tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82922435737066288242024-03-14T13:14:50.287-07:00Stars, Beetles, and Fools<i>The varying thoughts of author and critic J.G. Keely</i>JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-54645701572058374032015-07-14T05:29:00.001-07:002015-09-04T11:48:46.709-07:00Your Guide to Free Ebooks<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXcDDXY1LhVZ2v3cZd3dbXhohs0JXMdGVICa5nJz56Itlr01giVEUI-nO-MEDlZD0F4G2N0XhKt7zsnQTxHA0fTDhj9HAZ4YUOHZiouNZSSGzN38VKNnhpiIMfmekSWpo0Z10vWNwttyM/s1600/Pierpont-Morgan-Library-New-York.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXcDDXY1LhVZ2v3cZd3dbXhohs0JXMdGVICa5nJz56Itlr01giVEUI-nO-MEDlZD0F4G2N0XhKt7zsnQTxHA0fTDhj9HAZ4YUOHZiouNZSSGzN38VKNnhpiIMfmekSWpo0Z10vWNwttyM/s320/Pierpont-Morgan-Library-New-York.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Pierpont-Morgan Library</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The internet is a great resource for readers, and I take advantage of it as often as I can. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_States" target="_blank">Copyright Law is a complex animal</a>, but basically, anything published before 1923 is no longer in copyright in America--and many later works never had their copyright renewed. In countries like Canada and Australia, copyright does not extend as far back as it does in America. And whenever works do go out of copyright, there are armies of fans, readers, and academics out there who take the time to scan, edit, and put them up online for our enjoyment, readable on tablets, ereaders, or plain old computer screens. Here are a few of the resources available online for free, public domain ebooks.<br />
<a name='more'></a><h3 style="text-align: center;">
</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
The Sites</h3>
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/" rel="nofollow">Project Gutenberg</a>: Made up of a large group of volunteers, Gutenberg hosts tens of thousands of free books in various formats, including
Kindle, PDF, and plain text. You can usually find any notable text written in
English from before about 1925, as well as some more modern ones that
are no longer in copyright. <a href="http://gutenberg.net.au/searchresults.html" rel="nofollow">Project Gutenberg Australia</a>
has books from 1955 or earlier. They don't have as many books as the American
site, but if you want something newer, they are a good resource. <a href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/" target="_blank">The University of Adelaide</a> also has some more recent books that Gutenberg lacks.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheDLlaPBWCvTgSYXcLfIPX3BTxbZuP68OtwMfHPEBnnae2Z3YKZGTlXibmjKd0Ry_3_3esn9ovzaDEm8V65Rr7Zf9uxwHyl2FazLZpWO9-Ja6D8DzNoMGViedMNK8ioTZB7U6Yt9SNGPw/s1600/printer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheDLlaPBWCvTgSYXcLfIPX3BTxbZuP68OtwMfHPEBnnae2Z3YKZGTlXibmjKd0Ry_3_3esn9ovzaDEm8V65Rr7Zf9uxwHyl2FazLZpWO9-Ja6D8DzNoMGViedMNK8ioTZB7U6Yt9SNGPw/s320/printer.jpg" width="234" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Wm. Caxton from <u>The Graphic</u>, 1877</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="https://archive.org/" rel="nofollow">The Internet Archive</a> contains scanned books from hundreds of university libraries from
around the world. What's remarkable is that, for most of their books,
you get to see the original formatting, illustrations, and other such
details. First, click on the book icon to the left of the page, then click on 'eBooks and Texts', and finally, search for books in the search bar on the far right where it says 'Search this collection'. Once the results come in, you can click on any book you see and even read it online by clicking through the pages at the top.<br />
<br />
However, I've found that for many of their books, while the PDF
version will be fine, the other formats will often have problems with
formatting and spelling as a result of their computers trying to turn pictures of book pages into words and letters. They also put up other types of files, such as
music and videos.<br />
<br />
There is also <a href="http://books.google.com/" rel="nofollow">Google Books</a>,
which lists pretty much every book ever written--though only some of
them are available for free. To find the free ones, search for an author
or title, then press enter. When the results come up, click on 'search
tools', then 'any books', then select 'free Google eBooks', and it will
show you a list of free books related to the author or title you
searched for. Once you've selected the book you want, go to the right of the screen and click on the little gear, which will give you the options do download it as a .pdf, .epub, or plain text. You can often read more recent articles and collections this way, even if it doesn't let you download them as eBooks.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRs02y9q9vWU_0FxMmWS8OXmP8csMLZDS9JEqsorsuwWPsm8aS-NSnznRwCoi-HWoSyGK-Sqy8xt3ELLWqx6CEF_UmQBCZJW6qXUIq30SypgNo48koozRttVuiWfyGk9tvvh_Xirjvwes/s1600/With_the_Night_Mail_%2528cover%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRs02y9q9vWU_0FxMmWS8OXmP8csMLZDS9JEqsorsuwWPsm8aS-NSnznRwCoi-HWoSyGK-Sqy8xt3ELLWqx6CEF_UmQBCZJW6qXUIq30SypgNo48koozRttVuiWfyGk9tvvh_Xirjvwes/s320/With_the_Night_Mail_%2528cover%2529.jpg" width="217" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Kipling - With The Night Mail</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Also, if you're looking for a book by a specific
author, sometimes you can check out their Wikipedia page, then scroll
down to the 'external links' section, which often gives a list of pages
where the author's works can be found. For example, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov#External_links" rel="nofollow">here are the links</a> on Chekhov's page, which actually go to his lists on Internet Archive and Project Gutenberg, but which often give you other options, such as fan-pages for that author which provide books you can't find elsewhere.<br />
<br />
Of course, when you're dealing with foreign authors like Chekhov, there's always the caveat that the translations you can get for free are quite old, and as such, don't tend to represent modern scholarship and expertise. Indeed, it can be a problem in many Victorian translations, which tended to bowdlerize their subject matter in order not to offend strict Victorian sensibilities. When reading a work in translation, it's always worthwhile to read up on different translations and pick the one that works best for you and your needs as a reader. <br />
<br />
Amazon also has <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/?node=2245146011" rel="nofollow">a selection of free eBooks</a> available for Kindle, though if you get the computer program <a href="http://calibre-ebook.com/" rel="nofollow">Calibre</a>, you can change Kindle files into any other type of eBook file (and vice-versa). You can also check out <a href="http://manybooks.net/" rel="nofollow">ManyBooks</a> and <a href="https://openlibrary.org/" rel="nofollow">OpenLibrary</a>. I know they have thousands of free books available, but I haven't used those sites yet. It is also possible to get free ebooks on loan from your local library.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Formatting and Reading</h3>
Once you've found a book you want to download and read, you have to decide what format you need. The Amazon Kindle uses the .mobi format, as well as its own format, .azw and .azw3. The Barnes and Noble Nook uses the industry standard .epub format. Both readers, as well as tablets and computers can usually read .pdf files, too. One of the simplest formats is .txt, which pretty much any machine can display for you.JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-54407327514076369182015-07-09T03:07:00.000-07:002016-01-06T13:42:11.477-08:00Exploring Ideas Through Fiction<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBSt7Jn22HyzSTJrfzW4pxLr0tWGrqfHSNykiMTVp8GwJ8sy3o1VQyw32NOvSCO5yEQ-8gqkrnKyXH8uiia09Y0qOFfL8kPnMy6twCE2_LiFhk7dF4JhkQRVuUWmr4uANXDPSAjctUo54/s1600/Gulliver%2527s+Kingdom+Japan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBSt7Jn22HyzSTJrfzW4pxLr0tWGrqfHSNykiMTVp8GwJ8sy3o1VQyw32NOvSCO5yEQ-8gqkrnKyXH8uiia09Y0qOFfL8kPnMy6twCE2_LiFhk7dF4JhkQRVuUWmr4uANXDPSAjctUo54/s320/Gulliver%2527s+Kingdom+Japan.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
A good book is one that makes us think--about ourselves, and about our world. Even in genre works, like sci fi, fantasy, and horror, the author still explores ideas about what it means to be human: love, hatred, trust, belief, war, disease--plus uncountable others. Even if an author doesn't intend to send a message in their work, the way that they present their characters and their setting will include certain assumptions and judgments about life.<br />
<br />
There is no way to escape these themes, any more than writers can escape characters, plots, or words, so it is important for us to consider how we want to use them--and how they are used by authors we read. There are a number of ways to present and explore these themes in books, some more effective than others. So, in order from least to best, here are the different methods authors use to present ideas in their works:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<h3>
I. Exploitation</h3>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0PaSa5ESfmYgynEcDRniGSg8fqaUOsFMjkp4iEcMVE5tYYfvEaH41LuIuyzYZKWIsqjEUWmrA-OGoJMY6ju5LXuCG9rhEOUCcWFkJKKMfMWnu25ZUjwh5IvfIu2-TmIT43c60Bkt2DCo/s1600/arena-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0PaSa5ESfmYgynEcDRniGSg8fqaUOsFMjkp4iEcMVE5tYYfvEaH41LuIuyzYZKWIsqjEUWmrA-OGoJMY6ju5LXuCG9rhEOUCcWFkJKKMfMWnu25ZUjwh5IvfIu2-TmIT43c60Bkt2DCo/s1600/arena-01.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Pam Grier in 'The Arena'</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Exploitative works present ideas in a way that thrills and titillates the audience, but which never asks difficult questions and does little or nothing to challenge societal prejudices. Such works use sex, violence, racism, religion, politics, and other hot-button issues to draw in their audience, exploiting the fact that, when we see such taboos being played out, it provokes strong emotional reactions from us.<br />
<br />
The average <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_prison_film" target="_blank">Women in Prison Movie</a>, for example, uses its setting to depict violence, nudity, lesbianism, and dominance, but it doesn't actually explore these ideas. It doesn't try to define what 'justice' actually means, or look at the nature of personal freedom versus social safety. These are themes that are going to be present in any movie about incarceration, but in a low-quality exploitation film, such themes will never be presented with any complexity. Of course, this doesn't mean that all movies labeled with the 'exploitation' genre must be this thoughtless--some use these techniques to get butts in seats, and can be remarkably subversive once the audience is hooked. Many exploitative works, like <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/76183030" target="_blank"><i>Dracula</i></a>, accidentally reveal a great deal about their time period and culture, not because the author deliberately chose to explore them, but because they have thoughtlessly included their own hangups and assumptions, which can be quite telling to an astute reader.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
II. Reproduction</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFl_dEpfH_tD-_x8gmlzSlh5Xy0LamaQdJTmvQFwJY-vCl0EL6IIyg_SYUmd_9Mw4VNMVeFP8I2fO977OhHdiEa6bvemCQiJR3h4fJbwvXad6ua28A8ekUACZeA2o587WdHPZ4eM54HkA/s1600/skyfall-bardem630a-jpg_181559.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFl_dEpfH_tD-_x8gmlzSlh5Xy0LamaQdJTmvQFwJY-vCl0EL6IIyg_SYUmd_9Mw4VNMVeFP8I2fO977OhHdiEa6bvemCQiJR3h4fJbwvXad6ua28A8ekUACZeA2o587WdHPZ4eM54HkA/s320/skyfall-bardem630a-jpg_181559.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
These works present interesting themes to us in a realistic way, but never actually force us to confront them or think about them deeply. This was the criticism Roger Ebert <a href="http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/fight-club-1999" target="_blank">laid against Fight Club</a>: that it opens up a number of interesting questions, but by the end fails to sink its teeth into them, instead letting them drop away into the background. Many exploitative authors try to use this as a defense of their works--that they're only presenting the world 'as it really is'.<br />
<br />
For example, recent authors of 'gritty' epic fantasy tend to present rape as a constant threat to women, often to the point that no female character in any of their books will fail to be threatened seriously with rape, at one point or another. They claim they are only representing 'the dark nature of war', but they never present a single male character being threatened with rape by his enemies, despite the fact that male rape is <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-sil/?page=all" target="_blank">much more common in real world militaries</a>. As such, we can see that they are only presenting one side of rape--not coincidentally, the side which our current culture finds titillating and exciting, meaning that they are writing pure exploitation, not realism. That's why simple reproduction <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzqQgAJd6Xo" target="_blank">fails to be responsible criticism</a>.<br />
<br />
Part of the problem with this strategy is that it acts as if the author and the book are somehow separate, allowing the author to deny responsibility for what they have written. <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/12/worldbuilding-part-iii-what-fiction.html" target="_blank">All works are artificial</a>, because everything in a story is there only because the author chose to put it there deliberately, or included it unconsciously. Sitting back and saying <i>'no, my story is realistic, it represents the real world'</i> is a cop-out. The book represents the author's views and mind, whether they intend it to or not, so why not deliberately take advantage of this artificiality by being aware of it, rather than pretending that it doesn't exist? Why choose to write a story about a prison if the theme of freedom doesn't interest you?<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
III. Promotion or Condemnation</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyy1WzDeGF3W5XzJhl_hMD8BLl9pscGd9JmcQoSE-oPRcsJb8wX_SiV33HfLpgYRabpd74o3cV3hOsoHoxrfIWWJxchibYmONi7d615t5G8ZugmicVSkMvrpRTTGnMfiVJaLjTMcRQ6No/s1600/superman-third-war-loan.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="309" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyy1WzDeGF3W5XzJhl_hMD8BLl9pscGd9JmcQoSE-oPRcsJb8wX_SiV33HfLpgYRabpd74o3cV3hOsoHoxrfIWWJxchibYmONi7d615t5G8ZugmicVSkMvrpRTTGnMfiVJaLjTMcRQ6No/s320/superman-third-war-loan.png" width="320" /></a></div>
This is the most simplistic way for an author to try to deal with themes in their work: to present the theme and then use various methods to try to convince the audience either that it is good, or that it is bad. Often, this means putting the idea into a certain character's mouth, such as having the hero give a long speech about the roles men and women should have in relationships. Since the hero is presented as good, and sympathetic, and competent, we are supposed to trust this speech and take the lesson to heart. Conversely, you can have the villain talk all about why Communism is the best, and <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1454411" target="_blank">since he happens to kill babies</a>, we're supposed to conclude that Communism is evil. Sometimes, it's set up as a conversation, where the character the author wants to be right has all the proper answers, and the wrong character gets completely torn down.<br />
<br />
Less skilled authors don't even bother to put the idea into the mouths of their characters, they just state it outright in the narration--either going off on some long tangent about their personal opinions, or perhaps slipping them in, here and there. Take for example a racist author who always uses unflattering, animalistic physical descriptions for non-White characters, or a sexist author who describe all the good women as beautiful, and all the bad ones as ugly and deformed.<br />
<br />
Though it's good that at least these authors are trying to explore ideas in their works, in the end this method is no more than propaganda, an attempt by the author to tell you what you should or shouldn't believe. It's what I've come to call 'literature of answers'--the author has some particular opinion they present as gospel truth--and any time someone tells you they have all the answers, they're trying to sell you something.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
IV. Negative Capability</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrjhf0GFpa2XblDanGOXooSiZuEG9c2BO4OvlClcIqjRG8mQTgAVgD4BGutT_e5fhjcxCmMab8_Q3_5Gt5hYvG1E5SwDijmthdYp0cXJr8yYZ6N8Lmb17Q1gHSqKNr-jMX4x6a_9U7yBE/s1600/1852557.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhrjhf0GFpa2XblDanGOXooSiZuEG9c2BO4OvlClcIqjRG8mQTgAVgD4BGutT_e5fhjcxCmMab8_Q3_5Gt5hYvG1E5SwDijmthdYp0cXJr8yYZ6N8Lmb17Q1gHSqKNr-jMX4x6a_9U7yBE/s320/1852557.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
This is the highest form of thematic exploration to which an author can aspire. Instead of simply telling the reader what to think, or presenting their own opinions in a good light (and the opposite side in a bad light), the author attempts to look at an idea from several different sides, bringing up questions about how we think of that idea, of the assumptions and prejudices that go along with it, and ultimately, forcing the reader to reconsider their own position on the matter. It makes us look at the world in a new way, so that we have to confront what we thought we knew and admit that (as ever) we still have more work to do. So, if the author were exploring the theme of incarceration and justice, they would have to show us not just the prisoner's side of the argument, but also the jailor's, and the judge's, and the average citizen's.<br />
<br />
Better yet, they can show us how various individual prisoners and officers see it--that some prisoners are going to disagree with others about what it means, and some prisoners and officers are going to be on the same page. What's important is that each individual view that we see comes off as valid and believable for that character, that we aren't getting weak <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" target="_blank">straw men</a> on one side and the real arguments on the other. The term '<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability" target="_blank">Negative Capability</a>' was originally defined by Keats, referring to how great writers like Shakespeare wrote about ideas--that all the characters on both sides of the argument seem to be strong and well-written, and as such, that it's difficult (or impossible) to know for certain which side the author personally prefers.<br />
<br />
Indeed, a thoughtful and honest author will often admit that they don't have the answers, and that the best we can do is to present various sides of the issue, as we understand them, and to let our readers make up their own minds. This is what I've come to call 'literature of questions', where instead of giving us simple answers, the author forces the reader to consider difficult and complex questions about the nature of life and being.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdxsD-CaV8iiJ8OfaeVyhS4nVRAGtjpoI1yCNHPaZI3slYM8DVmPMESg0COsSkwgG3F17uupz9wlxexUEcMR8Ggb7_klXWtpq5uPB3ueeYQL1D_h49qotxuXqRWTDkt83ZCJdIcNHWktE/s1600/MV5BODU0Njg0ODM5N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTIxODY3Mw%2540%2540._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdxsD-CaV8iiJ8OfaeVyhS4nVRAGtjpoI1yCNHPaZI3slYM8DVmPMESg0COsSkwgG3F17uupz9wlxexUEcMR8Ggb7_klXWtpq5uPB3ueeYQL1D_h49qotxuXqRWTDkt83ZCJdIcNHWktE/s320/MV5BODU0Njg0ODM5N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMTIxODY3Mw%2540%2540._V1_SX640_SY720_.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
What's curious is that often, when an author's message aligns with modern assumptions and prejudices, it becomes less clear whether they're writing propagandist, one-sided views. For instance, these days racists tend to be presented as evil villain characters, and you rarely get a racist character whose beliefs are presented as valid from their own point-of-view--indeed, writers who present a sympathetic racist are likely to be accused of defending racism instead of presenting various sides of the issue. Of course, the problem with this is that it supports the notion that racism is a simplistic, either/or proposition, to the point that many people think being nice <a href="http://stateofopportunity.michiganradio.org/post/you-asked-it-extended-interview-theory-white-fragility" target="_blank">means you can't be a racist</a>--when of course, prejudice is much more subtle and insidious than that, and deserves more thorough and thoughtful treatment.<br />
<br />
There are also some cases where an author might be providing a response to a common cultural theme that is widely taken for granted, and since it is already so familiar to readers, they feel that they don't have to present both sides--that they only need to present the revolutionary, contradictory side.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Final Thoughts</h3>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY0A0y7ekl2VemfjSbRBv8jmQULExuqXH6N9ZKB1gDKJ2XRdH_qljjI6arBAFKw5x5XEhyphenhyphenJul_-co24JYCNTdcOUidYjAWdBhx_UtzV2zGhTJ5Uq0JDLZwyNm0YfsjdU2TjUPPIB71NC4/s1600/Kyosai+-+Hell+Coppurtesan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiY0A0y7ekl2VemfjSbRBv8jmQULExuqXH6N9ZKB1gDKJ2XRdH_qljjI6arBAFKw5x5XEhyphenhyphenJul_-co24JYCNTdcOUidYjAWdBhx_UtzV2zGhTJ5Uq0JDLZwyNm0YfsjdU2TjUPPIB71NC4/s320/Kyosai+-+Hell+Coppurtesan.jpg" width="219" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Kyosai - Hell Courtesan</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
As authors, it's important for us to consider what themes we want to explore in our books--we don't have the space to explore all of them at once, so as with everything else in writing, it becomes a case of choosing what to leave in, and what to deliberately keep out. Certainly, it's not a problem to touch upon certain ideas, here and there, or to look at one more deeply in a certain chapter and not return to it. As readers, we must likewise try to ferret out what each author thought was important, and then try to decide what we think of the ideas they presented, and how they presented them. Were they effective? Did they bring up ideas only to exploit them, did they present them realistically? Do they work to explore these themes, or merely depict them? Did they fill their works with a lot of drawn-out explanations and exposition, or did their themes emerge naturally from their characters and stories?<br />
<br />
One of the most important things that you can do as an author is to choose characters, scenes, and settings that match the ideas you prefer to explore. If you want to explore the idea of justice, then pick characters and situations which will highlight various aspects of that idea. Give yourself every opportunity to present your themes in different ways, and from different points of view, so you can provide your reader with a more complete presentation. For every author, there will be certain ideas that appeal to them, and to which they will return again and again over decades in various stories and books. There may also be ideas that interest you only for a while.<br />
<br />
Getting to know what these ideas are, and why they are important to you is a vital part of finding your own authorial voice. That doesn't mean you have to be certain about them--quite the opposite: they should be ideas which continually puzzle you, which fill you with wonder, so that you will never tire of picking them up and looking at them again, trying to find a new angle or view that you can represent in your writing.JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com37tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-23317581192021618192015-06-13T04:39:00.000-07:002015-07-10T03:30:14.021-07:00Worldbuilding: Bakker vs. Harrison<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv3KFbkZrOB2kBQiG83dTp3SUiVUKqDkzWE7dMHYnSdY_HmO_sY452kXLCMvkqglcVmx0JcBtV-yMtqS5BLZBjZDxU7MNRvIpHC2FQRbLdoFBlo8o_dFg9CHk2mLUvEYkUEtpGRs0bQNo/s1600/19a+The+Seven+Sisters.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv3KFbkZrOB2kBQiG83dTp3SUiVUKqDkzWE7dMHYnSdY_HmO_sY452kXLCMvkqglcVmx0JcBtV-yMtqS5BLZBjZDxU7MNRvIpHC2FQRbLdoFBlo8o_dFg9CHk2mLUvEYkUEtpGRs0bQNo/s320/19a+The+Seven+Sisters.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Wm. Timlin - The Seven Sisters</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
In <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/10/worldbuilding-and-origin-of-fandom-part.html" target="_blank">my ongoing exploration</a> of worldbuilding, I've gotten a great
deal of inspiration from the observations of writers like <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080410181840/http://uzwi.wordpress.com/2007/01/27/very-afraid/" target="_blank">Harrison</a>, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=-AR9FEgly9wC&pg=PA144&dq=elfland+to+poughkeepsie&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIwq7nnKeMxgIV0ROSCh21Hwvp#v=onepage&q=elfland%20to%20poughkeepsie&f=false" target="_blank">Le Guin</a>, and <a href="http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953" target="_blank">Moorcock</a>. Harrison's essays in particular helped me to put
voice to my concerns about the worldbuilding obsession, my attempt to
understand how it operates, and what purpose it serves. Yet, I've found
relatively few writers able to write eloquently on worldbuilding's
behalf, which is unfortunate, because it makes the issue feel one-sided.
Of course, if it is as Harrison says, and the worldbuilding urge comes
out of a desire for control, simplification, rote memorization, and
authority, then it would make sense that individuals who are on the side
of worldbuilding would not tend to be theorists, questioners, and
underminers, searching for reasons.<br />
<br />
I had heard that
author R. Scott Bakker's response to Harrison (<a href="http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-r-scott-bakker-q.html" target="_blank">in this interview</a>) was precisely the
well-constructed, pro-worldbuilding manifesto I had been looking for--but unfortunately, far from presenting his own theory of the utility and
purpose of worldbuilding, the response quickly devolves into a
disappointing 'us vs. them' distraction, the tired old narrative of the Average Joe tilting at Ivory Towers, attacking Harrison's person and motives without
ever presenting a clear refutation of his views.<br />
<i></i><br />
<a name='more'></a>Now,
it can certainly be effective to try to get into an author's head and
look for motive--an explanation of what drives them to write in a
certain way--whether you're trying to determine why they fall to a
certain error, or why they produce something effective or novel. It's
something I do occasionally in my reviews, for example, when I suggest
that a male sci fi or fantasy author will spend more time physically
describing women because they are personally more interested in how a
woman looks than how a man looks--<i>thy neck is like an ivory tower</i>. However, it's vital that a critic
first establish that the author does, in fact, have this habit before
searching out an insight into why that might be the case--otherwise,
it's just casting aspersions.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix7LrxDpl0xX3XMJxHf11WYz6pFJgEigl2U22UxDgcQidUGQfzfMdbxAnpFNzrDGB0PRbPzhDQNtRp0VAk6LhZziM3nnXHaJ8fI75JQXzI7m_OwgJm3SgACzl4VREvPnDCOFZrF9y0yQA/s1600/33a+The+Temple.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix7LrxDpl0xX3XMJxHf11WYz6pFJgEigl2U22UxDgcQidUGQfzfMdbxAnpFNzrDGB0PRbPzhDQNtRp0VAk6LhZziM3nnXHaJ8fI75JQXzI7m_OwgJm3SgACzl4VREvPnDCOFZrF9y0yQA/s320/33a+The+Temple.jpg" width="227" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Wm. Timsin - The Temple</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It's all too easy for it
to become an attack on a writer's character rather than a refutation of
the ideas, themselves. It becomes more akin to a response to tone, or
even <i>ad hominem</i>, which indeed, Bakker seems to recognize:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"What
troubles me most though are the unconditional, declarative tone ... and
the insinuations regarding the psychological type of the worldbuilder."</i></blockquote>
Which
makes it doubly ironic that Bakker's knee-jerk response is to make the
same type of insinuations about type right back at Harrison--and in an
even more declarative tone. The form of this attack is: <i>the writer's motivations are suspect, therefore his conclusions are faulty</i>.
This argument is flawed, because even
if we accept Bakker's assertion, and take it for granted that Harrison's
motivation for rejecting worldbuilding is some sort of literary
elitism, it does not necessarily follow that therefore, his critiques of
worldbuilding are somehow less valid.<br />
<br />
For comparison,
imagine a successful sports star, say a boxer. An analyst writes an
article about how this pug is a man of low character, that the thing
that motivates him to beat others is pride and insecurity, that he
doesn't really respect the game or his opponents, that he is acting out
of resentment, obsessed with proving himself, all stemming back to a
difficult childhood. Even if this is all true, it doesn't make the guy
an unskilled boxer, it doesn't deny his wins, or prevent him from being very effective at what he
does. After all, this is hardly an ideal world, and as such--as much as
it might irk us--it's entirely possible for a stuck-up asshole to be
totally right, and for a sweet nice guy to be utterly wrong.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZuVpUPyBmCEJZnVO9klWs-c4SBnjrMaM1FUw9m0UQhfmnEZM-7iTrzjMwkzvUeuJ1X0f9TkawAVN8nlQ7hzeDh-Teqz_XMaglaE8muu4JxDjC4yDdgfvmXEfcZlU_ceviqaO5uCf4u0Y/s1600/PUnch%252Bvolume%252B104%252Bpage%252B242%252Bboxing%252Bkangaroo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhZuVpUPyBmCEJZnVO9klWs-c4SBnjrMaM1FUw9m0UQhfmnEZM-7iTrzjMwkzvUeuJ1X0f9TkawAVN8nlQ7hzeDh-Teqz_XMaglaE8muu4JxDjC4yDdgfvmXEfcZlU_ceviqaO5uCf4u0Y/s320/PUnch%252Bvolume%252B104%252Bpage%252B242%252Bboxing%252Bkangaroo.jpg" width="235" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Punch - The Money-Boxing Kangaroo</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Harrison,
for his part, provides not only a reason why certain authors and
readers might be drawn to worldbuilding, but also a theory about how
worldbuilding operates. Bakker contradicts this theory several times, <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html" target="_blank">but never actually refutes it</a>, because he does not quite provide his own
theory to explain worldbuilding. He begins by denying Harrison's
observation that worldbuilding is an attempt to do the impossible: to
actually catalogue a false world and by doing so, make it real. Bakker
tells us <i>"But no one outside of characters in Borges stories have ever tried to do this. No one. Ever." </i>Which, for someone who professes being troubled by an <i>'unconditional, declarative tone'</i> is pretty damn guilty of both.<br />
<br />
Bakker
doesn't extend to suggest why it's outside the realm of possibility that someone
might try to do this (don't humans try to do impossible things all the
time?)--or what else these writers might be doing, instead, what else they might be trying to achieve
with their worldbuilding. He doesn't provide us with a competing theory,
he just states, unequivocally, that Harrison is wrong, for reasons
unspecified. The closest Bakker comes to defending worldbuilding is the statement <i>'there’s meaning-effects aplenty to be explored here, believe you me. Profound ones.'</i>,
to which I must respond that no, I can't simply believe him, no matter
how matter-of-factly he puts it, because he's not actually
demonstrating, in any systematic, theoretical way, that what he claims
is true.<br />
<br />
He does go on to compare Tolkien's worldbuilding to Harrison's postmodern wordplay, that they are <i>'probing the selfsame power of words to spin realities'</i>--so apparently Harrison and Tolkien are really doing the same thing, except than
when Harrison does it, it's bad, because he's being 'literary' about it,
while Tolkien (Oxford don of literature), somehow isn't? Or perhaps, because
Bakker puts 'literary' in scare quotes, he means that in some fundamental
way, Harrison fails at actually being literary in the proper fashion, as Bakker sees it? It's unfortunate that he
does not define what this difference is supposed to be, except in vague
insinuations of Harrison's supposed pretension.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihTeuhExTwjzGX_y1Yr6AacsH5N7KRFZxJHiedzrg_tdVY7Z3964X5gDioKKljNTBYOZ7OlefQVSS1QNvMDO9xSnFZe1xYmgm5xcTpygHTiCzP_YOowUUS34yAFlR6BhrwrasYWHBCcxM/s1600/Le+Medicine++Guarissant+Phantasie+Purgeant.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihTeuhExTwjzGX_y1Yr6AacsH5N7KRFZxJHiedzrg_tdVY7Z3964X5gDioKKljNTBYOZ7OlefQVSS1QNvMDO9xSnFZe1xYmgm5xcTpygHTiCzP_YOowUUS34yAFlR6BhrwrasYWHBCcxM/s320/Le+Medicine++Guarissant+Phantasie+Purgeant.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
Then we get to this gem: <i>'imagine The Lord of the Rings without a separately crafted Middle-earth!'</i>, which Bakker intends as a defense of worldbuilding, but which I hear as <i>'imagine Ayn Rand without the walls of philosophical lecturing'</i>--certainly it would be a very different book, but I don't see that it
would be a worse one. Of course, I do think there are fundamental
differences between Harrison's and Tolkien's approaches, but not
necessarily differences that flatter Tolkien (I'd certainly agree that
Tolkien is definitely not post-modern). To use Bakker's own words, from <a href="http://www.emcit.com/emcit127.php?a=4" target="_blank">his response</a> to Jeff VanderMeer's <a href="http://www.emcit.com/emcit125.php#Politics" target="_blank"><i>Politics in Fantasy</i></a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"
...questions are so much more powerful than answers ... they can muddy
things that otherwise seem "pure and simple" in the span of a few short
seconds. Questions force us to take a step sideways, to reconsider our
perspective ... they reference contexts—perspectives—that didn’t seem to
exist simply because we couldn’t see them."</i></blockquote>
To
me, worldbuilding (and didactic literature in general) whether it comes
in the form of Tolkien and Lewis or Rand, is a literature of answers, a
literature which delineates, which presents the reader with clear right and
wrong, which narrows and simplifies the world into certain fundamental
and opposed views. This also seems to be the core of Harrison's problem
with it: that it presumes to literalize, to <i>'exhaustively survey a place that isn't there'</i>. In that sense, I feel the <i>'great clomping foot of nerdism' </i>is
just as alive in Rand, that she is trying to literalize and
exhaustively survey the world of her philosophy, and that it forms the
'secondary world' against which all her action is set--and that again, like
any other system of worldbuilding, it is meant to be internalized by the
reader--worldbuilding is a form of worldview.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJZ2ZLMhn4ggu8vXS-vqQgfLKD7e0mXxFvxlFlrYtAGfU9Y8g-bVXjr4G6fPYDAPVs0W5LMWf6Nw1tfxL4wwPm69w3JELxT1eKDWJamyYl0wjON6FSr5adIl3vEjmsMPj8XbCGYczQc40/s1600/30editorial-popup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="307" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJZ2ZLMhn4ggu8vXS-vqQgfLKD7e0mXxFvxlFlrYtAGfU9Y8g-bVXjr4G6fPYDAPVs0W5LMWf6Nw1tfxL4wwPm69w3JELxT1eKDWJamyYl0wjON6FSr5adIl3vEjmsMPj8XbCGYczQc40/s320/30editorial-popup.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Which brings us back to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability" target="_blank">Negative Capability</a> again</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Conversely,
the reason Harrison's work seems to me to be more powerful because it
is built upon a literature of questions, of contradictions and
many-sided views which invite the reader to come to their own
conclusions, to explore and indulge and to come away with their own
interpretation. Certainly, such works can become overly vague and
fractured, settling into contradiction for its own sake, relying on
oxymoron and paradox to produce what Bakker calls <i>'a multifarious, promiscuous, meaning event ... generated by the most mechanical of po-mo tactics, elision'</i>--such are the pitfalls of a 'literature of questions',
but even with these caveats, I find that it is much more effective,
much more varied, and much better at exploring human existence than any
set of simplistic answers.<br />
<br />
This conflict between literature of answers and that of questions also seems to bleed into Bakker's issue with VanderMeer, specifically, that the latter, while he accepts that art is inherently political, still maintains that <i>'character and situation are paramount ... some truths transcend politics'</i>. Bakker reads this as a contradiction, but I see it as VanderMeer's commitment to questions over answers. The point I think Bakker is missing is that Vandermeer is taking for granted the artificiality of fiction, the fact that it is personal and deliberate, it is not merely a recounting of facts and details, it is carefully constructed, from a certain perspective, or in a more skilled author, a set of perspectives. As such, it is not supposed to be simply representative, allegorical, or didactic--it is not a literalization of facts in the world, but an interpretation, an intensely personalized view. As VanderMeer points out, great works are more than just their place in time--a book written about war by someone who lived through Vietnam is undoubtedly influenced by the particulars of that conflict, but the fictionalized vision of war in that book is much larger than that single event, more universal, more personal and purposeful.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRSruY6wMeGUYfFZF_JR4lRccFHh8p328Hq8Y_oxNh2n3qzEpxZjSLc9Gz6HhAEAiM5zSJfjGoVT9pG4DGzPax-opCLgJrjX2igRTcMhyphenhyphenVzFHGo8L9kVRk2m9Q6D7W-wE8jpjTB8G7Vv0/s1600/7234cfd3bc5f1d43ba9b3f9c3837e887.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRSruY6wMeGUYfFZF_JR4lRccFHh8p328Hq8Y_oxNh2n3qzEpxZjSLc9Gz6HhAEAiM5zSJfjGoVT9pG4DGzPax-opCLgJrjX2igRTcMhyphenhyphenVzFHGo8L9kVRk2m9Q6D7W-wE8jpjTB8G7Vv0/s320/7234cfd3bc5f1d43ba9b3f9c3837e887.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Mural by Zoo Project in Tunis</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
That is the sense I get when I hear VanderMeer say that 'art trumps politics', that it trumps specific politics, that the art is deliberately larger than a single allegorical reading of time and place, that it is applicable in some grander way to the whole human experience of war--that the symbols and conflicts it presents to the reader can be interpreted in many various and subtle ways. The fiction should not simply be an instruction, a manifesto, a set of explanations and opinions. Tolkien's fantasy war was written in and around World War I--so does that mean that it <i>is</i> that war, that this is the limit of our interpretation? Not at all: good art is much larger than any individual historical moment.<br />
<br />
Now, I understand that with Harrison, Bakker was responding to an interview question, and as such, can be forgiven for not having an in-depth set of theories and arguments at his fingertips, but this is certainly not the 'opposing view' to Harrison that I was promised. I found his conclusion particularly nonsensical:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"What if the canned experimentalism of post-modernism, by leaving so many readers behind, reinforces the general anti-intellectualism that seems to characterize our culture, and so makes anti-intellectual politicians like Bush more appealing? This only needs to be an open question to throw a rather severe light on the political undertones of Harrison's position."</i></blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivy4oWmErNNudVapdlmQiWjlg6Of3jBq2fUwjKPAhATNZferHI6r2EBYvbuFcPDndbJgPwWXSjqIW8tPfrZVrP9bIYghui8cNWEKjJqDbstOId_IFxUhd4FdRNGzG_bTygw94R4D-APp4/s1600/Kadinjaca.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivy4oWmErNNudVapdlmQiWjlg6Of3jBq2fUwjKPAhATNZferHI6r2EBYvbuFcPDndbJgPwWXSjqIW8tPfrZVrP9bIYghui8cNWEKjJqDbstOId_IFxUhd4FdRNGzG_bTygw94R4D-APp4/s320/Kadinjaca.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Yugoslavian Kadinjaca Monument</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In order for this to be true, people would have to actually be reading Harrison's books in droves in order for them to reject them and act against them. It's like saying that the reason people go to Michael Bay films to the tune of billions of dollars is as some sort of deliberate rejection of all the French New Wave films that they obsessively watch and get upset with, that the average Dan Brown reader is just really angry with Proust, and that people watch the Kardashians only because they find Zizek overly frustrating. This needs to be <i>way more</i> than just an 'open question' in order to say anything about Harrison's position, it needs to actually have some kind of structure and specificity that directly connects it to the ideas at hand--which, indeed, is what Bakker's entire response would have required in order to be worthwhile.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Mr. Bakker was kind enough to <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2015/06/worldbuilding-bakker-vs-harrison.html?showComment=1434305081092#c2390237902014295130" target="_blank">make an appearance</a> in the comments below, and while I did not find his arguments there to be convincing, I daresay they may still be of interest to you, my readers. I also want to respond more specifically to the presentation of 'art vs. popularity' implied by some of Bakker's statements, but I'll save that for its own piece.</i></blockquote>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com49tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-56621171453226476882015-03-11T06:04:00.000-07:002016-02-23T11:50:53.912-08:00Your Guide to Terrible Goodreads Comments<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0t0szD6OZ1qcay1ao1_400.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0t0szD6OZ1qcay1ao1_400.gif" height="240" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, you'd like to write a terrible comment on Goodreads. Well, you're in luck! For years, I have been a contentious critic on that very site, and have written some its the most popularly unpopular reviews. I have received comments so terrible, so nonsensical, so patently self-loathing, so incoherent that they were most likely written by a super-intelligent dog who escaped from a science lab and has decided to take his revenge on humanity for making him the only creature trapped in the throes of an existential crisis despite the fact that he can reach his own groin with his tongue. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">At least for the rest of us, we can imagine that there is some wonderful thing that, if we were capable of it, would erase all self-doubt and disappointment--only he is cursed with the awareness that, despite having experienced the ultimate act of narcissistic pleasure, the hollow feeling remains. I have also received much worse comments, which could only have been the result of concentrated, multilayered human stupidity, but those are the rare ones--the vast majority of bad comments are made up of some combination of the following list.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">All you need do is peruse the list, combine two to five of the techniques presented, and you will be certain to have a comment which could hardly be made much worse; I mean, you could try to include<i> all</i> the bad techniques, but that smacks of a try-hard--exactly the sort of fellow <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">you're trying</span> to take down a peg. The best part is, all of these techniques are equally applicable to any review or comment, since they don't actually have anything to do with the ideas presented or the arguments made, so be free in the knowledge that there is no lower limit to just how stupid or inconsequential a comment can be. After all, the best (worst) comment is the one that could be posted under any review, any youtube video, any blog post, and remain equally (ir)relevant.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">LET'S START OFF WITH THE BASICS</span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9Sh9jjQOo4hvgxpMP7_0Zhb5MnXLB_A20oqa-GA9h5oDXzRzybQ3k31qQokKloQ2TJzMGiwrAMS9skc6sTAPER0ik_T3IBq1jA_6rArCY2XbCbQSdY6iMqQUre14lJPSvrJAZwU7QtgI/s1600/418HJkooAZL._SL500_SS500_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9Sh9jjQOo4hvgxpMP7_0Zhb5MnXLB_A20oqa-GA9h5oDXzRzybQ3k31qQokKloQ2TJzMGiwrAMS9skc6sTAPER0ik_T3IBq1jA_6rArCY2XbCbQSdY6iMqQUre14lJPSvrJAZwU7QtgI/s1600/418HJkooAZL._SL500_SS500_.jpg" width="320" /></a></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span id="goog_122868801"></span><span id="goog_122868802"></span>You can hardly go wrong with these tried and true classics, which is why you will find them, in some form or another, in almost every terrible comment out there.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>1. Ad Hominem:</b> That's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem">fancy debate talk</a> for insulting people to try to damage their credibility. So, if they're writing about the portrayal of sex in a book, say <i>'<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">h</span>ow would you know, you've never even had sex'</i> (don't add a question mark, you wouldn't want to make it seem like you're inviting them to answer). Whether or not it's true makes no difference, nor does it matter that there's no possible way <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">to</span> confirm the accusation. Really, that just makes it sweeter. But we don't have to stop there . . .</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>2. Schoolyard Insults:</b> This is sub-ad hominem--a personal attack that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, just blindly flinging mud. Like calling someone a virgin in response to their review of a fantasy novel, despite the fact that virgins often have in-depth knowledge of fantasy universes. This is your bread and butter.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>3. Call them 'Pretentious' and 'Arrogant': </b>It will be especially bothersome to them because you'll be doing this in the middle of a comment where you tell them how to think and read, which is the very definition of pretentious arrogance--but as long as you say it first, then you win.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ADVANCED TECHNIQUES</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_NDgVTSivU8W9UfzyCKfw6VTY8LHVQ94PIIiw4GvpHyztchOoieexVZVcrSnWEcksEnMGyLDdjRGB_AxNksI3nfT6y3lrghqNImhvK2nqs2gt686yypmtNDAoV2-OTcPFDO5ic4PXNOo/s1600/BS-Instructional-Vocational.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_NDgVTSivU8W9UfzyCKfw6VTY8LHVQ94PIIiw4GvpHyztchOoieexVZVcrSnWEcksEnMGyLDdjRGB_AxNksI3nfT6y3lrghqNImhvK2nqs2gt686yypmtNDAoV2-OTcPFDO5ic4PXNOo/s1600/BS-Instructional-Vocational.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">These are a little more complex, but the benefit is that they make it appear to the casual observer as if you're actually trying to discuss things, which lends you false credibility.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>4. 'Opinions are Subjective':</b> This one always sounds nice, and it's a great way for you to ignore any counterarguments or contradictions in your own posts. The best part is, it's obviously true, because if the matter at hand were objective--like the acceleration rate of gravity on Earth--it wouldn't be up for discussion. The only things people can differ in opinion about are subjective matters. No matter what evidence or arguments the other person makes, just keep reminding them that it's all subjective, and there's no point to discussing it (then keep arguing back).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>5. 'Everyone's Entitled to their Opinion': </b>This also sounds great, and that's because it's what we call a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9">'thought-terminating cliche'</a>--a meaningless phrase designed to stop people from thinking, like 'agree to disagree' or 'god works in mysterious ways'. It doesn't matter that you're specifically contradicting what the other person has said, demonstrating that, in fact, you don't think they are entitled to their opinion--indeed, that only makes it <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">better</span>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>6. Always Take Jokes Seriously: </b>If a person makes a joke in a review (or in a comment), make sure you take it seriously and argue against it as if it were just a straightforward statement, no matter how clear it is that it <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">was</span> a joke.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">NO ARGUMENT? NO PROBLEM!</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS0BnfvGv6iN8mv5-At9qsxC8TTKoB67YB4NNGtKsfKG-PzOkJEDIVSMPbE2gsBBlSAnTa4CX2rx0669Cx_-qNbjBxwrMaoRQ23BtPVgapNiCx8VLH85Jvmq47lQFUNWyp3-d5ZFtfxNI/s1600/Tmen.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS0BnfvGv6iN8mv5-At9qsxC8TTKoB67YB4NNGtKsfKG-PzOkJEDIVSMPbE2gsBBlSAnTa4CX2rx0669Cx_-qNbjBxwrMaoRQ23BtPVgapNiCx8VLH85Jvmq47lQFUNWyp3-d5ZFtfxNI/s1600/Tmen.jpg" width="283" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Trying to make your own counterargument is dangerous, because then people can contradict your points and show how your own statements don't make sense. This means that the person you are intending to annoy will be able to feel that they are doing well and that you are an idiot, which is not what you want. So, you need to present things that <i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">look</span></i> like arguments, but which are actually generically meaningless.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>7. Response to Tone:</b> This is a great way to start, because it has nothing to do with what the person has said--you don't even have to be capable of comprehending their points to make this rebuttal. Basically, all you do is say that they sound angry or full of themselves, or that they're being flippant, or that they 'come off as pretentious'--basically anything about how you think they sound. Now, a rookie mistake is to try to explain <i>why</i> you think they come across this way. Do not do this, it only gives them fodder to counterargue and demonstrate that you're wrong.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>8. 'It's Not Worth My Time to Explain':</b> This one's easy, all you do is pretend that you have a really great counterargument to refute everything they say, but that you're too busy to actually say what it is. The drawback of this claim is that, if you intend to keep making comments for weeks and months afterwards, it will become clear that you actually <i>do</i> have the time, so you have to move on to Number 9.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>9. 'I Already Made My Argument': </b>Just keep implying this--though be careful not to reference any particular post, because that<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> would</span> gives them fuel for their response. The more responses you have over a long period of time, the easier it will be too keep making this claim.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>10. 'I Know You're Wrong, I Just Don't Know Why': </b>It's important to keep reiterating this throughout the whole exchange. Like most of these, it's very frustrating because it doesn't give your opponent anything to latch onto.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>11. 'You're Too Stupid to Understand Me':</b> This one's very popular amongst the rage-filled manchildren of Reddit, who refer to it as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect">'The Dunning-Kruger Effect'</a> because it sounds more official. However, you must make sure never to actually put forth your own argument, as this will give them a chance to respond to it and prove that, in fact, they do understand it. It's really better not to actually have an argument at all, though the following techniques will help you to maintain the illusion that you do:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">PRETEND TO DEFEND</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdfFje0UTPPg8YYc5KdmqK6ZjtRsEkR_WsYw0RLPqSxVy1siRQlgbRw0H-YFf-DjmEvVM_xe4tMy6IpziT5tWg1XZs6jq6v_K7mYwIdtcTWw6peSw2b0jaSv8fnDQOksAQBD-arVUndok/s1600/mqdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdfFje0UTPPg8YYc5KdmqK6ZjtRsEkR_WsYw0RLPqSxVy1siRQlgbRw0H-YFf-DjmEvVM_xe4tMy6IpziT5tWg1XZs6jq6v_K7mYwIdtcTWw6peSw2b0jaSv8fnDQOksAQBD-arVUndok/s1600/mqdefault.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">All of these examples resemble argumentative defense, but actually, they are just cleverly-disguised distractions designed to lend you a false sense of authority. They are all taken from common fallacious argumentative techniques.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>12. 'Lots of People Like It':</b> This is also known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum">The Bandwagon Fallacy</a>, and the point is to make it seem like you aren't alone, but are arguing on the behalf of a huge group of supporters. Never mind the fact that incredibly stupid things like Transformers 2, Twilight, Miley Cyrus, and Medieval bloodletting have also been popular in the past, just use this whenever you feel a bit hopeless and need a boost.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>13. 'It Won Lots of Awards': </b>Now, we may know that award committees are <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/pulitzers_snub_fiction/">messy</a>, political entities that must<a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/10/03/why_americans_don_t_win_nobel/"> serve their own interests</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/01/specials/gass-prizes.html">usually pick generic, middle-of-the-road works</a>, completely missing everything revolutionary and important, but that doesn't matter, because there are still a lot of people who let awards to dictate their opinions, so it will tend to make you seem more credible. This is a type of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority">Argument From Authority</a>, as are the next two.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>14. 'Notable Critics Like It':</b> This 'Appeal To Authority' has the added benefit of implying that there is some real, solid argument behind the world of the book. You can even make this claim about one book if the critic liked another book by the same author. However, I wouldn't suggest you actually try to paraphrase or quote the critic's arguments because, again, that just gives your chosen nemesis something to latch onto and argue against--plus the critic might just be talking out of his ass, as many critics enjoy doing.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>15. 'I Would Know, I'm a Teacher/Writer, Myself':</b> This type of 'appeal to authority' is extra awesome, because it's your own authority. Since this is the internet, you can claim to be whatever kind of expert you want, and no one can prove that you aren't. It's much safer to simply make this claim and insist people take your word for it rather than try to construct the sort of argument that an <i>actual</i> teacher or author would <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">know how</span> to make. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>16. 