Tuesday, September 05, 2017
Depiction Part 32 - Depicting Brain To Computer Links - Online Bullying Prevention
Saturday, September 02, 2017
'Ware What You Do With That Tee
Some authors take some of their own best quotes from their novels, apply them to T-shirts, and either sell them, or simply have friends, family and street teams wear them for publicity.
In such cases, there is probably some small print, attributing the source of the quote to the book and author.
It wouldn't be an advertisement otherwise. If you are an alien romance author, (or any genre of author), you might be interested in whether or not you could trademark or copyright the quotes.
Probably not. I have trademarked a name of a blog, but I doubt that I could trademark a snarky phrase uttered by one of my alien alpha males.
If you are a fan, you might be interested in whether you could sell T-shirts decorated with quotes from your favorite authors' books, or with your favorite celebrity's Tweets.
Possibly so, but it would be classy--and safe-- to seek permission.
However, do not take a copyrighted work such as a photograph or painting (by someone else), and apply it to a T-shirt or other object without permission. Over the years I have purchased non-exclusive, limited rights to use photographs of attractive male model's body parts (usually their chests and adjacent muscles) for use as cover art. Often, the waivers and licenses specifically forbid me to use the images on mugs and tote bags and such swag.
I'd like to recommend just two legal blog articles about T-shirts and copyright.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0ec9dfdb-aaab-466f-b7a3-ccd2de97a8e2
The blogging lawyers of Morrison & Foerster LLP , Mona Fang and John F. Delaney write about Zazzle's T-Shirt woes (Zazzle Fizzles: Website Operator Denied Copyright Safe Harbor Protection For Its Sale Of Physical Products Featuring User-Generated Images).
The title does not say it all. Their article contains some very eloquent and clear explanation of how the judges deliberated and reasoned, and what was and was not an issue.
The copyright protection or lack thereof of someone else's Tweet, even a lucrative one, is examined under "A Tee, A Tweet And Frank Ocean" by Tim Buckley of Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman PC.
http://www.cll.com/newsroom-publications-172377
Tim Buckley's sound legal advice is that it would be better to seek permission before monetizing someone else's Tweet..
My entirely amateur view is that lawsuits are very expensive, lawyers have to be paid no matter who wins, and not every court awards legal fees to the winner. Moreover, Tweets go global, and laws in Europe are kinder to copyright owners. IMHO, the alleged Tweet-snagger should give credit to the Tweeter on her website.
Happy Labor Day!
Rowena Cherry
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Food Production of the Future
Here's an article about tabletop greenhouses controlled by a computer program:
A Byte to EatFood computers "use up to 90 percent less water than traditional agriculture and can help reduce food waste." The ones built in the class showcased in this article are the size of a moving box and very cheap—the "computer" part of the system costs about $30.00.
These devices are too small, of course, to feed a household. However, they could allow people without yards or gardens to supplement their diets with home-grown vegetables. Furthermore, the design can be scaled up to the size of a warehouse.
In an essay written several decades ago, Isaac Asimov calculated how long it would take for the Earth to reach maximum sustainable population at the then-current rate of reproduction. In a surprisingly few centuries, he figured, the entire surface of the planet would reach the population density of Manhattan at noon on a weekday. (I don't remember whether this estimate includes paving over the oceans.) Setting aside the practical fact that this end point will never be reached, because societies would collapse long before then, how would all those people living in one continuous urban sprawl be fed? Agriculture on almost every rooftop would be needed. Asimov visualized giant algae vats producing the raw material for nutritive substances. The society of Harry Harrison's 1966 novel MAKE ROOM, MAKE ROOM, set in 1999, feeds the overcrowded planet with a protein substance called Soylent Green. (Interestingly, Harrison predicts this desperate condition in a world with 7 billion people. Global population today measures about 7.5 billion, and we're nowhere near those dire straits. Maybe there's hope.) Contrary to the movie (in which the authorities falsely claim that the product's base ingredient is plankton), Soylent Green in the book isn't "people." Thoughtful consideration makes it obvious that relying on cannibalism to feed everybody would make little sense. It's not efficient to sustain human livestock on food that people could eat directly. Any consumption of human meat would have to be sporadic and opportunistic, not the main source of nourishment. In the novel, Soylent Green is made of soybeans and lentils, a highly nutritious combination of proteins. Still, most likely, the majority of people would prefer "real food" if it could be cultivated in such an environment. And inexpensive computerized growing units like those in the tabletop greenhouse project could be part of the solution to the problem.
