I just read Linnea Sinclair's note in the comments on her post The Buddy System.
Linnea wrote:
-----------------
If one person has survived it, you can survive it.
One person.
------------------
Rarely have I heard a summation of the basic theme of "our" kind of literature, the binding theme between SF, Paranormal and the general Romance field.
Heroic Fiction belongs to the "Romantic" category -- in the literary sense of "larger than life" -- and that's how most people view stories about those first, or only, "one person"s Linnea is referring to.
This is a point I neglected to make in my blog post here about why we have such a perception problem with Romance.
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-we-love-romance.html
And you'll notice that blog post also starts with a comment Linnea Sinclair made!
And that point is that the reason we read these stories, and the reason we prefer characters we can identify with, is that we, ourselves are tasked, perhaps karmically, with being one of those "one persons" who do "it" to demonstrate that it is possible.
We need to break through the barrier around the possible -- mostly because it's a barrier. As people climb mountains because they are there, we hurl ourselves into impossible tasks (such as finding a soul-mate and raising his kids "right") because the task is there.
Yes, SF and Romance are both genres that are about doing the impossible -- finding a Soul Mate or inventing a gadget like the Universal Translator (rumored to have been invented by Spock's human mother, Amanda Grayson) or the Internet or the Web, invented by groups of people desperate to communicate in an "impossible" way.
They did it. Now we do it without even thinking about it.
When I first heard the term e-mail, I had to ask what that meant. The explanation didn't thrill me. It sounded cumbersome and awkward. Today, there's an insurmountable barrier between me and envelopes & stamps!
I remember the wonderful Romantic Comedy, YOU'VE GOT MAIL.
http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=You%27ve+Got+Mail&x=15&y=6
WATCH OUT at that link above for pop-ups and pop-unders circumventing your anti-popup software.
Two people meet via chat online, fall in love, and later discover they already know each other but don't "like" each other all that much in the real world. At the time that movie came out, it was thought "impossible" for real love relationships to begin online.
That movie is a "show don't tell" for a lot of truths about internet socializing that non-netizens deny vigorously.
Text-only communication can reveal the true depths of personality never visible in "live" contact situations. The "sub-text" of Relationship becomes undeniable in text-only. Great movie! Powerful truth. I actually know a couple happily married for more than 10 years who met in an online fandom chat!
And that was chat by text-only! Not even video conferencing. Just text.
I think another such huge chasm as we saw between those just getting online and those who would not or could not attain internet access is opening. It is opening between e-mail and social networking online. Between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.
Social networking got its start as mostly a kiddie thing for wasting time. MySpace and so forth provided the youngest web users a way to communicate with their peers and play online.
There's nothing wrong with playing -- it's what kids have to do to become effective adults. Note Luke Skywalker's jetting around pot-shotting local vermin -- eventually, he used the same skill to take out a Deathstar. How you play and at what affects what you are able to do, and how you can do it as an adult.
So we have a generation-gap chasm opening between those who played their way to adulthood online and those who got online in adulthood. And yes, a chasm between adults who did take the plunge and adults who just have not.
Watching over their kids shoulders, the adults who dabbled online or perhaps used a computer only at work soon saw that this social networking thing is the work-around, the dodge, the cure for SPAM!
If you use, say, LinkedIn.com (professionals only; no kids, no playing) to send a message to a friend, it works just like email except that it lands in their inbox without a ton of e-spam stuck to it.
If you need to tell a few friends something quick, you can twitter or plurk or use one of the other microblog services. I'm sure three more started while I've been typing this.
Texting by simple phone connection is good, too. I worked the election Nov 4th with 7 older people and a 17 year old (Arizona program to allow youngsters to learn to work the Polls).
The 17 year old spent the intervals between voters texting with her hands under the table, looking attentive to her job. The older folks were bemused. One told a story of her college age kid who racked up a couple thousand text messages a month - until he broke up with his girlfriend, and it dropped to hundreds. Texting-romances no doubt abound!
The world is abandoning e-mail and Lists and Newsletters as fast as it can because of the spam load. Life is too short and that stuff is too putrid.
Meanwhile, personal communication has gone multi-media. Sound, images, animation -- it's all at our fingertips. Skype is very popular for international families. And I'm sure it's supporting a lot of romances.
Websites that sell things for a profit are fully interactive, some with a live-chat feature. This personalizing, multi-media, interactive approach to web applications is what they loosely term Web 2.0. Much of it functions as "plug-ins" to a browser.
The lexicon gurus still disagree about the exact definition of Web 2.0 -- but they agree that it takes a broadband connection to get the most benefit out of it.
The internet evolved into the Web which became a personal communication tool swamped by toxic waste, and cleaned up by -- SOCIAL NETWORKING.
Now I've been getting dozens (if not hundreds) of e-mail pitches from people who want to sell me lessons (webinars) in how to use social media to promote products -- some even specifically for how to promote your books if you're a writer.
First the kids, then the adults, now the merchants invade social network spaces.
Where will folks go to get away from the sales pitches?
Or the world might change in even more drastic ways as the online generation takes the helm.
