Didacticism
Oct. 21st, 2004 09:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
odd_buttonsThe following is an excerpt from Part III of the book Making Shapely Fiction, by Jerome Stern. The first two parts are very much worth reading as well. The book is available in paperback.
Didacticism
Didacticism refers to works that are written primarily to teach and to preach. They might be about the evils of liquor, the futility of war, or the redemptive power of a religious or political system. Or they can have homier moral points, like warning about the bad things that happen if you talk back to Mom. Didactic works tend to have villiains who show bad values, heroes who demonstrate good values, long speeches, and a plot that proves the writer's point. Readers generally react negatively when they sense that sotires are set up for propaganda purposes, though they're more forgiving when they agree with the ideas. That still doesn't make it good fiction. If you want to move an audience to a certain point of view, remember that the story that maintains its own complexity and integrity will be the most persuasive.
See Allegory, Fable, Parable.
Didacticism
Didacticism refers to works that are written primarily to teach and to preach. They might be about the evils of liquor, the futility of war, or the redemptive power of a religious or political system. Or they can have homier moral points, like warning about the bad things that happen if you talk back to Mom. Didactic works tend to have villiains who show bad values, heroes who demonstrate good values, long speeches, and a plot that proves the writer's point. Readers generally react negatively when they sense that sotires are set up for propaganda purposes, though they're more forgiving when they agree with the ideas. That still doesn't make it good fiction. If you want to move an audience to a certain point of view, remember that the story that maintains its own complexity and integrity will be the most persuasive.
See Allegory, Fable, Parable.
not that I disagree
Date: 2004-10-21 07:13 pm (UTC)So, okay, I do know what this is talking about, but I'm not sure the description as stated is as precise enough.
On the other hand, I'm all for eliminating long speeches.
Re: not that I disagree
Date: 2004-10-22 01:46 pm (UTC)Does that mean heroes should have good values and villains should have bad values *by accident*, or what?
I thought he meant flat characters: heroes who are good only, with no flaws or les admirable traits, and villians who are bad only, with no chance for sympathy. But maybe I thought that because I already know that, so yeah, he might have elaborated just a little bit more.