Not that I'd want to live in a world like that. As much as I would miss the modern conveniences I'm very attached to, I would almost prefer the low-tech future of S. M. Stirling's "Emberverse" series (beginning with DIES THE FIRE), whose inhabitants enjoy fresh, locally farmed foods as one compensation for the high-tech marvels they've lost.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's CryptTuesday, August 29, 2017
Theme-Character Integration - Part 10 - Popping The Question by Jacqueline Lichtenberg
Previous parts to this series are indexed at:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/07/index-to-theme-character-integration.html
The topic of marriage is pretty much outside the Romance Genre domain of definition. However, Robert A. Heinlein often depicted marriages as a stabilizing influence and a powerful adjunct to Adventure.
He also had an ever broadening definition of marriage -- using line-marriage and various forms of open marriage in his later works, novels that became more famous and more widely read than science fiction.
That widening of the audience that Heinlein achieved for science fiction is what we are after in this blog about elevating the prestige of Science Fiction Romance.
Heinlein worked during a time when the social fabric was morphing beneath our feet, women's lib on the rise and divorce rate soaring. Working women had to wear suits, many pants-suits and skirt-suits were seen as a sell-out).
It is difficult for today's Romance audience to conceptualize why that dress code was important or what the current rash of "sexual harassment" claims is all about. Of course, if you have been targeted by such harassment, you may think you know what it is about. Unfortunately, many who are targeted become so emotionally entangled in the gut-deep offense that the bigger picture of what it is about escapes.
That bigger picture is what the Literary Field of Science Fiction Romance can bring to the international conversation on human rights, spotlight it, bring it into focus, create language (Heinlein's "Grok" is still understood), and establish a new domain of discourse.
In worldbuilding for a Science Fiction novel, Poul Anderson taught us (and illustrated with all his magnificent novels) how to start with the biology of an Earth species, and extrapolate how that biology might work in an Intelligent Sentient species - from another world, another ecological line of development. Or it could work for an Alternate Earth where some asteroid strike or solar low-point diverted evolution into another channel.
In Romance Genre, the focus is on a couple or triad, who have to settle into a Relationship for the purpose of building a life -- of laying the foundation for a Happily Ever After. But at the moment when they meet and become enamored -- stuck on each other -- they don't care a whit for building anything. The whole focus is on this brand new feeling that is pre-empting all the fixed parameters of their Self Images.
Romance, when it strikes out of the blue, when it sweeps the couple off their feet (or just sweeps one off of feet, leaving the other in a practical frame of mind), blurs any ability to judge another person, to draw a bead on that other's Personality.
When "In Love" we bind our Identity to the Image of another person, an image that is mostly our own imagination.
Those who have trained and practiced imagining, judging Character, connecting observed actions with the motivations that prompt actions, may have an edge during the onset of a Romance, before surrendering to the sweeping dissolve and reform process of becoming another person because of this binding Bond.
Others, who have not been raised to judge others' Character with objective precision, are more likely to mistake Romance for Love -- two very different personal experiences.
We live in a culture where children are taught there is no objective reality, and that objective judgement of people, values, cultures, is impossible.
During the decades between Heinlein's peak sales, and now, we have seen a massive shift in Thematic emphasis in Romance Genre.
Since there are no objective touchstones by which to judge the people you meet, the only way to evaluate where a new person fits into your life is by how you respond emotionally to that person. The only thing that matters is subjective emotion because there is no such thing as objective reality, objective values, or any way to judge "Art" objectively.
That idea is a THEME.
Subjective judgement, emotional reaction, is the surest guide to finding a Mate who can build a Happily Ever After with you.
For decades, our whole society has been using that premise, that subjective judgement is the surest possible guide, to decide whether to marry this or that person, or not to marry at all, or to live-with for "a while" and then decide whether to marry.
Meanwhile, the divorce rate soars ever higher and the first-marriage rate drops (and the birth rate in the USA drops). Nobody seems to wonder, the way science fiction writers wonder, if perhaps something in our assumptions might be incorrect.
Science is done with the type of thinking that is always questioning assumptions, questioning unspoken and unconscious assumptions as well as assumptions defined into an equation.
When you blend Science with Romance, you get Science Fiction Romance.
Romance Genre never questions assumptions, especially assumptions about emotions, or about the fundamental structure of reality.