I saw a TV News item where the reporters were discussing how Obama's administration can use Information Technology and the Web to create a more "transparent" government -- and one younger reporter went a step farther, pointing out that with the interactivity available online now we can have a government that we not only look in on but actually interact with.
Whether that's a good idea or not -- the public micromanaging government -- is a subject for another Worldbuilding post about Aliens and Hive Minds.
Where will people go to get away from government issues invading their private communications? I can just see pop-up ads from the government soliciting your opinion on this or that! "Help your Congressman; take this two minute survey!"
Maybe it would be illegal to block those popups!
Well, just as I couldn't resist the lure of email once I got online (my first service was called Prodigy - anybody remember that?) -- now I can't resist the social networking craze.
I'm on a whole lot of them, YouTube etc., so many I can't remember them all until I get an email that someone new wants to be my friend or link with me or whatever that service calls it. I'm active on several social networks, while lurking on a whole bunch.
Meanwhile, in addition to social networks, I've discovered ancillary Web 2.0 services that help you sort out the information blitz of the internet, especially the blogosphere. Joining this blog has led me to explorations of RSS FEEDS, bookmarking sites like Digg, StumbleUpon, slashdot, -- there are more than 48 very popular ones, each with a specialty.
If you missed the step-wise development of the Feed services, you might be as overwhelmed and bewildered as I was when I started investigating RSS FEEDS. At first I thought I understood when I first saw the little orange icon. But when I asked myself how does it work and tried to do it myself -- I discovered I was totally clueless.
So I asked on LinkedIn what the best "feed reader" is and got back that Google's reader is good. Meanwhile, one of the "build a successful business online" Newsletters I get sent a file to install on the Google Reader that I could configure to track my own name as it gets mentioned on various blogs and web pages. Wow, I had no idea!
Someone on LinkedIn who is very knowledgeable recommended FeedDemon. So I went to feeddemon.com and downloaded their feed reader -- and I think it's better than google or yahoo, but each one has its strengths. So I use all 3!
Eventually, one or two of these services will emerge as dominant and providing all the tools we need to live online.
Simultaneously, via one of the e-mail Lists for professional writers that I'm on, I discovered an online interview on a blog with a woman who gives webinars on how to use social networking to promote books and other products. I learned about another service that helps consolidate all your services. It's called friendfeed.com
So I signed up for friendfeed, (where I'm JLichtenberg) and discovered that you can put a swatch of javascript on your homepage (see the bottom of http://www.slantedconcept.com for an example) or blog site like this one that will list at least some of the icons for some of the better known services that you use to post notes, messages, and even blog articles.
You'll see the new friendfeed icons for Jacqueline Lichtenberg and Rowena Cherry lower down on the right side of this blog, so you can see what I'm talking about.
This blog also has atom and RSS enabled -- you just need to put our URL into the appropriate field on your Feed Reader (click search for or add feeds -- this blog is a "feed").
If you click "subscribe to me" in the friendfeed icon you can see every time I post on facebook, amazon blog, this blog, microblog or whatever I've put into my list of places where I post things. I don't have all my places in friendfeed yet. When I do, you don't have to chase all over looking for what I'm doing, and you don't have to subscribe to a Newsletter and hope it doesn't get caught in the spam trap.
And once you've subscribed to someone via friendfeed, it's very easy to subscribe to someone ELSE -- thus consolidating the scattered postings of all your friends, or just people you want to follow.
http://friendfeed.com/jlichtenberg
http://twitter.com/JLichtenberg
This blog is registered with technorati.com which I've seen links to all over the place, but didn't understand what it is until I went there and poked around. It's huge. But the most valuable thing I've found there so far is a long article on the shape and development direction of the blogosphere.
A graphic image of what "blogosphere" means is posted at:
http://datamining.typepad.com/gallery/blog-map-gallery.html
And the technorati article on how things change (they survey once a year) is posted at:
http://www.technorati.com/blogging/state-of-the-blogosphere/
As Linnea Sinclair said, there are dozens, maybe thousands, of valuable "get started" tools available to new writers today that didn't exist when we started. But there are even more tools available for those who have started and now need to progress up the vertical learning curve. Those tools come effortlessly to the hands of those who grew up online, but we have to work at it.
Also from LinkedIn I discovered a website called pingomatic.com which lets you list your blog and then auto-updates a number of Feed services (there are more services than readers and like search engines, feed services don't all return the same results for the same query). Technorati.com does something similar with blogs.
I still haven't mastered astrogating around Web 2.0 -- things don't work as I expect them to, and I can't tell if that's because I did it wrong, don't understand what it should do, or it really didn't work right. I sometimes feel very much like the first time I wrote a novel on a computer: spikes of I LOVE THIS embedded in a sea of confusion and bewilderment.
Still, I posted a tweet on twitter and saw it come up immediately on my friendfeed.com page. But I had to click the link labeled "ME" that I see on the left of my page (I don't think you would see my ME link, but rather your own ME link). However, the Diggs I did yesterday don't seem to be on friendfeed -- but older diggs of mine are there.
Social Networking and "feeds" are the work-around we need until the internet infrastructure can be totally redesigned (from the hardware level) to wall out "spam." The resistance will come not just from the cost of doing that, but from the commercial interests that don't want to be walled away from your inbox.
