A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Far, Far Away... (guest blog)

Jacqueline Lichtenberg is observing Sukkot today, and we are delighted to welcome a guest author, Nathalie Gray, today.


A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy Far, Far Away...MY ASS!

By: Nathalie Gray (www.nathaliegray.com)

That's how Rob Sawyer, He Who Rules Canadian Science Fiction, starts his speech about his favorite genre and how Star Wars ruined it.

I have to admit, I'm a fan of Star Wars for the villains. They're much more interesting than the heroes. Darth Vader? I'm there, baby. Darth Maul? Rawr! Hans Solo, meh, sure, he's cute only because it's Harrison Ford.

But I digress.

Sawyer looks at Star Wars and recent science fiction movies from a whole new angle. It shocked me so much, in fact, that I *had* to come share it with the lovelies at Alien Romances. The speech is broken into three portions of about 5 minutes each (see link below). So you're looking at a quarter of an hour. But I promise you, it's not wasted time. Especially the bit about the androids.

Oh, and because he rocks and rules and does it simultaneously, he also reminds people that the first true science fiction novel was written by a...

Woman.

Yes. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was the first story that hinged entirely on science. It was the science, the experiment, that drove the characters, triggered the conflict and registered so high on the Massively Addictive Index. When you start reading that story, you can't put it down.
Next time someone tells you scifi is for guys, you whip out your machete, erm, I mean, your copy of Frankenstein and tell them, "Dude, that chick was writing scifi before H.G. Wells was even BORN. Now kiss my feet."

To read Rob's comment about woman writers and science fiction, follow this link:
http://sfwriter.com/2008/06/video-galaxy-far-far-away-my-ass.html#links

Serendipity and Convergence (Poverty and futuristic world-building)

Sometimes, things come together, no pun intended. This week, the world is recognizing the issue of Poverty on several days. Wednesday 15th is global Blog Action Day, and millions (well, we hope millions) of bloggers will take a moment to show their support in writing, or on the airwaves, or however they can for Poverty.

http://site.blogactionday.org/resources/help/

For a while, I was stumped as to what I could do, aside from a "mee too" (which works… if you register your blog. One point is to make newsworthy numbers, not for everyone to be substantive.) The more blogs sign up, the more potential sponsors are impressed and included to support the cause.

I decided to interview a Capuchin brother about his vows of Poverty (I also learned something I didn't know about chastity and obedience) and his work with the poor in Detroit.

On Facebook, I was searching for groups involved in the blog action day, and learned that October 17th is another day of Poverty awareness.

Meanwhile, today on the Fantasy Futuristic and Paranormal loop (for members of Romance Writers of America), there is a craft discussion on world-building, and Lizzie Newell has shared some insights that I think are brilliant. For Lizzie, "SCARCITY" is an essential ingredient in her world-building, because scarcity creates conflict.

www.alaska.net/~mnewell/snowqueen/index.html

As I mused about how ideas converge, my mind skipped to my two favorite biological concepts (as regards evolution of unrelated but similar-looking species, and the potential for alien romance): convergence and parallelism.

This brought to mind The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell, in which a Jesuit missionary is sent to another world (great use is made of the "twin paradox") to make contact with a new, intelligent civilization. In Mary Doria Russell's world of 2019-2060 Poverty is rampant. The Japanese and the Jesuits are powerful.

http://www.amazon.com/Sparrow-Mary-Doria-Russell/dp/0449912558

Given the global financial crisis taking place right now, I'm sure writers of the future will look back to this time for whatever our grandchildren's equivalent of "Steampunk" is and write alternate speculative fiction for what might have happened next in 2008/2009.

Conserve water, people. Drinking water could well be our next Scarcity. (Pun not intended)


This is my interview with Brother Jerry Smith.

Rowena
I'm embarrassed, but I'm not familiar with the correct way to address a member of the Capuchin order (or any other monk). Are you Father, Frater, Brother….? And is it polite to call you a monk?


Jerry
The vision of our founder, St. Francis of Assisi, was that we would be brothers to the world—first of all, to other human beings, of course, but also to all of creation—the birds, the animals, the fish of the sea. He spoke of “Brother Sun” and “Sister Moon”, and taught us that we must deal respectfully with all of creation. This was eight hundred years ago—he was “into” ecology way back then! I say all this to arrive at the point that since we strive to be brothers to the world, it is never incorrect to address any Capuchin as “brother”, even if he happens to be a priest. (Some of us are priests and some are not, but the bottom line is that we are all brothers.) And technically we are not monks, as monks are “attached” to a certain monastery for a lifetime whereas we are much more mobile. So it is more correct to call Capuchins “friars” (which comes from the Latin word for “brother”, though we are similar to monks and even call some of our residences monasteries.

Rowena
I've seen The Sound of Music, and I've read some of Ellis Peters's Brother Cadfael mysteries, and I saw Richard Chamberlain in The Thorn Birds.

What is the difference between a monk and a Catholic priest, in terms of job description, career expectations, pecking order, contact with members of the public?


Jerry
As I stated above, a monk is attached to a particular monastery for a life time; that does not mean that he can never leave the premises, but that he is “connected” to that monastery for his entire life. Most priests in this country are diocesan priests, meaning that they are “attached” to a particular diocese for a lifetime. A diocese is a geographic area of the country, of which a bishop is the leader or shepherd. He is the leader of all the Catholics in that area, and the diocese is organized into local parishes or churches. Those churches are served by priests who in most cases have been ordained to serve within that diocese.

However, within the Catholic Church there are also religious orders, such as the Capuchins, who are groups of men or women who feel called to live the vowed life (poverty, chastity and obedience) in the spirit of their founder. In our case, that was St. Francis of Assisi; in the case of the Dominicans, it was St. Dominic; in the case of the Jesuits, it was St. Ignatius of Loyola. The bottom line for us in religious life is that we feel called to live that vowed life within a community of like-minded individuals. Thus, living that life faithfully and authentically is our bottom line. Now, within those religious orders of men, some members are priests and some are not priests. Our common life; our charism and spirituality are the same; it is just that the way we live it out is different: the priests do so as administrators of the sacraments and by celebrating the mass, those who are not priests work as teachers or social workers or nurses, etc. Those who are priests “report” to the leaders of their order, whereas priests of the diocese are under the leadership of the bishop.

This is getting to be a very long answer, but in response to another part of the question, within the Capuchin Order we try to live without a “pecking order.” We proclaim ourselves a fraternity of equals, with no special privileges for anyone, whether ordained or not ordained. Members of some monastic orders live quite contemplatively without much contact with the world beyond the monastery walls., we Capuchins are very involved in the world. However, although we Capuchins try to be contemplative as well, (spending a significant portion of each day in prayer and contemplation), we are very involved in the world. In fact, our mission is no less than to “transform the world through reverence!”


Rowena
Is it true that nuns, monks, and Catholic priests all take vows of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience? If not, who takes what vow?


Jerry
Men and women members of religious orders (ordained and non-ordained) take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Some take a vow of stability as well, meaning that they are attached to a particular monastery for life. Diocesan priests take vows of chastity and obedience.



Rowena
I'm sure that there's a very good reason why there are three vows, and they are "Poverty". "Chastity" and "Obedience"? Would you liken those three vows to the three legs on a stool?

Jerry
My understanding of the vows is that all people are called to live poverty, chastity and obedience, but that vowed religious are called to live them more intently. To me the vow of poverty means to use respectfully the goods of the earth, to share those goods with others, and to use no more than we need. Chastity means that I view others as magnificent creations of God, who are to always be treated respectfully. And obedience means “careful listening”—to God, to life, to others, to those in authority. And it seems to me that living poorly, respectfully and with a “listening spirit” is fundamental for anyone--vowed religious or not--to living life fully and harmoniously with others and with all creation.

Rowena
What is it like to take a vow of poverty, and to live a life of poverty within a monastic order?

Jerry
Once again, I do not technically belong to a “monastic order”—but I did take a vow of poverty. Throughout the centuries (and the vowed religious life goes back for centuries and centuries) there has been great discussion and debate about what the vow of poverty “means.” My understanding is that the vow calls us to a respectful use of all things material, to hold in common what we have, and to share what we have. On a practical level that means that the car I drive belongs to the community, not to me personally. It means that I have no bank or checking account in my name, and that the salary I earn is turned over to the community and placed in the general fund to cover the needs of all. It means that I must respond to those in need and share what I have with a wider world. And it means that I live simply, without accumulating a lot of “things,” or chasing after a lot of money.


