On the Nature of Stories · 10:59am May 16th, 2022
Sooo... over in the 'Bookplayer's 50 Questions'-group, admin Latecomer asked me this:
Hmm... what's the distinction? Is a story not for entertainment?
... to which I replied with this:
Not necessarily, no. Stories can share similarities with living beings. They start out little, as mere ideas. Sparks in the heads and imaginations of others. They can be fed and groomed, they can grow up, they can develop in unexpected ways. They can become quite rebellious in their youths, and settle down once they grow older. They can die, if no one remembers them anymore. They can change, evolve, adapt.
I would like to say stories exist for their own sake, but that's just wishful thinking. They exist to teach, first and foremost. To communicate concepts and lessons. Which ones don't depend on the story, per se. It depends on the circumstances. Who is telling this story? Who is he telling the story to? When, where, why. Which details does he leave out, or switch up?
A story can be about entertainment. It can be designed to make you laugh. To get all those precious, fuzzy feelings in your heart. To question the society around you. To feel anger, and rightful retribution. A story is a tool to create, shape, grow and sooth emotions and lessons.
Even a fuzzy little piece can teach you something.
And just because you write the goriest, darkest story doesn't mean that a part of your audience doesn't take away the lesson that no matter how trying times might get, there will always be hope.
The same way your inspired fuzzy little piece might make someone bawl their eyes out as they remember how cold and lonely they feel.
I don't know. Calling it 'entertainment' might work. But it feels like it's doing stories a major disservice.
Latecomer suggested I put this up as a blog all on its own, so here we are.
Pity blogs can't be upvoted.