'It's Better Than Other, Terrible Books':</b> This one's good because it makes you seem like you have taste, and it implies that the reviewer is being harsh for not taking into consideration the fact that, compared to utter shit, the book doesn't seem so bad.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">REVIEW-SPECIFIC COMMENTS</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTY116Vp2EpMtCekplWdsLRiksqAIK8qqCO-pG0BU2N90Ipa7XP6imXb_7mfypNoT1UNeAgi6pOSXkB3h4fYBTrR9nABSI8yaMab-VkWl9MO1AjcXA_yq9clzTNuBSGQecflSOBCWkU-s/s1600/tteacher1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTY116Vp2EpMtCekplWdsLRiksqAIK8qqCO-pG0BU2N90Ipa7XP6imXb_7mfypNoT1UNeAgi6pOSXkB3h4fYBTrR9nABSI8yaMab-VkWl9MO1AjcXA_yq9clzTNuBSGQecflSOBCWkU-s/s1600/tteacher1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">While the previous techniques could be modified for use on almost any forum or subject, these ones are more specific to book review sites.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>17. 'This Review's Too Long/It's Longer Than the Book':</b> This is a joke that could not possibly be less funny, no matter how often it gets made. The very idea that a three page review is longer than a 300-page novel is the perfect use of hyperbole--and as we know, hyperbole is always intrinsically funny, like when your friend walks in his favorite hat again and you rib him with 'Why, my good fellow, you're wearing twenty hats right now!' Classic. But really, you want to save this for books that are closer to 600 pages, like big fantasy doorstops, because the disparity will make it even richer.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>18. 'I Bet You Couldn't Even Write a Book':</b> This one really gets to the heart of the matter: if they know so much about writing, why don't they write a better book, themselves? It's like how a basketball coach has to be able to guard Kobe Bryant, himself, in order to be able to coach a team, or how a composer has to be able to play every instrument in the orchestra better than the musicians. It's just common sense.</span><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>19: 'Read It Again, But This Time, Like It': </b>Most of the time, we know the <i>real</i> problem is that readers just don't give books a chance. The whole reason they spend money buying books then reading for hours and days is because they can't stand them. So, always tell them that they need to give it another chance--and if they do, and still don't like it, then another chance after that, and another, until it sticks.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>20. 'Where are the Textual Examples/Plot Summary?': </b>Now, a lot of these reviewers are going to concentrate on things like tone and structure and ideas, and they don't always provide textual citations for their arguments. So, it's important to demand that they do, in order to prove themselves. However, <i>never</i> offer to provide any yourself, because that's tantamount to admitting defeat. He needs to cite the text to defeat you, whereas your comments can stand on their own. You also may want to insist that they add a plot summary to their review, like a middle school book report.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<br /></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">GENRE BOOKS</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgifPd8j3bRrOg7H_tqrGrL21hmdPyE4YNIA2DaDjHn8vLy94blZdCBlcaieWFSq75DJWS26BjpXL_2bAoI8dcb1ewcIKdmtce6AAcALQ1HBdsPOrais2VtoDr1lQvapcyT0Ku3IC5kDNE/s1600/ec8c24efbc79043b5affc95f9d5de1e5_1M.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgifPd8j3bRrOg7H_tqrGrL21hmdPyE4YNIA2DaDjHn8vLy94blZdCBlcaieWFSq75DJWS26BjpXL_2bAoI8dcb1ewcIKdmtce6AAcALQ1HBdsPOrais2VtoDr1lQvapcyT0Ku3IC5kDNE/s1600/ec8c24efbc79043b5affc95f9d5de1e5_1M.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">There are also a few comments you can make which are specific to genre books, like fantasy and sci fi.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>21. 'You Don't Even Like This Genre':</b> This will be especially effective if they have read a lot of books in the genre, and rated many of them highly, but happen to have rated a few books that you like with one or two stars. Tell them this is clearly not the genre for them, that they don't understand it, and that they should go read something else (usually a book you were forced to read in school and didn't like, such as <i>Moby Dick</i> or <i>Ulysses</i>).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>22. 'You Need to Get to the Fifth Book': </b>Just keep claiming that--despite the fact that they're already read 800 pages and didn't like it--they really need at least 4,000 more to understand it and, if they do, it will retroactively make the first book well-written. Also make sure that the majority of your arguments come from later books--or better yet, statements by the author from interviews that don't actually appear in any of the books, so that they can't refute any of it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">INTERNET CLASSICS</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7KIwkzFcbsHDmvI7UF2l-viB8l_Xs2FDjm_snVnpAxqKr8N-OAh2XZGYmYZXaeZ4ykXgov8uYuHGoEBPK1THukFA0sG9Rt0XoR66XBG2yn1OHgq1Sjk40YH_sRSZjRnnuSMPdyRpi8Vo/s1600/howto4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7KIwkzFcbsHDmvI7UF2l-viB8l_Xs2FDjm_snVnpAxqKr8N-OAh2XZGYmYZXaeZ4ykXgov8uYuHGoEBPK1THukFA0sG9Rt0XoR66XBG2yn1OHgq1Sjk40YH_sRSZjRnnuSMPdyRpi8Vo/s1600/howto4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Not all internet cliches work equally well on book reviews, but the following can still be effective.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>23. 'I'm Trolling You!': </b>Pull this out any time things don't go your way. It doesn't matter that it isn't what trolling means, or that a troll would never say that they were trolling someone, as it would defeat the whole point, or that if the troll was actually pulling it off, it would already be obvious--just keep insisting that they have 'fallen into your trap', but don't specify what that might mean.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>24. 'You're a Troll!' </b>Again, it doesn't matter that this has nothing to do with what 'trolling' actually involves, and don't bother to try to make any specific argument about what would make them a troll, since a response to tone, as discussed above, is all you really need to back this up.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>25. CAPSLOCK: </b>This will make it seem like you are yelling, which is very intimidating.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>26. Nazis!: </b>Just make an analogy to Nazis, it can be anything. Say their attempt to 'shut you down' is exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews. Say their review will indoctrinate people 'like the Hitler youth', whatever you can scrounge up. The greatest benefit to a Nazi analogy is that is will instantly make the discussion so emotionally charged that it will be impossible for anyone to make a rational point, which is precisely what you want. The fact that talking about books on the internet has nothing in common with mass genocide will only make them more exasperated.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>27. Just Link to Something:</b> Preferably a wikipedia page, or a definition of a word. Do not explain what about this link is supposed to be important. Do not use it to construct an argument. Do not use it like a footnote to some otherwise minor detail in your argument. Just link to it with no explanation, or maybe say 'this is what I mean', or something equally vague, and then keep referring obliquely to the link in all subsequent comments.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>28. 'Stop Quoting Me!': </b>If the person starts trying to quote what you've written, or an article you linked to, just keep saying they don't understand, and that they are taking it out of context. Don't get caught up in trying to explain the context or telling them what you <i>actually</i> meant, just insist that they are being disingenuous and twisting your words.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>29. Pick and Choose:</b> So, they've written a long, involved response where they refute your points, pinpoint your errors, and assert that nothing you've said is actually relevant to the discussion--don't worry. Find one specific point, or joke, or offhand comment--it's usually best if you take it out of context--and respond only to that. Ignore everything else they've written, act like none of it exists, and then restate the same points they just refuted, as if they were still valid and unchallenged. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">TAKING DOWN THE SMARTIES</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizOYVQlIe_yUsUPxf7OIHIUlOggEgKj6iVSNSYutvzsyT4DOeGeYDl6OfCIg2KogYS7n5vrrXs29UXqixPFqA3tv_Fv7_ynTBK_sa6LkC3BlnKaU3MiJugdWIWfj4dwG-2Ij4c7RS1IQ0/s1600/tteacher4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizOYVQlIe_yUsUPxf7OIHIUlOggEgKj6iVSNSYutvzsyT4DOeGeYDl6OfCIg2KogYS7n5vrrXs29UXqixPFqA3tv_Fv7_ynTBK_sa6LkC3BlnKaU3MiJugdWIWfj4dwG-2Ij4c7RS1IQ0/s1600/tteacher4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, it's alright to attack people who can't defend themselves, but to really get your juices flowing, you have to go after someone who really takes themselves seriously, preferably someone who reminds you of a certain authority figure from your youth whom you still hold a grudge against--probably someone who knows how to use the word 'whom'. There are a number of techniques we can use on them.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>30. Spelling and Grammar: </b>If you can't find any holes in their arguments, just start pointing out minor errors, and imply that these errors mean that their arguments are equally flawed. It doesn't matter that everyone (including you--especially you) makes these errors, you just want to concentrate on every negative thing, because they probably aren't going to throw you a lot of easy opportunities. Bring it up in later comments, try to characterize them with it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>31. Big Words: </b>Always complain if they use any SAT words, or specific terms. Call them elitist, talk about the ivory tower and high horses. Say they're deliberately trying to confuse things. It doesn't matter that you're sitting at the most powerful research machine in the history of humanity and could look it up in an instant--always pretend not to know how dictionaries work.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>32. 'You Think Too Much': </b>Tell them that the only reason they didn't like the book is because they thought too much about it, and that it's really a very good book if you don't think about how <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">crap</span> it is.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>33. 'That's a Lot of Effort for Something You Hate': </b>Now, we all know very well that the top reviewers on GR are people with English degrees who think that writing a twenty-page paper with an eight-page bibliography is a fun way to spend a lazy afternoon. This means that generally, they're going to write more than a few sentences of response. Hence, it's important to paint them as being extremely invested in what they're doing, and suggesting that it must take them a huge amount of time to write their reviews and responses, even though they can probably knock out a couple of pages in fifteen minutes' time.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>34. 'Why Are You Still Talking About It?' </b>Always imply that they must be stupid to review a book that they didn't like, or to respond to comments on their own reviews. Pretend that, instead of you coming to their review and starting a discussion, they are the ones who wanted to discuss it with you.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ASSIGN THEM MALICIOUS INTENTIONS</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGHgszNq8xGRTQzISNHLTPaeZgD9jINF-vNtFEYc7tXp6M7k5M0eWqxyrWkhrpZ3t6MW1f69pkX3YkNxpz3eKPRks8EowavYWpjV-fGkO6_d3oF1S3kSUtcJXnhy-MFZtDEF_4Jy5G70s/s1600/howto1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGHgszNq8xGRTQzISNHLTPaeZgD9jINF-vNtFEYc7tXp6M7k5M0eWqxyrWkhrpZ3t6MW1f69pkX3YkNxpz3eKPRks8EowavYWpjV-fGkO6_d3oF1S3kSUtcJXnhy-MFZtDEF_4Jy5G70s/s1600/howto1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's very important to paint them as bad people--not only so they look worse to others, but so you can feel better about yourself and ensure that you feel like the good guy.<b> </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>35. 'You Just Hate Everything': </b>Constantly imply that they hate fun, and that they're trying to seem cool by being negative. Ignore the fact that they might have dozens or hundreds of four- or five-star reviews<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">--</span>only concentrate on the one or two books they didn't like (but that you love).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>36.</b></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b> 'I Feel Sorry For You':</b>
If you can establish that you pity them, it means you can think of
yourself as a nice person who is just trying to help, and it also means
you're just a better person than they are. Tell them how sad you are that they
can't experience the joy you feel every time you read this book, and
that their life must be very unpleasant if they lack such simple
pleasures. Again, ignore the hundreds of books they do like.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>37. 'You're Just Too Young/Old': </b>Tell them they just can't understand. Never say what it is they don't understand, or why, just imply deficiency. Tell them you 'hope they grow out of it' or that if they remembered what it was like to be a child, or had children themselves, they would understand instinctively. Even if they're the same age as you, just talk about how 'you used to feel the same way' to suggest that you are more mature.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>38. 'Faux-Intellectual': </b></span></b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Just say this a lot.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>39. Make Them the Personal Villain of Your Life: </b>Just pretend that this unknown person living thousands of miles away is the Seventh Grade teacher who failed you in English, or the classmate in Creative Writing 101 who made fun of your self-insert furry fanfic during group critique. Then go further:</span> say they are just like Bill O'Reilly, or <i>'You're the reason I hated grad school!'</i> Don't simply equate them with your personal insecurity, whatever that may be, literally state that they are that entity which has plagued your life and made you feel so insecure. They are the <i>'evil big time critic holding down the small outsider artist'</i> and the <i>'insignificant critic trying to puff themselves up by attacking the established artist'</i>--that's right, both of them, at once!</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>40. 'Only a Woman Could Have Written This': </b>Or a liberal, or a feminazi, or a socialist, whatever. It doesn't matter that you have no idea who this person is, just <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">make an assumption</span>. It's the flip side to claiming that you're an authority because on the internet, no one can prove you're not: pretend that they are not an authority because they can't prove they are--and also pretend that authority actually matters. A slightly fancier version of ad hominem.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">THEY'RE ON TO YOU! TIME TO FIGHT BACK</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhJ78cpYVcb1ik8VxCNJn5Eee2vB3nc8vcUMSPx0_9pkkcxxVQ5LtxXcLEsA4B-N_0VvNNo1di4H4z81bc7uQ5BlKxNJQRG_GYkTNIRLei4jOE8S_y8dWjKzHmkMvaZZymY-LF9UFera4/s1600/mqdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhJ78cpYVcb1ik8VxCNJn5Eee2vB3nc8vcUMSPx0_9pkkcxxVQ5LtxXcLEsA4B-N_0VvNNo1di4H4z81bc7uQ5BlKxNJQRG_GYkTNIRLei4jOE8S_y8dWjKzHmkMvaZZymY-LF9UFera4/s1600/mqdefault.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, you don't want them to be able to get a hold of you, so you're going to have to use a lot of different techniques to try to shift focus away from yourself, and onto some good old-fashioned drama.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>41. 'I Know You Are, But What Am I?': </b>So, it looks like they just got in a pretty good zinger on you. Time for damage control. Just claim that whatever witty thing they just said, really it applies to them, not you. The best response to give is always<i> 'You saying that is the definition of irony'</i>, because only the smartest of people use the word 'irony'. Do not try to point out how or why it applies to them, or you might catch yourself up. As usual, it's best to just make a blanket implication and leave it at that.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>42. 'The Last Word': </b>Any time the conversation isn't going too well, and you need to bail, make sure to talk about them 'needing to get the last word'--despite the fact that you started the conversation and you've been responding every time, just like they have (because that's how a discussion works), insist that the only reason they are still going is because of 'the last word'. However, don't ever say this by itself, or they will let you have it. <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">First</span> make some new point or argument and <i>then</i> complain about 'the last word', so they either have to respond to what you've said, and prove you right, or not respond to it, thus giving you the last word.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>43. 'Don't Bother Responding': </b>The pre-emptive last word is always a great dick move: make your comment, demonstrating that you think it's of vital importance that everyone hear what you have to say, and then tell them not to respond--and that if they do, you won't read it, because you don't want to get into it. This lets them know that you think you are important, but no one else is, and if you <i>do</i> respond, it's only out of the kindness of your heart at their wrongheaded misunderstanding.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>44. 'I Won't Be Commenting Again!': </b>Really, you should use this on every post. Just make it clear that the whole conversation is so pointless and off-track that it's not worth your time, and you're going to take your ball and go home--but don't actually stop responding. If you want to mix it up, go silent for a week or a few months, and then start responding again as if nothing had happened.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">SO YOU'VE MADE YOUR COMMENT, NOW WHAT?</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD7g8Vth45uh4mzfSd25CRewscoWHcPhyk_RIXcJaXhtmWm0RBwKu43XK8R5HFRkYJBCEaIuxqgJNlzYFsOk3p4QmhSGore2HzGCbnHSu_rcLJ_oYEORY3G3-Jrj2gMU0UpCjCZZb6F7w/s1600/37102_ca_object_representations_media_8_medium.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD7g8Vth45uh4mzfSd25CRewscoWHcPhyk_RIXcJaXhtmWm0RBwKu43XK8R5HFRkYJBCEaIuxqgJNlzYFsOk3p4QmhSGore2HzGCbnHSu_rcLJ_oYEORY3G3-Jrj2gMU0UpCjCZZb6F7w/s1600/37102_ca_object_representations_media_8_medium.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">These are meta-tricks that you can use to derail a conversation and make it nonsensical, so that all the time both you and the other commentator have already spent will be completely worthless.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>45. Edit Your Comments: </b>Do this weeks, months, or years later to change what you said. It doesn't matter that the date a comment was posted and the date it was edited are clearly visible on every post, nor that it makes you seem incoherent and nonsensical, nor that the other posters have already quoted you, so that it's perfectly clear what you said. Just turn it into a complete mess where no comment seems to bear a relationship to any other. It's also a great way to retract anything you said earlier to pretend it didn't exist, especially if you've already been proven wrong and made to look foolish.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>46. Delete Your Comments: </b>Hopefully your nemesis hasn't specifically quoted you in his posts, but even if he has, deleting all your comments is a great way to make the thread nonsensical and to take back anything you said that you now regret. Then, after you remove your comments, start making new posts where you claim that you made excellent arguments before, but then deleted them (for some reason).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>47. Cheerleading:</b> If you're starting to lose confidence, here's a simple trick: find another comment by a person who doesn't like the review, and quote them. Don't just pop in to support them briefly, don't expand upon the discussion, don't analyze the points, don't add any thoughts of your own, just pick a side and start cheering--pretend the argument's already been won, laugh at the misguidedness of anyone still arguing against your chosen champion, and whatever happens, don't stop. If you just keep patting each other on the back, there's no force in the world that can stop you.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>48. Sock Puppets: </b>If you can't find any actual other people who support you, just start making fake accounts and having them agree with you. Hopefully this will make your subject feel like he is outnumbered, and he will beat a hasty retreat.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>49. Start a New Thread, Somewhere Else: </b>Find a different forum and then start posting about your conversation there, and use that to try to get other people on your side to help you feel better about yourself, or to anger other people by repeating the same argument and techniques as the original thread. Every time the tide turns against you, move to a different site and start over.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">CONCLUSION</span></h2>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy6yWXDv0ArUYoNIsxyLjrqBmdttPRO0RGMjSrmyV53JICa5cawkgAehsXmS48ZF9NI0ZwK-fIXEjnFkZ7f5MJUDUgU8-t8YqIPZpFQJ-oLx9Rp4erOnhFBEWGXiGFQZjJk9gDvFj8vlM/s1600/composite-2009-05-26_12-09-42h-1.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy6yWXDv0ArUYoNIsxyLjrqBmdttPRO0RGMjSrmyV53JICa5cawkgAehsXmS48ZF9NI0ZwK-fIXEjnFkZ7f5MJUDUgU8-t8YqIPZpFQJ-oLx9Rp4erOnhFBEWGXiGFQZjJk9gDvFj8vlM/s1600/composite-2009-05-26_12-09-42h-1.bmp" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, you might be tempted to search out and research real argumentative strategies, like <a href="http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html">this one</a>, and then use those techniques to actually try to make a <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">genuine</span> argument and refute the central point of the other person, destroying the whole basis for what they have said. I would not suggest this, as it requires actually thinking and paying attention. It also requires that you be self-searching enough to analyze and admit to your own errors, so that you can correct them--and clearly, if that's the sort of person you are, then you have no need for this guide.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">No, I would suggest that you never go any higher than simple contradiction, where you tell the other person that they are wrong and give no other explanation or detail for them to use against you. Otherwise you risk getting caught up in some kind of actual debate, which is not going to end well for you. Of course, deliberately abandoning the real methods of discourse requires that you be self-aware enough to admit that you are too stupid to actually use them properly, which is already a contradiction. Yet my final piece of advice, and perhaps the most important, is that, in your own best interest, you do everything in your power to avoid ever saying something that is worth saying, because that will always come back and bite you in the end.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Next up, we'll have Part II: The Responses, because once we can predict what the worst comments will look like, we can begin to formulate refutations of them. </span></div>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-68827883084559731732015-03-09T09:37:00.000-07:002015-11-12T22:56:54.757-08:00I'm Back<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghq6Pv3BhTreVMge-coP1YnKX6wZoi6M3sDpLX06Tth77J0_80Pv9v1L2n_cVPWJPzJ08DKMAIf4wUZeknAXIriJZDXmaWBv4t4lPl6HtNDXBmFmzYqeOvdGzlGBqUua6sdCgQ5QEBTd0/s1600/Orlando_Furioso_3_crop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghq6Pv3BhTreVMge-coP1YnKX6wZoi6M3sDpLX06Tth77J0_80Pv9v1L2n_cVPWJPzJ08DKMAIf4wUZeknAXIriJZDXmaWBv4t4lPl6HtNDXBmFmzYqeOvdGzlGBqUua6sdCgQ5QEBTd0/s1600/Orlando_Furioso_3_crop.jpg" width="187" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Doré - Angelica Meets the Hermit</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It's been more than a year I've been away--which is a lot of time to think things over, to sit and stew, to write numerous drafts of reviews and posts that just end up sitting in the vault, unread. At first it was nice to be away, to have a break--it was like graduation all over again: suddenly, no one's waiting for me to write papers, nor am I waiting for a response. It's peaceful, but there's still that itch in the back of the mind, the old voice, the old habit, continuing on no matter how you ignore it.<br />
<br />
I do want to thank all the people who have supported me, all along--even without any response from me, the comments keep rolling in, the friend requests show up fresh in my inbox each day, and the (mostly) kind and supportive messages are as numerous as ever. It reminds me that I have not only a responsibility to myself, but also to my work, to the conversations I've started that are still going on out there--but it turns out you can't just come back from nowhere, not that easily, and especially not when <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/12/amazon-goodreads-and-me.html" target="_blank">the reason you left</a> hasn't gotten any better.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>We get so used to working for free on the internet--the amount of time and energy people are willing to put into their interests is remarkable, and certainly dwarfs the enthusiasm most people have for any work they're paid to do. Of course, if the internet were just some great communist paradise, that would make sense: everyone contributes knowledge and expertise, and everyone profits by the contributions of others.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKSnc7eRmPjcqhCraby29ez3aSO2Grqy7RP86rz1cCs3M6RChaZAg05sCFnlvKVFUHyfF8hsbddewQl317YFXky14-opoXhHiXbXhy4QzRIaxq-YDjVG8AEEqwt3e0pnvgSWHqzVt74YM/s1600/SovietCitiesontheMoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKSnc7eRmPjcqhCraby29ez3aSO2Grqy7RP86rz1cCs3M6RChaZAg05sCFnlvKVFUHyfF8hsbddewQl317YFXky14-opoXhHiXbXhy4QzRIaxq-YDjVG8AEEqwt3e0pnvgSWHqzVt74YM/s1600/SovietCitiesontheMoon.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Instead, we have a system where the vast number of creators on the internet never see a dime from their work, while the sites on which the work is featured make millions or even billions of dollars in profits every year--perhaps the most notorious example being the disappearance of professional journalism as more and more stories are broken by locals who do it for free.<br />
<br />
It was one thing to create content for a community of like-minded folks, but quite another to do so for a multinational business which treats members as subordinates to be controlled, ignored, and profited from--that's the sort of thing I generally think one should be paid to do, because at least then, even if they're taking advantage of you, you're taking advantage right back--which is exactly what I'm going to try to do.<br />
<br />
You may have noticed some changes to my blog--for one, on my <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/06/suggested-readings-in-fantasy.html" target="_blank">List of Suggested Fantasy Books</a> and my <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/09/suggested-readings-in-comics.html" target="_blank">List of Suggested Comics</a>, I've provided links to Amazon pages where books and comics can be ordered, and every time one of my readers clicks on one of those links and actually orders something, a small percentage will go to helping me pay bills and buy groceries. Likewise, I hope to soon have my first book up for sale as an ebook, and when it is, you'll be able to purchase it through links here on my blog.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimy0OTVO8DAxp7CbgHKNCR24DkrUAAakn8TH_Oyv1mabs_0bnNZnMfUELHbH9brriMEfvvRPjhVuK_Fed6j4eB5Kg3ExZLfXR_u928SNzrbPoiTlSYb5dVTfQA3rK4xZMeSbzBlBqMCEY/s1600/first_sabbatical_art.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimy0OTVO8DAxp7CbgHKNCR24DkrUAAakn8TH_Oyv1mabs_0bnNZnMfUELHbH9brriMEfvvRPjhVuK_Fed6j4eB5Kg3ExZLfXR_u928SNzrbPoiTlSYb5dVTfQA3rK4xZMeSbzBlBqMCEY/s1600/first_sabbatical_art.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Until then, I'm going to resume reviewing, posting on both <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/84023-keely" target="_blank">Goodreads</a> and <a href="http://keely.booklikes.com/" target="_blank">Booklikes</a>, as well as posting up new articles here. If there is any topic you'd like me to write about, please leave a comment or send a message--some of my favorite posts were inspired by questions I've gotten from my followers, including my series on <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/08/writing-strong-women-part-i-how-it-all.html" target="_blank">writing women</a>.<br />
<br />
Of course, all of this isn't to say I won't take another sabbatical, some day--it is nice to have a break, once in a while--but for the moment, I'm just excited to be back in the game again. Up next, I'm finally going to finish my all-inclusive <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2015/03/your-guide-to-terrible-goodreads.html" target="_blank">Guide to Terrible Goodreads Comments</a>.JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-11264019139795950082014-07-11T16:44:00.003-07:002015-01-14T11:30:11.100-08:00Style Guide for 'You Know Fulwell'<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV2EiyCDmnUbhGkDLgNCj8LNhXQsrrmJdHkrQ-cvXWY0Hjyft4wSNpTorzJ1qXllvRNaNTCWcKUAjsjHhAzyIrUuMHl-XRO6D76mZ6k_f9kfiHSAdueMt0_R7eLF6J8JRnrV3izBhlwM0/s1600/semi-colon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV2EiyCDmnUbhGkDLgNCj8LNhXQsrrmJdHkrQ-cvXWY0Hjyft4wSNpTorzJ1qXllvRNaNTCWcKUAjsjHhAzyIrUuMHl-XRO6D76mZ6k_f9kfiHSAdueMt0_R7eLF6J8JRnrV3izBhlwM0/s1600/semi-colon.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
Some of my beta readers have requested a style guide outlining the choices I have made about the book's grammar, syntax, and spelling. If you, as a reader, find this whole list to be confusing, then feel free to ignore it and just give me notes on other things. Also don't hesitate to message me with any specific questions about usage, and I will update this document with any clarifications, corrections, or other new information.<i></i><br />
<br />
British usage and spelling and usage should be maintained throughout (<i>'rumour</i>, <i>not 'rumor'; 'complexion', not 'complection'; 'realise', not 'realize'; &c.</i>). A full list appears at the end of this post.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>Capitalization:</b> Like all proper nouns, days of the week, months, seasons, and cardinal directions should be capitalized.<br />
<br />
<b>Censorship:</b> it was common the period to soften the blow of words like 'damned' by printing them as 'd--ned' and letting the reader fill in the blanks.<br />
<br />
<b>Colon:</b> the colon is used in cases of introduction, definition, elaboration, and explanation. (<i>He had only one thing left in his pack: the tin albatross. It was a case of mistaken identity: he'd thought his own reflection was his sister, returned home. We are an insular and distrustful clan: you're the first intruder my father didn't just shoot.</i>)<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-R0uH75Jn5HW5UHhlpSoKKA5ohaAYYS1WL9AbuOoA27ErmoyqG983Svn4fMvsFbgHLKM3x7urDXQMcWKuJ57wOsLvYyn5ux9SeNKQ9Ij4UbN-doveLuH6J-99GjIEQ2YWtSugZ2S5YHE/s1600/Aeferg+-+oxford+comma.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-R0uH75Jn5HW5UHhlpSoKKA5ohaAYYS1WL9AbuOoA27ErmoyqG983Svn4fMvsFbgHLKM3x7urDXQMcWKuJ57wOsLvYyn5ux9SeNKQ9Ij4UbN-doveLuH6J-99GjIEQ2YWtSugZ2S5YHE/s1600/Aeferg+-+oxford+comma.jpg" height="320" width="245" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image by <a href="http://aeferg.com/">Aeferg</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Commas: </b>The Oxford comma, occurring after 'and' in lists, is to be used throughout the text, without exception (i.e. <i>Mary enjoyed the cookies, the balloon animals<span style="color: red;"><b>,</b></span> and the movie about hippos.</i>) Otherwise, commas should be used to separate the different clauses of a sentence in a way that imitates the natural rhythm of speech, each comma representing a pause or emphasis that guides the reader through the clauses.<br />
<br />
<b>Compound Names:</b> the first part of these should never be capitalized unless the sentence begins with the name. (<i>“Good day, Mr <span style="color: red;">der</span> Große.” vs. “<span style="color: red;">Der</span> Große is not in, presently.”</i>) <br />
<br />
<b>Ellipsis:</b> the ellipsis should always be represented as the three-dot glyph (…), not a series of separate periods (...). In cases where a character trails off just at the end of a complete sentence, that sentence's end-punctuation precedes the ellipsis, and is separated by a space. (<i>“Which banana do you think he used to do all that<span style="color: red;">? …</span>”</i>)<br />
<br />
<b>Em Dash:</b> is used as a break in thought or speech<span class="st">—like this one</span><span class="st">—and then allows for a return to the matter at hand. It can also be used to cut off a speaker mid-sentence.</span> <br />
<br />
<b>Et Cetera:</b> should be abbreviated '&c.', not 'etc.'<br />
<br />
<b>Forward, Backward, Toward, Outward:</b> modify nouns<br />
<b>Forwards, Backwards, Towards, Outwards:</b> modify verbs, also represent definite direction <br />
<br />
<b>Fragments:</b> fragmentary sentences should not be used outside of speech, along with sentences starting with 'and' or 'but'.<br />
<br />
<b>Indents:</b><i> </i>all poems, songs, and letters should be indented and italicized.<br />
<br />
<b>Italics:</b> should be used for foreign words, emphasis, irony, titles of works, and names of vessels. In letters, songs, and poems, which are already italicized, no differentiation is made.<br />
<br />
<b>Question Mark:</b> question marks are not necessary after rhetorical questions. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnbck4sbtsz2BxJB3zbTVFr2gyKeUYAiiA215fLxWNqAHKNHwASXyyqNZgMNqJd21DoLhEY8IZ4rnNCIkwPaROEDYmJWTLq1tdB8RMDFhyJDb-f_ZA-a4X71L-EKHVtFDMLZsGLhAO_Og/s1600/aposter3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnbck4sbtsz2BxJB3zbTVFr2gyKeUYAiiA215fLxWNqAHKNHwASXyyqNZgMNqJd21DoLhEY8IZ4rnNCIkwPaROEDYmJWTLq1tdB8RMDFhyJDb-f_ZA-a4X71L-EKHVtFDMLZsGLhAO_Og/s1600/aposter3.jpg" height="176" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html"><i>Bob the Angry Flower</i></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Quotes and Apostrophes:</b> double quotes are used for dialogue, while single quotes are used for a character in the book repeating the words of another character, for a statement mentioned in the text but not spoken, or for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Use.E2.80.93mention_distinction">use-mention distinctions</a>. (<i>“Well,</i><i>” said Reginald, </i><i>“he used to say that </i><i>‘a horse is no competition for a redhead</i><i>’, except he always pronounced it </i><i>‘hearse</i><i>’.</i>” <i>The best response Otis could produce to this news was a dismissive </i><i><i>‘</i>Who cares?</i><i>’</i>) All quotes should also be ‘facing' the beginning and end of the quote (‘His’<span style="white-space: nowrap;">, </span>“Hers”), as opposed to upright and neutral ('It'<span style="white-space: nowrap;">, </span>"Them"). The same rule applies to apostrophes, both in contractions and possessives. (<i>No, I haven<span style="color: red;">’</span>t seen the dragon<span style="color: red;">’</span>s figurine collection</i>). Possessives of plurals or words ending in ess should never have two esses. (<i>Making omelets is Marcus</i><i><span style="color: red;">’<span style="color: black;"> only skill)</span></span></i><br />
<br />
<b>Quotes and end-sentence punctuation:</b> if the end-sentence punctuation modifies the quote itself, it should be placed within the endquote. If it modifies a larger sentence which contains the quote, it should be placed outside the end quote. (<i>“Goddamit,” said Frank, “this is no place to keep a Panzer<span style="color: red;">!</span>” </i>vs. <i>But what, my dear reader, could the butler possibly have meant by his last words, </i><i>‘These hats will end us all'<span style="color: red;">?</span></i>) Two end-sentence punctuations should not be used on the same sentence, except in some special cases. (<i>“Why is she leaping over my anvil shouting </i><i><i><i>‘</i></i>I'm a propane-fueled dancing machine<span style="color: red;">!</span></i><span style="color: red;"><i><span style="color: black;"><i>’</i></span>?</i></span>”) The same rules apply to parentheses. In the rare instance of a double quote and single quote appearing side-by-side, there should be no space between them. (<i>“She just kept saying to me ‘oh dear, but whatever can be wrong?</i><span style="color: red;">’”</span>)<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd2gF1EEZ2UcUawWTFKp51gwuH6N2jU5HVgUtxJKZXmbaEaIRTAiLxe1VryeUhLhm2gOpeQarXrhBgLb6Ys-VXjoQAErq4DNZwRz8CQ60LmyC9Og8AREzXCdKbUl4_fouZGBhyQn6q4nc/s1600/ALOT2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd2gF1EEZ2UcUawWTFKp51gwuH6N2jU5HVgUtxJKZXmbaEaIRTAiLxe1VryeUhLhm2gOpeQarXrhBgLb6Ys-VXjoQAErq4DNZwRz8CQ60LmyC9Og8AREzXCdKbUl4_fouZGBhyQn6q4nc/s1600/ALOT2.png" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html">The Fearsome 'Alot'</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>Semicolons:</b> a semicolon is used to indicate a connection between two otherwise complete and separate sentences. Semicolons cannot be used with connectors like 'but' or 'and'. (<i>He couldn't find his shoe; someone had left the dog out.</i>) They can also be used in place of commas in lists which include compound phrasing. (<i>There were only three left: James, the cook; Gustavia, the astrogator; and poor Trash-boat, the long-suffering cur.</i>)<br />
<br />
<b>Subjunctive/Indicative Conditionals:</b> <i>'If I <span style="color: red;">was</span> a Roman Legionnaire'</i> means that it is physically possible for the speaker to be one, even though he is not one currently. <i>'If I <span style="color: red;">were</span> a Roman Legionnaire' </i>is used when it is not actually a possibility, just an idea. This is why we say <i>'If I <span style="color: red;">were</span> you'</i>, since it is not actually possible to be someone you are not (yet).<br />
<br />
<b>Titles:</b> if the abbreviation for the title ends with the same letter as ends the full title, then no period is required (<i>Mr Okuda, Dr Silva, Mme St Germaine</i>). The period is necessary for all other instances. (<i>Prof. Prachanda, the Rev. Cadwallader</i>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Brief Guide to Victorian British Spellings:</b><br />
<br />
<b>Use of the <span class="st">'æ' and '</span><span class="st"><span class="st">œ</span>' ligature.</span></b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" style="height: 39px; width: 469px;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>An<span class="st">æ</span>mia</td>
<td>An<span class="st">æ</span>sthesia</td>
<td>Arch<span class="st">æ</span>ology</td><td>Encyclop<span class="st">æ</span>dia</td>
</tr>
<tr><td valign="top">F<span class="st">œtid</span></td><td valign="top"><span class="st">F</span><span class="st">œtor</span></td><td valign="top">Man<span class="st">œuver</span></td><td valign="top"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Nouns ending '-ense' in American usage take '-ence' instead.</b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" style="height: 33px; width: 389px;"><tbody>
<tr><td>Defence</td><td>Licence (noun only) </td><td>Offence</td><td>Pretence</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>'OU' for 'O'.</b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>Mould (mold)</td><td>Moult</td><td>Moustache </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
</div>
<br />
<b>A few retain a 'C' where Americans use 'K'.</b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>Disc</td><td>Mollusc</td><td>Sceptical </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Verbs ending in '-ize/-yze' instead take '-ise/-yse'. </b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" style="height: 140px; width: 586px;"><tbody>
<tr><td>Analyse</td><td>Apologise</td><td>Authorise</td><td>Capitalise</td><td>Civilise</td><td valign="top">Criticise</td><td valign="top">Customise</td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Emphasise</td><td valign="top">Finalise</td><td valign="top">Harmonise</td><td valign="top">Generalise</td><td valign="top">Maximise</td><td valign="top">Modernise</td><td valign="top">Organise</td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Optimise</td><td valign="top">Paralyse</td><td valign="top">Penalise</td><td valign="top">Practise (verb only)</td><td valign="top">Realise</td><td valign="top">Recognise</td><td valign="top">Standardise</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Many nouns ending in -or instead take -our.</b><br />
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>Amour </td><td>Armour </td><td>Behaviour</td><td>Candour</td><td>Clamour</td><td valign="top">Colour </td><td valign="top">Demeanour </td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Endeavour</td><td valign="top">Favour</td><td valign="top">Flavour</td><td valign="top">Glamour </td><td valign="top">Harbour</td><td valign="top">Honour</td><td valign="top">Humour </td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Labour</td><td valign="top">Neighbour</td><td valign="top">Odour</td><td valign="top">Parlour</td><td valign="top">Rancour</td><td valign="top">Rigour</td><td valign="top">Rumour</td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Saviour</td><td valign="top">Savour </td><td valign="top">Tumour</td><td valign="top">Valour</td><td valign="top">Vapour</td><td valign="top">Vigour</td><td valign="top"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
<br />
<b>Some words use 'PH' instead of 'F'.</b></div>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
</div>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>Cypher </td><td>Sulphur</td><td valign="top"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
<br />
<b>Many words use -re instead of -er.</b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>Calibre </td><td>Centre</td><td>Fibre </td><td>Kilo(metre)</td><td>Litre</td><td valign="top">Lustre</td><td valign="top">Manoeuvre </td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Meagre</td><td valign="top">Ochre</td><td valign="top">Sabre</td><td valign="top">Theatre</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Some verbs take -t in the past tense instead of -ed.</b><br />
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>Dreamt</td><td>Leant (on a chair)</td><td>Learnt</td><td>Lent (money)</td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Smelt </td><td valign="top">Spelt</td><td valign="top">Spilt</td><td valign="top">Spoilt</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
<b>Some nouns use -xion instead of -tion.</b></div>
<div style="-qt-block-indent: 0; -qt-user-state: 1; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-indent: 0px;">
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>Complexion</td><td>Connexion</td><td>Inflexion </td><td>Reflexion</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<br />
<b>Many words retain doubled consonants.</b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>Bannister</td><td>Cancelled</td><td>Calliper </td><td>Counsellor </td><td>Dialled </td><td valign="top">Equalled</td><td valign="top">Fuelling </td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Focussed</td><td valign="top">Jewellery</td><td valign="top">Labelled</td><td valign="top">Marvellous</td><td valign="top">Modelled</td><td valign="top">Parallell(ed)</td><td valign="top">Programme </td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Shrivelled</td><td valign="top">Signalled</td><td valign="top">Tranquillity</td><td valign="top">Travelled</td><td valign="top">Waggon</td><td valign="top">Woollen</td><td valign="top"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b><br /></b>
<b>Others omit consonants we usually double.</b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td valign="top">Enrol</td><td valign="top">Fulfil</td><td valign="top">Instalment</td><td valign="top">Skilful</td><td valign="top">Wilful</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Compound Words</b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>Coast-line</td><td>To-night </td><td>Sea-front</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Split Words</b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>All Right<b> </b></td><td>Any Thing</td><td>Any Where</td><td>Each Other</td><td>For Ever</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b></b> <br />
<br />
<b>Others</b><br />
<table border="2" bordercolor="#513831" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3"><tbody>
<tr><td>Ageing</td><td>Arse for Ass</td><td>Artefact</td><td>Axe</td><td>Baulk</td><td valign="top">Behove</td><td valign="top">Blueish </td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Bowlder</td><td valign="top">Carcase</td><td valign="top">Champaigne </td><td valign="top">Chaunt (Chant)</td><td valign="top">Chequered</td><td valign="top">Chilli</td><td valign="top">Collectable</td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Cosy</td><td valign="top">Dependant</td><td valign="top">Enquiry (inquiry)</td><td valign="top">Grey</td><td valign="top">H'm</td><td valign="top">H'mph</td><td valign="top">Haulier (hauler)</td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Kerb (Street Curb)</td><td valign="top">Loth (loath) </td><td valign="top">M'm</td><td valign="top">Nett (i.e. profit)</td><td valign="top">Orientate (orient)</td><td valign="top">Pedlar (peddler)</td><td valign="top">Pleaded (not Pled)</td></tr>
<tr><td>Plough (a field) </td><td>Pyjamas</td><td>Speciality</td><td>Storey (of a building)</td><td>Titbit</td><td valign="top">Tyre</td><td valign="top">Vice (not Vise) </td></tr>
<tr><td valign="top">Whisp (of smoke) </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
And lastly, a 'draught' of air, or water, but not for a draft of a letter. </div>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-83786730323052503082014-06-19T10:58:00.000-07:002015-11-12T23:20:50.235-08:00So, I've Written a Novel<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHXMlFq7oianWwNcbpmIu7WCDz_GoQmNLDOUuVrrSTlQjWIUMkhANbz07OXfRX5BkY4q0U2P26Fz8nR1I7yJdN_N6ydSZuLvDdTUB6JZF_NyY3VpW67IqbHRZHZ0IYMLCGqFhxmrDrAz8/s1600/Pasternak-Throes+of+Creation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHXMlFq7oianWwNcbpmIu7WCDz_GoQmNLDOUuVrrSTlQjWIUMkhANbz07OXfRX5BkY4q0U2P26Fz8nR1I7yJdN_N6ydSZuLvDdTUB6JZF_NyY3VpW67IqbHRZHZ0IYMLCGqFhxmrDrAz8/s1600/Pasternak-Throes+of+Creation.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Pasternak's 'The Throes of Creation'</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Six months.<br />
<br />
Six months since my last blog entry, my last review, my last
Goodreads comment. When I write it out like that, it seems like a long
time, a solid chunk of the past to set behind me. I hoped it might be
long enough for me to get some clarity, but the concerns I laid out in <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/12/amazon-goodreads-and-me.html">my last blog post</a>
have not been resolved, just swept under the rug. Regardless, it's high
time I moved forward with my writing and my reviews. As I explain <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2015/03/im-back.html" target="_blank">in this post</a>, I'll continue posting reviews on both GR and Booklikes, as well as
responding to personal messages at both sites, as well as at <a href="mailto:hapaxgr@gmail.com">hapaxgr@gmail.com</a>.<br />
<br />
So, what have I been doing for six months? Traveling the country,
visiting friends and family, recording music, taking long walks in the
woods, going to concerts, enjoying the Spring weather, reading, playing
games, practicing survival techniques--everything and nothing. I have
done a little editing on my manuscript, here and there, but my book has
actually been in a finished form for some time now. Now I'm finally
ready for the next step: a call to beta readers. So, for all of you who
have been asking over the past few years when you'll be able to actually
read my book, here we go. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
First, I'll briefly go through the process of writing and editing a
book for anyone unfamiliar, then let you all know where you fit in.
While writing, an author will probably have a few people reading
chapters as they are written--usually their significant other, their
editor, and any consultants on things like scientific or historical
details. These are the 'alpha readers', the first step in the process of
editing the book. Then, when the book is in a mostly finished state,
having an end and all the other requisite parts, the author sends the
book out to 'beta readers', who are a wider group, usually
made up of friends, fellow writers, prospective publishers, and literary
critics. These beta readers give their notes to the author, who
completes their final draft, then sends the book to be published.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUaNLgzKbRltoKq9L-0y-UE2VAH6fC19kVkT4FabsSXeynbVQk1-4JtshDspaHRSfTRYZUsNmaCrMrU6tgYXIhRITFnXPtZ23-ThnOZ1p4mehyPjLCWas9gkAxT6IhL95T2tN-YkzPVqQ/s1600/Hans+Landauer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUaNLgzKbRltoKq9L-0y-UE2VAH6fC19kVkT4FabsSXeynbVQk1-4JtshDspaHRSfTRYZUsNmaCrMrU6tgYXIhRITFnXPtZ23-ThnOZ1p4mehyPjLCWas9gkAxT6IhL95T2tN-YkzPVqQ/s1600/Hans+Landauer.jpg" width="295" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Hans Landauer, Bookbinder</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I am now ready to tender the current draft of my novel to beta
readers, especially individuals with knowledge of Victorian literature
and history, colonial literature, Hindu culture, and early science
fiction like Jules Verne and H.G. Wells--though I also want readers who
know nothing about these things, in order to get a variety of
opinions and observations. Now, it's important for each of you to decide
whether you want to read the book as a beta reader, in its current
rough state, or wait until the finished version. Either way is perfectly
fine with me, the choice is totally up to you, my readers. If you're
unsure what to do, feel free to message me with any concerns or
questions.
<br />
<br />
If you do decide you'd like to be a beta reader for me, the following
suggestions should give you some idea of what I'd like you to look out
for in my book:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Everyday punctuation and grammatical errors</li>
<li>Regular usage (meaning variable words are spelled, capitalized, and
hyphenated in the same way throughout the book, such as in cases like
'rumor/rumour', 'spring/Spring', and 'timekeeping/time-keeping')</li>
<li>Making sure the use of British English is consistent and accurate throughout</li>
<li>Correcting historical and cultural inaccuracies</li>
<li>Making sure foreign words and phrases are italicized</li>
<li>Suggesting foreign words and phrases that might fit for characters from non-English cultures</li>
<li>Removing anachronistic words (<a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams">Google Ngram</a> is invaluable for checking when words and phrases first came into common use) </li>
</ul>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOWx2tkGUeB5fo0JltiUiDbv9Xe3PBUSj4vCTgOyyxrFDM6FgN3K7Ck3uKVM87X_GGbIP66-6okmX9w1Sw6GGk7oval3nbQaccL1s6SyGysfIzs6Kk7Fo3mmmS-AFjbDMBXl67QvjGCH8/s1600/hyperion.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOWx2tkGUeB5fo0JltiUiDbv9Xe3PBUSj4vCTgOyyxrFDM6FgN3K7Ck3uKVM87X_GGbIP66-6okmX9w1Sw6GGk7oval3nbQaccL1s6SyGysfIzs6Kk7Fo3mmmS-AFjbDMBXl67QvjGCH8/s1600/hyperion.bmp" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Manuscript of Keats' 'Hyperion'</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Those are the nitpicky bits, but I'm also interested in comments and
suggestions on all aspects of the book, including structure, plot,
characters, relationships, pacing, formatting, tone, writing style,
symbolic language, and all the other aspects of writing. Really,
anything that comes to mind is welcome. I've also considered the
suggestion of adding footnotes to the book to define some of the more
esoteric words and phrases and untangle some of the references, so any
feedback on this idea is also welcome--along with notes letting me know
which words and phrases in the book you wish had been footnoted.<br />
<br />
I'm also considering starting a discussion group for my beta readers,
in the style of a book club, so that you will be able to communicate
your thoughts to and ask questions of others as you read. I would plan
to make one area where I, as the author, would never intrude, since
honest communication is such a vital part of any editing process, as
well as a section where readers can bring up points, engage in
discussion, and ask me direct questions. Let me know if you would like
this to be a part of your experience.<br />
<br />
You can also view <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/story/show/284750-ada-s-story">some sample chapters of the book here</a>,
which may help you to determine whether you actually want to read it at
all. I must warn that this is unapologetically a book in the Victorian
style: it's quite long and involved, full of odd words and references,
somewhat episodic in structure, and very focused on the internal lives
of the characters. That being said, it's also full of death and sex and
explosions, adventures and strange locales, secret plots and even the
rare attempt at humor. I've taken inspiration from many of the period
books I've been reading over the past few years, including Joseph
Conrad, Rudyard Kipling, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ambrose Bierce, M.R. James,
and numerous others--not to say that I imagine myself to be like those
authors, but without them, my book could not exist. This style is not
everyone's cup of tea, so I'd understand perfectly if some of you
decided to take a pass on this one.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcAm1RqzMolPcpJl4UZkVgPZSTpGKSDEJAsA_WJwCY_rC9j5cXi6DwkSMtpYq6C5S41J41rrenUjnpgubFsc5ZWE5XftnzzZ7pB01bZJEJPpAxnAerHaoH4lPKJVQBaNiGWp5HhY7FioQ/s1600/copyright.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcAm1RqzMolPcpJl4UZkVgPZSTpGKSDEJAsA_WJwCY_rC9j5cXi6DwkSMtpYq6C5S41J41rrenUjnpgubFsc5ZWE5XftnzzZ7pB01bZJEJPpAxnAerHaoH4lPKJVQBaNiGWp5HhY7FioQ/s1600/copyright.gif" /></a></div>
Lastly, there are some legal concerns, which I know will strike fear and confusion into the hearts of any non-Americans out
there. This project represents a fair amount of time spent and ideas committed, so I'm making sure to dot my i's and cross my t's. I've been working with a lawyer friend to iron out copyright details as I
get ready to publish, so there is a little disclaimer at the front of
the book, similar to the 'click yes' agreement one often sees when
installing computer programs. It basically says you won't steal my
ideas, pirate my book, plagiarize from it, or publish it and claim it as
your own. Of course, you're free to check out the details of the
agreement, yourself, when you receive your copy. Anyone not comfortable
with accepting such terms is free to wait until the book is published
for a general audience.
