Of Analogy

I've often come to consider the "truth" of my statements. I rarely write short fiction that is empty, or shallow, and I attempt to give it further dimension by embedding some kind of more abstract story behind it. Whether or not I succeed is of little circumstance right now, as that kind of discourse applies to all that I do at the moment. It is rather the very intention of doing so that might be questionable.

Personally, I find that a book gets more interesting if it allows me to think a little beyond the basic plot and characters. If an author works to a subject in an abstract way, and as such implements parts of the plot that tie together with this continuous metaphor, I find myself more intrigued by the plot at large. Such was the case with Tunnel Vision, which I rather loudly praised last week, that I could actively consider the elements that were being presented to me in a descriptive way, and apply them with sense to what had been going on before. I also enjoy that in short fiction, when there's an underlying moral to it, that you can consider while reading the actual fiction.

And I expect there's no better rule to being creative, than creating that which oneself could enjoy. So I've used influences from various authors that I find enjoyable without going into absurd repetition. Again, you can append "or that's what I like to think" to everything I say, because, well, I'm brought up a Swede and we don't like to brag.

But I have to question my own usage of this principle. At first, I wrote kind of "universal teachings". Some kind of over-estimated old philosophical stock stuff that I used to base my stuff off'f. Well, it wasn't quite that bad, but I didn't put too much thought to what I was actually saying; rather how I put it into words. Now, in the later iterations of my writing, this has become slightly better, and while the metaphor doesn't quite do the "moral" thing that, for instance, Raison d'Être, did, it still is very prevalent.

And I ask myself, is this really truth? Can I say that? And again, is it a viable and interesting point? It's really just a supplement to the plot, to give it a bit of depth, but it requires just as much thought as do any of the characters and any part of the plot. And this forethought becomes even more imperative in short fiction, where the characters are further minimized and what truly matters is the plot and related elements.

In addition, it becomes kind of preposterous when you write of grand philosophical concepts and it is really just a bag of garbage. This more than anything else is my worry when it comes to my projects, and the thematic troubles dominate. What actions I should take to minimize my worry is still largely a blank for me, and I think I will continue to pursue this matter a little bit for everything I write.

Hell, maybe I'll write about that some time.