David+Tobey

media type="youtube" key="KnL3cXKqVb0" height="222" width="274"

My name is David Tobey and I am 19 years old. I play Lacrosse (I'm goalie), I write books (fantasy fiction-in a similar genre with Tolkien, Jordan, and Eddings), I read quite a bit (all of those authors listed and many others), play drums (for 6 years now), I am learning guitar, play video games, enjoy hanging out with friends, I am constantly playing chess, and love music (just about any kind-from Death Metal to Classical to Celtic). [|Chess-one of my pass times]

Preference of Literature: Think for Yourself Have you ever had an attraction to writing fiction but felt that you could never come up with an original plot line? Fear not, from the foundation of fictitious literature there have only been seven plot lines that have been used in the countless tales, stories, novels, and books that have been written or told through the ages. Yet why do critics still pick apart stories as “unoriginal” or “a-typical of the genre”? Having written, read, and analyzed fiction for the better part of my life, I made it my task to understand the concept of the story from the perspective of a reader versus that of a critic. Unsurprisingly, significant differences between the two should put them at odds with one another. But you don’t see that today. Why is that? Throughout history there have only ever been seven plot lines: man vs. man, man vs. nature, man vs. supernatural, man vs. technology, man vs. religion, man vs. the supernatural, and man vs. self. From these seven simple concepts the entirety of all fictional plots has been spawned. Still we hear about stories picked apart as unoriginal, particularly in schools, where students are instructed to write a story only to have it ripped apart as “garbage.” Then what is it that separates one story from another if there are in fact only seven plots? This answer has three parts: the setting, the skill of the story-teller, and twists of the basic plots. If the setting of the story doesn’t come alive to the reader, no matter how great the story or the plot, the reader will disregard it. Literature must have life, which is formed by the language and the creativity of the story teller. This is where authors are separated: how they are able to bring the story alive to a reader. Finally, how the author surprises the reader, either through a twist of the story, a sudden introduction of new characters or development in the story, separates it from all other stories. But if this is all that separates one story from another then why do critics pick apart stories? Preference. Every person has different views on life, literature, and values due to personal choice, society, and culture. Just because someone doesn’t appreciate a certain piece of work, doesn’t necessarily mean that no one does. Doesn’t the person who wrote it in the first place appreciate it? If not, why did they write it? My English teacher in high school was a Ph.D. in Creative Writing. He asked our class to write a fictitious short story. I took a story I had written several years earlier—outside of school setting -- and refurbished it, with new language, new twists, and a certain sense of urgency. Upon finishing my story, I passed it around to some friends – one of them was a professional book reviewer in Britain – as well as some family members. All of them told me it was an exciting story that kept the reader engaged and had a good plot. Feeling confident about my performance I turned in the story. A week later I got my paper handed back; “Too a-typical of the genre.” said my teacher. A large red C was plastered to its front. There were two grammatical errors in the twelve page story, and no comments apart from the one on the front. I showed my friends, many of them were in the class, and they were stunned. Many of them had written their stories over night, with many grammatical errors, and little to no thought about their plots. We compared stories and they readily admitted my story was superior to their own but they received A’s. Preference. I had written a suspenseful man vs. the supernatural story while most of the other’s in the class wrote either man vs. man or man vs. nature story. I looked into this and discovered several pieces my teacher had written, a few of them had been published in the school newspaper. All of them had to do with man vs. nature or man vs. man plots. The ultimate difference we see between the reader and the critic is that while they both sit down to enjoy a piece of literature, the casual reader reads to find what’s right with the story. The other reads to see what’s wrong with it and then tell others what they see wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with judging a piece of literature, but the danger of the critic is that if you are a mere reader, you are allowing someone else to tell you what you should prefer in literature. While all literature is not profitable to publish, people should think for themselves about what books to read since these choices are made on personal preference. Having critics decide what is good fiction is stealing a person’s preference and laying it at the feet of single person, who more than likely has a differing opinion about literature. While neither opinion is wrong, it is not suitable for one person to think for another when it comes to literature. Writers are still capable of creating masterpieces despite that the same seven plots have been used since the very beginning of fiction. People are still able to think for themselves and determine their own preferences in literature. What is the purpose of the critic apart from to give an author a bad name to others? These “others” can already think for themselves. There is no purpose. People should be allowed to decide for themselves based off of neutrally given information whether or not a story suits them or not. Without opinion there are no choices. Without choice there is no humanity. And without humanity there are no stories.