Science Fiction Genre always questions every assumption about fundamental structure, unseen under Reality (or even the very existence of Reality.)
Science fiction is done by applying the thought-processes that produce hard science with the artistic process that produces a Life Well Lived.
That artistic process works with the theory that there exists such a thing as the Soul, and Soul Mates. Science can't prove the existence of the Soul or for that matter, the existence of existence.
So the blend producing science fiction romance is an oil-and-water type mixture, an emulsion, not a solution.
Working that blend, you come to the question, "Well, where do Souls come from, and how do you figure out whether this person is your soul mate?"
And the answer, "You don't figure it out, you FEEL it."
What is it that you FEEL?
How do you identify it or explain it to someone who has never been struck by love at first sight?
One touchstone is that this special person makes you perform to your own highest standards of moral and ethical precision -- or possibly of productivity, of grit and determination and pure heroism. This special person brings out the best in you, or perhaps even better than you ever thought you could be.
And after the dust settles, you are happy that you are who you are, happy and proud to be you.
So a Soul Mate coupling is about FEELINGS.
Romance Genre has been selling big time using the "steamy" Romance premise that sexual arousal and emotional imagination about "who" this other person actually is, is the best way to judge whether you've found your Soul Mate and a path to the Happily Ever After.
One reason the general public no longer conceptualizes a "Happily Ever After" life as "real" -- as possible, plausible or even desirable -- is the soaring divorce rate, the shattered-shambles divorce leaves behind especially when there are children.
Everyone knows someone who has an "ex" -- and everyone knows grown people who were children of a divorced couple, very possibly remarried to other people, and very possibly divorced again.
The stable, firm and reliable "nuclear family" has disintegrated.
That's a scientific fact - we have all seen the statistics.
What many Romance readers today don't know is that it was not always that way, and that this phenomenon is not the only possible way for human society to be organized.
Today's readers may have read that nuclear families used to exist, but they have no personal experience of such a thing. So it's not real to them. It's a fantasy.
Historically, there is a good reason that England overthrew the law preventing divorce. A miserable and incompatible couple does not raise self-confident, innovative and productive children. A bad marriage is bad for society.
Historically, there is a good reason that despite legal divorce, the U.S.A. maintained stable marriages (even somewhat miserable ones) for a very long time. One big component was the way a female was rendered dependent on the male for her living, and her existence, and her children's future.
Once economic independence became common for women, divorce rates rose.
You'd expect that getting couples properly matched in marriages would have become the norm, and divorce rates would be close to zero by now. Not so.
We've talked enough about arranged marriages here, and we've all read any number of Romances involving both good and bad arranged marriages. Some systems have a better success rate than others. But they produce a preponderance of life-long marriages in societies where divorce is unthinkable if not illegal. If women don't hold good jobs, they are stuck in misery.
One can argue that being free to leave at any time also allows an emotional freedom that cements a nuclear family together. If a human feels trapped, that human (male or female) with FIGHT to get out of the trap.
So having free alternatives is a key to a Happily Ever After marriage.
Here is a wonderful article on the relationship between health and marriage, scanning some scientific investigations into statistics, and reporting on following individuals health for many years. The results are not clear. Marriage doesn't guarantee better health, and being single doesn't guarantee better health either. But the research is a treasure trove of story material.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2017/jun/07/is-marriage-good-for-your-health-it-depends-who-youre-married-to
The title says it all:
------------
Is marriage good for your health? It depends who you’re married to
New research has found being married has protective health effects – unless it doesn’t
-----------
What are you doing, why are you doing it, and what is your goal? What are your chances of achieving that goal by staying in the marriage vs. leaving the marriage?
Humans are happier when doing things voluntarily rather than being forced, coerced, tricked, or manipulated. Even if the thing being done is actually beneficial to the human individual, if it is in any way coerced, it turns toxic.
So one pervading theme in the modern Romance Novel is, "If I feel like having sex with this person, there's no sense fighting it. It is impossible to control feelings, and it is unhealthy to try."
One pervading theme in modern science fiction is, "If I see a mistake most people are making, I don't have to make that mistake myself." That is the theme of the Hero, the maverick, the Adventurer.
So to get science fiction romance from these two themes, you need two Characters with contrasting views.
Marriage and the Happily Ever After have become the subject of legitimate scientific investigation.