Nevertheless, I am thrilled to discover this Web 2.0 level of the new world we're building and appalled at how I'm about 4 or 5 years behind leaping the chasm (again)!
As writers, we find social networking just the thing to promote our books and keep the wheels of imagination greased. However, I don't think it will last long. With the invasion of commercial interests, people will flee again or just turn off awareness of any kind of promotional material.
As writers, we need to think about YOU'VE GOT MAIL, and how to use the platform of Web 2.0 to tell a whopping good Romance that reveals some hidden truths people would prefer weren't true. Such as the one I discussed in my post
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-we-love-romance.html
As SF-Romance writers, we need to think about YOU'VE GOT MAIL as it might have been written before the word e-mail was first coined and get a grip on the sociological implications of communication advances such as maybe Web 4.0.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Buddy System
I spent last Saturday teaching a two-hour writing workshop in Tampa, Florida, and have a three-hour one scheduled next Saturday in Fort Myers, Florida. This takes my mind out of the creating process—which is where it usually resides (or tries to) when I’m working on my next book—and puts it into the crafting process. The Q&A process. The “okay-how-do-I-get-published” process. Or as has also been stated, “If Author X can get published by Big NY House, why can’t I?”
Some very good answers to these questions can be found on my agent’s blog, PUBRANTS. Kristin Nelson is, after all, in the daily business of pitching manuscripts, turning them into published books. She blogs daily about what works and what doesn’t, what’s trend and what isn’t, why a writer should follow or ditch trend and most critically, what’s voice and why it works. Quite honestly, if you want to be published, reading Agent Kristin daily should be required.
But even Kristin notes—several times—good writing isn’t enough.
So what else does a writer need besides good writing?
A buddy. A mentor. A damned good crit partner.
And I don’t mean your mother (unless she’s Nora Roberts) or your cousin (unless he’s Stephen King) or your neighbor (unless she’s Robin D. Owens). The problem many writers who are yet-to-be authors have is they choose a crit partner or writing buddy who is at the same place they are in the literary process. That then becomes the proverbial blind leading the blind.
So if you’re looking for a mentor or crit partner, here are my suggestions. And as with any of my suggestions, if they don’t work for you, if they don’t resonate with you, remember the delete key is your friend:
1 – Choose someone higher up the literary ladder than you are. Preferably someone published with a NY house or one of the respectable small presses (ie: not a vanity press). Why? Because this person is “in the system” and knows how to work the system. This person is working to deadlines, dealing with professional critiques and copy edits. On a deadline. This means working under pressure and learning to push aside “personal” feelings about characters and prose because You Are A Professional.
2 – Choose someone who writes in the same genre and style that you do, who reads what you read, who likes what you like, book-wise, plot-wise, character-wise. This will make the crit process go so much more smoothly and insure the advice you get will work for you. As a case in point, I get asked to read lots of soon-to-be-published manuscripts for blurbs or quotes. You’ve probably seen my quotes on books by Ann Aguirre and Lisa Shearin. The feel and flavor and style of their books are similar to mine so I have no problem heartily recommending them. Their writing resonates with me.
Then on occasion I get a manuscript from a NY editor for the purpose of garnering a quote and the book Just Does Not Work For Me. “For Me” are the operative words. Obviously, this book has been purchased by a major publisher. But the writing style and/or the plot just leave me cold. I find it difficult to care for the characters. I find it difficult to finish the book. So I pass on offering a quote.
Now—point is—this book SOLD. But had that writer—whose style is so opposite mine—come to me for mentoring or critting, I’d likely have told them to chuck the story and start something new and, while you’re at it, please don’t let me ever see you refer to the male protagonist’s mouth as “his chiseled lips” or his hair as “flowing locks” again.
But THAT BOOK SOLD. There are agents and editors and readers who love flowing raven locks and manly chiseled lips on their characters. I’m just not one of them and, hence, I’m not the author to mentor or crit that kind of writer. So it’s hugely important that you match your writing to your mentor’s writing. Or else you’ll be a serious cross-purposes and it’ll be frustrating for you both.
3 – Consider taking a class—online or in person—with the possible mentor-author of your choice. A classroom setting provides a great, “under no obligation” opportunity for a published author to get a glimpse of your work and, if sufficiently intrigued, offer to crit some chapters. Keep in mind published authors also take these same classes. So even if the teacher doesn’t offer, another author might.
4 – Do not send an author your sample chapters or, Heaven forefend, your entire manuscript and ask them to read it UNLESS they’ve specifically offered to do so. About three times a year I get chapters or—Heaven forefend—an entire manuscript in my email inbox from someone I do not know. These things get deleted. Sorry, but they do. I try to mentor two to three writers a year but when I hit that two to three limit, I’m out of time. I write full-time for a living. I have deadlines. On occasion, I even like to see my husband. Unless I or any other author has very specifically said: “Send”…do not send. Same goes for an email request of “will you read my manuscript?” Unless I’ve met you at a signing or a conference and told you to send stuff to me, I likely don’t have time. What you’ll get from me is a polite note telling you that I don’t have time and telling you to read Dwight Swain’s Techniques of the Selling Writer and Jack Bickham’s The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes and then read everything on The Essence of Story in the WorldCrafter's Writing Guild on Jacqueline Lichtenberg’s Sime~Gen site. Because honestly, until you’ve done those things, I can’t work with you. And honestly, if you do those things, there’s probably little you could learn from me. Dwight, Jack and Jacqueline are just totally brilliant.
