently found the Vorkosigans myself, and have no answers to your questions, but just wanted to say YAY. Love them.

No one seems too bothered when a male character "always" comes up with the right answer, is independent, self sufficient, etc.

Oh, yes they are, or at least, the same people who have their Mary Sue buttons pinged will tend to have their Marty Stu Buttons pinged, too. (See: many reactions to Dan Brown heros, Wesley Crusher, etc.) In general, I've found Marty Stu characters less common, but that's probably because I've read more books aimed at women than at men.

It's not simply a matter of always having the right answer, being independent, blah blah blah. It's unrealistic perfection or near perfection with a handful of "interesting" flaws. Your Mary Sue/Marty Stu is a flat character. There's no there there, and one of the most common problems with them above and beyond the inability to suspend disbelief when one appears is that the author violates show don't tell like a wild thing.