So one Character might believe that instant, irresistible sexual arousal is the only reliable sign you have found a Soul Mate who can build a Happily Ever After life with you.
The other Character might believe that the goal of the Happily Ever After Life can be achieved only by a stable, bound, solid marriage and nuclear and extended family structure.
Now, take two Scientific Researchers, each with well-funded projects examining statistics, interviewing people, gathering medical records on them, following individuals through Life.
They each get papers published, and they are BOTH being considered for a Nobel Prize (or whatever the top in their field is), and they become rivals advocating their theories, intent on proving their theory so that society will change and conform to their Ideals. They want to FIX THE WORLD by demonstrating the path to the HEA for Everyone.
They meet for the first time at a cocktail party (or some Event) having read each others' research, having their minds full of refutations of the flimsy science behind the other person's paper.
Now what happens? What happens is the PLOT, and that plot must be integrated (fabricated from) with the theme.
The Characters, who they are and where they are in Life, and career, whether they have an "Ex" and children, all the Identity parameters go into fabricating the Plot, the things they do and the consequences of those deeds prompting more actions.
This series is about Theme-Character integration -- and you will note that the moment you have Characters whose Identify is fabricated from the Theme, you suddenly can think of dozens of plot events, and a wide variety of ways that Events might unfold.
Ponder the diverse and inconclusive (even confusing) results of the scientific investigation of marriage -- find these statistical assumptions that may be behind this research and what systemic flaws might be there. Create two additional experiments, statistical analyses, that your Characters might execute -- and then pit them against each other.
Here is the index to theme-plot-character integration:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2015/12/index-to-theme-plot-character.html
Maybe instead of being up for the same Prize, they start their Epic Rivalry at the point where they are seeking funding, or seeking a Teaching Assistance-ship under the same Professor. All that is Character -- and within that Character is the Theme and within the Theme is the Plot.
The Story is all about what their Conflict and their Romance do to change each of them, to forge them into a lifelong and successful partnership.
One signature of success in marriage is revealed in that Article I pointed you to above -- increased HEALTH. The physical body, relieved of stress, performs better.
Thus at work you get more promotions because you don't "fly off the handle" so easily and produce precision work more reliably.
With children, you are more consistent day to day instead of confusing them with your eruptions of temper, so they grow up to be more steady adults.
There are a lot of documented similarities between human behavior and animal behavior. Perhaps the most revealing is in the way our pets behave.
Here is an article about dog behavior written by a Veterinarian who has seen individual humans owning successive generations of dogs, and has noted how human habitual behavior toward a dog creates dog behavior problems.
The same habitual human behaviors that prompt dog misbehavior also prompt children's misbehavior. Each child or dog personality reacts differently to the same human behavior.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/pets/news-features/dog-behaviour-problems-ten-common-causes/
Here are the headings for this article on dogs
---------quote-------
1. Some dogs have a genetic tendency to behave badly
2. Poorly socialised pups turn into badly behaved adult dogs
3. Dogs that are not trained enough cannot learn to be well behaved
4. Old fashioned, dominance-based training doesn’t work
5. Negative experiences leave dogs with long lasting emotional memories
6. Testosterone drives aggression
7. Treating dogs like people doesn’t work
8. Dogs without boundaries are more likely to behave badly
9. Insufficient exercise leads to frustrated dogs that behave badly
10. Trying to solve dog behaviour problems on your own is unlikely to succeed
----------end quote---------
Convert that to children's behavior problems to generate conflict. You can use a pet's behavior to reveal hidden Character traits.
Back to the article on marriage research:
And in old age, you survive health challenges and adjust together -- you just plain live longer, healthier lives.
Is that what people have in mind when they pop the question? Do your characters choose a person to be 90 years old with? Or do they propose marriage because you feel a certain way at that moment?
Stress is the killer. A good marriage relieves stress. A not-so-wonderful marriage maintains dangerous stress levels.
What will the next brand new scientific discovery be that proves the Ancient Wisdom modern society has thrown out with such contempt?
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Monopolizing Other People's Creative Works
When motor vehicles were invented, horses, horse-drawn vehicles (and the means to motivate carriage horses to move) were rendered obsolete because of the convenience and virtues of the new, replacement vehicles (which might need to be cranked, but which did not respond to being whipped).
The car makers did not forcibly shackle the horses and buggies to motorized skates. Nor did they subject existing horse, buggy, and passengers to being dematerialized and rematerialized at their destination, as in "Beam Me Up, Scotty."
