I don’t think so. There is no emotional attachment to money. Readers want to be able to empathize with protagonists. Money is a hard concept to empathize with or around. Most people tend to stay within a particular sócio-economic range their entire lives, and so unless characters are within that range of the reader, the reader won’t be able to empathize. But emotion. That transcends sócio-economic status.
I really like the idea of a character pursuing resource/money if it means their family and friends might be safe in order to drive the story but I also like creative purity. Like in Breaking Bad. Walter broke our hearts and thrilled when he had to pursue meth production in order to get his family financially stable. I also like the relatability of a character who does not know what's going to happen next financially or otherwise. I notice I'm not as invested with characters who are upper middle class or extremely wealthy. What made Walter's character even more powerful was the fact that after a few months it was clear the money was only secondary. He loved himself as the villain and that's what carried him. Harmony Korine talks so much about the idea of creative purity. Also see:"Uncut Gems." I love the quote "This is how I win." You realize Sandler's gambling habit has almost nothing to do with money. Really interesting.
Money is stored energy. Intention is interesting. Compulsion is interesting. Thou shalt not covet is interesting. (Have you seen 'Dekalog:The Ten Commandments' by Kieslowski?) Thou shalt not steal is interesting. Behavior is interesting. I like what you are saying about what keeps our interest.
I think such stories can still work since the quest for money (status) is at the heart of the American myth. Take stories of people becoming gangsters to get a slice of the pie. Or stories of horrible people fighting over inheritances (i.e HBO’s succession). or the stories of wanna bees flirting on the edge of financial elicits to capture scraps to build up their own hedge fund empires (ie The Fund - nonfiction about Ray Dalio).
I don’t have a great relationship with money, so it’s usually something I skim over. It can be a factor in hardship or hope, but it’s only a byproduct of behavior. Love, revenge, lust, enlightenment - those are reasons for me to pay attention.
Ocean's Eleven (2001) and The Art of the Steal (2013) both appear to be money-motivated on the surface but turn out to be more about personal motivations (at least for the main characters). I'm going to go with the layered story as the way forward.
Maybe money (exact sums) are gone, but money=class seems to continue in a Tom Ripley way. In film/TV, at least, there's a rash of wealth-obsessed stories (Saltburn, Triangle of Sadness). The goal is either to get the money (i.e., join the upper class) or burn it all down. The line from the article that stood out to me: "A friend once told me the easiest way to know if a college-educated person has rich parents is to ask if they have student loans." My kids are loaded with student loans; my step kids don't owe a cent. Our merged family never talks about that.
I wouldn’t know where to start on a money story besides something political. Smash capitalism. Spread capitalism. I honestly feel like my life flows between the two.
One of the themes in the novel I’m working on is wealth imbalance. It’s not so much a personal struggle for the main character, she grew up poor but due to other privileges, she will find herself shuffled in amongst the billionaire class. And she will also discover she can shift the wealth/power imbalance if she takes very drastic measures that will toss the entire world into chaos. So, frankly, I *hope* there is still a market for it lol.
Full disclosure: I can't say I read much contemporary literature. Barring some noble exceptions (among which, of course, Chuck Palahniuk), many of the authors I read have been dead for a long time now or made their names decades ago.
To be honest, I have never read a book that made me think: "What a shame! If only the author had dared to specify the size of such a character's debt!"
I find the particulars of money terribly boring. And why would I need them? In our Western society, EVERYTHING we do is susceptible to monetization and regularly valued in terms of money. There's no need to specify the particulars. By showing the right details, we can already see the economic situation, privileges, needs, or merits of a character.
Struggling for money is sad and boring enough in our day-to-day reality. Why should we convey this sadness and boredom to our fiction? I agree with Mr. Palahniuk that it's far more interesting focusing on what we want, need, or use that money for.
Having said that, if the story or character requires it (the way a story about barflies will require a certain amount of specifics regarding booze), by all means, go ahead.
