As of recently I have noticed that almost every piece of literature that I have read in my A.P. English class incorporates some sort of vagueness inside of it that leaves the reader to decide what exactly happens. Obviously I was aware this literature form existed before I was in A.P. English, in fact, I knew it was the majority of writing, but it surprised me that it is simply everywhere, and it cannot be avoided. Just to make known, this thread is not about mystery in stories. It is, however, about things in a story that are never answered, and instead are just left there for the reader to decide
I myself do not read novels or other forms of literature other than news articles on the internet and threads on forums that often, however I do enjoy a nice read from time to time. Alas every time I do read a novel, I am left to decide as to what actually happened in the story. While yes, this is a nice feature, as it lets me shape the story, it is not what I opened the book for. I delve into the pages of the author's writing because I want to learn of an imaginary world, or the imaginary people, not to get an outline of these features previously mentioned, and be forced to edit them myself. In short, I read books to escape thinking, and to become merely a listener.
Because of this, while it may seem odd, I prefer the work known as Curious George more than I do the work known as Nineteen Eighty-Four. While Orwell's piece is obviously well-written, and an enjoyable read, I was quite dissatisfied in the fact that I had to use my own imagination to try to decipher some of the events in the novel. I want to know, is the Brotherhood real, is Big Brother actually alive, does the government ever get thrown, where do the rockets come from. However, I do not know these answers, and if it were ever to be "retconned" *pardon the misuse of that word* my previous thinking would have been pointless.
I understand the need for some ambiguity, but the sheer amount that is seen in Modern, and Post-Modern works is to me completely atrocious. I have a perfectly capable imagination myself, and I do not need writing to help spark it. Either I dream on my own, or I have someone else do it for me, I do not want to have to jump back and forth.
Well to get to the point, I made this thread to have other people's opinions of this matter. Please don't go into an odd flame war of discussing, "1984 is the greatest book ever, and you are just a fool" as that is not the point of this thread.
In 1984, it's heavily implied Big Brother is just a figurehead and the rockets are launched from the government onto their own citizens to help keep the war on people's minds.
In 1984, it's heavily implied Big Brother is just a figurehead and the rockets are launched from the government onto their own citizens to help keep the war on people's minds.
Yes, I understand this, but it is never confirmed.
I want yes, I want no, I want truth.
In 1984, it's heavily implied Big Brother is just a figurehead and the rockets are launched from the government onto their own citizens to help keep the war on people's minds.
Yes, I understand this, but it is never confirmed.
I want yes, I want no, I want truth.
Any more certainty than what they gave would make it seem like Orwell thought his readers were too stupid to come to the conclusion he wanted them to.
I mean holy ****, what's-his-face (I haven't read it in a few months, nor am I in a very good state mentally right now) essentially told the protagonist that Big Brother was a figurehead, and that every member of the Inner-party was at least somewhat insane.
In 1984, it's heavily implied Big Brother is just a figurehead and the rockets are launched from the government onto their own citizens to help keep the war on people's minds.
Yes, I understand this, but it is never confirmed.
I want yes, I want no, I want truth.
Any more certainty than what they gave would make it seem like Orwell thought his readers were too stupid to come to the conclusion he wanted them to.
I mean holy ****, what's-his-face (I haven't read it in a few months, nor am I in a very good state mentally right now) essentially told the protagonist that Big Brother was a figurehead, and that every member of the Inner-party was at least somewhat insane.
I understood I would get this reaction as people often like this writing, but in truth, I prefer "the cat is red, the house is blue" more than I do slight vagueness.
In 1984, it's heavily implied Big Brother is just a figurehead and the rockets are launched from the government onto their own citizens to help keep the war on people's minds.
Yes, I understand this, but it is never confirmed.
I want yes, I want no, I want truth.
That is kind of the point of the book, is it not? The way I read it, it's sort of questioning of one's ability to define and determine what reality is, as well as the changeable nature of humanity when it comes to what is "true". So to have given the reader the truth at the ending would sort of destroyed the point of the book.
