Literary Themes - want feedback

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 4:18 pm

I'm starting a story outline based on a recurring theme in Hermann Hesse's work. He pits the intellectual against the sensationalist (worldly people) and consistently states that intellectuals are important but live in a sterile world.

For those into the book critique part: The Glass Bead Game and Narcissus and Goldmund

What are your thoughts?

If you look at someone who has a great education, a solid paying job and social esteem and then look at someone who lives hand to mouth, rides an emotional rollercoaster but lives every moment of his life to the fullest... who has it better?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:24 pm

I don't agree that intellectuals have a sterile world at all. Some may be up themselves but that's not the same thing.

My scattered random thoughts:

I think who has it better is relative only to the people concerned and their own opinions about it.

That said, the hand to mouth people I know, do not live the fullest life and have little ambition, very few dreams.

It would be easy to say the intellectual has the better life because he's privy to art and culture and many of the Beautiful Things that make life good and worthwhile...but those things aren't worthwhile to many. Some people believe in "bloom where you're planted" and that works for them. The poor person may think a tree is Art by God and that's enough for them.

The wealthy intellectual may eat a five course meal at a gourmet restaurant and think it's good. The poor person who hasn't eaten in a couple days may finally get some beans and cornbread and consider it nirvana.

Maybe the answer is in relativity, appreciation and gratitude for what you have and where you come from.

The Rob · Post by **The Rob** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:49 pm

RedGlitter;627527 wrote: I don't agree that intellectuals have a sterile world at all. Some may be up themselves but that's not the same thing.

My scattered random thoughts:

I think who has it better is relative only to the people concerned and their own opinions about it.

That said, the hand to mouth people I know, do not live the fullest life and have little ambition, very few dreams.

It would be easy to say the intellectual has the better life because he's privy to art and culture and many of the Beautiful Things that make life good and worthwhile...but those things aren't worthwhile to many. Some people believe in "bloom where you're planted" and that works for them. The poor person may think a tree is Art by God and that's enough for them.

The wealthy intellectual may eat a five course meal at a gourmet restaurant and think it's good. The poor person who hasn't eaten in a couple days may finally get some beans and cornbread and consider it nirvana.

Maybe the answer is in relativity, appreciation and gratitude for what you have and where you come from.

I was gonna say all that.

Really, I was!

Good post.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:54 pm

lots of good points in there.

In the Hesse stories, both were thinking the other had the better life. It wasn't a case of either saying "I'm better than you." They were friends who somewhat pined for a missing element they thought the other possessed.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:28 pm

I’ve never lived the “stable” side of the two lives. I do know that I am hand to mouth as it were, and I dream as big as anyone does. I have ambitions that are far bigger than they probably have a right to be, and although my life may not be the fullest; it sure as heck ain’t empty. Most of my friends look at me and I can see in their eyes for a moment them wishing they could shrug off a lost job, or get up and move when they felt like it, but then reality sets in and they realize they have a beautiful wife, and adorable kids. I bet those same things that bring them out of the day dream put them there to begin with. I look at my friends who have their gardens planted, their little men and women running around messing the entire house up, the nine to five jobs, the mini vans; I look at them and turn green with envy. I don’t get knocked out of the daydream by anything in particular, I just remember that it probably isn’t for me, wasn’t made that way.

So yes, it is very relative; most everything is. The thought of being that husband, father, home owner is so very appealing to me, I almost did it here a month or so ago, but then I think about it in hindsight, and realize that that woman probably did the best thing in the world for me by changing her mind. I have dreams and ambitions of being that husband and father, but I have dreams and ambitions of being that hand to mouth, mischievous, day time dreamer as well. Two sides to every person, or at least every Pisces.

I also take great offense (not from anyone here) that intellectual and sensationalist are separated. Worldly by its nature is more intelligent, unless we are describing intelligence as only book smarts, which any sensationalist if played correctly will have more than enough of that as well.