"Beaming Up" (or Down) is what Big Tech does when it digitizes creative works or performances. Congress ought to protect "creators" from their works being beamed hither and thither without the AFFIRMATIVE permission of the creators (opt-in) and without payment that is satisfactory to the creators and copyright owners.
In an interesting, and lengthy (and slow-to-get-to-the-good-stuff) article, the New Yorker discusses
the impoverished death of a musician, attributing the impoverishment to Big Tech which makes fortunes for "disruptors" at the expense of the "creators" of the content they hijack and publish and distribute.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/28/who-owns-the-internet
Also discussing the failures of the DMCA to protect creators from creative Big Tech exploitation and "permissionless innovation" is a discussion of digital resale. Remember, if digital music files are allowed to be resold, Amazon has a patent (and a web page all ready) for the digital resale of ebooks.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/appeals-court-grapples-digital-files-business-selling-used-songs-1031629
Also, if the bankrupt ReDigi could be sold, which of the Dark Lords would buy it?
All the best,
Rowena Beaumont Cherry
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Trazzles and Tweedlers
While re-shelving our books in our newly redecorated basement "library," I came across WHICH WAY TO THE FUTURE? (2001), a collection of essays from ANALOG by the long-time editor of the magazine, Stanley Schmidt. While most of the stories in ANALOG don't excite me, because I don't really get into "hard science fiction" (a term Schmidt doesn't like; he maintains that rigorously science-based SF should be called simply "science fiction"), I've always loved the editorials. My favorite article in WHICH WAY TO THE FUTURE?, "Bold and Timid Prophets," contemplates how visions of the future (in both factual predictive writings and fiction) typically measure up to the actual development of culture and technology. Often a story set in the future imagines the technology as a perfected version of the cutting-edge inventions of the present day. For example, a nineteenth-century speculative novel might envision the twentieth century as powered by highly advanced steam engines. Making an imaginative leap into a world filled with devices that do things impossible in the current state of knowledge is much harder.
Schmidt illustrates this problem by starting the essay with an ordinary letter written in the late 1990s as it would appear to a reader in the 1860s. He substitutes a nonsense word for every term that didn't exist then (or combines familiar words in ways that would have made no sense in the mid-nineteenth century, such as "answering machine"). (I think he cheated a bit with "pilot." Boats had pilots for a very long time before airplanes began to need them.) "Plane" becomes "trazzle"; "computer" becomes "tweedler." "Fooba" substitutes for "e-mail" and "zilp" for "fax." Even where the nineteenth-century reader could recognize all the words, many of the sentences would appear to express impossibilities. How could parents know the sex of a baby in utero? How could a person travel a total of 20,000 miles in only one month? How could a human heart be transplanted? How could a transatlantic trip take "just a few hours"?
Doubtless the distant future will include inventions and achievements we can't currently imagine because they'll depend on discoveries and technologies unknown to us, just as the nineteenth century couldn't predict the practical applications of electromagnetic theory and quantum mechanics. Even the boldest and best of classic SF writers get things amusingly wrong when writing about the not-so-distant future. "Where's my flying car?" illustrates one well-known unfulfilled prediction. Personally, I shudder at the thought of flying cars being anything other than toys for the rich. Autonomous ground cars, which now seem just over the horizon, sound much more desirable. What I really want, however, is my housecleaning robot, which Heinlein in THE DOOR INTO SUMMER expected by 1970. Also, in HAVE SPACE SUIT, WILL TRAVEL, Heinlein envisioned a near future with a moon colony—and slide rules. The social structures portrayed in some of his juvenile novels are even less "bold" than the concept of slide rules on the moon—the families of the twenty-first century look like suburban American households of the 1950s—but, in light of his posthumously published first novel, FOR US, THE LIVING, that absence of innovation probably wasn't his fault. I suspect editors of books for teenagers in the 1950s wouldn't have accepted anything unconventional in that area.
Schmidt concludes that "well-balanced science fiction" needs "both extrapolation—things you can clearly see are possible—and innovation—the things you can't see how to do, but also can't prove impossible." That's one thing I like about J. D. Robb's Eve Dallas mysteries; their vision of the 2060s strikes me as convincingly futuristic but also plausible in terms of current technological and social trends.
