Narrative structures and fate in fiction (warning: long!)

[Peregrin Toker]

I felt like starting such a thread very recently when I considered the fact that what made both The Matrix and Star Wars so successful in resonating within audiences is that for all their future-oriented aesthetics, the structure these stories follow is basically the archetypical hero's journey. They use the same stock characters such as the reluctant but vaguely messianic hero (Luke in Star Wars, Neo in The Matrix), the wise old man (Obi-Wan in Star Wars, Morpheus in The Matrix) and the same themes.

This made me think of how I have learned that the main innovation of Modernism in literature, aside from dealing with life's big questions on a direct rather than symbolic level, was the introduction of the open ending, which was Modernist writers' protest against the concept of fate.

The popularity, even the emergence, of such movies which revolve around the same archetypes as all the ancient myths, actually seems like a reaction against both modernism and to some-extent even post-modernism too, in that they return to a pre-modern narrative structure which implies that there is such a thing as fate (and sometimes more than just that). Though these new mythologies, The Matrix most explicitly, deals with subject matter which is familiar ground to Modernist literature (namely the dichotomy between nature and culture, which apparently has been the central theme of every single work of fiction written after the Industrial Revolution), the way they deal with that subject matter is a distinctly pre-modern, almost Neo-Romanticist, one.

I cannot help but think about this that the rise of what you could call neo-pre-modern mythology reflects what people think about fate, and perhaps also could serve as evidence of how Modernism in literature has failed. Think about it, back in the 1880s, writers have become sick and tired of Romanticism and its promotion of the concept of fate and refusal to deal with life directly instead of through the cloud of metaphors which the Romanticists were so fond of. To me it is very understandable at first, especially the bit about questioning fate. From one point of view, when you think about fate, it is a rather unnerving concept that we are ultimately not masters of our own destiny and it always follows a distinct pattern. No wonder the Modernist authors attempted to break the ice and write stories which openly addressed life here and now and ended ambiguously, thusly urging the reader to take control of his/her future.

Now, we go forwards a handful (or two) of decades. While modernism has certainly left its mark on all sides of culture, it appears to have ran into trouble. Take for example, the popularity of 2001: A Space Odyssey. While the ending is definately open, it also plays with the idea of fate, albeit in a definately non-Romanticist way; you could call it postmodern. Where Romanticist stories followered a "home-out-home" pattern (very roughly), 2001's structure is at its surface a modernist "from home to out" structure. But the ending, through Dave's metamorphosis to the Star Child, still rests firmly upon the pillar that is fate, the concept which the open ending originally was a protest against. The impression you would get from this example is that Modernism has not been successfull, at least not entirely so, in convincing people to abandon the idea of fate. As much as I understand why some people may find fate an unnerving concept, I also see why it is also is unnerving that there is no such thing as fate. The assumption of the absence of fate is also creepy when you approach the subject from a certain angle, namely following train of thought:

1) There is no such thing as fate.
2) Ergo, our own destiny depends on.
3) Just as it is possible to become masters of our own destiny, it is also possible to fail in doing so.
4) If you fail in doing so, you have no control of your life and your future will be determined by coincidences alone.

In short, if you can control your own destiny you can also fail in controlling your own destiny. The question is whether this is the less frightening thought than the idea of fate, a divine, cosmic force which controls our destiny. I can not decide personally what is the most unnerving.

What I brought up with 2001 also seems to imply that the belief in fate is in some way instinctual in humans, or at least an integral part of the subconsciousness. This is further backed up by the success of neo-pre-modern mythology (or should I rather call it retro-romanticism?) which represents the return of Fate into our minds after we have tried to excommunicate her.

A question remains: Even if belief in fate is something which is a human instinct, is it a good or a bad thing? If so, in which context? And how do you find that should fiction ideally approach fate?





(And that is before we get into the very existence of the fantasy genre...)

[Surlethe]

A most interesting essay.

A question remains: Even if belief in fate is something which is a human instinct, is it a good or a bad thing?

I don't think it is objectively good or bad; actions, however, which result from it, will reflect back on the individual. For example, if I rape and kill little girls, and say "it was my destiny!" then the belief is a bad thing. However, if I rush into burning buildings to save people, and shrug and say, "hey, it's my destiny", then the belief might be a good thing (albeit fatally so).