And lastly,
5 – Keep running with the Big Dogs. Go to writer conferences offered by professional organizations, hang out on loops run by professional writing organizations and populated by published authors. You will learn oodles.
Above all, BIC HOK! (Butt In Chair, Hands On Keyboard!)
and now for a word from our sponsor:
Some very good answers to these questions can be found on my agent’s blog, PUBRANTS. Kristin Nelson is, after all, in the daily business of pitching manuscripts, turning them into published books. She blogs daily about what works and what doesn’t, what’s trend and what isn’t, why a writer should follow or ditch trend and most critically, what’s voice and why it works. Quite honestly, if you want to be published, reading Agent Kristin daily should be required.
But even Kristin notes—several times—good writing isn’t enough.
So what else does a writer need besides good writing?
A buddy. A mentor. A damned good crit partner.
And I don’t mean your mother (unless she’s Nora Roberts) or your cousin (unless he’s Stephen King) or your neighbor (unless she’s Robin D. Owens). The problem many writers who are yet-to-be authors have is they choose a crit partner or writing buddy who is at the same place they are in the literary process. That then becomes the proverbial blind leading the blind.
So if you’re looking for a mentor or crit partner, here are my suggestions. And as with any of my suggestions, if they don’t work for you, if they don’t resonate with you, remember the delete key is your friend:
1 – Choose someone higher up the literary ladder than you are. Preferably someone published with a NY house or one of the respectable small presses (ie: not a vanity press). Why? Because this person is “in the system” and knows how to work the system. This person is working to deadlines, dealing with professional critiques and copy edits. On a deadline. This means working under pressure and learning to push aside “personal” feelings about characters and prose because You Are A Professional.
2 – Choose someone who writes in the same genre and style that you do, who reads what you read, who likes what you like, book-wise, plot-wise, character-wise. This will make the crit process go so much more smoothly and insure the advice you get will work for you. As a case in point, I get asked to read lots of soon-to-be-published manuscripts for blurbs or quotes. You’ve probably seen my quotes on books by Ann Aguirre and Lisa Shearin. The feel and flavor and style of their books are similar to mine so I have no problem heartily recommending them. Their writing resonates with me.
Then on occasion I get a manuscript from a NY editor for the purpose of garnering a quote and the book Just Does Not Work For Me. “For Me” are the operative words. Obviously, this book has been purchased by a major publisher. But the writing style and/or the plot just leave me cold. I find it difficult to care for the characters. I find it difficult to finish the book. So I pass on offering a quote.
Now—point is—this book SOLD. But had that writer—whose style is so opposite mine—come to me for mentoring or critting, I’d likely have told them to chuck the story and start something new and, while you’re at it, please don’t let me ever see you refer to the male protagonist’s mouth as “his chiseled lips” or his hair as “flowing locks” again.
But THAT BOOK SOLD. There are agents and editors and readers who love flowing raven locks and manly chiseled lips on their characters. I’m just not one of them and, hence, I’m not the author to mentor or crit that kind of writer. So it’s hugely important that you match your writing to your mentor’s writing. Or else you’ll be a serious cross-purposes and it’ll be frustrating for you both.
3 – Consider taking a class—online or in person—with the possible mentor-author of your choice. A classroom setting provides a great, “under no obligation” opportunity for a published author to get a glimpse of your work and, if sufficiently intrigued, offer to crit some chapters. Keep in mind published authors also take these same classes. So even if the teacher doesn’t offer, another author might.
4 – Do not send an author your sample chapters or, Heaven forefend, your entire manuscript and ask them to read it UNLESS they’ve specifically offered to do so. About three times a year I get chapters or—Heaven forefend—an entire manuscript in my email inbox from someone I do not know. These things get deleted. Sorry, but they do. I try to mentor two to three writers a year but when I hit that two to three limit, I’m out of time. I write full-time for a living. I have deadlines. On occasion, I even like to see my husband. Unless I or any other author has very specifically said: “Send”…do not send. Same goes for an email request of “will you read my manuscript?” Unless I’ve met you at a signing or a conference and told you to send stuff to me, I likely don’t have time. What you’ll get from me is a polite note telling you that I don’t have time and telling you to read Dwight Swain’s Techniques of the Selling Writer and Jack Bickham’s The 38 Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes and then read everything on The Essence of Story in the WorldCrafter's Writing Guild on Jacqueline Lichtenberg’s Sime~Gen site. Because honestly, until you’ve done those things, I can’t work with you. And honestly, if you do those things, there’s probably little you could learn from me. Dwight, Jack and Jacqueline are just totally brilliant.
And lastly,
5 – Keep running with the Big Dogs. Go to writer conferences offered by professional organizations, hang out on loops run by professional writing organizations and populated by published authors. You will learn oodles.
