Educating the Passions

Over the July 4th weekend, columnist David Brooks wrote about the importance of storytelling:

America Has a Great Story to Tell

Skipping past the explicitly political content, I was particularly impressed by the discussion of "propositional" (intellectual) knowledge versus "emotional and moral knowledge." Brooks quotes 18th-century philosopher David Hume: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” My first reaction, as many readers' might be, was, "Huh?" But Brooks goes on to explain:

"Once you realize that people are primarily desiring creatures, not rational creatures, you realize that one of the great projects of schooling and culture is to educate the passions. It is to help people learn to feel the proper kind of outrage at injustice, the proper form of reverence before sacrifice, the proper swelling of civic pride, the proper affection for our fellows. This knowledge is conveyed not through facts but through emotional experiences — stories." I would add, by the way, that poems and songs perform the same function. Think of "America the Beautiful" or "This Land Is Your Land," to name only two examples.

The importance of educating the passions (i.e., emotions) forms one of the core messages of C. S. Lewis's THE ABOLITION OF MAN (1943). He adopts from Plato the metaphor of the human personality being composed of three parts, the head (reason), the chest (spirit, in the sense of emotions), and the abdomen (basic appetites). Reason should rule the whole person, including appetites and desires; however, it does so, not directly, but through the "chest." One of the chapters in THE ABOLITION OF MAN, in fact, is titled "Men Without Chests." The "proper" attitudes alluded to by Brooks develop not through intellectual study, important as that is, but by osmosis, so to speak, permeating a child's world-view before he or she has any idea what's happening. And that happens through implicit assumptions that may never be explicitly stated. For instance, in Lewis's book he analyzes passages from a pair of English textbooks for pupils at British elementary schools (as we'd call them). Both of them convey the underlying, taken-for-granted idea that there are no such things as objective values. The authors of the texts may not have even consciously realized that's what they were doing. Lewis covers similar ground in his PREFACE TO PARADISE LOST, where he refutes the disdain of one of his contemporaries for "stock responses." The attitudes and emotions dismissed by some critics as "stock responses," Lewis maintains, are not innate and automatic. They have to be deliberately shaped through years of growth. Good preconceptions as well as bad have "got to be carefully taught" (to quote the song from SOUTH PACIFIC).

As writers, we should be heartened to recognize the vital importance of stories in that process.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Animal Minds

I recently read two books by ethologist Frans de Waal, ARE WE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW SMART ANIMALS ARE? and MAMA'S LAST HUG, respectively about animal cognition and emotion. ("Ethology" means the study of animal behavior.) They're very lively as well as informative, drawing upon a lot of the author's personal experiences. De Waal makes a sharp distinction between emotions and feelings. He defines feelings as internal mental phenomena we can’t know unless the individual describes them to us. Emotions, on the other hand, are observable in the form of biological changes that can be described and measured. Through unbiased observation of nonhuman animals, he maintains, we can't avoid noticing that they have emotions similar to ours. Therefore, it's not a stretch to believe they have inner lives and consciousness analogous to ours. If we assume certain reactions by our human peers mean those people are experiencing the same internal states we experience when we react that way, it's at least a reasonable provisional hypothesis that the same assumption can be applied to other creatures. We're often reluctant to make that assumption because it challenges the idea of human uniqueness.

Part of ARE WE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW SMART ANIMALS ARE? surveys the history of the study of animal intelligence. During the reign of behaviorism, the majority of scientists took it for granted that learning occurred the same way in all organisms, so nothing was lost by restricting most experimentation to easy-to-handle subjects, e.g. rats and pigeons. Why bother with difficult animals such as primates if there was no essential difference in the workings of their brains? Ethologists nowadays recognize that animal learning and cognition is inextricably linked to the particular species' methods of perceiving the world and interacting with other animals. There is also an increased willingness to accept that animals have desires, intentions, and goals, that they remember past events (not just in a rote learning, stimulus-response way), modify their behavior on the basis of those memories, and plan for the future. Parrots don't "parrot," for example; they use the words they know in appropriate contexts. Some of them demonstrate counting ability and recognition of numbers. Visually oriented species, including some birds, recognize faces as readily as we do.

De Waal objects to the preoccupation with comparing animal cognition to human capacities, as if nature conformed to the old model of a "Great Chain of Being," a linear ladder of species with us at the top. He considers it more realistic and productive to study each species as important and interesting in its own right, with its own techniques for dealing with its environment and other creatures. Why try to measure another species' intelligence by investigating how closely it corresponds to ours, when that other species experiences the world through biology and social structures different from ours? As he puts it, he emphasizes "evolutionary continuity" rather than the "traditional dualisms." The useful comparison isn't between human and animal intelligence, but "between one animal species—ours—and a vast array of others." Most scientists in the past thought only a few nonhuman animals had self-consciousness, on the basis of the "mirror test" (whether they show evidence of recognizing their own reflections as themselves). Quite a few other species have been admitted to the club now that researchers have realized it doesn't make sense to test such diverse creatures as elephants, dogs, birds, and dolphins in the same way as primates. "Theory of mind"—the awareness of what others know or don't know (useful in trying to hide food from others who might want to take it, for instance)—has been demonstrated in a wide variety of animals, some of which catch on quicker than human toddlers. Ethologists have also discovered that many behaviors previously attributed solely to "instinct" depend on experience, learning, and planning.

In MAMA'S LAST HUG, De Waal explores animal (especially primate) politics and society, whether any emotions are unique to Homo sapiens, empathy and sympathy, animals' sense of fairness, and the questions of free will and the meaning of "sentience."

It's fascinating to read about the many different creatures whose intelligence, emotional life, and social skills far exceed what previous generations of scientists believed possible. The octopus, for example, probably the most intelligent vertebrate, has "brains" in each of its tentacles, so that a severed arm can continue to move on its own for a while and even seek food. Contemplating the "vast array" of creatures on Earth is a great resource for inventing extraterrestrial beings who are more than humanoids in special-effects makeup. If we met aliens on an extra-solar planet, how would we judge whether they were intelligent in the same sense we are? If aliens landed here, would they realize we're intelligent, or would they view our cities the way we regard termite mounds and beehives?

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Spontaneity Is Overrated

Happy Independence Day to our American readers!

I sometimes involuntarily overhear snippets of podcasts by Ben Shapiro, a lawyer, columnist, and author on the political right. He impresses me as relatively rational and less inclined to sarcasm and name-calling than many partisan podcasters. Don't worry, this isn't a political post; my emphasis will be linguistic and philosophical. I was dismayed by one of his recent comments because it seems like a symptom of a much larger problem. After the Democratic presidential hopefuls' debates, I was surprised to hear Shapiro, a staunch champion of classical and Enlightenment values, flippantly dismiss a particular candidate's "food fight" zinger as blatantly "rehearsed."

So a remark carefully prepared in advance is somehow suspect and prima facie inferior to one blurted out on the spur of the moment? An impulsive comment is automatically assumed to be a more reliable indication of the speaker's true feelings or beliefs than one that she thought over and shaped to express her opinions in a coherent, articulate style? I'm reminded, tangentially, of a past presidential candidate who was challenged on the subject of criminal justice and asked what punishment he'd want for someone who'd raped his wife. The aspiring candidate fell out of public favor partly because he gave a rational, ethical response to that hypothetical scenario instead of an emotional one.

This faith in the value of spontaneity is relatively modern and would have sounded absurd before the Romantic era. C. S. Lewis addresses the subject in a chapter of his book A PREFACE TO PARADISE LOST, where he defends Milton's style and tackles the charge of "stock responses" in traditional poetry. Lewis frames the issue so well that I'll quote him at length rather than trying to paraphrase:

"By a Stock Response Dr. I. A. Richards [a distinguished literary critic contemporary with Lewis] means a deliberately organized attitude which is substituted for ‘the direct free play of experience.’ In my opinion such deliberate organization is one of the first necessities of human life, and one of the main functions of art is to assist it. All that we describe as constancy in love or friendship, as loyalty in political life, or, in general, as perseverance—all solid virtue and stable pleasure—depends on organizing chosen attitudes and maintaining them against the eternal flux (or ‘direct free play’) of mere immediate experience…."

He observes that our culture has suffered "a loss of the old conviction (once shared by Hindoo, Platonist, Stoic, Christian, and ‘humanist’ alike) that simple ‘experience,’ so far from being something venerable, is in itself mere raw material, to be mastered, shaped, and worked up by the will…."

The modern tendency to mistake any well-crafted statement of opinion or emotion for insincerity, Lewis attributes to "confusion (arising from the fact that both are voluntary) between the organization of a response and the pretence of a response."

The old saying "in vino veritas" (truth in wine) expresses the same kind of attitude. It's taken for granted that the character, manners, and opinions a person displays when alcohol has destroyed his inhibitions are more authentic signs of his "real" self than the reflective, carefully considered speech and behavior of his sober periods. Why do we tend to assume that an individual's lower nature shows what he's "really like" and his higher nature doesn't?

The prioritizing of emotion and spontaneity over reason probably springs from the philosophical shift generated by the Romantic movement in the early 19th century. I suspect the current prevalence of the idea that reduced inhibitions reveal a person's "real" self comes (at least in part) from the popular influence of Freud's theories of the unconscious and the id.