If so, in which context? And how do you find that should fiction ideally approach fate?

As an aspiring fiction author, I feel fate should be approached through the use of patterns; that is, though I do not personally believe in fate, I do see basic patterns in lives which may be construed as fate. Thus, in order to increase the verisimilitude of my work, I put those archetypes into my stories; because of the patterns, the story should resonate.

There are, as I see them, several different patterns to work with, including the idealistic pattern (how people ideally live their lives), the realistic pattern (how people actually live their lives), and the tragic pattern (how people fear their lives may go).

So, ideally, I mix and match the patterns into the stories, though I most often find myself following the tragic pattern mixed with a bit of the realistic pattern, with perhaps a dash of idealistic. I suppose it resonates best with my teenage angst .


Was that the sort of answer you were looking for?

[General Zod]

A question remains: Even if belief in fate is something which is a human instinct, is it a good or a bad thing? If so, in which context? And how do you find that should fiction ideally approach fate?

Probably one of the best explanations for fate I've heard (in a fantasy universe anyway. from a manga series I've been reading lately), basically goes along the following lines; "If you believe that fate guides your hand, then chances are it probably does. If you don't believe it does, then chances are it probably doesn't." Or something along like that anyway, which resolves the nice contradiction of how fate can exist in a universe yet you still have characters who reject the idea completely, or aren't touched by fate at all.

[Guardsman Bass]

What seems to be the ideal for fate in fiction that I've found, at least in my own reading, is when the causes leading up to the fate, and the protagonist's actions regarding it, are realistic; when the fate seems to make sense based off of the causes that occur, and which the protagonist himself might not see as fate, but which we, the outside readers, can see. Perhaps that is a kind of modern view of it, but I'm not sure.

Fate in the most direct, ancient sense, like you mentioned it, is not only unnerving, but to a modern reader seems to ring of injustice; for example, remember Oedipus, and how he was imprisoned by a fate he has no (seeming) power over?

[Peregrin Toker]

A most interesting essay.

A question remains: Even if belief in fate is something which is a human instinct, is it a good or a bad thing?

I don't think it is objectively good or bad; actions, however, which result from it, will reflect back on the individual. For example, if I rape and kill little girls, and say "it was my destiny!" then the belief is a bad thing. However, if I rush into burning buildings to save people, and shrug and say, "hey, it's my destiny", then the belief might be a good thing (albeit fatally so).

Interesting point of view, really, though that was not what I was thinking about. I was mainly thinking about how belief in fate could lead people to believe that they cannot do anything to change their status or their future, regardless of what they do. For example, take the archetypical coming-of-age story where the protagonists starts at home, ventures outside and either returns home or finds a new home. This implies that it is the default fate of someone to have a home (either literally or metaphorically), and if someone does not feel home any places it is because he or she has not found his home yet. However, this already proves the concept of fate erroneous, at least the idea of an universal fate as there are people who live and die literally homeless, as well as people who can be called "mentally homeless" in that they never acquire a more than vaguely defined identity.

Probably one of the best explanations for fate I've heard (in a fantasy universe anyway. from a manga series I've been reading lately), basically goes along the following lines; "If you believe that fate guides your hand, then chances are it probably does. If you don't believe it does, then chances are it probably doesn't."

I have come across similar explanations of the supernatural; this appears to be the "if you believe in ghosts you'll see ghost" idea applied to fate. It also reminds me of certain Tibetan religious traditions, which teach that familiar spirits, or tulpas, can be created by "layers" of belief so that they come in existence when there are enough people who believe in their existence. The best known tulpa is probably the Yeti, which in local folklore is a spirit which protects the mountains.

What seems to be the ideal for fate in fiction that I've found, at least in my own reading, is when the causes leading up to the fate, and the protagonist's actions regarding it, are realistic; when the fate seems to make sense based off of the causes that occur, and which the protagonist himself might not see as fate, but which we, the outside readers, can see. Perhaps that is a kind of modern view of it, but I'm not sure.

That definately strikes me as a modern view of fate. Perhaps the Modernist writers did introduce the open ending not as a protest against the idea of fate itself, but as a way of saying that people also could influence their own fate. If I could talk with the ghost of a dead author, I would like to speak in particular with the first author who wrote an open-ended story.