Above all, BIC HOK! (Butt In Chair, Hands On Keyboard!)
and now for a word from our sponsor:
~Linnea
www.linneasinclair.com
// Interstellar Adventure Infused with Romance//
Available Now from Bantam: Shades of Dark
2009: Hope's Folly
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Sympathy For The Villain
(A dramatic monologue from Django-Ra who casts a long shadow, but does not live beyond the Prologue of Knight's Fork)
Allow me to introduce myself...
I am the god-Prince Django-Ra. To my face, you should call me "Your Highness" or "Sir". Behind my back, I presume you will call me "Django" pronounced "Jan-GO"... The D- of Royal names is silent.
So, little Earthling, you are cautiously curious about me.
Know, then, that I am exceptionally gifted and exceedingly dangerous. I can read or wipe minds with ridiculous ease, just as I am reading yours. I play god-level chess, and am one of the most formidable Duplicate Bridge players in all the galaxies. Certainly I cheat. A god-Prince must be seen to win!
What's that? Ah, yes! You may well wonder whether or not I can read the mind of my favorite great niece, Electra-Djerroldina, the Volnoths' queen. She wears the most perplexing… Hah! but I will not tell you.
As you see, I enjoy excellent health –yes, sexual vigor, also—despite my advanced years. In my day, I was a superb star-fighter pilot with many kills to my credit... and to my discredit. Friendly fire is such a useful expression, isn't it?
Of course I have killed friends. And family. And lovers. We all do. It is inevitable. The Djinn bloodline is almost extinct. There are desperately few full Djinn females left for us to fight over. Those that there are, are taken. Alas! Which leaves lesser beings such as yourself, whose innards are not strong enough to endure multiple impregnations by a Great Djinn.
You are skeptical! Consider my great-nephew, the Crown Prince Tarrant-Arragon. He searched the galaxies for gestates. Yes, gestates. In our World, we measure time by the female cycle, and by the duration of a Royal pregnancy. His new Mate –or "wife"—is half-Earthling. He is beside himself with worry that she may not survive the birth of his heir.
Have I confused you? Every book has a genealogical table either in the front or at the back. Or visit the official family tree at http://www.rowenacherry.com/familytree It is…ah, economical with the truth. My own bastards, for instance, are not attributed to me.
Why do I do… what I do? I daresay I have bad Djinn genes. I enjoyed a deeply disturbing childhood. My twin brother died in what you would call his crib. I had nothing to do with his demise. It would have done me no good to expedite his departure from this life. We had vigorous, older half-brothers who were Heir Apparent and second in line to the Imperial throne, and it was beyond my strength and powers to remove them from my path.
Indeed, I was obliged to feign an interest in lesser-being members of my own sex in order to bask in the variable star-shine of my big brothers' tolerance. As long as they thought me "peculiar", they did not see me as a threat. Eventually, as you see, I...ah... outlived them.
Their untimely deaths brought me no particular joy. I did not get what I've always wanted.
What's that? I want to experience the Great Djinn rut rage. Earthling, do you understand what the rut-rage is? It is a drive, a sexual madness, a mating frenzy. Pure Great Djinn males, such as myself, have saturniid glands that can smell a full-Djinn female who is approaching oestrus from as many as fifty of your miles away. We then fixate upon that "scent love" sight unseen, and become obsessed with her.
Did I once have a "scent love"? Yes, but I never was in a position to claim her. My muscular half-brothers had Helispeta, consecutively. I, alas, would have gladly stood in line but Djohn Kronos and Devoron-Vitan made war over her, and Helispeta took sanctuary on your planet, Earth, beyond my reach. Not that she ever knew of my passion.
After she was lost to me, I tried to experience the rut-rage with others, even with my nephew's Empress, Tarragonia-Marietta, but met only with frustration. You may read my great nephew's love story, Forced Mate, and also Insufficient Mating Material for a less subtle view of my exploits.
Hmmmm. I believe I smell heightened excitement. My foolish, frivolous great-niece Martia-Djulia's forced Mating Ceremony must be about to begin. You will excuse me....
*****
Rowena here:
Just as I prefer 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.
Django-Ra is my most heinous villain. He and Helispeta saw the trouble begin in the electronic prequel Mating Net, and have seen it through Forced Mate, Insufficient Mating Material, and now into Knight's Fork. That's why I chose dramatic monologue by him to introduce you to his wicked world of the Tiger god-Princes of Tigron.
Some villains are too interesting to be killed off. But, if it seems that a happy ending depends upon their death, who is to do the deed? Can the heroine remain a romantic heroine if she kills the villain? Is it acceptable if she kills the villain by accident, or in self-defense, or in defense of the hero or some other vulnerable character?
Princess Leia strangled Jabba The Hutt. That was cool. Eowen killed the undead Ringwraith King. That was cooler.
Ditto for the hero. There's not so much of a double standard about a hero's activities. He's usually a knight or high-ranking professional warrior. Nevertheless... Luke didn't. Aragorn didn't.
Is it a cop out if the villain is simply hoist by his own petard (which literally means blown up by his own bomb)? I don't think so. There is a certain satisfaction --a "thusness"-- to that turn of events.