WHICH WAY TO THE FUTURE? addresses a variety of other intriguing topics, such as the definitions of "intelligence" and "human," why we haven't been contacted by aliens (the Fermi Paradox), the proliferation of unrealistically exaggerated fears of marginal hazards, etc. Fortunately, Amazon offers numerous used copies of this fascinating collection.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's CryptTuesday, August 22, 2017
Theme-Character Integration Part 9 - Trajectory of Cultural Change
Previous parts in this series are indexed here:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/07/index-to-theme-character-integration.html
We discussed creating the Convincing Elder Character, and why your story might need such a Character here:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2017/08/theme-plot-character-worldbuilding.html
So now let's look at the foundation of Worldbuilding -- long before you start to build the "world" your Characters live in.
The key notion is that the Characters live.
Not you, the writer, but the Characters you create live in the artificial world you create for them.
One error beginning writers make is to consider that any bright, glowing, marvelous, loud-chuckle Idea they have belongs in THIS CHARACTER's world.
A novel is not a hodgepodge of randomly chosen (but great) ideas, practical jokes, homage to great past novels, or uproarious, tender, and delightful "getting to know you" moments.
If two Characters who will fall in love first meet in a certain way, on page one even, that certain way must speak to the reader and explain to the reader "what this novel is about."
What the novel is about is the Theme.
The novel is about "the story of this Character's life" and how, through the plot, this series of events brings this Character to new realizations about existence, about his/her world, about reality, heritage, and potential great-grandchildren.
Every novel is about "an awakening" of the main character -- that is called the Character Arc, and at the top of that arc, the Character has an awakening.
What the Character learns may be mistaken, and what the Character does as a result of not knowing the mistake can generate endless sequels, but learn' he must. Change, he must.
There was a study published about how human intelligence (human not Alien) exists for the purpose of allowing humans to form groups all moving and coordinating in concert, in harmony, toward the purpose of survival. The thesis was that we seek to conform and fit in, so we adopt and hold our opinions to be compatible with the Group that protects us, or that we depend on.
We discussed why humans don't change their opinions to fit new facts, referencing this article:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
That was in this post:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2017/07/plausible-path-to-happily-ever-after-by.html
That article did not encompass how that "Group" evolves over lifetimes, through generations.
It is obvious to us, today, that humanity as a whole, worldwide, and the USA (a very young country) have evolved in opinions, ideals, and views of the world over decades and even centuries.
But the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Consider modern science and the layman's attitude toward the pronouncements about Climate Change -- resulting in articles about schemes to engineer Earth's climate so it doesn't "change" so much we go extinct. Of course, this is a reasonable response because humans caused this spurt of change, so we ought to un-cause it.
Compare that general public attitude with the attitude that had to prevail in the time of the building of the Tower of Babel. Storm the heavens and take over the control room from God. From their perspective, that makes perfect sense to a modern person. We know we can jigger the climate needle because we can see, from Big Data, that we have indeed already done that.
The Earth is fragile, if you take a perspective longer than your own life.
If you take a perspective of millions of years, though, it is clear the Earth is robust. Species rise and fall, glaciers come and go, but life infecting this world keeps surging back after every blow.
We, today, are not so concerned about "life" as we are about our own civilization's life.
"The Earth Is Fragile" is a theme.
"The Earth is Robust" is a theme.
"Humans became herd-thinkers to survive," is a theme.
"Humans think for themselves and change their minds," is a theme.
"Only female humans change their minds too much," is a theme.
"Doom Looms," is also a theme -- and it works at any point in history, or pre-history.
Going toward a Doom is a trajectory.
Going toward space exploration and survival isw a trajectory.
"Life is getting better," is a trajectory.
"Life is getting worse," is a trajectory.
These are huge themes that move whole cultures (a survival Group composed of hundreds of millions of people). And the perceived trajectory of such a huge group is one of the components the writer can use to lend depth and realism to a novel.
But again, the dimension of generations -- the trajectory of a civilization -- is not under close scrutiny.
Yet, to "build" a "world" for Characters to live in, the writer must have in mind (though rarely mentioned in the novel) the trajectory of the main character's civilization.
That trajectory of cultural change is the slow or fast running river the Character is swimming across.
The novel may span a week, or a year, or a generation, but it is still a still-photo, a snapshot, of the trajectory of cultural change.
For example, human-caused-climate-change could never have been a thematic element that an 18th century author such as these would have selected to stir emotions in his audience:
Tristram Shandy by Laurence Sterne (1759–67). ...