That is kind of the point of the book, is it not? The way I read it, it's sort of questioning of one's ability to define and determine what reality is, as well as the changeable nature of humanity when it comes to what is "true". So to have given the reader the truth at the ending would sort of destroyed the point of the book.
The book was just more of an example of what we have been reading in class, but yes, I know what you mean.
I'm not saying vagueness is bad writing, but in some works it just seems to be an excuse for laziness.
As a writer, I can see why they do it, but from your perspective (and mine), I can also agree completely and wish they'd knock that **** off and FINISH YOUR GOD DAMN STORY.
I'm writing a series now (self-publishing as I go, retaining the rights so I can go to a publisher later). It's got a beginning, a middle and an end. There's no loose ends to the main story that won't be resolved, and you find out what happens to the good guys, the bad guys, the folks playing the middle ground and everybody else.
Now, for prequels, I can understand giving a little wiggle room - there's a whole lot of stuff that happened in between Star Wars Episodes 3 and 4 (the entirety of the Clone Wars) that is partially covered, but it does leave a lot unanswered. Why? Because they can still milk the cash cow and come out with more novels and sequels and prequels and explain what happens "off the camera" everywhere else.
But yes, it's annoying to get to the end and then not get a "happily ever after" ending, or at least a "ride off into the sunset" finish (to allow for possible sequels).
But yes, it's annoying to get to the end and then not get a "happily ever after" ending.
This isn't what I was saying earlier, but this also irks me. I hate reading a 500 page book, only to end it right where it started, no progress, and no happiness for those inside, although it's still good writing, and it properly conveys it's point.
But yes, it's annoying to get to the end and then not get a "happily ever after" ending.
This isn't what I was saying earlier, but this also irks me. I hate reading a 500 page book, only to end it right where it started, no progress, and no happiness for those inside, although it's still good writing, and it properly conveys it's point.
That'd be a "riding off into the sunset" ending - where the protagonists have made a difference, done something and made progress. Sequels optional.
What pieces of literature are you currently reading or have read in your A.P. English class? Just curious to know.
Something I think you're neglecting to realize, like in 1984, is that some aspects and elements of the story are mere devices that allow the plot to grow. I forgot the term of an entity or object in a story that has no purpose but is primarily revolved around. An example though is the sugar bowl in A Series Of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket (which isn't a classic series or anything but interesting netherless), there was no clear reason for why it was so important but all the characters are fighting to obtain it. The readers are also left to speculate for themselves of the use of the element, which I find it very important in literature, giving out all the answers leaves no room for analysis or interpretation.
That is kind of the point of the book, is it not? The way I read it, it's sort of questioning of one's ability to define and determine what reality is, as well as the changeable nature of humanity when it comes to what is "true". So to have given the reader the truth at the ending would sort of destroyed the point of the book.
The book was just more of an example of what we have been reading in class, but yes, I know what you mean.
I'm not saying vagueness is bad writing, but in some works it just seems to be an excuse for laziness.
Yeah I totally know what you mean, it's the like that short story, the painted door. http://chisnell.com/APEng/BackgroundNot ... d_door.pdf that is it if you want to read it. Basically it's a story about a farmwife painting some doors and having an affair with her neighbour because it's winter and she's bored. She finds her husband frozen to death the next morning with some paint on him; thus implying that he walked in on them having an affair but snuck out to suicide via freezing.
The vagueness really just seems like an attempt to lend some interest to an extremely dull story that's true message is, "farm wives get bored and horny".
I myself do not read novels or other forms of literature other than news articles on the internet and threads on forums that often, however I do enjoy a nice read from time to time. Alas every time I do read a novel, I am left to decide as to what actually happened in the story. While yes, this is a nice feature, as it lets me shape the story, it is not what I opened the book for. I delve into the pages of the author's writing because I want to learn of an imaginary world, or the imaginary people, not to get an outline of these features previously mentioned, and be forced to edit them myself. In short, I read books to escape thinking, and to become merely a listener.