Rowena
Could you compare and contrast monastic poverty with the poverty you see in Detroit? (Or any other inner city)


Jerry
The most obvious difference is the fact that those of us who have taken a vow of poverty almost always have what we need in order to live with dignity and comfort, whereas many others who live in Detroit do not. Again, my understanding of the vow of poverty does not mean that I am to live in destitution—there is nothing blessed about that. Rather, it means that I live simply, using only what I need, and sharing what I have with others. The difference is that while most of us who have taken a vow of poverty do not have a great deal of “things”, drive modest cars, dress and eat simply, we do it out of choice and conviction. Many others, however, are forced to do so—there is no choice about it.


Rowena
Is it true that in Brother Cadfael's time, impoverished and unwanted young people were sent to a convent or monastery? If so, why wouldn't that work in modern times?


Jerry
I am not certain about the social conditions specifically during Brother Cadfael’s time, but I do know that throughout the centuries entrance into a convent or monastery was sometimes a viable option to a life of poverty when there were few other escape routes. I guess the key thing here is choice—a choice to enter the vowed life must be made freely, without coercion. The life style must fit one’s temperament and “spirit”; otherwise, I suspect the person involved would not enjoy much happiness in trying to live a lifestyle that does not “fit.”

Rowena
How is a Capuchin Soup Kitchen different from a Salvation Army soup kitchen?

Jerry
Although I have had little experience with a Salvation Army soup kitchen, I suspect that we would have much in common. I believe that our motivators are basically the same—the idea that we are all sons and daughters of a common God, and that we must care for each other. I am certain that we share a belief in the goodness and dignity of all human beings. One possible difference is that –and I’m not sure about this—is that the Salvation Army perhaps uses their facilities as places to proselytize—preach—whereas we do not. Our founder, St. Francis of Assisi, said, “Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.” In other words, we try to preach by the way we live our lives. We feed hungry people because it is the right thing to do, not because we want to preach to and convert them.


Rowena
Why is there so much poverty in Detroit? Would there be less poverty if there was more chastity and obedience in our society?


Jerry
Another Capuchin brother once said to me that what we have in Detroit is ”economic apartheid”, that when most of the white people moved out beyond Eight Mile Road, they took with them most of the jobs and the financial resources of the city. While I believe that that analysis is somewhat simplistic, I do believe that there is a great correlation between racism and poverty. But the decline of manufacturing in these cities is also a huge factor, as well as limited educational opportunities and poor transportation systems for the people left in the city. And while I have not thought a whole lot about this, I suppose a case could be made that if everyone treated everyone else respectfully (chastity), and everyone really listened to their inner voice and the voice of God speaking to us (obedience), there would be less poverty in the world because we would conclude that it is unconscionable that some of us enjoy such excess, while millions have not the basic necessities of life. And we would do something about it.


Rowena
I was very impressed with your organic vegetable gardens on the abandoned lots of Detroit. I've also heard that lots in Detroit are unsold (owing to the debts and back taxes) for $1 each.

I also hear the saying "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish…" What would happen if the Capuchin monks taught Detroiters to grow their own vegetables?

What would happen if the Capuchins organized allotments (tiny communal market gardens) ? Like Habitat for Humanity, only for vegetable gardens instead of dwellings?


Jerry
There is a strong movement underway in the city right now to encourage people to grow a portion of their own food. The Greening of Detroit is very active in this endeavor, and the Capuchin Soup Kitchen works in collaboration with that organization. In fact, the Soup Kitchen has a greenhouse where each year approximately 100,000 vegetable seedlings are grown for distribution to individual gardeners and community gardens throughout the city. Each year the program grows in number of participants and levels of enthusiasm, and some of the gardeners are now selling some of their produce. Here at the Soup Kitchen some of our guests have tiny plots where they grow vegetables of their choice, and it is gratifying to observe the care with which the gardens are tended. Working with the earth is also very calming and healing, and I really believe that gardening can help heal the wounds so prevalent among the people of our city.


Rowena

I see you do "Teach a Man to bake…" Tell me why the Capuchins chose baking as a new career for men who have been incarcerated. Can a man "bake" his way out of poverty and destitution?

Or, is the baking a way of providing the bread to accompany the vegetable soups?


Jerry
Our ROPE program (Reaching Our Potential Every day) teaches baking techniques and life skills to formerly homeless or incarcerated men. The idea is not simply to learn a skill or trade, but to simultaneously address the issues that brought the men to homelessness or incarceration in the first place. Thus, participants do receive training in baking, but at the same time deal with their addiction problems, or work on obtaining their GED or other educational pursuits, or receive professional counseling to come to peace with issues that have caused them turmoil in their lives up until now. The hope is that after they have been in the program a year they will have saved enough money and resolved enough of their personal issues that they can successfully “re-enter” society and become assets to their community. Some might choose to continue working in the field of baking; others may pursue truck driving or whatever other career might interest them.


Rowena
How does donating clothing, furniture, and appliances to the Capuchins for distribution differ (if at all) from donating to the Red Cross or Salvation Army, or Purple Heart?

I've never received a postcard or a phone call from the Capuchins telling me that their truck will be in my neighborhood, and asking if I have anything to donate.


Jerry
I’m not sure about all the other organizations named, but one possible difference is that items that are donated to us are distributed free of charge to people in need—we do not sell them. And while in the past we were able to send trucks out into the neighborhoods to pick up donations, the costs of fuel and labor now make that prohibitive.


Rowena
What have I not asked about Poverty that I ought to have asked?


Jerry
Entire books have been written about poverty. I could go on and on—but I think we have a good overview here at least.


Rowena
Are the Capuchins only in Detroit? If not, where else are your Soup Kitchens, Gardens, Art Therapy Programs, Food package donation outlets, and shower facilities?

What have I not asked about The Capuchin Order and the Capuchin Soup Kitchen service sites that you'd like to mention?

Jerry
The Capuchins are an international order of brothers, found all over the world. In the United States (and internationally as well) we are divided into geographic provinces. There are six provinces in this country, and this Province of St. Joseph is headquartered here in Detroit. We are about two hundred members, and are separate from the other provinces in terms of finances and personnel. The Province of St. Joseph sponsors a similar food program in Milwaukee, though not of this magnitude. I am not familiar with much of the work of other provinces, although I do know that the friars in Denver operate a homeless shelter, as do friars of the Pittsburg province stationed in Washington, DC. Traditionally throughout the world we have been known to minister among the very poor.

I would like to close this by acknowledging that the work we do is made possible only through the generosity of the people of this community. Our annual budget is seven million dollars, and most of that money comes from fundraising activities and donations from generous benefactors. It is very humbling to me that people trust us so. I also extend to anyone interested, an invitation to come and visit us. We are very proud of what we do, and love to show it off!


Useful Contact Information for the Capuchin Soup Kitchen in Detroit
Website
www.cskdetroit.org

To volunteer
volunteer@cskdetroit.org
313-822-8606 ext 10

To donate
313-579-2100 ext 173


Thank you very much!
Rowena Cherry

http://blogactionday.org/js/1ccc9cfd32b03021e927a9a2fe2012c23af12259

PRISM winners announced by FFandP chapter

Congratulations to the 2008 PRISM Winners.

Light Paranormal
1. Dead Girls are Easy by Terri Garey
2. More Than Fiends by Maureen Child
3. Highland Guardian by Melissa Mayhue

Time Travel
1. Wired by Liz Maverick
2. Thirty Nights with a Highland Husband by Melissa Mayhue
3. Forgiveness by JL Wilson.

Erotica
1. Mona Lisa Blossoming by Sunny
2. Pleasures of the Night by Sylvia Day
3. Double Dating with the Dead by Karen Kelly

Futuristic
1. My Favorite Earthling by Susan Grant
2. How to Lose an Extraterrestrial in 10 days by Susan Grant
3. Insufficient Mating Material by Rowena Cherry

Novella
1. Over the Moon by Sunny
2. Street Corners and Halos by Catherine Spangler
3. Wild Hearts in Atlantis by Alyssa Day

Dark Paranormal
1. Immortals: The Awakening by Joy Nash
2. Betrayed: A House of Night Novel by PC Cast
3. Touched by Darkness by catherine Spangler

Fantasy
1. The Eternal Rose by Gail Dayton
2. Lucinda, Darkly by Sunny
3. Voice of Crow by Jeri Smith-Ready

Best of the Best
Wired by Liz Maverick

Best First Book
1. Grave Illusions by Lina Gardiner
2. She Wolf by Teresa D'Amario
3. Thirty Nights with a Highland Husband by Melissa Mayhue

The Value of Stories

The August-September issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MIND contains an article on the importance of storytelling. Benefits of stories for human beings include expanding the capacity for empathy and learning how to function in social groups. One psychologist suggests that stories "may act as 'flight simulators' for social life."