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe (1719). ...
Tom Jones by Henry Fielding (1749). ...
Clarissa by Samuel Richardson (1747–48). ...
Candide by Voltaire (1759). ...
Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift (1726, 1735). ...
Joseph Andrews by Henry Fielding (1742).
So while the culture of your Characters may not change substantially over the time of the novel, it has been somewhere in its thinking, is now somewhere else in its thinking, and will get to yet another stage eventually.
In other words, as noted in the Convincing Elder Character, your Character has a great-grandfather and potentially a great-grandson. If your story is set in the year 900 CE, all 6 generations on that same cultural trajectory may not feel or see any change at all.
The Wisdom and aphorisms, old wive's tales, sayings, adages, maxims, proverbs, and precepts, etc. that led the great-grandfather to a Happily Ever After life will work just as well for the great-grandson, and very likely for the great-great-grandson.
If you set your novel in 2017 of this Universe on this Earth, that continuity of Wisdom will not be true.
If we don't self-destruct politically, we will run into what the experts now call a Singularity -- a point of such rapid change from year to year that no human nervous system can adapt.
This is where the Alien Romance shines.
Can you bring to Earth - or contact in the great Dark - an Alien species that has lived through the Singularity approaching humanity? Is there example, precept or advice, an Ancient Wisdom we can learn and use to survive with humanity intact?
"The Singularity" is a popular term for the sweeping change human cultures are in for when the Artificial Intelligence (think Skynet) takes over the world, or tries to. Even if we win that battle, nothing will be the same.
Elon Musk has been talking about it a lot, as have Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, and dozens of other tech gurus.
How abrupt will it be? Will the Earth be laid desolate in that battle? Will humanity have to abandon Earth to the machines and colonize space?
If we had to do that, could we?
Given the studies about how humans just will not change their minds when new facts come to light, given that it takes 4 generations to deploy real cultural change (human refresh rate is about 80 years) and the prediction that the Singularity will hit within a time frame of months, not decades, CAN WE deploy to space?
As I've often referred you to Alvin Toffler's book, Future Shock, I assume you understand what kind of psychological devastation such a cultural shift would wreak.
It would be a paralysis of everything human. Think of an entire global civilization with the worst case of PTSD -- every last living adult human with PTSD. That's what "The Singularity" could bring.
So, can the trajectory our current culture is on be bent a little, redirected, flexed, offset enough to avoid universal PTSD?
Can Love Conquer All? Is that actually true? Is it possible?
Can A.I. be programmed to Love?
Artificial Intelligence with Soul is the prediction. Is that possible? What would it mean for, say Romeo and Juliet (the original fictional characters, not the archetype). Could there be star-crossed lovers among A.I.?
In the last 20 years, we've seen a cultural shift toward complete social acceptance of LBGTQ people. Marijuana went from illegal and horrible to legal and maybe problematic, but no more so than alcohol. In fact, Marijuana may have life saving medicinal applications.
In the 1960's, adults had to depend on their children to program a VCR. Today, dependence on teens for tech support for all sorts of gadgets is the joke, and the subject of TV commercials.
A ten year age difference can mean the ability to work your household, or not.
What if that difference were just 3 years?
We have examined many brain studies showing how new tools can detect actual brain circuitry changes created by experiences, trauma, learning, meditation, etc. The brain is, at younger ages, most plastic, pliable, responsive to the environment.
As the tree is bent, so grows the tree.
You know I love adages, aphorisms, cliches.
Once the tree is grown, bent in a certain direction, you can't bend it back without cutting or breaking it, very likely killing it.
Mystically, the human being is likened to a tree -- for a reason.
A storm is coming that will crack many of our Elders, or blow them helplessly over. What that storm is composed of, driven by, and what the cultural response to that loss of Elders will be, is fodder for Theme.
Projecting us into that world requires a full grasp of how Culture has responded over thousands of years, and a knowledge of what kind of storm is coming.
It will be like the Industrial Revolution, but as if the Industrial Revolution happened in 5 years, draining the family farms of workers before automated tractors and giant farms could be built.
10 year olds will be able to train for the new jobs, but 15 year olds will be too old and ossified to grasp the newest innovation.
So what will humanity do? Slow down change? Destroy ourselves?
Draw a picture of that trajectory -- find your Character on the curve of cultural change, and then you will know that Character's story. Find the story, and you will know the plot.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com