Because of this, while it may seem odd, I prefer the work known as Curious George more than I do the work known as Nineteen Eighty-Four. While Orwell's piece is obviously well-written, and an enjoyable read, I was quite dissatisfied in the fact that I had to use my own imagination to try to decipher some of the events in the novel. I want to know, is the Brotherhood real, is Big Brother actually alive, does the government ever get thrown, where do the rockets come from. However, I do not know these answers, and if it were ever to be "retconned" *pardon the misuse of that word* my previous thinking would have been pointless.
I understand the need for some ambiguity, but the sheer amount that is seen in Modern, and Post-Modern works is to me completely atrocious. I have a perfectly capable imagination myself, and I do not need writing to help spark it. Either I dream on my own, or I have someone else do it for me, I do not want to have to jump back and forth.
Well to get to the point, I made this thread to have other people's opinions of this matter. Please don't go into an odd flame war of discussing, "1984 is the greatest book ever, and you are just a fool" as that is not the point of this thread.
Yes, I understand this, but it is never confirmed.
I want yes, I want no, I want truth.
Any more certainty than what they gave would make it seem like Orwell thought his readers were too stupid to come to the conclusion he wanted them to.
I mean holy ****, what's-his-face (I haven't read it in a few months, nor am I in a very good state mentally right now) essentially told the protagonist that Big Brother was a figurehead, and that every member of the Inner-party was at least somewhat insane.
I understood I would get this reaction as people often like this writing, but in truth, I prefer "the cat is red, the house is blue" more than I do slight vagueness.
That is kind of the point of the book, is it not? The way I read it, it's sort of questioning of one's ability to define and determine what reality is, as well as the changeable nature of humanity when it comes to what is "true". So to have given the reader the truth at the ending would sort of destroyed the point of the book.
The book was just more of an example of what we have been reading in class, but yes, I know what you mean.
I'm not saying vagueness is bad writing, but in some works it just seems to be an excuse for laziness.
As a writer, I can see why they do it, but from your perspective (and mine), I can also agree completely and wish they'd knock that **** off and FINISH YOUR GOD DAMN STORY.
I'm writing a series now (self-publishing as I go, retaining the rights so I can go to a publisher later). It's got a beginning, a middle and an end. There's no loose ends to the main story that won't be resolved, and you find out what happens to the good guys, the bad guys, the folks playing the middle ground and everybody else.
Now, for prequels, I can understand giving a little wiggle room - there's a whole lot of stuff that happened in between Star Wars Episodes 3 and 4 (the entirety of the Clone Wars) that is partially covered, but it does leave a lot unanswered. Why? Because they can still milk the cash cow and come out with more novels and sequels and prequels and explain what happens "off the camera" everywhere else.
But yes, it's annoying to get to the end and then not get a "happily ever after" ending, or at least a "ride off into the sunset" finish (to allow for possible sequels).
This isn't what I was saying earlier, but this also irks me. I hate reading a 500 page book, only to end it right where it started, no progress, and no happiness for those inside, although it's still good writing, and it properly conveys it's point.
That'd be a "riding off into the sunset" ending - where the protagonists have made a difference, done something and made progress. Sequels optional.
Something I think you're neglecting to realize, like in 1984, is that some aspects and elements of the story are mere devices that allow the plot to grow. I forgot the term of an entity or object in a story that has no purpose but is primarily revolved around. An example though is the sugar bowl in A Series Of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket (which isn't a classic series or anything but interesting netherless), there was no clear reason for why it was so important but all the characters are fighting to obtain it. The readers are also left to speculate for themselves of the use of the element, which I find it very important in literature, giving out all the answers leaves no room for analysis or interpretation.
Edit: It's called a MacGuffin plot device.
Yeah I totally know what you mean, it's the like that short story, the painted door. http://chisnell.com/APEng/BackgroundNot ... d_door.pdf that is it if you want to read it. Basically it's a story about a farmwife painting some doors and having an affair with her neighbour because it's winter and she's bored. She finds her husband frozen to death the next morning with some paint on him; thus implying that he walked in on them having an affair but snuck out to suicide via freezing.
The vagueness really just seems like an attempt to lend some interest to an extremely dull story that's true message is, "farm wives get bored and horny".