This issue, by the way, contributes to my preference for e-mail over oral conversations—whether by phone or face-to-face—on serious subjects. When I talk off the top of my head, half the things I say come out awkwardly phrased and easily misunderstood, or I impulsively blurt out remarks I regret later (sometimes only seconds later). With e-mail or an old-fashioned letter, I can think over what I want to say and deliberately craft sentences to express it accurately and clearly. This kind of forethought doesn't mean my remarks are insincere, but just the opposite.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Theme-Symbolism Integration Part 3 Why Do We Cry At Weddings Part 2 by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Theme-Symbolism Integration
Part 3
Why Do We Cry At Weddings Part 2
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Symbolism
Bride&Groom Pray Before Ceremony
Without Seeing Each Other

Previous Parts of Theme-Symbolism Integration
PART 1
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/12/theme-symbolism-integration-part-1-you.html

PART 2
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2015/08/theme-symbolism-integration-part-2-why.html

And this is Part 3 of Theme-Symbolism Integration - as well as Part 2 of Why We Cry At Weddings.

It is said that laughter is a response to pain, the edge of the zone of pain, the prospect of pain -- a tickle is a sensation that can escalate into pain, but doesn't, yet it sets the nerves on fire and we laugh, giggle, flinch away just as if it were pain.

Emotional pain works the same way -- the tickle of the edge of a painful emotion sizzles through the nerves and jerks out a bark of laughter. 

Like a sneeze, laughter is a reflex: the nerves fire, the muscles respond, on a sliding scale of intensity.

Last week, we discussed Vulnerability -- how a writer does not need to understand precisely where their reader is vulnerable to evoke emotion in the reader, but a writer needs to understand the condition of vulnerability. 

A tickle on a vulnerable spot can be experienced as pain. 

"Salt in an open wound" is an example of that.  Ordinarily, our skin doesn't respond much to salt -- though enough salt on the skin for long enough dehydrates and puckers the skin.  Scrape the skin a little, then trickle salty sweat over the raw spot and OUCH!

The most vulnerable spot people today have in common is, I think, the knotted ball of symbolism that grows out of Religion (all of them; not any particular one). 

Bride Praying Before Ceremony

Religious people are viewed as stupid, or at least uneducated, and who wants to be viewed that way?  So we have a lot of people who seriously believe in God, but disavow all Religion because Religious people are stupid.  Some of these have convinced themselves that they don't believe in God, even though they do.  Some accept the idea of Souls and Soul Mates, but not God. 

We seem to be in an epoch of human history where our penetration of understanding of Nature, of Stars, and Planets, Galaxies and Particles, Dark Matter, Strings, and even Life On Other Planets, is finally becoming common knowledge.

In general, even just a High School education exposes people to the miracles of genetics, neurology, disease treatments and even cures based on our understanding of nerve cells, and the brain as a whole.

Even Sanity is coming under scientific scrutiny.  Out of body experiences can be explained by brain activity.  Many severe psychological conditions can be treated by daily medication, and more miracles are in the works.

We can solve anything.  We are just animals with a little more brain matter than most. 

In many ways that is a very comforting thought, and it leads to clear positions on various difficult matters such as Abortion, Death Penalty Crimes, the morality of War, and how to perform Charitable Deeds (or not).  The list of today's dilemmas seems endless, and most of them are easily resolved once you understand the world in terms of the human brain's electrochemical base.

You don't need God to get married, or have children -- in whichever order you choose.

Even people who go to Church a few dozen times a year to salute the Unknowable Infinite still live their everyday life in a totally explicable Knowable world.

We rely on that scientific view of reality, base all our decisions and actions on it, and feel confident that we know what we're doing as responsible adults. 

Saturn rules Science.

Neptune rules Romance.

Saturn rules bones.

Neptune rules the Soul.

Bones exist - we know that.  Souls do not exist -- we're pretty sure of that.


Yet we search for, and often find and marry, our Soul Mate.

When we fall in love, we FEEL a new sensation on a vulnerable part of the psyche -- it is a loss of virginity, a new sensation, a new set of nerves connecting and sizzling with a message.

Pain and Pleasure are the same thing -- nerves stimulated in a pattern.  One we flinch away from and try to avoid; the other we pursue and try to repeat. 

Where we are vulnerable and tender, very faint stimuli register as intense.  Where we are calloused from repeated stimulation, even the most intense stimuli are barely noticeable.

As physical creatures, we seek stimulation as validation of our existence, of life itself.  Experiencing a response to stimulus is essential to our well-being.

The louder the music (however pleasurable), the faster it deafens (callouses) you. 

Sex works like that.  The more frequent and unrestrained the sex, the more intensity you need in order to feel it. 

Taste works like that.  The spicier the food you regularly eat, the more spice you need to taste anything at all. 

Smell works like that.  If there's a bad smell in your house, you get used to it and your best friend won't tell you how your clothes stink.  You wouldn't believe it, anyway.

What you are used to becomes imperceptible -- yet we seek perception. 

The term is "Jaded Palate" -- if you have a jaded palate, even good things don't seem noticeable.

So how do we, as writers, sneak around to the back door of our readers' Soul and tickle them? 

The main tool we use to get through our reader's thick callouses and pierce their Souls with emotions they can not name is Symbolism.

But randomly chosen symbols will not add up to a story.

Working against each other, randomly chosen symbols produce an undifferentiated fog of gray.

Choosing symbols specifically to explicate a particular Theme produces sharp contrasts, black and white, yellow and red, green and orange.  Emotions work just like colors. 

Armenian Couple Crowned & Blessed

There are Seven Colors in the Rainbow -- and Seven Primary Emotions.

The writer's creative medium is not words, not computer word processing, and not even imagery or poetry -- the writer's creative medium is Emotion.

Naturally, there's a lot of argument over classifying human emotion! 

In early 2014, The Atlantic published this article headlined:
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/new-research-says-there-are-only-four-emotions/283560/

-----------quote-------
New Research Says There Are Only Four Emotions

Conventional scientific understanding is that there are six, but new research suggests there may only be happy, sad, afraid/surprised, and angry/disgusted.

-------------end quote------

This theory is in contravention to the accepted model of 6 Primary Emotions: happy, surprised, afraid, disgusted, angry, and sad. 

There is a more classic list of 7 Basic Emotions -- Anger, Contempt, Fear, Disgust, Happiness, Sadness and Surprise.

In 2012, Discover Magazine carried a story about defining humanity's 7 primal emotions by studying rats and making them laugh.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/may/11-jaak-panksepp-rat-tickler-found-humans-7-primal-emotions

---------quote from Discover article------------
Since the 1960s, first at Bowling Green State University and later at Washington State University, Panksepp has charted seven networks of emotion in the brain: SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, LUST, CARE, PANIC/GRIEF, and PLAY. He spells them in all caps because they are so fundamental, he says, that they have similar functions across species, from people to cats to, yes, rats.

Panksepp’s work has led him to conclude that basic emotion emerges not from the cerebral cortex, associated with complex thought in humans, but from deep, ancient brain structures, including the amygdala and the hypothalamus. Those findings may show how talk therapy can filter down from the cortex to alter the recesses of the mind. But Panksepp says his real goal is pushing cures up from below. His first therapeutic effort will use deep brain stimulation in the ancient neural networks he has charted to counteract depression. Panksepp recently sat down with DISCOVER executive editor ?Pamela Weintraub at the magazine’s offices in New York City to explain his iconoclastic take on emotion. His new book, The Archaeology of Mind: ?Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotion, will be published in July.
------------end quote----------

See?  Just understand the brain, and you are master of life, the universe, and everything.

There really is nothing else.  Right? 

We can research, re-invent and re-define our Primary or Primal Emotions, and re-arrange ourselves and our lives any way we want.  A little electrical stimulus fixes everything.

These articles on the brain and emotions make perfect sense to us.  What more do you need to know? 
So now you know, can you explain why you cry at weddings? 

If Grief is a Primal Emotion, then it's obvious why we cry at Funerals, isn't it?  Grief is personal, and composed of feeling sorry for oneself at the same time as feeling what it is like to be the person whose life has ended.  How will your life end?  Is there any meaning to anything we do?

Clearly grief is uncomplicated and thus Primal.

Notice the absence of LOVE as a Primal emotion.  Is that absence congruent with your model of reality? 

Now look at this Kabbalah inspired article on the 7 Primary Emotions
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/277116/jewish/Introduction.htm

---------quote-----------
The seven emotional attributes are:

• Chesed - Loving-kindness
  Week 1 of the Omer
• Gevurah -- Justice and discipline
  Week 2 of the Omer
• Tiferet - Harmony, compassion
  Week 3 of the Omer
• Netzach - Endurance
  Week 4 of the Omer
• Hod - Humility
  Week 5 of the Omer
• Yesod - Bonding
  Week 6 of the Omer
• Malchut - Sovereignty, leadership
  Week 7 of the Omer

-----------end-quote------------

Note how each of the 7 Primary Emotions listed on that page is composed of "cross-terms" as they say in math, or harmonics as they say in Astrology, or how an artist mixes colors to make new hues, making a palate of 49 Emotions which these exercises are designed to mature.

With maturity of these emotional states, the corresponding negative emotions cited in scientific articles are absorbed and dissipated by the light of these powerful emotions.  One's internal emotional climate shifts -- yes, climate change -- and the world seems brighter.  And the burst of tears at weddings becomes more explicable, perceptible as a glimpse of something too bright to look at directly. 

Click the links on the page to find the mixtures, which make it easier to sort out the melange of emotions causing that Cry At The Wedding outburst. 

Note this list starts with LOVE.

It starts with Loving-Kindness.

What does it feel like when someone looks at you with Loving-Kindness in their eyes?  I know you've seen it, but have you ever named it out loud?

Also note that LOVE is a component of every one of the other 6 emotions in the list. 

This 49-element model of human emotion uses LOVE as the power-source behind all emotion. 