Among the traits of people with a strong appreciation for stories, one study "found that students who had more exposure to fiction tended to perform better on social ability and empathy tests." This finding surprised me. One authority quoted in the article acknowledges that the way "stories can enhance social skills by acting as simulators for the brain. . . may turn the idea of the socially crippled bookworm on its head." This finding is indeed counter-intuitive to the popular conception of writers and avid readers as introverted and (given a choice) solitary, a stereotype that certainly applies to me. I've always considered myself socially awkward, also, as we daydreaming writer types are generally assumed to be. In fact, I read somewhere that writers are, paradoxically, similar to dancers in that both kinds of artists compensate for lack of skill in communicating directly with people by communicating through our creative endeavors instead.

Of course, there's the old-fashioned oral tradition type of storyteller, spinning tales around a campfire. But that, too, seems to me different from free-flowing, everyday interpersonal interaction—definitely more structured. (I’m reminded of a character in the cartoon series ARTHUR who’s shy in his own persona but outspoken and fluent through the voice of his ventriloquist dummy.) Does the image of the socially adept storyteller, or story appreciator, ring true for you?

Heart of Light by Sarah A. Hoyt

This is not a review. I've only read two chapters so far.

However, for those who have been following my Worldbuilding posts, and are interested in what I call "information feed" -- you will find in HEART OF LIGHT an opening which is a perfect example of how to draw readers into a complex world full of twists, turns and surprises.

The first 27 of 502 pages of fairly small print contain no errors of form or technique and no expository lumps. The plot zips along at a good pace, and the surprises abound (if you didn't read the back cover first).

This is an alternate history universe with subtle cultural similarities and differences from our own. The intricacies of the universe far over shadow the characters at the beginning -- and yet, the author sticks right close inside the 2 main characters and gives us the world through their eyes (which are accustomed to their world).

Unfortunately, Amazon does not have a LOOK INSIDE feature for this book so you can see the first few pages without buying the $6.99 (US) book. It's from Bantam Spectra so you may find it in B&N bricks-n-mortar store to look at.

I've already read and will review another Sarah A. Hoyt title, DRAW ONE IN THE DARK, and have a stack more to go through. She seems to write Intimate Adventure against fantasy universe backdrops, and she writes in a firm, high-velocity Romance genre style, taking you through the formation of a "couple" from two individuals. This is good stuff.

There is one caveat though, for writers studying the Sarah A. Hoyt titles, please note that both DRAW ONE IN THE DARK and HEART OF LIGHT contain a classic problem.

In both these novels, Hoyt inserts scenes from other points of view where the entire scene exists only so that the reader knows that one character has informed another character of some plot development that the reader already knows about.

Hoyt does not resort to the "and she told him" ploy, but does not show the character mis-representing what happened, mis-understanding what happened, or just plain lying to twist another character's motivations. Those are reasons to narrate in detail what one character tells another about something the reader already knows about.

Occasionally, there's a bit of two characters telling each other things they already know -- and often the reader already knows all that. Sometimes, though, she uses the dialogue to deposit some exposition -- but rarely to the extent that it becomes a "Lump."

For the most part, these dialogue interludes do not constitute an Expository Lump. All they do is slow up the plot -- which is usually zipping right along.

Hoyt is really good at breaking down a complex universe and feeding it to the reader a bit at a time. Most of the dialogue scenes that should be cut pertain entirely to plot developments. If you're looking for a writer to model your far-out magic-using fantasy universe building on, investigate Hoyt's works. Amazon lists a number of her titles and I've begun posting some of them into the simegen.com bookstore

http://www.simegen.com/marketplace/keybooks/

I haven't forgotten I have some requests for a discussion of why Romance and Paranormal Romance is rather disparaged by many who don't read the genre. Next week and the week after (Oct. 14 and Oct 21, 2008) I will again be away from my desk. Maybe I can get to a new topic after that.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg

http://www.simegen.com/jl/

This just rocks...

I'm such a fighter jet slut (we can discuss word usage another time). Someone (got this off YouTube--no clue who the original producer was) did an excellent job of matching video to music (Crystal Method, if you don't recognize it).

This is the F-35B STOVL fighter jet. It. Just. Rocks.

SFR is all about love and technology, isn't it? I lurve me this technology bigtime.

~Linnea
//Interstellar Adventure Infused with Romance//

www.linneasinclair.com

For the use of Erotic Language

Margaret L Carter wrote a scholarly blog a few days ago about the use of shocking language in literature. Margaret's bottom line, as I understood it, was that for her, the use of certain carnal words is less than a turn-on.

I'll confess, I'm not in Margaret's camp. At least, not in print.

Words are my tools and my arsenal. To extend the war-like imagery begun with "the pen is mightier than the sword", I'm not going to sign on to a literary nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I like to have a dirty bomb or two at my disposal.

Almost any word, used with skill and precision, can accomplish the author's purpose. I've read uses of the f-word where I could not imagine a more effective or arousing word for the context.

Almost any word for male genitalia is fair game as far as I am concerned. Apart from "body". That one is too ridiculous. The only exception would be if I were writing a romance about a species of shark (or is it a Hackfish?) that dwells in the deepest parts of the oceean, and the tiny male attaches himself to a passing female and becomes a trailing part of her body.

I don't use g**h or c**t or sl** . Mostly, I keep female genitalia off the table. (By the way, for those who don't know me, I mix metaphors deliberately.)

Come to think of it (groan) the F- word is quite special, isn't it? The acronym WTF is widely texted (is that a word?). So far, I've never seen WTC.

In Insufficient Mating Material I used the F- word in several ways. The hero said it a lot, both when he was swearing, and because he was furious at being forced into a royal shotgun wedding, and then rejected by the ungrateful bride.

My favorite scene involving this word was when the hero's mealy mouthed, oh-so-proper grandmother used it. She was using Tarot cards to tell the fortune of, and incidentally to interrogate, a particularly heinous villain.

The Tower turned up. It can be a sinister card, suggesting that the questor is in deep trouble. Having already gloated about crimes he'd gotten away with, the villain asked what it meant. The Empress Helispeta replied, "You are f***d!"

It was immensely satisfying to write that.

Insufficient Mating Material is, I think, the only book I've written that qualified for a review by JERR. Like the publisher Margaret mentioned, a book only qualifies for a review by JERR if it contains graphic four letter words.

For some reason, I wanted Forced Mate reviewed by JERR. I wanted Forced Mate reviewed by everyone, regardless of how appropriate it was. I remember objecting to their criteria because even the Muppets use a four letter word for female genitalia. (Mrs Thistletwat).

Moving on....

Knight's Fork has no graphic language in intimate settings. In fact, there's very little graphic action in intimate settings, either. On choice occasions, the villains do use the f- word both as an expletive and as a verb, but only in conversations with other males.

I own several How To books, including a Scoundrel's Dictionary, a dictionary of slang, and a book titled The F-word. It's interesting how and why people insult and annoy each other.


Best wishes,
Rowena Cherry

Erotic Language

I've been rereading a very hard-to-find collection by my idol, C. S. Lewis, SELECTED LITERARY ESSAYS, which includes a piece called "Four-Letter Words." Lewis was responding to remarks by D. H. Lawrence, who asserted, in connection with LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER, that the twentieth-century had "evolved. . . beyond" earlier ages' attitudes toward "so-called obscene words" (Lawrence's words). Lewis takes issue with the implied claim that the bluntness of language in Lawrence's erotic scenes represented a wholesome return to nature. Lewis examines a wide selection of passages from classical, medieval, and Renaissance literature in which "four-letter words" for sexual subjects appear. He can't find even one instance of such language being used to arouse erotic appetite. Instead, they are always found in contexts of "farce or of vituperation"—bawdy humor or bitter insult. Several writers, in fact, condemn those words as anti-aphrodisiacs that ought to be avoided in sensual writing. "Lawrence's usage," Lewis concludes, "is not to be reckoned a return to nature from some local or recent inhibition"; it is, rather, "artificial."