What inspires my villains? Not just the exquisitely courteous arch-villains of the Bond movies. For me, the most memorably wicked villain in literature was the Duke in Robert Browning's poem "My Last Duchess". He doesn't make The Daily Telegraph's list of Literature's 50 greatest villains -- http://tinyurl.com/50-villains (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/arts/2008/09/20/bovillains120.xml) But then, nor do Djohn Kronos, or Django-Ra!
With thanks to Heather Massey whose Thursday November 6th post reminded me to see if Dorchester still was using the above.
http://thegalaxyexpress.blogspot.com/
Allow me to introduce myself...
I am the god-Prince Django-Ra. To my face, you should call me "Your Highness" or "Sir". Behind my back, I presume you will call me "Django" pronounced "Jan-GO"... The D- of Royal names is silent.
So, little Earthling, you are cautiously curious about me.
Know, then, that I am exceptionally gifted and exceedingly dangerous. I can read or wipe minds with ridiculous ease, just as I am reading yours. I play god-level chess, and am one of the most formidable Duplicate Bridge players in all the galaxies. Certainly I cheat. A god-Prince must be seen to win!
What's that? Ah, yes! You may well wonder whether or not I can read the mind of my favorite great niece, Electra-Djerroldina, the Volnoths' queen. She wears the most perplexing… Hah! but I will not tell you.
As you see, I enjoy excellent health –yes, sexual vigor, also—despite my advanced years. In my day, I was a superb star-fighter pilot with many kills to my credit... and to my discredit. Friendly fire is such a useful expression, isn't it?
Of course I have killed friends. And family. And lovers. We all do. It is inevitable. The Djinn bloodline is almost extinct. There are desperately few full Djinn females left for us to fight over. Those that there are, are taken. Alas! Which leaves lesser beings such as yourself, whose innards are not strong enough to endure multiple impregnations by a Great Djinn.
You are skeptical! Consider my great-nephew, the Crown Prince Tarrant-Arragon. He searched the galaxies for gestates. Yes, gestates. In our World, we measure time by the female cycle, and by the duration of a Royal pregnancy. His new Mate –or "wife"—is half-Earthling. He is beside himself with worry that she may not survive the birth of his heir.
Have I confused you? Every book has a genealogical table either in the front or at the back. Or visit the official family tree at http://www.rowenacherry.com/familytree It is…ah, economical with the truth. My own bastards, for instance, are not attributed to me.
Why do I do… what I do? I daresay I have bad Djinn genes. I enjoyed a deeply disturbing childhood. My twin brother died in what you would call his crib. I had nothing to do with his demise. It would have done me no good to expedite his departure from this life. We had vigorous, older half-brothers who were Heir Apparent and second in line to the Imperial throne, and it was beyond my strength and powers to remove them from my path.
Indeed, I was obliged to feign an interest in lesser-being members of my own sex in order to bask in the variable star-shine of my big brothers' tolerance. As long as they thought me "peculiar", they did not see me as a threat. Eventually, as you see, I...ah... outlived them.
Their untimely deaths brought me no particular joy. I did not get what I've always wanted.
What's that? I want to experience the Great Djinn rut rage. Earthling, do you understand what the rut-rage is? It is a drive, a sexual madness, a mating frenzy. Pure Great Djinn males, such as myself, have saturniid glands that can smell a full-Djinn female who is approaching oestrus from as many as fifty of your miles away. We then fixate upon that "scent love" sight unseen, and become obsessed with her.
Did I once have a "scent love"? Yes, but I never was in a position to claim her. My muscular half-brothers had Helispeta, consecutively. I, alas, would have gladly stood in line but Djohn Kronos and Devoron-Vitan made war over her, and Helispeta took sanctuary on your planet, Earth, beyond my reach. Not that she ever knew of my passion.
After she was lost to me, I tried to experience the rut-rage with others, even with my nephew's Empress, Tarragonia-Marietta, but met only with frustration. You may read my great nephew's love story, Forced Mate, and also Insufficient Mating Material for a less subtle view of my exploits.
Hmmmm. I believe I smell heightened excitement. My foolish, frivolous great-niece Martia-Djulia's forced Mating Ceremony must be about to begin. You will excuse me....
*****
Rowena here:
Just as I prefer 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.
Django-Ra is my most heinous villain. He and Helispeta saw the trouble begin in the electronic prequel Mating Net, and have seen it through Forced Mate, Insufficient Mating Material, and now into Knight's Fork. That's why I chose dramatic monologue by him to introduce you to his wicked world of the Tiger god-Princes of Tigron.
Some villains are too interesting to be killed off. But, if it seems that a happy ending depends upon their death, who is to do the deed? Can the heroine remain a romantic heroine if she kills the villain? Is it acceptable if she kills the villain by accident, or in self-defense, or in defense of the hero or some other vulnerable character?
Princess Leia strangled Jabba The Hutt. That was cool. Eowen killed the undead Ringwraith King. That was cooler.
Ditto for the hero. There's not so much of a double standard about a hero's activities. He's usually a knight or high-ranking professional warrior. Nevertheless... Luke didn't. Aragorn didn't.
Is it a cop out if the villain is simply hoist by his own petard (which literally means blown up by his own bomb)? I don't think so. There is a certain satisfaction --a "thusness"-- to that turn of events.