You can't act in Justice without Love, and so on.  Love is the primary component, the origin and the source powering all others. But look at what "all others" includes -- but most especially does not include in this list of 7 Primary Emotions that combine to drive the human spirit.

Also note Grief is not on the list of 49.  Nor Fear.  This 7-Emotion paradigm depicts a totally different Reality than any of the other lists of primary emotions.

So think hard.  Is this portrait of Human Emotion more akin to your own internal primary emotions?  Does this depict your reality, or the reality you glimpse at the moment you burst into tears at a Wedding?


You may want to buy the following book which explains (though that's not what it was written for) how to create plot-events or symbols from these abstraction emotions. 

In this book:
 http://store.chabad.org/product.asp?Product=bk-mlc-counteng
Which you can also buy on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Counting-Omer-Simon-Jacobson/dp/188658723X/

...each of the 49 individual Emotions discussed comes with a do-it-today exercise that is a challenge to your ordinary way of looking at the world.  These exercises, done in this sequence, strip calluses and leave vulnerability. 

To find out when the Omer is counted, search the App store (iPhone or iPad, probably Android too) for Omer.  Or the Android store.  There are lots of free apps, and some with in-app purchases.  An app usually uses your phone's local time to alert you to the day of the Omer being counted.

Starting with Passover and going 49 days to The Feast of Weeks, each day contains a plot-twist, and each annual repetition is no repetition at all, but rather a unique experience in learning about Emotion. 

You've heard the term "Emotional Intelligence?"  This exercise is preparation for an Emotional Intelligence test. 

There is a mystical (Kabbalah) tie between the day of the Lunar calendar and the action suggested in the exercises.  The idea is that doing that particular exercise on that specific day amplifies the effect the action has on your Emotional Intelligence in a way that doing it at another time would not have. 

The greater your emotional intelligence, the more effective you can be as a writer orchestrating emotional responses in your readers by using concrete plot-actions coupled with symbolism.

With that understanding grasped, let's get back to Weddings as a plot-Event.

As previously noted, the Romance part of a character's story is generally over at the Proposal.

But sometimes the hottest Romances start with a Wedding scene for mutual friend or relatives where the couple first meets -- during or after one of those Crying At A Wedding moments.

Eyes swimming, they see each other through rose-colored tears -- all the sharp edges and harsh lines of character flaws blurred out, and Loving Kindness sweeps them off their feet.

Now why do we understand the Crying At A Wedding moment to be a natural prelude to meeting a Soul Mate? 

If you've never seen it happen, never heard of it happening to anyone you know, still you find it an acceptable postulate to kick off a Relationship driven story.

Another good moment to start a Romance is at a Funeral -- during or after the crying, and desperately trying not to cry scene.

Likewise, there are meetings over a parent's death-bed, in a Court Room awaiting a death sentence, at the scene of a car accident, by the ambulances in front of a house going up in flames, amid the rubble of an earthquake or bombing in a war. 

These are moments of peak emotion, moments when the whole nervous system is in fear-fight-flight mode, constant orientation response mode.

These are not normal, everyday, get groceries and pick up the kids from school moments. 

The emotional peaking stretches the old emotional scars and calluses that ordinarily cover up our emotions and blunt the ability to respond to minor incoming stimuli.

 
These are moments of vulnerability when we can let another person "in" and give of ourselves in ways we ordinarily do not.  Connections can be made at such moments where the cracks in our emotional armor are spread wide.

Emotions welling up can crack that shell from the inside and leave sensitive surfaces exposed, vulnerable.

That happens at Weddings, and other Life Event Ceremonies.  Retirement ceremonies work.  Presidential Inaugural, or swearing in ceremonies. 

But just feeling emotion welling up doesn't cause that very odd, very peculiar and distinctive flash of tears common to the "Crying At A Wedding" moment.

Commonly, the tears well at the moment Bride or Groom says "I do" (or whatever they've written).

Or at the giving of the token (symbolism) - traditionally a ring.

Or at the first kiss -- which is likely not the very first, but is the first as a married couple.

The tears burn up out of the eyes at the moment recognized as "Everything Just Changed."

This is the moment the Future morphs, partly because of what the couple did and partly because you recognized the shift in Reality. 

We live in a state of taking things "for granted" -- of relying on assumptions.  We understand science, we understand ourselves as mortal animals governed by a complex brain - and that's it.

We just can't handle all the variables necessary to envision reality on many levels, extending along many axes, beyond infinity.  It's too much.  We can't work the problems of our lives with too much information.

So we cut down on our perceptions, hide behind emotional callus, and won't admit there is anything there that we are not feeling the presence of.

In these peak moments of life, though, the callus cracks, stretches open and exposes the tender flesh that can feel the "salt" -- the foreign substance -- hear the faint whisper of mystical Presence -- smell the whiff of the Garden of Eden -- taste mana. 

I'm using Biblical references because most readers will understand them.  But this ultimate truth perception-shift happens for everyone of every faith (atheist, too). 

You can use the Wedding Tears as a symbol to move your readers because it is common across all belief systems.

It is a moment in which some people experience confirmation that their Beliefs are true, not beliefs at all but really True-Truth, and that is astonishing and too painful to encompass.  Such a discovery is always followed by flinching away from it -- as if it were painful.

It is also a moment in which some people experience confrontation with the knowledge that everything they believe about Reality just is not true -- or not as complete a picture of Reality as they thought.

Either way, the callus cracks, like the clouds parting and letting sunlight into a dark day -- and we wince just as when sudden light in darkness causes a reflex to close our eyelids.

It is a "pull the rug out from under you" moment, a moment of astonishment when nothing you thought you could depend on actually works.

It is the moment between being shot and noticing that you're dead.

It occurs at that point where pleasure and pain join, where the scream of pain and the shout of laughter are indistinguishable. 

The physical nerves "white-out" and something else continues to perceive .... something.  It isn't the universe as you know it, but the universe unfiltered by your defending calluses.

There is the Uncertainty Principle -- where the observer changes the observed by the simple act of observing.  By noticing that The Future Changed at the moment two souls join, you have changed The Future.

Hence weddings must have Witnesses.  The act of Witnessing is the act of changing.

And that is not possible in the World As We Know It.  Just because I see you does not change you. 

Yet in some other Reality -- yes, it is true.  Two Souls mate and the Third Soul composed of the Two United is changed by the observation of the Witnesses.  So who witnesses can change the course of the marriage.  "I danced at your wedding," makes a difference.

Reality itself warps during these Life Event moments (and with our population in the billions, there are lots of such Events every moment the Earth turns).  Reality warps again as the moments are witnessed.

You've heard the phrase, "Don't look! You can't un-see this!" -- often applied to a gruesome accident or an atrocity. 

Once you have witnessed something, it becomes a part of you and can change the direction of your life.  Hence WITSEC - the Witness Protection Program.  You see it; you testify; you can not be the same person anymore or they will kill you for testifying.

The same is true of Weddings.  The knowledge that you are no longer the same person causes the tears -- grief for who you used to be, joy for all the new possibilities in your life, and maybe Love of God or whatever you deem the source of that searing brightness that lances into your vulnerable cracks.

 
Is it God?  Do you need to postulate that God Is Real or to admit the Soul is Real to understand why you cry at weddings? No, you don't have to.  It is one explanation that works fairly well for some people, but not the only one that covers all the observations.

Few come away from a crying jag at a wedding convinced that God came down and married these two Souls.  In fact, most people would think you crazy for saying that. 

Most people can point to sentimental reasons, memories of other weddings, realization of hopes for the new couple, poignant sorrow at the failure of their own marriage, cynical foreknowledge that this new couple will likewise part, and a piercing hope that, "No, not this time!"

So many mixed emotions clashing with each other create quite enough almost-pain to account for the buckets of tears shed at weddings down the ages.

Compare the tears shed at a Wedding with the burst of tears when you witness (even via TV) a heroic act, or a life sacrificed to save another, perhaps a helpless baby.  Compare the Wedding sensation with witnessing an Event such as how the USA responded during the 9/11 Attacks, or someone's worthy deed being given a worthy award.

Consider any movie or novel that you cried through the last ten minutes or twenty pages.  Finally, finally it all comes out right in the end and your faith in human nature is justified.

Each of these moments speaks in symbols, in traditions, in customs, in passing the torch to the next generation and finding them worthy - in symbols that affirm the continuity of human civilization.

Those symbols, arranged just-so, blindside us with a stab of hot emotion too searing to bear for more than an instant.  Just as when the dentist drills into a tooth and your eye waters, something from outside your callused shell breaks through to exposed nerve and you FEEL it.

That "It" that you feel may as well not exist in your life at all before and after that moment, just like the dentist's drill is always in his office but doesn't always hurt you.

What is that "It?"  What is it that comes through your cracks and hits a nerve in those peak moments of life?

Those who are bored at Weddings, or do not cry or feel deeply (maybe only come to get drunk?) may simply be too afraid of the nascent pain to let their calluses crack open even a little, to let that sensation happen to them. 

Naming that "It" gives you a Theme.  Shrouding that "It" in symbolism gives you a way of explaining what that "It" is to your reader, who may be one of those bored at a wedding type people. 

We see that "It" as "light" -- the kind of Light by which the Third Eye sees.  The wince away from that Light at Weddings is the Third Eyelid squinching shut after Witnessing the souls joined.

The "light" is so bright, the flash through our cracks so sudden, we can't See what's behind it, what's causing it, what's emitting that Light.  To us, it is only "It." 

  

"It" is amorphous.  To make a novel out of "It" manifesting in this world, you have to Name it. 