I don’t like labels, you can’t fit something as complex as a human being into one. The difference lies not in what they do, but who they are.

Sorry for the ramble. I just don't like labels, especially with writers comparing things, it lessens their choice of materials. I think any intellectual can lead just as sensual a life as any sensationalist can live an intellectual one.

Richard Bell · Post by **Richard Bell** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:17 pm

koan;627485 wrote:

If you look at someone who has a great education, a solid paying job and social esteem and then look at someone who lives hand to mouth, rides an emotional rollercoaster but lives every moment of his life to the fullest... who has it better?

"He lives the poetry that he cannot write. The others write the poetry that they dare not realise." Oscar Wilde

"Colleges are places where pebbles are polished and diamonds are dimmed." Robert G. Ingersoll

JacksDad · Post by **JacksDad** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:23 pm

KB.;627576 wrote: I think any intellectual can lead just as sensual a life as any sensationalist can live an intellectual one.

I like this guy.

Nods, KB..

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:56 pm

I found it odd that Hesse seemed so set that they couldn't be both but his point of reasoning was that his characters lived their "destinies" to the fullest. So if Goldmund had balanced his time between being a vagrant and lover with being a scholar and pupil then he wouldn't have done either well and wouldn't have become the sculptor that he was before he died. Same for Narcissus. He was the scholar and monk and he devoted himself completely to the world of the mind. If he had taken off to see the world and lay with women then it would have taken away from who he became.

If they were both content to be average they could have chosen a middle path.

It is not necessary for this to be true for the books to remain good. I'm just wondering if it was folly or if it bears any weight. How much does one have to choose and stick to a single path or way of being to say they did it well?

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 10:59 pm

Mediocrity, like jerk goat, is an often over looked delicacy. This is my opinion only, not the jerked goat thats fact, but that a single path without diversion is a folly.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:43 pm

Don't be jerking any goats on my watch.

So what yer all tellin' me is that if I write this outline and go with Hesse's theory on the intellectual, I'll annoy people and get them talking?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:45 pm

hehe... and at the end, Nomad shows up and tells them all why they are idiots.

or better yet: jimbo

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:49 pm

koan;627686 wrote: Don't be jerking any goats on my watch.

So what yer all tellin' me is that if I write this outline and go with Hesse's theory on the intellectual, I'll annoy people and get them talking?

I'm just talking; I very well could have said the exact opposite thing depending on what was said first after you posted. One idea was thrown out, I just went the other way. I do believe the last statement I made, the one JD quoted.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:52 pm

yes, but real life often doesn't make for good fiction unless you push it in a direction away from normal.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:53 pm

koan;627688 wrote: hehe... and at the end, Nomad shows up and tells them all why they are idiots.

or better yet: jimbo

oh koanie coming from some who's idea of foreplay is to look at herself in the mirror for an hour

i'll take that as a compliment :p :p

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:56 pm

jimbo;627694 wrote: oh koanie coming from some who's idea of foreplay is to look at herself in the mirror for an hour

i'll take that as a compliment :p :p

but what am I doing in front of that mirror? :p

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:58 pm

koan;627693 wrote: yes, but real life often doesn't make for good fiction unless you push it in a direction away from normal.

Life and normal in the same sentence don't make sense to me, sorry.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:01 am

I think that Narcissus and Goldmund is potentially Hesse's attempt to justify being more of a hermit. Saying he is sacrificing himself for the good of intellectual pursuits. Then he gets to do what he does and not have to wonder if he should play his cards differently.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:05 am

We have a way of trying to justify our actions; especially when they are not what we really feel like it is what we need to do. I do it in almost every story I write. I'm not familiar with his works, but am familiar with the feeling he is experiencing. The one you are conveying anyways. I am far too much of a sensualist to ever be that Hermit, but have wanted to be him plenty. Maybe I should read what he has written.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:06 am

KB.;627697 wrote: Life and normal in the same sentence don't make sense to me, sorry.