<br />
<br />
So, if there are any of you still out there, please let me know if you're interested in being a beta reader, whether through <a href="mailto:hapaxgr@gmail.com">my email</a>, comments, Goodreads, or <a href="http://keely.booklikes.com/">Booklikes</a>. I can offer the book in various electronic formats, including
Kindle, Nook, and many others, so be sure to specify which would be most
convenient for you. Currently, printing out hard copies is
prohibitively expensive, but my ebook can also be formatted to be read
on any computer, tablet, or smartphone--or if you'd like to print it out yourself, that's fine, too.JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-66682762043053782482013-12-04T10:21:00.001-08:002013-12-04T10:21:11.996-08:00Amazon, Goodreads, and Me<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_4vPzUuS-BiMSBJjO9PB-jexir1gUDOVR13Fh1tHs0wIPU8Ng7uHDYelKld9Xr6tL20fX6Vr9PSqwL21VQp6rjXWEnrtdfTjgyRbkZFf9mzaopVmOJSSjAHyl_wJjovWuIVi1UUX_wGM/s1600/facebook-censors-french-art-nude.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_4vPzUuS-BiMSBJjO9PB-jexir1gUDOVR13Fh1tHs0wIPU8Ng7uHDYelKld9Xr6tL20fX6Vr9PSqwL21VQp6rjXWEnrtdfTjgyRbkZFf9mzaopVmOJSSjAHyl_wJjovWuIVi1UUX_wGM/s320/facebook-censors-french-art-nude.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span id="goog_1284370946"></span><span id="goog_1284370947"></span>In the past couple months, I've only responded to a handful of the comments that daily fill my Goodreads updates. Sometimes, I just take a vacation from Goodreads for a bit--perhaps I'm not in the mood, or I'm busy with other things--such as my first novel, the last chapter of which I finished about a week ago (expect a post on that when I finish my first editing pass). But this time, I didn't come back to GR after a few days and catch up, like I normally do. Instead, I stayed away, and though part of the reason for that was my book, another reason was the censorship debacle that's been plaguing the site recently.<br />
<br />
If you haven't read Ceridwen's take on the whole matter, you should, because it's much more thorough than mine, and well-considered. She is the chronicler of our struggle, the bard who went through the battlefield and made note of whose heads had been lopped off. I also love the fact that she's now moving past that. It's certainly not her responsibility, and so I thank her for the good work she's done. There will be links to her articles at the end of this post.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
However, even though she's covered it very well, a lot of you folks on GR seem to be interested in what I think, so this is me putting in my two cents. I'm a cautious person, I like to wait things out and see how they develop. When I heard Amazon had bought Goodreads, I knew that would mean a change--that the site would get bigger, the ads would change, and so would the interface--but I didn't know exactly how it would affect the important parts of GR: the reviews and the community that has been built up around them.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-pu1-3dAskMgCOySBkTAqPqMZrrlBCVM-WOp16KmIOyw7O7LhyJjb2buD0MA6SyuZYCtdClfF8qfXcuJ3LtabYQ7dpWs8hdmgT47r6_HwO1dtQp38UmiPaH6RqIUjKzwgAQcfitIWPLo/s1600/seal_3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-pu1-3dAskMgCOySBkTAqPqMZrrlBCVM-WOp16KmIOyw7O7LhyJjb2buD0MA6SyuZYCtdClfF8qfXcuJ3LtabYQ7dpWs8hdmgT47r6_HwO1dtQp38UmiPaH6RqIUjKzwgAQcfitIWPLo/s320/seal_3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I've been a member there since 2007. When I joined, it was so I could keep track of my thoughts, what I had read, what I wanted to read, all of that. I was so used to writing critical analyses since my college days, and I saw this as an opportunity to keep up the habit, and regularly empty my brain of the thoughts that cluttered it. The idea that anyone might actually read my reviews never really entered my mind. I remember the day when the 'Top Reviewers' list was first rolled out by the staff. Lo and behold, there I was (number twenty-three, if I recall properly).<br />
<br />
I eventually dropped off the list entirely, then somehow surged back into it, but that whole time, I've still never felt it was worthwhile to market myself, or my reviews. I didn't join groups, I've never followed anyone, I rarely commented or voted on other people's reviews, I didn't review the latest bestsellers, or whatever book was about to be made into a movie or TV series, I didn't start writing shorter, simpler reviews full of image macros and jokes--I didn't do any of the things a smart networker would do. In fact, I only ever sent one friend request in all the years I used the site, and that was to my old college roommate.<br />
<br />
But then, I think that must have been attractive to some people, anyways, because here I am. I've always been partial to the advice of being wholly yourself and attracting a small audience who appreciates you for what you are, rather than marketing yourself to a larger audience that requires you to change yourself. That's how Mickey Mouse, the mean-spirited trickster, became Mickey Mouse the ever-smiling, personality-free symbol (though it was done to Jesus first).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKcOew1Fix4zs3EN4hxGWn2vTFCFIIvb_rwR7OCL-qXYrBITSgcshcoE-T6G63tZ6D097iN89YQHIwPCE230wqVk5OGlQHuRVorn7HDg1acw6t32wD5kkBAY7WsTD7TCEVlu6eW7fPk4/s1600/censor1-600x400.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibKcOew1Fix4zs3EN4hxGWn2vTFCFIIvb_rwR7OCL-qXYrBITSgcshcoE-T6G63tZ6D097iN89YQHIwPCE230wqVk5OGlQHuRVorn7HDg1acw6t32wD5kkBAY7WsTD7TCEVlu6eW7fPk4/s320/censor1-600x400.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
But of course, not falling neatly into line, not giving in to bullies and assholes also gives one a certain reputation--not always a desirable one--and in my years on the site, I've often run into people who were quick to attack me, trying to cow me, to overwhelm me, to do anything they could to shut off my voice. They never did. They were idiots and assholes, incompetents and ill-informed, but only once, in all the hundreds of pages of comments, did I ever delete another person's post. It was a pointless attack against another person in the thread.<br />
<br />
I have never felt that it was my position to remove vitriol aimed at me--certainly, I often responded, mocking and deconstructing the half-formed arguments leveled against my reviews--but I didn't censor the idiocy of others. Indeed, one of the reasons I became a top reviewer (or so I am often told) is precisely because I dealt with comments instead of censoring them. A person's words should be allowed stand as a testament to their character, so that anyone who came along could read what what has been written and make their own judgment.<br />
<br />
That is the responsibility of any honest person, and there is no group of people in the world more conscious of the dangers of censorship than avid readers. That is why it is incomprehensible to me that Amazon allowed this to happen at all. The strength of a website is its community. The whole worth of the thing is in the traffic it provides. As my friend GN pointed out, there are only two possibilities here:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Top Goodreads reviewers (like me) are tastemakers, and help to drive the market for books, making up the center of a community to which books can be marketed, in which case, the website was worth the millions Amazon paid for it. </li>
<li>Top reviewers aren't actually important, didn't create a thriving community, and do not provide direction to others on what books they will purchase, and the site is not worth millions of dollars.</li>
</ol>
<br />
If number two is true, then it was just a bad purchase on Amazon's part. If number one is true, then the worst thing Amazon can do is alienate its top users, because that means they are destroying the value of the product they just bought. As the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_%28Internet_culture%29">1% Rule</a> states, 1% of users on a website are creators (in this case, people who write reviews and start groups), 9% are contributors (people who vote and comment), while 90% are lurkers who just passively browse the site. This means that destabilizing the entire site only requires upsetting that 1%--hell, even .5% of all users quitting means a 50% reduction in content produced on the site, which means half as much to attract new readers, or keep old ones coming back.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipT1N4jogrk-2yC3KTzgfsMIMFbsW6oOf9mpP-KTCvBbSfUkMKgd1XhP-poYfe-CknwEIIZqbpQhQQrAKoEymRhUN0fILivxjHH_GnbLF0r0h2kyPDHH6yBm_WkRPcBz4FLxHfOKHAh7E/s1600/censorship.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipT1N4jogrk-2yC3KTzgfsMIMFbsW6oOf9mpP-KTCvBbSfUkMKgd1XhP-poYfe-CknwEIIZqbpQhQQrAKoEymRhUN0fILivxjHH_GnbLF0r0h2kyPDHH6yBm_WkRPcBz4FLxHfOKHAh7E/s1600/censorship.jpg" /></a></div>
So then, what's the fastest way to make enemies of a bunch of avid readers and writers? Well, how about randomly deleting their work with no warning and no explanation? Well, Amazon did kind of give an explanation, but it didn't <i>actually </i>fit what had happened. They said they were removing 'off topic reviews', especially those that talked about authors. However, that isn't actually what they did. Not only were reviews deleted, but comment threads, and star ratings with no review attached. Beyond that, the majority of reviews which did match the banned criteria were not removed.<br />
<br />
It was such a vague, undefined policy, and even that was not followed by the staff. I could easily have had reviews of mine deleted, and as I sat, watching the whole thing unfold, the words ascribed to Niemöller rung in my ears:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="toccolours" style="display: table; float: none; padding: 10px 15px 10px 15px;">
<i>First they came for the Communists,</i><i>
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.</i><br />
<i>Then they came for the Socialists<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany" title="Social Democratic Party of Germany"></a>,<br />
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.</i><br />
<i>Then they came for the trade unionists<a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unionist" title="Trade unionist"></a>,<br />
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.</i><br />
<i>Then they came for me,<br />
and there was no one left to speak for me.</i></blockquote>
<br />
It felt like only a matter of time before the hammer that had fallen on my friends and colleagues would strike with equal force at me.<br />
<br />
Yet, I've been on the site for a while, I've made a lot of connections with a lot of people: reviewers, writers, readers, thinkers, and so in my heart, I wanted to hope that things would get better, that the voices of the wronged would be heeded. Here I am, just finishing my first novel, and the whole reading community to which I have belonged is coming to bits. So I decided to wait. I hoped there would be an apology, a retraction, a definition of the removal policy that made sense and would pass scrutiny, an explanation of what this was and why it was done.<br />
<br />
Was it a pure case of corporate ignorance, of a few careless interns making a mess of things, misunderstanding what they were hired to do? I've worked in the corporate world before, I've seen such things swept under the rug. Their boss doesn't want to admit an error, so he starts trying to defend the indefensible, and as it gets bigger, his boss has to stand behind it, too, and so on and so on, and thus is stupidity enshrined as universal policy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJFYyj1i7ZDt5yhypUFYYbH6KuxG4JiTiyhM1R1dccXPnQvXuSM0TInmnNUaaPk6JVzedEIbOIyy_eTAv2g964MOjeF0E2HrccPrpuEyQ9jT88z5Hq-OuVI-DyWkIAYJaJNxR2i0Q37d0/s1600/WMG-block.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJFYyj1i7ZDt5yhypUFYYbH6KuxG4JiTiyhM1R1dccXPnQvXuSM0TInmnNUaaPk6JVzedEIbOIyy_eTAv2g964MOjeF0E2HrccPrpuEyQ9jT88z5Hq-OuVI-DyWkIAYJaJNxR2i0Q37d0/s320/WMG-block.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Or perhaps it was something more menacing, an attempt to root out certain individuals, to quiet voices prone to speaking up about the profitable YA ebook market, the pages of which are so full of raw sewage and badly-behaved authors that any discussion on them is bound to resemble the lowest dregs of a Youtube comment thread.<br />
<br />
Or perhaps something worse--perhaps they bought the site because it was becoming competition, and now that it's no longer a threat, they have little more care for it.<br />
<br />
Whatever it was, it looks like we, the reviewers and readers, will never really know. There is no open channel of communication there, no honesty, no transparency. We are to be tossed about like ragdolls and never given any proper reason for it. What the next sign of this bad turn will be, I don't know, but Amazon's unwillingness to communicate shows that it isn't interested in taking its users' thoughts and desires into consideration. It does not respect us enough to treat us like adults. If it does not think us worthy of being treated seriously, then we can look forward to more careless treatment in the future. We might accept such treatment at a job, but Amazon isn't paying any of us to be here, so it's not surprising that many of us are weighing whether its worth it to us, any more.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsfq_Mp7WFy-CGcTMDvnX2PSui2fl9h6m4MxTYKLJg44kVD6jIuxXXh4ZyTrOuuKn-4woTFfdteUweU8oSohj13oPiOlfFnxRQkyqnWUsoSVRTK9T0CaE98Kti7oxcFsRGWMToGyqutZ4/s1600/slave-prince.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsfq_Mp7WFy-CGcTMDvnX2PSui2fl9h6m4MxTYKLJg44kVD6jIuxXXh4ZyTrOuuKn-4woTFfdteUweU8oSohj13oPiOlfFnxRQkyqnWUsoSVRTK9T0CaE98Kti7oxcFsRGWMToGyqutZ4/s1600/slave-prince.gif" /></a></div>
But then, such is always the nature of websites and their communities: eventually, they go from bottom-up to top-down, and then they begin to die, as the content creators are alienated. Only a few sites, like Craigslist, 4Chan, and Wikipedia have escaped that fate, all because they are run by that peculiar sort of man who does not care to ally himself with a larger corporation, whatever they might pay. I'm not disparaging Otis in any way--it was his site, to do with as he thought best--I'm only observing the natural course of life and death for a website, and this one isn't looking all too good.<br />
<br />
I have not posted a review to Goodreads since this whole thing started. I'm still writing them, but so far I've stuffed them away in a folder marked 'things to be figured out later'. A lot of top reviewers have left for Booklikes, and I made <a href="http://keely.booklikes.com/">a profile there</a> in order to keep in touch with them, though I haven't posted any reviews there yet. In the end, I'm not sure what I'll do, whether I'll post only one place, or several places, or just blog, or what. Once I've finished the edits on my book, then it will be time for me to think about the next step going forward.<br />
<br />
However things turn out, I want to thank all of you for the experience I've had, the discussions, the support, the book suggestions, the reviews, the comments, the votes, the laughs, and all the rest. If things keep getting worse, and I'm forced to start over again, with nothing but my reviews for company--well, that's no more than I wanted in the first place. No big loss.<br />
<br />
Of course, I am still responding to personal messages on Goodreads, and to comments on this blog, or you can always write me at <a href="mailto:hapaxgr@gmail.com">hapaxgr@gmail.com</a>. Until next.<br />
<br />
<i>Ceridwen's articles on the subject</i><br />
<a href="http://ceridwen.booklikes.com/post/550434/by-the-numbers">By the Numbers</a><br />
<a href="http://soapboxing.net/2013/10/giving-offense-full-on-revolt-on-goodreads.html">Full Revolt on Goodreads</a><br />
<a href="http://ceridwen.booklikes.com/post/683318/is-being-a-racist-an-author-behavior-">Is Being a Racist 'Author Behavior'?</a><br />
<a href="http://ceridwen.booklikes.com/post/683317/is-editorial-interference-an-author-behavior-">Is Editorial Interference 'Author Behavior'?</a><br />
<a href="http://ceridwen.booklikes.com/post/683770/post">Off-Topic: The Story of an Internet Revolt</a><br />
<a href="http://ceridwen.booklikes.com/post/683316/post">An Open Letter</a>JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-53991723730657390202013-09-18T06:20:00.001-07:002019-10-16T09:14:50.126-07:00Suggested Readings in Comics<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghN3SRsK5Cwl2CHi5KO5J_afdVRnwNlNc_Iyvbo-LxAi6IPg-if8FVnLcU6pkMPIByhqbvVJFh4xaaOe9ks0HUMchPIUiszmbldyzhezElDf0XH3AUGd8ea3BQ2uxjPOizSBhhbWV-h2M/s1600/fegredown02-raw.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghN3SRsK5Cwl2CHi5KO5J_afdVRnwNlNc_Iyvbo-LxAi6IPg-if8FVnLcU6pkMPIByhqbvVJFh4xaaOe9ks0HUMchPIUiszmbldyzhezElDf0XH3AUGd8ea3BQ2uxjPOizSBhhbWV-h2M/s1600/fegredown02-raw.jpg" width="221" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Art by Duncan Fegredo</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Growing up as I did amongst actors, singers, painters, potters, mimes, sword-swallowers, tightrope walkers, heavy metal musicians, master craftsmen, and all and sundry sorts of outcast and weird, I developed into a rather unusual child. 'Loud' is not a strong enough descriptor, 'frantic' too subtle a word, 'dramatic' a gross understatement. It drove my teachers mad--they yelled, they chastised--in first grade, my student report said that I would 'never amount to anything'. The only thing that didn't seem to get me in trouble was drawing, because when I was drawing, I was quiet. So I drew. When adults asked what I wanted to be when I grew up, I said I was going to 'draw comic books'.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I loved comics as a child--well, I loved the pictures. I'd flip through, taking inspiration for my little sketches of minotaurs, heroes, robots, dinosaurs, snake women--the usual. I never really had two issues in order, so reading comics always felt like walking into a movie halfway through. In college, I found self-contained graphic novels, and actually started enjoying comics for the story. By sheer happenstance, the first comics I read ended up being some of the best ever written. As some of my friends have pointed out, this has given me extremely high expectations for what comics can and should be--the only person who is harder to please is my old college roommate, who has only read the top 10% of stuff I passed on to him.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br /></span>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">After the success of my post <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/06/suggested-readings-in-fantasy.html">'Suggested Readings in Fantasy'</a>, I've gotten a few requests for a similar list for comics, which I've finally found time to actually do. One of the standard lines in comic promotions is that the fans are 'character-centric', meaning that they don't tend to care who the writer or artist is, as long as the story is about <a href="http://www.misterkitty.org/extras/stupidcovers/stupidcomics5.html">Fantomah</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whizzer_%28Robert_Frank%29">The Whizzer</a> or <a href="http://comicsalliance.com/fatman-the-human-flying-saucer-ottobinder/">Fatman The Human Flying Saucer</a>--or whomever their favorite hero happens to be. I'm the opposite. I pretty much only care about who wrote it--and sometimes who drew it--which is how I will be organizing this list. My reviews will be linked if I've written one, and as ever, this list will change as I keep reading.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Highly Suggested</span></h2>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Alan Moore</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuJ38zTHZRwz2uph4-bWzz_jNMCsrfpWPbS9bL1IGSZweRdwZCM376Q-zLa__z4L-wUhcE60mR_QMCX0sNu4pDvtiwERN2SNhk7Vlq98hcf8PtoYeO3i_IiEXjvYhP6lQHQp61r70JxcU/s1600/swamp-thing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuJ38zTHZRwz2uph4-bWzz_jNMCsrfpWPbS9bL1IGSZweRdwZCM376Q-zLa__z4L-wUhcE60mR_QMCX0sNu4pDvtiwERN2SNhk7Vlq98hcf8PtoYeO3i_IiEXjvYhP6lQHQp61r70JxcU/s320/swamp-thing.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Artist unknown</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Alan Moore is the most prominent and well-respected writer in comics, and his was also some of the first work I read. Though best known for movie-spawning titles like <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1194339" target="_blank">Watchmen</a></i>, <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1195271" target="_blank">V for Vendetta</a></i>, <i>From Hell, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen</i>, and <i>Hellblazer</i>, my first experience with Moore was before all that, and the book that introduced me to him was <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/8103073" target="_blank">Swamp Thing</a>. It was his first book for an American publisher after making a name for himself in Britain, and though I've since gone on to read his more prominent works, as great as they are, I still prefer Swamp Thing. While Watchmen and V have amazing focus and sense of purpose, there is something about the more gradual, many-faceted drift of the Swamp Thing stories that I prefer. Without an overarching political message to deliver, Moore allows himself a rare subtlety and sweetness alongside his cutting satire and subversion. Then again, it was one of the few times Moore was allowed to write without editorial oversight.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Steve Gerber</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizVZU_A0PHy3qND6aR_TrCalk_VsH0PYBh8uikyr-S4KVBJcd1I4ANc3XJFd8466RtDgR16SFFuWLl_eGJGIlLYGPyn3lQpjrdUbSogUczk_SD4NPZ999DEnBV86J0wiDrRshc0e_sMf8/s1600/omega01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizVZU_A0PHy3qND6aR_TrCalk_VsH0PYBh8uikyr-S4KVBJcd1I4ANc3XJFd8466RtDgR16SFFuWLl_eGJGIlLYGPyn3lQpjrdUbSogUczk_SD4NPZ999DEnBV86J0wiDrRshc0e_sMf8/s320/omega01.jpg" width="305" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Jim Mooney</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Though Alan Moore gets most of the credit for moving comics away from the outdated Comics Code, Stever Gerber was actually exploring complex moral stories back in the 70s. Sadly, he was before his time, struggling for years over the rights to the characters he created, before eventually giving comics up and going to work on cartoons like <i>GI Joe</i>, <i>Transformers</i>, and <i>Dungeons & Dragons</i>. Yet, before he left, he created some very interesting and controversial books, including <i>Man-Thing</i>, <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/118346920" target="_blank">Omega the Unknown</a>,</i> and <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/124361124" target="_blank">Void Indigo</a>. </i>His stories were dark and unapologetic, some of the first to ground heroes in real life. Though his work is still largely unrecognized by the public, it continues to influence numerous comic writers. Unfortunately, the recent reboot of <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/118667531" target="_blank"><i>Omega</i> by Jonathan Lethem</a> is unremarkable.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Pat Mills and 2000AD</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfGjIpMFtP57gdAzm5tB1rKR09fbWf9450sjzQOjAhJP0p98WDCxD_iifoDYzRDMTz77H1-rm9b-bgrxsrkGPuCkIiFNp0HYqYuNmLBLdqbhrcsDIXz6p5-pGIooRL_vUMWMB8Gq4wkCA/s1600/MarshalLaw1October1987.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfGjIpMFtP57gdAzm5tB1rKR09fbWf9450sjzQOjAhJP0p98WDCxD_iifoDYzRDMTz77H1-rm9b-bgrxsrkGPuCkIiFNp0HYqYuNmLBLdqbhrcsDIXz6p5-pGIooRL_vUMWMB8Gq4wkCA/s320/MarshalLaw1October1987.jpg" width="204" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Kevin O'Niell</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">2000AD is a long-running British comics anthology which was started in 1977 by writer Pat Mills, and which is still going strong today, at more than 1800 issues. It was a pivotal part of the reinvention of American comics, and many of the best comic writers first cut their teeth there--including Alan Moore, Peter Milligan, Warren Ellis, Neal Gaiman, Grant Morrison, Jaime Hewlett, and Garth Ennis. The stories within have also been influential in pop culture, inspiring films like <i>Robocop</i> and <i>Mad Max--</i>and of course, the most famous character to emerge from its pages: <i>Judge Dredd</i>. However, you need not delve into back issues: Dredd, Slaine, Strontium Dog, and other notables can now be found in trade paperback collections. But some of Mills' best work was printed outside of 2000AD, most notably <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/119781430" target="_blank">Marshal Law</a>, a satire on comic book conventions that's so full of mock-fascist swagger and twisted sensuality that it makes Frank Miller's vaunted 'maturity' look like a kid pointing his army men at a naked barbie while saying 'pew'.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Carl Barks and Don Rosa</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJpGQ8Z0059pDwV60huB0-X534-Q2jV9P5192KNWeIwX1jHU5lNNP1OEzNmctFTHNaSsI5EmbehjKhEONE79u_N3tOKDaQD45KHc3TjhyoQqSvWmWeB6Cat2cR9ot5KJ5QwvtZrNiRHdg/s1600/harpies-ducks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJpGQ8Z0059pDwV60huB0-X534-Q2jV9P5192KNWeIwX1jHU5lNNP1OEzNmctFTHNaSsI5EmbehjKhEONE79u_N3tOKDaQD45KHc3TjhyoQqSvWmWeB6Cat2cR9ot5KJ5QwvtZrNiRHdg/s320/harpies-ducks.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Carl Barks</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">It's unfortunate that Barks is not better-known in America, but his legacy around the world, and its influence on comic book writers and artists from Europe to Japan is profound. Barks was known as 'The Good Duck Artist' in the days when Disney didn't let creators sign their names. His comics were inspired by pulp adventures, like the novels of Haggard and Kipling, as well as real life adventurers of the thirties: big game hunters, archaeologists, and explorers. Barks created some of the best tales in the genre, all starring cartoon ducks, and it was <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/228953604" target="_blank">his comics</a> that inspired Lucas and Spielberg when they made Indiana Jones. After his retirement, his work was taken up by Don Rosa, who has gained a reputation for being a worthy successor to Barks' legacy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">EC Comics and Mad Magazine</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYOMjS0thyz3PFqN1Y2aC5d9oy4_DwKD3ukWdArKd__ctbexWX8yeYMT_N1G1GRhqXQQCPrj4WBLt_8G6pY6XZ_wnV4CEf0o1v-_YMfKRuxACX7oDyHIaicvLa_CJ5gMJFrRqe2cZaGBE/s1600/wc.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYOMjS0thyz3PFqN1Y2aC5d9oy4_DwKD3ukWdArKd__ctbexWX8yeYMT_N1G1GRhqXQQCPrj4WBLt_8G6pY6XZ_wnV4CEf0o1v-_YMfKRuxACX7oDyHIaicvLa_CJ5gMJFrRqe2cZaGBE/s320/wc.png" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Wallace Wood</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">EC Comics published anthologies of horror, crime, military, and science fiction that were <a href="http://cacb.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/ec-comics-master-race/" target="_blank">truly progressive</a>, in both art and writing. Yet today, the only EC character people are still familiar with is The Crypt Keeper, who introduced horror stories in EC's monthly <i>Tales From The Crypt.</i> This is because EC were wiped out in a scandal over the 'safety of children', resulting in 'The Comics Code', a strict form of censorship that prevented any meaningful artistic expression in comics for the next forty years, until it was finally broken by Gerber and Moore. After the code was put in place the publisher of EC, William Gaines, went and formed Mad Magazine, taking the artists and writers along with him, since the Comics Code did not limit magazines. This included artist Wallace Wood, one of the best inkers ever to touch pen to paper, and who did many prominent stories for both EC and Mad, in various genres from action to comedy. These days, both classic Mad and EC stories can be found in trade paperback collections.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Winsor McCay</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3VEKEvxsNrwdVItvv9EP0z-7MumHBBTOkStc4oXmkosdyfUs8s7mP_YEDjL51Abrd_iRQfBXIKYK4yrR5-mt1EkOQQ2Qh0L9X7dTpGhDZUiwUbJ02P_QNvxqSmSANA4FSLN3RIYP5INM/s1600/nemo7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3VEKEvxsNrwdVItvv9EP0z-7MumHBBTOkStc4oXmkosdyfUs8s7mP_YEDjL51Abrd_iRQfBXIKYK4yrR5-mt1EkOQQ2Qh0L9X7dTpGhDZUiwUbJ02P_QNvxqSmSANA4FSLN3RIYP5INM/s320/nemo7.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Winsor McCay</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Winsor McCay was a talent of supreme skill and imagination, one of the very first film animators in the world, and also a noted newspaper strip artist, back when that meant doing a full color page once a week. Works like <i>Little Nemo in Slumberland</i> and <i>Dreams of the Rarebit Fiend</i> are wonderfully fantastical, and drawn with a keen draughtsman's eye for perspective, line, form, and movement--inspiring the <i>ligne claire</i> style of European comics. Though I am not generally including comic strips on this list, McKay's full-page work and longer storylines are much closer to comic books than to modern 'gag-a-day' strips.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Jean Giraud (<b>Mœbius)</b></span></h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWnzaMieaj7RcRmbq4jCzXusbBO5qPGkeXx6y6unL4bkfiC2XuW_SQVcaH6vbdbdEyBAOnK78kwUWKeart53fhGLB24s49WuDtBGLyGp0IKlmqRayVQ_yHst-TyOOIx4cwf09HQqdDKTg/s1600/Moebius_blueberry.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWnzaMieaj7RcRmbq4jCzXusbBO5qPGkeXx6y6unL4bkfiC2XuW_SQVcaH6vbdbdEyBAOnK78kwUWKeart53fhGLB24s49WuDtBGLyGp0IKlmqRayVQ_yHst-TyOOIx4cwf09HQqdDKTg/s320/Moebius_blueberry.jpg" width="221" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Jean Giraud</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Jean Giraud is one of the most visionary and influential artists in all of science fiction, inspiring the design of films like <i>Star Wars</i>, <i>Blade Runner</i>, <i>Alien</i>, <i>Tron</i>, and <i>The Fifth Element</i>. He worked with various writers throughout his storied career, and even penned a few tales of his own. I certainly appreciate Giraud's fantastical works like <i>Arzach</i>, <i>The Airtight Garage</i>, and <i>Stel</i>, many of which are available in trade paperback--but I much prefer his collaboration with writer Jean-Michel Charlier about an American cowboy named Mike Blueberry. Coming out in the sixties, just as European director Sergio Leone was pumping much-needed life into cowboy movies, the Blueberry series is irresistible to any fan of the spaghetti Western. It is a much less heroic, much more desperate West, conveyed in psychedelic colors, with wide, alien desert vistas stretching out behind the frantic action. The stories themselves are exciting, well-paced adventures, with vivid characters and many nods to real historical events. Between the remarkable art and the solid writing, <i>Blueberry</i> has become one of my two favorites.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><br /></b></span></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Kazuo Koike</b></span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz_OlLc6SuMHMDWMXjjGWprdNUdE_n0PRMLvdLmeZLVxlO-V762628qA1JFH_kti85-bXtrax22khWt_wBYSxVIaWA2G2z51HV-WIINfUPvVWJRfDd4tw3sHqaVMS-o6x2ETIX2eD1jqc/s1600/lone-wolf-and-cub-1622900.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz_OlLc6SuMHMDWMXjjGWprdNUdE_n0PRMLvdLmeZLVxlO-V762628qA1JFH_kti85-bXtrax22khWt_wBYSxVIaWA2G2z51HV-WIINfUPvVWJRfDd4tw3sHqaVMS-o6x2ETIX2eD1jqc/s320/lone-wolf-and-cub-1622900.jpg" width="218" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Kazuo Koike</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">If Giraud's <i>Blueberry</i> is the comic book equivalent of Sergio Leone, then Koike's <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/216246508" target="_blank"><i>Lone Wolf and Cub</i></a> is the answer to Kurosawa's great samurai films. Done in a style reminiscent of traditional sumi-e ink work, <i>Lone Wolf and Cub</i> is a collection of fascinating portraits of feudal Japanese life--and unlike many longrunning series, there is little repetition in plot: a story about gangsters running a gambling house will be followed by a story about the heir to the town bell-ringer, then a traveling theater troupe, and after that a tale of holy men and spiritual purity. Though the action is sometimes over-stylized, especially considering the slice-of-life themes, the stories possess a powerful realism that makes them intriguing, and sometimes profound.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"> Peter Milligan</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9iCPOXAVVNhKnPuLmT0uS_gSm1_7GHhd_LfKHBo6IOhy13wV48fQm4SZZ23v1Wn1fkJ2yUdUcbLMJ86ZqTgM_YNthEDgaYvFHKkZChfzV3zAOY4ZQobxGKxlJbtgdflhyphenhyphens4onsZE7Fos/s1600/Shade_the_Changing_Man_60_Cover_2394.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9iCPOXAVVNhKnPuLmT0uS_gSm1_7GHhd_LfKHBo6IOhy13wV48fQm4SZZ23v1Wn1fkJ2yUdUcbLMJ86ZqTgM_YNthEDgaYvFHKkZChfzV3zAOY4ZQobxGKxlJbtgdflhyphenhyphens4onsZE7Fos/s320/Shade_the_Changing_Man_60_Cover_2394.jpg" width="207" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Duncan Fegredo</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Alan Moore and Peter Milligan are two of the only authors in comics who are capable of bringing a literary sensibility to their work. They are true stylists, playing with the conventions of the genre, exploring its possibilities--and of the two, Milligan possesses the greater subtlety and sense of irony. His revamp of <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/117385812" target="_blank">Shade: The Changing Man</a> </i>is one of the most perfectly realized and thoroughly explored arcs in comics. Some of the individual issues are simply flawless. The series does start a bit slowly, and the weakest writing is at the beginning, before Milligan finds his voice. Unfortunately, the trade paperback collections of the series only cover the first arc, so if you want to read it, it's either find back issues, or a torrent. However, his other works are somewhat easier to find. <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/121555560" target="_blank">Enigma</a> is a thematic parallel to Moore's Watchmen, but progresses in a more naturalistic, personal way, as opposed to Moore's grander narrative setpieces. <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/121726080" target="_blank">The Extremist</a> is a disturbing delving beneath the flesh of man. What is perhaps most remarkable about Milligan is that each of his stories is different, in terms of approach, theme, and tone. His most famous work may be <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/145560195" target="_blank">Human Target</a>, which was even picked up as a TV show--but while entertaining, it does not reach the depth or complexity of his other work.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Warren Ellis</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHOdQMalbh1lkvy-LVuLPWv-lIVejMWkmGHD_TEENFbppDJ0tPoeGECDY21q-v4ZCZ_9twlDTN3HT92o9qDfGSFyYBOTedmhPAnHSyGjGBO356qauvi82DBffJ-2PFxVMziOtyfHy8QHM/s1600/Ben+Templesmith+Warren+Ellis+Fell+Nixon+Nun.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHOdQMalbh1lkvy-LVuLPWv-lIVejMWkmGHD_TEENFbppDJ0tPoeGECDY21q-v4ZCZ_9twlDTN3HT92o9qDfGSFyYBOTedmhPAnHSyGjGBO356qauvi82DBffJ-2PFxVMziOtyfHy8QHM/s320/Ben+Templesmith+Warren+Ellis+Fell+Nixon+Nun.jpg" width="202" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Ben Templesmith</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Ellis is an intriguing writer, capable of getting strange without losing the thread of his story. He can be by turns creepy, scathing, sarcastic, silly, and touching--and if you like stories about reckless rebels making their own way through an insane world, then he's the author for you. His magnum opus is <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/146486830" target="_blank"><i>Transmetropolitan</i></a>, a post-cyberpunk love letter to gonzo journalism. Also good are <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/130077759" target="_blank">Desolation Jones</a></i>, a CIA spook story about plastic LA, <i>Fell</i>, a more subtle and unsettling piece about a young cop in a bad part of town,<i> Planetary</i>, his enjoyable and somewhat odd take on the superhero genre, <i>Global Frequency</i>, a sci fi conspiracy thriller, and <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/31912728" target="_blank"><i>Nextwave</i></a>, a madcap parody of super team books full of ironic nostalgia. Unfortunately, he also has some works that don't quite make the grade, such as <i>The Authority</i> and <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/140903350" target="_blank"><i>BlackGas</i></a>, where the treatment is a bit too slipshod to do justice to the idea.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Kurt Busiek</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip3YvUNUiRAzzqRtCi6DRRKWTZd-00d4SPFDw8a71vF1n1lTvg8oeCqhQUPZs7WuouGSMY5gODGOl2eOeZFBpPIOBFFg4xM0WHTXLyRgCxFfQ2iSCGIkESEimpty7BVG6UDayJJwOZOEQ/s1600/busiek.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip3YvUNUiRAzzqRtCi6DRRKWTZd-00d4SPFDw8a71vF1n1lTvg8oeCqhQUPZs7WuouGSMY5gODGOl2eOeZFBpPIOBFFg4xM0WHTXLyRgCxFfQ2iSCGIkESEimpty7BVG6UDayJJwOZOEQ/s1600/busiek.jpg" width="204" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Alex Ross</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Kurt Busiek is the consummate storyteller of comic books. His pacing, his characters, his ideas, his sense of scene--they're always just where they should be. His work shows that you don't have to take apart the whole genre, like Moore or Ellis, in order to make good comics--sometimes it's enough just to pen a great yarn. Busiek's <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/227236162" target="_blank">Astro City</a> </i>is just that: a well-done, compelling take on the superhero genre Busiek loves, full of hardship, but also hope. It's what capes comics should be, if DC and Marvel were run by writers instead of nerds obsessed with continuity and in-jokes. His Dark Horse run on <i>Conan The Barbarian</i> is likewise beyond reproach--it's one of the most perfect recreations of the original author's intent in a new medium that I've ever seen-- made doubly good by the painterly art of Cary Nord.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Mike Mignola</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX4va6jj0PPE5eQP_fXBYcy-WM5jCEz_ImbvPGBXyJ7e9uv3vHD__KjtXbqGqlH7P-GkX0Bl8Ayngz_2UhFvQWKabqT8Y6yt_YDJ4MpsolLrafm2OdwltpK1nVWRgMmzPz_T4R_WYCCss/s1600/3141570-hellboy%2520posters-894691.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX4va6jj0PPE5eQP_fXBYcy-WM5jCEz_ImbvPGBXyJ7e9uv3vHD__KjtXbqGqlH7P-GkX0Bl8Ayngz_2UhFvQWKabqT8Y6yt_YDJ4MpsolLrafm2OdwltpK1nVWRgMmzPz_T4R_WYCCss/s320/3141570-hellboy%2520posters-894691.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Mike Mignola</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Mignola is one of those rare creatures: the writer/artist who is profoundly good at both. When I first saw the <i>Hellboy</i> film, I figured Mignola's comic was just another wacky, Lovecraft romp with Nazi magic and all the other cliches of the occult. Then I actually read the comic. The film never even comes close to capturing the intense and deep way that Mignola plays with mythology. His inspirations are so rich and varied, his allusions and brief references capable of suggesting a vast and intriguing world behind the world. I tend to find his short stories to be much better than the comic's 'main plotline', because the constant driving plot takes a lot away from the subtle pacing and rich tone of the shorter works. Eventually, the main plot just gives itself up to wholesale exposition, but there has been some improvement since Mignola took on Duncan Fegredo as artist--and to his credit, Fegredo has perfectly distilled and reproduced Mignola's style. He is simply the best living comic artist out there today. Mignola also did the art for a comic based on the Lankhmar series, with Howard Chaykin taking writing duties, which I found quite enjoyable and true to the original.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h3 class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Sam Keith</span></h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2IudRR18EY6uxzJkKfotLLW8dY2a3sDCA8Yov9RUkcA82GrLnVaRVcpvnvLePaXkb18sf7rc4iEEqQOb-G4_AHWD179FrsVIQsQKK1AjzVM14ANihA6zu4lHoSVgJiifdGqNd9Al_vcY/s1600/743495-maxx023.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><img border="0" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2IudRR18EY6uxzJkKfotLLW8dY2a3sDCA8Yov9RUkcA82GrLnVaRVcpvnvLePaXkb18sf7rc4iEEqQOb-G4_AHWD179FrsVIQsQKK1AjzVM14ANihA6zu4lHoSVgJiifdGqNd9Al_vcY/s320/743495-maxx023.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Sam Keith</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">In some ways <i>The Maxx</i> is the quintessential 90's comic: violent, introspective, angsty, all about a faceless badass dude--and yet Keith manages to turn the whole thing into a cartoon of itself by simply asking the question <i>'What really separates Wolverine from a crazy homeless man with delusions of grandeur?' </i>The answer may surprise you. Truthfully, that's only Keith's starting point, and he takes the story to some very interesting places afterwards, asking questions about the nature of self, reality, perception, and the fundamental need for companionship. It does go on a bit, at the end, but there's something fascinating about watching a mind unravel, and wondering what will be left when all's said and done.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Comics About Comics</span></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">If you're interested in better understanding how the medium works, the specific ways that art and words interact, and how we as critics can give good comics the thorough time and thought they deserve, I suggest Scott McCloud's <i>Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art</i>, Will Eisner's <i>Comics and Sequential Art</i>, and Josiah Leighton's <a href="http://consequentialart.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">blog on the subject</a>.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Others</span></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>These comics are fairly solid, and worth a read. Quite a few of these came close to making the big list.</i></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Brian Michael Bendis:</b> <i>Powers </i>is a pretty good deconstruction of the capes genre, but the longer it goes on, the more it starts to turn into <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/8299818" target="_blank">a generic supers story</a>, periodically overlaid with ranting walls of text.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Enki Bilal:</b> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/150551226" target="_blank"><i>The Nikopol Trilogy</i></a> is interesting enough, and quite lovely, but it's also self-indulgent and lacking in focus. Some have suggested this is purposeful, but I'm not sure that really helps. It did invent the sport of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing" target="_blank">Chess Boxing</a>, though, which goes in its favor.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Nicolas de </b></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b><span class="st">Crécy: </span></b><span class="st">while he is an amazing artist--one of the best in comics--I'm not yet convinced of his storytelling skills. <i>Glacial Period</i> is pretty, but it has that same French habit of false profundity that undermines so much of Jean Giraud's plotting.</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Geof Darrow:</b> <i>Shaolin Cowboy</i> has great, detailed art--and the book is worth a read just for that. However, the story is rather lacking, and its oddness is too self-conscious.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jamie Delano:</b> <i>Hellblazer</i> is an entertaining example of urban fantasy, though it's very long, and has a lot of ups and downs as different writers take over--but pretty much every great writer out there has done a run at some point.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Garth Ennis:</b> <i>Preacher</i> is well-plotted, but Ennis' obsession with being over-the-top crude and 'edgy' made the whole thing rather puerile, and not in a clever way.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Neal Gaiman:</b> I tend to go back and forth on <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/8147342" target="_blank"><i>Sandman</i></a>. There are some great high points in there, but also a lot of lulls and false starts, so overall it tends to average out. <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/7832976" target="_blank"><i>Black Orchid</i></a> was more solid, but the environmental message was a little heavy. <i>Only The End of the World Again</i> is fun, but not remarkable.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Brandon Graham:</b> <i>Prophet</i> is a Sci Fi feast for the eyes, full of weird imagery and ideas. Unfortunately, the pacing is so rushed it all feels like a 'last episode' recap.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jean van Hamm:</b> <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/368057166" target="_blank"><i>XIII</i></a> is an enjoyable period spy piece, though the storytelling isn't always as smooth as one could wish.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Hergé:</b> I've only read the <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/399742800" target="_blank">early <i>Tintin</i></a> stories, which are fairly haphazard slapstick, plus the nationalistic and racist sentiments. Hopefully I'll enjoy the later books more.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Hermann Huppen:</b> <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/119246534" target="_blank">Jeremiah (The Survivors)</a> </i></span>is a rather odd European take on the post apocalypse.</li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Alejandro Jodorowsky:</b> the plot of <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/56445433" target="_blank"><i>L'Incal</i></a> became too lead-by-the-nose for my taste. Another 'lowly hero and all-powerful artifact tale', though Moebius' art is great, as ever.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Robert Kirkman:</b> <i>Invincible</i> is a pretty great series. It manages a good balance between mythic action and the realism we've come to expect in the post-Moore era.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Scott Lobdell:</b> <i>Age of Apocalypse</i> was one of the only comic series I actually read and enjoyed when I was young. In part, I liked it because it's all self-contained, and doesn't require a lot of foreknowledge--plus it's 'X-Men After The Bomb', which isn't a bad pitch.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jeph Loeb:</b> His Batman pieces, <i>Hush</i> and <i>Long Halloween</i>, are about as good as mainstream cape books get.
