in defense of english class, a.k.a. but what is the point?

Nathan Bransford (Literary Agent!) has this post, "Themes Schmemes," advising writers not to worry about themes in query letters they write, but rather about plot. What I think he's actually saying is that you can write whatever you want, but if you want your books to sell, please remember to also be a good storyteller, because even the best writers in the Canon of Literature were good storytellers:

I also think that some of these writers have a bit of a mistaken belief about the books that are published these days that are instant Literature, like GILEAD and ATONEMENT and OSCAR WAO. These books have plots. They are not impenetrable. The narratives are complex and they flow. Yes, the writing is beautiful and meaningful and there's so much to take away, but Robinson and McEwan and Diaz also not only prose artists, they are fantastic storytellers and craftsmen who keep their readers spellbound.

To me, he's saying don't forget about plot. Don't be "impenetrable" (I'm guessing this means don't write Ulysses, which I should try to read one of these days). And yes, this is all a very fair point.  I am a fan of plot myself.

But what some of his commenters see is something else entirely: a repudiation of themes as having any worth at all, and an invitation to write "what people will enjoy, regardless of literary merit." In other words, an invitation to write what sells. Which is just fine with them, of course. There's a lot of bashing of "elitism" and "self-indulgence" and all else that is artsy-fartsy and pretends to be important. I don't want to be a literary geniuses, no. I don't do literary analysis, so why should my readers?  English class ruined good books!  I just want to tell my story!  I just want to earn a living!  I just want to be famous!  I just want people to have fun! I just want to be ESCAPISM. Fuck those serious books. With a chainsaw!

Ironically, Bransford later says (in the comments):

I agree that challenging works of literature should be celebrated rather than denigrated by the masses. I cringe every time someone says an author like Faulkner sucks because the language is difficult to understand. To each their own, but just because it's challenging doesn't mean it's bad. My tastes have a definite literary lean, so I didn't intend to give ammunition to the "mass appeal is all that matters" crowd.

So yo, Nathan Bransford... I agree with you and this post ain't about you. But, I'm going to have to defend themes. And literary analysis. And English class!

First, English class. I loved English class. I was good at English class. I was like, write-an-essay-in-my-sleep good. This is partly because I am good at B.S. Two in-class essays stand out in particular as ones that I aced solely on B.S. One was something along the lines of "discuss the motifs of time in A Sound and the Fury" (Christ, I almost died writing this one - it was a pop essay given after the Quentin section was due, and I did not get Quentin at all), the other was basically a free-for-all, pick your own theme essay on Catch-22 (this is the most asinine essay I've ever written, ever - I said that Yossarian was a liberal! Ha! Ha! Ha!). So you know, I get literary analysis. Meaning is actually why I read fiction at all. Example: I read Heart of Darkness when I was 15 solely because I stumbled across a PBS show consisting entirely of people debating what Kurtz meant by "The horror! The horror!" If they had talked about the plot of the book - ferry-boat captain recounts long-ago assignment to fetch a wayward employee of a Belgian trading company - I'd be like YAAAAWN. This doesn't mean I read certain books to look good, because I definitely fail that sort of posturing on any scale. All of my favorite books are my favorite books not because they "impress" me, but because they engage me so totally.  They get to that hard little piece of coal that is my heart and pump blood into it. 

Themes and "grand ideas" and motifs and all the rest of that "nonsense" are a crucial part of the story, and of the reading experience. I don't mean themes like timely recurrences of roses, or the ones in Bransford's fake query letter, "love and passion" - I mean like, the themes of savagery and absurd bureaucracy in Heart of Darkness, or the themes of righteousness and mortality in Blood Meridian, even the theme of love after death in Pet Sematary. You know - the point of the story.

And that's also why I write fiction. Now I am not claiming to want to be Faulkner. But I not only admire Faulkner, I love his writing; I even love his philosophy of writing. I love how he said Caddy Compson was his "heart's darling." He did things with fiction that I didn't know could be done, and I'm not talking about the really psycho "experimental" stuff like "The Bear." A Sound and the Fury was one of those books that had me by the heart. "A Rose For Emily" and "Barn-Burning" were two of the stories that got me writing short fiction in the first place.

I must confess: I don't write just to tell a story. I write for what the story means - to me, to you, to anyone. I write what I want to say. Remember Kafka? "a book must be the axe for the frozen sea inside". No way does this mean I sacrifice plot for some arrogant notion of art. I don't think doing so would uphold meaning, or themes, at all. If you don't get across what you're trying to say, there's no point. I do wonder if there's some mistaking/conflating going on in that comment thread between "theme" and "style." Themes aren't there so you can show off what a fantabulous artist you are (not that that's what style is always for). Themes are the sword of the story, the one that's gonna last beyond Marlow's ferry ride. The themes are what makes Heart of Darkness the "powerful indictment of the evils of imperialism" that it is. (Oh, and don't think for a minute that Conrad didn't know what the fuck he was doing with his themes.  Okay?  Okay.)  The themes drive the damn plot. And honestly, I don't get writing without them.

I do agree with some commenters who point out that themes will emerge if the story is good enough. I don't think that means that you shouldn't consider your themes - or, if that word is too horrible, what-the-fuck-your-story-is-about - when plotting and writing your story. I think that means that if your story is good it is honest, it is consistent, and it captivates us as humans - and there's no way you could pull that off without having themes embedded in there. You might not have been conscious of what they were, but I bet the story knew.

Which is not to say that bad stories don't have themes, cuz they do (except maybe some wildly inconsistent and nonsensical story, but is that really a story?). Try telling anyone that The Turner Diaries doesn't have a theme! You can say that you want to write something that people will enjoy, and people enjoy Twilight, so you're going to write a Twilight rip-off for teenagers to suck dry. Yeah, that's fine. But you've got themes, whether you like them or not. You've got, oh... the joy of materialism, the value of abstinence, the passive feminine ideal... you name it, but you've got themes, baby. Like it or not.

I like these comments in particular:

MedleyMisty: there is a difference between good writing with ideas behind it and being pretentious and snobby.

J: Literary writing is not about picking the most obscure way of saying something--that's just pretentious writing. Literary writing is writing about things that matter, in a way that matters.

Wakai Writer: The best books, in my opinion, are like layer cakes. On top is a delicious slathering of plot, some flashy, interesting characters that when you bite into them have a surprisingly complex flavour, and a pretty design that makes you want to pull the book from the shelf. On bottom is a solid foundation of not-too-heavy, not-too-light writing--solid enough to support the delicious bits on top but not so thick as to be the only thing you can taste.  Literary value is the fudge between the layers that is only there on the best cakes, and often not discernible beyond "My god what is that delicious taste?" unless you're really looking for it.  But you can't make a cake out of just that layer of fudge. Indeed, getting the portion right is half the trick.

one of these things is not like the other

I disagree with wikipedia...

Typical occupations of the Professional Class would include University Professor, Physician, Lawyer, Accountant, Journalist, Architect, Physicist, Chemist, Engineer, Geologist, Actuary, Pharmacist, Dentist and Airline Pilot.

Which one of these does not belong?*

Hint.

*: there's a couple others I doubt too.