Your thesis for your theme is a Worldbuilding element.  In this World where these Characters live, Magic is Real, Evil is Palpable and Profitable, Good Always Wins (or Loses?).  Those are themes you never state in words, but mold into the fabric of your World. 

What is the "It" that intrudes at Life Ceremony Moments? Name that "It" and the name becomes your Theme.  "This is a World where "It" is (God, Devil, Demons, Angels, Aliens).  Each choice is a statement about that theme, and dictates the symbols that will be meaningful to your readers.  


Weddings have symbols and traditions for a reason. 

Use that reason even when you have your couple write their own vows and create new traditions.  Every tradition was done for the first time sometime.  Not all first time traditions last more than a generation.









One way to research current traditions is to search Pinterest for Wedding, Bride, Bride and Groom, and related keywords you can think of.  Wedding Planners and Photographers and Caterers are using Pinterest to present their services, and encourage innovative Weddings that won't bore the guests.  You can use their posted images to develop the symbolism in which to discuss your Theme.

 

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Theme-Character Integration Part 3 - Why Did Spock Become Popular

Theme-Character Integration Part 3 - Why Did Spock Become Popular

by

Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Last week, in the context of the criticism of Science Fiction Romance novels,  we looked at the TV Series Vampire Diaries, a Fantasy, and Gray's Anatomy, a mundane Series, so now let's look into a Science Fiction series.  Of course, Star Trek leaps to mind.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/07/theme-character-integration-part-2-fire.html

Part 1 of this skill integration sequence is here:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/06/theme-character-integration-part-1-what.html

Previously we discussed What Does She See In Him (an essential ingredient in firing up a love life)

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-does-she-see-in-him.html

Note there is a rising attempt by David Gerrold and many folks long involved in the series to create a new Star Trek TV Series, and it's rolling along, even though it fell just short of it's Kickstarter goal.

Here is the Kickstarter for Star Wolf email sent out on June 3, 2013, (or thereabout).

----------QUOTE ----------------
...we almost made it... Just almost!  (Well, maybe we were a little further off...)

It has been heartening to see so many people pledge their support for
STAR WOLF.

I want you all to know that I absolutely consider you all honorary members of our official Launch Crew, and will tell you now, that we will go on! 

Although the Kickstarter is over, we want to keep all of you...our fans of great Science Fiction involved.

By the end, we received an incredible amount of media attention and letters of support (from including Bill Prady (BIG BANG THEORY) and of course Spock himself (Leonard Nimoy)! This well help greatly in our next steps.

We're 100% dedicated to launching, and the success of the series and we will be updating you on our progress in making it happen.

Presently, we're starting our own mailing list to make it easier to reach you, and will soon be converting 'http://www.thestarwolf.com' as our headquarters for the series, and will be posting updates as we proceed...

You're support here touches our hearts, and as a thank you for your enthusiasm, those who pledged, AND sign up for the mailing list will receive the PDF of the pilot episode script on Wednesday (to give people time to send us their e-mail addresses. When we send out the e-mail, the link to the PDF will ONLY be available for a 24 period, so please send us your e-mail address soon!  (If you send us all of your contact info, mailing address, etc., you may get a surprise in the mail in the future.

So please... send us an e-mail right away to: thestarwolfseries@gmail.com

TODAY.

As for those hard earned dollars you're still holding onto, we would of course ask you to pledge again if we were to start another campaign but as for exciting projects being funded now, we'd like you to take a look at:

HARBINGER DOWN:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1117671683/harbinger-down-a-practical-creature-fx-film

Our friends at Alec Gillis, Lance Henriksen, and Dennis Skotak (ALIENS, TITANIC, X2), (The Star Wolf's VFX Director of Photography). Are working to make a great practical effects sci-fi horror film that celebrates old-school animatronics and Makeup FX.

They are taking a stand for great live-action visual effects, and are truly a great collection of talent.  We love them, and you'll love their work too.  So PLEASE... seriously consider showing them the great support you've shown us, and we'll all enjoy their terrific work soon.

From the bottom of all of hearts, thank you for your pledge, your time and your support.

Rest assured... WE'RE ONLY JUST BEGINNING! 

Thank you again!  We love you guys!

-- David C Fein
----------END QUOTE------------

So we'll be seeing and hearing a lot more about Star Trek coming at us from every direction. (good, I say!)

You all know I'm primary author of the Bantam Paperback, STAR TREK LIVES! which blew the lid on Star Trek fandom and ignited the revival campaign at the time the fan-run conventions had just begun.  At that time, no way on Earth would any professional in Hollywood (movies or TV) ever listen to a word any mere viewer said.  Nobody cared what we thought.

There was no feedback loop from consumer to producer that could guide them in creating entertainment that people would pay for.  They thought what they thought because of statistics generated by phone-survey firms and the TV set-top devices that Nielson used to monitor what a couple hundred select houses watched.  Statistics was just in its infancy.

Today we have that giant data center the US Government just fired up to collect all the internet traffic -- it will eventually be able to mine out exact numbers of how many watch what, and maybe even track what you, yourself, actually watch or spend time on.  Hollywood (if it can afford the fees) will be able to determine in advance what will be popular.

Today, there's all the streaming stuff -- audiences are wholly fragmented, but that gives new writers a chance to break in and create an audience for the stuff that author really wants.  Of course, the technical bar keeps getting higher.  To get your writing "out there" you need a full time tech specialist (or 10). 

So let's look at what a writer can do that replicates what Star Trek did to change the entire world of entertainment, and make "them" pay attention to "us."  The thing is, (considering the SFWA Bulletin Controversy we discussed last week), this is exactly what we need to do with SFR.

Star Trek actually launched the SFR genre via fan fiction -- fiction mostly written by women for women, and all about the real lives of the Enterprise crew and other crews of other ships in Star Fleet.  Today, all that fanfic pours online, all mixed up with beginning writers immature attempts.

Many people scoff at young writers writing about how the adult emotional world seems to them.  I don't.  I see these initial attempts to communicate what's important about life as the absolutely necessary work of training up a writer's mind.  All the best writers I've ever met started in childhood writing exactly what you see flooding fanfic online (nearly drowning out more mature attempts). 

Listen to the scoffing at young writers -- that's the scoff being aimed at Science Fiction Romance novels!  Same attitude.  Really.  Think about it.  If you have that attitude about young writers, can you seriously ask working SFWA members not to scoff at you?  Karma can be an issue in life.

So How Do We Replicate Star Trek?

The key question is why was Spock so popular?

He wasn't expected to be by Hollywood TV crafters, not even Gene Roddenberry! 

The "Spock" that gripped the world was originally two characters, a woman First Officer called Number One who was from a culture that was emotionless.  And the half-Vulcan Science Officer who was called Spock but behaved with obvious emotional reactions (especially the appreciation of beauty.) 

The Network wouldn't allow a woman to be in command on the bridge, to boss men around.

There's that sexism that exploded all over SFWA earlier this year!  It is not FROM SCIENCE FICTION, despite what SFR writers think.

That sexism is from OUR OWN CULTURE.

That sexism isn't gone, and it isn't just a few remnants inside SFWA that harbor this toxic stew.

So Gene Roddenberry's solution to that problem (he was the least sexist man of his age I ever knew) was the classic solution every beginning writer learns.

What you do when your THEME isn't "working" can be one of three things:

a) divide one character into two
b) combine two characters into one
c) add a new character

In TV and Film, adding characters adds expense, and that can prevent production from ever happening. 

GR wanted ST to get on the air.  He COMBINED TWO CHARACTERS -- and it made that one character much more powerful.

GR combined Number One and the original Spock into ONE CHARACTER -- our emotion-challenged Spock.

GR saw this new Spock as having emotions that he repressed. 

That is an anti-science-fiction premise that I rejected long before I met him and got to ask what he had in mind.  I wrote my fan-fic universe, Kraith, to explore "What If Spock Really Is What He Says He Is?"  Taking people at their word always leads to interesting territory and always generates great science fiction! 

http://simegen.com/fandom/startrek/

I did a very deep analysis of what makes Spock popular in STAR TREK LIVES!  I stand by that analysis, and it's still working today.

But today's world (as I've spent many posts here describing) is in massive shift due to new communications channels -- the web being only one.  Lately, Verizon (which provides fiber optic TV feeds as well as landline phone and cell phone) is offering TV channel feeds direct to your phone or other mobile device.  Take your TV shows with you, watch any time. 

The un-tethering of the world is going to affect what fiction gets popular enough to afford expensive productions, and that will change everything -- except the core essence of what makes a story gripping and energizing.

That core essence is theme-character integration -- and all the theme integrations with other story elements.  But what really grabs and won't let go is character. 

How do you build a gripping character for today's media distribution methodology?

You do what has always worked.  You look at what is popular today, and ask WHY? 

The TV show The Vampire Diaries is very popular -- as are other Vampire works.

OK, why are Vampires popular and what is it about The Vampire Diaries that is rattling teen minds?

As noted last week, the element of The Vampire Diaries that is drawn from the deepest (and thousands of years old) depths of human psychology is the combination of Good vs. Evil with Emotion vs. Logic.

Yep, LOGIC!

Remember last week we noted how the THEME-CHARACTER integration in The Vampire Diaries is a perfect "show don't tell" for the philosophical discussion this entire world is having (with guns blazing all over the Middle East) about the place of EMOTION in the scheme of LIFE.

Vampire Diaries modified the Vampire myth so that when these vampires turn OFF emotion, they become the typical Evil Menace type of selfish, power-hungry, dominating, tyrannical, human-eating, remorseless, force of evil that Vampires used to be in the standard myth.

If they turn ON their emotions, they become pretty ordinary humans, spanning the spectrum of good, bad and who-knows?