Ah, and I find The Talented Mr. Ripley's first act far more interesting than the rest of the story (either Patricia Highsmith's book, René Clément's film, or Anthony Minghella’s).
I don't think money alone works as the central theme in fiction. Has there ever been a movie where the main story isn't just what happens around money, same as food or air? I think it could work as a clock, perhaps the first line of a book being something like 691.14, which we eventually learn is a bank account slowly dwindling as the book progresses. Perhaps the chapter names are simply the amounts left in the account. It might bug an editor, and be worth it just for that... "I feel the voice in chapter 418.71 isn't consistent with the voice in chapter 12." Says the editor. "Well, yeah," I'd answer, "did you even pay attention to where that 406.71 went?"
Trading Places, The Laundromat, even in greed era movies the money seems like a catalyst. We don't walk away remembering exact amounts of gain or loss, but how people were impacted.
Maybe money as the central theme only belongs in non-fiction, personal journey type books, self help, finance, How I Made My First Million, or ones that mix fiction into reality like Art of the Deal (which admittedly I've only read excerpts from).
I haven't watched the movie, but I just watched the scene on You Tube. It's wonderful. Beautiful poetry. I was super interested in the trailer but shy away from any violence in film these days. I might watch it though, now that I saw that great scene!!
I think there’s always going to be a place for kmart realism (including future iterations of it) and a fascination with money/wealth.
The way money/wealth is handled in ‘Breaking Bad’ is neat. It’s supposedly the whole driving force behind the protagonist, but no — he did it because he liked it; because he was good at it.
And Recent movies like ‘Parasite’ and ‘Saltburn’ show that, not only can narratives centred around money/wealth be excellent, but that there’s an audience for them.
Again it's '80s largesse but Brewster's Millions with Richard Pryor and John Candy. Pryor inherits $30 million from Andy Griffith and must spend it in 30 days in order to get the REAL inheritance of $300 million.
And it doesn't even seem like it's about the money. It's about the challenge and about doing something decent with it ultimately. No spoilers.
The Money Song
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Owuk3cZGtQ
I don’t think so. There is no emotional attachment to money. Readers want to be able to empathize with protagonists. Money is a hard concept to empathize with or around. Most people tend to stay within a particular sócio-economic range their entire lives, and so unless characters are within that range of the reader, the reader won’t be able to empathize. But emotion. That transcends sócio-economic status.
I really like the idea of a character pursuing resource/money if it means their family and friends might be safe in order to drive the story but I also like creative purity. Like in Breaking Bad. Walter broke our hearts and thrilled when he had to pursue meth production in order to get his family financially stable. I also like the relatability of a character who does not know what's going to happen next financially or otherwise. I notice I'm not as invested with characters who are upper middle class or extremely wealthy. What made Walter's character even more powerful was the fact that after a few months it was clear the money was only secondary. He loved himself as the villain and that's what carried him. Harmony Korine talks so much about the idea of creative purity. Also see:"Uncut Gems." I love the quote "This is how I win." You realize Sandler's gambling habit has almost nothing to do with money. Really interesting.
Money is stored energy. Intention is interesting. Compulsion is interesting. Thou shalt not covet is interesting. (Have you seen 'Dekalog:The Ten Commandments' by Kieslowski?) Thou shalt not steal is interesting. Behavior is interesting. I like what you are saying about what keeps our interest.
I think such stories can still work since the quest for money (status) is at the heart of the American myth. Take stories of people becoming gangsters to get a slice of the pie. Or stories of horrible people fighting over inheritances (i.e HBO’s succession). or the stories of wanna bees flirting on the edge of financial elicits to capture scraps to build up their own hedge fund empires (ie The Fund - nonfiction about Ray Dalio).
What about Martin Amis's novel Money?
I don’t have a great relationship with money, so it’s usually something I skim over. It can be a factor in hardship or hope, but it’s only a byproduct of behavior. Love, revenge, lust, enlightenment - those are reasons for me to pay attention.