I have a screenplay called In Search Of Normal that is about just that. :-6

Some of my characters believe in it some do not.

I have yet another about fate in which my two main characters are about to have a feature length debate about whether or not it exists. I'm not sure which will win. It depends on which one ends up being more clever.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:09 am

Well one of my favorite sayings is that normal is boring, and another is that it is all relative.

Carl44 · Post by **Carl44** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:05 am

koan;627696 wrote: but what am I doing in front of that mirror? :p

DOES ANY ONE ELSE THINK THIS STRANGE ,I MAKE A JOKE ABOUT KOANIE IN THE MIRROR ,THEN WITHIN MINUTES I GO UPSTAIRS AND SMASH ONE :-3 :-3

7 YEARS MORE BAD LUCK :-2

The Rob · Post by **The Rob** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:45 am

KB.;627576 wrote: Iâ€™ve never lived the â€œstableâ€ side of the two lives. I do know that I am hand to mouth as it were, and I dream as big as anyone does. I have ambitions that are far bigger than they probably have a right to be, and although my life may not be the fullest; it sure as heck ainâ€™t empty. Most of my friends look at me and I can see in their eyes for a moment them wishing they could shrug off a lost job, or get up and move when they felt like it, but then reality sets in and they realize they have a beautiful wife, and adorable kids. I bet those same things that bring them out of the day dream put them there to begin with. I look at my friends who have their gardens planted, their little men and women running around messing the entire house up, the nine to five jobs, the mini vans; I look at them and turn green with envy. I donâ€™t get knocked out of the daydream by anything in particular, I just remember that it probably isnâ€™t for me, wasnâ€™t made that way.

So yes, it is very relative; most everything is. The thought of being that husband, father, home owner is so very appealing to me, I almost did it here a month or so ago, but then I think about it in hindsight, and realize that that woman probably did the best thing in the world for me by changing her mind. I have dreams and ambitions of being that husband and father, but I have dreams and ambitions of being that hand to mouth, mischievous, day time dreamer as well. Two sides to every person, or at least every Pisces.

I also take great offense (not from anyone here) that intellectual and sensationalist are separated. Worldly by its nature is more intelligent, unless we are describing intelligence as only book smarts, which any sensationalist if played correctly will have more than enough of that as well.

I donâ€™t like labels, you canâ€™t fit something as complex as a human being into one. The difference lies not in what they do, but who they are.

Sorry for the ramble. I just don't like labels, especially with writers comparing things, it lessens their choice of materials. I think any intellectual can lead just as sensual a life as any sensationalist can live an intellectual one.

Well stated. Our society loves the label, fairly clamors for branding. I blame Mad Av only in part; it's easier for them to sell product to people they've already neatly catagorized and stamped, but we let them do it. We allow them to set our examples of "successful living".

Let's each live for ourselves, not selfishly but with individuality.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:54 am

If a person was to say 'I shall tell this story without allowing any of my characters to be labeled' then it may well reflect the true nature of the human mind more accurately but it will not allow for many highly entertaining stories to be told. It only allows for character studies and a specific type of audience. Good bye to all the 007 movies.

Where in real life, a person who has never shown an ounce of courage can suddenly risk their life to save someone from sure death, in a film, that person must be given some reason for the change in character or the audience claims it was not realistic.

The Rob · Post by **The Rob** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:03 am

jimbo;627708 wrote: DOES ANY ONE ELSE THINK THIS STRANGE ,I MAKE A JOKE ABOUT KOANIE IN THE MIRROR ,THEN WITHIN MINUTES I GO UPSTAIRS AND SMASH ONE :-3

7 YEARS MORE BAD LUCK :-2

Now is a good time to ask the question: Dang! Y'allright up there?? :-2

The Rob · Post by **The Rob** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:11 am

koan;627817 wrote: If a person was to say 'I shall tell this story without allowing any of my characters to be labeled' then it may well reflect the true nature of the human mind more accurately but it will not allow for many highly entertaining stories to be told. It only allows for character studies and a specific type of audience. Good bye to all the 007 movies.