I tend to land on the side of those authorities who consider formerly "unprintable" words as anti-aphrodisiacs, some of them anyway. Graphic or explicit erotica can mean either of two things—detailed, specific descriptions of body parts and sexual activities or very blunt (some people might say coarse or obscene) language. The two need not coexist. FANNY HILL, my favorite purely erotic novel of all time, goes into copious detail about Fanny's sexual techniques but never once uses a "four-letter word." An author could indulge in any amount of crude language and still keep the bedroom door shut. One of my publishers rates its erotic romances on the basis of both components. A story can't get a rating above what this publisher used to call "Sensual" (the mildest) without including "those words," no matter how graphic and explicit (in my definition of those terms) the action is. Some of the formerly unprintable terms have a decidedly anti-erotic effect on me; in fact, a couple of them strike me as implying contempt or violence rather than passion. Yet other words that I consider fun and spicy are banned by this publisher as too crude. There's no accounting for taste!

From comments by editors and on this publisher's e-mail lists, I know there are quite a few female readers who like and demand explicit language (in the four-letter word sense). I also know from occasional exposure to male-oriented pornography, both print and video, that lots of men like "those words" in sexual contexts; if the audience didn't like it, the producers of the material wouldn't supply it. So Lewis's conclusion that "obscene" words are never used to stimulate desire isn't universally true. The tastes of both writers and readers vary on this point. Do most writers of steamy romance assume that graphic sex scenes must include at least some "graphic" language? And if so, how much? Are there any words that should always be avoided if the writer's aim is to arouse the reader's passion as well as describe the characters' reactions?

Which leads to an unspoken assumption I'd almost overlooked—that part of the writer's aim in creating such scenes is to stimulate certain reactions in the reader. If the writer wants the reader to imaginatively share the characters' anger, fear, love, pain, etc., why not their sexual passion? I'm far from believing that using fiction to arouse sexual appetite is evil in itself. If it's okay for a couple in love to use wine, candles, soft music, lingerie, etc., to enhance desire, why not art and stories as well? (And, for the record, I’m a practicing Christian.)

A Rose By Any Other Name

I'm filling in for Jacqueline, and also on a blog tour at the moment, as mentioned in my regular (Sunday) blog.

Yesterday, Linnea talked about ultra long distance courtships, where most of the sensory cues are missing. You can't see the guy, you can't smell his pheromones (which is important), you can't hear his voice.

By the way, some actors have the most wonderfully attractive voices, IMHO. Anthony Hopkins. The late James Mason. Clint Eastwood. James Earl Jones.

Who might you fancy if their voice was all you had to go on?

Anyway, I was thinking about Linnea's blog while doing my morning-after blog-tour thing. Readers are offered prizes for the most interesting question, comment, or discussion starter.

A thread about my guilty pleasures evolved into a discussion of what Darth Vader's name meant, which turned to the pronunciation of foreign names, and whether or not Vader means father.

Having lived in Germany, I know perfectly well what father is in German. Vater. And I know how it is pronounced. Which brings me, with streaming eyes, to the thought that a person's name would be much more important than it is now.

How much respect or terror would Darth Varter command?

Would all the son-of surnames (Johnson, Masterson etc) be useful?

On Mars, it might be rather silly to have a name that makes one homesick for the green valleys, hills, and vistas of Earth: Belmont, Beaumont, Green... or of the trades ones ancestors handed down from father to son: Farmer, Baker, Mason, Fishmonger.

Flattering descriptive names might be quite effective: Richman, Handsome, Strongback, Goodmind, maybe even Goodnight.

Possibly, in a future world, we'd all use one of those ethnic descriptions that we see on the occasional census. In that case, my great grand-daughter's last name might be Caucasian.

Are names important to Americans? Given that two suitors were equally good looking (in their different ways), equally intelligent, equally good-tempered and humorous, and both shared ones interests, might a girl be swayed in her choice by which name would sound better as her married last name?

Is it taboo to wonder whether girls could really be that superficial?

Star-Crossed Romance: Guest - Rowena Cherry

Star-Crossed Romance: Guest - Rowena Cherry

Love in an (alien, high-tech) afternoon...

Just rambling here, because I've been conspicuously absent from this blog due to deadlines and edits and hence am not up on whatever current trend we're discussing (not that we write to trend here, but on occasion that seems to happen).

As Rowena noted, I had a blast reading her KNIGHT'S FORK. Her Djinn characters and "worlds" (not in the planetary sense, hence the quotes) are a total hoot and yet at the same time very thought-provoking. Much of it goes back to the us-not-them, and almost-like-us-but-not explorations. I'm reading (and laughing) about god-like people who have very people-like problems.

Which again gets me thinking about this genre and its proponents and nay-sayers. For what it's worth, I've seen a tad less naysayers lately in the sense that some blogging naysayers to the genre overall have been admitting that--while SFR certainly could never share the main table with SF, it might be able to at least be admittted into the dining room.

I think one of the reasons might be that a situation SFR often explores--love in an alien, high-tech afternoon--has started to become reality for those who've now met their significant others via the Internet. Facebook. MySpace. Those actually legit dating sites. Which means some of the "dating parameters" or "mate selection parameters" are again evolving.

History lesson: most of our great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents (and further back) either had their mates selected for them by their relatives and/or social standing, or their selection was limited by locale and lack of transportation. When you live on a farm in the Carpathian Mountains in Poland in 1825 (my family's history), your likelihood of meeting a nice young man from Australia are slim, none and the rest of the cliche. You're going to marry/breed with someone from your village or a neighboring village. End of romantic story. You fall in love (the best you can) with one of several limited choices.

You know. It's like going to a fast food burger place. You can have a burger, cheeseburger, double of either, a fish or chicken sandwhich and, oh, you want fries with that? Choices, sure, but they all kind of taste the same. Even the fries.

Nothing exotic. Nothing different. Because of that, you might even come to fear the exotic.

Fast forward to 2008. The planet is now your village, thanks to MySpace and Facebook and LinkedIn and whatever. Sure, people post photos (and how accurate are they?) and sure, there's still the element of "I find tall brunettes attractive" (or not), but the initial contact comes via email. IMs. Text messages. Eventually telephone but for a goodly period of time, it's a contact devoid of physical parameters--sight, smell (where are those noted pheromones?), texture. Is his skin smooth or rough? Is her hair soft or coarse? Internet lovers-to-be don't know. They only thing they do know is this person's written communications with me make me want to have more written communications from them.

Fascinating, to quote Mr. Spock.

The attraction starts based on shared values and the ability to communicate same. Shared experiences but experiences at a distance: "Yeah, I like [fill in the name of your favorite band/singer/rap artist], too."

So if at the opening of the relationship, we're taking a great deal of the physical out of it (I'm assuming that most humans do not post their worst photos on Facebook), what are we connecting on?

Ideas. Ideals.

So how does this relate to high-tech aliens?

To me, it opens the question of a relationship with the Other. With the humanOID, not just the human. It means that as a society we are now learning (in baby steps) to look past the physical or to not put such huge import on the physical as the first parameter in choosing a mate.

Which means, to me, we're opening to falling in love with a human or even non-human alien.

I think of Worf and Deanna Troi from Trek. Worf, to me, falls into the category of humanoid. And yes, being raised by humans certainly changed his physical-acceptance parameters (ie: hot and sexy doesn't have to include forehead ridges). But Deanna had to change hers, as well.

Now granted, working alongside someone often has that effect. Watching someone in action can change the importance of the standard "tall dark and handsome." And Worf does have this awesome voice for whispering seductive sweet nothings.

But initially, the idea of a Klingon finding a human attractive (and vice versa) is hard for most of us to accept. What we find physically attractive is, to a great extent, pounded into us culturally.

Yet now we have the Internet starting dozens of romances based less on physical attraction and more on intellectual/shared value attraction.

If--no, let me say when we eventually create the means for interstellar travel, our Facebook and MySpace training may come in handy. We may be in communication with other star systems long before we actually see their denizens. We may be establishing not just rapport, but relationships.

Yes, we'll still have our preferences and our prejudices. I think that's human nature. But I feel our acceptance of "other" will be widened, will be vastly improved because we're getting a bit away from the "you look, feel, smell, taste like me" and over to "you think like me."

I find that exciting. And I think science fiction romance is one of the main genres that lets us explore the possiblities in that kind of future.

~Linnea
http://www.linneasinclair.com/

Knight's Fork

As I've said before, I go to a lot of trouble with my research.

For instance, for Knight's Fork (the virtuous hero has to unearth an alien skeleton on earth, but wants to do everything legally, with the utmost respect and good taste, and by the book) so I found myself filling out Exhumation Licenses...in 'Rhett's point of view, and talking with coroners, ministry officials, archbishop's assistants, funeral directors and persons who specialize in the intercontinental transport of remains.

(I blogged about this when writing the scene).

