a point that's (not) proven

i have an aversion to fictional writings that start (or end) with one or two strong points. i call them "art work charged with a mission". i am so allegic to it that it's almost an instinctive reaction. thinking more deliberately, however, i've come up with a few reasons to justify my intuitive negativity against such practice.

first though, how do i know? easy. my own observation is that life is never neat; yet these stories often feel artificial, with the characters awkward and the plots coincidental and, more importantly, the points are unequivocally "proven". the former makes unpleasant reading and the latter raises suspicion: if the stories can "prove" something so elegantly, either it is too obvious (like we shall all die) or the stories are fabricated to suit the agenda. simple as that.

the paradox here is that when people read fictions, they instinctively do the opposite - they accept the stories first and then "draw" their own conclusions, which, in these cases, are the author's propaganda. so such writings mislead and are more or less equivolent to cooking scientific experiments to fit one's theory. it's falsehood. it's phony. though not necessarily intentional. :-)

these books are not satisfying also because it shows that the writer is probably too simple minded to grasp the complexity of life, which to me, is THE truth. the stronger the writers push their opinions, the more evident that they don't know better. it might even suggest that they are too arrogant, with no patience to observe the trivials (the essence) of life and to be sensitive of the vast unknowns. instead they seem to have figured it all and are eager to teach (or preach).

such writings are more likely very sensational or dramatic, so to swing readers (and probably themselves). for a receptive mind, if one is moved, touched or disturbed, it's got to be real, right and true. how false.

i am not saying that a writer can't have opinions or emotions, it's just that he has to be foremost honest or modest to draw from life, sometimes by simply recording or documenting the true happenings (feelings, thoughts), which in turn, believe it or not, will illuminate a point or two, if not more. it may inevitably be messier but honest; more confusing yet truthful. and this is already much better.

a good writer can not only express opinions, beliefs and feelings beautifully through writings, he is also able to recognize, differentiate and grade such matters; and realize their limitations, too. his writing would then appear somewhat detached, reflective, analytical, and, ultimately, impassioned - with passion. a kind of resigned melancholy or pity, towards human existence and its nuances. now this should be a good one.

(and a good reader is one who matches the writer, with equal sensibility, intelligence and knowledge and with the extra luxury of lashing out criticisms freely. :-)