[HemlockGrey]

I liked the Matrix because it had guns. And Monica Belluci's tits.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Well...nearly all my stories deal with fate. I wrote the same basic subtext into all the stories, so if you read through you'll see one underlying thread or 'plot' that connects them. Fate, for the characters anyway. But fate isnt the same as having no control over your life. Fate can be Good or Evil, which, at least in the underlying plot thread, are tangible forces like gravity or light; everyone has a Good destiny and an Evil destiny, more specifically 'light and dark'.

Lets say i wrote Star Wars, go with Anakin's betrayal.

Now, as i would think, Anakin's destiny either way is to be the Chosen One. To bring balance to the Force. This is his destiny and he cannot escape it. Now...on the light side he could kill the Sith and on the dark he could betray the Jedi. He must be the Chosen One, must balance the Force, the question is...for who?

Well we all know he chooses darkness, so he becomes the Chosen One and balances the Force, for the Sith. Just as easily he could have killed Sideous with Mace and become the Chosen One and balanced the Force but for the Jedi.

Destiny is about how we END. If your destiny is to die in WWII...thats it. Now if you die fighting for the Nazis like a loyal little facist, or for the Allies fighting to stop the Bllitz, thats up to you, but you will die in the war, somehow, the question is not weather or not you will die but what you make of your life in the time you have. "But how do i know how much time i have!? Thats not fair!" yes it is, tough for us all eh? Better make good choices then.

Hope that makes sense, might sound kind of jumbled.

[Guardsman Bass]

Now, as i would think, Anakin's destiny either way is to be the Chosen One. To bring balance to the Force. This is his destiny and he cannot escape it. Now...on the light side he could kill the Sith and on the dark he could betray the Jedi. He must be the Chosen One, must balance the Force, the question is...for who?

Well we all know he chooses darkness, so he becomes the Chosen One and balances the Force, for the Sith. Just as easily he could have killed Sideous with Mace and become the Chosen One and balanced the Force but for the Jedi.

It's OT, but the above doesn't really seem like "balancing" the force- it's eliminating the other side. It seemed, at least to me, that Anakin DID balance the Force; he killed all but two of the Jedi Masters, and the subsequent surviving Jedi were hunted down and killed until there were only two Jedi and two sith- a balance of dark and light. Unless you mean balance as in "eliminating the impurities" or such.

[SAMAS]

Now, as i would think, Anakin's destiny either way is to be the Chosen One. To bring balance to the Force. This is his destiny and he cannot escape it. Now...on the light side he could kill the Sith and on the dark he could betray the Jedi. He must be the Chosen One, must balance the Force, the question is...for who?

Well we all know he chooses darkness, so he becomes the Chosen One and balances the Force, for the Sith. Just as easily he could have killed Sideous with Mace and become the Chosen One and balanced the Force but for the Jedi.

It's OT, but the above doesn't really seem like "balancing" the force- it's eliminating the other side. It seemed, at least to me, that Anakin DID balance the Force; he killed all but two of the Jedi Masters, and the subsequent surviving Jedi were hunted down and killed until there were only two Jedi and two sith- a balance of dark and light. Unless you mean balance as in "eliminating the impurities" or such.

I think it was more of a "Remove the extremes." It could be possible that the Jedi and Sith were basically two sides of the same coin, but over time became further imbalanced between control and release, as it were.

Anakin brought balance not by evening the numbers, but by eventually eliminating the old Jedi and Sith altogether. By the end of the movies, both Jedi and both Sith are dead, and what we have left is Luke, who, through the influence of all four, has learned to both control and release his emotions.

[Zornhau]

I disagree with the original poster's analysis.

The conventional plot with a proper ending never went away.

Modernism and Post Modernism are just intellectual trends embraced by Literary Fiction and Art Films, in part to distance themselves from the more popular forms where a good plot and neat ending have always been requirements.

Saying Star Wars was reacting to these trends is like saying Rock and Roll was a reaction to the atonal classical music of Schoenberg!

Star Wars and 2001 might both be SF, but they belong to different genres/traditions: Action Adventure, and (?)Art House respectively.

2001 probably succeeded despite the crap open ending thanks to the convincing spaceships and the memorable murderous mad computer. IMHO, Star Wars would have blown it out the water if it had been released in the same year, (though intellectuals and posers would have rated 2001 as the better film).