While I was working on the logistics of how to repatriate alien remains to an empire far far away, I couldn't help thinking of the Star Trek movie where Captain Kirk simply beamed up a whale.

I don't do "beam me up!"

Apparently, before an exhumation license is granted, the applicant has to attest where the body is to be reinterred. Of someone intends to transport a coffin by air, (perhaps because the entire family has emigrated) then the applicant has to submit a letter from the receiving funeral director in the host country, and also a letter from the airline.

Moreover, it cannot be some fly-by-night airline. It would not do to turn in a letter from Captain James T. Kirk on USS Enterprise letterhead stating that the Enterprise had been engaged to transport the remains from Luton Airport to the Pleasure Moon of Eurydyce.

Quite often, if something seems implausible or ridiculous in my books, it is because it's true that truth is stranger than fiction.


Most of this scene fragment got cut from the book.


DELETED SCENE

'Rhett sat at a table, and rubbed his chin with the loosely curled forefinger of his right hand. "This is more difficult than I thought, Grievous," he admitted.

"Forms, are they, Sir? I never was much of a one for that sort of thing. Can't help you out, there."

"What I have here, is an Application for a licence for the removal of buried human remains (including cremated remains) in England & Wales, from One Of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State in the Ministry Of Justice, and I am endeavouring to fill it out truthfully."

"So, where are you, Sir?"

"Full name of applicant."

"That should be easy enough, shouldn't it?"

"One would think so, Grievous. However, my 'full name' is Djarrhett Raven Perseus Pendragon Roland Djames Djinnmagister. If I write really small, I could fit all my names into the box, but should I?"

"Probably not, Sir. Someone is probably going to have to copy all that on a typewriter, if not one of those super duper new word processing gizmos. They're never going to spell your names right. The spell checker will have a fit."

"I doubt that I can avoid the problem. Selecting just three would be less startling, but if only three, which middle name should one choose?"

"How about being Rhett Roland Jinnmagister. Just cut out the apostrophes, and all the silent D's. They'll only cause confusion and expose you to the risks of being misfiled and lost. What's next?"

"I'm going to have to go with whatever spelling is on the death certificates. Next is 'Title'. Which one should I select? Prince?"

"As I recall, that's bogus! You might as well go for Great Djinn and lesser god?"

"That would be truthful, but unwise to tell humans so. Leviathan, Saurian Knight? That would arouse suspicion. No doubt, Mr. would be the stealthy choice. Sometimes an alien is obliged to lie for the protection of the person reading the form."

"Death certificates!" Grievous slapped his forehead with his open palm. "We're sunk. What are you going to do about that, Sir? When I took inventory, I don't recall seeing that sort of thing."

'Rhett looked up with a grin. "We kept a couple of safety deposit boxes…"

"It's been nine months. They might have been opened."

"Have you never heard of a standing order, Grievous? Bank fees are the least of our worries."

"But…"

"Credit Suisse. A Swiss bank. Also Lloyds. And Coutts."

Grievous whistled.

"Grandmama Hell was –and is—and exceedingly good card player." 'Rhett spread his hands, "Now, I have to provide a 'Full address'. Also a telephone number."

"Where will you stay? I dare say all the red tape will take a while?"

"Anything from 20 days to three months."

"You can get a passport done in a day, if you don't mind kicking your heels. Maybe you should deliver your forms in person."

Grievous looked him over, with the assessing eye of a Savile Row tailor. "A dark suit would suit you, white shirt, Windsor knot to your tie---a nice wide one, I should think. Look here, Sir, did you see Star Wars. With your Djinncraft business could you
wave a gentle hand like Obi-Wan Kenobi and murmur "This is plausible." That sort of trick could speed things along very nicely, I dare say."




Knight's Fork will probably come out of bookstore back rooms on Monday night. Meanwhile, Linnea has come through for me with a lovely quote.

I'm so thrilled, that I'd love to share it here:

“Another wacky and wicked romantic romp from the talented keyboard of Rowena Cherry! With her trademark droll humor, she attacks intergalactic politics, sets up a sizzling romance and throws in a colorful—and memorable—cast of characters that rivals the best that Monty Python ever produced. A wonderfully fun read.”
~Linnea Sinclair, RITA® award winning author of SHADES OF DARK


I'm in the middle of a blog tour, and producing a radio special in honor of Sea Otter Awareness week in about four hours' time.

Please look out for me on star_crossedromance, also on BittenByBooks, and on Melissa Schroeder's blogspot blog. All tomorrow.

Best wishes,

Rowena Cherry

Banned Books Week

Banned Books Week starts September 27:

http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.cfm

This issue lies close to my heart — partly, of course, as a matter of principle. I'm a radical free-speech and privacy-rights proponent. I have a pragmatic motive, too, though. Many books I love reading, as well as several I've written, would be prime targets for censorship if such a policy became law in our country or various communities. Remember, within living memory LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER and ULYSSES, more discreet than multitudes of steamy romances on bookstore shelves today, were forbidden to be sold in the United States.

So celebrate Banned Books Week by reading something provocative!

http://www.margaretlcarter.com

Dragon con

Hi All,
Dragon Con in Atlanta over Labor Day weekend was fun and crazy and I have lots of pictures to post. I got to share a booth with fellow authors Sandra Hill, Lori Handeland and Susan Sizemoore. In addition, I ended up at a signing with the wonderful Peter David and really cool, I ate at the same table as Anne McCaffrey. All in all it was a great time.

Enjoy the pictures below--oh and if you're wondering, I'm 5 foot 7 1/2 inches tall.

How To Learn To Use Theme As Art

Before we get to the topic - here's my posting schedule.
------------------------------
Tuesday September 30th is Rosh Hashannah, Oct 14 and 21 are the holidays of Succoth and Shmini Atzeret that nobody's ever heard of because it's not on most USA calendars. Wednesday the 22nd is Simchas Torah that some people may have heard of -- so I won't be posting then and I doubt I'll have time to write something for Rowena to post for me.

However, this below is at least double my usual posting size which is already triple what a blog post ought to be. And the ideas discussed last week, the week before, and now here this week are pretty heavy stuff. So giving you some time to digest it all seems like a good idea.

If anyone is actually reading all this, please let me know what you'd like to discuss next. I have two topics in mind. One we've kicked around on this blog quite a lot -- why it is that the Romance genre is so disparaged? And another writing craft topic -- exactly HOW does a writer use an "outline?" Where can you get a blank outline to fill in and write your novel? On the third hand, maybe something else will occur to me. So unless you ask, you might not get either of those topics from me.

Now to the topic.
------------------------------
How To Learn To Use Theme As Art

Believe it or not, the way to learn to use theme as art is to practice meticulous worldbuilding.

What is meticulous worldbuilding? It doesn't necessarily have to be done consciously. You can program your subconscious to create universes around your characters, to wrap the background around the character in such a way that it makes logical sense that this character would do this thing at this time in the character's life -- and that the blowback from the action it would cause the character to learn an important lesson and change because of it.

But how do you do that? How do you train your subconscious to create universes that "work" in fiction, worlds that are "meticulously" built?

Beginners and amateurs (and outsiders from the writing profession) believe that whatever is going on in their own imaginations constitutes a story, a novel, a movie. They believe what they dream, imagine, wish, hope for, or dread is Art and is an "idea for a story."

Nothing could be farther from the truth -- and still be exactly, precisely, meticulously true at the same time!

When an untrained beginner "has an idea" -- they get fired up with the conviction that this idea is unique, and that its value commercially lies in its uniqueness, and that they therefore must take the advice of lawyers and authors of great properties like Superman and protect themselves from people who want to "steal their idea."

This fallacy leads them swiftly down a blind alley. Some go looking for a ghost writer or co-author -- a writer with writer's skills to "turn this idea into a money maker."

All professionals have been approached by (and mystified by) people who say, "I have this great commercial idea, but I just need someone to write it. I'll give you half the money!"

And all professionals are beset by people who have written a story, novel, script, whatever, and "I just want you to rewrite it; you know, give it a little polish." Or suggestions that they will use to polish it.

The amateur possessed by An Idea seeks a very specific emotional payoff. Nothing a professional writer can do to their material will produce that payoff. That's why there are so many unsuccessful collaborations or ghost-writer contracts. That's why professionals don't want to touch an amateur's idea -- doing so leads into a quagmire of the very internal, very personal, unique-to-the-idea-generator, emotional search for satisfaction.

That imagined satisfaction would come, the amateur believes, from "seeing my story in print." Or on stage or in film.

