What is the issue with a writer being straightforward with what they have to say? This isn't me saying every piece of fiction needs to make it blatantly obvious what the themes or morals are but I see this criticism a lot.
What is the issue with a writer being straightforward with what they have to say? This isn't me saying every piece of fiction needs to make it blatantly obvious what the themes or morals are but I see this criticism a lot.
I think that putting a barrier in between reading something and fully understanding it can enhance the reader's enjoyment. Similar to the commonly-quoted thing about Ikea, where if you build your furniture yourself you like it more - if you build an interpretation of a text yourself, you become more attached to the text through the process. It's a fine line to walk, though - you don't want your writing to be described as "impenetrable" (unless you're a philosopher).
That said, there's definitely an elitism aspect too. The assumption is that if a text is fully understandable on a surface reading, then that means it must have been written for the masses, and you know what they're like.
Lastly I'll say that my ethos is that subtlety is lame. When the protagonist of the novel I'm currently working on beheads a capitalist, you'll know why she's doing it because right before doing it she will explain exactly how the events of the book up to that point have radicalized her into realizing that change within a broken system is doomed to failure and that the only war worth fighting is the class war.
At the risk of being part of the problem, if the reader has been witness to all those events and her reactions shouldn't the process already be evident? In which case the explanation is either redundant or intended as more than plain summary, such as a moment of character growth. Reading what I've typed it sounds super pedantic but I wonder where you draw the line of subtlety?
I say that's my ethos because it's kinda what I'm thinking right now, but it's entirely possible I'll write it out and decide it's terrible and try something radically different. Right now I'm imagining that the story's principle cast all represent different Enlightenment viewpoints, and that a bunch of the conversations in the book are essentially debates between these worldviews which the civil war becomes an extension of.
deleted by creator