Ocean's Eleven (2001) and The Art of the Steal (2013) both appear to be money-motivated on the surface but turn out to be more about personal motivations (at least for the main characters). I'm going to go with the layered story as the way forward.
Maybe money (exact sums) are gone, but money=class seems to continue in a Tom Ripley way. In film/TV, at least, there's a rash of wealth-obsessed stories (Saltburn, Triangle of Sadness). The goal is either to get the money (i.e., join the upper class) or burn it all down. The line from the article that stood out to me: "A friend once told me the easiest way to know if a college-educated person has rich parents is to ask if they have student loans." My kids are loaded with student loans; my step kids don't owe a cent. Our merged family never talks about that.
I wouldn’t know where to start on a money story besides something political. Smash capitalism. Spread capitalism. I honestly feel like my life flows between the two.
One of the themes in the novel I’m working on is wealth imbalance. It’s not so much a personal struggle for the main character, she grew up poor but due to other privileges, she will find herself shuffled in amongst the billionaire class. And she will also discover she can shift the wealth/power imbalance if she takes very drastic measures that will toss the entire world into chaos. So, frankly, I *hope* there is still a market for it lol.
Full disclosure: I can't say I read much contemporary literature. Barring some noble exceptions (among which, of course, Chuck Palahniuk), many of the authors I read have been dead for a long time now or made their names decades ago.
To be honest, I have never read a book that made me think: "What a shame! If only the author had dared to specify the size of such a character's debt!"
I find the particulars of money terribly boring. And why would I need them? In our Western society, EVERYTHING we do is susceptible to monetization and regularly valued in terms of money. There's no need to specify the particulars. By showing the right details, we can already see the economic situation, privileges, needs, or merits of a character.
Struggling for money is sad and boring enough in our day-to-day reality. Why should we convey this sadness and boredom to our fiction? I agree with Mr. Palahniuk that it's far more interesting focusing on what we want, need, or use that money for.
Having said that, if the story or character requires it (the way a story about barflies will require a certain amount of specifics regarding booze), by all means, go ahead.
Ah, and I find The Talented Mr. Ripley's first act far more interesting than the rest of the story (either Patricia Highsmith's book, René Clément's film, or Anthony Minghella’s).
I don't think money alone works as the central theme in fiction. Has there ever been a movie where the main story isn't just what happens around money, same as food or air? I think it could work as a clock, perhaps the first line of a book being something like 691.14, which we eventually learn is a bank account slowly dwindling as the book progresses. Perhaps the chapter names are simply the amounts left in the account. It might bug an editor, and be worth it just for that... "I feel the voice in chapter 418.71 isn't consistent with the voice in chapter 12." Says the editor. "Well, yeah," I'd answer, "did you even pay attention to where that 406.71 went?"
Trading Places, The Laundromat, even in greed era movies the money seems like a catalyst. We don't walk away remembering exact amounts of gain or loss, but how people were impacted.
Maybe money as the central theme only belongs in non-fiction, personal journey type books, self help, finance, How I Made My First Million, or ones that mix fiction into reality like Art of the Deal (which admittedly I've only read excerpts from).
I haven't watched the movie, but I just watched the scene on You Tube. It's wonderful. Beautiful poetry. I was super interested in the trailer but shy away from any violence in film these days. I might watch it though, now that I saw that great scene!!
I think there’s always going to be a place for kmart realism (including future iterations of it) and a fascination with money/wealth.
The way money/wealth is handled in ‘Breaking Bad’ is neat. It’s supposedly the whole driving force behind the protagonist, but no — he did it because he liked it; because he was good at it.
And Recent movies like ‘Parasite’ and ‘Saltburn’ show that, not only can narratives centred around money/wealth be excellent, but that there’s an audience for them.
Again it's '80s largesse but Brewster's Millions with Richard Pryor and John Candy. Pryor inherits $30 million from Andy Griffith and must spend it in 30 days in order to get the REAL inheritance of $300 million.
And it doesn't even seem like it's about the money. It's about the challenge and about doing something decent with it ultimately. No spoilers.