</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Frank Miller:</b> <i>300</i>, <i>Sin City</i>, and his <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/130252518" target="_blank"><i>Batman</i></a> stories are classics, but they're so unselfconsciously edgy and uber-manly that its hard not to laugh at them.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Grant Morrison:</b> I find most of his stuff suffers from a lack of coherency. His better works include <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1431977" target="_blank"><i>Kill Your Boyfriend</i></a>, <i>WE3</i>, <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1684946" target="_blank"><i>Seaguy</i></a>, <i>The Filth</i>, and <i>Arkham Asylum</i>.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Katsuhiro Otomo:</b> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/379362239" target="_blank"><i>Akira</i></a> is beautifully realized, and has layers of complexity, but ultimately, the frantic action tends to be at odds with the attempts at deep philosophizing.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Stefan Petruchia:</b> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/145813288" target="_blank"><i>Lance Barnes: Post Nuke Dick</i></a> is a fun and odd little book, which ought to appeal to anyone who likes the Fallout series or the film A Boy and his Dog.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Paul Pope: </b><i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/130544508" target="_blank">Batman: Year 100</a></i> has some great art and action, but the exposition and purpose of the story are sometimes lacking.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Hugo Pratt:</b> <i>Corto Maltese </i>is another Euro period piece, this time about sea voyaging. I've only read the first arc.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Rick Remender: </b>I had big hopes for <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/115295373" target="_blank">Fear Agent</a></i>, as a fan of Wallace Wood and EC Comics, but Remender can't seem to find a balance between wacky pulp and serious melodrama.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Antonio Segura:</span></b><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/118962590" target="_blank"><i>Hombre</i></a> is another fun Euro comic, set after the apocalypse, though the firm-bodied nude ladies can become a bit silly.</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Dave Sim:</b> <i>Cerebus</i> is a contentious classic, and changed the game for indy comics--but I've only read the first arc, where it's mainly an action parody of fantasies like Conan and Elric.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Oliver Simon:</b> <i>The Exterminators</i> is certainly fun, but despite a <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/119437990" target="_blank">strong start</a>, it soon gets lost in its own wackiness and political message, and ultimately <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/119442172" target="_blank">fails to deliver</a>.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jeff Smith: </b><i>Bone</i> is an entertaining bit of fantasy, and the art is ingenious and effective. However, I found the storytelling was too bound up in flat archetypes.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jacques Tardi: </b><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/463334502" target="_blank"><i>The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-Sec</i></a> is fun--a bit silly, but entertaining.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Judd Winick:</b> <i>Exiles</i> is a pretty standard X-Dudes capes story, with some humor thrown in.</span></li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Disappointments</span></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">These are titles that I would not suggest reading.</span></i></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jason Aaron:</b> <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/212499407" target="_blank">Scalped</a> </i>is an over-the-top grim tale of violence and poverty with the structure chopped into bits to make it seem complex.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jonathan Hickman:</b><i> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/118028557" target="_blank">The Nightly News</a></i> has a great sense of design, but the plot feels like talking politics with a college freshman who just learned the word 'Hegemony'.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Joe Hill:</b> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/146988569" target="_blank"><i>Locke and Key</i></a> is a rehash of Horror and Urban Fantasy tropes without a lot of thrust. Hyper-stylized skater art and awful dodge and burn coloring don't help.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Antony Johnston:</b> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/216779559" target="_blank"><i>Wasteland</i></a> is a post-apocalyptic story, but lacks depth. All the conflicts play out on the surface, and the pacing is rather stilted.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Robert Kirkman</b>: <i>The Walking Dead </i>is mostly just an extended and repetitive soap opera, and the art drops off after the first arc.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jonathan Luna:</b><i> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/119253617" target="_blank">Ultra</a></i> was completely forgettable, and the art didn't do it any favors. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Mark Millar:</b> Millar is sophomoric to the point of stupidity.<i> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/31911822" target="_blank">Wanted</a></i> and <i>Kick-Ass are</i> <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDarkAgeOfComicBooks" target="_blank">Dark Age</a> titles written twenty years too late to be relevant. <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/9714423" target="_blank"><i>Red Son</i></a> is an interesting idea made pointless.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Grant Morrison: </b>in <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/9129565" target="_blank"><i>The Invisibles</i></a>, Morrison seems to have thrown together every wacky idea he could think of to see what would stick. Very little of it does. <i>Animal Man</i> was the book that made his reputation, but unlike the deconstruction of other britwave writers, his doesn't seem to have much in the way of insight or originality.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>James O'Barr:</b> <i>The Crow </i>ultimately takes itself too seriously for a goth-themed revenge story. The movie's better. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Bryan Lee O'Malley:</b> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/114791991" target="_blank"><i>Scott Pilgrim</i></a> is quirkiness done by-the-book, which rather defeats the point. Also weirdly homophobic.</span> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Paul Pope: </b><i>Heavy Liquid</i> has some excellent art, but Pope can't quite seem to marry words to it. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>James Robinson:</b> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/148117708" target="_blank"><i>Starman</i></a> was supposed to be another great Britwave comic, like <i>Shade</i> or <i>Hellblazer</i>, but I didn't see much there--though I only read the first arc.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Doug TenNapel: </b><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/53427637" target="_blank"><i>Creature Tech</i></a> feels more like a rough draft than a finished product, and the religious moralizing feels tacked-on. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Brian K. Vaughan: </b><i>Y: The Last Man</i> is basically a harem anime, where characters make nonsensical decisions in order to maintain the plot. <i>Runaways</i> has the same character problem. <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/42294446" target="_blank"><i>Pride of Baghdad</i></a> is just badly-written.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Bill Willingham:</b> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/130523243" target="_blank"><i>Fables</i></a> is completely uninspired, scripted with all the aplomb of a teenager. It takes mythic themes explored decades ago in <i>Sandman</i> and <i>Hellboy</i> and does absolutely nothing with them.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Joss Whedon: </b><i>Fray</i> gives us a look at the sci fi future of vampire slaying, but fails to serve up anything new, lacking even Whedon's usual clever dialogue. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Brian Wood:</b> <i><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/361731270" target="_blank">DMZ</a> </i>and <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/368066781" target="_blank"><i>Northlanders</i></a> are both told without any subtlety. The characters constantly inform you what they are thinking and feeling, and the female characters are quite bad.</span></li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">To Read</span></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The following are titles I haven't gotten to yet, but which I plan to read when I find the time.<b> </b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Mike Allred</b><i> Madman</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Sergio Aragones </b><i>Groo the Wanderer </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Bob Burden</b><i> Flaming Carrot </i><b> </b></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Juan Diaz Canales</b><i> Blacksad</i><b> </b></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Joe Casey</b> <i>Automatic Kafka</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Howard Chaykin</b><i> American Flagg,</i> <i>Challengers of the Unknown </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Pierre Christin</b><i> Valerian </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Nicolas De Crecy</b><i> Foligatto </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Paul Chadwick</b><i> Concrete</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Geof Darrow</b><i> Hard Boiled, Doc Frankenstein </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>J.M. DeMatteis</b><i> Moonshadow, Abadazad </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Will Eisner</b><i> The Spirit</i>, <i>A Contract With God </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Warren Ellis</b> <i>Ministry of Space</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Harlan Ellison</b><i> Vic and Blood </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Steve Gerber</b><i> Howard The Duck</i>, <i>Destroyer Duck</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Rene Goscinny </b><i>Asterix</i></span></i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><b>Brian Haberlin</b><i> Anomaly</i></span><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i> </i></span> </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jean Van Hamme</b><i> Thorgal </i><b> </b></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jamie Hewlett </b><i>Tank Girl</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Jonathan Hickman</b><i> Pax Romana, Transhuman </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Richard E. Hughes</b><i> Herbie Popnecker </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>John Layman</b><i> Chew </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Scott McCloud</b><i> Zot </i><b> </b></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Peter Milligan </b><i>Bad Company</i>, <i>Greek Street</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Mike Mignola</b><i> Rocket Raccoon </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Alan Moore's</b> <i>Miracleman</i>, <i>From Hell</i>, <i>The Ballad of Halo Jones,</i> <i>Promethea</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Grant Morrison</b><i> Doom Patrol, Flex Mentallo, Seven Soldiers </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Hector German Oesterheld </b><i>El Eternauta</i> and <i>Mort Cinder</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>John Ostrander</b><i> Grimjack </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Paul Pope</b><i> 100% </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Eric Powell</b><i> The Goon</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Stan Sakai</b><i> Usagi Yojimbo</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Rob Schrab</b><i> Scud </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Eric Shanower</b><i> Age of Bronze </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Osamu Tezuka</b><i> Metropolis</i>, <i>Phoenix,</i> <i>Black Jack</i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Greg Tocchini</b><i> The Last Days of American Crime, Sequence Shot </i></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>G. Willow Wilson</b><i> Air </i></span></li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">And though I know they have a few other highly-touted books out, my initial experiences with Brian Wood and Brian K. Vaughan have soured me on them rather thoroughly. If you enjoyed this list, you may also like my <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/06/suggested-readings-in-fantasy.html" target="_blank">Suggested Readings in Fantasy</a>.</span><span style="font-family: georgia, times new roman, serif;"><i></i></span></span></div>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com47tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-10093509325786108382013-09-11T09:22:00.002-07:002016-10-13T11:47:56.469-07:00Writing Strong Women, Part V: Where are the Strong Women?<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ9a78S0dVFOLTio9FsMBBMjzhL2Zvfe82tqXnb2JKmeapyea5kUsWo0NWwEZte9-wbaMzWODU9Ell-tq9wzNbxi4VYRcZlmEnnHp8bDs6OVRqsHyhKjXovTwL-h9sDsUG8tFG3PEZ1Fk/s1600/untitled-1-1309374594.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="166" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJ9a78S0dVFOLTio9FsMBBMjzhL2Zvfe82tqXnb2JKmeapyea5kUsWo0NWwEZte9-wbaMzWODU9Ell-tq9wzNbxi4VYRcZlmEnnHp8bDs6OVRqsHyhKjXovTwL-h9sDsUG8tFG3PEZ1Fk/s1600/untitled-1-1309374594.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Kate Beaton's <a href="http://harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=311" target="_blank">'Strong Female Characters'</a></i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/09/writing-strong-women-part-iv-individual.html">Last time</a>, we talked about the relationship between a woman and society--but there is also an odd relationship between the idea of the 'strong woman' and society: despite the fact that she's discussed so often these days, nothing seems to change about how women are portrayed--or at least, not for the better. As pointed out in great articles like <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/a-plague-of-strong-female-characters.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&">A Plague of Strong Female Characters</a>, <a href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/08/18/why-strong-female-characters-are-bad-for-women/">Why Strong Female Characters are Bad for Women</a>, and <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/i-hate-strong-female-characters">I Hate Strong Female Characters</a>, as well as Kate Beaton's <a href="http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=311">comics on the subject</a>, 'Strong Female Character' has just come to mean emotionally damaged, commitment-phobic, laconic, and gun-toting.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Usually she'll have a rape backstory, too--and if she doesn't have one to begin with, a later writer will add one. It's really just another way to do 'damsel in distress', but with a female hero: in the standard formula, the bad guy shows up, steals the girlfriend, and then the male hero has to get revenge and save the girl; for a so-called 'strong woman', the villain steals the 'innocent girl inside her', and so she must go on a quest and get that part of herself back, by killing him. A lot of writers seem to think the natural state for a woman is frilly and sweet, but that a quick application of sex crime is all it takes to make her a violent buttkicker. Even Joss Wheedon, much lauded for how he deals with female characters, couldn't resist making the entire background for mystical female power in <i>Buffy The Vampire Slayer</i> into <a href="http://buffy.wikia.com/wiki/Slayer#The_First_Slayer.C2.A0">an extended rape origin story</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9mPgbmqOOKS6RNZDGGM1yBMfG5PNFEbrLkrCFqANfOJME_pKrcbM4YNgb9H7KyAD0XUeNnw0iVtNHbVh5tj4swfa-UPvv6C0o8TkZzakeNyrUU7orGGtxwzClvv-uDsayS3AtzZSb-y8/s1600/photo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9mPgbmqOOKS6RNZDGGM1yBMfG5PNFEbrLkrCFqANfOJME_pKrcbM4YNgb9H7KyAD0XUeNnw0iVtNHbVh5tj4swfa-UPvv6C0o8TkZzakeNyrUU7orGGtxwzClvv-uDsayS3AtzZSb-y8/s320/photo.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Lt. Ellen Ripley</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Pretty trite, I know--but at least it's not as bad as hurting a female character in order to <a href="http://lby3.com/wir/">motivate the male hero</a>--if there's one thing you learn from these articles, please let it be <i>'a woman's physical and emotional pain is not just a convenient way to make a man angry'</i> (<a href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/07/29/christopher-nolan-feminism/">I'm looking at you</a>, Christopher Nolan). Of course, just because people like Nolan and Whedon sometimes falter, <a href="http://www.avclub.com/article/if-you-return-jedi-hate-ewoks-you-understand-femin-224765" target="_blank">that doesn't mean we should condemn their work out of hand</a>--but if such respected creators can still fall into uncomfortable implication land, what can we do differently?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Well, the first thing to remember is that in the phrase <i>'Strong Female Character'</i>, the adjective 'strong' is there to modify 'character', not 'female'. We need to write a strong character, period. The old cliche is <i>'write a man, then change the sex'</i>--which can certainly work. In Dan O'Bannon's original script for <i>Alien, </i>none of the characters <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">had a gender until specific act<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ors were cast to play them</span></span>--that's why they were all known by their last names. Ripley didn't even <i>have</i> a first name until the second film. She's been heralded as one of the strongest female characters in any story (and certainly any genre film), and it's mostly because she was a <i>character first, and a woman second</i>. Like most male characters, she was given personality and motivations to set her apart, and these traits had nothing to do with how she was gendered.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">A great illustration of <i>character first, gender second</i> comes from videogames, where you can often choose the gender of your main character. For those unfamiliar: in quite a few games, you can <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">select</span> whether the hero of the story<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> is</span> a man or a woman. Yet, throughout the story, they have the same friendships and relationships, make the same decisions, take the same actions, say the same words, struggle through the same hardships and losses--the only difference is a cosmetic one. (Unfortunately, this 'generic hero story' often means glossing over the culturally-specific experiences different people tend to have--for example, the fact that every character in the story treats a black female hero the same way they would a white male one, which is a subtler kind of whitewashing.) If it helps, you might want to think to yourself, as you're creating characters and writing dialogue, <i>'would I still write it this way if the character was of the other gender?'</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKxTShQtTEnLSEYKiaTc5pxq4q6VVGNkgy-rxjP9MmaufdXxJ9C64biB-oEu6az3kWfCav4Edf_psOUDD0mmX59JAnw2Z9Osn6H7Xpto9SnFK0m3GbXv_mFId73xUo7zpccFPy1-_OxT4/s1600/Adam+and+Eve+in+Garden%252C+Michelangelo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="308" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKxTShQtTEnLSEYKiaTc5pxq4q6VVGNkgy-rxjP9MmaufdXxJ9C64biB-oEu6az3kWfCav4Edf_psOUDD0mmX59JAnw2Z9Osn6H7Xpto9SnFK0m3GbXv_mFId73xUo7zpccFPy1-_OxT4/s1600/Adam+and+Eve+in+Garden%2C+Michelangelo.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">At least</span> the snake tail looks natural</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But of course, one can also take the <i>'write a man, then change the sex'</i> advice in a less productive direction, creating another cliche, the 'wo-man'--a standard masculine hero, only with a set of boobs bolted on, <a href="https://renresearch.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/men-with-breasts-or-why-are-michelangelos-women-so-muscular-part-1/" target="_blank">a la Michelangelo</a>. Instead of this, we should try to recognize that in every person there are a lot of traits that have nothing to do with sex, or gender, or sexual preference.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">That's part of what makes it unfortunate that, by the time Ripley does get a first name, her personal strength is transformed in to a feminine cliche: the strong mother figure--and then she has to imitate masculinity by
picking up a gun and battling her way through a giant murder-womb ('nuke it from space!').</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But she didn't need the gun <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">the first</span> time around to be heroic, so why add one now? Wasn't part <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">of</span> her <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">strength</span> the fact that she survived without being a napalm-fueled killing machine? It's the same problem we get with Sarah Connor in the <i>Terminator</i> franchise--<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">hell,</span> even before she gets pregnant, her whole life is <a href="http://www.feministfrequency.com/2011/07/tropes-vs-women-5-the-mystical-pregnancy/">defined by her role as a mother</a>. She's important not
because of her own competence, but because of her ability to produce a
competent and important man at some point in the future--and she has to transform herself from a fluffy-haired waitress into a
gun-toting, musclebound badass in order to do it--her femininity must be suppressed in order for her to be effective. Another strike against Whedon is that he did <a href="http://io9.com/black-widow-this-is-why-we-can-t-have-nice-things-1702333037/+tinaamini" target="_blank">the same thing</a> to Black Widow. Now, this doesn't necessarily make these women weak characters, but it does align them more closely with cliche feminine roles. Where's the film about the woman who protects her child without having to resort to laconic violence? Where's the woman who doesn't feel a need to be defined by a child in the first place?</span> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I know there are certain biases built into fiction--expectations about how characters <i>should</i> behave in a story, even though real people don't behave in these stereotypical ways. My roommate in college once wrote a story with a generic heroine, then gender-swapped her. When he read the story in class, everyone was confused--specifically because at one point, when things weren't going well, the now-male character broke down and cried. This so upset their sense of narrative propriety that they spent the rest of the class period talking about 'what it meant' about the character, what must have happened in his past to make him this way.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, I've seen many men cry when things went wrong--even minor things, and especially if they were already stressed out. Some of them were big, strong, manly men, too. Yet somehow, in the context of a story, readers have trouble accepting this, and go searching for some larger explanation. Now, I happen to think that engaging your reader like this isn't necessarily a bad thing--undermining their expectations, forcing them to think--after all, my friend's classmates all praised him for making such a 'deep, complex character', but each author must decide for themselves how much they want to cater to traditional narrative expectations.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV_UM8kR0e8ri5s5ZgcGVan0lCZxnmTBf6qGjD7h5WX2uapwFEp8R5kHim6Ubk1rim_aKTfUVqYy6fNFv3ldPyzET9OoZyfrmU-2z76jjgdsEWPin25Rrdjoj1W6nFqWqLQUwEPQSyn7o/s1600/sue.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="303" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV_UM8kR0e8ri5s5ZgcGVan0lCZxnmTBf6qGjD7h5WX2uapwFEp8R5kHim6Ubk1rim_aKTfUVqYy6fNFv3ldPyzET9OoZyfrmU-2z76jjgdsEWPin25Rrdjoj1W6nFqWqLQUwEPQSyn7o/s1600/sue.bmp" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="http://www.interrobangstudios.com/potluck/index.php?strip_id=989">Ensign Sue Must Die</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Another problem is a lot of writers think 'strong female character' means having no flaws--or only having flaws that could be broadly defined as 'being a woman'--but it's not a character's strengths that make them unique, it's their weaknesses. Ironic as it may sound, flaws make for a strong character. It means that they have an internal life, that they will come across as vivid, dynamic, conflicted, and motivated.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">After all, what do we call it when an author creates a super-competent character who has no flaws? That's right, the much-maligned <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue">Mary Sue</a>. Male characters are allowed to be off-kilter--even heroes like Batman or James Bond are allowed to be disturbed, or goofy, or troubled, or damaged--while women are all-too-often relegated to <a href="http://comicsalliance.com/female-heroes-good-girl-role-models/" target="_blank">dull, unadventurous 'good-girl' stereotypes</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In movies, TV, and other stories, you often see these bland, sexy women characters onto whom the writers have grafted some skill--<i>she's a scientist, she's a super-hacker, an archaeologist</i>--as if that makes her personality any less weak. Really, giving them all of these 'powers' without actually making them competent or complex is just another way of putting a woman on a pedestal, which of course, is <a href="http://madisonmentalhealthcounselor.com/road-of-being-put-on-a-pedestal">abusive behavior</a>. No one can live up to the pedestal--no real person, and no character--so, sticking them up there is <i>always</i> going to be at the expense of their capacity to be sympathetic, down-to-earth, or realistic--their capacity to be flawed. Putting someone on a pedestal makes their life all about <i>you.</i></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Plus the fact that, <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">when you start making these female side cha<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">racters competent badasses, it makes no sense for the schlubby male protagonist to be the hero of the story. Why are they secondary to him, <a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11433378/heroes-female-sidekicks" target="_blank">why are they the ones who get capt</a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://www.vox.com/2016/4/18/11433378/heroes-female-sidekicks" target="_blank">ured</a> <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">and he has to save them? Well, it's a combination of the need for a down-to-earth, everyman hero and the attempt to make female characters 'strong' by grafting on karate kicks and scien<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">tific acumen. Sure<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">, it's possible to do <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">th<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">is as a <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">clever </span>subversion, <a href="http://uproxx.com/movies/big-trouble-in-little-china-jack-burton/" target="_blank">as in <i>Big Trouble in Little China</i></a>, </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>but the difference is that when you look at Jack<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> Burton's act<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ions throughout the film, it bec<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">omes clear<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> that he is an incompetent sidekick who mistakes himself for the hero. <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Like</span> the <i>Van Helsing</i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> example from earlier, <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">w</span></span>hat's important isn't the character's outward appearance, or what we are told <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">to think of</span> <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">them, but wha<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">t actions they act<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ually take in the story. Do they generally succeed or fail, do they help others, or do they need help from others, d<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">o they tend to be proven right, or proven wrong, do they lash out insecurely when challenged, or take it in stride?</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><i> </i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">As you may have noticed as you progressed through these articles, pretty much everything I've said is just basic writing advice for any character--male, female, or sentient rock: a character should not just be a secondary appendage of other characters, they should have their own desires and goals, they should be active and culpable for their choices, implying that they have a life outside of the story instead of simply appearing when it's convenient and then disappearing back into the authorial toybox when it isn't. They should have just as much variety as any other character, not only in the roles they play, but in terms of personality type, appearance, morality, sexual preference, &c. This is basic stuff.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifm8favuGAyr9VAbdGAZqEE7AK1hiMJpx2mO7B3QLc6OTJ4Svo5bVl0x7Vl5KLic4R9CQKOL6DLXhhCJs5GoFQ34pioNQTOPynDYIO1xtP3Ut_ky2gcP-yQ97D_NmmWmgGz07skJke6Hw/s1600/2057142-shepards.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifm8favuGAyr9VAbdGAZqEE7AK1hiMJpx2mO7B3QLc6OTJ4Svo5bVl0x7Vl5KLic4R9CQKOL6DLXhhCJs5GoFQ34pioNQTOPynDYIO1xtP3Ut_ky2gcP-yQ97D_NmmWmgGz07skJke6Hw/s1600/2057142-shepards.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Same character, different voice actor</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Most authors seem to be aware of these basic rules when it comes to their male characters, so why do they suddenly forget them when it's time to write women? Clearly, they must think of women as being fundamentally different from men, so they approach those characters differently. That's the secret to writing strong female characters:<i> don't stop doing all the things you would normally do to create a good character, just because she's female</i>. Don't start treating her completely differently than you would any other character. Don't rely on old archetypes like 'slut', 'witch', 'mother', 'nag', 'ice queen', or 'good girl' instead of giving her an actual personality. Don't write her as strong when she first appears, <a href="http://thedissolve.com/features/exposition/618-were-losing-all-our-strong-female-characters-to-tr/" target="_blank">only to make her secondary and inactive</a> the moment your nerdy, boring hero arrives on the scene.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Also, don't have her overcompensate, as in the <i>Captain America</i> example from the <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/i-hate-strong-female-characters" target="_blank">Sophia McDougall article</a> <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I linked to earlier</span>, where <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Peggy Carter</span> physically attacks a man who talks back to her, then fires live rounds at the hero for kissing another gi<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">rl</span>. This kind of <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">o</span>vercompensation is always a sign of weakness, not strength. It's like an abused dog who tries to bite anyone who comes close to
it--it's the outward symptom of insecurity and fear.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">A character who is sure of themselves <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">has no</span> need to lash out at every perceived threat--they carry themselves with natural confidence and can afford to ignore minor slights<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">. T</span>hink <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">of</span> the old samurai cliche of the great swordsman who sits alone, trying to eat his rice in peace, paying no heed to the insults and threats of the local thugs, atte<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">mpting to deescalate, </span>until at last he is forced to defend himself (or someone else). If your female character has to attack people and yell her way through every other scene in order to assert herself, that's going to read as stark insecurity--a sign that she does <i>not </i>possess the inner strength to do what needs be done. The whole cliche of the unemotional, I-don't care-what-you-think 'strong woman' is built on someone who is so emotionally damaged that she's lost the capacity <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">for</span> trust. Antisociability is not the same thing as self-reliance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPwRD08cLmn518x-E1VYJBronaBBSr-A65z82AxP7NS6MqkwCIQ2RzBRCfEVBsE25FsSLEWmH3QmxAZ8d6oVQjEYz_XrtaW7lkMf-_E_M5dc8W0o5PohHJKMmqx6ttQyZAnZBbICZ0q1A/s1600/525fb46c9dc6354af3d267c6a1738609-scoldingvengeant-robin-slap.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPwRD08cLmn518x-E1VYJBronaBBSr-A65z82AxP7NS6MqkwCIQ2RzBRCfEVBsE25FsSLEWmH3QmxAZ8d6oVQjEYz_XrtaW7lkMf-_E_M5dc8W0o5PohHJKMmqx6ttQyZAnZBbICZ0q1A/s1600/525fb46c9dc6354af3d267c6a1738609-scoldingvengeant-robin-slap.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's a common dynamic, one we can see in the hidebound movie scene of <i>'man says something inappropriate, woman slaps him'</i>--though I wonder how often people consider what that implies about the characters. If two men were talking and the same thing happened, we'd read the slapper as being weak and over-emotional, because he's responding to mere words with physical violence--he's overreacting. And yet, we tend to accept it from female characters, so why is that?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">What it suggests about our culture is that a man's words simply have more power and authority than a woman's--and hence, that either the woman can't come up with a suitable comeback (because women aren't allowed to be witty and biting), or that no matter her reply, it simply wouldn't be taken seriously (because she is a woman so her words have less weight). So instead, she resorts to physical violence, and we accept this response as <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">fai<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">r</span></span>, suggesting that <i>a man's words are as powerful as a woman's actions</i>. That's some thorough disempowerment there</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Another thing you may want to consider in your stories is exploring not just one woman--or even a few female characters--but actually looking at female interrelationships. I don't mean female rivalries, because those are all too common<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span>(the idea that 'women can't get along' is a pretty tired cliche<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">), </span>but actual female friendships, and mutual reliance. There are so many paeans in this culture to the 'bromance': <i>The Odd Couple</i>, Buddy Cop films, Jay & Silent Bob, <i>Adventure Time</i>--while women in stories often exist alone, relating mainly to male characters, or at most engaging in catty, petty <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">rivalry</span> with other women. Remember, people are social animals, they don't live in isolation, and interrelationships are a huge part of who we are. By absenting female socialization from stories, you isolate female characters, so that they have no opportunity to develop outside their relationship to m<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">en</span>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Beyond that, if the setup on the show is a bunch of men and one or only a few women, then the representation of how people socialize and how friendship works is going to be masculine by default. The women in the story end up existing only in relation to men, and as such, they are <i>also</i> defined by the masculine default--but as being secondary, or outsiders, or the butt of jokes--again, they're just the 'group chick', set apart solely by their gender, by <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">how much they</span> <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">deviat<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">e</span></span> from the 'male norm'.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1eF22wO9ismayV9P4LRd7oiRmIaBmEmZ80VAoNNRyYVaHeFpGnx2QHs1c9LPvpWYLTqHcSk0ig5Y4VPFMlDFeWBldKtCTXyBvZLPhTx2Qf7tMHbcbMAUjfLclsg4phXkCTeCSVrQe7ok/s1600/xena-gabrielle.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1eF22wO9ismayV9P4LRd7oiRmIaBmEmZ80VAoNNRyYVaHeFpGnx2QHs1c9LPvpWYLTqHcSk0ig5Y4VPFMlDFeWBldKtCTXyBvZLPhTx2Qf7tMHbcbMAUjfLclsg4phXkCTeCSVrQe7ok/s1600/xena-gabrielle.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Xena: Warrior Princess</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">One of the unique things about the old Sword & Sandals show <i>Xena: Warrior Princess</i> was that it was fundamentally about female friendship. Just as Hercules and Iolaus palled around, joking and relying on one another through thick and thin, so Xena and Gabrielle demonstrate that the same formula <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">c<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">an </span></span>be <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">equally</span> effective when applied to women--indeed, their exploration often had more depth and pathos than the goofy bro-dom of <i>Hercules</i>. The fact that both ladies were butt-kicking warriors made it a bit silly--but then, so were <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">their male counterparts</span>, so part of it is just the genre </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And hey</span>, as long as we're creating female interrelationships, we can also make women strong by stressing their social power. Of course, this can start getting into cliches of <i>'men are physical, women are social'</i>, but if that is a<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> common</span> <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">value</span> in the society you're portraying<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> (</span>as it is in many societies<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">) </span>then it can be a very effective way to make a strong woman character without resorting to a lady knight or some other anachronism of <i>'male role+boobs'</i>. Hell, I'd suggest it's equally important to stress the social power of your <i>male</i> characters--far too many of them end up wholly reliant on their physical abilities, while never highlighting the social struggles that would naturally crop up in any story, which means we're missing out on the aspects of personality those struggles might reveal.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Overall, we don't want female and male 'equality' in a mathematical sense (one woman for every man)--it's more like the way that different types of animals are equally competent at their particular niche. People often misrepresent evolution--it does not mean that more recent forms of life are in any way superior to earlier forms. Being human beings, with all our cities and electric lights and such, we might sometimes imagine ourselves to be 'better' than squid--to be more 'highly-evolved'--but stick a human being a few hundred feet under the water for a couple days and see how that goes. Human beings and squid and every other animal on the planet are equally as evolved--they're just all evolved to deal with different sets of circumstances.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQwBO_yKBtGnblofYDzo-T8vespr209dNdhnaTS1OOrjcwhcgFANkXxZ7H_sQVw6Ws5TQ-_Q2-W-IRyj1TQq1LoDjAt7MNT2yD4rokisMxL58kv7CvEgRayy5R3fLkSmMj7JXSysoToak/s1600/15017275433928956560_573x852_220.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQwBO_yKBtGnblofYDzo-T8vespr209dNdhnaTS1OOrjcwhcgFANkXxZ7H_sQVw6Ws5TQ-_Q2-W-IRyj1TQq1LoDjAt7MNT2yD4rokisMxL58kv7CvEgRayy5R3fLkSmMj7JXSysoToak/s1600/15017275433928956560_573x852_220.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's the same with 'character equality'. It's not that men and women need to be represented as being the same, having the same strengths, weaknesses, desires, habits, and roles. The idea is that each character--independent of their sex--has their own personality, their own dreams and fears, their own flaws and motivations, their own moral center. Every character should be fully-formed<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">. E</span>ven if they sometimes lose, or give up, or make bad decisions, it's important that they do these things because <i>that's who they are</i>--not because of some narrative expectation, or because it plays into some social ideal or fetish, or genre cliche.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Don't write a strong woman, write a strong character. She can fail, she can cry, she can give up, she can be irrational or angry or ignorant, she can be physically weak, she can get stuck in bad positions, she can be incapable of physically defending herself--all of those are fine, as long as she's still a vivid character with an internal life. Don't make her a type--don't make her strong '<i>because she's a mother'</i> or <i>'because she was raped'</i>, don't make her weak because <i>'she's over-emotional and in touch with her feelings'</i>, or because she's a valuable object that men compete over, don't make her a threat because <i>'women use sex as a weapon'</i>--in short, don't seek out cliches of femininity in order to excuse her behaviors. She does not need to be excused. She needs to be set free, to have just as much variability and complexity in personality as any other character in a story--and she needs to exist in the context of a whole world filled with other women who are completely different sorts of people.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">That's the big message here: n<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ever</span> just represent one woman, demonstrate that in your story, in your <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">setting</span>, all women are living their own independent lives<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">.</span> <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Don't</span> ignor<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">e</span> or downpl<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ay</span> fifty percent of your story's population. They need to be present, not just as a token example (or three), but as an integral part of society--of life, of politics, of art, of relationships, of family, of religion, of war, of rebellion, of wealth, of poverty, of race, of caste, of class, of risk and curiosity, and every other thing that makes us human--just as they are in the real world.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, that's the end of my series on writing female characters--at least for now. Next week is another request article from one of my readers: <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/09/suggested-readings-in-comics.html">my list of suggested comic books</a>. Until then. </span>JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-27639562052561182013-09-04T11:37:00.003-07:002016-10-07T21:36:38.182-07:00Writing Strong Women, Part IV: The Individual and Her Society<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6p4rs75rEGDxcMV7iIHplhzlT7izsB0JI1u6Ep7JP84JgpCIjkrAZ4TIhbZgpzF8PoQZz30O5YDTCQxOMrXNObPH4gSBsUlY1-2czr1HmAhYPoAkJ1TuyodIBrCCEW6ONwkVugDMzptY/s1600/helle.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6p4rs75rEGDxcMV7iIHplhzlT7izsB0JI1u6Ep7JP84JgpCIjkrAZ4TIhbZgpzF8PoQZz30O5YDTCQxOMrXNObPH4gSBsUlY1-2czr1HmAhYPoAkJ1TuyodIBrCCEW6ONwkVugDMzptY/s1600/helle.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div class="firstHeading" id="firstHeading" lang="en">
<i><span dir="auto">For Reference: An Individual (Hellé Nice)</span></i></div>
<i></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/08/writing-strong-women-part-iii-subtle.html">Last time</a>, I talked about the little stylistic details that can undermine how female characters are portrayed, but now I'd like to address something larger: the woman and her relationship to society. When we create a character, we are creating an individual. Though many of the thoughts, opinions, and assumptions of an individual are informed by the society they live in,
an individual is not merely the combination of the ads they've seen and
the things they were taught in school. Indeed, individuals are remarkably resistant to socialization, and love to reject what they've been told to do. So, when we make a character, it's not enough for them to simply be a distillation of their culture, a reversion to some 'type'--they must have unique qualities that set them apart.<br />
<br />
There are many things that are intrinsic to a person, any person: the capacity for pain and joy, the need for self-actualization, the ability to think and reflect, the desire for companionship, fears and doubts--elements of humanity that have persisted through our whole history, in every time and culture. Then there are those things which come from the outside, social structures, and these tend to be drastically different across cultures and eras. When creating a character, it is important to distinguish between their internal life and the external structure of the society they live in.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Think for a moment of the conception of bankers in America: they are thieves, leeches on the American people. They lie, cheat, and steal, they cause financial crises that make everyone's lives worse for decades, then we find <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-last-mystery-of-the-financial-crisis-20130619">memos</a> which reveal that not only were they aware of what they were doing, but hoped to be <i>'wealthy and retired by the time this house of card[s] falters'</i>. The identity of the investment banker is defined by hoaxes like Enron, Madoff's ponzi scheme, or the mortgage ratings scandal.<br />
<br />
Yet, as <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-24-2013/money-boo-boo---the-canadian-banking-system">this piece from the Daily Show</a> explores, corruption and mistrust are not intrinsic to banking. If the banking system is well-regulated, as it is in Canada, then bankers do not have to be sneak-thieves trying to make a quick buck before things fall apart. There are differences between what is strictly necessary to be a banker (a head for numbers, the ability to follow and predict trends, to estimate costs, risks, and returns) and the social conception of a banker in a particular culture--the internal and external identities. Of course, that social conception is based around the facts of that culture (in this instance, the amount of regulation)--so depending how things are set up, it will either promote underhanded bankers, or honest ones. These cultural systems can be insidious and pervasive, but they still won't affect each person in the same way.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3pASP9XCrj2V1jFavHtpfeUBq8i9iadjWUTgRrxKt8P1FpPI3o2t_7kJQuZq1rwrmoi75j9P_Om4z1rMSmWZVwYZtlC5068UY9Lxi9EoA3xlW9_4cMcbU_ZrJL3vLCFh5Z07u2zOpYxQ/s1600/da+vito.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3pASP9XCrj2V1jFavHtpfeUBq8i9iadjWUTgRrxKt8P1FpPI3o2t_7kJQuZq1rwrmoi75j9P_Om4z1rMSmWZVwYZtlC5068UY9Lxi9EoA3xlW9_4cMcbU_ZrJL3vLCFh5Z07u2zOpYxQ/s1600/da+vito.bmp" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Danny Devito in 'Matilda'</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Imagine for a moment that you want to get a used car. You go down to the lot, but the guy working there creeps you out. He keeps pressuring you, he doesn't seem to be listening to what you want, or what you're willing to trade, he keeps trying to upsell you and manipulate you--so you leave. You go to another lot, and this guy seems a bit better, so you buy a car from him, but then it immediately breaks down, and despite all the promises he made, when you call him about it, he says it's not his problem, and hangs up. Now, this doesn't prove that used cars are necessarily bad (a new car could be just as problematic), or even that you have to be unscrupulous to sell used cars--it just means that the system for how they are sold in America is not especially trustworthy. It has few guarantees, a low overhead, and hence promotes desperate methods from those who choose to do it for a living. Folks unwilling to stoop that low don't last long in the business.<br />
<br />
Now, imagine that used car dealers start showing up while you're at work, and try to sell you a car there. They stop you on the street when you're carrying groceries, <i>"Hey you, let me sell you a car! You know you want one!"</i> They do it when you're out with your family. If you ignore them, or don't respond, or ask to be left alone, they follow you for blocks, yelling about how you're a worthless asshole. You read stories about people who ignore them and get assaulted, or stabbed, or shot. Then, one day, you see a used car dealer outside the window of your house, watching you from the bushes. When realizes he's been noticed, he bolts, dropping a handful loan documents pre-filled with your personal data. In this extended metaphor, Used Cars=Sex, and if we're being cliche, you're a woman.<br />
<br />
Now, most people want sex, and enjoy it when they can get it--but not from people they aren't attracted to, and not from people they feel they can't trust. So, that's the difference between the individual desire (<i>'I think sex is pretty cool'</i>), and the social reality (<i>'The people who keep trying to have sex with me are totally not cool'</i>). And at some point, the social reality can get you so down that your own desire doesn't even seem worth it any more, having to deal with being stalked and cheated and betrayed and then ultimately, <i>not even getting what you wanted, anyways</i>. Might as well just bike. Now, this is an important detail: it's not that the desire ceases to exist, it's just that it becomes too much of a hassle to deal with in everyday life. It's not saying <i>'I don't want a car'</i>, but rather <i>'As much as I want a car, I don't want to deal with all the stuff that goes along with acquiring and maintaining one'</i>.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbJYcrJw0iI7oq0ISiDjpaNTgB5S9BOJRWs6sUhXeDhlvYkM3oGwKCHeJkZF-uI_gd5_-qygkgFJI471pmfsxtIYrq7-h2a2JGmgDfNo0d5nJtAxOvfDKpRJ5FmLN92ACGckyrsvEF9Jk/s1600/Lysistrata-Lindsay.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbJYcrJw0iI7oq0ISiDjpaNTgB5S9BOJRWs6sUhXeDhlvYkM3oGwKCHeJkZF-uI_gd5_-qygkgFJI471pmfsxtIYrq7-h2a2JGmgDfNo0d5nJtAxOvfDKpRJ5FmLN92ACGckyrsvEF9Jk/s1600/Lysistrata-Lindsay.jpg" width="320" /></a>Now, in stereotypical characters, the author often overlays the social reality onto the individual, which is a mistake. It's not that women don't want to have sex, and only 'give in' in order to get other things, as the social myth claims--women want sex just as much as men, it's just that for them, the social reality of sex gets in the way, and makes it difficult to fulfill that desire (which is part of the point, since that structure developed from a social need to control childbirth and parentage). Point being: this is a social structure that is forced onto us, not something intrinsic to men or women.<br />
<br />
In fact, if you look back through history, you'll see that the myth often supported the <i>opposite idea</i>: in ancient Greece, women were thought to be more sexually voracious than men, as shown in the play <i>Lysistrata</i>, where the women threaten to withhold sex from the male populace to force a peace negotiation, and the men all laugh and say the women won't last that long. In Chaucer's time, too, it was thought that the female urge was more insatiable than the man's, and that a man had to be on his guard against the intentions of women. The Victorians also had a variation on the same, but of course covered over with a faux-scientific explanation: that women would 'steal a man's generative energy', tiring and exhausting him with their constant need.<br />
<br />
Of course, social realities do have an effect on the people who have to live under them, but being an individual means that you are more than just a representative of your society. Some things you'll accept, others you'll reject, which is which defines your individual personality. This can also be a problem when an author is trying to depict different races and cultures: do they make all 'Easterners' (<a href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2012/05/29/game-of-thrones-orientalism/">for one common example</a>) share the same assumptions, truths, desires, and fears, or is there room for individuals beneath the banner of any particular culture, as there is in real life?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMu92HW2FW0pdra_z0ylpeekjZVBaLhGVNNBYVv7wtjZSoGAuREI6UTZQfpTNKHo9t1RQ98cVE7d5pZ_Wnl1PiJQmBvDs0J58xSTauF0s9l3IKtRXbu8xnE4_Kk9Ar7zXqVE9JoGLCGxA/s1600/london-cromwell-road-1906-520x770.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMu92HW2FW0pdra_z0ylpeekjZVBaLhGVNNBYVv7wtjZSoGAuREI6UTZQfpTNKHo9t1RQ98cVE7d5pZ_Wnl1PiJQmBvDs0J58xSTauF0s9l3IKtRXbu8xnE4_Kk9Ar7zXqVE9JoGLCGxA/s1600/london-cromwell-road-1906-520x770.jpg" width="216" /></a></div>
So yes, a modern American woman must, to some degree, live beneath the social structure of the 'male sexual threat', whether it means being told <i>'a woman can never be alone on the street at night'</i>, or worrying that if she leaves her drink for a moment, she may be drugged, or accepting a certain level of sexual harassment from teachers, bosses, and clients as inevitable. Yet, the way each individual woman responds to this imposition is going to be different. For some, it will always be a stressor, something she avoids as much as she can. For others, it will be just another facet of life, something she deals with when it comes up, but otherwise doesn't think much about it. Some may also take inspiration from it, and come together with others to speak out and oppose it. Some may try to use the structure to their own advantage. And yes, some will internalize that value for themselves.<br />
<br />
These articles are not about men versus women, and I don't want to give that impression. The point isn't to say that this is the fault of male authors. If women can be just as unique and potent as men, they can also be just as uncreative and normative--just as sexist. Just because a writer is female, that doesn't mean she can write strong female characters, and just because an author is male, it doesn't mean he can't. Women can be chauvinists, and men can be feminists. I've already given some examples of female-made works that fall into these same traps, such as <i>Hunger Games</i> and <i>Brave</i>, and there are many more, like <i>Twilight</i> or most of the Romance genre. The fact that the most prominent female YA authors seem to create empty, cliche main characters and then set them up in a love triangle where they can pick from <a href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2013/06/04/love-triangles-feminism/">two different flavors of emotional abuse</a> demonstrates that men don't have the copyright on weak, insulting female characters--as does the fact that legions of women buy and praise such books--after all, the whole notion of the Mary Sue arose from female <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SelfInsertFic">author-inserts</a> in the first place.<br />
<br />
You hear people talk all the time about how they <i>'don't get the other sex'</i>,
and I'd like to address those people specifically for a moment: that's
crap. It's not the other sex who's a problem, it's you. It's that you
act differently around people when you're trying to get with them. You
know why you can hang with your bff and just talk and its not
awkward? It's not because <i>'bros get each other'</i> or <i>'girls stick together'</i>, it's because there's no
sexual tension to get in the way--you don't enter friendships with the expectation that it's going to lead to bodily fluid stuff.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgT6E6NPiuNmy5g3wTOF8geWegb2mLS-U2hJ1s7JivYVjTeH3rl8rC-Tu8hrcqq1hALWO-Q15vQ6C5y9MVwQnu9NA-sO3etZ_XJyQzvHhIjgEZhIxgFSV1A4AsYvx1wTkdviMM3s1cFYg8/s1600/child4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgT6E6NPiuNmy5g3wTOF8geWegb2mLS-U2hJ1s7JivYVjTeH3rl8rC-Tu8hrcqq1hALWO-Q15vQ6C5y9MVwQnu9NA-sO3etZ_XJyQzvHhIjgEZhIxgFSV1A4AsYvx1wTkdviMM3s1cFYg8/s1600/child4.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>No tension at all . . .</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i>'Ah ha!'</i> I hear you say <i>'But it was still weird and stressful with my significant other even after we got over the sex and were living together!'</i>
Yes, that's because living with a roommate produces its own kind of
constant tension--being together every day, every
hour, dealing with messes and weird habits. The gender difference
is mostly in your head--and its mostly your own fault for acting so weird
around people you're attracted to. Once you recognize that all people
pretty much have the same motivations and desires in life, it should be a
lot easier to step into someone else's shoes. Food, sex, pride, fear,
self-worth--all the same stuff goes on in there--we just have very different ways of dealing with them.<br />
<br />
The problem isn't that 'the opposite sex is confusing and different', the problem is that you're trying to treat all of them as if they're part of some fundamental, unvarying class. It's like saying <i>'Man, I asked my one brown-eyed friend what he wants in life, and he said 'freedom', and then I asked another brown-eye, and they said 'stability'--I mean, it's like their kind don't even know what they want, am I right?'</i> Of course you're going to be confused if you take a bunch completely different people with their own individual personalities, goals, and desires, and then try to make them into a type. It's the same if you're a writer: don't write them like they are fundamentally some different, alien class of people.<br />
<br />
That's why a lot of female authors, despite being women themselves, still struggle to write good female characters, because they're still just overlaying cultural cliches onto their characters instead of giving them personalities--they just fall back on what they think women are <i>supposed</i> to be like, or what they <i>wish</i> men and women were like. Instead of exploring a character, they get lost in their own assumptions and frustrations--which is ironic, because the way to get rid of those frustrations is <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/12/on-escapism.html">not to indulge them by fantasizing</a>, but to meet them head on by exploring what causes them.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4iEq2bT5ODcul7IOGIlgAtqmU85qwRKSZWXpb4_BIOeosP8e9wlHpjrf1YSegK_OqkLPItXx94NJ4VQx9eqc7cP_FasAm_NMn9VkXMMWpa3-o8V-XLK9Lmp5BMYemXpSvJAYiUwqfMu4/s1600/Emmeline_Pankhurst_crowd_NYC.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4iEq2bT5ODcul7IOGIlgAtqmU85qwRKSZWXpb4_BIOeosP8e9wlHpjrf1YSegK_OqkLPItXx94NJ4VQx9eqc7cP_FasAm_NMn9VkXMMWpa3-o8V-XLK9Lmp5BMYemXpSvJAYiUwqfMu4/s1600/Emmeline_Pankhurst_crowd_NYC.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Emily Pankhurst addresses a crowd</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Sure, we all represent the society we came from, in certain very real ways, but we also represent ourselves, and as an author, it's important to recognize the difference between those sides of each character's personality--indeed, for every person who has ever existed, <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/63536846">it is a source of life-long conflict</a>, a back and forth between your responsibility to yourself and your responsibility to your culture. If your character lacks any conflict with the society in which they live, then they lack personality. That's why it's important that we avoid basic cliches of female behavior, and limiting the roles they can take in a story. Take a look at <a href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2010/10/11/female-character-flowchart/">this handy-dandy flow chart</a> of female roles, and maybe it will help you figure out whether your characters are just being slotted into cliche types.<br />
<br />
I didn't expect my exploration would spill out into five posts, but if you aren't already exhausted, please join me next time for (hopefully) the finale: <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/09/writing-strong-women-part-v-where-are.html"><i>Part V: Where are the Strong Women?</i></a>JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-8294149159339417522013-08-28T10:24:00.000-07:002016-10-07T21:21:06.433-07:00Writing Strong Women, Part III: Subtle Inequalities<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_wP9mkHOJcZzEDKACYo0DTkxfH-mjsYMmb3aYu_ZFX3y19XR_AXKyHgsXprNK8dIKBpCUHppKErCfiNkhbduPkLHzkAJgIGeQR62hSRJaw_FdAvjO8K69bvGGjbLf-wXcLZ5c_mSPtJ0/s1600/800px-Hermaphroditus_Louvre_face.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_wP9mkHOJcZzEDKACYo0DTkxfH-mjsYMmb3aYu_ZFX3y19XR_AXKyHgsXprNK8dIKBpCUHppKErCfiNkhbduPkLHzkAJgIGeQR62hSRJaw_FdAvjO8K69bvGGjbLf-wXcLZ5c_mSPtJ0/s1600/800px-Hermaphroditus_Louvre_face.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borghese_Hermaphroditus">'The Monstrosity'</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/08/writing-strong-women-part-ii.html">Last time</a>, I spoke about how our own biases often end up dominating our books if we're not careful to look at what sorts of ideas we're presenting and why. Now, in the least skilled authors, this can be overt--a character might just start ranting about some pet political notion of the author's without cease for pages and pages--but it can also come out in ways that are much harder to recognize, to the point that many readers (and even the author themselves) may not realize what kind of message is actually being sent. Let me demonstrate with a riddle:<br />
<br />
<i>A young boy is wheeled into the hospital, he's unconscious and blood is seeping through his shirt. A doctor runs up and asks "What happened?" The paramedic pushing his gurney says "He was in a car crash, his father died at the scene, and the kid's got a collapsed lung." The doctor then looks down at the and suddenly recoils in shock, then says "I'm sorry, I can't operate on this boy. He's my son."</i><br />
<br />
Get it?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The doctor's a woman. Now maybe you figured it out right away (or had heard it before), but I'm willing to bet that for at least a few of you, there was at least a moment of confusion there.<i> That's</i> how sexism seeps into your story--even if you aren't a chauvinist, even if you're sitting there thinking <i>"Alright, I'm going to write a well-developed, complete female character here, let's go!"</i>--you can still get caught up in assumptions you didn't even realize you were making.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYVZ9EvBZNHesTiWZnFTVvJ0ZTnKOEX1EFR_bZc-1cj-Hgy9HnxBpUjFJ7xRkWdofFwYB3hBQCwg9JB26Y5I1yDu5aVy_h1oRFmkl26FKtELe4vo0lJizGqC9GF7pXqfV_oueSgNr3_mE/s1600/video-game-protagonists-kids-love-brown-haired-30-something-white-males.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYVZ9EvBZNHesTiWZnFTVvJ0ZTnKOEX1EFR_bZc-1cj-Hgy9HnxBpUjFJ7xRkWdofFwYB3hBQCwg9JB26Y5I1yDu5aVy_h1oRFmkl26FKtELe4vo0lJizGqC9GF7pXqfV_oueSgNr3_mE/s1600/video-game-protagonists-kids-love-brown-haired-30-something-white-males.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Hey! It's that guy. I know him.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In gender representation, the most common 'devil in the details' error is the physical descriptions of the characters. I can't tell you how many stories I've read where male characters are scarcely described at all, yet every woman's looks are outlined in minute detail. Once the book is over, you may find that the main male character is <i>still</i> a featureless haze--maybe he has short brown hair and <i>'a compact, well-muscled physique'</i>, but probably no particular eye color. Yet, you can probably recite the exact shade of every woman's eyes--not just 'green', but <i>'a dark, mysterious green'</i>, as well as the length and shininess of her hair, the size of her chest, the quality of her cheekbones, the daintiness of her feet, how luminescent her skin is, and her 'ampleness quotient'.<br />