What inspires my villains? Not just the exquisitely courteous arch-villains of the Bond movies. For me, the most memorably wicked villain in literature was the Duke in Robert Browning's poem "My Last Duchess". He doesn't make The Daily Telegraph's list of Literature's 50 greatest villains -- http://tinyurl.com/50-villains (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/arts/2008/09/20/bovillains120.xml) But then, nor do Djohn Kronos, or Django-Ra!
With thanks to Heather Massey whose Thursday November 6th post reminded me to see if Dorchester still was using the above.
http://thegalaxyexpress.blogspot.com/
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Clouds of Authors
Have you seen the Literature Map page?
http://www.literature-map.com/
It's a fun site where you put the name of an author in the box and a "map" of other writers you might like pops up. It resembles a cluster of names swimming around each other like particles in a cloud chamber. The results are intriguing but not perfect. "Jacqueline Lichtenberg" evokes a number of relevant names, e.g., Jean Lorrah and Marion Zimmer Bradley, with at least one absurdity—Jacqueline Susann! (I wish the site had an explanation of how they arrive at their results; if it's there, I didn't see it.) Not surprisingly, my name brings up the reply, "sorry, don't know that one." (Sigh.) On the other hand, it doesn't know Suzy McKee Charnas, S. M. Stirling, or Anthony Hope (author of THE PRISONER OF ZENDA) either, so it's clearly a work in progress.
I wonder how reliable such a mapping of names might be in finding authors a given reader is like to enjoy. Somewhere I read the quote, "People are friends in spots," meaning just because you like two people, that doesn't guarantee they'll like each other. People like books "in spots," too—the "tailored effect” Jacqueline has often explained. There's a review for S. M. Stirling's "Dies the Fire" series on Amazon.com in which the reader, clearly a devoted fan, praises the battle scenes but complains about the books containing too much of that Wiccan stuff and wishes Stirling would relegate such content more to the background. For me, on the contrary, Stirling's alternate histories are fascinating EXCEPT for the fight scenes, which, like every other author's, I perceive as tedious and skim over. What I love those books for is the cultural extrapolation, including all that Wiccan content. Suzy Charnas has written that her post-apocalyptic novel WALK TO THE END OF THE WORLD was partly inspired by THE PRISONER OF ZENDA; one of the principal male characters is based on Rupert, the villain of the "Zenda" duology. I would never have guessed that connection without being told. I'm very fond of that duology, but the villain registers on my awareness only as a foil for the gallantry of Rudolph, the hero. For me, the thematic center of the book lies in Rudolph's ethical dilemma—his love for the queen and his consciousness that he would, in fact, make a better ruler than the real king, opposed to his unbending honor, which won't allow him to usurp the king's place. In the prototypical example of the tailored effect, STAR TREK, consider Spock. Many fans are drawn to this character because of the three-way friendship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. While I value and enjoy that aspect of the series, the main thing about Spock that fascinates me is that he's almost human but not quite, with intriguing more-than-human powers and a skewed perspective on our species, as well as a certain aloofness arising from his mixed heritage, creating a barrier that only a few very special people can penetrate. The same set of factors appeals to me in my favorite vampire fiction. Would anyone be likely to guess those connections and recommend, "If you like the original STAR TREK, you'll like Suzy McKee Charnas' THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY"? Yet, to me, those two works are the "same kind" of story.
For other vampire narratives I perceive as having the same type of appeal, check out my nonfiction book DIFFERENT BLOOD: THE VAMPIRE AS ALIEN from Amber Quill Press (www.amberquill.com).
Margaret L. Carter (www.margaretlcarter.com)
http://www.literature-map.com/
It's a fun site where you put the name of an author in the box and a "map" of other writers you might like pops up. It resembles a cluster of names swimming around each other like particles in a cloud chamber. The results are intriguing but not perfect. "Jacqueline Lichtenberg" evokes a number of relevant names, e.g., Jean Lorrah and Marion Zimmer Bradley, with at least one absurdity—Jacqueline Susann! (I wish the site had an explanation of how they arrive at their results; if it's there, I didn't see it.) Not surprisingly, my name brings up the reply, "sorry, don't know that one." (Sigh.) On the other hand, it doesn't know Suzy McKee Charnas, S. M. Stirling, or Anthony Hope (author of THE PRISONER OF ZENDA) either, so it's clearly a work in progress.
