The Art of Fiction

This book was my introduction to Ayn Rand. It helped me learn the vocabulary to describe what makes a story compelling, besides "hngggg it's so good!"

To paraphrase:
All art is about the communication of values. Language is an objective instrument, you have the power to wield it precisely. An author who "sort of" knows what he wants to express, with words that he "sort of" knows the meanings of, are powerless, and he should not write.

The writer's job is to take an abstraction and concretize it into an example. The reader learns of it via the reverse direction: read the example, learn the abstraction.

"all writers are moral philosophers": they present a certain slant on the world, and all writing is motivated by communication of the artist's values. and so, a writer's job is to present + communicate his values through concretized abstractions. moral philosophy!

I've kind of been pilled on this. I have a half-habit of thinking: "what motivates this character?" "she wants to give love." "why does she want to give love?"

"If you try to project what you mean by "table," you can easily visualize any number of concrete examples. But in regard to abstractions like individualism, freedom, or rationality, most people are unable to name a single concrete. Even knowing one or two is not enough. In order to be completely free with words, you must know countless concretes under your abstractions. "

Objectification of Values

"The purpose of all art is the objectification of values."

She also goes pretty extreme:
"If to any extent you hold the premise of nonobjectivity, then by your own choice, you do not belong in literature, or in any human activity, or on this earth."

lok: by nonobjective, she means the following:
"Since all art is communication, there can be nothing more viciously contradictory than nonobjective art."
"When a man announces that he is a nonobjective artist, he is saying that what he is presenting cannot be communicated. Why then does he present it, and why does he claim that it is art? A nonobjective artist, whether a painter or a writer, is counting on the existence of objective art—and using it in order to destroy it."

"The art world laughed at the first nonobjective paintings—and today such stuff is practically all that is produced. The result is the destruction of art as a meaningful activity. The field has been taken over by a self-appointed elite of mystics who are playing a game to delude those with money enough to buy their products."

3. Theme and Plot

"By what he chooses to present, and by how he presents it, any author expresses his fundamental, metaphysical values—his view of man's relationship to reality and of what man can and should seek in life."

lok: no aspect of you can be hidden. much like how we cannot hide ourselves no matter how hard we try.

"That something happened to you is of no importance to anyone, not even to you. The important thing about you is what you choose to make happen—your values and choices. That which hapened by accident—what family you were born into, in what country, and where you went to school—is totally unimportant.... If he can give his readers no reason why they should read his book, except that the events happened to him, it is not a valid book, neither for the readers nor for himself."

And what does Rand say about coincidences?

"It is to be avoided at all costs. A plot presents free will and a man's achievement of, or at least struggle for, his purpose—and coincidence is irrelevant to anyone's choice or purpose. It can happen in life, but it is meaningless. So do not write the kind of stories in which a conflict is suddenly resolved by a natural disaster, such as a flood or an earthquake that conveniently kills the villain at the right moment."

lok: The harder it is for the characters (the more conflicts they have), the more potential for dramatic action.

"I have to devise the hardest obstacles possible, and those of greatest significance to the hero."

"By showing the kinds of conflicts man has to resolve and make the right decision about, the author shows which decision is right, or in the case of characters who make the wrong decision, why the decision is wrong, to what bad consequences it leads. "

What is a value?
Values is whenever someone has a preference of X and Y, and have to resolve between them. This doesn’t have to be dramatic like communism vs democracy; it can be something as simple as wanting to do nothing and the desire to work. This is what people mean when "everyone is fighting their own war".

"If you want to hold your readers, give them something to wonder about(...) "worry line"—a line of problems for the audience to worry about."
lok: i liked this idea. i notice myself frequently thinking to myself, "what am i worried about now?"

lok: it's abundantly clear that all good stories, like attack on titan or Arcane, follow the principles outlined in this book. 

The Plot-Theme

"If you look at a menu in a restaurant and have to decided whether to order ice cream or cake for dessert, that is a conflict of values. If you do not like cake, only ice cream, there is no conflict. But if you like both are unable to eat both, you must decide which to choose—and there is a momentary conflict until you do."

lok: there's an excellent description here about what a plot-theme is. it is not the plot itself, but instead the interlocking moving parts of the plot that form the theme.

for example, the plot-theme going into season 4 of attack on titan is: Eren wants to gain freedom, only to discover the enemies were not the titans—they are all of humanity beyond the walls. He desires to never inflict harm onto others the same way the Titans destroyed his innocence, but his entire race is being hunted.

"Once you have this kind of central conflict... you have set a limit to the nature of your story, a limit that will be your standard of selection in regard to events."

The Climax:

"Never resolve a smaller issue after the climax."

"If you set up a lot of interesting conflicts and seemingly connected events without knowing where you are going, and then attempt to devise a climax that resolves it all, the process will be an excruciating mental torture (and you will not succeed)."

lok: Rand is very opinionated when it comes to what counts as a valid or invalid story.

"In the same school are those modern writers who start with some assignment such as "a mood of adolescence" or "my search for the meaning of life in prep school." When they write, the standard of selection is the mood of the moment. The result is the kind of story where you do not know why one incident was included rather than another, or what is the purpose of it all. Behind such a hodgepodge is always a writer who starts without a defined plan and then writes as his feelings dictate."

Characterisation

"Tolstoy, by contrast, spends volumes detailing every movement and emotion and shading of voice a woman torn between her duty and to her husband and her love for another man—and we learn nothing about what in a human psychology would put a woman in such a position. We only learn that this woman happened to be caught in it because "she wanted to live." Why did she want to live? One does not ask "Why" Men are what they are.

"Any reader can tell that The Fountainhead is a book not only about an architect from the 1920s to 1940s, but about any innovator in any period or profession."

"Roark and Cameron are abstractions of profound issues—and the concretes which are shown indicate those issues. By contrast, Lewis presents many more details, but they do not add up to any consistent depth. The result is precisely a wooden archetype like "gruff old professor"—because nobody can retain all the tiny, insignificant details. They vanish from the reader's mind, and the abstraction that remains represents merely the first onion skin of motivation. The characters are overdetailed and never fully real."

lok: you see this in novels where i might think to myself, "who cares about this?

"I present characters by means of that which is essential to men on certain kinds of premises. Contrast this to the characterisation of Arrowsmith, which contains a great deal that is totally accidental. Arrowsmith's devotion to medicine can, as an abstraction, pertain to other doctors, or to any idealist in any profession. But his feelings toward his fraternity, his troubles in deciding what job to take, his hesitations in regard to women—these do not pertain to the issues of "ambitious doctor" or "struggling idealist," or to anything else of a thematic nature. They are accidental details of the kind that might be present in any personality, but that have no wider significance."

lok: Rand says to only state the essentials. To choose character details based on a statistically average man is an invalid way of writing a novel, as it waters down the character to become someone who is not involved in important value clashes.

Rand also tells us to be observant:

"Your characterisation will never be better than your power of observation... You constantly react to people—you approve or disapprove, like or dislike, are encouraged or uneasy. You estimate emotionally everyone you meet... Do not go through life saying: "I don't like X. Why? How do I know? I just don't like him." That will never make you a writer. Instead, if you feel a strong dislike for someone, then, as your artistic assignment, identify what you dislike, and by what means you observed it.

For instance, a man is rude to you, and you do not like it. What in particular is rude? Is it the implication of what the man says? Is it his voice or manner? Why do you dislike it? File this in your subconscious. Another time, you meet a man who is charming. Do not merely say: "I don't know why, but I like this man. He's wonderful." Identify: What is charming about him? How does he convey it? How did you observe it? File this away."