<br />
In one <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/48178154">supposedly intelligent and sophisticated genre book</a> that came highly-recommended to me, each woman was actually redescribed <i>almost every time she entered a fucking scene!</i> We'll also no doubt be told how her clothes fit--the words 'clinging', 'diaphanous', and 'torn' are likely to make appearances. Now, it's no mystery why this happens: most male authors don't really feel interested in describing all the particulars of their male characters--firstly, they likely aren't that personally invested in the structure of male cheekbones, and secondly, they probably just imagine that he looks like them. Yet the moment these authors start populating their world with pretty girls, they find themselves awash in alluring tones and scents and shapes, and probably don't even recognize the difference it makes on the page--nor indeed might a reader, if they happen to share the same bias.<br />
<br />
Of course, the implication of all these lengthy descriptions is that the value of women is in their looks--the book invites you to ogle them every time they make an appearance, whereas the men are just kind of vague presences lurking about, swinging swords and doing Plot Things--because men are chiefly defined by their actions. Once again, the women are not agents in the story, but objects--pieces of scenery to be admired, won, stolen away, imprisoned, and won back. I guess that 'male gaze' thing wasn't total bunk after all.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoGTWGN4j4p3f4BgpL5B3w8l4AisBRXWTJvLrbQ38VCOqIWZQqpdkIJuYPN0s_F5s_MdReiimmRUtXJYBV8iCV7p7-VSDET1s7OV6iRbIDzoGaxztotfoXQwbha2NaCWy9YpgZ6qW_tz4/s1600/101a0001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoGTWGN4j4p3f4BgpL5B3w8l4AisBRXWTJvLrbQ38VCOqIWZQqpdkIJuYPN0s_F5s_MdReiimmRUtXJYBV8iCV7p7-VSDET1s7OV6iRbIDzoGaxztotfoXQwbha2NaCWy9YpgZ6qW_tz4/s1600/101a0001.jpg" width="247" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Statue from Mussolini's Rule</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
Of course, there are plenty of stories where the male characters are described in great detail, too--but often, not in <i>quite the same way</i> as the women. If the hero is hugely-muscled, with a 'mane' of dark hair, 'savage but intelligent blue eyes', a square jaw, and all the rest--that's just a male power fantasy, not an example of equal objectification. Indeed, such portrayals of the angular, nude male form have since classical times represented an ideal of <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1975/02/06/fascinating-fascism/" target="_blank">fascist, hyper-masculine power</a>. After all, what do superhero comics, pro wrestling, ancient Greek statuary, and fascist art have in common? That's right: hugely muscled, mostly naked dudes and very little female participation. As <a href="http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/">this comic</a> points out, when male characters are actually depicted in a way the average woman finds appealing, it tends to make stereotypical male readers (and writers) very uncomfortable--it's not what appeals to them.<br />
<br />
If the men are giant, awesome, powerful, and capable while the women are pretty, soft, and alluring, that's an imbalance in how the author characterizes gender. He has created a fundamental separation in his mind between different types, which is always unproductive, whether that separation is based on gender, race, class, nationality, faith, or whatever--it's all cultural bias. When an author applies a completely different style, tone, and overall approach to portraying women versus men, the characterization is going to be unbalanced.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9GYK5CBrEO7LDNGa9E-Gbrrfs9kmwtSwaoTV4VHMp-KeaVm6KvTGSIFLyDHvB4dx9xrCV5y2dJtQSz4NBSPr0z6SfQ0TDtAXd8EMVUAG4DP53hhUIyN4nQbHk2vysqANZS7fXa1IdCwU/s1600/beforeandafter1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="235" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9GYK5CBrEO7LDNGa9E-Gbrrfs9kmwtSwaoTV4VHMp-KeaVm6KvTGSIFLyDHvB4dx9xrCV5y2dJtQSz4NBSPr0z6SfQ0TDtAXd8EMVUAG4DP53hhUIyN4nQbHk2vysqANZS7fXa1IdCwU/s1600/beforeandafter1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Skintight Spandex: Not Suggestive Enough</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In a lot of stories through history, ugliness and deformity were used to characterize 'badness'. This is still broadly true for male characters, but recently, for women--good, bad, or somewhere in between--all of them will tend to be attractive. Sure, the bad ones will be 'darkly attractive', and probably a few years older, but by this point, even the ancient witches have mostly turned in their warts and hooked noses for Venice Beach bodies and gallons of mascara. Blame Hollywood, but the result is that there's even less variance in female characters today than there used to be--it seems that the focus on a woman needing to be attractive trumps even the 'ugly bad guy' cliche.<br />
<br />
It's also important to pay attention to where these descriptions are coming from. There's a difference between <i>'She walked into the room. Tom thought to himself 'She's very pretty, in a prissy sort of way'.'</i> and <i>'She walked into the room. She was very pretty, in a prissy sort of way.'</i> When a certain character has a bias, that's just the character. When <i>every</i> observer in the story shows the same bias, that's the start of a problem. When the <i>narration itself</i> speaks with bias, then we're in real trouble.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting things about Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan the Barbarian, is how careful he was to keep opinions in the mouths of the characters. Sure, there's racism and sexism in his stories, but it isn't coming from the voice-on-high of the author, it's the observations and opinions of individuals in the story. This is an important distinction--it's the difference between exploring bigoted characters, and the book itself promoting bigotry. It also makes his approach <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/133988083">rather more subtle and complex</a> than most of his followers, who have done everything they can to turn Conan into just another cliche of gender imbalance--except, somewhat surprisingly, for <a href="http://www.overthinkingit.com/2011/08/10/conan-the-liberal/">the original film</a> and Kurt Busiek's comics.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivyuPO8ThbK2PJ3kRl-hEMRrYshfrP066X7MOBndI3TmjB0efCafk0XJPn3HBZX6TPoT-ctXVUWI-qxH7g-IRYTeP5m1pSubrc9oL8_Vx1VKtp1bEVgujsMZAWyRVwHWCpfUK5vrKNgbk/s1600/ts_poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivyuPO8ThbK2PJ3kRl-hEMRrYshfrP066X7MOBndI3TmjB0efCafk0XJPn3HBZX6TPoT-ctXVUWI-qxH7g-IRYTeP5m1pSubrc9oL8_Vx1VKtp1bEVgujsMZAWyRVwHWCpfUK5vrKNgbk/s1600/ts_poster.jpg" width="207" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This artificial separation in how different groups of characters are portrayed applies not only to their appearance, but also to behavior. Robert Jordan is notorious for having all his women speak in the same way, and for them to all share the same general personality (not coincidentally, it's the same 'stubborn shrew' we discussed last time). Having all women speak and act in the same way reduces them from individual characters to a 'type', which makes them come off as flat--and again, its implying that the chief thing that defines their identity is their femininity.<br />
<br />
This doesn't mean that we cannot represent a culture where there are differences in how men and women are socialized--every culture has its own version of 'pink horses versus baseball and firetrucks' that it tries to foist on kids, but remember: socialization is not perfect. Even if a culture were dead-set on all women being compliant slaves, a lot of them would resist that, and even those who didn't would still have unique and varying personalities beneath that cultural mantle. 'Incompetent shrew' is not a cultural trait, it's one character's personality. Filling a world with airheaded bimbos or mighty amazon women or shy dorkettes is just as nonsensical. Different characters need different personalities--that's what makes them interesting, and what makes the story dynamic.<br />
<br />
But it's not just about appearance, or about behavior, but how the story treats the characters--does <i>it</i> approach men and women in fundamentally different ways? As I mentioned before, unequal representations are rarely planned out beforehand by authors, rather they are the result of some unquestioned bias--and when we're talking gender, the place that bias is most likely to show itself is in depictions of carnal acts.<br />
<br />
Just as a straight male author is more likely to describe an attractive female character at length, so the situations that they put men and women in tend to conform to the author's preferences for what they would like to see. The most obvious example of this is all the ridiculous fetishism one tends to see in genre fiction, whether it's bondage or S&M or spankings--and by all means, if you want to write porn, write porn, but know that making all the women into vehicles for some very specific sexual kink will inevitably transform them into an indistinguishable type.<br />
<br />
What's worse is authors who try to excuse their fetish-wanking as 'realism'--yes, having sex in a story is realistic, having sexual assault and homosexuality is realistic--overlaying your own preferences over the world is <i>not</i> realistic. That's how you get stories where there are bunches of girl-on-girl scenes (because 'that's hot'), but no examples mutual male desire (because 'that's gross'). Often, such stories will feature only 'lipstick lesbians': pretty, stereotypically feminine girls who end up falling for the hero--because it turns out the sole reason they were with other girls in the first place is because no 'real man' ever came along. Instead of actually giving female characters sexual preferences and a sexual identity, the author just plugs them into a cliche setup more suited to pornography--and not even <a href="http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/2007/01/14/bog-venus-vs-nazi-cock-ring/"><i>good</i> pornography</a>.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij_V3He43tJq15ULg3NLdcZ919Y7xXqCWxJFArV7_zJCzogXdbQhslTqfoEUTInmIL9H0gnWQCy5aStbWd7qXKXcOvqMlWRnv80dJSNh1SLiVRO-hTw6eBJ2WPdqGOwSJyMEvUYMDrFBw/s1600/Dirk-Bogarde-in-Death-in--006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij_V3He43tJq15ULg3NLdcZ919Y7xXqCWxJFArV7_zJCzogXdbQhslTqfoEUTInmIL9H0gnWQCy5aStbWd7qXKXcOvqMlWRnv80dJSNh1SLiVRO-hTw6eBJ2WPdqGOwSJyMEvUYMDrFBw/s1600/Dirk-Bogarde-in-Death-in--006.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Death in Venice, 1971</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Then you get examples like <i>The Game of Thrones,</i> where the wall-to-wall rape is painted by the fans as an example of a <i>'realistically gritty medieval world'</i>--which it turns out not to be, when you actually look at it, because <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/03/rape-james-bond">all the sexual violence is pointed squarely at women</a>. Sure, this is definitely something women have had to deal with, but in the real world of war and death and awful things, guys get raped too, especially young guys--hell, there were whole cultures where young men were considered <i>more</i> sexually appealing than women (usually the very same mighty warrior cultures that inspired fantasy heroes, from Spartans to samurai). Though there are a lot of stories out there where every female character will be at menaced with sexual violence at some point, the same thing will almost never be leveled at men--not even as a threat. All this despite the fact that <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/20/victims-of-sex-assaults-in-military-are-mostly-sil/?page=all" target="_blank">many more men get raped during war than women</a>. Sure, the author put dark themes into their 'gritty epic', but only the sexy, non-subversive ones--only the ones they happen to get off on.<br />
<br />
It's fine to have individual characters who treat women differently, or a culture that has different values for men and women, but there should never be an inflexible bias of the <i>whole world</i>, a bias built into the very fabric of the narration itself--especially when its only there to cover things the author isn't mature enough to deal with in the text. That's not realism, it's just prejudice.<br />
<br />
Please join me next time, when I'll be discussing the all-important relationship between the character and the human world in which they live, in <i><a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/09/writing-strong-women-part-iv-individual.html">Part IV: The Individual and Her Society</a>.</i> JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-36613769984901948492013-08-21T13:55:00.002-07:002016-10-07T21:10:55.187-07:00Writing Strong Women, Part II: Independence in Action<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_v26xxEgVBUFZedCAkdXUrpfFQtTk3xv6DC4T1fJsHJ7rkDW0fundJSAqN9_3AzGHEFf3utwCiVVDgGFW4vXQVkZOPWaL4m001J1DSpVd23e691q3pV3NuwNEElazMemw1GgBlaPCN8Q/s1600/Joseph-Sheridan-le-fanu-Carmilla1-288x199.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_v26xxEgVBUFZedCAkdXUrpfFQtTk3xv6DC4T1fJsHJ7rkDW0fundJSAqN9_3AzGHEFf3utwCiVVDgGFW4vXQVkZOPWaL4m001J1DSpVd23e691q3pV3NuwNEElazMemw1GgBlaPCN8Q/s1600/Joseph-Sheridan-le-fanu-Carmilla1-288x199.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Madonna, Whore, and Man in Le Fanu's 'Carmilla'</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/08/writing-strong-women-part-i-how-it-all.html">last time</a>, we talked about all the different things authors try to do to convince us that they've written a strong female character--despite the fact that such details have nothing to do with whether the character is strong or weak. What truly makes a character weak is when their actions and motivations are defined solely in terms of their relationship to other characters in the story--in the case of a weak woman, this often means that she is reliant upon the main character, who is male.<br />
<br />
Women are impressed and intrigued by him, they follow him around, they arch their eyebrows at his quips. They get captured by the villain to provide something for him to do. Perhaps they come into conflict with each another over him, forming a love triangle, or some more complex polyhedron. Then, they sit back and wait for him to decide which one he wants to be with.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Of the stereotypes we discussed before, the Madonna always trumps the Whore--<span dir="auto">the <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FemmeFatale"><i>femme fatale</i></a> always dies, the <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FinalGirl">final girl</a> always lives, Éponine</span> gets shoved aside for Cosette, and Arwen takes the prize over Eowyn. If you're wondering what makes Arwen the Madonna, it's her sacred, distant, mystical elf nature, while Eowyn's masculine notions of being a warrior sully her pure womanliness. Of course, I'm talking about the books--in the movies, both women get swords, in an attempt to make Arwen's distant passivity (which is now a somewhat passe cliche of womanhood) seem less like bland weakness.<br />
<br />
What's particularly telling is how women fall for the protagonist <a href="http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php/index.php?id=311" target="_blank">even when he's a dull ass</a>--either because the author is playing out his own fantasy of beautiful women fighting over an awkward weirdo, or because his male characters don't have any more depth than his women. In particularly bad cases, every woman who shows up becomes a love interest (except for the ugly witch, of course). We call this a 'harem story', and in anime, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harem_%28genre%29">it forms an entire subgenre</a> of works about boring men and the women who inexplicably desire them.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq0cQJM22aQX9dc056wDJqSckZpiW_33vqp8eash-Wcphsz-JDcXZtLcPlxx1kl49JtHaROj-AcG343CyqA0w8or0E8tCETLFk5OuOFZy2ZVHWCxZPx8UUhyqcr3XFEwD8DFAM49KQT5Q/s1600/!B1usrGwCWk~$(KGrHqN,!i0E)sQjrKIdBMfpz9ZjZw~~_12.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiq0cQJM22aQX9dc056wDJqSckZpiW_33vqp8eash-Wcphsz-JDcXZtLcPlxx1kl49JtHaROj-AcG343CyqA0w8or0E8tCETLFk5OuOFZy2ZVHWCxZPx8UUhyqcr3XFEwD8DFAM49KQT5Q/s1600/!B1usrGwCWk~$(KGrHqN,!i0E)sQjrKIdBMfpz9ZjZw~~_12.jpg" width="205" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>"What do <b>you</b> want to talk about?"</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Of course, this isn't to say that we should avoid romances, or love triangles or other such entanglements in our stories--the real question is: do these women have a life outside of enticing (and being enticed by) men? I'm not talking about hobbies or skills, but <i>actual personal motives</i>: a sense of morality, a unique view of the world--an internal life that isn't dependent on the whims of some other character. When two women in the story are alone, what do they talk about? Is it their relationship to male characters in the story? That's part of the question asked by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test">The Bechdel Test</a>, one way of trying to determine if female characters in a story actually have personalities:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>At some point in the story, do two women talk to each other about a subject other than a male character?</i></blockquote>
Of course, this need not be a strict guideline for writers, nor is it necessary in order to write a strong female character--but it does help to reveal how the relationships between women are shown (or not shown) in a given story--and also brings up the question of those women's interior lives, their desires and motivations. What are a female character's interests outside of the hero, his quest, and the villain? What was she doing with her life before the hero showed up? Did she just give up all her former desires when they met? What does she do when he isn't around to give her narrative purpose?<br />
<br />
This kind of dependency can exist even for women characters in positions of power. Imagine a female villain: she wants to humiliate the hero, to destroy him, to hurt those he loves, to fill his life with pain--now, what is central to all her goals? That's right: the hero. Putting 'world domination' on top of this as some kind of excuse doesn't fix it, either--not only is it a flat, empty motivation that only serves as a convenience for the author, but the fact that the hero is the only one who can oppose her means that all her focus just shifts back onto him, anyway.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdLMx-g6_OTijNK8_8W7GlQr-Rz1j3qPZnX06nnw8SF9LZHNL2szppCq3nW9NKh3X-LH4fKaT_LJ8X8pXFDa5SuFIdu4XzfZFngyQ3jf9_RyZV-qCsBShUIfo88dGqMTEMAR14o4iFB-U/s1600/she003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdLMx-g6_OTijNK8_8W7GlQr-Rz1j3qPZnX06nnw8SF9LZHNL2szppCq3nW9NKh3X-LH4fKaT_LJ8X8pXFDa5SuFIdu4XzfZFngyQ3jf9_RyZV-qCsBShUIfo88dGqMTEMAR14o4iFB-U/s1600/she003.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>"She who must be obeyed."</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Add to this the fact that she probably carries a secret flame for the dolt, and she's doubly-defined by him. Hell, she'll might even defect at some point and give up all her dreams of power and glory just to be with him--but since her villainous ways tend to put her on the 'whore' end of the scale, she won't get to become a real love interest--either she'll die saving his life, or the author will 'gift her' to one of the hero's friends.<br />
<br />
Because, of course <a href="http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html">women are prizes given out to heroes</a> for finishing their quest. It's one of the most basic structures in our stories, so much so that it tends to be taken for granted. <i>Of course</i> the hero ends up with the girl--we never question it, even if the author never actual bothered to develop any kind of emotional relationship between them.<br />
<br />
So, if a weak character is one whose life is defined by others, then a strong character must not be externally defined. They must instead be 'active'--or as literary folk say, they must 'have agency', which is a big enough topic that it deserves its own post. For now, there's one basic question to consider: is the character acting, or only reacting? Is the course of her life defined by decisions she's made, or do the events of the world simply carry her away?<br />
<br />
You see stories all the time where the main character has almost no choice in what they do: they're blackmailed, their friends are kidnaped, they're forced to act at gunpoint, they're imprisoned, and only break out when another inmate shares a secret plan, then some wise man figure arrives and tells them what's <i>really</i> going on, and any time they're about to be killed, a new character shows up at the perfect moment and saves them--at every turn, someone either tells her what to do next, or just pushes her out of the limelight and does it for her.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPo64oJlXqnGXm4P1DyYLBOotwMMj-IIBVVJhkhjAY6I0nMKjnzIvrCoqK3Ixuo2EKSMMY13-3UCPPAElpAJWxky23V1ihaJfnRrw432NudTnLWAtH9GPC8u48wOlBrhc1S2Btr-JeOIg/s1600/Sarah_connor_05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPo64oJlXqnGXm4P1DyYLBOotwMMj-IIBVVJhkhjAY6I0nMKjnzIvrCoqK3Ixuo2EKSMMY13-3UCPPAElpAJWxky23V1ihaJfnRrw432NudTnLWAtH9GPC8u48wOlBrhc1S2Btr-JeOIg/s1600/Sarah_connor_05.jpg" width="218" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Sarah Connor of 'The Terminator'</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In such a plot, the character has no personal goals beyond generic self-preservation, which is an avoidant goal, not an active one: the character only acts when forced, and only does what they have to do to survive. This means their only presence in the plot is reacting to threats. It's also the most universal and prevalent motivation in human beings, so it doesn't really confer much strength or personality. Pretty much anyone in the same position would act in the same way.<br />
<br />
Instead of this bland motivation, she might make sacrifices for what she believes in--or even wimp out and fail to do the hard thing. Both make for a stronger sense of personality than just following an inflexible plot. Or the character could be working toward some personal goal which is constantly made more difficult by the challenges that come up. It's the difference between things just happening to the character, and things happening because of the situations the character puts themselves into.<br />
<br />
A good example of how to separate active from passive characters is <a href="http://crimitism.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/is-anna-valarious-the-worst/">this analysis</a> of the main female character from the movie <i>Van Helsing</i>. Though she is supposed to be strong and butt-kicking, when you actually review her actions throughout the story, it becomes clear that agency is denied to her, again and again. She must be saved and corrected at every turn. In the end, if the hero hadn't been there, she would have been dead a half-dozen times over, and mostly due to her own incompetence. Though she may sometimes be allowed to act, her actions are never the right ones, and she is always corrected by the superior male hero.<br />
<br />
With female characters like this, who are defined by the actions of a man, he'll be the one making the decisions--the plot moves at his behest, and everyone else moves along with him. The 'Damsel in Distress' is a classic example of a passive character defined by the actions of another, and this is precisely the fate that waits in store for many supposedly-strong female characters: despite all their muscle, their stubborn temperament, their bow, and their bravery, they end up incapacitated or jailed by some guy, and then just wait around until they're rescued by another.<br />
<br />
Another problem is that trying to make a passive character strong often results in jerks, as we discussed of the character Merida in <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/08/writing-strong-women-part-i-how-it-all.html"><i>Part I</i></a>. Giving a woman strong opinions without giving her the agency to back them up leaves her hollow. After all, there are few things more annoying than the whiny, shrewish person who tells everyone else what to do, then never does anything, themselves. Anna from Van Helsing has this problem: she bickers with the hero constantly, but since he's always shown
to be right, it's clear that she has no idea what she's talking about--an argumentative fool is not a character who the reader is going to take seriously--a male character who behaves this way will almost always be killed later (or nearly killed) to prove that point.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9iiYAdKfsx31r2CxaCNkJv2vZzZPuP84nmOSK3_o5nMO-3uU2Ri-iefB3cGUxB9j5FDC9GcQDOo1cSOkSmcHK0YiXOKXGlmS-jVgJfl6SgtSB-ZxM-DpuGLapVcRtaxHbYe4l5ouqmvk/s1600/kissmedeadly.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9iiYAdKfsx31r2CxaCNkJv2vZzZPuP84nmOSK3_o5nMO-3uU2Ri-iefB3cGUxB9j5FDC9GcQDOo1cSOkSmcHK0YiXOKXGlmS-jVgJfl6SgtSB-ZxM-DpuGLapVcRtaxHbYe4l5ouqmvk/s1600/kissmedeadly.jpg" width="280" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>'Kiss Me Deadly'</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
For a false 'strong woman' stereotype like this, she often starts out disliking the hero, mocking and teasing him, saying she doesn't need him, but slowly growing to appreciate him, over time--after all, he does all the cool, important stuff, while she's relegated to little more than a passive sidekick, and all of her protests that she can 'do it herself' will be quickly disproven when he's forced to save her from her own stupidity. In more badly-written stories, there is no 'gradual dawning of feeling' at all--she'll just suddenly start spouting love for him out of nowhere. This is representative of another type of chauvinistic obsession: instead of the dull, pure, airheaded virgin who sweetly falls for the hero, we get a difficult, resistant woman whom the hero has to 'defeat', forcing her to love him against her will--the old cliche of the woman who slaps the hero for coming onto her, struggles in his arms as he kisses her, but then gradually gives in, quite literally unable to resist his rough advances.<br />
<br />
The idea is that the more she resists the man, the sweeter his victory, because a girl who gives in easily isn't 'worth it'--after all, only a whore gives it up without a fight. It's the same creepy 'no means yes' idiocy which causes the stupidest of men to harass, stalk, or even assault women, because no matter what she says or does, how she resists or fends him off, nothing will stop him from believing that she secretly 'wants it'--which, quite frankly, I find rather sickening.<br />
<br />
Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't depict relationships that start out rough and turn out well--or that we shouldn't include chauvinist characters. The real question is whether or not our story goes out of its way to <i>excuse or justify </i>such behaviors. The treatment of ideas and themes in our writing, as explored through the structure of our plot and the personalities of our characters is vital to how our stories turn out--whether they are thoughtful or insulting--but that is another topic.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; height: 296px; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left; width: 269px;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYvX1m-N5PVpStFMz7MPeBiIxYTo6TQteG5Qz0xcb4iqiXmOe6zgMvDh2nNHUrfVwAI02C0T3ppP_6ET6fntbE1gCMQpOxoy1Ka7rDsO1keMVfnPy9VSne49ddMeAkMYIRW5g98K2EqoU/s1600/kate_beaton_velocipede.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYvX1m-N5PVpStFMz7MPeBiIxYTo6TQteG5Qz0xcb4iqiXmOe6zgMvDh2nNHUrfVwAI02C0T3ppP_6ET6fntbE1gCMQpOxoy1Ka7rDsO1keMVfnPy9VSne49ddMeAkMYIRW5g98K2EqoU/s320/kate_beaton_velocipede.png" width="312" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Kate Beaton's <a href="http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=331">Velocipedestrienne</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
For now, suffice it to say that our characters, their relationships, and our plot <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2015/07/exploring-ideas-through-fiction.html" target="_blank">always have themes</a>--things like hope, friendship, betrayal, faith, rationality, poverty, tyranny. Those themes will be there, whether we put them there purposefully or not, and I think it's much better for us to recognize them, and work to decide which themes we want to present, and how, rather than just let them fall where they may. It is only by paying careful attention that we can recognize our own prejudices, and avoid letting them dominate our writing.<br />
<br />
If every religious character is a jerk, and every scientific-minded character a paragon of humanity, that's a book that has been stretched too thin by its bias, leaving no room for characters with any depth. The ability to write different types of characters who disagree with each other without turning the 'bad' ones into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Examples">straw men</a> and the 'good' ones into <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AuthorFilibuster">authorial stand-ins</a> is called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability">'Negative Capability'</a>. The difference in how various characters are portrayed can reveal not only political, cultural, and spiritual biases, but also gender bias. Such little details of characterization often pass beneath the notice of a reader who isn't looking for them--many writers don't even realize the implications they sow so deeply into their stories. We'll talk about how to ferret out those discrepancies in <i><a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/08/writing-strong-women-part-iii-subtle.html">Part III: Subtle Inequalities</a>.</i>JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-50815459201194250102013-08-14T11:16:00.000-07:002016-10-07T21:00:22.291-07:00Writing Strong Women, Part I: How It All Goes Wrong<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeZg-McDj5lyYb1rWyyKF0J33VmFnLmKwQkWRSreHX0NCONPGME9445o5fJeZiypU5gzdyeUceAeHLwjAllXfihhEZaAJYqydqGPVTvTcqKCG0i8Np3nGqEZZXj6fIku8shMy1xkY7zeM/s1600/p333.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeZg-McDj5lyYb1rWyyKF0J33VmFnLmKwQkWRSreHX0NCONPGME9445o5fJeZiypU5gzdyeUceAeHLwjAllXfihhEZaAJYqydqGPVTvTcqKCG0i8Np3nGqEZZXj6fIku8shMy1xkY7zeM/s1600/p333.png" width="221" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Bradamante, as depicted by H.J. Ford</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I think I've had to mention the problematic depiction of gender in at least half the fantasies I've reviewed. It's either a manly power fantasy where women are secondary objects of desire, or a pink-glittered melodrama about psychic unicorns, brooding prettyboys, and angst.<br />
<br />
And yet, until someone asked me flat out why I hadn't written about it, I never really considered it as a topic. I had just been assuming that either people had an inherent respect and understanding of other people, or they didn't--and that nothing I said was going to make much of a difference in that. After all, plenty of fantasy authors are deeply invested in misogyny--they <i>want</i> to write books where women are toys and objects--the most egregious example being <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/42297668">Gor</a>, though it's hardly the only one.<br />
<br />
But then, there are other authors who are clearly trying to write women as strong, independent characters, but just absolutely failing. Why this happens is a much more intriguing question for us to explore than why some people are insecure chauvinists--and it also might highlight a few bad habits that we can look out for in our own writing.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
One of the first mistakes a lot of authors make is equating 'strong' with 'masculine'. Being capable with a sword <i>does</i> fall under one definition of 'strength'--but pure muscle isn't what we're talking about when we say 'a strong character'--despite the many authors who seem to think that if you <a href="http://repair-her-armor.tumblr.com/">throw on a chainmaile bikini</a> and spatter her with blood, the reader will have no choice but to take her seriously.<br />
<br />
Likewise, when we say 'a weak character', we don't mean he can't open a pickle jar, we mean he lacks strength of personality. A physically weak character can still be a powerful, consequential presence in a story--think of Gaius Baltar in <i>Battlestar Galactica</i>, who is an inveterate coward, but probably the most intriguing character in the series. Likewise, a character can be a musclebound killing machine and still be little more than an empty shell, in terms of personality--as all too many fantasy heroes demonstrate.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivJ_DxX2bIjEUlAQTIgnrdIYuP_cfaK_7NdPildFGNSWcH3DW91LHvuoOyxdarXO-i_I3pTB3l8D9EBI96AOYPNuWiPtsnu15hE_EnErr-X7F1IahOTD__TOY80vIyWUQ4jpLfcAAwBG0/s1600/04279219ee8532acfa47138b62881e2d.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivJ_DxX2bIjEUlAQTIgnrdIYuP_cfaK_7NdPildFGNSWcH3DW91LHvuoOyxdarXO-i_I3pTB3l8D9EBI96AOYPNuWiPtsnu15hE_EnErr-X7F1IahOTD__TOY80vIyWUQ4jpLfcAAwBG0/s1600/04279219ee8532acfa47138b62881e2d.jpg" width="238" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Red Sonja by Cary Nord</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A character can also be strong even if they are in a weak position--indeed, what more opportune moment for their strength to show through than when they are trapped, up against the wall, their freedom and choice ripped away by some domineering power? In that dire moment, what will they do, give in, or persevere? Will they maintain some autonomy even in the face of overwhelming force, however minute? A character can even lose and remain strong, if they fought to the end, or sacrificed themselves to something more important--or just stayed true to who they were.<br />
<br />
A princess can be strong--even if she's not allowed to make her own choices, even if she is married off and shuffled around against her own will. The defining trait here is that she has to <i>actually have some will</i> for others to disregard--some consistent desire within that governs her behavior, even when things don't go her way. A character is not their role. A princess can be a strong character, and a soldier can be a weak character. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard someone claim that a female character was strong because she was a soldier--that's her job, not her character, and the two should not be confused.<br />
<br />
Can a male soldier be a weak character? Of course. So, why should a female soldier be any different? Once again, it's a confusion between a masculine role and actual strength. It's also pretty insulting, because it carries the tacit assumption that being a man, and doing male things, somehow makes you an interesting character--and so the only way for a female character to be important is to imitate masculinity. That's why you get teams of characters in which <i>'he's the leader, he's the strong one, he's the smart one, and she's the chick'</i>. All the men get an individual character trait, whereas the woman is defined by the fact that she's a woman. All the female soldier is allowed to aspire to is being as good as the average man. It's like having a Black character and saying <i>'oh, he's complex because he's well-spoken'</i>--it's a demeaning capitulation to stereotype.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgvLJWNvkzoT2pdQNZq-B5szLSDHNhUkruLoHZxpTfxB8uUnkUSAUMRCYQi0S_7uD60-Wi1e3CpjbgAhVOckzyuHs7GGV_4_3-SFT3Z7x7ICEpxBnkhpCarkgeNlP7jHQJ8037I1GpM34/s1600/479973_481876035184616_675006648_n.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgvLJWNvkzoT2pdQNZq-B5szLSDHNhUkruLoHZxpTfxB8uUnkUSAUMRCYQi0S_7uD60-Wi1e3CpjbgAhVOckzyuHs7GGV_4_3-SFT3Z7x7ICEpxBnkhpCarkgeNlP7jHQJ8037I1GpM34/s1600/479973_481876035184616_675006648_n.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Walt Disney's Mulan</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It's also not about her appearance. A woman being
attractive, or stereotypically feminine does not make her weak--because
being a woman <i>is not a weakness</i>. Depicting your woman soldier as tall, muscled,
flat-chested, scarred, unattractive, and rocking a crew cut does not make her strong--just as dressing someone in a black trenchcoat does not make them a badass. Desexualizing her, either through her appearance, or her character, is not a solution. It's either another case of defeminizing, or playing into the Madonna/Whore complex, where a woman who refrains from sex is seen to have the strength of 'virtue' (a word which literally translates to 'manliness')--and of course, making her sex-crazed is just playing into the same set of expectations: that a woman's personality is defined by what does or does not penetrate her.<br />
<br />
Likewise, the woman soldier quickly becomes its own flat cliche, because it has no real basis, it's just saying <i>'well, women have historically been X, so I'll make her Y instead'</i>--and contrarianism is <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/01/originality-and-fount-of-inspiration.html">not originality</a>. Without a strong conceptual basis behind the character, she's never going to be anything more than a placeholder in the story. But then, a conceptual basis is not always a solution, either.<br />
<br />
Even though women had a rather tough time of it in many cultures throughout history, that doesn't mean there weren't strong women in those lands and time periods. It's easy to point at real figures like Boudica, as well as fictional characters like Bradamante, but once again, we have to remind ourselves it wasn't the sword that made them strong. Cleopatra didn't need a sword to get things done, nor did Queen Elizabeth--nor, for fictional examples, did Lady Macbeth or Circe.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm9BTr7wVZOn-xHK49Aig-iulfPZcL49pGqRzmlbKD0mjKTjK-Z5gZM-Lk-KHbRMg5jvfzWPRu7aoAUqW76Zhm866AWwcagPfeZTLXBUlh2p9y9FXKFD1pSNCSzL86l1ByO2dS1AYUsUE/s1600/230px-Nofretete_Neues_Museum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm9BTr7wVZOn-xHK49Aig-iulfPZcL49pGqRzmlbKD0mjKTjK-Z5gZM-Lk-KHbRMg5jvfzWPRu7aoAUqW76Zhm866AWwcagPfeZTLXBUlh2p9y9FXKFD1pSNCSzL86l1ByO2dS1AYUsUE/s1600/230px-Nofretete_Neues_Museum.jpg" width="218" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Bust of Nefertiti</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It's not about forbidding authors from having misogynistic characters in their books, or saying they shouldn't write a world where men have power and women don't, or from ever depicting rape--these things are a part of human culture, and so they should be explored in our stories. Their presence does not diminish female characters. Every strong character needs challenges to overcome, and a strong woman in a patriarchal culture is going to have a lot of challenges to test her. Indeed, one of the best ways to take down something like misogyny is to depict it in all its ugliness.<br />
<br />
It's important to have strong women characters not only in earlier periods, but <i>of</i> those periods--characters who make sense in the context of their culture, who were shaped by the experiences and upbringing they lived through in that culture. This makes it doubly unfortunate when so many authors writing in historical or invented worlds just end up shoving modern feminist rhetoric into their characters' mouths, even when it makes no sense. A Medieval nun has never taken a Women's Studies class--she has never heard of hegemony or Gloria Steinem, so her ideas about gender roles are going to be very different from those of a college freshman--but that doesn't mean our nun has to accept every cultural stereotype. Neither <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margery_Kempe">Margery Kempe</a> nor the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wife_of_Bath%27s_Tale">Wife of Bath</a> was a third-wave feminist, but they still showed how it was possible to confound societal expectation and live your own life, even as a woman of the 14th Century.<br />
<br />
A female character can be strong without spouting cliches about equality--indeed, she can remain strong <i>even as she confirms the status quo</i>. A female character can declare that she thinks the woman's place is the home, and that her role is to support her husband--but if she defends these ideals with will and decisiveness, then clearly, she possesses inner strength and purpose.<br />
<br />
However, it is not enough for her merely to be stubborn and shrewish at every turn--the stubborn shrew is its own flat cliche of womanhood, after all--as is the 'ice queen'. Making a character contradictory and argumentative is <i>not</i> the same as making her strong--indeed, it often makes her come off as whining, sniveling, and unpleasant. There needs to be some driving motivation beneath her words that gives her stubbornness a purpose. There must be a genuine conflict between her and the characters she disagrees with--something substantial that she is fighting for.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijAKja_35oa7DjYD3CxPjvCUkeXhFxDlwbF9EuYVP_1H5gQGQD3H_E2eQrQmg-r5gPio0UEXwVOPZSsyQ0AP05qnnJJJigmuMphvgK_7o97eYi4m6mUIdERE49ul_8ZiIbKHkdZu2wnBQ/s1600/brave-movie-poster-2012-1020750699.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijAKja_35oa7DjYD3CxPjvCUkeXhFxDlwbF9EuYVP_1H5gQGQD3H_E2eQrQmg-r5gPio0UEXwVOPZSsyQ0AP05qnnJJJigmuMphvgK_7o97eYi4m6mUIdERE49ul_8ZiIbKHkdZu2wnBQ/s1600/brave-movie-poster-2012-1020750699.jpg" width="219" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Brave enough to endanger your family?</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the Disney/Pixar film <i>Brave</i>, the main character, Merida, is in the cliche princess conundrum: she doesn't want to do what her parents say, and marry some suitor, she wants her freedom. Yet that freedom hurts her family, and her whole clan. It places them in a dangerous position, where they might be attacked or starve. It's not as if she's trying to alleviate this in other ways--she's good with a bow, but she doesn't seem to be bringing home food for the clan, or defending it against outsiders, or being a leader in some other way.<br />
<br />
She doesn't have a good, defensible reason to motivate her--she just wants her freedom so she can play in the woods, like a child--and she's willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of everyone else in order to enjoy her little game. It's not really surprising that, in some foreign markets where community is prized over the needs of the individual, moviegoers hated her. In trying to make her strong, the writers accidentally made her into a villain: someone who doesn't care who else gets hurt, as long as they get to do what they want all of the time--but she has a bow, so she must be a strong woman character, right? It certainly seemed to fool people into thinking Katniss wasn't <a href="http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/04/whats_wrong_with_the_hunger_ga_1.html">just another sexist cliche</a>.<br />
<br />
If being a strong character doesn't mean being physically powerful, it also doesn't mean being in a position of political or social power. One year, when I was working as an actor at a renaissance festival, some friends came out to see me, and when they saw the queen and the court, they asked how long you had to work there before you were allowed to play the queen. It took a while for me to explain that the queen is just another role--no more important than a miller or a beggar--and that it doesn't require seniority. In fact, I know a lot of very experienced actors who prefer to play beggars, because it allows you to have a much more vivid, intriguing character. Really, as royalty you mostly just end up being a photo op--not a very challenging or interesting role.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLWD938fNmzuSCE9oHnij8NCdjRU4xX5V6v4fBgwr2F9xt6OIAB2NM8mxuZAeuS9tYz1trWNEkfxxQA_vPkbCXL5w-ZcmhOeeGujCQNJKrTz78RWsX0WCUxA4u6cyhdQlrMGx18QXTe2s/s1600/Hank.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLWD938fNmzuSCE9oHnij8NCdjRU4xX5V6v4fBgwr2F9xt6OIAB2NM8mxuZAeuS9tYz1trWNEkfxxQA_vPkbCXL5w-ZcmhOeeGujCQNJKrTz78RWsX0WCUxA4u6cyhdQlrMGx18QXTe2s/s1600/Hank.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>King of the Hill</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There is a weird thing I've noticed in a few in sitcoms, when they show a renaissance festival, where the king is also the owner, or has some kind of real power--that isn't how it works. That's like assuming that the guy playing the president in a movie must also be the director--yet we do thoughtlessly make these assumptions that role and personality must go hand-in-hand.<br />
<br />
Yet in life, or in any story, a lowly slave can be a fascinating, complex character with strong motivations. Simply making a woman a queen or a general or whatever does not automatically turn her into an interesting character. After all, there have been plenty of incompetent, ineffectual, dull people who found themselves in positions of power throughout history.<br />
<br />
Women also don't need 'equal screen time'--this is not a call for affirmative action, or for the inclusion of more female characters. You could have a story that featured nothing but women, but if they are all flat cliches, the problem remains. Conversely, you could have a story where nearly all the characters are male, with only one female character appearing for a single chapter--but if she's fully-developed, complex, and has her own desires and motivations, then that's still a balanced portrayal in terms of depth of character.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
It's also not enough to have other characters talk about how competent and willful she is--or even worse, to have the narration simply tell us that she's strong. Firstly, you should <i>never</i> have the narration or characters sitting around telling us what the other characters in the story are like. You have to show who they are by what they say, and by what they do. Secondly, if you spend all that time trying to convince us she's strong, only to demonstrate through her words and actions that she's <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FauxActionGirl">anything but</a>, you've just made it clear to the reader that you have no idea how to write.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzVLCZC4HRraj6Zfn21RXHFp-yoqZ6tL-kwjPVILVtqxMAWx7iDEMC9sXegSLp9astEc_Y3OTwYweevVs0fVLG3kHfh9iYfdJ7UH7tiVvtIyBj21cyCDnTbE7XCarLOs9MLFg1IC0QLwk/s1600/dredd-ma-ma.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzVLCZC4HRraj6Zfn21RXHFp-yoqZ6tL-kwjPVILVtqxMAWx7iDEMC9sXegSLp9astEc_Y3OTwYweevVs0fVLG3kHfh9iYfdJ7UH7tiVvtIyBj21cyCDnTbE7XCarLOs9MLFg1IC0QLwk/s320/dredd-ma-ma.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Ma-Ma from Dredd</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So, you could have a female character who is a physically weak, cowardly slave who lives in a misogynistic culture that controls her life--and thinks the culture is right to do it--who doesn't know how to defend herself, looks stereotypically feminine, isn't disagreeable or shrewish or sexually disinterested, doesn't spout feminist rhetoric, is the only woman in the story, and only appears in a single chapter--and <i>she can still be strong! </i>Conversely, a muscled-up, weapon-toting, asexual female character who loves to disagree and is a dyed-in-the-wool feminist could be a flat, weak one--because strength of character has nothing to do with her role, her appearance, her opinions, or her gun.<br />
<br />
So, where <i>does</i> it come from, then? I'm afraid that will have to wait until <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/08/writing-strong-women-part-ii.html"><i>Part II: Independence in Action</i></a>.JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-61314376871640398982013-07-15T11:12:00.002-07:002016-04-04T08:50:23.262-07:00On Writing Magic Well - Part II: Adding Depth<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNLIMrk5Mrx7G0zKN0Kxh7ngcMEEeRrVpA5IhyphenhyphenJdYzG4OX9vWCeUTfp5RmCVg8dOJXEqr0Jj_-RN0_ExeUIlUgBsz3HygDg67W3XEEhe8wCoFz3BpFO3bKbx1dYWXX1MTM8_fk2fIRkNs/s1600/The+Magic+Circle-John+William+Waterhouse-1886.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNLIMrk5Mrx7G0zKN0Kxh7ngcMEEeRrVpA5IhyphenhyphenJdYzG4OX9vWCeUTfp5RmCVg8dOJXEqr0Jj_-RN0_ExeUIlUgBsz3HygDg67W3XEEhe8wCoFz3BpFO3bKbx1dYWXX1MTM8_fk2fIRkNs/s1600/The+Magic+Circle-John+William+Waterhouse-1886.jpg" width="308" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>'The Magic Circle' by Waterhouse</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In my <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/05/writing-good-magic.html">first installment</a>, I discussed a few pitfalls we, as writers, must avoid in our quest to create magic that feels truly magical--but success is not the same as simply avoiding failure. So, the question becomes: what can we do to inject a sense of wonder into our magic? How can we give our magic a substance, a texture, an enveloping quality that alters our entire world from within?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Reading classic texts, we can see that for earlier cultures and traditions, magic really was everywhere--it permeated all aspects of life, and people took it very seriously. It could inspire fear and hatred, it could be a source of respect or suspicion, it could produce conflict between different cultures--it often did all of those things at once. Magic was not merely physically powerful, but powerful as a cultural idea.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">All people were connected to magic in various ways. They all prayed, they all practiced rituals, went to holy days. They <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">visited</span> local witches and wizards to have curses put on others, or to defend themselves against being cursed, or to get a love potion made up. They had household gods who they needed to appease lest their lives fall apart--every <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">home and family had its own little gods who oversaw everyday things</span>.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP0b0XywKWYmC1GjjVIVYFNxDYOwf81AH4JNKfTTIbXvqZHLU74vMskTCep0HW8RroZjAmsvLrJmPSj_GOcSonc5Gvg3-Smv2VS4RiUlANKV_YWLXrMjvSu_-VDvDTAOga715wWVhP8hI/s1600/larario2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP0b0XywKWYmC1GjjVIVYFNxDYOwf81AH4JNKfTTIbXvqZHLU74vMskTCep0HW8RroZjAmsvLrJmPSj_GOcSonc5Gvg3-Smv2VS4RiUlANKV_YWLXrMjvSu_-VDvDTAOga715wWVhP8hI/s1600/larario2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Roman <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_deity" target="_blank">Household Gods</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Then there were those who specialized in magic, the few who drew fear and respect from all who knew them, who could predict the weather and the moving of the stars in the skies, who knew when plants would die, who could drive off sickness and make you whole. It was a far cry from the mundane 'magic schools' of modern fantasy, where spellcast<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ing<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> is</span></span> just an<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">other job</span>--little different from coopers, millers, or knights.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, what happened to turn magic into a mere physical representation of power, something small and predictable? Well, lately, the movement in literature has been to take cues from videogames and tabletop roleplaying games, where magic is balanced, structured, and known, fac<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">i<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">litating easy <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">play</span></span></span>--but this also brought in many of the assumptions and prejudices of those games.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">For example, in most <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">fantasy</span>, there is often now a strict delineation between the 'natural world' and the 'magical world'. Many fantasy writers seem to take this completely for granted. They <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">crea<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">te</span></span> a world that is, on the whole, scientific and realistic according to modern conceptions and physical laws--<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">while</span> magic is anything that doesn't behave in a realistic fashion.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQwDB0q4Kkb1g4-mNChWrQgdRsT08bCR96W4eEgE6G6P3XFA2BIKlgFEL5Y6O9diqD3Zl22wPmlGkZWefKlS5eeRj1cLvIoxrqpwRtCcWgk1aBlpKi19WD4BVKVk8xWqvc7CdaZffrl6I/s1600/sri_lankan_mask.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQwDB0q4Kkb1g4-mNChWrQgdRsT08bCR96W4eEgE6G6P3XFA2BIKlgFEL5Y6O9diqD3Zl22wPmlGkZWefKlS5eeRj1cLvIoxrqpwRtCcWgk1aBlpKi19WD4BVKVk8xWqvc7CdaZffrl6I/s1600/sri_lankan_mask.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Sri Lankan Disease Demon Mask</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This is not how old tales of magic work. <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In</span> them, everything is magical. Everything happens for a reason, because of the forces of spirits and gods working around you all the time. <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So</span> there is no storm unless the storm spirit makes it happen. A disease <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">is</span> not a germ, but a spiritual affliction, with a magical and moral force behind it. If a man dies in a swamp, it's because he was lured there and trapped by the local spirits. The forests, the seas, and the skies were alive with intent and power.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Yet, for many modern authors of fantasy, diseases occur under the modern notions of germ theory, storms occur due to weather systems, men die in swamps because mud is sticky. Their forests, seas, and skies are more or less like the ones we encounter in our everyday lives.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Magic in their worlds is not pervasive, it's uncommon, man-made, and separate from the rest of nature. To a man from myth, a lion and a dragon are equally magical, equally monstrous and powerful. In a modern fantasy story, a lion is 'just an animal', while a dragon is magic--but this is only because modern man no longer believes in dragons. And of course, even a dragon can cease to feel magical when it conforms so closely to cliche that we, as the reader, can predict everything about it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipQdZwQpc53aMEJfri8BQXCzaRZeIavnYzuEv40RpTqJcj90YXeJVIzbST4Rx-OusUtZAucn7k_0O4Y7egMuFyt0TibwK-3kPsD5IvTfzGdYc-K-h3qvxaKV6Fk8HxaKyEzwNGf6xVa58/s1600/1991.07.0082.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipQdZwQpc53aMEJfri8BQXCzaRZeIavnYzuEv40RpTqJcj90YXeJVIzbST4Rx-OusUtZAucn7k_0O4Y7egMuFyt0TibwK-3kPsD5IvTfzGdYc-K-h3qvxaKV6Fk8HxaKyEzwNGf6xVa58/s1600/1991.07.0082.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's the same problem many historical fiction authors make: they change the <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">words they <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">use</span></span>, they change the way the world looks, the level of technology, the clothing, the food--but they keep modern psychology, the modern assumptions about how the world works. They make characters who act like modern, first world people of the middle class with a reasonable education, critical thinking skills, humanist philosophy, scientific rationalism, and a thoroughly modern sense of morality. Disconnecting magic from nature is just as <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">thoughtless</span> as writing a Medieval princess who spouts 3rd-wave feminist rhetoric.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In both cases, the author has changed nothing but the window dressing. Everything else is perfectly modern, perfectly familiar. So, in order to write magic well, you have to ensure that magic is not artificially bounded by notions of modern science, and that the people in that world possess an absolute belief in magic as a pervasive thing that affects every aspect of their lives--though, of course, there have always been skeptics and charlatans, so your characters don't have to believe in every myth, god, and hedge wizard.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0us_8LSrc5ZQWPbNQAZQ-2oGjXjbPBx9lNEPuF534Fc9i27TIPoBiRcBCrCaKvwfCg8uvYF-H-4Wk658WwS7bbj8CUduxR36qbPjVF8guJhUA2YEj5JWX5v9KcIdvBH4cvD3yO9kT7L4/s1600/tumblr_m240av3yPb1rnseozo1_500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0us_8LSrc5ZQWPbNQAZQ-2oGjXjbPBx9lNEPuF534Fc9i27TIPoBiRcBCrCaKvwfCg8uvYF-H-4Wk658WwS7bbj8CUduxR36qbPjVF8guJhUA2YEj5JWX5v9KcIdvBH4cvD3yO9kT7L4/s1600/tumblr_m240av3yPb1rnseozo1_500.jpg" width="201" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Hecate: God of Moon and Magic</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Another symptom of the way magic has become streamlined and modernized is the fact that it is often now represented as perfectly understood and repeatable. If a wizard can cast a spell once, he can cast it a hundred times--all he needs is to know the proper incantation, and he summons up the power and it's done. Sure, at first, we get the 'magic school' scene where they mess up the spell, but once they figure it out, they don't have any more problems with it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In the old myths, magic was often unpredictable--it depended upon many different things going well for the caster: the phase of the moon, the incanter's current relationship to certain spirits or gods (including whether they were angry or pleased with him at the time), the sacrifices made, the place where the magic is undertaken, whether the caster had recently committed a moral indiscretion, or touched blood, or a menstruating woman--all these things could ruin a spell, or at least affect its outcome.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">If our whole world is magical--if the forests and the weather are magic, and the air is full of spirits, then anyone doing magic is going to have to contend with the forest, and with the spirits. It's a messy world out there for a wizard, and there are many things that can go wrong.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Often, wizards had to keep themselves pure--there were certain things they couldn't touch or ingest, places they couldn't go. In some cultures, a man stepping on your shadow can mess up your magic for days--or permanently, until you go and perform a ritual to specifically cleanse yourself. Which brings us to another point about most of modern fantasy: magic is no longer spiritual.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD-VxQNnk56V6VfWC8K9TeU65cShd2h1b2zlKmB4Nk048ID3NOuSXagMNwEi8QDpeOjagnuoZp9imNf62UgqbM9ITasb_wZWnNQsRog8weCmKT6CG93Qyv6KwHA8I3DYBG-DAAy7JRvDo/s1600/maori43.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD-VxQNnk56V6VfWC8K9TeU65cShd2h1b2zlKmB4Nk048ID3NOuSXagMNwEi8QDpeOjagnuoZp9imNf62UgqbM9ITasb_wZWnNQsRog8weCmKT6CG93Qyv6KwHA8I3DYBG-DAAy7JRvDo/s1600/maori43.jpg" width="192" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>You say 'Taboo', he says <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapu_%28Polynesian_culture%29">'Tapu'</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's a science, a system which can be tested and proven and reproduced. Very rarely is it looked at as a philosophy, a moral code, a system of rituals and taboos that must be carefully navigated. Usually, it's more like getting an engineering degree: you study for a while, you figure the math out, then you go out and do it.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">If there is a moral code involved, it's usually just 'be a heroic dude under the modern conception of 'good'', which is not going to strike any readers as being particularly wondrous or magical--because it's nothing more than a plot convenience. There probably will be some little rules about what a magician can and cannot do, but again, they're usually pretty basic, modern, and predictable--and often, they'll only be brought up in order to conveniently deny magic to wizards when it could otherw<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ise </span>solve some plot conflict.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Lastly, I'll give the ironic piece of advice that, in order to make magic wondrous and strange, you have to make it commonplace and mundane. If magic is everywhere, if it touches everything, and every person, then it stands to reason that magic must be ubiquitous, and even expected. The average person is going to want to use magic as an explanation for why things unexpectedly go wrong or right--not just big things, but everything. Likewise, they will see magic in things that we would consider perfectly normal. The lion is just as magical as the dragon. The talking lion is magical, but only because all lions are magical, and all lions can talk, most just choose not to.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">When Oliver Stone scripted the 1982 film version of Conan the Barbarian, he understood this, which is why the movie starts out with Conan's father talking about 'The Riddle of Steel'. He speaks in terms of myth and legend, of the secrets of the gods which were stolen by men, for their own purposes. Throughout the film, the idea is expanded upon and subverted in an exploration of military power versus political power.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVmdhk8PpY0byr1c6pVJl5TEpajFF0UJJytDaV85qZ9L027M2QINs8zPpbVSUCwuwJF3i-adbeJ_MnIZKCmHTuBjieGiwPTRLpTvpSKwTmssIVauNKmxFySZ5Bz95DcojrmQBVV5CiMX4/s1600/tmb_97_480.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVmdhk8PpY0byr1c6pVJl5TEpajFF0UJJytDaV85qZ9L027M2QINs8zPpbVSUCwuwJF3i-adbeJ_MnIZKCmHTuBjieGiwPTRLpTvpSKwTmssIVauNKmxFySZ5Bz95DcojrmQBVV5CiMX4/s1600/tmb_97_480.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But the truth is, the Riddle of Steel is just the process by which a high-quality steel weapon is made. Of course, as modern people, we know it's all to do with amounts of carbon and levels of heat and all of that, but to the characters in this story, it's magic--real magic. You follow a complex ritual, hoping to appease all the right spirits, doing everything properly, trying desperately not to commit any taboos that might ruin the magic, and at the end you get a magic sword--a sword that keeps a sharp edge, and which can cut right through lesser swords.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And the man who knows the secret of making magic swords? He's a wizard, just like the guy who can predict eclipses and the turning of the seasons and the coming of comets. Planting tiny pebbles that turn into full grown trees? That's magic. Eating a mushroom that makes you fly up into the sky and speak with your ancestors? Definitely magic.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5I3MwoVCHDjl_DN3FGdH3unl5CNHMf3h5iJDWw9Epu8_v8TeFIqnHZ2UGv1FCUiDOydATPMpNOQpblVge6KnrVd4KLizhx0xuCYNYAqG11Gkmz80W8WwgJs44L5mM_D0t9SzNi6dMFZU/s1600/Science-Or-Magic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5I3MwoVCHDjl_DN3FGdH3unl5CNHMf3h5iJDWw9Epu8_v8TeFIqnHZ2UGv1FCUiDOydATPMpNOQpblVge6KnrVd4KLizhx0xuCYNYAqG11Gkmz80W8WwgJs44L5mM_D0t9SzNi6dMFZU/s1600/Science-Or-Magic.jpg" width="264" /></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, of course, we don't have to make every single thing magical in order for our story to work, but we definitely have to make sure that the magic parts are magical. In <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/39920752" target="_blank">Dunsany</a>, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/88120309" target="_blank">Poul Anderson</a>, and <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1195173" target="_blank">Susanna Clarke</a>, you have the 'normal world' which is contrasted with the 'magic world'. Of course, in the first two, the 'normal world' is actually magical, too--it's just that it's a friendly, low-key Christian magic versus the wild, shifting, fairy magic of the other realm. In Clarke's case, it's a very deliberate contrast between magic and science, between the decline of spiritual power and the scientific enlightenment of the Industrial Revolution. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Then there are stories like <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/133988083" target="_blank">Howard's Conan</a> or <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/35503587" target="_blank">Leiber's Lankhmar</a>, where the majority of people are rather pragmatic and bloody, living out their lives in the same ways each day, until they run up against the world of magic--a world that is vast and palpable and where every aspect is tinged with strange, unpredictable power.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, it can often be useful to contrast the world of magic against the small man--but even that small man has his own idea of what magic is--or isn't. He has his own beliefs, rituals, and superstitions. Some of them might even be true.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>For further exploration on some of these same concepts from the point of view of tabletop roleplaying games--but with many ideas equally applicable for writers, if you can get through the game-specific jargon--check out <a href="http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/antiscience.html">this article</a>, which I found particularly inspirational.</i></span></blockquote>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-54074988993250866642013-05-04T11:20:00.000-07:002016-04-04T09:32:52.589-07:00On Writing Magic Well - Part I: Bad Habits<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisKh_IrrX3fqsz2tEjN7cqXfTBLeIvgA6lcHDlmeSlseFBrWI_dJklqp3CDFYtUTJBxmZ0VZ3S4LzmLEFGtRO1BU9Hts00HHTYFQ28l03Cptwnd6_lYztGak4tFVA9jYOyZPXEwposW-g/s1600/07.+Rossetti,+Dante+Gabriel+-+Lancelot+In+The+Queen%27s+Chamber.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisKh_IrrX3fqsz2tEjN7cqXfTBLeIvgA6lcHDlmeSlseFBrWI_dJklqp3CDFYtUTJBxmZ0VZ3S4LzmLEFGtRO1BU9Hts00HHTYFQ28l03Cptwnd6_lYztGak4tFVA9jYOyZPXEwposW-g/s1600/07.+Rossetti,+Dante+Gabriel+-+Lancelot+In+The+Queen's+Chamber.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Rossetti's 'Lancelot in the Queen's Chamber'</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The affair between Lancelot and Guinevere is one of the most recognizable representations of hidden passion in art, but the affair is hardly less well known by the characters in the story. It is a kind of open secret: something everyone is aware of, but which none dare speak against.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Under chivalric law, a man has the right to defend his honor in Trial by Combat, meaning that the fellow who dares besmirch a knight's honor must face him, blade to blade, to prove the truth of the accusation. The same tradition carried over into the modern era, with gentlemen fighting duels solely for the name of their honor--and a scoundrel who won was the equal of a truly honorable man, except the scoundrel didn't actually have to be a good person in the meantime.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It was especially problematic for any knight who took umbrage at Guinevere's infidelity, since to accuse her was to invite a crossing of swords with the most formidable warrior of the Round Table. And indeed, every time such an accusation is leveled against Lancelot, he merely raises sword or lance and does away with it. The idea behind this method of justice was that a good and righteous God would not allow a just man to be defeated by a blackguard. Of course, the fact that the disingenuous Lancelot <i>did</i> win, over and over, just goes to show that the Arthurian balladeers of a thousand years ago had a more developed sense of irony and realism than many modern fantasy authors.</span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Because fantasy authors are still doing the same thing: they give their hero a sword of Truth and Goodness, a prophecy of greatness, have the wizened tutor exclaim <i>'there's something special about you'</i>, and then let the young adventurer carve a bloody swath through all who stand in his way, all the while hoping that the heap of moral symbols will justify his actions to the reader. But of course, we know that such symbols don't really justify anything: it doesn't matter if a murderer calls his sword 'Justice', or whether genocide is termed 'a crusade'.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEmchh8RG8Owkoy0PDv8rMXWGLSmCABvaPfE4uH2o1MehdCejHho8LIqUUIlA1Q0xjwnzwDfCM79_e5aT-hF4vx37Pu9ORLKbfx7-e_b7Xygu0muUthM5aMNVUwgN2DT1iNiM8oYEGPd0/s1600/feminism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEmchh8RG8Owkoy0PDv8rMXWGLSmCABvaPfE4uH2o1MehdCejHho8LIqUUIlA1Q0xjwnzwDfCM79_e5aT-hF4vx37Pu9ORLKbfx7-e_b7Xygu0muUthM5aMNVUwgN2DT1iNiM8oYEGPd0/s1600/feminism.jpg" width="295" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Discerning insanity connoisseurs prefer <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzVFO_0Xb0w">Chick</a></i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">The only real way we can tell if someone is good or not--if their actions are justified--is to look at who that person is, and what they actually do. It doesn't matter how often the author tells you who the character is supposed to be if it doesn't actually match what's on the page. If the author spends Chapter 1 telling you how strong a certain female character is, but then in Chapter 2 she's <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StandardFemaleGrabArea">easily kidnapped by some henchman</a> and spends most of the book waiting to be rescued, she's clearly not actually strong at all.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In the Narnia series, the kingdom is taken over by the incompetent White Witch, despite the fact that we're later shown that Aslan <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/163172902">seems to have the power</a> to get rid of her at any time. So, we're <i>told</i> that Aslan is good, but in actuality, he lets a whole kingdom suffer for generations, apparently so he can teach a few kids a lesson about the true meaning of friendship. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Lewis insists that this is all part of a prophecy, but of course, in a fantasy novel, 'prophecy' just means <i>'something the author arbitrarily says is true because it suits his purposes'</i>. It's another attempt to accomplish with an empty symbol what he cannot through character, structure, and story. As in most of his books, Lewis' attempt to create some kind of poignant moral about the nature of good and evil is completely undermined by the fact that the implications in that story don't match up with the ideals presented.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7F3DFfsj2fiCBbPI2gsQ_wQICOcf3KE3YtV8ZnObT-LLcm5WFpjJJVOWvpxEV67pOY702jo1lQxVcSL0KAHBC8fuRnpCPMKnNzBpv8U1YIOp0NyCXvRIopbp6Y825OOBsbhkPqTr_nw0/s1600/stardust_is_emphatic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7F3DFfsj2fiCBbPI2gsQ_wQICOcf3KE3YtV8ZnObT-LLcm5WFpjJJVOWvpxEV67pOY702jo1lQxVcSL0KAHBC8fuRnpCPMKnNzBpv8U1YIOp0NyCXvRIopbp6Y825OOBsbhkPqTr_nw0/s1600/stardust_is_emphatic.jpg" width="299" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Fletcher Hanks' 'Stardust: The Super Wizard'</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Alan Moore <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1194339">parodied the idea</a> of the 'self-justifying hero' insidiously in <i>Watchmen</i> with the character of Rorschach: a mentally-unstable, delusional character who thinks he's always right, and responds with violence to anyone who disagrees with him. But remarkably, a huge number of fans have bought into Rorschach as the hero, precisely because his nonsensical, insane motivations are indistinguishable from those of many heroes in fiction, who exist for no other reason than to beat up equally nonsensical villains, with the implication that silencing your opponents through violence and intimidation is just as valid as actually being right.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, what does all this have to do with magic? Well, magic is always symbolic--ideas embodied in physical form. Magical objects, creatures, and effects are metaphors sprung to life. So, as fantasy writers, it is vital that we ask ourselves: what does <i>my</i> magic represent?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">We tend to see the same generic symbols over and over: power, purity, 'rightness'. Magic is used to facilitate the plot, making everything achievable--the hero can defeat an entire army because he has the magic sword--and then symbolism is used in an attempt to justify those actions: because it is the sword of justice, then by definition, anything the hero does <i>must</i> be just--and since the 'bad guys' are all dead, there's no one to refute this.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This kind of magic is nothing but a shortcut, a path to simplified writing: the author doesn't have to think of an actual solution for dealing with the army, or actually make the hero into a good person, and they don't have to give the character an internal motivation if they tell us that <i>'he has to get the ring, or the world will be destroyed'</i>. The author can neatly avoid all the challenging parts of writing: instead of developing consistent characters, or coming up with solutions to plot conflicts, they can just use magic to patch up anything that's giving them trouble.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0eN79h0DTELw9YlZVDapm_YUqAFhuefgZR_i6z6hn_TjSybfDGk3BJWKgCvTIo1MDG2K4v_xkWszIfys5AvvpcUTdVq3ay3mZraUsa0AifLdkNXbRVms2C3Les_xgbPqpOToN0qTmJ24/s1600/Rackham+The+giant+Galligantua+and+the+wicked+old+magician+transform+the+duke%27s+daughter+into+a+white+hind.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0eN79h0DTELw9YlZVDapm_YUqAFhuefgZR_i6z6hn_TjSybfDGk3BJWKgCvTIo1MDG2K4v_xkWszIfys5AvvpcUTdVq3ay3mZraUsa0AifLdkNXbRVms2C3Les_xgbPqpOToN0qTmJ24/s1600/Rackham+The+giant+Galligantua+and+the+wicked+old+magician+transform+the+duke's+daughter+into+a+white+hind.jpg" width="262" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Arthur Rackham</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">An author who clings to convenience never has to rely on skill, which means that they aren't ever going to improve, as writers, nor are they going to develop any interesting ideas, because <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/01/creative-barriers-where-good-ideas-come.html">it's when we find ourselves challenged that we develop creative solutions</a>. It's like driving to the store--even if it's only a block away--or always taking the elevator, even if the stairs are faster--the easy out always weakens us, in the end, making us ever more reliant on the shortcut.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Beyond that, it makes the magic <i>less magical</i>. Authors talk about their magic without a trace of wonder, without any sense of it being part of tone or mood. Instead, magic is 'a system'--as a set of known rules by which the characters defeat monsters or fly across the world--or as a 'plot coupon' which the character turns in at the end of the book in order to arbitrarily win (if you haven't yet read Nick Lowe's <a href="http://news.ansible.co.uk/plotdev.html"><i>Well-Tempered Plot Device</i></a>, you simply must--it is invaluable to anyone who is thinking of writing about magic).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">To a devoted aficionado of fantasy and myth in every form, hearing that a book has received high praise for its 'magic system', is as telling as a book that is <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/12/worldbuilding-and-origin-of-fandom-part.html">chiefly lauded for its 'world building'</a>--you can bet that the author will have filled their book with inconsequential details to distract from dull characters, cliches, and a nonsensical, aimless plot. Real magic means wonder, it is unknown, uncontrollable--it is not convenient and predictable and useful, it is not something that can be explained. In real life, the only time people try to explain how magic works is when they are trying to convert you.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7lS8X9xaRCJuq_NJimhji31yjsawY7BdNID2foYDQJIiccoTgm0gHuS1_dDP7rgXj5GYtjmsKNIEW6odnh5dMIVEy7P4a2Gh30qPwTshpSA7nNa3lvMXFm79uQ_h-tSq73liqWMP4vZc/s1600/templeton-quantum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7lS8X9xaRCJuq_NJimhji31yjsawY7BdNID2foYDQJIiccoTgm0gHuS1_dDP7rgXj5GYtjmsKNIEW6odnh5dMIVEy7P4a2Gh30qPwTshpSA7nNa3lvMXFm79uQ_h-tSq73liqWMP4vZc/s1600/templeton-quantum.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Look at them particles go!</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Think of something like Quantum Physics: it's complex, unintuitive, and defies our attempts to understand it. Sure, we know some things about it, but even those little bits we do know just make the whole thing seem even weirder, and trying to explain it to a person who doesn't have a background in the subject is just going to end in confusion. That's how magic and wizards <i>should</i> feel: like even the people who are studying this stuff don't even really know how it works--they just have a half dozen tricks they can pull out, but they're not really sure what that <i>means</i>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Of course, we cannot expect authors to come up with something as complex and unusual as Quantum Physics for their little fantasy book--which is the whole problem with magic systems in the first place: even the most complex setup ends up being so simplified and predictable that it's never going to feel wondrous and surprising, it's just going to feel like some arbitrary stuff the author stuck together in order to try to get his plot moving. Of course, you could always do <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/246404159">as Michael Moorcock did</a>, and just steal an idea like Quantum Mechanics, whole cloth for your magical story, but that takes a certain skill, in itself.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Too often, authors use magic as a simple replacement for technology, where modern concepts like industry and long-distance travel just get translated into magical effects, all so that the author doesn't actually have to contend with writing about a world that works differently than the modern one--they want to write fantasy because it's fun, but they don't actually want to study myth or history or acknowledge the fact that a fantasy culture would be <i>really</i> different from a modern culture.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh478MiHGnB9V1yr26YAykBwAV9cvUB2NRZynO4UagR9obPIjo4Oa-hHfNDHpBzg50KryVb2B_N4SU1E-oiwYDw6Geb83oXNdxYGOnEtIijf1hfCF85hJYzUJZGJYm0GLEN-0U-SO79awI/s1600/zenobia_big.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh478MiHGnB9V1yr26YAykBwAV9cvUB2NRZynO4UagR9obPIjo4Oa-hHfNDHpBzg50KryVb2B_N4SU1E-oiwYDw6Geb83oXNdxYGOnEtIijf1hfCF85hJYzUJZGJYm0GLEN-0U-SO79awI/s1600/zenobia_big.gif" width="166" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>'Zenobia' by Coleen Corradi Brannigan</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">To me, the idea of reducing magic, of simplifying it, is rejecting everything that magic has always been in our myth--magic is symbolic, it is all about ideas, about wonder and the unknown. Few authors seem to notice that there is absolutely <i>no limit</i> on what magic can symbolize, or what ideas we can explore through it. So many stories have swords of justice and goodness, and evil swords on the other side, staves of power--why tie ourselves to such basic, threadbare cliches? As authors like Calvino, Peake, and Dunsany show, there is magic in <i>everything</i>, there is no experience or concept that is beyond its scope.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Why not a sword of sadness, a staff of ignorance, a whole town suffused with the notion of artificiality? By looking to the more subtle and complex symbols of Realist authors, like Chekhov or Conrad, it is possible for us to construct fantasies not merely of glory and power or right and wrong, but of regret and loss, of stubbornness and wanderlust. We can reach deeper into our bag of tricks for the ideas, personae, and realities represented in our magic. Indeed, there are already authors who are exploring these directions--but not enough by far.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Since magic is an idea given form, then the fantasy genre is a Surrealist art: an attempt to take an entrenched idea that people take for granted and to place it into a new context, forcing them to reconsider it on its own merits--a process known as 'defamiliarization', which is one of the cornerstones of good writing, not just fantasy. If an author can make their readers look at the world in a new way, that is a sign of great skill. So, when writing your magic, make sure you know what ideas you are representing, and that you explore them to the fullest. If you have symbols in your story, actually use them: subvert them, set up conflicts, kill ideas off. Magic gives you a great deal of flexibility.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglMWcz9KMlktSTNpzWxL9uSIqR9lIUzsDytJXDatZASGuRI18GIJCHD77_G3k87ghVF-dcX1Gd24s1VxCbY0fVifBOHPS87GjbvSJmprbkzJjru6DS3SySLZS0B44uigSaMiUN_7Rvw90/s1600/Loki_and_Sigyn_by_Gebhardt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglMWcz9KMlktSTNpzWxL9uSIqR9lIUzsDytJXDatZASGuRI18GIJCHD77_G3k87ghVF-dcX1Gd24s1VxCbY0fVifBOHPS87GjbvSJmprbkzJjru6DS3SySLZS0B44uigSaMiUN_7Rvw90/s320/Loki_and_Sigyn_by_Gebhardt.jpg" width="222" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Loki and Sigyn by Gebhardt</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">In Harry Potter, there is a spell that causes physical pain, which then must represent the idea of pain--and of torture. Yet, Rowling doesn't use this opportunity to explore the <i>meaning</i> of pain, she doesn't set up a new context that forces us to look at pain, itself--pain stripped bare. Instead, she uses it when characters need to get information, or to show that the character using it is 'bad', or to take some character out of a scene--a shortcut to make her writing easier. People often quibble over whether a magic system is 'consistent' in its rules, but the same readers rarely ask if the ideas represented by that magic are consistent or not.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">This means that magic already has a system, built right in: the system of ideas. Ideas can be cogent or nonsensical, well-supported or incomplete, fully-explored or one-sided. This is the real system to which your magic must adhere, the system of themes and motifs that it represents in your work--the things which your magic symbolizes. As examples like Lewis show: if this system is not well-developed and constructed, if your ideas aren't solid to begin with, then it doesn't matter what set of arbitrary and artificial rules you try to cover that up with.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Magic should be the warp and weft of a book, deep in its very fabric--the tone, the setting, the characters--everything should demonstrate that magical feel, </span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">as is the case in <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/39920752">Dunsany</a> </span>(except of course for characters that are meant to be deliberately outside of the book's 'magical world'). If the magic is merely tacked on to the surface of the story, then it isn't going to feel very magical. Of course, it is possible to include only light and occasional references to magic, as in R.E. Howard's <i>Conan The Barbarian</i> stories, or much of Supernatural Horror--so it is important for the author to decide whether they are writing a story of high, grand magics, or occasional, esoteric ones.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Either way, it's important for us to recognize, as the Arthurian balladeers did, that just because Lancelot is always talking about justice and honor, just because he always wins out against those who oppose him, that doesn't mean he isn't sleeping with his best friend's wife, and likewise, just because we structure our magic such that it excuses and obfuscates our characters' actions, that isn't the same as actually justifying what they do, or actually writing an active, motivated character.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnemswTjBMLXH6zZhtj0JQxWPqC2vuh7lQklzaraAp97H0eH8uYMYdzuTwaLCYmWO7Nu-dxx9HZAn676SanFDzfdptWE6zQ669YSt5wq_BvuWSdccvuqFAu4X7z10LwnvWGzpRjOYBPcg/s1600/chained_01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnemswTjBMLXH6zZhtj0JQxWPqC2vuh7lQklzaraAp97H0eH8uYMYdzuTwaLCYmWO7Nu-dxx9HZAn676SanFDzfdptWE6zQ669YSt5wq_BvuWSdccvuqFAu4X7z10LwnvWGzpRjOYBPcg/s1600/chained_01.jpg" width="268" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>'Chained Conan' by Frank Frazetta</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So, whenever I am writing magic, there are a few simple rules I try to follow, to ensure that I'm not just using magic as a convenient shortcut, and I'd like to finish by sharing those rules:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I. One of our basic writing rules is that any time two characters are sitting around talking about a third character, that's a dead scene. Same thing if they are talking about the plot, or explaining how something works (such as magic). Not only is it a dull way to tell a story, but you run the risk of contradicting yourself--of presenting authorial intentions that do not match the story as it appears on the page--like the author who tells us a female character is strong, but never actually shows her doing anything strong. Just as with your characters and your world, you have to design scenes that will actively demonstrate your magic instead of revealing it through exposition. After all, if you've already demonstrated it, then explaining it is just a waste of space--and if you can't demonstrate it, then explaining it isn't going to help anything. One workaround for this is to turn the exposition into a flashback, so that instead of just being given the information outright, that information is delivered in the context of a story that is interesting in its own right. This can be a standard character flashback, or a myth, or a story someone has heard from somewhere else. One of the nice things about books over movies or TV is that, when a character is telling a story, it just becomes a new scene for the reader to visualize. They very quickly cease to think of it as watching that character talking.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">II. Think about what ideas your magic represents, what concepts you are trying to explore through your use of magic. Is your story about vengeance, betrayal, nostalgia, thoughtlessness, the painful change that comes about when we learn something new? Make sure your magic represents that, and that you use your magical symbols to explore that concept from many sides. Magic is another tool for the author to present those ideas, just as you do through the structure of your story and the personality of your characters. All of those things should work in concert. Also, remember that this doesn't have to be overt: you don't have to explicitly tell your readers what your sword represents, the mere fact that you know will give your magic flavor and consistency. However, it's important not to turn the magic into an allegory, where each aspect of magic always represents one concrete idea--these ideas should shift and have depth, they should explore both sides of whatever issue you're dealing with--though the style and tone of the your magic should remain consistent throughout.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">III. Don't use magic as a convenient plot device to streamline your story (the 'Plot Coupons' and 'Plot Vouchers' of <a href="http://news.ansible.co.uk/plotdev.html">Lowe's essay</a>). Make sure that your characters have strong internal motivations for everything they do: the goals, desires, fears, and insecurities which drive them. Make sure that they act and think in ways that will move the plot forwards naturally instead of just having them eliminate threats by waving a glowing rock around. There must be some kind of genuine hardship which the character is up against throughout the book--not merely a few pages of conflict every time some new threat crops up, only to be quickly dispatched by spell or sword. If you're writing a novel-length story, you need a novel-length conflict. Magic should never be the sole cause of (or solution to) plot conflicts--magic is there to make the story more complex, interesting, and to allow you to play with concepts and ideas in ways that are not available in non-fantastical stories.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>If you enjoyed this, be sure to check out <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/07/on-writing-magic-well-part-ii-adding.html">Part II: Adding Depth</a>.</i></div>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-79121708085301944582013-01-22T05:52:00.000-08:002015-06-16T02:08:08.129-07:00The Cult of Chomsky<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj47ud7vxWajV8bakdvs1P1risD-aQ41rqFrwsynk_czC2HsFNirSVff8jvXc2GgZ4pHOhcIb7o_St9mw-aA3rtpGuPL-uAIhk0FgvbVjW7UO52MylNtQtKpPDroYVU7EZGdWC3ceJYXzw/s1600/Hall.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj47ud7vxWajV8bakdvs1P1risD-aQ41rqFrwsynk_czC2HsFNirSVff8jvXc2GgZ4pHOhcIb7o_St9mw-aA3rtpGuPL-uAIhk0FgvbVjW7UO52MylNtQtKpPDroYVU7EZGdWC3ceJYXzw/s1600/Hall.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">In college, I certainly knew the name 'Noam Chomsky', though why I knew it, I wasn't sure. I worked security, patrolling the dark, deserted halls and subterranean passages which made the campus a labyrinth of shadows and half-heard sounds each time night enclosed it. My fellow denizens of the twilight realm included my nemeses: hobos, bike thieves, wall tagging skateboarders, drunken hedgebound copulators--and also my allies, my kine, those fellow security personnel who waited out the long shifts at their desks.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">So I flitted from one to the next, patrol this building and visit one, then moving on to the next, spending a little time with each before returning them to their isolation. I still recall walking down a dim and lengthy hallway and hearing a clipped, minute voice echoing down it, reduced by boombox speakers to a buzzing, inhuman tone. When I arrived, my compatriot made to pause the recording, but I held up a hand and asked <i>"what's this?"</i> <i> </i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>"Noam Chomsky,"</i> she replied, <i>"the world's most famous intellectual".</i></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Now there were several things which struck me as odd about this: firstly, that she was listening to a CD of him instead of reading his works, as was the normal collegiate method; secondly, the phrase 'famous intellectual' seemed to me to be a contradiction in terms. To be an intellectual means being highly regarded by your peers, to be judged by a small group of discerning, well-informed people to have accurate and defensible views. Thus, to some degree, it means being inaccessible, being an expert, a specialist capable of impressing those who already know a great deal.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicDwSHWchGIL6Du3heDnsxVKmkGpswH5B8sJ0G4lWAwqxcfWx8BvS-dQ9ic00uZKuI6bgdntPNiPO5AiBWYTdTHrC5PyE8zm9RcU4XsgFjSSjsO4aRXPYJdYmv1l2vR3FBUF5jVoKshoo/s1600/joshua-bell-on-the-subway.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicDwSHWchGIL6Du3heDnsxVKmkGpswH5B8sJ0G4lWAwqxcfWx8BvS-dQ9ic00uZKuI6bgdntPNiPO5AiBWYTdTHrC5PyE8zm9RcU4XsgFjSSjsO4aRXPYJdYmv1l2vR3FBUF5jVoKshoo/s1600/joshua-bell-on-the-subway.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Would you walk right past a Stradivarius?</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">To be famous, however, means to be widely accessible, to be easily understood and quickly encapsulated in a concept or persona. It means being judged by a wide group of ignorant people to represent something they aspire to, or something which touches them emotionally. But these people do not have the skill or experience to judge who is an expert, who is a master, as evidenced by world-renowned violinist Joshua Bell <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnOPu0_YWhw">playing anonymously in a subway</a>, thousands of people passing him by and almost none recognizing that they are in the presence of brilliance--but then, most people are not capable of telling the difference between a skilled street performer and a world-class musician.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">So, how does one become a 'famous intellectual'? Well, Freud set up a fairly effective blueprint: first you must make a great deal of remarkable and unusual claims--ones which will give pause even to the layman--then you take the notoriety granted by the fervor you have caused and make it a podium from which to speak about politics and the human condition. And indeed, as I listened to the disc, Chomsky said nothing about linguistics--his special area of expertise--but rather the Bush administration, American colonialism, the Free Market, and all of those touchpoints which form the central contention in political soundbites. Yet all the soundbites he was presenting were terribly old: the talking points of last year, of two years ago. <i>"Oh, is this an old lecture of his?"</i> I asked. It wasn't.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK-4rAThYEYJurDkJmnBG0CkVu2BuAYfWo25NLxalBtSjpaPyICNB4K49VAKcKaHo5db89tKD0X6aoDnGXAZUiFgjUHWx4saKyQqxvjCiYNMFyggpC27aON-XMT8FczzURxMnhOBeIF3s/s1600/Digest.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjK-4rAThYEYJurDkJmnBG0CkVu2BuAYfWo25NLxalBtSjpaPyICNB4K49VAKcKaHo5db89tKD0X6aoDnGXAZUiFgjUHWx4saKyQqxvjCiYNMFyggpC27aON-XMT8FczzURxMnhOBeIF3s/s1600/Digest.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Indeed, for all the times I have been pointed to one of Chomsky's articles or talks on politics since, I have never seen him express an idea that had not already been hotly debated over a period of months a year ago. I've since come to regard him as a sort of <i>Reader's Digest Condensed Books</i> version of a pundit: bringing to you a collection of ideas that everyone else is already tired of, in a pared-down, simplified version.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>Well, he's noted for being a linguist, anyways</i>, I thought to myself, hardly surprised that the political rantings of an old academic might be a bit out-of-touch--having seen a few of my professors get hopelessly off-topic. Not long afterwards, I found myself in a linguistics class--once more face-to-face with Chomsky's influence.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">It was a terrible class, with a terrible professor, though she had a great deal of clout and seemed respected in her field. Perhaps she was just one of those who does their best work <i>outside</i> the classroom? Yet, again and again, the class would come to a standstill. She would be speaking at length on some point or another and you would hear everyone in the room getting antsy, murmuring, turning to their neighbors, confused, until finally, someone would raise their hand and ask a pointed question about some odd contradiction in what she had just said. She would always stand blankly for a moment, the gears working--and then, without fail, she would repeat whatever she had previously said and ask <i>'does that clear things up?'</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkXXQHLx3zaSeeSj0ggrkBieqt_R_5mtLGLCIRCtJvdvfMGwIQcMawBicFBnE1fDmj32EXtnEKVykDoyyoymZSOoIWSbWGQVpsI5FkAxKGJIo17qNE7rQzdxtKBkNyMJm4LPzXXM96Y08/s1600/not+sure.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkXXQHLx3zaSeeSj0ggrkBieqt_R_5mtLGLCIRCtJvdvfMGwIQcMawBicFBnE1fDmj32EXtnEKVykDoyyoymZSOoIWSbWGQVpsI5FkAxKGJIo17qNE7rQzdxtKBkNyMJm4LPzXXM96Y08/s1600/not+sure.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Inevitably, it did not, so another student would ask the same question in a different way, trying to get to the heart of the matter, only to receive the same response. It soon became clear, inexplicably, that our linguistics teacher was fundamentally incapable of comprehending precise differences in how phrasing affected meaning. It was inconceivable to us that a linguist should be so incompetent at determining the meaning of words, but if we knew more about the state of Chomskyan linguistics, we might not have been so shocked.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">I still recall a specific instance where we had just read about the <i>Sapir-Whorf</i> <i>hypothesis</i>, which states that the specific words we use affect the way that our brains process information. Our professor told us that this theory was completely and entirely wrong, and when a student asked why, she irately responded <i>'It just is!'</i> The rejection of this idea goes back to Chomsky, and our teacher, like many hardline Chomskyites, felt no need to defend his conclusions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Back in the fifties, Chomsky laid out a number of theories, but the most influential and transformative for the field of linguistics was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar">'Universal Grammar'</a>, the idea that the structure of language is pre-programmed into the brain before birth, and that all languages the world over follow the same rules which evolve from those biological presets. Now, I am not a linguist, so I cannot tell you whether his theory is true or not, but I can tell you that it is not the most simple theory and so, according to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor">Occam's Razor</a>, it cannot be considered the leading theory, independent of how popular it may be.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Occam's Razor states that if we have two competing theories and we cannot disprove either one, then we should consider the more straightforward theory to be the correct one. One illustration of this is conspiracy theories. My uncle is a paranoid schizophrenic, and believes that aliens move things around in his room at night. I have a competing theory: he sometimes misplaces things and doesn't realize it. His theory requires that highly advanced, complex creatures with scanty evidence for their existence have crossed the vast reaches of space in order to personally inconvenience a random unemployed dude. Since his theory is more complex than mine, it is more unlikely to be true, therefore we should assume that mine is correct unless we have some strong evidence.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><a href="http://www.lachanelphile.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/59chanelperfume.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://www.lachanelphile.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/59chanelperfume.jpg" height="320" width="242" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>Grandma knew how to have fun</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Likewise, the notion of Universal Grammar is more complex than the idea that we might acquire language through the process of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory">'what fires together, wires together'</a>, the theory that whenever our senses experience data, those data are connected to other things that are happening at the same time, which gradually builds up a mental process. For example, if we see a bird and hear its call and see our mother pointing at it and saying 'bird', then the visual of the bird, the sound it makes, the sound our mother makes, and her gesture all tie together in our minds. Every time this happens again, those ties become stronger. Meanwhile, if we happen to smell a pickle while seeing a bird, that will also tie those experiences together, but if it never gets reenforced again, then that tie will waste away with disuse. This theory explains why, whenever Mary smells Chanel No 5, she thinks of her grandma.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Now, I'm not saying Chomsky is wrong, but just assuming that he is correct is destructive to the field of linguistics. Along with Universal Grammar, Chomsky developed the idea of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrase_structure_rules">phrase structure rules</a>, which lay out a system for how all language works and how all phrases operate in language. However, this structure is all based upon related European languages, and was never thoroughly-tested with fieldwork or observations of how other, non-Western languages work. Yet, for half a century, this has been the method by which linguists study all languages, which is a problem.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">To see why, let's look at the progression of phonetics in linguistics through history. In English, we have twenty-six letters that we use to represent the sounds of language. There are, of course, other alphabets--like Cyrillic, Arabic, or Japanese Kanji--which represent sounds in different ways. During the colonial period, Western scholars were studying and translating many foreign languages, and there was much debate over how to represent them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3DNGRQRto0yhM8Ko87jy5KFO0RPX0mTmzByfkkBGjofrrbmYGpuuW_hmI_-VChV28LZT4F1MCpQhB_qn4yjDOD9yhPsHAcsUN9CQe_l4NmLT1Ildxb1XZ2z_7gFw7fONoap32kQFtOMk/s1600/IPA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3DNGRQRto0yhM8Ko87jy5KFO0RPX0mTmzByfkkBGjofrrbmYGpuuW_hmI_-VChV28LZT4F1MCpQhB_qn4yjDOD9yhPsHAcsUN9CQe_l4NmLT1Ildxb1XZ2z_7gFw7fONoap32kQFtOMk/s1600/IPA.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Many <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Chinese">different systems</a> were developed for approximating foreign sounds using the roman alphabet, but these were only approximations, which is how 'Beijing' and 'Peking' came to refer to the same Chinese place name. Eventually, language scholars realized that the human mouth is capable of producing far more distinct sounds than appear in English, or French, or any other single language or language group, and so they developed the phonetic alphabet as a way to try to represent all the sounds that a mouth might make, and as many of the subtle variations between those sounds as was feasible. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">But let's imagine for a moment that instead, phonetics had taken a Chomskyan route: a fellow comes forward and declares that, due to the preset structure of the mouth, it can only produce certain sounds, and that these sounds are common to all languages. He then presents a method of representing all languages using the roman alphabet. Students take this method and go out into the field, writing down foreign words phonetically and sending them back for scholars to study. Since all these words are written in roman characters, the scholars then declare that the theory is right: clearly, all foreign languages are made up of the same sounds as English.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Of course, we can quickly see the error here: the roman alphabet is not capable of representing non-Western sounds. It cannot distinguish the tonal differences of Chinese, or the Indian 'd', which is made by touching the tongue to the center of the roof of the mouth, or the clicks of some South African languages. Therefore, any representation of foreign languages in this alphabet will be approximations, unable to demonstrate the unique sounds present in them, or the key differences between these languages.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><a href="http://www.voyagesphotosmanu.com/Complet/images/india_monk_gr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.voyagesphotosmanu.com/Complet/images/india_monk_gr.jpg" height="216" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">This is the same problem with Chomsky's phrase structure: it makes many assumptions about how phrases work, how they are related, and about how meaning is produced in language, and these assumptions are based upon the scholarly study of Western languages. Any fieldwork we get back which presents a foreign language in terms of sentence trees will only be able to depict the ways in which that language is similar to Western tongues, and will have no way to represent fundamental differences.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">This is especially problematic in a field like linguistics because the most unique and unusual languages are dying out every day--the few languages which have not yet been altered by Western influence are constantly under threat from missionaries, relocation, loss of habitat, and biased researchers. Imagine for a moment that all of our knowledge of Chinese was recorded in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade%E2%80%93Giles">Wade-Giles</a> romanization method and then Chinese died out, so that the only knowledge we had of the language was what we had written about it. Clearly, we would not be able to determine from this record the ways in which pronunciation and tone fundamentally differed, and once a language is gone, there is no going back.</span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAJ6waTMrZY0f1Ze_5zVKNnpkSNR2BoKzpui__kwhy_I9_AUyIToREZV7oTXeemLjjsZa0kPX7yY5Dvns1I461k1Bl0AWJvQk1zvsoh-poNlny3WMRDlnmrwBozK0LjHxM8G-c_W7LszE/s1600/Scroll.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">That is why it is vital to ensure that our methods of data collection contain minimal bias. If our methods would tend to confirm one hypothesis, or to miss important data, then they need to be restructured. We cannot look at Chinese through roman letters, nor can we expect all languages to conform to the structure of English phraseology. Indeed, there are field researchers like Dan Everett who are saying that <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto">this bias is already firmly entrenched</a> across the whole of modern linguistic study, and that a cult of personality has sprung up around Chomsky which is not merely resistant to change, but is invested in a system which is incapable of measuring the relevant data. Indeed, if you read that article, you will find it contains many direct quotes from Chomsky and his followers about their unwillingness to look at any data that do not confirm their preconceptions--and that the majority of heads of linguistic departments are Chomskyites.</span><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAJ6waTMrZY0f1Ze_5zVKNnpkSNR2BoKzpui__kwhy_I9_AUyIToREZV7oTXeemLjjsZa0kPX7yY5Dvns1I461k1Bl0AWJvQk1zvsoh-poNlny3WMRDlnmrwBozK0LjHxM8G-c_W7LszE/s1600/Scroll.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAJ6waTMrZY0f1Ze_5zVKNnpkSNR2BoKzpui__kwhy_I9_AUyIToREZV7oTXeemLjjsZa0kPX7yY5Dvns1I461k1Bl0AWJvQk1zvsoh-poNlny3WMRDlnmrwBozK0LjHxM8G-c_W7LszE/s1600/Scroll.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">And this is not merely a case of old ideas which were good when they were developed, but which are now starting to show their age, because if we look back at Chomsky's methodology, we will discover that it has been deeply flawed and unscientific from the start. Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, has put together <a href="http://norvig.com/chomsky.html">a devastating analysis</a> of the fundamental flaws in Chomsky's work, showing how from in his earliest writings to his most recent statements, Chomsky demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the scientific process.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">In his post, Norvig demonstrates how Chomsky places theory above data, ignoring the fact that a theory which is unable to account for the data is worthless. Chomsky was never a field researcher, he never had to deal with actual languages as they were used. Instead, he spent his time in academia, developing his theories based on second-hand accounts and assumptions. He made many grand statements and then developed a system which can only confirm them--but that's what 'famous intellectuals' tend to do.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"></span></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihMLtZDZu1zV7lDugR-TRv90c5OQ554nZjvBMLGJU3IC89RkaVHnJSVj4oBKWmmY4BkgctwMYx1Mvp1_OzlBhEauiSLXBy1if-Jb9nS_umK2CvkNuBGdA_zpIgoJXK4k-Ar19xvkpZAWk/s1600/Tower.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihMLtZDZu1zV7lDugR-TRv90c5OQ554nZjvBMLGJU3IC89RkaVHnJSVj4oBKWmmY4BkgctwMYx1Mvp1_OzlBhEauiSLXBy1if-Jb9nS_umK2CvkNuBGdA_zpIgoJXK4k-Ar19xvkpZAWk/s1600/Tower.jpg" /></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">Freud did the same thing: he laid out a system of radical theories which were not based upon a wide collection of data, but upon Freud's own selective experience. He then developed a system based upon his theories which was insular and unable to deal with information that did not match up. Scientifically, both he and Chomsky jumped the gun: they put the theories before the data. In Freud's case, the result was that nearly every idea he had about the brain has turned out to be completely wrong, and now it looks as if Chomsky is headed for the same end.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">But the real disappointment about these 'famous thinkers' is the effect that they had on their field. By taking a leap and proposing some strange theories, they got a lot of people interested, they brought vitality to their areas of study--but then, all of that extra energy went into trying to prove ideas that were fundamentally flawed. They jump-started their field, set it ahead ten years, but then ensured that it would stagnate in a morass of weak ideas and bad methodology for the next half century, maintained stalwartly by the next generation of theorists who don't want to think that perhaps they have based their entire careers on error. Indeed, many of Freud's ideas are still hanging around, more than a century later, despite the fact that they've been discredited--though they aren't hanging around in psychotherapy circles, but as a series of popular misconceptions.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkrqls6g3lMkaOs6P2krdt4Rxzkn29ht2lwKEl4Lb2U8gerD0QiCRDFH-Yckeda-_VlMd403AdOHLHp3XugeXNS3XgDph4NeOIWD-aWIEpZ2m_n6kCR4T00_Xhc_BxgNWY69ECJbhZgzY/s1600/Freud.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgkrqls6g3lMkaOs6P2krdt4Rxzkn29ht2lwKEl4Lb2U8gerD0QiCRDFH-Yckeda-_VlMd403AdOHLHp3XugeXNS3XgDph4NeOIWD-aWIEpZ2m_n6kCR4T00_Xhc_BxgNWY69ECJbhZgzY/s1600/Freud.jpg" width="260" /></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">And that seems to be the same route Chomsky is taking: shedding any claim on scientific relevance and becoming a popular figure. Indeed, of the up-and-coming young linguists I know, none of them take Chomsky seriously, and of the people I know who take Chomsky seriously, none of them have the least comprehension of linguistics as a science. In the end, it seems most likely that Chomsky's theory will end up becoming a literary lens, just like Freud's, and no professional linguist will give him a second thought.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">I only hope that, by the time linguists develop a less biased method of data collection and linguistic analysis, it won't be too late, because while Freud's missteps meant that he mistreated some mentally unwell people, Chomsky's might mean that we lose out on hundreds of languages that are quickly dying, and once they are gone, the field of linguistics will be that much more bare. The more diverse and accurately-recorded data a field has to draw upon, the stronger that field and its theories will be, and yet there are few fields more ephemeral, more easily damaged than linguistics. All you have to do is wait and do nothing--it's shrinking every day.</span>JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com31tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-61097637520648950032013-01-18T04:29:00.004-08:002021-04-16T12:43:27.133-07:00Originality and the Fount of Inspiration<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Last time, we talked about <a href="https://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/01/creative-barriers-where-good-ideas-come.html" target="_blank">the source of creativity</a>, now let's look at what I mean by 'originality'</i><br />
<br />
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIfwR1nEraQxyB6s97aMCzdrTsUYQYvuDb2nkAeujQ8qIQqmvodPKlI-mcRO-XIFRCaMYgZUg7Di3gKCvlGAl6Dz63Od0nmWOdSIxcTxXjxNONWygAJu93EEpxVBiU5SchhiUBb4uKcdg/s1600/K20Kalliope450BC.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIfwR1nEraQxyB6s97aMCzdrTsUYQYvuDb2nkAeujQ8qIQqmvodPKlI-mcRO-XIFRCaMYgZUg7Di3gKCvlGAl6Dz63Od0nmWOdSIxcTxXjxNONWygAJu93EEpxVBiU5SchhiUBb4uKcdg/s320/K20Kalliope450BC.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Muse at Mt. Helicon</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
When I'm judging the quality of something I have read (or even something I have written), I find I have to contend with the idea of 'originality'--what is it that makes something original, or unoriginal? Is originality even a desirable trait for an author to have? Is true originality even possible?<br />
<br />
Certainly, we might construct an extreme argument and say that, since all human thought comes from what we learn, from notions that have inspired us, that therefore, every idea has some source and hence cannot be considered 'truly original'. If we defined 'original' as <i>'something that springs fully-formed from nothing and is not related to anything that came before'</i> then no, there could be no original thought. But it is silly to define originality as some impossible severing of man from influence or history, when in fact those are indispensable parts of the crucible in which original ideas are formed.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Our world has always been full of innovation and change. The automobile, the aeroplane, and nuclear power are each ideas which required a great deal of original thought to come to fruition. Certainly, we have had self-piloted carts that ran on plant combustion since prehistory--its just that the combustion was happening inside of a horse--but that doesn't mean that the switch from herbivorous animal combustion in a stomach to fossilized algal combustion in a steel engine wasn't an innovation.<br />
<br />
<i>'Sure,'</i> you say <i>'but those are technologies and inventions, not art or writing.'</i> Nevertheless, the same principle is in effect. When Jimi Hendrix showed up and started making sounds no one had heard before, when Petrarch began to write poetry in Italian instead of Latin, when Michael Moorcock decided that the basis for his fantastical magic in the Elric series should be Quantum Physics, those were fresh concepts that had not been explored before.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMb0r_K99b23nDJ1rSWQZTg-ACvEr4iIvEmIZ7A5g0z61mL7v3Da-8R0QkiA7051OUDzh9fftQmaxL4X4DAD6EpLJ3SA45AWqLjEAyQ0-uIwNUKynm67bJj7bMwKOQKjF3yF1FgvJsV0g/s1600/image1.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMb0r_K99b23nDJ1rSWQZTg-ACvEr4iIvEmIZ7A5g0z61mL7v3Da-8R0QkiA7051OUDzh9fftQmaxL4X4DAD6EpLJ3SA45AWqLjEAyQ0-uIwNUKynm67bJj7bMwKOQKjF3yF1FgvJsV0g/s320/image1.jpg" width="246" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Da Vinci's Original Illustration</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So where do these original thoughts come from? They do not spring from any single place, but are the result of combining various sources of inspiration. One definition of genius is <i>'the ability to take two very different and apparently unrelated ideas and form from them a single coherent thought'</i>.<br />
<br />
My favorite example comes from Da Vinci, who, in dissecting a heart and observing its shape, realized that if blood flowed through the chamber in an eddy (like what he had witnessed in his sketches of rivers), then the heart could move blood in a continuous motion through the body instead of pumping it in fits and starts. He looked at the nature of rivers and the nature of the human body and concluded that both were the same, developing an idea which would not be rediscovered until high-resolution medical scans in the late 20th Century.<br />
<br />
So when we're talking about 'originality', we're never just talking about one idea, but about a confluence of ideas, and about how ideas can come together to form a unique whole. When you look at the sound of Led Zeppelin, there is not one single idea that differentiates it, but many ideas in concert: Bonham was playing danceable funk rhythms on the drums, Page was combining blues and folk guitar in multi-layered tracks, Plant was using a blues wail to sing about fairy stories, and John Paul Jones was providing classical keyboard work, having given up a position as church choirmaster to join the group. It was not just one innovation but several unusual elements combined and made whole.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVa1El6Y_is0k0WqmXbIs_BfVxdEBZj_0pLaCGjT-Ot66XhHTPg6Ttt5I8zKmHnRmmcOrZG1aM36laDChyphenhyphen7jxgeuTmQrs5a3pHMoW_xXVF5fzT-vqdpSGmLvH71-FLTMTxIex1UFE1Y0M/s1600/1245320f4d3bcfc7d3a3c4b3edcd4070.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVa1El6Y_is0k0WqmXbIs_BfVxdEBZj_0pLaCGjT-Ot66XhHTPg6Ttt5I8zKmHnRmmcOrZG1aM36laDChyphenhyphen7jxgeuTmQrs5a3pHMoW_xXVF5fzT-vqdpSGmLvH71-FLTMTxIex1UFE1Y0M/s320/1245320f4d3bcfc7d3a3c4b3edcd4070.jpg" width="187" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>by Pamela Coleman Smith</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But of the many bands that followed in Zeppelin's footsteps--though they often resembled one another--rarely sounded like Led Zeppelin, itself. To take another example (close to Plant's heart), we can look at the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien. Like Zeppelin, he combined a number of inspirations to create his great works: Norse and Welsh myth, Catholic theology, conservative Tory politics, reaction to the Industrial Revolution, and English fairy stories. However, look at the scads of other authors who have followed his lead and you'll find that, while none of them are actually doing what Tolkien did, most of them are very similar to one another. Why is this?<br />
<br />
Well, Tolkien took all of those different ideas and distilled them, simplified them, modernized them, and combined them into a unit. He made them less strange and more accessible to his readers, because he reinterpreted those ideas for his time, for a modern audience. Those who took inspiration from him continued that pattern: they reinterpreted his ideas and simplified them for <i>their audience</i>--except that now they were streamlining something that had already been streamlined, simplifying what was already accessible, and you can only water down the wine so much before it loses the better part of its flavor. The problem wasn't that they took inspiration from Tolkien, it was that <i>they didn't add other ideas into the mix</i>. Sure, most of them are also copying from Conan the Barbarian and the structure of 'the Monomyth', but those ideas aren't that far afield from Tolkien in the first place.<br />
<br />
This problem becomes self-compounding, because now you have a whole community of people aping Tolkien, and they are all reading <i>each others'</i> works, creating a closed circle, where no new inspirations ever come in, and all the authors (and readers) begin to take for granted that <i>this is just what fantasy is</i>--and all it has the potential to ever be. But more than that, despite drawing heavily on Tolkien and going around in circles, they still don't write like Tolkien did, and there's a simple reason for this: if you want to sound like Tolkien, don't read what he wrote, <i>read what he read</i>--read what inspired him, because that's the only way you're going to understand where he's coming from.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnGDk8-l_2gwqFHGoNTea_wzIjYoPRg-2YvSJ89rFhuAdrQOb9TMwzs856oeLWFJGlm7uMt3n4RmuABKKwAY_Jzz2L3wShtVupci3yNx1tAUAlTDyzwlJC-paDIRySnU5jde5emxnS0ZU/s1600/9a486b6cfcae13c3a5cb1491f345ca25.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnGDk8-l_2gwqFHGoNTea_wzIjYoPRg-2YvSJ89rFhuAdrQOb9TMwzs856oeLWFJGlm7uMt3n4RmuABKKwAY_Jzz2L3wShtVupci3yNx1tAUAlTDyzwlJC-paDIRySnU5jde5emxnS0ZU/s320/9a486b6cfcae13c3a5cb1491f345ca25.jpg" width="258" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Satan meets Sin and Death by </i><span class="st"><i>Doré</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
One of the things you are taught to do in Literary criticism is to seek out the influences of authors you want to study. If you want to read <i>Paradise Lost</i>, then start out by reading <i>The Aeneid</i> and <i>The Bible</i>--otherwise, you're going to miss half of what Milton is doing. If you want to understand something, you have to go to its source--and that was how I learned that, while Tolkien definitely had his own vision of what he was doing, he's really not a particularly imaginative or remarkable fantasy author. I went back to what inspired him, I looked at other authors who took those same inspirations and did different things with them, and ended up finding Tolkien rather flat and condescending in comparison.<br />
<br />
So if you want to be original, if you want to avoid cliche, then you have to explore, you have to look far and wide for your inspiration, you have to take in very different, apparently unrelated ideas and find a way to combine them. Don't just recreate what someone else did, don't just stay within a certain genre--you have to build up a wide-spanning pool of references and ideas, because you never know where an interesting twist might come from.<br />
<br />
For instance, right now I'm working on a Victorian sci fi novel (as you may or may not be aware), which means that I'm mostly reading Victorian horror and adventure stories to help me maintain the right 'voice', but I also decided to read a work of literary criticism called <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/499205035" target="_blank"><i>Orientalism</i> by Edward Said</a> precisely because it points out a great deal of the conceptual problems of colonial authors like Burton, Conrad, Kipling, and Haggard--and despite my book's setting, one of the larger themes is inspired by a little-known Russian Speculative Fiction novel from the latter half of the 20th Century.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfLZss3rqTht91TkHOAq-ejYpOXUi_0XIJgC3yxWWj64Nokrqx6nakh51vxyCb2CjUeBsSS5ClpMEMIy6WpMFUYPrvwurU0N8K5uduyoUQr3WMW1AEWxXoL4R4J9amqcnP9HryZ5p2mvg/s1600/Richard_Frances_Burton.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfLZss3rqTht91TkHOAq-ejYpOXUi_0XIJgC3yxWWj64Nokrqx6nakh51vxyCb2CjUeBsSS5ClpMEMIy6WpMFUYPrvwurU0N8K5uduyoUQr3WMW1AEWxXoL4R4J9amqcnP9HryZ5p2mvg/s320/Richard_Frances_Burton.jpg" width="232" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Hero of His Own Life Richard Francis Burton</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So, remember that being a good writer means being a good reader, because the ideas you take in become the raw building blocks for the stories you'll end up writing. A lot of artists try to do something original by taking a basic idea and then putting a 'twist' on it, but that's simply not enough. All that does is create books that are deeply cliche but easy to differentiate in a blurb: <i>Harry Potter</i> is a 'child in the other world fantasy, but with a school', <i>Hunger Games</i> is <i>'The Running Man</i> (or <i>Battle Royale</i>), but with an American girl', <i>Game of Thrones</i> is a 'long-winded, gritty fantasy, but with a soap opera plot'. None of those 'twists' lift their stories above cliche, because nothing about them changes the nature of the story being told. It's all new wallpaper, same old house.<br />
<br />
Each of those changes represents the least difference necessary to ensure that those books aren't exactly like all the others in the genre--just mostly like them. They're approaching writing with the same spirit of a company trying to avoid copyright infringement lawsuits: what's the smallest change we can make to an existing product that will make it technically different from what we're ripping off?<br />
<br />
Certainly, it's effective way to market products--be they movies, goods, or books--but it doesn't do much for the quality of writing. As Quentin Crisp observed in his introduction to the <i>Gormenghast</i> series: being original is not about looking left and right at your neighbor's garden paths, seeing that one is perpendicular and the other parallel, then making your own diagonal--it's about developing a coherent internal philosophy which governs what you do.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz-0dijiiCQk0StYHJsPyIJinnKJm7ukJjgJqSUOsHvrgDBZZ_beXPg0yVPedK6oq-1JAXo59avR0EIERz0iJoDTT-B3jtCH8zAbrsanb9A8EcFf7M34ob_dtFxzICAGHqSqQcRDWud9g/s1600/a1c497191b8540591d720ea56bfa6cd6.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz-0dijiiCQk0StYHJsPyIJinnKJm7ukJjgJqSUOsHvrgDBZZ_beXPg0yVPedK6oq-1JAXo59avR0EIERz0iJoDTT-B3jtCH8zAbrsanb9A8EcFf7M34ob_dtFxzICAGHqSqQcRDWud9g/s320/a1c497191b8540591d720ea56bfa6cd6.jpg" width="240" /></a>When I read original books--stories that cannot be summed up as <i>'previously successful thing with one small change'</i>--I find that this is what those authors did. I can look through their works and discover references and homages to dozens or even a hundred other authors, stories, genres, traditions, and ideas. Of course, it is possible to overdo this, as well, and the rule of writing is the same as the rule of art: an innumerable layer of detail will not cover up a bad structure. There must always be a strong, central foundation underneath--there must be a story worth telling, and worth hearing. But every story consists of a myriad of subtle turns, details, and elements, and it is here that our wide experience and breadth of influence comes into play.<br />
<br />
It is in the way a character turns their head, the words they use, the way their fears manifest, how they look at the world, the pacing, the pauses, the way beauty and disgust are shown, in the choices they make and the way they love. These are where our many inspirations must show through--not in a litany of details or out-of-place digressions where the author goes on and on about their opinions and favorite subjects--but in those moments which are integral to the plot, to character psychology, and to the presentation of a world. Inspirational details should never be the cover for the story, but the driving force behind it.<br />
<br />
How will you know when you've gotten there? Well, you'll start to think of it in terms of the characters, and in the moments that reveal them to the audience. You'll realize that a certain idea or type is alive in a character, and that you can structure events in order to demonstrate that to your audience. It's refining your sense of what to show, versus what not to show--which is the heart of every artistic decision.<br />
<br />
It's a gradual, never-ending process, and that's always daunting, but hopefully now you have an idea of the actual process by which an author develops their own individual voice. Bring together the things you love, the things you are passionate about. Tell the stories you wish people would tell. Seek out things that you fear, things that make you uncomfortable, things that bore you, and <i>find a way to make them interesting</i>. Fall in love with the world again, and you'll find your inspiration.JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-13650515506278012012013-01-15T07:58:00.000-08:002017-08-17T13:01:29.646-07:00Creative Barriers: Where Good Ideas Come From<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm04-kvnCFq3TKpwsgXIDJncenmqDi14CYWiLmqiy6n93HE38B9ZpRdYMoYtOyeRv0rT9HlYO2HFhJIASS4f3fl7mPmMsfECTPvUEVeQISG2trcXGCxmDjRCUeJ7-1_PoLzt2GQD3RlRY/s1600/HarlanEllison2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjm04-kvnCFq3TKpwsgXIDJncenmqDi14CYWiLmqiy6n93HE38B9ZpRdYMoYtOyeRv0rT9HlYO2HFhJIASS4f3fl7mPmMsfECTPvUEVeQISG2trcXGCxmDjRCUeJ7-1_PoLzt2GQD3RlRY/s320/HarlanEllison2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><a href="http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a638/frank-sinatra-has-a-cold-gay-talese/" target="_blank">Sinatra-Fighting</a>, Jellybean-Hating Old Cuss</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
All writers get asked the question <i>"where do you get your ideas?"</i> Even nobodies like me hear it. It's become a cliche among authors, to the point that Harlan Ellison started telling people that he writes to a <i>'fine Idea Service'</i> in Schenectady, New York, which, for a modest fee, provides him with new ideas upon request.<br />
<br />
But of course, the very question misunderstands how the brain works: ideas don't just descend from nowhere, there is no store of them sitting out there, untouched, just awaiting discovery. Ideas are forced into existence by sheer necessity. Whenever you wonder how someone 'became so creative', it might be beneficial to sit back and ask yourself what 'creativity' actually means.