If you don't believe me, go read Robert McKee's "Story" which is pretty much the standard how-to book for scriptwriters. He has a chart showing the different sorts of films. As I recall, low on plot and and open ending puts a film in the Art House corner which he treats as just another genre.

[Xuenay]

Personally, I never understood why Romanticism went out of fashion. Or sure, I understand it went out of fashion at the time because people were getting bored of it and Realism seemed new and fresh, but why the heck is Realism still the most popular trend?

For me, fiction is escapism, pure and simple. Why people want to escape this world into a world that's... grim and realistic and nearly the same as ours is quite beyond my comprehension.

[Mr. T]

I liked the Matrix because it had guns. And Monica Belluci's tits.

Wiser words have never been said.

[wolveraptor]

It should be noted that the Matrix trilogy's end was crap in a toilet.

[lgot]

I am confused by some afirmations...
How realism is the most popular stuff when we had Jorge Luis Borges, Proust, Joyce, Kafka, Oscar Wilde, etc who had nothing to do with Realism ?

This is another note, the first post claims that modernism does not work with the notion of fate is totally false. Borges and Kafka (Kafka is probally the most influencial writer of the XX century) always worked with the possibility of irreversible fate.

[Zornhau]

I'm confused here. Are we talking "High" or "Popular" culture? In or out of fashion with who?

[Peregrin Toker]

This is another note, the first post claims that modernism does not work with the notion of fate is totally false. Borges and Kafka (Kafka is probally the most influencial writer of the XX century) always worked with the possibility of irreversible fate.

I have learned in high school that since modernism was a reaction against romanticism, the early modernists introduced the open ending as a protest against the concept of fate in order to imply that God did not exist. (Romanticist writers assumed God, fate and the supernatural to be real)

There could, of course, also be the possibilities that:

1. Kafka and Borges were not typical Modernists.
2. I had misunderstood what the teacher told me and he actually said that the purpose of the open ending was not to challenge the idea of fate as much as challenge the idea of fate being predictable.
3. The teacher either did not understand Modernism or had developed his idea of Modernist literature.

[Peregrin Toker]

Personally, I never understood why Romanticism went out of fashion. Or sure, I understand it went out of fashion at the time because people were getting bored of it and Realism seemed new and fresh, but why the heck is Realism still the most popular trend?

As far as I get it, Romanticism only went out of fashion for a short while. It appears that the trend in literature (and fiction overall) seems to alternate between two extremes; one of which is best represented by modernism and the other best represented by romanticism.

[lgot]

Oh, I see what you are talking now.
You are talking about the whole Classic vs. Romatism controversy...Just your teacher called Classic as Modernism, where all diferent art styles are either in one side or another in a cyclical change-destruction-reconstruction...

I have learned in high school that since modernism was a reaction against romanticism, the early modernists introduced the open ending as a protest against the concept of fate in order to imply that God did not exist. (Romanticist writers assumed God, fate and the supernatural to be real)

I you look the style chronology, Modernism and romantism are apart by realism, symbolism (this is one that could be labeled as the romantism coming back)...
But modernism is such a mix of style, that they are both romantic and classic...

I am concious those are speculations...so i will comment having that in mind:

Kafka and Borges were not typical Modernists.

Kafka is one of the main writers of our century, his writings are too important to the whole between wars generation and he is among the first to introduce a very important theme of modernism such as the individual against the organizations...that would be doubtful...
About Borges, I can not see why he is a modernist in the sense of the particular time he wrote, and even in the style he is a classical writer...

I guess your 3 option is most likely, he have a definition of modernism is what causes the problem.

[Peregrin Toker]

I you look the style chronology, Modernism and romantism are apart by realism, symbolism (this is one that could be labeled as the romantism coming back)...
But modernism is such a mix of style, that they are both romantic and classic...

Ah - I have basically gotten modernism and realism mixed up with each other, probably because the first realist writers described themselves as "the modern breakthrough". (and it does not help that the word "modernism" has multiple definitions)

I guess your 3 option is most likely, he have a definition of modernism is what causes the problem.

I know it's my fault, it was me who mistook the realists' self-description of being "the modern breakthrough" or "the modern avantgarde" as meaning that realism and modernism were identical.

[lgot]

Ah, sure, makes more sense now.
Modernity is a thing from the past