Meanings behind stories

[Shuji]

I noticed that every time I read/look/play a story, I always look for metaphorical meanings behind the true events and words.

And when I try to come up with an idea for a story, I always try to first understand what meaning I want to share and how the events in my game could send that meaning.

I always felt that the story was a mean to give the player a message.

So, do you also do the same? Or do you not?
And what type of story you like? ( With or without hidden message? )

 

[Liak]

I feel the same. Maybe it's just because of our school system which tends to focus EXTREMELY on interpretation of stories and poems and, well, EVERYTHING. You can't finish school without being sensibilized (that a word?) towards analyzing art. Maybe that's a curse, maybe that's a blessing, I don't know.

 

[Warpmind]

Ah, yes, the teacher says "the author wrote about the blue curtains to indicate his budding depression", while the author says "I said the curtains were blue, because that's the color curtains I saw in my neighbor's window from my writing desk - your teacher is an idiot."

Most of the time, the story is simply a medium of entertainment; nothing less, nothing more - you'd be hard pressed to find some deeper significance beyond "this sells, so we're making more money" in the Hardy Boys series, for example.
On the other hand, looking at fantasy and science fiction, you'll often find some interesting social critiques and observations that the author wouldn't be able to get away with if not written through a lens of the outlandish and alien - Heinlein, Pratchett, etc. - but these really aren't what I'd call the norm in that regard.

When I write a story, GM a tabletop RPG or tinker with RPG Maker, I generally don't even try to add any subliminal messages, hidden morals or lurking agenda, or anything like that - I'm just trying to tell a tall tale; with the aid of the player/players in the case of RPGs, and perhaps, sometimes, I might decide that "this is a good point to bring up a question for the player to ponder for a while". Those questions, if implemented, might have no more a straight answer than a zen koan, and I might never know what answers the players wind up with, but that's honestly not my place to judge in any case.

I'm just telling a story, and if someone finds a deeper moral lesson to it, that's fine by me, and if someone decides that they just spent a few hours engrossed in a bang-up tale and feel they've been satisfyingly entertained, that's perfectly fine, too.

What I bring to the table is what I bring to the table. What others make out of what I bring to the table... is not necessarily something I can control, anyway.

 

[Liak]

Most of the time, the story is simply a medium of entertainment; nothing less, nothing more - you'd be hard pressed to find some deeper significance beyond "this sells, so we're making more money" in the Hardy Boys series, for example.

I think that is true. That said, I'm sure many writers (or artists in general) actually DO care about subtle symbols and metaphors and stylistic devices. To come back to your example with the blue curtains: Sure, there may be writers who simply take what they see and put it in there, because, well, why not. But there are also other writers who sit there, having to put in curtains of SOME color, and they think deeply about which color to choose. Maybe nowadays, they even google what colors traditionally symbolize and use the color they think fits best. Then, the teacher is right trying to analyze it.

I guess you never know what kind or artist you're dealing with. And thus, whether or not there IS something to analyze.

And with THAT in mind, maybe artists who do make their art with the analysis in mind ARE the better artists, and it's worth having a very close look at their work.

Is it a vicious cycle then?

 

[Warpmind]

Not sure if the ones who keep analysis in mind are better artists; better craftsmen, perhaps, but very much enslaved by formula and protocol, as it were. Artists enjoy - and play with - a bit more proverbial wiggle room, and tend to come up with perhaps less consistent results, but with a wider range of quality (and then much of what an artist makes will never see the light of day, perhaps).

It's not something you can tell from a single published work, or even perhaps three or four - but get a large enough sample size, and you can start telling the craftsmen from the artists.

 

[Kes]

There is the concept of "the surplus of meaning".  It is why Shakespeare, writing for an English audience at the turn of the 16th/17 centuries, can still be taken as deeply symbolic in places like Japan.  One of the best stagings of Hamlet I ever saw was by a Japanese Noh company, in Japanese, and it was simply brilliant.  But it cannot be argued that Shakespeare intended his work to have these layers of symbolism and possibilities of interpretation.  The best stories are open-ended, they have enough internal space to allow for more than one interpretation.  They touch, however obliquely, important questions which still exercise people's minds and hearts.  If you're really (really, really) interested, you might want to read a bit about Phenomenological Hermeneutics - but you have to really want to know about it to work your way through the jargon that a lot of it is dressed up in.

