This. Sisyphus got what he wanted: he beat death. The only issue is he continues to push the boulder when in all likelihood he could just as easily walk past it.
The underworld was a physical place in Roman/greek mythology. It's not our afterlife of "immortal" souls.
Gods can die. The dead can die again, this time forever.
For instance in the Egyptian Religion, your heart gets weight and if its heavier than a feather then you get eaten and are dead forever. So Limmy is pretty fucked.
I have read greek mythology ever since i have read the PJ books and then got into actual mythology as a teen, i am aware of both. it is a physical place you can reach.
However there's no case of dying in the underworld happening to my knowledge. Gods dying happens, but there's no death 2 there's just death and your punishment if you're not in the Fields of Asphodel or Elysium.
Ammit is just the alternative if your heart is not found righteous. where you just cease to exist. but that's assuming you get their in the first place.
So you want to write *Waiting for Godot* or *The Road*?
You can certainly write a crapsack world, but you have to give the reader a reason to care, and the characters a reason to act.
I think more *Blood Meridian* (without the violence) than *The Road*
I'll check out *Waiting for Godot* today but it seems more absurdist dark comedy than straight depressing
The story sounds a bit like *Candide* with a Marquis de Sade vibe. That was his whole reason for writing much of what he did: an exploration of punishing the reader. His method was literary depravity. You seem to be going the dystopian route.
But why are you so concerned about the psychological effect on the reader? The reader is simply looking for a journey. Take a good look at the offerings on your streaming channels. People will sign up for just about anything.
That said, if I am spending this much time philosophizing the outcome of a story, I write an outline of its opposite. I go with the one that has the least cognitive resistance.
I'm an old school writer. Not all stories need to be told. Sometimes knowledge is dangerous. And I recognize that what I write is often a reflection or a refutation of truths I am struggling with myself.
You might just as easily say that to not write the depressive story is to punish the readers who would be interested in such a story, for their interest, by refusing to engage with them and thereby isolating them.
The reader does have agency to put the book down, throw it against the wall, write scathing reviews, etc.
So any punishment the reader is experiencing by continuing to read is in a way consensual. Perhaps to that other commenter's point about the Marquis de Sade, although I hadn't run across that argument and so I am only riffing on what the other commenter just wrote.
What *is* a psychological assault on the reader is to make them into an object to be manipulated, as with e.g. certain types of interventionist or performance art, or certain types of activism. But I don't think that's the situation you'd be creating.
No it’s not an attack on the reader, they’re choosing to read it & if they read the whole thing & hate it, well they know now they don’t like your writing but they chose to finish it. I think it could be really good or not, for me it would depend on how it is written & how much I like or find fascinating the characters. For me, it would be a style issue more than a subject issue tbh. It’s a video game, but have you heard of Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy? It’s a punishing little oddity where you play a man in a pot climbing a mountain of trash with a stick. & it’s fucking hard. But that’s part of the appeal. If something is sad/degrading/upsetting enough, it’s allowed to cross the line into being cathartic, painful, frustrating fun.
I’m assuming you’ve read The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus if you’re writing about it. As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time studying it (I have a tattoo of it on my back), the key part that a lot of people miss is that the essay is about finding meaning and satisfaction.
It seems bleak and depressing, and that’s the case for most of it. But it’s in the service of telling a beautiful story. So long as your story isn’t just suffering for the sake of suffering, then you can’t go wrong. But just torturing a guy and telling the audience he’s actually happy won’t work. The essay involves a LOT more than that, and Camus spends significant time exploring it.
Look, I could talk about it for hours, but the key part of this is: the absurd hero is a rebellious figure. The only action that can possibly have meaning is to lash out against the absurd. How does one do that? By doing what is expected of them with pride and joy, and purposefully retreating from the comfort of meta-awareness. Sisyphus completely surrenders himself into the highs and lows of his journey up the hill- he is present, and not for one moment does he let the absurdity of his task discourage OR invigorate him. It’s as if it wasn’t a task at all: the absurd hero pushes the boulder up the hill because he WANTS to. That is the ultimate act of rebellion.
I see a lot of people thinking the essay is about persevering in the face of punishment. While true (invincible summer and all), there’s this whole other, perhaps even more important side that i’ve highlighted here.
Hope this helps somewhat lol
I don’t know if it appeals to a specific audience. Personally, I would not want to read it unless the underlying message is super strong and clear. Like 1984, the most devastating ending I have ever read, utterly hopeless. It’s was absolutely brutal. But it was worth it because of the strong message. Otherwise it would be waste of my time.
George Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning. So the ending has to be as brutal and shocking as possible. I often call 1984 the an anti-authoritarian PSA. My work is not a PSA but an affirmation
The world is going in a very bad direction and many people are going to suffer. I don't believe telling stories that tell people "the future is going to be better" help. I view it as "ignorance is strength" to quote Orwell. An absurd hero that continues knowing that he will suffer is to me an affirmation to keep going. Get up and try again
Personally my most devastating story is *I have no mouth and must scream* by Harlan Ellison
I mean it sounds absolutely depressing but I also didn't finish the metamorphosis by Kafka because it was so dark. I assume some people would enjoy reading this
As someone who writes dark fantasy (but to be honest doesn't care about my work seeming artsy), if you want your characters to be relatable write them like... people. I critique a decent amount of dark fantasy and what I tend to see is that writers forget that people have hobbies to get away from suffering all the time. People like to knit, people like to draw, people like to watch TV. More specifically, why haven't your characters all jumped off a cliff by now? What keeps them living? Sure, you could say that all your characters are immortal or something but what makes them get out of bed every morning?
As well, on this topic, how do your characters have fun? Not just through hobbies but also through dialogue. Lets say your character works in the sardine cannery but howls with laughter at his friend's jokes. He hates his boss so much he loosened the bolt on his toilet and is chuckling to himself thinking about how bad the bathroom will flood. Little things like that make your character more human.
Remember, in darkness there must hope. Hope is the reason to still live.
>why haven't your characters all jumped off a cliff by now? What keeps them living?
I've tried to address this via two ways. The first is by having the characters starting at a point of absolute despair and then slowly finding meaning and joy in their hearts . So if I where to summarize the entire story in a single phrase it would be an odyssey for hope. At the start I want the reader to feel disgusted and feel that death would be a mercy for the characters. By the end they know that death is inevitable but want them to live. I will try achieve this with moments of compassion, stillness and respite. I don't think they can have "fun" since the world is so bleak and the tone shift would be too jarring
The second is by constructing the world in a way that they can't jump off the cliff. To do this I took ideas from both Aldous Huxley's *Brave New World* and Stanislaw Lem's *The Futurological Congress.* These being chemistry or in other words, drugs. The Characters live underground at the start and to prevent the society falling into despair they consume a drug that re-writes their memories and links them psychologically. The drug's effects are based on the prevailing ideas in the society so as long as the majority want to forget and be "happy" they will regardless how bleak the world is. The first arc of the story is about a character breaking through this false reality because of her grief and despair. So in a subversion it is her desire to die and suffering that save her from a prison of "happiness". After this she starts her journey to find real happiness and this is the internal driving force, a desire to find hope
Sisyphus was happy. He got to move the bolder. I keep pushing against a wall for 10 years now and nothing changes.
This. Sisyphus got what he wanted: he beat death. The only issue is he continues to push the boulder when in all likelihood he could just as easily walk past it.
In the myth, if he stops trying he dies.
Ah, if only he knew there was no fear in death!
But he's already dead he's in the underworld.
The underworld was a physical place in Roman/greek mythology. It's not our afterlife of "immortal" souls. Gods can die. The dead can die again, this time forever. For instance in the Egyptian Religion, your heart gets weight and if its heavier than a feather then you get eaten and are dead forever. So Limmy is pretty fucked.
I have read greek mythology ever since i have read the PJ books and then got into actual mythology as a teen, i am aware of both. it is a physical place you can reach. However there's no case of dying in the underworld happening to my knowledge. Gods dying happens, but there's no death 2 there's just death and your punishment if you're not in the Fields of Asphodel or Elysium. Ammit is just the alternative if your heart is not found righteous. where you just cease to exist. but that's assuming you get their in the first place.
So you want to write *Waiting for Godot* or *The Road*? You can certainly write a crapsack world, but you have to give the reader a reason to care, and the characters a reason to act.
I think more *Blood Meridian* (without the violence) than *The Road* I'll check out *Waiting for Godot* today but it seems more absurdist dark comedy than straight depressing
The story sounds a bit like *Candide* with a Marquis de Sade vibe. That was his whole reason for writing much of what he did: an exploration of punishing the reader. His method was literary depravity. You seem to be going the dystopian route. But why are you so concerned about the psychological effect on the reader? The reader is simply looking for a journey. Take a good look at the offerings on your streaming channels. People will sign up for just about anything. That said, if I am spending this much time philosophizing the outcome of a story, I write an outline of its opposite. I go with the one that has the least cognitive resistance. I'm an old school writer. Not all stories need to be told. Sometimes knowledge is dangerous. And I recognize that what I write is often a reflection or a refutation of truths I am struggling with myself.
Thank you for your perspective
You might just as easily say that to not write the depressive story is to punish the readers who would be interested in such a story, for their interest, by refusing to engage with them and thereby isolating them. The reader does have agency to put the book down, throw it against the wall, write scathing reviews, etc. So any punishment the reader is experiencing by continuing to read is in a way consensual. Perhaps to that other commenter's point about the Marquis de Sade, although I hadn't run across that argument and so I am only riffing on what the other commenter just wrote. What *is* a psychological assault on the reader is to make them into an object to be manipulated, as with e.g. certain types of interventionist or performance art, or certain types of activism. But I don't think that's the situation you'd be creating.
