Paul Kingsnorth said "Glorious failures are always more interesting than unambitious successes." And it really got me thinking about what this means for creative writing and how to step outside of your comfort zone. Failures, while are disappointing, are taken lighter if there is pride in the effort. Always try to give an idea a chance, to try to create sensate work. But he posed a guestion that really got me thinking.
"If awareness,
consciousness, feelings – life – all extend far beyond the human domain, why do novels continue
to behave as if humans were the only actors?"
Why can't the Earth be the star of the show? Can we not use our world to dominate action and perhaps be the driving force of the story? I think back to a recent trail for a dystopian film, where the antagonist is climate and the natural disasters it produces. Why is this limited to destruction? Is there a piece that does not show nothing but destruction?
Personally, I think that the Earth can be "the star of the show" as you put it. Unfortunately, I also think it is hard to successfully make the Earth the main protagonist without personifying it. As readers, we want to relate to the protagonists we read. As writers, we want to make our protagonists resonate with our readers. The easiest way to do this with the Earth, is to personify it in some way. That is why so many authors give human characteristics to their non human characters. It makes them easier to understand from the readers standpoint.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason we use nature aspects as antagonists is because action is a driving point for stories. It makes readers want to continue reading and gives writers something to react to. Why, as a writer, would you write about a gentle breeze when you could write about a tornado. But at the same time, as authors we are capable of changing the formula. We could just as easily write about the healing growth of nature. However, these tales are rarely as interesting to readers as those of destruction.