First, I'd like to start off by pointing out my alma mater, the never-say-die University of Montana Grizzlies, won their first-round game against Nevada in the NCAA tournament. I'm saying it now because I'm a wee bit certain it will be my only chance. Their second-round game is against Boston College.

Now, on to a subject raised in my last post, which I believe is the central question we must answer in any fiction we write. It's the question of how to get readers to "buy in" to our story, our world, our created reality. Let me start by saying, I don't mean we have to make the reader agree with everything we say, nor should that be our aim. I don't think we should care if the reader agrees with the story; we should care, instead, about whether she believes in the story. Big difference.

Here's a good place to start, I think: ask yourself what you're hoping to accomplish with the story. If your answer is, "To show people Scientology is the True Answer," or, "To convince people UFOs really exist," great. Go write the followup to Dyanetics or Chariots of the Gods, and put together your nonfiction proposal for a publisher. I wish you well.

But don't write a novel or short story. In the world of fiction, you shouldn't have too much of a social or political agenda. Fiction's primary goal, I think, should always be to entertain or engage. If you're one of those genre schleps such as myself, your primary reason for writing is to entertain. If you're one of those fancy-schmancy literary types, your primary goal is to engage. Don't apologize for either, and don't overthink either.

But do leave your lofty "To convince..." or "To prove..." or "To explain..." goals behind when you sit down to write fiction. If you don't, I guarantee you will write a wretched, horrible tale no one will want to read. Especially me.

But here's the thing: if you really believe Scientology is the True Answer, that will be naturally reflected in your writing. And your writing will be filled with passion. And it will be something people want to read. I'm not a Scientologist, but I enjoyed reading L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth. (Quit snickering about the movie; I'm talking about the book.) Sure, Hubbard was none-too-veiled in his story about the evil "Psychlos" returning humanity to barbarism (Hubbard wasn't fond of psychoanalysis or therapy). But that was okay in Battlefield Earth, because those things were natural outgrowths of a story, and natural outgrowths of the world and vision Hubbard created. I could enter that world for 800 pages, and enjoy that world, because the "rules" of that world were a natural part of the setting--not mere frameworks hammered on top of the setting.

Am I making any sense here? I hope so. Because I ain't done yet; more to come next week.