Hence the huge market for self-publishing. There is a small percentage of books which ought to be self-published -- but it is not a huge market. Predators have enlarged that market because amateurs will pay to see their book in print. What the amateur hasn't grasped is that nobody wants to read their story. The devastation they experience is usually not handled well.

The big gaping difference between the amateur and the professional writer is not whether you make actual money off your words, but rather whether you understand the mechanism inside you that produces IDEAS.

Do you know what an "idea" is, where it comes from, and what to do with it once you have it?

Amateurs believe their ideas are unique and therefore sellable.

Professionals know that among their ideas are a few really valuable ones that can be monetized because the idea is NOT UNIQUE.

If it's personal, it's not sellable but rather "self-indulgent."

A professionally saleable idea is universal. It is a perfect reticulation of an archetype (one archetype per story; not half a dozen of them at once). It can't be given away to another writer to write because everyone already has it. And therefore it can't be stolen.

Hollywood is full of stories about writers who had been circulating a script on a given topic or background - an idea - and when a movie comes out using that idea, the amateur sues the producer or company for plagiarism. As I said - some amateurs don't handle rejection well because they don't understand the concept of An Idea plus the concept of Monetizing An Idea.

The thing which makes an idea worth money to a publisher or producer is that the seeds of it already reside within the audience, and probably every writer on earth, past, present, and future. It will be recognized as "mine" by a vast number of people.

The amateur "has an idea" and it is "mine." And therefore, they believe, proprietary stock in trade.

The amateur who writes such an idea up into a novel or script produces what Marion Zimmer Bradley referred to as a "self-indulgent story." It's a story about themselves, not about humanity.

The amateur is trying to write about his/her own personal experience of the world, of people. The amateur produces what became labeled in Star Trek fanzines as the "Mary Sue" story -- where the main character is an avatar of the author. When the author is not conscious of that mechanism, the resulting story is even worse.

The amateur who is unaware is enthusiastically and ritualistically indulging him/herself telling their own personal story -- without grounding in the archetype.

The professional (even one who has never sold) is not telling their own personal story -- but is telling YOUR STORY, the audience's story, the world's story, a readership or viewership's story -- a constituency's story.

The process of telling someone else's story is not clinical, intellectually distanced, calculated, deliberate.

The professional does something different from what the amateur does only in that moment after the self-indulgent personal story has burst into consciousness.

The professional takes the personal story that erupts from the subconscious and traces it back to its roots in the archetype that runs that professional's own personality.

For more on archetypes and your personality and your personal life and how you fit into the set of patterns common to all humanity -- psychology, timed-patterns of life's challenges, and the "lessons" life hurls at you personally -- see Astrology and the Tarot.

Many of the blazing, world-wide instant classics are actually stories which are visible in the writer's natal chart -- but not in their lives. Karmic stories from past lives, perhaps, or unrealized potential.

If you don't like that esoteric approach, read a lot (hundreds) of biographies and autobiographies, learn sociology, psychology, anthropology, archeology, etc etc. Actually, it's a good idea to have a solid grounding in all these anyway, but Tarot and Astrology do provide shortcuts and for some people clarification. For others, they are nonsense.

The point is that somewhere inside the amateur and the professional writer lies something totally personal, absolutely unique, the purest definition of Identity, which is at the same time also completely universal, utterly common, the purest definition of Society.

Astrology depicts this graphically in the opposition of the 1st House by the 7th House.

So, at the interface between the very, VERY personal -- and the infinite, the divine, the root commonality of all humanity -- Art is born.

At this innermost sanctum of your being, you grok or perceive the core pattern of existence, a core that you share with many other human beings, none of whom are anything like you.

Your recognition of what you have in common with others who are less articulate than you are is your stock in trade, the Art you can monetize commercially.

Yet your recognition has no value without that twist, turn, flip, color, depth, variation on the themes that is uniquely you.

Each human being is likewise unique.

One of the myriad things we have in common, and thus can learn from Art, is how each of us is unique and yet the same.

That's why Hollywood insists that scripts be "fresh and edgy -- totally original" and at the same time "exactly like some big, huge blockbuster success." Huge blockbuster successes are huge because they are rooted in an archetype, something Blake Snyder terms "Primal."

What we all find comfortably familiar is uniqueness.

The Art of storytelling lies in showing (without telling) the reader/viewer how the uniqueness of a character traces back down into the subconscious, deep, deep, abstract, theoretically, ineffably, to that divine spot in Creation where we are all the same.

The Artist (in any medium) connects the celebration of our uniqueness to the safety of our sameness.

That act of showing without telling the nature of the connection between the unique and the archetype is the one skill the professional has -- that the amateur doesn't (yet).

Depicting the connection can be learned -- maybe even taught.

SEEING that connection can not be learned or taught. It is the Art that is born within. It is the core skill of the magician -- perceiving the True Name of a Thing and thus gaining power over that thing.

It is a Gift.

Because of that universal fact, we have the burgeoning field of the Adult Fantasy novel -- thick novels filled with elaborate worldbuilding and characters who are born with magic, and others who are not. It's a juvenile premise -- some have Talent denied to others. But it's juvenile because it's primal, an archetype. Like all archetypes, it's both true and false at the same time. The Archetype exists above the level of reality where true and false first divide (see my books on The Tarot -- The Not So Minor Arcana.)

So the Artist's job is to connect the celebration of our uniqueness (the part the amateur writer gets very well indeed) to the more abstract security and safety of our sameness - the safety in numbers, the safety in protections of Law and Privilege and Riches, the safety of joining a gang, marrying a strong man.

The juxtaposition of Celebration and Safety -- exuberance and relaxation -- the simultaneous experience of these two opposites is exactly analogous to orgasm.

That's why the end of a book is called a climax.

The ability to find that connection is a Gift, a Talent -- a Vision. The connection itself is not yours. You don't own it. You don't have a proprietary interest in it. You can't sell it. The only thing that is yours, that you can sell, is your way of describing that connection.

We haven't discussed this aspect of writing before because the method relies on gaining a solid grasp of what Art is, where it comes from, and how to practice it, either commercially or as "fine art." Commercial fiction is one thing -- Creative Writing is another, more akin to "fine art" than to reaching a huge, artistically illiterate audience.

Previously, we've discussed the thematic sub-structure of various sized stories and how using that thematic backbone lets you paint on a much larger canvas, using more point of view characters.

All these different writing skills we've been discussing previously are actually not a hundred different, separate skills to be mastered only separately. They are actually just one single, unified thing.

Once you have:

1) read about one of these skills (Worldbuilding, Description, Dialogue, Action, Suspense, Exposition (yes, you need exposition, just not in lumps), Pacing, Dramatizing, Characterization, Motivation, Conflict, Resolution, Climax, etc etc)

2)read some more novels, dissecting out how different authors use these individual skills, then tried writing bits and pieces of something exercising that skill

3)then (and only then) you must start to practice integrating them.

Here we're talking about Art-Theme Integration, probably the easiest cross-term to master yet the hardest to describe.

With each and every individual writing skill, you work on it separately, master it separately (producing your million words for the garbage can because a finished Work needs all the skills simultaneously, but you must produce work which uses ONLY ONE skill at a time in order to train your subconscious), then integrate each separate skill with each and every previously mastered skill. Yep. Actually learn to walk and chew gum; pat your tummy and rub your head; whirl a plate on a stick and juggle four balls.

It's a program you put yourself through systematically. Writing is a performing art and you train to do it just exactly the way a ballet dancer trains for the Met. Ballet teachers don't let you go en pointe on day one of your training. Writing teachers don't let you start your magnum opus on day one of the class.

Like any performing art, writing takes training -- much more training than skill or even talent.

The more systematically you work on it -- the faster your subconscious will start to comply. Remember subconscious can not be taught, but it can be trained. It has the intelligence of a dog. You need kindness, consistency, and positive reinforcement not punishment to alter a behavior.

Well, all this is very nice -- very theoretical, very pie-in-the-sky, and very inspiring.

But HOW DO YOU DO IT??

What do you do with your mind to find that vision inside you which SEES the ART with which the universe is put together?

Very simple. You live in the real world. Daily. You pay attention to the real world around you.

That's how you train your subconscious to do fictional worldbuilding. It's the same training a graphic artist goes through. There's a trick to using your eyes to see what is there and how it would look in 2 dimensions that would suggest the 3rd dimension.

If your readers are going to believe the world you build -- it has to be congruent with the world they live in even though it lacks a dimension or more. So you need to learn a trick.

People (you included) live in their own subjective realities -- some components dictated by social sanction, some by personal needs, some by family needs, etc. but all very subjective.