To say that someone is creative means that they are capable of coming up with novel solutions to problems. When they are confronted with something that needs to be done, they find a workaround. This means that, in order for us to be creative, there must be some sort of conflict staring us in the face: there must be some conundrum that needs solving.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
One of the reasons it can be so hard to write is because a blank page doesn't offer us a straightforward problem to be overcome. Yes, it's blank, and we want there to be a story there, but that's the most nebulous type of problem to have, because you could fill that page with almost anything--in fact, it's quite easy to just start typing words--but sadly that isn't going to result in a good story. The much-maligned 'writer's block' that stops us at the first word isn't a physical inability to type, it's the fact that we aren't even sure what specific thing we're trying to achieve in the first place.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1fbgqft4-kXi2t0qbHwVW2mpqmBiUM7RsSaUzsHaanDJiJ1tVKnfTwUHSbHd29hQ7l3SwEtptFhNZqmpbrPEZyX2BYwxIaJxc2P43ScEZSk2O0sMeS3TIE0QbS8KgPOdRyr8_Cg80yQs/s1600/warhol-soup-cans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="264" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1fbgqft4-kXi2t0qbHwVW2mpqmBiUM7RsSaUzsHaanDJiJ1tVKnfTwUHSbHd29hQ7l3SwEtptFhNZqmpbrPEZyX2BYwxIaJxc2P43ScEZSk2O0sMeS3TIE0QbS8KgPOdRyr8_Cg80yQs/s320/warhol-soup-cans.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Soup Cans by Warhol</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Human beings don't do well when we have a huge number of options--<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overchoice" target="_blank">we just tend to freeze up</a>. If we're at the store and have a choice between two cans of soup, it's pretty easy to decide which one you want to eat. But start looking at twenty cans of soup, and now you have to factor in style and brand, price and volume--in short, you have to figure out all the ways in which these objects are different from one another so you can actually compare them and determine which is best for you.<br />
<br />
You have to narrow it down.<br />
<br />
One reason that people stick to certain genres and literary movements is because it gives them a basic sense of direction: it presents a structure. Structure is a limitation that you place on yourself as a writer, but it can also be a limitation that spurs you on--the grain from which you will build your pearl. It's like making something out of Legos: they can only be combined in certain ways, which means that to make the thing you want to make, you are going to have to think up some creative solutions to get around the limitations you've been presented with.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVlVZrrsjw6JfC3id-NLvXfFMVnXclHb3SdwwfWfZMC8srUpiYZ5kbF7FCquY61Eag7z_2UpkLASveId6n5IChzNk60r3DgbFEcF26MRRPlf3F0nw-K2dk-ZBIFQ84Cqbq7BJs3YT9Ti8/s1600/nathan-sawaya-yellow+man.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVlVZrrsjw6JfC3id-NLvXfFMVnXclHb3SdwwfWfZMC8srUpiYZ5kbF7FCquY61Eag7z_2UpkLASveId6n5IChzNk60r3DgbFEcF26MRRPlf3F0nw-K2dk-ZBIFQ84Cqbq7BJs3YT9Ti8/s320/nathan-sawaya-yellow+man.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Yellow Man by Sawaya</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Working with clay, on the other hand, you have a lot more freedom. Technically, you could make any shape--but that also means that you don't have any direction; you don't have anything specific to overcome, and so you're more likely to feel unsure how to proceed. Ask the average person to make one spaceship out of Lego and one out of clay, and the Lego one is probably going to turn out better, because there are guidelines to work with.<br />
<br />
It's the same with writing: there is a built-in challenge to trying to write a sonnet, because it has built-in structure. You're going to have to think very carefully about what words to use, make sure that they rhyme in the proper places, and count syllables. You'll have to get creative in order to get your point across, and you'll run into all kinds of little challenges along the way. In the end, what you come up with will almost certainly be more interesting and complex and unusual than if you just wrote it out in unadorned language.<br />
<br />
This is because when you are looking at a blank sheet or a piece of clay, the only limitation on you is yourself, and that's not a good position for an artist to find themselves. What brings the best out of an artist, what forces them to evolve and rethink is having a challenge before them.<br />
<br />
I often think about the example of George Lucas and Star Wars: in the beginning, when the world was against him and he was struggling to get anything done, when everyone was second-guessing him and he had to rely on the expertise of hundreds of artists and writers and other directors and actors to support him, he managed to produce something pretty impressive.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9LHxTqMnFC5gHHLpt9VBpFGfTtGMZIFJoN106lfQ85Nw8dJpkE6EEcR4cFMmdH6tH-s2S5kUB1YRuXqRyH6j-nQHi9SC7BhnIUDQnlLwVxE78Lb5swrUZgQSSH1iu-RCRexmfK-Owa-Y/s1600/Visas+Marr+KOTOR2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9LHxTqMnFC5gHHLpt9VBpFGfTtGMZIFJoN106lfQ85Nw8dJpkE6EEcR4cFMmdH6tH-s2S5kUB1YRuXqRyH6j-nQHi9SC7BhnIUDQnlLwVxE78Lb5swrUZgQSSH1iu-RCRexmfK-Owa-Y/s320/Visas+Marr+KOTOR2.jpg" width="256" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Visas Marr of KOTOR 2</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qXan-dcl1E" target="_blank">go and watch parts of the 'making of' documentaries</a> of the new movies, and you'll see a completely different situation: everyone is doing whatever George says, everyone is beholden to him; whatever falls blessed from his pen goes in, no questions asked. And because it was so easy, it sucked. While there was a lot of vague external pressure on him to 'do it right' (like our blank page), there was nothing internal to the process that actually forced him to make the hard decisions--his only limitation was himself.<br />
<br />
What is an Olympic fencer without his opponents? Without his training partners? His coach? How can a person become a master unless there is some challenge in front of them that needs must be overcome? How can we better ourselves unless we have some difficulty to test us? That's why I tend to think that free verse is the hardest poetic form to do well: because there is nothing intrinsic to the form forcing the author to be creative--it all has to come from within.<br />
<br />
Now, it is possible to do this--just as it's possible for a skilled artist to sit down and do something in clay that simply couldn't be done in Lego--but those people spent years and years of their life building up internal conflicts that force them to develop creative solutions. They aren't just laboring under their own limitations, they're basing their work on a knowledge of certain modes and movements in art, and comparing themselves to specific artists who have done similar things. Every time an artist throws down their work and says 'it's no use, it's just not good enough', that's their internal limitations forcing them to work harder.<br />
<br />
That's one reason that most artists specialize: because the longer you work in one area, the better you get to know the limitations and the solutions to them. But this is also why many artists stagnate, because they get better and better at solving the specific set of challenges put before them by their genre or their medium--until eventually, it stops being a challenge and becomes an automated process.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkM75-WgQWpFpqpjwjiqVe6tbzUHvSoomrTRXQgEtynKFaN5nQjqbUp23uAxtcf3NL3fs64_I0bjuw3DUdRjw_28Pcckje6Y8-NupLLGnXzDgFx-5zg1vsrPpKN_tgOeRbJXNDtBdtRAM/s1600/From+%2527Theseus+and+the+Minotaur%2527+by+Campana.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkM75-WgQWpFpqpjwjiqVe6tbzUHvSoomrTRXQgEtynKFaN5nQjqbUp23uAxtcf3NL3fs64_I0bjuw3DUdRjw_28Pcckje6Y8-NupLLGnXzDgFx-5zg1vsrPpKN_tgOeRbJXNDtBdtRAM/s320/From+%2527Theseus+and+the+Minotaur%2527+by+Campana.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Theseus and the Minotaur by Campana</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
And then there's the fact that sometimes, taking on limitations just means limiting yourself. A limitation is only useful if it challenges you, if it forces you to think about things in new ways and look for creative solutions. Taking on those limitations isn't going to be very useful if all you do is stick to them. If an author starts writing in a certain subgenre and just ends up pulling out all the cliches--that is, they crib the most common solutions from other authors--then they aren't challenging themselves, they're using the limitation to tell them what to write, and how to write. There's a difference between a labyrinth and a maze.<br />
<br />
A lot of young authors will claim that their books 'don't really fit in any genre'--and one reason for that is that young authors don't know their genre well and don't have control over their own writing yet--but another reason is that, in an attempt to avoid cliche, they take on two or more genres at once, and then pack on a bunch of different mismatched cliches from both in an attempt to be original. Needless to say, this is not effective, anymore than it would be to combine equal parts clay and Legos every time you had a problem you weren't sure how to solve, or just breaking off your sonnet in the middle of a difficult rhyme and finishing with prose.<br />
<br />
So, what's the most effective way to do creative work? Get yourself a good strong conceptual basis, and decide what you want to do. Put some limitations in place--like theme and genre--then sit down and try to figure out how to actually make this thing come to life. 'But wait,' I hear you say, 'how do I decide on themes and genre and stuff like that?' Well, mostly you steal it. If you read an interesting book or article, have an experience in life, learn a new fact, then take something from that. Don't take the whole thing, of course, that would be pointless--never use an idea without making it your own. Make sure each character draws on several different influences--in my novel, I have a character who draws on aspects of Captain Nemo, Ahab, and the real life of author Joseph Conrad.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMEtqB4DtzaWygi73cm9PVbE5qAAjVYZpPBB-DDreGeogmJ7l0lH5bDQBO3p7Begvz_k2x7mL9H_I9JbTkSCAAmH2ya5SFUHUhIx1eGBBaI5CX7RDMAvVIsYJR3rRPZozjsrzcVUWmZm0/s1600/Jacob+Borshard+2009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMEtqB4DtzaWygi73cm9PVbE5qAAjVYZpPBB-DDreGeogmJ7l0lH5bDQBO3p7Begvz_k2x7mL9H_I9JbTkSCAAmH2ya5SFUHUhIx1eGBBaI5CX7RDMAvVIsYJR3rRPZozjsrzcVUWmZm0/s400/Jacob+Borshard+2009.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Copyright <a href="http://creebobby.com/timestable.html" target="_blank">Jacob Borshard 2009</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But for me, and for all the good writers I know, you have to keep reading in order to feed your writing. You need to take in ideas and experiences from everywhere--challenge yourself, get out of your comfort zone, seek out something that you find difficult. That's what's going to supply you with ideas. More than that, just sit down and write. Whatever else you do, if you aren't writing, then you're not getting better (plus you aren't actually 'a writer').<br />
<br />
If you're still not sure, then let me give you an exercise: if you're a fiction writer on the internet, you probably already love <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage" target="_blank">TV Tropes</a>, but even if you do, I wonder if you've ever played with their <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/storygen.php" target="_blank">Story Generator</a>. It sets up a series of limitations for a story, and then you can practice working through them, yourself. Sometimes, due to problems with the categorization, you might get a response that doesn't make sense, but I usually just refresh until I get something that works.<br />
<br />
Back when I was running a little writer's workshop, we used to use this as a tool: one of us would generate an outline, then send it to all the others, and then we would all have to write a story that matched it, and then compare them at the end and look at how our interpretations differed. I'll probably start doing it again once I need a break from my novel, and at that point, maybe I'll start posting it here, and we can get a fiction writing group going. Let me know if there's any interest in that.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Next time, we'll talk about <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2013/01/originality-and-fount-of-inspiration.html" target="_blank">what 'originality' means</a></i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-69188005126791278312013-01-10T05:29:00.005-08:002015-06-16T05:16:13.028-07:00What Makes A Good Writer?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdCqskJQ-jOdEa-vpaXUFlkYQBQPpaIZTClo-EQ2bVgrI9nd1uRYWnjwsSSXhHek2dt9CxkSyKVyseNJVlbWE0vnAwbsQEJlsim8jNEKv_6uGWfD7SugWj3jdn6Fkn2DHxekARwAHZDLc/s1600/mongoliet_50a0209b9606ee05ec6d4122.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdCqskJQ-jOdEa-vpaXUFlkYQBQPpaIZTClo-EQ2bVgrI9nd1uRYWnjwsSSXhHek2dt9CxkSyKVyseNJVlbWE0vnAwbsQEJlsim8jNEKv_6uGWfD7SugWj3jdn6Fkn2DHxekARwAHZDLc/s1600/mongoliet_50a0209b9606ee05ec6d4122.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">As you may or might not have noticed, my Goodreads profile contains the somewhat confrontational statement: <i>"</i><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><i>No author who rates their own book five stars could write a five-star book"</i>. It's something I get asked about with some regularity, along with the question <i>'how can I become a good writer?' </i>Luckily for me, my job is rather simplified by the fact that both questions share a common answer.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">Now, I'm not claiming I <i>am</i> a good writer--indeed it's very humbling when people choose to come to me and seek advice--but I have spent quite a bit of time reading and thinking on the topic of becoming a good writer--in hopes of getting there, myself, one day--and it's hard for me to think of an act more directed at becoming a good writer than writing to other writers about the properties of good writing as I understand them.</span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">In many of the messages I receive, people tell me that they often feel hopeless, that they can't seem to finish their work, and that when they look back at what they have done, they are frustrated with how far short it falls of what they intended. They tell me that they read books by skilled writers and feel like they'll never get there--some aren't even sure how to find the path that leads from where they are to becoming a skilled writer.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">If you share these same doubts and concerns, then that's a great sign, because in my experience, that's exactly what it feels like to be a good writer. When great writers talk about writing, it is often in terms of disappointment in their work, in not being able to realize their vision. Just think of all the famous cases of legendary authors who wanted their work destroyed when they died because it wasn't 'good enough': Virgil insisted the <i>Aeneid</i> be burned, or Kafka, who did destroy 90% of his writings, or Gogol, who fed his follow-up to <i>Dead Souls</i> page by page into the fire.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><a href="http://extremelyloudandincrediblybroke.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/book-fire.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://extremelyloudandincrediblybroke.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/book-fire.jpg" height="240" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>The Library of Burned Books would be vast indeed.</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">To be perfectly honest, I am often inclined to feel the same way: here I am, smack-dab in the middle of my own literary endeavor--having now written more on this than any other single work--and I find myself thinking <i>"what's the point?"</i> It's no Shakespeare, no Aristotle, no Mervyn Peake. If anyone reads it, I feel I can guarantee that there are better books out there they could have been reading, instead. But then, I remind myself: that's how all great writers think--and it's that very thought that made them into great writers in the first place.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">Imagine two authors each write a book; at the end, one of them sits and thinks "this is a really great book" while the other one thinks "this book really isn't good enough". Which author is going to try to improve his work? The one who thinks that he needs to. What makes a great writer is that nagging sense that you aren't one yet, and so you need to keep at it.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">That feeling will never go away, and it shouldn't ever go away, because it's the thing that drives you, the thing that ensures that you don't sit on your laurels, churn out crap, and let yourself be happy with less. <i>"But wait,"</i> says my loyal reader, <i>"aren't you the guy who was <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/12/worldbuilding-part-iii-what-fiction.html">just writing</a> about how that kind of authorial perfectionism is </i>destructive<i> to writers?" </i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">Yes, I was--and it's very perceptive of you to notice--but, while a sense of incompleteness, of literary <i>sensucht</i>--is vital to becoming a great writer, it is not the <i>only</i> thing, it's just the first step. Once we recognize the permanence of that feeling, that it will always be there, driving us, then we have to realize, rationally, that we can't use doubt to tell us when we're done. Our work will never be as perfect as we can imagine it might be, and we'll never be able to accurately judge what we've made, so naturally, we'll think 'it could be better', but things could <i>always be better</i>, infinitely. So, if we let that doubt rule us, then we will never actually produce anything.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/SierpinskiSieve_700.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/images/eps-gif/SierpinskiSieve_700.gif" height="50" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>"One more iteration?"</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">So, give into that doubt when it will make your writing better, ignore it when it makes writing impossible. How will you know? That part comes only with experience. If you never seem to finish anything, then you're stuck too much on your doubt. If you constantly write reams of pages that get out of hand and stop making sense, then you're not listening closely enough to your doubt.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">So, if you already have a healthy sense of doubt then congratulations: you have the tools at your disposal to become a great writer. Just make sure that you accept that is natural for it to be there, and it will always be there, and that it's there to help you be better. Don't try to escape it or deny it--learn to live with it and use it.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><a href="http://greatmiddleway.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/doubt1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://greatmiddleway.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/doubt1.jpg" height="252" width="320" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><i>The Power of Doubt</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">Better that than the alternative: there are loads of authors out there who just don't have that little voice. They already think they're great, they read their own work and can't think of a single way to make it better--meanwhile, you have an internal editing tool that reveals to you what you need to work on.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">I have never yet seen an author who thought that they were great who didn't turn out to be awful. Whether it's some hackneyed teen <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1195412">comparing himself</a> to Tolkien and Seamus Heaney or a former landscape painter who insists that his dragon wizard bondage fetish books <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1195463">aren't 'fantasy'</a>, or the dozens of GR authors who spam my inbox and give their own books five stars, the results always the same: badly-written cliche crap. I know some authors rate their own books just to try to skew the average, but is it really worthwhile to get that extra tenth of a point if it makes you look like an arrogant prat? Perhaps it's just me, but I tend to think discretion is the better part of self-promotion.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><a href="http://www.interferencetheory.com/Blog/files/pastedgraphic-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.interferencetheory.com/Blog/files/pastedgraphic-1.jpg" height="320" width="233" /></a>
<span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">Then again, self-promotion is an unenviable and rotten task, and I wish I knew enough about it to give some advice. Unfortunately, the method of my success can be best described as <i>'insularly write for your own selfish pleasure until the mountain shows up at Mohammed's door and asks if it might stop in for a bit'</i>, which I'm pretty sure falls under serendipity instead of any reliable system. But if there is anything that has made me what I am today, for better or worse, it's a persistent sense of self doubt and the concomitant need to improve myself at every turn.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">After all, the point is not to create the best book ever written, but to create the best book that you are currently capable of writing. If you find yourself looking at your work and thinking <i>'this could be better. but I don't know how to make it better'</i>, then that's a good place to stop, because it means you've reached your limits--you have written up to the level that you know how to write.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">If you sit and think <i>'it could be better if I spent the next five years learning Sanskrit and Catalan history and studying the complete Shakespeare</i>'<i>, </i>that's also a good place to stop, because just as your book could always be infinitesimally better, so could you. If improving the book requires you to completely change yourself then stop, because if you do go and change yourself, once you're done, you'll be so different that you'd just end up writing a completely different book, anyways.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span id="freeTextdisplay_user84023">Otherwise it just become another excuse not to write. It's scary to finish something, to put work out there for critique. It's easier to just never finish, because it means we can hold onto the ideal of our perfect, unrealized book forever. So, our finicky, doubting nature might be what allows us to become a better writer, but what makes us writers is that we write, so if we can accept the unending and inexorable process of doubt, then we can also say <i>'this is the best I can do right now'</i> and put something out there, knowing that an imperfect but real thing is always a better addition to the world than a perfect ideal that doesn't exist.</span></span>JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-14463959169362362442012-12-22T07:04:00.002-08:002015-06-16T05:27:12.009-07:00International Triage: The Morality of Charity<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://uploads6.wikipaintings.org/images/william-adolphe-bouguereau/charity-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://uploads6.wikipaintings.org/images/william-adolphe-bouguereau/charity-2.jpg" height="320" width="190" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bouguereau's <i>Charity</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
Charity is big business, but not all charities are created equal, and not all charities, despite the best intentions, actually end up doing good. Yet most people want to help out in some way: we empathize with the pain of others, we sympathize with the unfortunate positions they have been put in, but very few actually do anything about it.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
Sure we might feel bad, but rarely does that translate into action, and even when it does, the actions we take are rarely the most effective. But then, the real motivation for many people is to make that feeling go away, to feel as if they have done something, but not to look too closely into what has actually been achieved, because trying to confront such a terrible, insurmountable problem is quite a task to set before yourself.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
So we do the little things: we recycle, we turn off lights, we send some money to an organization. It lets us think of ourselves good people, it alleviates the guilt we feel when we see the late night commercial with the starving African children, but these techniques are often marketed to do just that: to make us feel complacent, as if we have already done something good.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
Yet, when we feel good, that is when we are least likely to actually do good. Studies have shown that when we talk about our goals, it makes us less likely to actually work on them, because to the brain, talking about something gives us the same feeling as we'd get from actually doing it. It's something we can all recognize inherently, because when we talk about our goals, it makes us feel good, it makes us feel like we're on track, and that nagging feeling that we ought to be working on it right now <a href="http://interruptions.net/literature/Wicklund-BASP81.pdf">just goes away</a>.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
We've all seen it: the guy who refers to himself as a writer and always wants to talk about his latest idea, despite the fact that he has failed to finish any of his previous projects. Yet, he sees no conflict in defining himself as 'a writer' despite never having completed a book.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL1K_5lxLJcsxyU74O6o0NCxaLfurL5cYvT4NhX_q60yZI56kUGGOMfK4dBGj1Qd-8G9GM-Sz7ZNKW2UUHqWHTsQqDPZ-jtS49FgqQOjXu8Y04lytT15Wm7wkqJ8OWwqH14mcXP8z8gFM/s320/heygirlbook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjL1K_5lxLJcsxyU74O6o0NCxaLfurL5cYvT4NhX_q60yZI56kUGGOMfK4dBGj1Qd-8G9GM-Sz7ZNKW2UUHqWHTsQqDPZ-jtS49FgqQOjXu8Y04lytT15Wm7wkqJ8OWwqH14mcXP8z8gFM/s320/heygirlbook.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Well, now I actually have to finish it.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
My ex's mother collected business self-help books which she would read whenever she felt stressed out or depressed, because they made her feel like financial independence was only six to eight months of hard work away--all she needed was to put her nose to the grindstone, a few hours a day, and all the financial woes that kept her up at night would disappear. She'd come bustling out of her office smiling, and she might even complete Step One of the book's ten step plan. And then, since she felt good, and like she'd done some work, she'd reward herself with some well-deserved rest and leisure.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://ahat.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/robert-kiyosaki.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://ahat.tv/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/robert-kiyosaki.jpg" height="320" width="268" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strike>Real Estate</strike> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1467545">Guru</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
This would last until the next personal financial crisis, when she'd suddenly remember that she was no nearer to any of her goals and had never gone on to Step Two, at which point she's get depressed and start the cycle over again. In the end, it was just her escape--her drug that she claimed was helping her when really, all it did was enable her own destructive pattern.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
This type of pattern is terribly useful if you want to control people and make them complacent. So, when the American public started to attack industry for being wasteful and destructive, they brilliantly turned it around and set us on each other. We get messages about how we're supposed to turn off the water when we brush our teeth, despite the fact that in high-income countries, <a href="http://www.unwater.org/downloads/Water_facts_and_trends.pdf">more potable water is used by industry</a> than by domestic and agriculture combined. We're reminded over and over to turn off the lights when we leave a room, but we drive by supermarkets and office buildings that keep their lights on all night, whether they are closed or not. We happily buy <a href="http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1210829450_document_new_evidence_of_old_concerns_fair_trade_mythe_exposed_again.pdf">'Fair Trade'</a> coffee despite the fact that it has a larger markup, produces bigger profits, and often pays less to the actual farmer than non-'Fair Trade'. We buy anything with 'Organic' on the label even if it means that we're buying a product that is more <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22240-organic-food-no-better-for-you-or-the-planet.html">wasteful and pollutative</a> (and more likely to contain <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/09/organic-food-not-proven-healthier-or-safer-study-finds/#.UNTAjPWgSyQ">fecal bacterial contamination</a>).</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl6U9w_Yrb_yHREl8PrZqNlSNINN3Lvnv6BzOJ2QWijSDwb8G3RGRxAllWkkTEh4nsMWVJSFYL6_wwPaEJF3jxVyxTXVDQP1vb8EdjTQjZN_FHQcxQ12GfRy2NJAM5w_2sys6608x92Is/s1600/250px-Recycle001.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl6U9w_Yrb_yHREl8PrZqNlSNINN3Lvnv6BzOJ2QWijSDwb8G3RGRxAllWkkTEh4nsMWVJSFYL6_wwPaEJF3jxVyxTXVDQP1vb8EdjTQjZN_FHQcxQ12GfRy2NJAM5w_2sys6608x92Is/s1600/250px-Recycle001.svg.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>The Triskelion of Guilt</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
It's a very clever branding shift: making the average person blame themselves for the small role they play, all in order to distract them from blaming industry for the lion's share--especially since, even if we all reduced our personal water and electric requirements today, that little bit we saved will just be used up by industry tomorrow. It is not a solution and it does not address the problem at hand, all it does is allow us to ignore our guilt and pat ourselves on the back for 'helping' in ways that are ultimately pointless.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
So, what can we do? Well, it's tempting to think about charities--and though that's a very literal way to 'pass the buck', it doesn't mean it can't be effective. Indeed, one of the strengths of a large society is specialization. If I make shoes all day and trade them to people who make food or buildings or clothing all day, then everyone will get what they want, and each individual is probably going to end up being pretty damn good at what they do. I'll certainly get better food, clothes, and shelter that way than if I tried to split my time and make it all myself. It's one of the reasons that extreme couponing isn't worth it: you'd make more than you end up saving if you spent the same number of hours at work as you would have to clipping coupons.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://aidwatchers.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/t-shirt-recipients-300x208.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://aidwatchers.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/t-shirt-recipients-300x208.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The annual delivery of Superbowl loser shirts</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
So, if we could pool our money and give it all to someone that was really good at doing charitable work, that would be fairly productive--but unfortunately, finding a good charity isn't always easy. There are lots of <a href="http://matadornetwork.com/change/7-worst-international-aid-ideas/">useless charities</a> out there, where much of the money goes to bureaucracy, and even for the ones where a large amount of money, goods, and services actually reaches the needy, that doesn't mean that those goods or services are actually productive. For instance, there are quite a few charities devoted to sending clothing and shoes to Africa, despite the fact that Africa is fairly warm and there just isn't a big demand for either. More than that, flooding the African markets with surplus shoes and clothes makes it impossible for any Africans to make a living as tailors or cobblers, so this kind of 'giving' just weakens their economy.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
Then there are charities that are even more harmful, such as the Catholic Church, the single largest charitable organization in the world, which has continually rejected the use of condoms in Africa, where many of its charitable branches are, <a href="http://hnn.us/node/69070">promoting continuing rates of infection</a> and death among millions of Africans over decades. Or one can look at Mother Teresa, who raked in millions in donations from corrupt South American dictators, but none of that money ever went to building schools and hospitals. Instead, she built shrines to suffering, where the poor were allowed to stay until they died, in conditions which Medical journal <i>The Lancet</i> criticized for doing nothing to heal patients, and even making some worse by needle sharing and poor hygienic practices. And when I say 'shrines to suffering', I mean that very literally, as the philosophy of her order, in Teresa's own words was:</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<i>"'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ."</i></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
Which meant that all patients were denied painkillers <i>on principle</i>, even those on whom surgery was performed. So, the desire to help is simply not enough--there must also be an effective system by which that help is administered such that it actually does good. Then there are the charities which are just wholly scams. The <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/topics/specials/worst-charities1.page">'50 Worst Charities in America'</a> raised 1.4 billion dollars over the last ten years, <a href="http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/">970 million of which went to CEOs, consulting firms, and other fees</a>.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
'Triage' is a system by which medical professionals decide which patients to treat, and in what order. So, for example, if an EMT arrives at the location of an accident to find two men, one with a crushed trachea and the other with a broken arm, triage dictates that he go to the first man and perform a tracheotomy and deal with the other man later, since an arm can be set and splinted hours after the injury, but a crushed throat means a quick death. Indeed, we might say that allowing the first man to die when you could have prevented it is amoral, even if you were spending that time helping the other man.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixs8JRU5SrWF1tK-OFUarW4jaQiUhT1hTa9Xv0cEkkYsqMGeL3KCO_UL5BMrL1HEVUWEx3OoESfH_6C-BCfy4Y4_FmhFfmU1c793yTX3W7kjxQGjGmMh5oWtXKLk-9WUim8tJPA2To-fc/s1600/Triage+Tagging.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixs8JRU5SrWF1tK-OFUarW4jaQiUhT1hTa9Xv0cEkkYsqMGeL3KCO_UL5BMrL1HEVUWEx3OoESfH_6C-BCfy4Y4_FmhFfmU1c793yTX3W7kjxQGjGmMh5oWtXKLk-9WUim8tJPA2To-fc/s320/Triage+Tagging.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Tags Color-Coded for Marking the Wounded</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
Or say our EMT comes across seven wounded people, all of whom are wounded severely and will die without care. He sees that to save one man would take two hours of surgical intervention, while to save the six others would take 20-30 minutes of surgery each. In this case, triage would dictate that he try to save the six and let the one die, since saving six people is a better use of time than saving just one. Again, we might say that it is immoral to let six die to save one.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
So, if there is a moral imperative to do the most good to the most number of people, why not extend this to charity? Just because we move from a handful of people to millions doesn't mean we change the fundamental underpinnings of our morality. So we must look at the world, at the disaster there--the sick, starving, injured, and imperiled--and ask ourselves: who comes first? Who is in the greatest danger? If we are going to spend a million dollars or a million man hours, then where will they do the most good, where will they save the most lives?</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
Determining the priorities of 'international triage' is the whole point of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus">Copenhagen Consensus</a>--explained more fully <a href="http://blog.ted.com/2008/08/05/bjorn_lomborg_s/">here</a>--and it's a controversial position to take, since it usually involves saying that there are certain problems we should stop throwing money at, because there's just not much we can do about them, and it's money we could have spent doing something productive. After all, if it's amoral to let six die to save one, is it not equally amoral to let six million day to save one million? What about letting a million die because the money and manpower goes into donating shirts, or building schoolhouses where there are no teachers, or buildings where old nuns pray reverentially over the sacred suffering of people who could be cured, or supporting charities that are inefficient and bloated with bureaucracy? Shouldn't the truly controversial choice be spending so much money and time on white elephants?</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">
If you feel sympathy for these people and upset at the state of the world, if you feel a moral obligation to do something to make a difference, then make it more than a gesture--don't get into this to make yourself feel better, because your narcissism is not going to help anyone. And really, throwing money or time at the problem <i>shouldn't</i> make you feel better, because you don't know if it's doing any good at all. Your little feel-good gesture might even end up <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfobLjsj230">making things worse</a>.</div>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-36132847093295128072012-12-18T08:03:00.000-08:002019-11-14T09:00:28.290-08:00Worldbuilding -- Part III: What Fiction Does Well<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/12/worldbuilding-and-origin-of-fandom-part.html" target="_blank">Last time</a>, we talked about the unfortunate habits of some authors, when it comes to worldbuilding. Now let's talk about why such perfectionism can make it very difficult to write good fiction.</i></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmol2O7WxKrL_QORKjQIRaoMicT5x6m-TCrPELTT-AseHzclVvUDAQ0flvNiv8NQgvz6tqwV__M4MslYbbCAIFkBd_Y7m8LiiN65qgFqlkbq7gQd6uiP2arMHboJMUX2ntruhGZTzGPhY/s1600/greek-oedipus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmol2O7WxKrL_QORKjQIRaoMicT5x6m-TCrPELTT-AseHzclVvUDAQ0flvNiv8NQgvz6tqwV__M4MslYbbCAIFkBd_Y7m8LiiN65qgFqlkbq7gQd6uiP2arMHboJMUX2ntruhGZTzGPhY/s320/greek-oedipus.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
While reading Bernard Knox's fascinating introduction to the Fagles translation of the Oedipus plays, I came across the following quote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“If through no fault of his own the hero is crushed by a bulldozer in Act II, we are not impressed. Even though life is often like this—the absconding cashier on his way to Nicaragua is killed in a collision at the airport, the prominent statesman dies of a stroke in the midst of the negotiations he has spent years to bring about, the young lovers are drowned in a boating accident the day before their marriage—such events, the warp and woof of everyday life, seem irrelevant, meaningless . . . it is the function of great art to purge and give meaning to human suffering, and so we expect that if the hero is indeed crushed by a bulldozer in Act II there will be some reason for it, and not just some reason but a good one, one which makes sense in terms of the hero’s personality and action. In fact, we expect to be shown that he is in some way responsible for what happens to him.”</i></blockquote>
<br />
A quote which quite aptly sums up much of what I think is wrong with the modern realism movement, and particularly, the motivations behind 'gritty' fantasy.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiTS-gA3bSwQMY4S4sdY7joSjKfhlnJw5MKw52FRaVZnR9ViLOKcxhFs3as_pKBmHUyCo0t1vgjB7K8q8JwRTuk09TgFqSZ-ED8va61lThTEr8EV2w4SbJcC3qy95a4FJZPfkCSnCRk2A/s1600/zawarudo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiTS-gA3bSwQMY4S4sdY7joSjKfhlnJw5MKw52FRaVZnR9ViLOKcxhFs3as_pKBmHUyCo0t1vgjB7K8q8JwRTuk09TgFqSZ-ED8va61lThTEr8EV2w4SbJcC3qy95a4FJZPfkCSnCRk2A/s320/zawarudo.jpg" width="238" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Za Warudo</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Back when I was reading <i>A Game of Thrones</i> years ago, I was struck with the sense that this was precisely how Martin creates his plots: he knows that, this being a story, we expect that the people the story is about will be somehow important, and that they will do interesting things. More than that, we expect that Martin created them for some purpose, and for all of the plot and character arcs the author opens up, we expect them to be closed in some satisfactory manner.<br />
<br />
Instead, he would just kill characters off, will-he-nil-he, in the name of 'realism', despite the fact that he was, in fact, creating a work of fiction. Certainly, many people find the unpredictability surprising, but if your art is only as unpredictable inasmuch as it undermines its own story, I'm not sure I would consider that a 'success'. It's like a playwright trying to write a shocking mystery and, coming to the big twist, writes<i> 'at this point stage manager pours glass of water down audience's back'</i>. Yes, it would be surprising but no, it would not make for a cleverly plot twist. Simply betraying audience expectation is not enough--one must do so without making the story pointless as a result.
<br />
<br />
Many authors out there seem to think that by just copying the form of reality, obsessively adding every detail and aside, randomly killing off characters, and filling their stories with death and sexual assault just because those things happen in life will somehow make their story feel more real. Yet works of fiction are always artificial, and treating them as if they were real will only make it clearer just how artificial they are.
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCkydDv91OqM2GqPtSjSvTksOklyS4y03YBYr5VNDeqnKN8mfMdVetCbMEuPGUbBZZrNVgFz8YACtn3H5RlElktvrQlyxbPktlivEeh5Q6SzhxDGioWQmxpkQMuyVyI12Gsb4P452DREs/s1600/Duchamp+Knight.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCkydDv91OqM2GqPtSjSvTksOklyS4y03YBYr5VNDeqnKN8mfMdVetCbMEuPGUbBZZrNVgFz8YACtn3H5RlElktvrQlyxbPktlivEeh5Q6SzhxDGioWQmxpkQMuyVyI12Gsb4P452DREs/s320/Duchamp+Knight.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>From A Set by Duchamp</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Symbols are not meant to be wholly realistic, but to be recognizable representations, and so, when we want to create a symbol, we must remember what we are at. Despite being tiny and wooden and legless, a knight piece from chess is a recognizable symbol for a horse, and gluing a tiny furred pelt onto it or giving it legs does not make any more representative of a horse. Speaking in a 'realistic' volume on stage does not make the audience believe the play is more real--it will only make the artificiality more apparent.
<br />
<br />
Fiction is inherently symbolic, and not even in the 'this character represents the struggle for knowledge' way, but in the 'this character represents a human being' way. There is no reason to go around gluing furred pelts on our characters--they are already artificial, already fictional and symbolic, and that's something we should take advantage of, as authors.
<br />
<br />
If a death does not have some narrative purpose, then why put it in? If a character is not important to the scene, why include them? Every author chooses what words, characters, and events to include in their story, so to add extraneous elements in the name of 'realism' is folly. When an author starts going on about their world-building, magic systems, genealogies, languages, science gadgets, or other pet hobbies, he is no longer writing a story, he is making a word-find.
<br />
<br />
It's true that perfectionism can be of great use--the need to constantly revise and redraft, to hunt out the most minuscule errors and correct them can be invaluable--but the best place to exercise this urge is not the realm of fiction. In history, philosophy, and the sciences, it is truly worthwhile to research and reconsider a single fact until it is precisely correct, since it directly impacts the understanding of those who follow. A small archaeological detail can tell you the year an event took place, the influence of another culture at the time, and such a brief fact might impact several fields of study.
<br />
<br />
Yet in fiction, the phase of the moon on a particular night, the specific subspecies of tulip in the sultan's garden, and the make and style of a dwarf's musical instruments are not important facts, in and of themselves, because they will be whatever the author says they are. If an author already has a wealth of knowledge and can add details seamlessly in a way that adds to the tone without distracting from the pacing or purpose of the story then certainly, include them--but adding a bunch of unnecessary details to something you made up is not going to make your cliche story any better.
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivlVh1MlPhH8udF64toQTb6X8CuDYYDIgrKSzC8ErhOd7GMLMulFRLfF0vajPWWaeIPBWa0gLKMYRhZZC5Xxldg1iKQ0aaUT84KdxxbixlRq-R_BeZpIwTXYhEDKo0ST9S93ASjIobKLw/s1600/Gillray+Napoleon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivlVh1MlPhH8udF64toQTb6X8CuDYYDIgrKSzC8ErhOd7GMLMulFRLfF0vajPWWaeIPBWa0gLKMYRhZZC5Xxldg1iKQ0aaUT84KdxxbixlRq-R_BeZpIwTXYhEDKo0ST9S93ASjIobKLw/s320/Gillray+Napoleon.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Gillray's Caricatures of Pitt and Napoleon</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Such attention to detail was vital for Tolkien as a student of myth, of language, of history, but extraneous to his creation of fiction. Any writer who has an obsession with precision and realism would be well-served in researching and composing works of history, but turning these same talents to fiction doesn't really work, because 'realistic fiction' is a contradiction in terms. Fiction is artificial. Certainly, there are verisimilitude and believability, but these are achieved not by copying history, but by taking advantage of the biased way the human mind processes, and tricking it into thinking of the story as real.