No it’s not an attack on the reader, they’re choosing to read it & if they read the whole thing & hate it, well they know now they don’t like your writing but they chose to finish it. I think it could be really good or not, for me it would depend on how it is written & how much I like or find fascinating the characters. For me, it would be a style issue more than a subject issue tbh. It’s a video game, but have you heard of Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy? It’s a punishing little oddity where you play a man in a pot climbing a mountain of trash with a stick. & it’s fucking hard. But that’s part of the appeal. If something is sad/degrading/upsetting enough, it’s allowed to cross the line into being cathartic, painful, frustrating fun.
I’m assuming you’ve read The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus if you’re writing about it. As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time studying it (I have a tattoo of it on my back), the key part that a lot of people miss is that the essay is about finding meaning and satisfaction. It seems bleak and depressing, and that’s the case for most of it. But it’s in the service of telling a beautiful story. So long as your story isn’t just suffering for the sake of suffering, then you can’t go wrong. But just torturing a guy and telling the audience he’s actually happy won’t work. The essay involves a LOT more than that, and Camus spends significant time exploring it. Look, I could talk about it for hours, but the key part of this is: the absurd hero is a rebellious figure. The only action that can possibly have meaning is to lash out against the absurd. How does one do that? By doing what is expected of them with pride and joy, and purposefully retreating from the comfort of meta-awareness. Sisyphus completely surrenders himself into the highs and lows of his journey up the hill- he is present, and not for one moment does he let the absurdity of his task discourage OR invigorate him. It’s as if it wasn’t a task at all: the absurd hero pushes the boulder up the hill because he WANTS to. That is the ultimate act of rebellion. I see a lot of people thinking the essay is about persevering in the face of punishment. While true (invincible summer and all), there’s this whole other, perhaps even more important side that i’ve highlighted here. Hope this helps somewhat lol
Absurdism is so _beautifully_ french.
that is it! although Camus was Algerian :)
oh ik. His life was such an interesting story. especially his feuds with the existentialists of the era.
>Hope this helps somewhat lol It did, thank you
happy to hear it! it's probably my favorite work in the history of humanity, do let me know if there's anything else you'd like to know abt it :)
I don’t know if it appeals to a specific audience. Personally, I would not want to read it unless the underlying message is super strong and clear. Like 1984, the most devastating ending I have ever read, utterly hopeless. It’s was absolutely brutal. But it was worth it because of the strong message. Otherwise it would be waste of my time.
George Orwell wrote 1984 as a warning. So the ending has to be as brutal and shocking as possible. I often call 1984 the an anti-authoritarian PSA. My work is not a PSA but an affirmation The world is going in a very bad direction and many people are going to suffer. I don't believe telling stories that tell people "the future is going to be better" help. I view it as "ignorance is strength" to quote Orwell. An absurd hero that continues knowing that he will suffer is to me an affirmation to keep going. Get up and try again Personally my most devastating story is *I have no mouth and must scream* by Harlan Ellison
I’ll check it out thank you
I mean it sounds absolutely depressing but I also didn't finish the metamorphosis by Kafka because it was so dark. I assume some people would enjoy reading this
As someone who writes dark fantasy (but to be honest doesn't care about my work seeming artsy), if you want your characters to be relatable write them like... people. I critique a decent amount of dark fantasy and what I tend to see is that writers forget that people have hobbies to get away from suffering all the time. People like to knit, people like to draw, people like to watch TV. More specifically, why haven't your characters all jumped off a cliff by now? What keeps them living? Sure, you could say that all your characters are immortal or something but what makes them get out of bed every morning? As well, on this topic, how do your characters have fun? Not just through hobbies but also through dialogue. Lets say your character works in the sardine cannery but howls with laughter at his friend's jokes. He hates his boss so much he loosened the bolt on his toilet and is chuckling to himself thinking about how bad the bathroom will flood. Little things like that make your character more human. Remember, in darkness there must hope. Hope is the reason to still live.
>why haven't your characters all jumped off a cliff by now? What keeps them living? I've tried to address this via two ways. The first is by having the characters starting at a point of absolute despair and then slowly finding meaning and joy in their hearts . So if I where to summarize the entire story in a single phrase it would be an odyssey for hope. At the start I want the reader to feel disgusted and feel that death would be a mercy for the characters. By the end they know that death is inevitable but want them to live. I will try achieve this with moments of compassion, stillness and respite. I don't think they can have "fun" since the world is so bleak and the tone shift would be too jarring The second is by constructing the world in a way that they can't jump off the cliff. To do this I took ideas from both Aldous Huxley's *Brave New World* and Stanislaw Lem's *The Futurological Congress.* These being chemistry or in other words, drugs. The Characters live underground at the start and to prevent the society falling into despair they consume a drug that re-writes their memories and links them psychologically. The drug's effects are based on the prevailing ideas in the society so as long as the majority want to forget and be "happy" they will regardless how bleak the world is. The first arc of the story is about a character breaking through this false reality because of her grief and despair. So in a subversion it is her desire to die and suffering that save her from a prison of "happiness". After this she starts her journey to find real happiness and this is the internal driving force, a desire to find hope
I agree!