Remember that THEME is a statement that your work of Art makes -- theme is what you have to say about that connection between the infinitely personal and the ineffably universal.

But if you simply write what you have worked out about that connection, you end up with (likely a better selling) a non-fiction work on a topic using a thesis, not a story about a character illustrating a theme.

The THEME is what you have to say. Once you have had "an idea" then traced it back to its roots in the ineffable which resides inside you, found how it connects to everyone else in the world, you are standing there in your mind looking at this discovery, screaming WOW!!!

Now you are seized with an irresistible urge to run back and TELL EVERYONE about this incredible discovery.

NOW I UNDERSTAND!!!! THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE KEY TO THE UNIVERSE! IF EVERYONE KNEW THIS THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY MORE WAR!!!!!!!!!!

That urge to TELL EVERYONE is your theme trying to be born out of your Art.

What are you going to SAY????? To whom? Who would have a chance of understanding this abstract, intangible, free floating feeling of a concept?

If you run out your front door and start babbling to the garbage truck driver -- what will happen?

In my first award winning novel, UNTO ZEOR, FOREVER, there's a quotation I wrote as part of the thematic statement of the novel. This was my second published novel and I did attempt more skills than I had. So I used a "device" to nail the theme -- quotations from a hypothetical work. One of them does, I believe, hold true in the real world.

"You can not give Wisdom as a Gift."

You can't tell someone a fact and transfer your wisdom into their heads.

And if you manage to couch the fact in Art and weave a novel around it -- the readers won't gain the wisdom you injected into it.

Marion Zimmer Bradley quoted this quote: The book the reader reads is not the book the writer wrote.

And that's OK. The reader shouldn't be reading YOUR book. That's what professionals understand that amateurs don't.

Make that credo your touchstone. The book the reader reads is not the book the writer wrote.
You can't go into that astral plane space in your head and bring back wisdom and inject it into the heads of your readers.

All you can do is assure them that there is a connection between their personal individuality and something larger that all humanity shares -- maybe with other species on other planets, too.

Yeah, I know -- that doesn't help at all when you're burning up to TELL THEM EVERYTHING.

So you must take this inner Artistic vision and turn it into 1 to 4 clean, clear, related, statements. This will be the theme, and maybe as many as 3 sub-themes that form the backbone of your work.

Everything in the work will either be derived from the theme or you will have to go through on second draft and select one of the themes from the pea-soup you wrote and then delete everything that doesn't explicate that theme. It's work. It's what you do for a living. Delete.

It's a process. It takes practice to do it with precision.

Now, how do you tell if you've arrived at a thematic statement derived from your artistic vision that actually does reside within most all humanity? Or at least your audience?

You can get lost in your imagination. You need to do a reality check both before you dive into your mind to find the connection between your view of reality and everyone else's view of reality -- and after you've returned with your theme burning holes in your mind.

There are a lot of things writers do on a day to day basis that fosters the subconscious' ability to identify these "universal themes" and to particularize or individualize the universality into something unique that is not the writer's own self.

A lot of writers just wander over to the mall, sit on a bench and people-watch. Actors do that too.

Some go to movies and watch the audience at least as much as they watch the movie.

Some join clubs, do volunteer work, work for the Red Cross disaster services, volunteer for political campaigns. Well, everyone does something like that -- but writers spend their time while doing these things OBSERVING.

That's the key word. OBSERVING. Just like a graphic artist. Just like any performing artist.

Performing Arts usually require 2 opposite skills. First there's the writer who creates the script -- then the actors who perform it. The choreographer who designs the dance -- the dancers who perform it.

Writers find their "script" or choreography or sheet music on the astral plane, in that space inside where the individual connects to the ineffable. The UNIVERSE is already written -- it's your script. Once you've been given your script, you must perform it.

By training your ability to OBSERVE -- like a detective, or a professional athelete, or a river boat pilot, an actor, a musician learning a song by hearing it -- honing your ability to observe until you could happily trust your life to it, you train your subconscious to see the patterns beneath reality.

You will know you have a viable commercial property when you find a self-indulgent, personally inspired IDEA connected to an Archetype which you have seen expressed in your outer-reality in several ways recently. When that happens, it means the universal consciousness is engaged in the issue and ready to listen to what you have to say on the subject. When you have a MATCH between the archetype you have discovered and the subject a lot of people are engaged in, you have a commercial property.

And you can talk about that idea, rave about it to everyone, try your best to 'GIVE IT AWAY' and you won't be able to.

It's commerical value can't be stolen from you, plagiarized, etc -- because it arises from the Art which is uniquely your own. No matter how you shout about it -- no other writer will be able to write your book.

Of course, after you've put all the words down -- yeah, people can steal your words, so they have to be protected by copyright every which way you can think of.

That's the business of writing.

But the professional knows that ideas are cheap, plentiful, but can't be stolen.

Nobody is interested in your personal ideas except you. What is personal to you is personal to you -- boring to anyone else.

Read some biographies and you'll see. What is interesting about a unique person is how they are actually just like you and me.

Isn't that what people are searching for in a Presidential Candidate? Someone they can relate to who understands what life is like for them?

So how do you pull this off? How do you train yourself to see, at one and the same instant, both the intensely personal and the unifying ineffable?

Watch television. You never know what you'll see after you've spent some years training your OBSERVATIONAL SKILLS.

Here's an example. Very personal.

I recently watched a few clips of the Summer Olympic games in China. And I've seen many news clips of Chinese government meetings, stock trading floors, etc. And there were a number of clips I saw of Chinese rescue officials working after a big earthquake.

I SAW at that time, the visible evidence of the underlying social sanctions of the Ancient and Modern Chinese culture -- which I know from archeology and anthropology go back thousands of years.

China is a culture where the individual is secondary, the family, the town, the group is primary. The family name is given first -- the personal name second -- and they don't put a comma between to show they've been reversed in order.

The value of the individual is how they FIT IN - how they are THE SAME. People who work in an assembly plant wear uniforms. They move the same. They gather at the same hour before work to do Tai Chi or some exercises -- all in UNISON.

This never astonished me or attracted my attention before the 2008 political conventions were broadcast.

Of course, China is like that. We all know that. What's to notice?

Many times, I've heard interviews with business people in the new China where it is possible for private individuals to establish businesses. Over and over, I've heard native Chinese who were educated in America point out that China doesn't INNOVATE -- but they're real real good at copying.

With the heating up of the 2008 political campaigns, I had occasion to stare at the US Natal Chart -- we have an Aquarius MC with an Aquarius Moon right on the MC. Our business in the world, our reason for existence is to be DIFFERENT. To Innovate. To Need Freedom! To be individuals first. We have a Cancer (home; mother; apple pie; nurturing; business incubators) on the 2nd House -- our main value is the FAMILY. But the family supports the individual -- not the other way around.

When I saw the conventions in the USA, (a lot of it I watched on C-SPAN so I saw things the networks neglected to broadcast because it's boring) I observed something I had seen before but not observed.

There were thousands of people in the auditorium (for both conventions - same image), and they were all dressed alike, but no two were wearing the same thing. Each day and evening had its "uniform." (casual; dress casual; office casual; semi-formal; formal) But G-d forbid two women would buy their dresses in the same store!

Well, no -- there were some delegations that had adopted hats, scarves, jackets to distinguish their state. DISTINGUISH their individuality. But even the people who were "in uniform" -- were all differently dressed in some other way. Balloons on their heads, stovepipe Dr. Seuss hat, etc. And their body language was distinctive, too.

A similar gathering of Chinese who were intent on the formal installation of a political figure to an office would have been really dressed alike. They would sit in their seats, feet on the floor, eyes front, and cheer in unison in all the right places. In China, ceremony is ceremony.

The USA delegations (both parties) during many of the speeches (except the main ones network broadcast, but even then!!!) milled about their seats, talked to people privately, totally self-absorbed in their conversations, came and went -- whole sections were empty at times -- stopped once in a while to applaud a speaker, and a few actually listened. But each adopted an individual seated posture.

Even during the major speeches, TV interviewers nabbed celebrities for an aside conversation while the other celebrity was speaking!

Both conventions' speakers were speaking to a milling throng of individuals, not an audience.

There I am paralyzed by this VISION -- what would a Chinese citizen who had never seen anything American in their life THINK of America to see this?

I know what I think of China to see the way they behave.

I have seen political conventions, and other huge gatherings of Americans on TV before, and the audiences looked normal to me, un-remarkable, practically invisible. Everyone is like that everywhere I go -- so what's to notice?

Suddenly - everything is to notice! That's what observation is.