Where in real life, a person who has never shown an ounce of courage can suddenly risk their life to save someone from sure death, in a film, that person must be given some reason for the change in character or the audience claims it was not realistic.

Yup. Fiction doesn't rest well nestled into the mundane. Even with true-life heroes, the habit is to embellish the heroic deeds and keep the more ho-hum (and especially the negative!) aspects of the personalities well back in the shadows. We would rather not know that the hero who runs into the burning house to save a family is a bigot or a drunk or a spouse abuser, and so we create fiction for comfort's sake.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:38 am

Bigot and drunk aren't labels; that is an adjective, a detail. Intellectual and sensualist, that is a label. I know it is semantics, but thats what I think.

The Rob · Post by **The Rob** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:51 am

KB.;627866 wrote: Bigot and drunk aren't labels; that is an adjective, a detail. Intellectual and sensualist, that is a label. I know it is semantics, but thats what I think.

I meant only that those adjectives don't fit nicely with the branding of a hero.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:03 am

KB.;627866 wrote: Bigot and drunk aren't labels; that is an adjective, a detail. Intellectual and sensualist, that is a label. I know it is semantics, but thats what I think.

Have you read Narcissus and Goldmund by any chance?

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:13 am

koan;627889 wrote: Have you read Narcissus and Goldmund by any chance?

I haven't

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:18 am

Though you may disagree with his conclusions it made for quite a good book. I recall one of the first books that thoroughly absorbed me was Tess Of the D'Urbervilles. I got so mad I threw the book on the floor then immediately picked it up and started reading it again.

KB. · Post by **KB.** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:22 am

I've just never read anything by him; has nothing to do with my opinions and him not agreeing. That would make for a better read if anything. Do I sound defensive?

The Rob · Post by **The Rob** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:24 am

koan;627900 wrote: ...I recall one of the first books that thoroughly absorbed me was Tess Of the D'Urbervilles. I got so mad I threw the book on the floor then immediately picked it up and started reading it again.

I've done that. Wuthering Heights. The story was intriguing but the writing style was atrocious, at least for me at the time I read it several years ago. (For one, the woman couldn't write dialect to save her life.) That book was airborne at least twice.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:03 pm

I, Rob;627904 wrote: I've done that. Wuthering Heights. The story was intriguing but the writing style was atrocious, at least for me at the time I read it several years ago. (For one, the woman couldn't write dialect to save her life.) That book was airborne at least twice.

Wow Rob!! You have blasphemed one of my favorite books!

I found it intriguing too- mainly because somehow Bronte made the degree of romance evident without resorting to using a single hint of erotica. I know the code of the times made that necessary but the fact that a story of that age still draws the interest of modern day people makes it a classic for that reason alone.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:53 pm

KB.;627902 wrote: I've just never read anything by him; has nothing to do with my opinions and him not agreeing. That would make for a better read if anything. Do I sound defensive?

You did a bit.

As much as I would like to think that all people are complex characters I've come to the conclusion that it isn't true. Even if it were, stereotypes can make for good stories (Gone With The Wind for example)

I write all kinds of characters. I really dislike some of them but the only ones I haven't been able to do are stories about serial killers. I was asked for a treatment on a script for one and had to turn it down. Too icky.

The Rob · Post by **The Rob** » Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:46 pm

RedGlitter;628056 wrote: Wow Rob!! You have blasphemed one of my favorite books!

Oops. Forgot to add "YMMV" to that post.

RedGlitter;628056 wrote: I found it intriguing too- mainly because somehow Bronte made the degree of romance evident without resorting to using a single hint of erotica. I know the code of the times made that necessary but the fact that a story of that age still draws the interest of modern day people makes it a classic for that reason alone.

Destructive romances will always have an audience, in print, on film, and in reality. We've come to expect it from our celebrities in fact, hence the popularity of "Entertainment Tonight" and "Extra!" :rolleyes: