Have you ever—or do you ever plan to—write a series of stories that are unified via their themes in the broadest sense? Or do you think some of your stories may end up regarded that way long after you've published them, with readers picking up on a particular extrastorial motif(s) for a certain selection of your works? This is a piss-poor example, but all that's in the nog' right now: John Carpenter's apocalypse trilogy: https://www.cbr.com/john-carpenter-apocalypse-trilogy-films-theme-explained/
Wow, pretty cool. I've never seen Prince of Darkness, and I don't remember Mouth of Madness almost at all. That is cool the way all three deal in different ways with the idea of an inescapable apocalypse. I'd have to say yes, the two stories I'm engaged in now (but on hold) have certain similarities. They're both about kids with crappy parents and how that threw their lives into various kinds of turmoil, with each character having a very different experience of it. And they're also both built around Jungian psychology, but woven in so deeply and hopefully unnoticeably it won't be obvious. And I guess my previous one also dealt with some of the same ideas. Not bad parenting, and I wasn't very aware of Jung yet, but it was very mythical, symbolic and psychological. Not sure the themes are similar though. Maybe if you look deep enough. I think that'll happen if a writer is obsessed with a certain idea during the period they're writing the stories. That idea will turn up in some way or other in everything they do until they're over it. I was just thinking about Carpenter as I watched Pet Sematary tonight. Also Spielberg and a few other classic filmmakers from that period, because Pet Sematary is a modern horror movie, and has certain issues because of it. I kept thinking "No, everything is moving too fast, you need some sequels between the scenes! The camera moves around too much, and gets too close to these people's faces while they're overacting. Why can't it be more like The Thing, or Halloween, or Jaws? —Understated rather than a mix of on-the-nose and overdone." But no.
This question reminds me of that kid who sent letters to 150 famous authors asking if they intentionally used symbolism in their work. The consensus seemed to be that symbolism is always present but it's rarely done intentionally. Isaac Asimov's answer was “Consciously? Heavens, no! Unconsciously? How can one avoid it?” In an individual's body of work, themes will emerge, it's so inevitable that I think consciously placing themes in the work is redundant. https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2011/12/05/document-the-symbolism-survey/ Also, I hate to be that guy, but sites like CBR have a tendency to identify themes and interpretations and plot elements that aren't really there, in order to wring as much content out of the media that they're analysing as possible. I am a huge Star Trek fan, but so much of what is written about Star Trek is just reaching.