 

[Warpmind]

Ehhhh, I'll rather go through another binge on TV Tropes. Seems that'll serve much of the same purpose.

 

[KanaX]

Ambiguity is always a source of great inspiration for the receiver of the message. Because we, at the end of the experience need to have some question answered define some things. If the project doesn't do it, we tend to do it ourselves. Consequently, we appreciate and attracted to the piece of work, even more.

The trick for the creator is, to find the silver line between ambiguity and vagueness, while keeping our interest at the same time. A vague book/movie/show/game will often fail to keep your attention. It doesn't give you enough bait to reel you in. We have then need to feel like we can connect some dots by our own. If we are lost, eventually we won't care.

A good example of that is the two Dark Souls games. The first one was ambiguous. You could see a deeper story when you cared to look even if you didn't exactly know what the sign means.

The second one was vague. It was trying to keep the subtle note of the first one but it failed to give us food for thought. The clues were scattered and inconsistent.

 

[Dragnfly]

I don't intend to use a lot of symbolism and stuff. It just happens sometimes. Often times other people point it out to me, which I love. It feels like my project and I are fated for each other.

I'll just use "creator" here because it really covers any type of media.

What Dragnfly likes, Type A:

Creator offers a work that's all wrapped up nice and closed. There may be some things for me to think about but mostly it's all there.

What Dragnfly likes, Type B:

Creator offers a work that gives me all the material I need to draw my own conclusions. Fruitful discussions are had by all.

What Dragnfly likes, Type C:

Creator offers either of the above at any level, but goes on his blog or whatever and says "this is my intended interpretation. <insert meaningful post>". While my interpretation is different and even "incorrect" in a sense, it's still valid because it's how I handled the information given. That feels great. I also get to enjoy that I might've came to the same conclusions he intended me to come to.

What Dragnfly hates, and has been known to make me instantly boycott the creator's stuff entirely:

Creator gives a huge pile of "metaphor" and "symbolism" with absolutely nothing for me to go off of, then tells me to "interpret the entire work for myself." I can do the exact same thing staring at stools in a toilet. Creator has literally made the equivalent of poop, and is expecting me to like it, pay for it, or both. I'm sure there's a special place in hell for those "artists".

 

[captainproton]

One of the only modern authors I've seen handle subtle, subliminal symbolism really well is Neil Gaiman, particularly in Sandman. Terry Pratchett also uses it well, but usually points out the symbolism with a humorous comment. Just about everyone else I've read who tries for symbolism beats you over the head with it, and usually comes off extremely pretentious.

 

[Gui]

Ah, the old question – still unanswered...

You know, it's funny because I was thinking about it (again...) not long ago and this reminded of what Michelangelo said of his sculptures, that they already existed into the rock before he worked the stone and he simply revealed it.

I think there very well may be something like that here: subconscious strength and/or inspiration. What you put into your story is a part of you that you did not necessarily analyse yet (the part of you as well as the thing you put into your story, both are linked together but not obligatory the same thing); it then appears raw and unfinished at first but when you come back to your draw some time later (at least weeks, preferably months), its meanings, or ideas, or whatever you want to call them look more precise and you then can find a way to rework them in order to give them their final shape...

For example, I wrote a book once (a sci-fi story where a sentient biomechanical alien ship crashlanded on earth and humans used its amazingly advanced technology to try to build a better place, but of course it went wrong: very classic concept) and it took me several years to understand that I was talking about the Woman. It just happened like this, but it happened and I can't deny it.

So, basically, it is all a matter of personal culture and knowledge: the more you have, the more you're able to put into your work, at least potentially.

What will happen next, and for that I agree with Warpmind, is in the hands of the public – certainly not yours.