My extremely negative reaction to Chinese public behavior must be mirrored in the average Chinese person's reaction to American public behavior.

I would assume the images of the convention delegates' behavior broadcast world wide by at least CNN, if not many other networks, must be telling the Chinese that Americans don't take government seriously, that these American people know they have no sayso in how this election comes out, all decisions are made in the back room just like in China, the people have no power, and that they really don't care who becomes President of the USA anyway. All Americans care about is themselves as individuals.

Most of all, those images of our public behavior have to mean to the Chinese that we have no strength, no substance, no guts, and will be easily beaten.

OK, you may disagree with "what" I saw and how I've expressed it here. That's actually good. It means you have a VISION and therefore are an ARTIST and will eventually find a THEME to turn into a novel.

My point is that from the ambient "reality" I have extracted a contrast-compare essay subject, two cultures alien to one another.

Take that attribute, individuality vs. the collective, and worldbuild a galactic civilization, find characters who are in conflict because of the differing philosophies -- and you have something which can communicate to all the people who have seen these TV images I've described (millions).

Translated into thematic language, you would have Individuality Poisons Society. Or maybe The Individual Must Reign Supreme. Only through the group can prosperity be safe. Humanity's progress depends on the individual secure in personal freedom.

Apply to that some specific individualities, connect the individuals to the archetypes, cut, trim and hone a theme from all that, and you are ready to plot a novel.

Well, you are ready if you've studied enough philosophy to understand the long history of the argument and conflict between the individual and the collective (1st House/ 7th House in Astrology -- which lies athwart the perennial conflict of 10th House, 4th House -- career and home).

You don't study philosophy etc to find out what you think. You need it to know what your readership thinks so you can talk to them in a language they understand.

There is an old adage that you have no doubt seen in almost every book on writing you've read: Write What You Know.

You can't do that if you don't know anything.

It doesn't mean use your own profession, home, family, neighbors, school, education or job as what you write about.

You know this cliche: "I've forgotten more about XYZ than you will ever know!"

What does that mean? Think about it. It means this elder has reached the point of being an ARTIST in his field -- working mostly from the subconscious and thus producing results far superior to those produced by a neo who has to think about everything.

What "you know" -- is what you've forgotten.

And that's what you should write about -- that's where your Art can define THEMES for you.

In order to have forgotten something -- you must first learn it.

So the business of being a commercial writer is the business of learning something about everything. There is no field that isn't professional training for a writer.

That's nice because writer-types generally have an eclectic and far-ranging curiosity about everything but don't tend to stick with a subject long enough to become professional in it, at least not unless it involves the use of words.

Once you have a firm grasp of how the world works, and how it looks and seems to others, you can build fictional worlds that seem realistic to others. To accomplish that, you will have to use Theme as your main Artistic Medium.

So if you're a professional writer, you have an excuse to self-indulgently become a dilletante!

But that only works if you then use what you've forgotten to produce deathless prose!

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.slantedconcept.com
http://www.simegen.com/jl/

How to handle a villain....

I'm not sure why, but as I struggle to find something useful and profound to say tonight (and I'd really appreciate some help, because my publisher has offered me a showcase blog to help launch Knight's Fork) I can hear the late Richard Harris singing "How to Handle a Woman" from the musical "Camelot".

In the musical, "the wise old man" --whom I assume was Merlin-- advised King Arthur to handle Guinevere by simply loving her.

Didn't work, did it? Maybe King Arthur didn't take the advice? Of course, according to some versions of the legend, Merlin was a questionable authority on the ladies, and ended up losing his skin.

How to handle a villain?

Carefully?

Definitely!

How about loving him (or her?)

Let's think about that. I'm the writer. He's my brain child. It's my duty to love him, even if in the end, the greatest love I can show for my flawed and twisted child is to hand him over to the proper authorities, and hope that he is happier in a new incarnation.

Perhaps, if I wrote plot-driven romances I wouldn't agonize so much over my villains, but I write character-driven romances. I'm not the only one.

Janet Walker has a series of creative interviews with her own and other authors' villains on her Eclectic Writer blog.
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
Eclectic Writer
http://wwweclecticwriter.blogspot.com/

Just as I like my heroes to be slightly morally questionable, so I like my villains to be likeable --or at least entertaining-- when they want to be. As I wrote of Tarrant-Arragon (who is either hero or antagonist) his civilized veneer curls up at the edges.

There's a quote I see occasionally in someone's sig file. "If you've nothing nice to say, come sit by me."

If "reality television" reflects popular taste, we like to hear the dirt being dished, if it is done with wit and charm. Or even if it isn't.

For that reason alone, it's probably well worth cultivating our villains and giving them a plausible rationale for their actions... or not if we have enough scenes to show our antagonist's slide down the slippery slope! Sometimes, one mistake or piece of opportunism can snowball.

Django-Ra was my most heinous villain. Compared with him, the others are mere rivals, political opponents, adversaries, irritants. He hasn't received one note from any admirer ever. I shall be most interested to see--as time goes by--which of the enemies who surround 'Rhett in Knight's Fork attracts the cyber boos and hisses.

Good night.

Rowena

Unabashed... well, not quite... (Promo)

KNIGHT'S FORK is a page-turner from the very first one to the very last. I enjoyed it so much, after I reached the last page I started right from the beginning again. KNIGHT’S FORK has it all! If you only have time to read one book this season, I highly recommend you run out and grab a copy today.

~Kimberly Leslie

http://romancejunkiesreviews.com/artman/publish/paranormal/Knight_s_Fork.shtml

Three other reviews have been posted on Amazon, and the book is in stock, as are Forced Mate and Insufficient Mating Material


Blurb:
What is a queen to do when the sperm donor of her dreams says no?

Carpe Scrotum. Seize Life by the Testicles! The Queen Consort of the Volnoth needs a sperm donor and only one green-eyed god has the right stuff. Little does she know that she has pinned all her hopes on the crown jewels of the fabled Royal Saurian Djinn. Not only is he the son of her greatest enemy, but he has taken a vow of chastity.

Knight's Fork continues the alien romance series of the god-Princes of Tigron, begun with Forced Mate. It takes up right after the grand downfall of my most heinous villain in Insufficient Mating Material, and this time the hero is 'Rhett.

'Rhett has incurred the resentment of his elder brothers/cousins for his more-virtuous-than-thou attitude, his spoilsport interference when they want irresponsible sex with unsuitable partners, and simply because he is his father's only son. They decide that he must be hiding a sordid secret, and they set out to find out who she is.



Rowena Cherry
http://www.rowenacherry.com
http://tinyurl.com/Buy-KnightsFork

The Cheating Gene

Have you read about the "cheating gene"? Here's one column commenting on the research:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-te.reimer15sep15,0,6173113.column

It seems that some men have a genetic predisposition to intimacy and fidelity, because their bodies produce an abundance of a hormone familiarly known as the "cuddle chemical." Others, who suffer from a deficiency of this hormone, supposedly have trouble with monogamy. This discovery offers apparent support to the mechanistic philosophy that free will is an illusion, because our actions are controlled by genes, hormones, or neural wiring.

Does a genetic predisposition equate to "they just can't help it"? As a believer in free will, I maintain that biological determinists are confusing two levels of causation. Why did I write the previous sentence? Because nerve impulses traveled from my brain to my hands and caused my fingers to strike certain keys; because I wanted to communicate an idea to the readers of this paragraph. Both true. Why does a man decide to marry a particular woman? Because millions of years of evolution have produced a tendency to view people of the opposite sex with certain physical characteristics as good mates on account of their potential to produce healthy offspring; because the aesthetic conventions of our culture have conditioned him to regard a woman of her type as attractive; because he has been thrown together with her at a time in his life when he is ready to settle down, and proximity stimulates attachment; because the man and woman have become intimately acquainted, sharing important values and developing appreciation for each other's personality and physical appeal. All of these "causes" may be true, without negating the couple's freedom to make a decision about their future together.

I cling to the belief that each sapient being has—or is—a “self” that makes decisions and choices, although inborn traits and environmental influences shape the available choices (and some people suffer from mental illnesses or other handicaps that severely limit their power to choose or avoid certain behavior). The current theory of some neuroscientists that not only free will but even consciousness is a convenient illusion constructed by the brain to make sense of a chaotic whirlpool of impulses and responses still leaves me to wonder who’s doing the constructing and embracing the illusion. As C. S. Lewis paraphrased the version of this philosophy current in the mid-twentieth century, “all this time, almost nobody has been making category mistakes about almost nothing.” Nope, doesn’t work for me.

Margaret
http://www.margaretlcarter.com