The thematic statement is woven into the Worldbuilding seamlessly and thrusts up into the characters as they play out the plot-events. 

Emotion = Good.

VULCANS are depicted as having the reputation of looking like the Devil (they're greenish instead of reddish -- the remake Spock isn't so greenish), and of being Emotionless.

That premise arose in the 1960's and ignited sexy-panting-furor.

Spock was the sexiest thing EVER on TV or in Film, and that's proven by all the non-fiction now being written analyzing the appeal of Star Trek and the history of it.

In fact, I have an essay in yet another book on the topic of Star Trek fandom.  When it's published, it will appear on my amazon page

http://www.amazon.com/Jacqueline-Lichtenberg/e/B000APV900/

And at the top of the right column you should now find an 'EMAIL ME WHEN THERE ARE NEW RELEASES BY JACQUELINE LICHTENBERG"  -- so you can keep up without effort.

So EMOTIONLESS = EVIL = SEXY.

Hmmm, and that dates back to the 1960's and 70's - the sexual revolution begun by the "Hippies" and then carried into adulthood and the workplace in the 1970's by "Women's Lib." 

And it still works today.

EMOTION = GOOD has surfaced now into explicit, on the nose style, dialogue. 

But it works even better when sunk deep into Worldbuilding as in The Vampire Diaries (which now has spun off THE ORIGINALS, the older and most Evil of the Vampire-Siblings with a leader who wants to be King.)  We're talking major success for EMOTION = GOOD on the commercial markets. 

Here's a link-list index post to Theme-Plot integration

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/05/index-to-theme-plot-integration.html

I'll have to collect Theme-Worldbuilding Integration at some point.  Here is #6 with links to previous parts to that series.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/02/theme-worldbuilding-integration-part-6.html

And here is my post on Star Trek: Into Darkness:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/07/theme-plot-integration-part-11-correct.html

It has links to prior posts in that series.

It is followed by Part 12 about a Tom Clancy book/movie.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/07/theme-plot-integration-part-12-tom.html

The essential ingredients to creating your "Spock Character" are as follows:

1) Use the techniques I've been illustrating for studying our "real" world, the world of your reader, from an angle and at a depth the reader will not be aware of.  See my posts on THE ART OF WRITING.
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/06/writers-eye-finds-symmetry.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/communicating-in-symbols.html

2) Extract the THEME of your reader's world that's bugging them mightily and encapsulate that theme in a simple statement (like EMOTION = GOOD and THOUGHT = EVIL, but pick one of your very own, something that has true meaning to you personally) (this is what Gene Roddenberry did, but came up with 2-characters to state that theme, and the sexist thing really bugged him.)

3) CAST that theme into a Work by building a character, then building his/her world out around him from the essence of that character's internal conflict.  Remember Spock's EMOTIONLESS exterior covered a BURNING CURIOSITY -- and so he chose (against parental will) a career in Star Fleet to go where No Man Has Gone Before (sexist -- read last week's post on sexism).

4) Write your story to speak to your chosen audience in their medium of choice.  

5) Come back here next Tuesday for more.  We have barely scratched the surface of what there is to learn about fiction. 

by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Theme-Character Integration Part 2 - Fire Up That Love Life

Theme-Character Integration Part 2 - Fire Up That Love Life
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg


Part 1 of this skill integration sequence is here:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/06/theme-character-integration-part-1-what.html

Previously we discussed What Does She See In Him (an essential ingredient in firing up a love life)

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-does-she-see-in-him.html

So today we'll discuss the TV Series VAMPIRE DIARIES and the Science Fiction/Fantasy pulp classic image of the Warrior Woman in a Brass Bras which stirred public controversy (again) in June 2013 when used as the cover of a SFWA Bulletin issue (#200).

And all of this relates to choosing and targeting an audience for your Science Fiction Romance, an essential part of raising the profile and respect granted to SFR by the general public (that probably doesn't read any SFR). 

Note the underlying assumption here that the general public is convinced that it is appropriate to hold fast to an opinion on a topic without researching the facts personally.

Note the title of this piece includes the word THEME -- and we've discussed theme individually and at length in combination with plotting.  Theme is the underlying, barely revealed, almost never stated in so many words, philosophical ARGUMENT which generates the plot, characters, story, conflict, and most importantly the resolution of that conflict.

Any number of "endings" are possible for most Romance stories, as long as it seems the new couple will live Happily Ever After -- HEA.

The choice of which ending your story will have is not arbitrary once the beginning, the opening scene, is crafted.  And new writers, beginning writers, often don't know where to start in telling the story that's popped into being with, "I've got an idea!"

As discussed at length in previous posts here on Plot, the Beginning, Middle, and End are a set, a collection, and they must match. 

One way new writers become aware of stories they want to tell is by having the ENDING pop into mind all rounded and fully colored in with emotions resolved.  And many failures to sell a novel happen because the writer opened the story at the ending.  (the opposite is often true, too, the story may be opened way before the beginning of the story).  And some failures to sell happen because the writer just kept on writing long, long after the story ends.

Choosing any one of these three points or what are termed,  in SAVE THE CAT! by Blake Snyder, "beats" of your story determines the content of the other two.

We've discussed crafting openings, and crafting middles that don't "sag" -- now let's look at starting a novel by choosing the ENDING. 

The resolution of the conflict may be the first thing about your characters that you become aware of.  Recognizing that it is an ENDING involves an entire orchestrated set of skills being brought to bear on your problem.

Here let's look very deeply (themes are deep, abstract philosophical ideas) at bringing together theme and character in an explosive love life (life is character).

What's in an ending? Define Ending.

Your choice of ending bespeaks the thematic statement of your novel.

In a Romance, that statement has to allow for or include -- or at least imply -- that Happily Ever After is possible in real life, even though it's rare and difficult, a heroic achievement.

We've noted previously that there is a huge audience for Romance that simply can not accept the HEA as part of their real, everyday reality.  Happily For Now is the very most they see as real, and even that is ephemeral.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2011/01/gene-doucette-discusses-his-novel.html

The very existence of the HEA is a philosophical statement of huge proportions, and it is a topic which is heated and controversial in the general readership of all novels -- especially self-published novels!

Definition of Ending

The ENDING situation of your characters is the point where the main Point of View Character, the Hero that the reader has been rooting for -- i.e. protagonist, -- understands the theme of his/her life.

This understanding can be:
a) Aha, I never knew that!
b) Aha, JUST AS I ALWAYS THOUGHT!
c) Aha, she was right all along and I was wrong.
d) Aha, I was right but it would be wrong to rub it in.

The key ingredient is the AHA part -- something has changed, and here at the ending it is perfectly clear to the protagonist what changed and what it means.  The change that constitutes an ending is the dispelling of confusion, the lifting of a fog, the purifying of a philosophy, the clarity of understanding in the light of experience. 

ENDING is defined as the point where the protagonist understands the theme, and so does the reader.

Targeting an audience.

The EMOTIONAL impact of that understanding of the theme that the reader gains by riding inside the protagonist's head defines the audience targeted.

For the HEA to work, the audience must experience the emotion of PLEASURE that the Starring Couple in the novel has achieved an HEA.

Readers who are living in a world they see as streaks of darkness marbling grayness have their "suspension of disbelief" broken at the HEA and they do not experience that as a pleasure.

Readers who have glimpsed flashes of light in their real life experience pleasure at the HEA.

Two different readerships, each to be targeted with different themes.

No matter how good your craft skills at characterization may be, no matter how well you lure your anti-HEA reader into living in your character's skin, if your THEME violates their beliefs, they will not experience pleasure at the character's AHA! 

New writers tend to focus on arcane writerly skills such as characterization.  New beta readers, and even professional editors, tend to give feedback in terms of "the character is not likeable" or not believable.  And that sends the new writer on a quest to master 'characterization' when in fact the failure was in THEME.

So what do you do?  Change your philosophy so you can sell novels?  No, I don't think so.

What you can do is tell exactly the same story that has occurred to you (in that flash vision of The End Scene), tell it with the same protagonist and same point of view character, but move the time-frame backward or forward in that character's life to a point where a THE END situation occurs that drives the lesson into the character in a way that the targeted readership would enjoy.

In other words, you can still write about that character, but at a different point in their life.

Or you can choose a different target audience.

This blog series focuses on the audience that can accept the HEA, however leery they might be of such a radical departure from reality.

This blog is about writing Alien Romance, exotic Romance, Paranormal Romance, Futuristic Romance -- writing about things that don't actually exist.

The writer's task is to convince the reader, if only for the few hours, that these things which don't exist, which can't exist, actually do exist for these characters.

That is, to suspend disbelief long enough to make a point -- a particular type of point native to the science fiction genre.

Science Fiction is defined by 3 story parameters:

a) "What if ....?"
b) "If only ...."
c) "If This Goes On ..."

Fill in the blanks, and for this Romance Genre dealing with the imaginary future, what you fill in those dots with is HEA. 

a) "What If I could live Happily Ever After?"
b) "If Only I COULD live Happily Ever After, I would ...?" (do what? believe what?)
c) "If This Goes On, we will create a world where everyone lives Happily Ever After."

Those story parameters filled in that way take ROMANCE GENRE and meld it seamlessly with SCIENCE FICTION GENRE.

The Best SFR is built out of all three statements, just as the best SF is built from all three simultaneously. 

SFR is built on the premise that our emotional lives can be studied scientifically, and what we discover from that study can be used to deal with Life just as we use science to deal with our environment.

The "science" in Romance becomes the science of EMOTION.  The study of emotion.

What?  That's idiotic, you say?