<br />
<br />
Caricature artists do not draw people as they actually appear, but as the human brain conceptualizes them. They do not achieve likeness by imitating how the world works, but how the mind perceives. It is not a likeness but a collection of cues. After all, why else, despite the oversized features, the grotesqueries, do we still have no trouble in recognizing them? Take a child's stick figure and compare it to the social focus we put on different of parts of the body (or to the concentration of nerves on the skin), it will be seen that it is an apt representation both of social and cognitive experience, if not the classic ratios of art.
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtS_ROXaoIvx7Ch7-nKk2dqDVlroJVLM8bVR2aUWeR3hFgfYOVbbB8x5Wvxbv399oibka6EV7XpdtSoDIgG_UM4BpiRljw6htjEnWff35UiAQVzzMfyc2irWTjUdc8l4x3hC3YgDCywrQ/s1600/Sensory+Homonculus.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtS_ROXaoIvx7Ch7-nKk2dqDVlroJVLM8bVR2aUWeR3hFgfYOVbbB8x5Wvxbv399oibka6EV7XpdtSoDIgG_UM4BpiRljw6htjEnWff35UiAQVzzMfyc2irWTjUdc8l4x3hC3YgDCywrQ/s320/Sensory+Homonculus.png" width="294" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Sensory Homonculus</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A fiction author must pull a similar trick: the real world is full of unbelievable coincidence, but a story full of the same will not seem realistic in the least. Everyday human speech is so convoluted, repetitive, and reliant on nuance that the faithful transcript read in court sounds not like real dialogue, but lame-brained nonsense. Yet, if you put a couple of 'uhs' in a character's statement, they will read as awkward and hesitant, despite the fact that the average real person might 'uh' (or 'em') in nearly every sentence.
<br />
<br />
If we stop and think about it, it's really quite amazing that this type of shorthand makes sense to us at all. We do not have to recreate an entire face, or every branch of a tree, or use the proper colors or scale, because that isn't how the brain actually sees the world. All we have to do is give the brain the cues it recognizes and suddenly, a triangle atop a square is a recognizable house, a stick with a ball on top is a tree, and a circle with lines in it is a smiling face.
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6ejPuFyvuo6v4VCuawTCfiM_UhF6JLSicThx7QBOioRDT75NGm-zo2hMjoB7t1jGcJlSRuByKc7xQVajBWdm_uZKYzkhQVJ6BxiCZFQXg2kgdw6iaTFqtxj__46BabqFEk9zfPGI5N9o/s1600/Crumley+wide+vs+tilt+shift.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6ejPuFyvuo6v4VCuawTCfiM_UhF6JLSicThx7QBOioRDT75NGm-zo2hMjoB7t1jGcJlSRuByKc7xQVajBWdm_uZKYzkhQVJ6BxiCZFQXg2kgdw6iaTFqtxj__46BabqFEk9zfPGI5N9o/s320/Crumley+wide+vs+tilt+shift.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://blog.chriscrumley.com/2009/09/comparing_ordinary_wide_to_til.html" target="_blank"><i>Wide vs. Tilt-Shift by Chris Crumley</i></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
And we can do much more than that: we can play with shape and color, or with words and sounds and ideas, and develop depth, tone, and meaning, at every moment we distort and modify. Art is not concerned with recreating the image of the world, but producing imagery that captures how we think and feel. Even in the case of photography, the frame, the tilt, the lens, and the exposure can be modified to create drastically different views of the world, which might seem real, but which never existed: images carefully and deliberately modified into a form less real, but much more human. If anyone tells you that photography is a lesser art than painting, they simply know nothing about how a photograph is produced, long before photoshop even entered the scene.
<br />
<br />
An author can skip months or years of time, ignore the details of a room, create impossibilities, even move backward from the future to the past over the course of their narrative--yet still, they will not lose their audience. They can be surreal in the original sense: super-real (not 'unreal'), taking everyday, familiar experiences and combining them in ways that are impossible in reality, but which still make sense in the conceptual world of the mind. The whole point of Dali's famous <i>Persistence of Memory</i> is not to confuse us with something nonsensical, but to combine real sensations in a way that we intuitively comprehend even though they are impossible. Divorced from our real experiences with clocks and melting, the piece has no meaning--but with that understanding intact, it invites us to think about the qualities and limitations of human sensation as it actually plays out in the physical world, and in the mind<i>.</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKfJcfU6EpCVcEFVMigvPtItTb3GZNQwoHjk2IyLnJduOqFckVmgs54OMvazG9DqZiCgw-b2MTVBBfPW1dnK1VhaIGiO_SKg3rYb_YQUiPUrwiHXcb6wvYQ1uji-ta5kSpq8ui-Bko7T4/s1600/the-persistence-of-memory.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKfJcfU6EpCVcEFVMigvPtItTb3GZNQwoHjk2IyLnJduOqFckVmgs54OMvazG9DqZiCgw-b2MTVBBfPW1dnK1VhaIGiO_SKg3rYb_YQUiPUrwiHXcb6wvYQ1uji-ta5kSpq8ui-Bko7T4/s320/the-persistence-of-memory.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i> </i>
<br />
<br />
This is why, to me, it makes no sense for an author of fiction to entertain this kind of obsession with 'reality'. In a story, the author can make us fear a dragon, afraid that it might hurt the hero, despite the fact that no dragon has ever existed. To give the dragon a sense of realism does not mean revealing that it was a puppet the whole time, since dragons do not exist, but writing it so that it makes sense in the context of the story and serves the fictional narrative.
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiPpTxKGvdzaOFnrsrl3JGHKERUnaTslPJTaT2OaPxOhopEBpG4Gb6X_7hWmkBPc-zxoY1ap29mNpHjzyb07x92ZVIGqp4V-6laOoxyFfmj6tpFjUMVcepdtq42RcLh4724bqGHIqykgA/s1600/magritte-the-treachery-of-images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiPpTxKGvdzaOFnrsrl3JGHKERUnaTslPJTaT2OaPxOhopEBpG4Gb6X_7hWmkBPc-zxoY1ap29mNpHjzyb07x92ZVIGqp4V-6laOoxyFfmj6tpFjUMVcepdtq42RcLh4724bqGHIqykgA/s320/magritte-the-treachery-of-images.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Magritte - The Treachery of Images</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
For mathematicians, historians, biologists, and all manner of other specializations, certainly it's a healthy urge, and I'd suggest these fields for anyone who wants to spend their time agonizing over a few dates or details for decades at a time. But to try to make fiction real is not only impossible, but a fundamental contradiction in terms, and a misunderstanding of what 'reality' means to our perceptions. Fiction works not because it is real, but because it is human. To try to pretend that it is real, or force it to be real, is to miss the point entirely.
<br />
<br />
But just as there are some people who read to escape, who would rather inhabit a false world than think about what is around them, so too some authors look for another kind of facile evasion. Instead of doing the difficult thing and accepting their own work, flaws and all, and engaging with the world, they draw back and labor <i>ad nauseam</i> on a perfect creation that will never have to exist anywhere outside their own mind; but it is only an escape into pretense, into a loophole which has no bearing either on the reality of the world or upon the nature of the human experience, and hence, fails to address either science or art.
<br />
<br />
If a work neither explores the <i>cogito ergo sum</i> consciousness of Descartes, nor the apparent reality without, all that is left is narcissism: for the author, that of the monomaniac, and for the reader, that of the comforting mob.
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Up next, <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2015/06/worldbuilding-bakker-vs-harrison.html" target="_blank">Worldbuilding: Bakker vs. Harrison</a></i></div>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-10883945425731730452012-12-14T04:45:00.003-08:002016-02-24T11:36:16.371-08:00On Escapism<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Part of a series on defining terms.</i></span> </div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><a href="http://great-hikes.com/blog/tunnel-hike-to-the-hanalei-river/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://great-hikes.com/blog/images/Tunnels12.jpg" height="320" width="240" /></a>I occasionally enjoy the offerings on <a href="http://longform.org/">Longform</a>, a site that collects longer pieces of journalism which the editors find particularly interesting, and for the most part, I agree. But recently, they featured a piece by Joe Queenan about being an avid reader which opened with this statement:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif; font-size: x-small;"><i>“If you have read 6,000 books in your lifetime, or even 600, it’s probably because at some level you find “reality” a bit of a disappointment.”</i></span> </blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">As an assertion, I find it both absurd and insulting. Yet it's something I have heard before, particularly in re<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ference to</span> genre works like sci fi or fantasy, where the term 'escapism' is likely to rear its head. It's a loaded word, to be certain--which makes it important to define precisely what we mean by it, and why it has nothing to do with why I read.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, if we break down the structure, 'escapism' must mean <i>'the way of escape'</i>: an avoidant habit of moving away from something. As Mr. Queenan points out, in the case of books, the reader seeks to escape reality itself. So, the first and most important point is that 'escapis<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">t</span>' is not the same as 'pleasurable'--it doesn't simply mean something we might find interesting<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">. <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">A<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">fter all, </span></span></span>there are <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">plenty of</span> fascinating, enjoyable <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">activit<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ies</span></span> that do not necessarily lead us away from real life. Studying mathematics, the sciences, the human mind, or history can all enrich our understanding of the world, not drawing us away from life, but leading us toward it. They increase our knowledge and our understanding so that, when our studies end and we return to the world, we see it in a new way.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Certainly it is possible to do as Kant did, to take the study of a subject like mathematics and make from it something so insular, so divorced from any actual life experience that it becomes an escape from the world, but fundamentally, the reason we developed math and philosophy in the first place was due to our curiosity, our sense of wonder--not to avoid the world, but to <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">come closer to it</span>.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTKlPVm3FeWCh7yn20diH4WR0PdS5YfYVjsb7cxcQH3GiC-W2Dvd1gucotaLT2f9AcTBPcbd7xAj_R9wRB5A0jHYAbo4WpqA3YKQDIce2WAM_pH0rDMja_lgT6EJTdIdZs0coR5iZGhwg/s1600/jean+claude+splits+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTKlPVm3FeWCh7yn20diH4WR0PdS5YfYVjsb7cxcQH3GiC-W2Dvd1gucotaLT2f9AcTBPcbd7xAj_R9wRB5A0jHYAbo4WpqA3YKQDIce2WAM_pH0rDMja_lgT6EJTdIdZs0coR5iZGhwg/s1600/jean+claude+splits+1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>No, not that kind of 'time killer'</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So to fit the definition of 'escapist', a book cannot renew our curiosity or increase our understanding, because then, it would have to point <i>toward</i> the realities our world<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">--</span>not away from them. An escape must take us wholly away, ignoring<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> reality</span>, or perverting it into something simplistic and easy to digest. An escapist book is a time killer, something we can sit down with for a few hours and, when we finish, find that nothing has changed: we have received no new ideas or understanding.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">To me, the most pure definition of an escapist activity is one which you come away from no different than when you started it, except that you are a few hours older. It does not give you a sense of wonder or a newfound respect for the world around you, it does not make you question yourself, nor does it surprise you (though it might startle). In short, it is nothing more than a trusty method by which to waste away the hours of life.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I often hear people try to defend a book or show by saying <i>'You don't understand</i>,<i> when I get home at night, I'm so miserable and exhausted that this is all I can do to get by. I can't think or be critical or take in new information, I just want something that takes me away from all that.' </i>But of course, that's not saying how good the book is, it's just saying how bad their life is. We all have difficult times, when we feel low and don't know what to do, and there are many responses we might make to that, but not all of them are good<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">: some people cut themselves, some head to the internet to make death threats at strangers, <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">some get blackout drunk</span></span>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyLqPJCCjGG75Mkv5BnU91lPY81uAYyPAu_9QNMu7IkFN8PxUe4bodQ2VPxsNjMzcdE99kq3xjUxvl0YOCiTGb_01fVFx5_CMf6yBun5MB6o21G47vgIioiWinOrzLx6UYnZbPBEFU1ik/s1600/insectodeath.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyLqPJCCjGG75Mkv5BnU91lPY81uAYyPAu_9QNMu7IkFN8PxUe4bodQ2VPxsNjMzcdE99kq3xjUxvl0YOCiTGb_01fVFx5_CMf6yBun5MB6o21G47vgIioiWinOrzLx6UYnZbPBEFU1ik/s1600/insectodeath.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>What do you put in your head?</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Just because people use these coping mechanisms does not make them good, or productive</span>--<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">none are</span> a solution to problems in life,<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> they don't make</span> things any better.<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> Indeed, such behaviors as these tend to en<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">s<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">ure</span></span></span> that the person's life will stay the same indefinitely, or become gradually worse--and there are many such 'opiates of the masses', including some books, television shows, and films. Of course, we all have <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">our own way of coping</span>--my point here isn't that we can all do away with these bad habits completely and live 'pure lives', but that it's important to recognize what we spend our time on, and why. In that sense, escapism is just the symptom of a larger life problem that isn't being dealt with.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">What makes a piece of entertainment fundamentally escapist is that it confirms the viewer's biases, it panders to them, it provides them with bland comforts, it does not force them to think or to experience something new. It's an isolating experience, reinforcing what a person already thinks about the world, and cutting them off from others. One can even do this with opinions one <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">despises</span>, as long as that opinion is expressed in a stupid enough way that it makes you feel justified for rejecting it. A liberal can easily get this kind of self-assurance by listening to Rush Limbaugh.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">But avoiding escapism doesn't mean giving up on fiction and only reading math and science. After all, the grand purpose of art throughout the ages has been to help us better understand the world and humanity. It also doesn't mean abandoning 'fun book<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">s' and reading only 'se<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">rious literature'--because there are plenty of adventure stories that are <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/133988083" target="_blank">surprisingly insightful</a>, and plenty of serious novels that are <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/19226230" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">disappointingly</span> flat and <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">simplistic</span></a>.</span></span> Even in the cases of science fiction or fantasy, the purpose is rarely to while away the time--instead, we are asked to look at and question reality, to use thought experiments to dissect our own assumptions, and not to take for granted the apparent nature of things around us. <i>1984</i> may be a book of fiction about a future world (now passed) <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">of the imagination</span>, but it is still fundamentally a book about history, morality, politics, and the very human experience. It does not let us escape the world, but forces us to confront it.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcIGhUDTKZCQCCFopzOYFcsrLAnY4Ds_P-G0d2tLIU9BX7tc5tDB7GHMsilQ9-oKs5apOWGS4BStqeA6RGiGzk33i3SfPwVK72x7uvTZVtYeKuc73-e9UCYNirMg0r1YCSdlmETQfV5tY/s1600/magritte.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcIGhUDTKZCQCCFopzOYFcsrLAnY4Ds_P-G0d2tLIU9BX7tc5tDB7GHMsilQ9-oKs5apOWGS4BStqeA6RGiGzk33i3SfPwVK72x7uvTZVtYeKuc73-e9UCYNirMg0r1YCSdlmETQfV5tY/s1600/magritte.jpg" width="259" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>'Not to be Reproduced' by Rene Magritte</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Even something like Surrealism, or <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Absurdism can <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">help us learn about the world. </span></span>The entire point of the Surrealist movement was not to be <i>unreal</i> but to be <i>more than real<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">--</span></i>that by taking the world around us and expanding it through our art<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span>(making it more extreme, placing apparently contradictory things alongside one another)<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> </span><i></i><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">it forces us</span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> to take a hard look at</span> our own reality, and ask difficult questions about bias and the limits of human perception. It wasn't just a bunch of guys being wacky in order to avoid real life, they were trying to push the boundaries of how we thought about the world around us.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Now, you might say that no matter what art we make, no matter what subject it takes, it is always, in some way, talking about the world--which would mean that an 'escapist work' (as I define it) <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">could</span> not even exist. But it is possible to make a piece of art which so closely accords with our assumptions and current cultural values that it tells you nothing you don't already know, and hence serv<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">es </span>only to comfort and to justify prejudice. It's also possible to make a work that is so twisted up in propaganda, ideals, and easy answers that while it may <i>seem profound</i> to the uninitiated, its really nothing more than tautology and thought-terminating cliche. Many people enjoy works like these, because as human beings, we like to be told we're right, we like to read things that agree with us, we like to imagine that we are thinking deep thoughts, especially when we are not--as Harlan Ellison said:</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span class="st">"If you <i>make people think</i> they're <i>thinking</i>, they'll love you; but if you really <i>make</i> them <i>think</i>, they'll hate you."</span></span></span></i></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Such constant confirmation can even become addicting--it's appealing precisely because it is naive and narcissistic<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">--but <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">a</span></span>ny person who would rather make excuses for their own ignorance rather than learn how to overcome it is a wretch. Such people make the world a worse place for themselves, and for everyone around them--and when I hear Queenan say that, at some level, he finds reality to be a bit of a disappointment, what I hear is that he is the sort of person who makes reality a little worse for all of us.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Sure, the world is full of horrible things: death and torture and disaster, tragedy and loss of purpose and an endless search for meaning that will never be complete--but it's also full of joy and wonder, of staggering works of art, natural formations sublime to behold, kind people, and loving people, and laughter, and dancing. Taken all together, the world is n<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">either</span> good nor bad, it's a wonderful mess, and in the end, it's nothing more than what you decide to make of it.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0IWBPPovDVecmcEnKT2vGCPTyCw1cZgMDNRnDDEtTaCUrVnULikYSg7Fc5f7WGl6kcpA3Gk7Zpbl0oOsnd9VET0KK4t8HtRpyAPoDdHqmB8Kr8w0Sd5GxxgLXDIhILJWI0MhxnPpCLpY/s1600/Victoria-Falls-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0IWBPPovDVecmcEnKT2vGCPTyCw1cZgMDNRnDDEtTaCUrVnULikYSg7Fc5f7WGl6kcpA3Gk7Zpbl0oOsnd9VET0KK4t8HtRpyAPoDdHqmB8Kr8w0Sd5GxxgLXDIhILJWI0MhxnPpCLpY/s1600/Victoria-Falls-2.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>What a totally sucky, disappointing world.</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">So when someone says the world is too depressing or disappointing, all I hear is the whining voice of a naive teenager who is throwing a tantrum because their parents didn't get them a new iphone. If your world sucks, <i>maybe it's because of the decisions you've made</i>, or maybe it doesn't suck at all and you're just looking for an excuse to make things about you.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">It's just so misanthropic, so hateful to your fellow man to say <i>"reality doesn't cater to me enough, so I read books that let me pretend that things revolve around me"</i>. Yet it's also spiteful to the self, because to love <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">your</span>self means to<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> grow</span>, to learn and understand and make life better<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">--</span>and subsisting on escapism just means maintaining yourself in the same <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">comfortable</span> ignorance because change is scary<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> (</span>which certainly, it can be).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Anyone who thinks ignorance is bliss has never worked in retail, because once you do, it's immediately clear that being ignorant makes everything around you confusing and threatening. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a customer say <i>"No, I don't want your discount card, stop trying to cheat me!"</i> or <i>"I don't care if it's buy-one-get-one, I'm not buying another one, so stop trying to steal my money"</i> or <i>"Just get one from the back, I know you keep more back there"</i>. For these people, the world is clearly a place of paranoia, where everyone is trying to cheat them, and since they are too stupid to be able to figure out<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> the actual cheats</span>, their only option is to constantly treat everything with suspicion and contempt.</span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPHIAebqr7pwuXjMsG1HfcPXrPw0aVCIbRKziKlnwWElEolffkhu-CIJBTR6SwkrEGTVm0RCVupmgFLcinm2Ci73tct9yZueYyC1W0nc32cBqCV328SPGhvySjh4KT7bJ80SN8px6B-PY/s1600/1352148957785.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPHIAebqr7pwuXjMsG1HfcPXrPw0aVCIbRKziKlnwWElEolffkhu-CIJBTR6SwkrEGTVm0RCVupmgFLcinm2Ci73tct9yZueYyC1W0nc32cBqCV328SPGhvySjh4KT7bJ80SN8px6B-PY/s1600/1352148957785.png" width="226" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia_%28role-playing_game%29"><i>Paranoia</i></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">And that's the danger of escapism: that it allows a person to <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">revel in</span> their own ignorance until they are blind to anything else. They don't know that the real reason they are miserable is because they are actively making themselves that way, every day<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">;</span> or that they might be making things worse for others, or that the only reason the world seems terrible is because they're too afraid to find the good in it. And that's why, to me, 'escapism' is nothing less than the willing death of the mind, of deciding that it's easier to just <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">decide that</span> the world as disappointing and then avoid it, never <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">searching out</span> its beauty--all so, in the end, they can sit back smugly and say <i>"see, it's just as bad as I said"</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">Meanwhile I'll be out there with joy and the passion for knowledge, seeking my way in a beautiful, mixed-up world that is always proving me wrong, making me laugh, and love, and <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">sing</span>, and now and again, giving me reason to <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">contemplate the</span> deep-seated mental malfunctions <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">that cause people</span> to deliberately avoid living their own life. Certainly, we all run up against diffi<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">cult times, we all grow tired, and frustrated--<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">I'm hardly a stranger to</span> depression,<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> a<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">nxiet<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">y, and fear--but it's <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">what we decided to do at those lowest points that makes all the difference. So, <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">w</span>hen you reach that <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">nadir</span>, it's up to you: will you choose something pleasurable and intriguing, that pulls you up out of the doldrums and helps you look at the world in a new way? Or will you choose to wallow in somet<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">hing avoidant, that feeds into those same insecurities and short-sighted prejudices that</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"> made you miserable and hopeless in the first place</span>? The choice is <span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;">yours to make.</span></span>JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-78321269014372175082012-12-11T03:43:00.002-08:002017-08-17T12:30:55.874-07:00Worldbuilding and the Origin of Fandom -- Part II: The Authors<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i>In <a href="https://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/10/worldbuilding-and-origin-of-fandom-part.html" target="_blank">Part I on worldbuilding</a>, we talked about the fans, now here's my take on the author's end of things.</i> </div>
</blockquote>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-tciMAX3vBPvrzSSw9kFJTcN6QTAOeYsv3TOuLIqFjA8oC-vl1Vx7LpKo-7gji6nIdRtW6arTmJ2PswlujovmULVI2ct0hMU9ej9QKwlatpSzJWwHeM_-xiCXpx1sQpdNhb_WnjSvQAc/s1600/author.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-tciMAX3vBPvrzSSw9kFJTcN6QTAOeYsv3TOuLIqFjA8oC-vl1Vx7LpKo-7gji6nIdRtW6arTmJ2PswlujovmULVI2ct0hMU9ej9QKwlatpSzJWwHeM_-xiCXpx1sQpdNhb_WnjSvQAc/s1600/author.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="312" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-tciMAX3vBPvrzSSw9kFJTcN6QTAOeYsv3TOuLIqFjA8oC-vl1Vx7LpKo-7gji6nIdRtW6arTmJ2PswlujovmULVI2ct0hMU9ej9QKwlatpSzJWwHeM_-xiCXpx1sQpdNhb_WnjSvQAc/s320/author.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
Tolkien is often cited as the father of worldbuilding, and though he was hardly the first to develop an invented world in which to set fantastical stories, he did take the practice to new heights of complexity. Since then, many authors have followed in his footsteps, copying his length and complexity despite the fact that neither length nor complexity are desirable traits, in and of themselves. A good short story is not improved simply by the addition of more pages, nor, when we discover a scientific principle, do we tend to represent it in its most complex form--quite the opposite: art and science both benefit from elegance and focus. As Einstein said, a scientist begins to expect the world to be beautifully elegant, such that it is often considered a good sign for a theory if it is able to represent an idea fully with the interaction of a few simple variables.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW6aCytv-19MvwQu_CF4SEmtGODVR9a8BdYo4c3UQ3MswrQpcmIaG3ChF3owlZJwWJSExBx956Fu-UBbKWaoDALGy3ptFm8zjJBVVM_PYEI7bMLKgzZ-leDadMgc5ZNfffoeIisjV_7kc/s1600/euler-identity.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="65" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW6aCytv-19MvwQu_CF4SEmtGODVR9a8BdYo4c3UQ3MswrQpcmIaG3ChF3owlZJwWJSExBx956Fu-UBbKWaoDALGy3ptFm8zjJBVVM_PYEI7bMLKgzZ-leDadMgc5ZNfffoeIisjV_7kc/s320/euler-identity.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130709005202/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity#Mathematical_beauty" target="_blank"><i>If some part of you doesn't weep in wonder to see this, I'm not sure there's much help for you</i></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Yet there is a certain sense in modern art that complexity is desirable: that the amount of time and effort put into a work corresponds to its worth, impressing by sheer volume instead of innovation, style or skill. So, we get artists who wrap old churches in cling film, who set up ten thousand umbrellas on the side of a highway, who recreate the Mona Lisa thirty feet tall, with toothpicks, as if the worth of art could (or should) be measured in the same way as the world record for pullups. Yet, as anyone who has worked in an office can tell you: an increase in the hours spent on labor does not necessarily correspond to more or better work.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPA84pl7DgfULgJmtwlNg3SlJy49mblMeT3l-nDn5ENFraWXgtplGad8yyFdSKc6QV1wxB3B1MnC28EiSVvKCcac0nhNjT8ukkpsrCg3lFkaOznum_8yRLtj43rS-jKurwpafnkK04Li4/s1600/damien-hirstmother-and-child-divided-22238.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPA84pl7DgfULgJmtwlNg3SlJy49mblMeT3l-nDn5ENFraWXgtplGad8yyFdSKc6QV1wxB3B1MnC28EiSVvKCcac0nhNjT8ukkpsrCg3lFkaOznum_8yRLtj43rS-jKurwpafnkK04Li4/s400/damien-hirstmother-and-child-divided-22238.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Mother and Child Divided by Damien Hirst</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I have always preferred to witness in art acts of elegance, precision, and skill--a demonstration of the long years of work and training which enable the practitioner to show us effortlessly and masterfully all that they have learned. Thus I respond more to a study of the quality of the lines in a Da Vinci sketch than to a cow which Damien Hirst has bisected with an industrial saw. There is no reason to be impressed by the amount of work that has gone into something when you realize that it is possible to spend a great amount of exertion fruitlessly, achieving nothing much, at all. But there will always be some who are impressed, and there will always be authors who fall into the same trap of quantity over quality, particularly when it comes to worldbuilding.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.andrewrilstone.com/2007/08/tolkien-blues.html" target="_blank">This article</a> points out the trend which can be found in the numerous notes, letters, and other papers left behind by Tolkien: though he began his career writing stories with regularity, he ended it painstakingly rereading his own work trying to ensure that distances, phases of the moon, Catholic theology, and locations of all and sundry dwarvish instruments were properly accounted for. Certainly, as authors, we should want to be accurate, to create worlds and stories that make sense, but there are sane limits on how far to extend this. We are human beings, it is inescapable that we will make errors, so trying to ferret out every one is, in the end, a losing proposition. A man's life is simply not long enough, and so a balance must be struck. To me, it is a terrible misalignment of priority to spend as many years altering small details as were spent on writing the book in the first place. If the story is already there, why go back and obsessively alter every part of it, except as a fit of pique?<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdtMEY1GipBszcWC51MBotYqtzDjxZxyaGqQuJbzz9huhpX7SMiJWydTeZ2djY3oGCugLzGipyqTk2bkNzThBW4CeIxWfM_HNmHyagudMB3sg4x3SJCYdnZb80y2h9SFFsbn-u27WT2fM/s1600/20140111-181647.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdtMEY1GipBszcWC51MBotYqtzDjxZxyaGqQuJbzz9huhpX7SMiJWydTeZ2djY3oGCugLzGipyqTk2bkNzThBW4CeIxWfM_HNmHyagudMB3sg4x3SJCYdnZb80y2h9SFFsbn-u27WT2fM/s320/20140111-181647.jpg" width="148" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Scrimshander by Robert Weiss</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
What would be the more valuable contribution to the world: for Tolkien to correct those thousands of references to names and facts, or to spend that time writing another three books? Certainly, it is a natural human urge to spend time obsessing about impossible perfection instead of actually finishing our grand experiments. Yet the greatest works in the history of literature are full of flaws, over-extensions, and explorations that didn't pan out. This didn't make them failures, in fact it is a large part of what made them so remarkable and influential. Looking at one of the most ambitious such examples, <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/96027215" target="_blank"><i>Moby Dick</i></a>--which played fearlessly with genre, style, and philosophy--yet for all its errors, it stands as one of the most impressive achievements in writing. In my experience, most writers already spend far too much time editing, and not half as much time as they should writing.<br />
<br />
Its an obsession that has plagued many great writers throughout history, but rarely has the urge to tamper been to the benefit of the work. Milton's <i>Paradise Regained</i> and Tasso's <i>Jerusalem Conquered</i> are little more than footnotes to the great works they were intended to modify or replace. Petrarch's great poetic cycle starts off with lust for a teen girl he saw in church one day, and ends forty years later, reinterpreting a young man's <i>eros</i> as a dying man's hope for redemption in the savior. Aside from being brilliant and one of the most influential works in the history of Western literature, Petrarch's poetry demonstrates that in editing, the best the old artist can hope for is to completely subsume his former self. Why rewrite it when the result will be a completely different work?<br />
<br />
As George Lucas famously said in his defense of film preservation during Ted Turner's project to remaster and color old films:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires . . . Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten . . . The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests."</i></blockquote>
And perhaps if he had stuck to that ideal, he would not have tried to recreate something that was already good, but moved on to the next idea.<br />
<br />
It can certainly be difficult to properly balance writing versus editing, particularly when we're in the midst of creating. There is a very strong, sometimes perverse urge to refine, detail, and explain, to answer questions that no one but us would ask. It was not necessary to reveal that the immortal sword-wielders of highlander were actually aliens from the planet Zeist, or that the reason Superman can pick up buildings without them crumbling is because he has 'tactile telekinesis', or that 'the force' of Star Wars is actually the result of superintelligent bacteria whose name I will not stoop to write. No one was clamoring for these explanations--they make the story no less artificial and convenient, so all they add is additional pointless complexity. Nothing is changed about the way the world in the story works--you could just as easily say that Highlanders, Kryptonians, and Jedi owe their powers to jellybeans and be done with it, for all the good such tampering achieves.<br />
<br />
When I read, I am always looking for purpose: if there is a word there, a sentence, and idea, then why is it there? Without this reason, it were better left out. But there are so many possible reasons, and therein lies the great depth of critical analysis, of how and why we create. Besides the vague and arbitrary reimaginings in the examples above, there many books--especially sci fi works--which are built around very specific, enumerated details, yet these can be just as fraught with pointlessness.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJQYWZYMRWv3sBlnl0ghTgUlVdU76WoBNCOtOSqhqOq47ZimxUGZrqsbYl7OrAU50HzLC05aBx68nlL1aiWwRNEHfTtGIvz62lb2qU-HMOx17I2PdcC-cTmAX7BWnUV7T6Hw0NrXmyPUQ/s1600/nautilus+008.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="154" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJQYWZYMRWv3sBlnl0ghTgUlVdU76WoBNCOtOSqhqOq47ZimxUGZrqsbYl7OrAU50HzLC05aBx68nlL1aiWwRNEHfTtGIvz62lb2qU-HMOx17I2PdcC-cTmAX7BWnUV7T6Hw0NrXmyPUQ/s320/nautilus+008.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Nautiuls Model by Harper Goff</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
In <i>20,000 Leagues Under the Seas</i>, I found long passages--or even whole chapters--which described the specific tonnage of the vessels, the chemical composition of the batteries, and long lists of plant and animal binomials. I struggled to find a reason for these inclusions, a way that they enriched Verne's world or the story. Surely, a prolonged thought-experiment about buoyancy might be interesting to an engineer, but while there may be many thought exercises we embark upon as writers, they generally end up in the cutting room with our outlines, and for the same reason: our writing has already delivered their gist without need for explicit review.<br />
<br />
Ovid, too, had his lengthy lists, but his were poetic--paintings of timbre and sibilance--few of Verne's digressions can make a similar defense of contributing to tone. It certainly makes sense for the character, a biologist, to express such thoughts, but then, an author has their choice of characters, and if they choose one with certain habits, then it is up to them to make that choice interesting to the reader, as Wodehouse and Douglas Adams did with wondrously dull characters. What benefit was there to including lists that was superior to passing them over with an explanation of their lavishness and an admittance that the specific details could interest no one but a born classifier?<br />
<br />
Certainly, details form a fundamental part of how every author delivers his world to us, but there's no reason to go on about them unless they are either vital to the situation at hand, interesting on their own, or aid in some artistic or philosophical exploration. In <i>Ghostbusters</i>, all of the references to the paranormal use real terms and concepts, Dan Ackroyd's Great-Grandfather having been a noted Spiritualist. Yet these details are written into the world realistically, so that they do not distract by way of overwrought exposition--indeed they would almost certainly go unnoticed (except as gags) to anyone not familiar with them. The details are given in relationship to characters, conversations, and events which are all immediately pertinent to the action. They are not dull, they do not detract because there are several narrative layers in effect at the same time, not just overwrought digressions.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhytHepEJAdLLrcDPThsEmTL6Vted9lcfHb7vyF8nm213dy7DPjmSK00uKAOih3oYFCL6smLI51IPCrKAevj4kKW24K3XqlK-ENfx64dVQ4Vq630zf5uw3LmAMmdTwcMujQwTyt4Li26vA/s1600/loc_ny_33stmarks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhytHepEJAdLLrcDPThsEmTL6Vted9lcfHb7vyF8nm213dy7DPjmSK00uKAOih3oYFCL6smLI51IPCrKAevj4kKW24K3XqlK-ENfx64dVQ4Vq630zf5uw3LmAMmdTwcMujQwTyt4Li26vA/s320/loc_ny_33stmarks.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Ray's Occult Books</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
That isn't to say aspects like detail, explanation, accuracy, length, and complexity are to be avoided--they are neither good or bad, in and of themselves, they can be used or misused, hence it is important for the creator to ensure that the amount of work he puts in is equal to the amount of value his readers will get out--or indeed, that he will get out of it. If it will take longer to correct an error than the time he put in creating it in the first place, it must be clear that he is now working in reverse: not making, but unmaking, at which point, it is better (and braver!) to take the imperfect experiment as it is, release it into the world, then move on to the next idea.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvSVSDhluKC2X6HBU_X2up6oRIH7j0i2Dc0zW3J0cl5gGerPXBx8ee4G1FUgCMVT8B_yfopcvHw7myFt0JfSlxVhLkPqDeHHR0QktjDTX22xbq2bS6irfjR-DZxfjxMUEy8BHQZMt4t34/s1600/tolk.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvSVSDhluKC2X6HBU_X2up6oRIH7j0i2Dc0zW3J0cl5gGerPXBx8ee4G1FUgCMVT8B_yfopcvHw7myFt0JfSlxVhLkPqDeHHR0QktjDTX22xbq2bS6irfjR-DZxfjxMUEy8BHQZMt4t34/s400/tolk.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>'When I'm good and finished.'</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There is no perfect book--an author could keep editing the same work over a lifetime and still, he will not have achieved that elusive thing. His one book will be rewritten into a different story, then another--as he changes in life, so will he change his mind--shifting the story back and forth without nearing his goal, so that in the end, he will be like the painter who paints over his canvas again and again, creating then destroying a dozen pieces with little to show for it. We shall all progress through different states of mind as we go through life, and so a book written at one point represents different goals, different values than will be held at other points in life. This is not the flaw but the wonder of humanity: in learning, growing, changing one's mind. We need not think of it as a failure to be ignored and covered up, as our younger self being 'wrong' and our older self superior.<br />
<br />
For some, the unbridled juvenilia will be superior to the stodgy dodderings of age--for others, age will bring invaluable wisdom and experience which early, half-formed pieces lacked. Some few, lucky authors even experience both periods: the style of age, while drastically different from that of youth, is equally powerful in its own idiom. But it makes little sense to take a work which was conceptualized and realized with one view in mind and try to make it match some completely different concept. That lifetime might better be spent completing several dozen books representing the many periods of life, each of which, while not perfect (nothing is), would make a far better gift to the world than a shedful of indecisive notes from an elderly man trying to alter the words of his passionate youth because they have ceased to make sense to him.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Next up: Part III, <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/12/worldbuilding-part-iii-what-fiction.html" target="_blank">What Fiction Does Well</a></i></div>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8292243573706628824.post-15877855719898865312012-10-17T10:41:00.003-07:002021-04-13T12:45:25.130-07:00Worldbuilding and the Origin of Fandom -- Part I: The Fans<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1061/997001149_7389920fe9.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1061/997001149_7389920fe9.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Blade Runner Cosplayers</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<i>This post originally appeared in 2012, but disappeared due to a glitch.</i><br />
<br />
Some years ago, during the heyday of the Harry Potter craze, there was an interview with Rowling going around the internet where she revealed that the snake Harry freed from the zoo in the first book was actually Nagini, the bad guy's pet snake from the later books. Fans went crazy over it: here was yet more evidence of the intense amount of planning that went into Rowling's series, sure proof of the complexity and depth of her books.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
Yet all I could think was that this was a meaningless detail. The whole thing turned out to be a hoax--but even if it had been true, why would it matter? Would it have added anything to Harry as a character, or to the villain? Would it have added meaning or direction to the plot? If Rowling revealed that Harry wore the same underwear the first night of class his second year as he did the first night his third year, that would technically be a connection within her world, but it still doesn't mean anything.</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
There are a lot of badly-written fantasy books out there, and for a long time, I was puzzled to see every flaw in these books defended as being 'part of the world'. An author with no poetic skill writes a three page song? It's not boring, it's <i>worldbuilding</i>. A chapter that is nothing but troop movements, despite the fact that no matter what the army does, the bad guy can only be killed by the <a href="http://news.ansible.co.uk/plotdev.html">Plot Coupon of Seven Parts</a> (which also conveniently destroys his army)? Fans call it 'depth'. A lengthy explanation of how magic spells work, despite the fact that none of them are ever used? It's not a symptom of maladjusted autism, it's proof of many-layered writing skill.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs1cC93mNESETrlzLZ-APfRu_uo9hqALuibCB-p5hwHUIcOF_hUdz8icjVSDYrrUKs1aaJrHQW-Rp1q0Veu2Hca_SCQb4iupEoawD1eZj_L2VE1KwqbNm0dsQx6-7UD7YeN5Wano7bLqw/s1600/662612661.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="256" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs1cC93mNESETrlzLZ-APfRu_uo9hqALuibCB-p5hwHUIcOF_hUdz8icjVSDYrrUKs1aaJrHQW-Rp1q0Veu2Hca_SCQb4iupEoawD1eZj_L2VE1KwqbNm0dsQx6-7UD7YeN5Wano7bLqw/s320/662612661.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>How Hard Can It Be To Make One Of These?</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
And that's the problem with worldbuilding: any detail an author drops about their world, no matter how meaningless, is still technically worldbuilding. It becomes a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus">Ship of Theseus</a> problem: the construction of the globe and its map are worldbuilding, the magic and technology, the culture, the politics, the economics, the myths, the history--so where does it end? What detail cannot be included under at least one of those categories?<br />
<br />
Writing is the process of deciding which details to include, and which to leave out. Books skip through time from scene to scene, we feel no need for descriptions of eight hours of nightly sleeping. At some point, we draw the line and state <i>'this detail is an important part of the world, while this one is not'.</i> Worldbuilding is only as useful as its ability to provide meaning to the story. Writing that is unfocused and superfluous is always bad writing, and increasing the complexity and length for its own sake just amounts to more pages of bad writing.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
The whole point of worldbuilding, the reason to have a world, is because we need somewhere for the story to take place, a stage on which the author can explore their ideas. As in theater, you need a set, you need props, you need the things that facilitate the characters' actions. Even roleplaying guidebooks, which are ostensibly all about the details of a world, are constructed and laid out as tools for the telling of a story, giving only the pertinent information.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/TSR2600_Planescape_Campaign_Setting.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/TSR2600_Planescape_Campaign_Setting.jpg" width="250" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>I've read a few, in my time</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
This doesn't mean that an author should get rid of everything that doesn't contribute directly to plot and character--you can set mood, pace, and voice when describing the world, too--but those are still important parts of the story. They modify the characters, the plot, and the ideas, and how we see them--they aren't merely filler. Whether or not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_shot_first">Han shot first</a> is not an extraneous detail, because either way, it tells us something about his character.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
But it's completely different to talk about whether Dumbledore is gay, or what color the inside of Boba Fett's helmet is, or what type of stone was geologically formed in the mountains of the neighboring kingdom, because none of that is meaningful to the story. If the old wizard's sexuality were a central part of his character, then it would already be in the book--if the story works completely without that detail, then it is extraneous. Yet the fandom seems to be obsessed with these sorts of pointless details--why is that?</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
On the surface, fandom resembles other obsessive interests--like literary critics, they comb through books looking for connections; like historians, they want to collect various facts about a world and develop an understanding of it. But unlike those activities, fandom is insular and self-contained, which for many fans is precisely the appeal.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
Unlike the unsure messiness of history, in fandom, there is actually one right answer. You don't have to read a dozen conflicting accounts of a war from both sides, then try to put together an understanding based on that--even in an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon">absurdly complex and messy canon</a> like Star Wars', there are still central tenets and absolute authority on what is correct. As large as it is, it's still easy to tackle compared to real history.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
For literary criticism, the point is to study and understand how written communication works: how we tell stories and create meaning. The whole process is built around developing an overarching theory, a philosophy of human communication. Pure fandom, on the other hand, has no purpose but itself. It is a cyclical, cannibalistic process where details are considered valuable only because they can be memorized and known.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
We all want to be right, we want to be informed, and as the internet demonstrates, a lot of people just enjoy being able to prove others wrong--but what's the point of being right about something that simply doesn't matter? The point of course, is to <i>be right</i>, no matter what. It's not about improving one's own understanding, but winning a game which, on the surface, vaguely resembles actual debate, all for the sake of an ego trip: <i>'See! I told you I left my hat on the second peg, not the third one! Now come on, I want to hear you say I was right.'</i></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/10/10/3426957-satan-fall-milton_custom-d2053566cf44f754df923b7824195bdc8e94856b-s6-c10.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/10/10/3426957-satan-fall-milton_custom-d2053566cf44f754df923b7824195bdc8e94856b-s6-c10.jpg" width="244" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span class="st"><i>Doré</i></span>'s Fall of Satan</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I'm not against reading books carefully and thinking about them, nor am I against paying attention to detail. Books say a lot about how we live and think, and reading can teach us about ourselves and the world. If someone wants to talk about how Milton's Satan and Adam present opposing views of what is morally important in life, that's great, because that has an impact on how we all think and live. The ideas in books inspire scientists, philosophers, artists, and musicians, they provide a great place to explore our world and our own minds.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
But once they start bringing up details which have no bearing on any actual idea or experience, that's just talking to hear yourself talk. Imagine debating someone about social welfare when they suddenly respond <i>'Oh yeah? Well, you have black hair!'</i>, as if all details were equally pertinent.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
But then, there are people whose brains rank importance in different ways. One of the chief causes of hoarding is an inability to judge the value of objects. If you show a hoarder a sapphire tie pin and a torn up old paperback and ask <i>'Which one of these shall we throw away?'</i>, they simply won't be able to make that decision. For them, there is no clear distinction. Both are objects which can be collected and possessed, both have a purpose, and both, once lost, are gone forever.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
If their inability to choose sounds incomprehensible to you, let me ask you this: how many people you know with a drawerful of expensive jewelry they never wear and a stack of torn-up used books they read constantly? Now who's judging value inaccurately?</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
The world is full of information, more than could be consumed in a hundred lifetimes. There will never be a shortage of things for you to experience. This is why you have to choose what information you want to take in, to decide what's important to you--you have to draw the line somewhere. For many people, this isn't even something they consider, but in the words of Neil Peart: if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
For me, I want things that are going to make a difference in my life, that are going to change how I think. This doesn't mean I'm going to avoid fiction or adventure stories, because they can be just as informative as anything else (indeed, nonfiction can be <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2012/09/your-brain-pseudoscience-rise-popular-neurobollocks">just as pointless</a> and removed from life as the worst genre trash). But it does mean that after watching LOST for a bit and seeing the same conflicts, character types, twists, and messages about faith come up again, I lost interest. Once they started to repeat themselves, there was nothing new to be gleaned.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkazKzqEyCl_mQrtAPf-qkRGeVjuTiVsrTsonLU9E_cVycOg-zl1njcNqPBg2L7MymYdFmRAQIDpvNkUZNs8Ypy91kepRecGq2AOVuvVGuDkigpgXtRCgN_SOUOqd5bZy6zB5dR4RNGBs/s1600/prisoner.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="273" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkazKzqEyCl_mQrtAPf-qkRGeVjuTiVsrTsonLU9E_cVycOg-zl1njcNqPBg2L7MymYdFmRAQIDpvNkUZNs8Ypy91kepRecGq2AOVuvVGuDkigpgXtRCgN_SOUOqd5bZy6zB5dR4RNGBs/s320/prisoner.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #3d84ff; color: #0000ee;">"Be <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #3d84ff; color: #0000ee;">seeing you <span data-darkreader-inline-color="" style="--darkreader-inline-color: #3d84ff; color: #0000ee;">. . ."</span></span><u><br /></u></span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
But for a show like <i>The Prisoner</i>, where each episode has its own theme and concept, its own way of telling a story, there's something new to learn each time you watch. So, I've decided it's of priority for me to focus on taking in new and unusual things that help me to think in different ways. Sure, I've fallen into the trap of obsessing over a world's details now and again, but then I realize that, at best, I'm just treading water, not getting anywhere--and at worst, I'm training myself to argue with people whose only purpose in life is to be correct about insignificant details.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
Of course, it's up to each of us to decide where to draw that line. I don't want to spend my time reading things that have nothing new to offer, or reading things that are just poorly-written. I get no pleasure from doing it, or from writing negative reviews afterwards, or from the scree of angry comments that inevitably follow. Sure, it can be instructional to look at what authors do wrong, but I would never read a book if I thought it was going to be uninteresting or just bad.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
Of course there are people out there for whom reading is an end in itself, people who tell me <i>'you really have to get to the fifth book, when it starts to get good'</i>, people who are happy to fill their heads with details that have no bearing on their life, details which they will never use outside the deepest depths of a forum. Many do this because it is a known thing, it resembles the study of literature or history, but without the vastness, without the unknowns.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
But for me, when it comes to living life, the vastness and the unknowns are precisely what make it all worthwhile. I'd rather read five different books that might be good rather than the next five books in a series when I know book one is shit, because I want to read as many good books as possible, and as few bad ones as I can manage. If you're interested in history or geology or astrophysics, then read about them instead of investing that time in a simplified substitute.</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> </div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLWfeVTXIf2BruhKMBXS9pjqvUgafjGh2sDrCT0S2m71xbm4n9Vt-SEewqFG-xISeujT1H8mUi-J3slYA67UZj9JozypavHNDOB5HJT3eca651SlUNG72eiT_iJ5F_508h-QLUuLYUxSg/s1600/happywandy01.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="204" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLWfeVTXIf2BruhKMBXS9pjqvUgafjGh2sDrCT0S2m71xbm4n9Vt-SEewqFG-xISeujT1H8mUi-J3slYA67UZj9JozypavHNDOB5HJT3eca651SlUNG72eiT_iJ5F_508h-QLUuLYUxSg/s320/happywandy01.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>I'm No Stranger to the Occasional Sport</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
Of course, there are also those who get into fandom for social reasons. They want to belong, and one way to do that is to find an insular community and school yourself in its jargon and collection of factoids. It creates commonality, something to discuss. This is something that can be witnessed in every group, from role-players to juggalos to sports fans. Again, to me, there seems to be a better option: school yourself in something meaningful, something that has an impact, which creates meaning and understanding in life, then join that community. That way, you gain not only commonality, but personal understanding of the world.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
I'm not saying a fantasy reader or role-player or sports fan can't approach their interest with an eye toward understanding the world and self-improvement--there is no field of study or activity that is outside the human sphere, that cannot be turned into a tool for understanding ourselves--I'm just saying that for many, if not most, when knowledge is secondary to status, or fitting in, or being right, or some other symptom of insecurity, we all suffer. There is no status great enough, community large enough, or argument of sufficient vehemence to overcome insecurity. The only thing that can oppose it is greater knowledge of the world, and of the self.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<i>Thanks for reading Part I, the fans' side of obsessive worldbuilding, next up is <a href="http://starsbeetlesandfools.blogspot.com/2012/12/worldbuilding-and-origin-of-fandom-part.html">Part II: The Authors</a>.</i></div>
</blockquote>
JG Keelyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16194265398177420233noreply@blogger.com19