Some Things I Believe About Stories
Stories should not be PRIMARILY created to entertain. They should be created to teach, or encourage, or inspire, USING entertaining qualities. The Romans used entertainment to distract the populace from corruption. J. R. R. Tolkien, on the other hand, described "escapism" as "a prisoner of war escaping from enemy camp to go back home." You're not running from reality to fantasy when a story does it's job. You're running from the dark, twisted side of the world to something that reminds you of the good, the true, the beautiful, the correct. You've been imprisoned by bad ideas and confusion and dark perspectives, and the story shows you how to escape and get back to true and beautiful reality. It's got a point, it's not just for diversion.
Stories should be made to serve others and leave the world better than they found it. Storytellers should not only tell a story to exorcize their personal demons or point to how clever and artistic they are. That can be a nice bonus. But the point should be to serve the audience. Think about it. When it's made, it's timeless; it will be read or watched or listened to by the next generation, or the next. What are the storytellers letting fall into the hands of the people who come after they're not around to explain or gain a profit?
The storyteller should be passionate about the story while they make it. This could look like a sense of duty, or fun, or just excitement. But those outward emotions usually signal an inward understanding of how important the story is, and therefore, a level of compassion and care for the eventual audience.
You can like a story or dislike a story. You can interpret a story or misinterpret a story. Those things are subjective. But whether or not a story is good is objective: it can be measured. Does the story say what it is trying to say in the clearest, most compelling way possible? If yes, it's a good story. If no, it might be great entertainment. It might be funny. It might be cool. It might be quotable or franchise-able or profitable or even memorable. But it's not a good story if it does not say something in the clearest, most compelling way possible.
A story's main point, or theme, is the most important thing about it. The characters, the set design, the pacing, the soundtrack, the language, the use of color or lighting or blocking etc.; all of those pieces work best when they are unified in the goal of communicating that main point or theme.
Death of the author = death of the story. It's point is to say something. If you claim the speaker's intent is meaningless, so are the words spoken. If you claim it can mean anything, your words are meaningless too. We all might as well tell no stories and blabber gibberish instead. It’s one thing to say you understand what the author intended, and you like to think of it in/wish it were another way. But it’s quite another to say that what the author intended is unknowable or doesn’t matter. You’re either calling the author a bad storyteller or, again, recommending we all speak gibberish.
Both form (the quality of the story and it's elements) and content (the main point or lessons) matter. Without one you have a lecture, not a story. Without the other you have entertainment, but no valuable, timeless, beautiful truth to make it a “story.”