Well, yeah, but so was the vision of a galactic civilization back in the 1930's and 1940's.  Back then we had no idea if there were other planets around other stars.  Then a few decades passed when accepted science told us (with mathematical clarity) that it was idiotic to think there were earth-like planets around other stars.  This last few years, a single telescope has been studying a very tiny slice of ONE little galaxy, and found so many planets (large and small and earth-like too; now termed exoplanets) I can't keep track. 

Look at the second image in this article:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/05/saving-kepler-the-mission-that-changed-our-view-of-the-probability-of-life-in-the-universe.html

That image shows how little we've explored and how much we've discovered. 

Neuroscience has likewise been studying brains of various animals, including human cognition.

During this time-span, mostly before your primary readership was born, two major philosophies (thematic source material for stories) have been waging Armageddon over the heads of your readers, and even inside their minds all the way down to the subconscious level.

There is an old saying, "There's No Accounting For Taste" -- but I maintain that there actually is a way to account for taste if you understand not only the science of what a human being is and what world a human inhabits, but also understand that humans consist of two major parts each living in a different environment, Soul and Body.

That's the theory behind the HEA -- which depends entirely on the assumption that humans have Souls. The HEA happens when Soul Mates meet and unite in this life. 

Here are index posts (updated) to my set of posts on Astrology and Tarot exploring methods of thinking about these abstractions in a way that can generate concrete story ideas.

Astrology Just For Writers:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/pausing-for-you-to-catch-up-with-me_30.html

Tarot Just For Writers:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/pausing-for-you-to-catch-up-with-me_23.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/pausing-for-you-to-catch-up-with-me.html

These are not topics to "believe in" -- but to study looking for philosophies that explain how and why people develop a "taste" for this or that in art or friends.

These are the topics that answer the questions "What Does She See In Him" and vice-versa.

You can read up on all this, and learn these topics, and come up with wholly different conclusions than anyone else who has ever studied them.

That is what science fiction authors do for a living: study up on a science and come to a different conclusion than the professional scientists working in that field.

Which brings us to the SFWA controversy of June 2013.

Science Fiction Writers of America, the organization of professional science fiction writers (fair disclosure, I'm a life member), publishes a magazine called The SFWA Bulletin.  Issue 200 ignited a controversy that exploded with issue 202 which was discussed in a blog post that posted several SFR novel covers and then talked disparagingly about SFR.

The cover image of the Bulletin was simply yet another Science Fiction/Fantasy cliche, the Warrior Woman complete with brass-bras style fighting gear. 

The thesis that triggered eruptions on many confused topics of tangled philosophies was that Science Fiction Romance is not legitimate Science Fiction because it violates the tropes and the writers seem to ignore (or be ignorant of) classic Science Fiction ideas.

Usually, SFR is excoriated for violating science as it is now known.  This time we got excoriated for not knowing imaginary science.  Isn't that delightful?  It must be progress. 

Read here for the blog post that re-ignited (according to the writer of this blog, Stuart Sharp by accident) this old argument:
http://www.thestoryhub.ca/talking-sci-fi-romance/

And here for opinions about that post:
http://evacaye.blogspot.com/2013/06/my-take-on-sfwa-controversy.html

And here for one of my favorite writers, Ann Aguirre, whom I've reviewed here whose book was included in that first post.
http://www.annaguirre.com/archives/2013/06/02/this-week-in-sf/

Do check out the lightening that struck Ann Aguirre -- she posted at the end of her original post, some email responses she got (hate mail) as an immediate response to her post. 

Squint your eyes almost closed before looking at that hate-mail section of that post, and STUDY IT.

Here is a discussion by another author, Gini Koch one of my favorites whose ALIEN series I keep talking about here -- and who had a book cover highlighted on talking-sci-fi-romance
http://www.sliceofscifi.com/2013/06/06/its-time/

And here is a later post (one of several) where the author of talking-sci-fi-romance answers
http://www.starlahuchton.com/this-is-not-the-post-you-were-looking-for/   --

Stuart Sharp comments there that at the time he posted his accidentally inflammatory post, he hadn't heard of the SFWA Bulletin cover controversy.

Here is a response from the President of SFWA (in 2013 that was still John Scalzi) (who almost gets it right, and that reveals something important you need to understand in order to craft your novel-endings where a character absorbs a theme with an AHA!)

http://www.sfwa.org/2013/06/presidential-statement-on-the-sfwa-bulletin/

-------quote -----------
We could spend a long time here discussing whether the offense was intentional or accidental, or whether it is due to a generational, ideological or perceptual schism. It doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, too many of our members have felt their contributions and their place in the industry and within the organization belittled; too many of our members see other members being treated so. If we believe that we represent and serve all our members and not just some of them, then we need to listen and address those member concerns.

That begins with recognizing the problem. And here is the problem: SFWA, through the last few issues of the Bulletin, has offended many of our own members.

As president of the organization, I apologize to those members.
---------end quote-------------

Note he didn't say "If we've offended you, we apologize." 

But the apology is FOR OFFENDING -- not for what was done wrong.  If he admitted what was done wrong (sexism advocated as a high standard of art and behavior, but advocated "off the nose" and by assumption, by force of cultural custom) - then he would offend the other half of the members!

He's a good president, and a good politician -- and generally, a good guy.  This world doesn't produce people who are very much better than this guy at being a good guy. 

So we need to look at the WORLD more than at these particular individuals, and analyze why these swirling currents of philosophical disagreement are forming into a tornado right here in the Science Fiction Community.

*my opinion* Resnick and Malzberg are also good guys, great writers, very representative of the SF world in general. 

So our problem solving attention has to be devoted to the context, not the individuals.  This process, raising your focus from the trees to observe the forest, is an essential exercise in training your inner eye to be the eye of an artist.  We need to observe the patterns, then reveal them to our readers.

That's hard, and takes a lot of exercise to make our inner-eye-muscles strong. 

So one more quote from out-going SFWA President Scalzi:

---------quote----------
5. I am aware that my apologies here will be taken any number of ways, depending on who is reading them and their opinion of events. That is the nature of an apology. Be that as it may, I believe that apologies matter, if they are sincere and they are followed up by right action. It’s what we are trying to do.
---------end quote--------

Let's focus on apology and the nature of apology just for a moment, where it comes from and why we do it, what it means, and how the definition has morphed in our culture over the last few decades. 

The modern apology has appeared out of thin air in just a few decades, and the change has never been remarked on that I know of.

Read some historical novels -- novels written say, in the 1930's or 1940's, and study apologies.

Today we apologize for hurting other people's feelings, for making them feel bad, for embarrassing them, or for OFFENDING.

We express SORROW (an emotion) for triggering someone else's emotion, and that ends the matter.

"If I offended you, I'm sorry."  That's not an apology.  Why? (thankfully the SFWA President didn't say that!)

It's not an apology because it does not in any way indicate that the apologist has any idea what they did wrong or why it is wrong to do that.  It's not a story-ending where the apologist has had an AHA moment where the theme has been driven all the way into the subconscious so the person would experience unbearable self-loathing if they should even consider doing that again.  It does not indicate that the person knows why the deed was wrong. 

The only thing that's wrong is the way someone else reacted, and that was an accident!

In other words, there is no reason for the apologist to change their behavior, except to avoid offending the other person again.  There's no internally driven reason to change. 

It's become "wrong" to offend others, but the offending behavior itself is not inherently wrong.  Therefore, if you do a right thing, and it offends someone, you have to apologize for doing right! 

This is a subtle point and difficult to follow but it is just one symptom of a major change in our culture (better or worse, you judge that!).

In apologizing, we are taking responsibility for the emotional reaction of others, but not for the error in our (subconsciously held) philosophy that generated the action.  There has been no AHA ending.

Actions no longer have inherent, absolute, objective and measurable "rightness" or "wrongness."  As a result, other people's emotional reactions to actions don't have to make sense, and do not indicate to us that we have an error in our own internal value system that must be corrected so it will not generate another action which is wrong.  As far as the apologist is concerned, there is no rhyme or reason to other people's emotional reaction -- it's random, and therefore irrelevant. 

Apology used to be an admission of an error in whatever it is inside us that generates our actions.  Apology indicates we have corrected our error in our Value. 

Without external, objective Values against which to measure ourselves, we can not possibly apologize, because you can't ever be in the wrong in your own eyes.

It's more important to avoid offending others than it is to do the right thing -- because there is no thing to do that is more "right" than any other thing to do -- because all Value Systems are equal.

But people still have emotions, and emotional lives inside themselves, as do story characters.

Think again about the SFWA Controversy.  What exactly is the problem people have with Science Fiction Romance?  What's "wrong" with Romance that it is so OFFENSIVE?

Perhaps it's a Story/Plot thing?

Science Fiction has been traditionally all plot, almost no story.  If characters learn anything in SF, it's a scientific principle, or that some trusted principle isn't true.

But Romance is all about Story, usually with very little plot (Gini Koch's ALIEN series is an exception which could be why it got nailed in that blog post
http://www.thestoryhub.ca/talking-sci-fi-romance/ 

Now we are into the THEME part of theme-character integration. 

So firmly fix this frame into your mind as you read on:

Novels have both PLOT and STORY.  As I've defined these terms in my previous posts on each of these skills independently, plot is the sequence of external events started at the beginning, generated by the conflict, and ending in a resolution. 

Plot = External Events on a BECAUSE LINE.

Story is the sequence of emotions, issues, concerns, thoughts, and INTERNAL EVENTS that define what the external events MEAN to the POV character.  (i.e. the plot events have to happen to someone for them to have meaning to the reader, so the story is what the plot is "about")

Story = Internal Events on a philosophical development line (or an emotional line).

Theme-Character Integration is about Story

That's right, we're talking story here, not plot or the usual structural elements we discuss here.  We discuss plot and its structure at such tedious length because plot is the most prominent feature of Science Fiction (though not of Romance). 

To drive a lesson, a moral of the story, an Ineffable Truth, into a Character's Soul at the climax of the Story, your story needs a structure as disciplined and precise as the plot's structure.  Astrology provides that structure with all the precision you could ever want.  (you just don't let the reader know you're using astrology). 

The thesis presented in the links to Astrology and Tarot I offered above boils down to the idea that Emotion is generated by Philosophy, and Philosophy resides in the subconscious.  You can't change your emotions or actions without changing your philosophy -- apology means you've changed your philosophy because you understood you were wrong. 

Religion and ideas about Souls and Life After Death (such as is dealt with in ghosts and Paranormal Romance) likewise is rooted in the subconscious, entwined with our Culture.  Culture resides in the subconscious -- that's why you don't know you have a culture until you run into someone from a different culture who discombobulates you.

Over the last several decades we've seen the fruits of the Women's Lib movement shifting our culture faster than a human being can adjust at that subconscious level.  At the same time, the internet has changed communications, and the family has disintegrated.  That shifted culture defines your potential readership, a culturally confused readership.

So we see older people who have not adjusted to these shifts, and we see older people who are actually ahead of that curve, still living in a future we haven't imagined yet.  Some older people offer wisdom, others offer complaints. 

Develop both types of older characters in your novel and bespeak both points of view eloquently - you'll have a best seller.

Now we reach back into pre-history to find the roots of this culture that has suddenly changed so that apology doesn't mean apology any more.

Egypt created a towering civilization, trading far and wide, dominating the Middle East and at least half of Africa, all the way to Morocco and almost to China.  The Jews weren't the only population they enslaved.  Conquering armies brought home slaves as booty, as wealth.  The Jews already lived in Egypt, so that was a no-brainer for Egypt's politicians. 

After the Jews left, Egyptian civilization fell, but passed the torch of light and learning to Persia (modern Iran mostly), thence to Babylon (Iraq, Syria parts of Turkey), whence that torch of light and learning passed to Ancient Greece (much of the geometry and math we attribute to Aristotle is actually rooted in the previous civilizations), and now we're approaching recorded history as the torch of light and learning passes to Rome.

The Rise And Fall of the Roman Empire is well documented, leaving Latin a language ingredient in every language-stew of Europe. 

Burning of the Library at Alexandria, Peloponnesian Wars etc. very significant events during Rome's reign.  If you haven't learned this history, go read up on it.  Lots of good ebooks real cheap!  Writers, especially of Romance, need to know more than is ever taught in school!  None of the really important stuff is taught in school now.  Most of what you learn in school isn't true anyway -- so go educate yourself. 

Of course, China likewise had rises and falls, and India, too, (Indus Valley or modern Pakistan is a big player in trade and learning), so don't forget them. 

But visualize for the moment, the way that science, learning, trade and innovation, pulsed over time, rising and falling alongside governments of slightly different, ever evolving governmental forms. 

The people who lived in those times were just like you, except for one significant point: Culture Shock.

Culture Shock is a documented form of mental derailment that occurs when someone is isolated in a culture that is foreign to them.  Read up on it if you don't know about it.  Classic example is the kid sent off to boarding school who cries all night every night for months but that is a phenomenon of the modern world.

Culture didn't CHANGE within the life-span of a person, and people passed on their craft and trade skills to their children unchanged from when they got them from their parents and grandparents.  Maybe they acquired one or two minor innovations, but the fundamentals of life and livelihood didn't change.

There was continuity.  A parent knew what a child had to master to be successful in life. 

That was true up until maybe 1920 or so. 

Cars, telegraph, radio -- the printing press took about 2-300 years to sink in and generate what we think of as industry and technology, the information explosion.

Now, assuming you know a couple thousand years of human history at least by trends and major turns, think about it as seen from high above, from an elevated perspective, as if you're looking down on Time the way we look at a map of the world.

Onto those swirling forces and tides of human events, we're going to project or superimpose another pattern.

Grasp this one point, and you will understand the SFWA controversy (and the concept of the Modern Apology) in a whole new light, and it won't disturb you.  It will excite you and trigger an explosion of creativity, and put real fire into your Love Story.  (Fire is Wands/ Love is Cups)

See the last 2,000 (or 5,000) years of human history as a War of Philosophies.

Let's call them Phil-1 and Phil-2. 

The Founding of the USA can be seen as a crescendo Battle of Philosophies to put the sinking of the Spanish Armada to shame -- eclipsing The Trojan War, making the two World Wars seem like peace. 

As I view the matter, I see the USA (and many other countries) as having two Natal Charts, one governing one population with one philosophy, and the other natal chart governing the other population with the other philosophy. 

Phil-2 won that epic Battle at the Founding of the USA over Phil-1.

Defeated, Phil-1 retreated, regrouped and infiltrated and undermined Phil-2's brave new world.  And now it's on top (again; has been on top a number of times). 

Phil-1 has been the world's dominant philosophy since the time of Noah.  Remember the story of Noah (and the Rainbow - don't forget Rainbow).  Noah was the most righteous man of his generation, but he wasn't much we'd admire.  He did have the guts to go against society (that mocked him) and build the Arc.  Vindicated, he landed the Arc, and planted a vineyard, made wine and got so blotto his sons had to walk backward to cover his nakedness. 

Noah's philosophy, expressed by that priority of getting drunk as soon as possible, might be stated as Phil-1, Emotion Rules Life. 

As we know now from modern science, most all emotion can be accounted for by neurons firing, by life's tendency to flee pain and seek pleasure.  Emotion is a thing of the physical body.  

Remember, STORY = EMOTION

Phil-2 comes into the picture of Western Civilization with Abraham being called by God to Walk In His Ways.  Abraham's priority (the story goes) was to Walk In His Ways.  The story that's been preserved about Abraham is that after offering the Covenant to all the other Nations of Earth, God came to Abraham and said "Come Walk In My Ways and .." and before God finished the sentence, Abraham was out the door WALKING, asking only which way?

All the other Nations, so the story goes, listened to the "...and I'll make of you a great nation." part and asked what they'd have to DO to get the REWARD -- they worked the risk/reward equation like shrewd businessmen, but God wouldn't bargain.  Abraham was not interested in any of that -- he just wanted to DO God's Will. (Plot = Do)

After some 80 years of life, having inherited his father's idol making shop in what passed for a city in those days, Abraham knew the little statues he sold were "empty" and curiosity gnawed at him about the REAL DEAL -- so when God came to him and offered Ways to Walk In, that was it for him.

Abraham is all about PLOT, all about DOING.  Remember, Abraham is the character who circumcised himself, a deed that elevates the Mind over Emotion.  The body seeks to avoid pain.  The mind has other ideas.  Abraham was of the mind. 

Remember, PLOT = ACTION

At Mount Sinai, after leaving Egypt, God gives the 10 Commandments and the Nation answers WE WILL DO and WE WILL LEARN -- DOING FIRST just like Abraham.

And then comes the whole Covenant, the Torah, the teaching.  The Torah is taught by Moses (a man about whom no story of drunkenness is recorded; a man very different from Noah).  And if you've read that teaching, you know it is ever so very intellectual.  There's lots of juicy scandal, misdeeds and sexuality, (lots of hot sex stuff in there, and it's very different from what the History Channel movie depicted).  But it's all about how to BEHAVE, what to DO and how to DO IT.

The prescriptions for misdeeds all involve doing something, but the misdeeds targeted by these remedies all involve doing something motivated solely by emotion, placing emotion above rational thought, the urges of the body above those of the mind. 

The emphasis is on keeping "apart" from the Nations.  What is being separated from what?

At danger of over-simplifying, let's call it Phil-2 is being separated out of and walled away from Phil-1, thus creating a counter-culture minority embedded in the whole of humanity.  Humanity is descended from Noah and operating on the supremacy of Emotion over Mind, just like Noah.  Abraham likewise is descended from Noah, but turns down a different path. 

It doesn't matter what religion you practice (or don't practice), and it doesn't matter whether you think the events depicted in the Bible ever happened or not. 

From our over-view of time, looking down on the history of the world, superimposing onto what we know of history this view of history as a War Of Two Philosophies, you can see where the first one is the majority, and always has been, and where in Time a counter-current was injected.

How that injection happened, and who did it, you can decide for yourself.  To understand the SFWA Controversy, you need only be able to See this Battle of Two Philosophies as very ancient, and very much the issue of our day mostly because it's ancient. 

Today, the two philosophies have inter-mingled and gotten mixed into one another, as the the Bible says must not happen.  

Like two galaxies colliding and inter-mingling their stars, then pulling apart again, leaving new stars, composite stars, and hungry black holes behind, the two philosophies are pulling apart again, each taking with it parts of the other.  What a mess.  What an opportunity for stories! Talk about the War of the Worlds!

You might be thinking that there aren't enough Jews in the world to matter, so who cares?  And that's true, except for one little problem.

Christianity and Islam are daughter philosophies of Judaism, thus composed mostly of Phil-2. 

I'm not sure if all together the adherents of Christianity and Islam constitute a numerical majority over Hinduism et. al., but after all these centuries of missionary zeal, all the rest of the world has been infused with some of the "stars" from the Phil-2 galaxy. 

Which brings us to Vampire Diaries (the TV show).



The object of these writing lessons is to show you what the world looks like from the eyes of a writer.

Writers don't watch TV the same way that viewers do. 

So in June, as I watched the season finale of VAMPIRE DIARIES, I saw within it this Phil-1 vs Phil-2 vision of the target audience (basically I'd say 14-30 yr olds for this show, but I love it!) exemplified loud and clear.

I'd also been watching Season 5 of Gray's Anatomy on Amazon Streaming video.  Really great without commercials.

Both these shows have a lot of plot, both are very well written (i.e. the plot and the story are integrated by solid and clear thematic statements). 

Vampire Diaries uses some wild variants on the Vampire mythos, but here's one element that is a great example of Worldbuilding, using show-don't-tell to make an abstract point.

Vampires can turn their emotions off.  And on again. 

When they turn their emotions OFF, Vampires become the Evil Scourge of traditional vampire myth, and have no compunctions about murdering humans, care only about self-gratification, and have little or no regard for other Vampires (thus very little Romance potential). 

When they turn their emotions ON, Vampires become just ordinary people, with their old human personality showing through, with whatever sense of respect for human life that they had during their own lives.  They're just very long lived, very durable, human beings, as bad or as good as humans usually are.

THEME: Absence of Emotion Is Definition of Evil.

Or put another way, the theme of THE VAMPIRE DIARIES is that the only thing that makes humans Good (however good any given human can be) is EMOTION.  All goodness is emotion.

That is a clean, bright, definitive show-don't-tell of Phil-1, the oldest philosophy, Noah.

Here's another example.  On Gray's Anatomy and on Vampire Diaries, couples are changing partners all over the place, trying out sex with this and that one, getting all deep and introspective over the question of whether they love this one or that one more (which you can determine only by whether the sex is better).  It's so important to find out who you love because you absolutely must do what your emotions lead you to want to do.

I Love You is a statement regarded as a surrender to an inevitability.  I can't help who I love.  It's just a mystery.  And if I love someone, I must be with him -- regardless of all other considerations.  And I can't help it.  Good common sense and solid reasoning have nothing to do with it.  "Forbidden" has nothing to do with it (such as if you fall in love with a cousin, or an under-age kid, you must have sex with them regardless). 

The Theme says, "We are victims of emotion."  Both those TV Series (ultra-popular TV Series) depict that philosophy -- how you feel determines what you must do, and doing anything else is unhealthy. 

Emotion dominates, emotion leads, action must follow emotion.  Thought is not allowed to enter into it, at all.  That is a clear statement of the core of Phil-1, Noah. 

Now, go back over the Tarot posts, where I lay out the "Worlds" of Kaballah according to one (of several) schools of thought.  Wands, Cups, Swords, Pentacles.  Idea, Emotion, Deeds, Results.  (Fire is Tarot Suit of Wands/ Love is Tarot Suit of Cups)

That is the sequence I explained in those Tarot posts, but there is another sequence taught by a different school of Kaballah. Idea, Deeds, Emotion, Results.  And I think that's a closer depiction of the Phil-2 explained in the Torah.  There are good arguments on each side, and that's what makes for a great novel! 

In either case, Idea (thought, intellect, mind) leads, emotion comes in between, results come last.

Phil-2 from the Torah commands that men put a blue thread in the fringe of their garment to see it and REMEMBER (mind) the Commandments and NOT FOLLOW YOUR HEART that you yearn to follow, not follow emotion, but REMEMBER what you've promised to do and do it. 

Judaism also encompasses the concept of the Tzadik, the truly righteous man, who has completely harmonized Mind and Heart, thought and emotion flowing smoothly into deed and result -- so smoothly it seems like Magic.  Remember any technology that's advanced enough will seem like magic.  With Astrology and Tarot you are looking at a technology just that advanced. 

Which brings us back to the SFWA Controversy and whether it is actually about sexism, or not.

Phil-1 says if you feel something, if you want to do something, you must do it.

Phil-1 says people are best off, healthiest, when they understand that they are just smart animals with an animal body.  Male animals are attracted by female beauty, and when that happens it is the male's duty to the species to attack the female. (in many species, females don't put up with that)

Phil-1 says males can't help (you are helpless before your emotions and the body rules) being aroused by feminine beauty, and when that happens, it's unhealthy and morally wrong to resist your emotions. 

Phil-2 says put a blue thread on your garment, and gaze upon it and THINK FIRST.  Remember your promises, keep your word of honor. Blue, oddly enough, is considered the "cool" color, emotionally low-key. 

Phil-2 says humans have a Soul breathed into the flesh by God, and the Soul is infinite (most of it resides "above" and only part inhabits the body).  The human Soul is the Fire of God's Love.  Because of that Soul, humans have Free Will and may choose their course of action.  The Soul rules the body and its emotions, not the other way around, but since you have Free Will, you can allow the body to rule the Soul, you can allow emotion to rule action.  It is your choice.

Phil-2 says women are closer to God. It's pointed out in the Torah and the Mishna any number of times that when the People as a whole sinned, the women did not participate.  So therefore, many of the remedies for the propensity to allow Emotion to rule action, are not incumbent on women (such as the blue thread).  (Honest!  Lots of maligning rumors have been promulgated about Judaism, many of which are believed by Jews who thereupon find Judaism revolting.  The idea that Judaism is sexist is one of those lies.  I didn't make that up.)

Phil-1, the older philosophy of Noah, subjugates women because men can't help attacking them.

Phil-2, the newer philosophy of Abraham, elevates women because men can control their bodies. 

OK, that's way oversimplified, but we're looking for a way to extract a simple framework from what passes for "reality" and use it for what publishing considers "fiction." 

The counter-arguments abound.  There's the whole issue of Biblical Commandments that treat women as chattle (a man buying a wife, making contracts for women who are living in their father's house or married, testing the woman for adultery but not the man).  Each of those could make the basis for worldbuiding an entire alien culture.  And of course, these Commandments were directed specifically at Jews.  Everybody else is responsible only for the 7 Noachide Laws:

---------quote-------------
THE 7 LAWS

1
Acknowledge that there is only one G-d who is Infinite and Supreme above all things. Do not replace that Supreme Being with finite idols, be it yourself, or other beings. This command includes such acts as prayer, study and meditation.

2
Respect the Creator. As frustrated and angry as you may be, do not vent it by cursing your Maker.

3
Respect human life. Every human being is an entire world. To save a life is to save that entire world. To destroy a life is to destroy an entire world. To help others live is a corollary of this principle.

4
Respect the institution of marriage. Marriage is a most Divine act. The marriage of a man and a woman is a reflection of the oneness of G-d and His creation. Disloyalty in marriage is an assault on that oneness.

5
Respect the rights and property of others. Be honest in all your business dealings. By relying on G-d rather than on our own conniving, we express our trust in Him as the Provider of Life.

6
Respect G-d's creatures. At first, Man was forbidden to consume meat. After the Great Flood, he was permitted - but with a warning: Do not cause unnecessary suffering to any creature.

7
Maintain justice. Justice is G-d's business, but we are given the charge to lay down necessary laws and enforce them whenever we can. When we right the wrongs of society, we are acting as partners in the act of sustaining the creation.
----------END QUOTE--------------

So Noah was never expected or tasked with putting thought or intellect above emotion, not directly, but it seems to me it's the easiest way to accomplish those 7 goals.  Since when do humans elect to do things the easiest way?

Look around at this world today, and you see both of these philosophical attitudes expressed in a tangled up, mixed up, confused mess, without regard for ostensible religion, creed, color, or culture. 

In fact, you probably think my summary of Phil-1 and Phil-2 with regard to women is nonsense because of the criss-crossing and conflicting assumptions in your subconscious.  Take this idea I'm presenting here and go around observing the world with writer's eyes for a while and see if you can tease apart some of these tangles and find the two warring philosophies (regardless of what you call them). 

Humans are capable of absolutely, solemnly and really believing two mutually exclusive things at once.  So Phil-1 and Phil-2 can both be held in the same human mind at the same time. 

The resulting tangle of motives and deeds produces a similar tangle of mixed results that are very confusing to analyze.

Which brings us back to the confused fulminating about the SFWA Bulletin cover being sexist, and comments on the objections just adding fuel to the fire leading to disparaging comments about SFR.

SFWA is supposed to be home to those who train to think "outside the box" and to "go where no man has gone before." 

Science is the fearless and systematic examination of all ideas, and the organizing of the results of experiments into a reliable and repeatable body of knowledge.  These are the people who are supposed to be the best trained imagineers in the world.

And they are very confused, which accurately reflects the confusion in this society as a whole (which accurate reflection makes a professional writer, professional.)

If you've ever written a melee battle, or just watched a movie with a good melee depicted, you understand what happens when two huge armies interpenetrate, just as when two galaxies collide. 

The sequence of events (plot) gets lost in confusion, and all there is left is the story -- the subjective impressions and personal meaning to the individual fighting for life, for mere survival. 

That's what we are living inside -- the interpenetration of the army of Phil-1 with the army of Phil-2, formations dissolved, one-on-one combat to the death, and the battlefield is inside our subconscious minds where the story of our life happens where we can not see it.  But we smell the smoke.   

Myth depicts this as Armageddon, or the final battle of the gods. 

Judaism sees it as the prelude to the arrival of the Messiah.  (Maybe some Islam sects do, too). 

Christianity sees it as Good vs. Evil.

I see it as the collision of two galaxy sized philosophies. 

Or maybe more accurately, the MATING of two philosophies -- fired, violent, messy, sweaty, grunting, and utterly ferocious. 

So take this multi-thousand year perspective of a battle between philosophies, one extracted from the older, larger other, and see if that vision yields a new perspective on today's headlines.  Then take that new perspective and generate your screenplay or novel and see if there's a fired up love life in there. 



by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com