I wonder how reliable such a mapping of names might be in finding authors a given reader is like to enjoy. Somewhere I read the quote, "People are friends in spots," meaning just because you like two people, that doesn't guarantee they'll like each other. People like books "in spots," too—the "tailored effect” Jacqueline has often explained. There's a review for S. M. Stirling's "Dies the Fire" series on Amazon.com in which the reader, clearly a devoted fan, praises the battle scenes but complains about the books containing too much of that Wiccan stuff and wishes Stirling would relegate such content more to the background. For me, on the contrary, Stirling's alternate histories are fascinating EXCEPT for the fight scenes, which, like every other author's, I perceive as tedious and skim over. What I love those books for is the cultural extrapolation, including all that Wiccan content. Suzy Charnas has written that her post-apocalyptic novel WALK TO THE END OF THE WORLD was partly inspired by THE PRISONER OF ZENDA; one of the principal male characters is based on Rupert, the villain of the "Zenda" duology. I would never have guessed that connection without being told. I'm very fond of that duology, but the villain registers on my awareness only as a foil for the gallantry of Rudolph, the hero. For me, the thematic center of the book lies in Rudolph's ethical dilemma—his love for the queen and his consciousness that he would, in fact, make a better ruler than the real king, opposed to his unbending honor, which won't allow him to usurp the king's place. In the prototypical example of the tailored effect, STAR TREK, consider Spock. Many fans are drawn to this character because of the three-way friendship between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. While I value and enjoy that aspect of the series, the main thing about Spock that fascinates me is that he's almost human but not quite, with intriguing more-than-human powers and a skewed perspective on our species, as well as a certain aloofness arising from his mixed heritage, creating a barrier that only a few very special people can penetrate. The same set of factors appeals to me in my favorite vampire fiction. Would anyone be likely to guess those connections and recommend, "If you like the original STAR TREK, you'll like Suzy McKee Charnas' THE VAMPIRE TAPESTRY"? Yet, to me, those two works are the "same kind" of story.
For other vampire narratives I perceive as having the same type of appeal, check out my nonfiction book DIFFERENT BLOOD: THE VAMPIRE AS ALIEN from Amber Quill Press (www.amberquill.com).
Margaret L. Carter (www.margaretlcarter.com)
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Why We Love Romance
I found the following comment posted on Linnea Sinclair's Oct 20th post THE FUTURE IS NOW.
----------------
I found another reason why "alien" romances are good. It's the same reason fantasy/future worlds are such good settings for stories in general .
With books set in today's world, cultural/race/national differences immediately, trap and restrict the plot and the characters, eg, the cliched Nazi German "baddie" or the Arab "terrorist".
It is so refreshing to read books where the antagonists have no relation to today's world so there are no reflections or restrictions to limit them.
....
---------------
The comment goes on to detail why Linnea's books are so good. Read the entire comment (with which I agree) here:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/10/future-is-now.html
Since I posted that huge long Part 3 to Astrology Just For Writers about why people shy away from reading Romance genre, why people sneer at Romance Genre (and those who read it) at
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/10/astrology-just-for-writers-part-3-genre.html
I think I should point out what's so good about Romance -- only this comment nailed it first.
One of the uniquely gripping things about SF, Fantasy or genres in which the author has to build an entire world against which to tell a story is that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN, at any moment.
Romance falls into that category because of the mental and emotional state of the two people falling in love -- their perceptions of reality are altered consciousness. And as I noted in my post, miracles happen in the vicinity of true love.
The reader can be led on an exploration of our own world via questions posed with the composition of the fictional world.
For example, in our own world, science works, logical thinking yields results which, once proved, can be relied upon. We risk our lives on that every day -- flu shots come to mind. (BTW I highly recommend getting the current flu shot!)
But WHY does science work? Why did we practice superstition and magic for thousands of years and only change to science a couple hundred years ago? Why was the change to science so radical and so abrupt? (yeah, we all know the real history - but that's only what's written in history books. Do you really, really believe it?)
Of course, even today, there are cultural circles and places in the world where many of the results of science are scoffed at. Why is that?
Well, let's go on an adventure into a world where science doesn't work, but magic does. Find out why. Readers can be led to ask questions about belief systems, anthropology, psychology -- consensus science (after all, science proved conclusively that the Earth is stationary and the Sun revolves around it).
Politics drives what is accepted as science. So can Religion.
Once you've grasped that principle, you can begin to ask questions about how a person who doesn't know, who isn't educated or smart enough to understand a huge subject, can rely upon "expert opinion" for anything.
With "expert opinion" brought into doubt -- aha, now you are in a world where indeed anything can happen!
When the very assumptions about reality are in question, the writer has no problem keeping the reader in a state of suspense.
The only difficulty is directing the suspense in an artistically satisfying direction.
The writer has to make the reader suspect, hope, fear or expect certain developments, and then deliver something almost like that, but with a different twist.
It's easier and more effective to build that kind of suspense into the universe premise, the worldbuilding, than to try to force it into the plot.
People remember novels which pose questions they don't know the answer to -- and postulate answers that they have never considered.
It isn't so much Answers that produce that great AHA! moment we all love, but rather New Questions!
Romance genre -- especially with an SF or Fantasy element to the worldbuilding -- can bring out new questions better than any other genre because of the state of mind of the protagonists of a Romance, which I discussed at some length in last week's post.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
http://www.slantedconcept.com
----------------
I found another reason why "alien" romances are good. It's the same reason fantasy/future worlds are such good settings for stories in general .
With books set in today's world, cultural/race/national differences immediately, trap and restrict the plot and the characters, eg, the cliched Nazi German "baddie" or the Arab "terrorist".
It is so refreshing to read books where the antagonists have no relation to today's world so there are no reflections or restrictions to limit them.
....
---------------
The comment goes on to detail why Linnea's books are so good. Read the entire comment (with which I agree) here:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/10/future-is-now.html
Since I posted that huge long Part 3 to Astrology Just For Writers about why people shy away from reading Romance genre, why people sneer at Romance Genre (and those who read it) at
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/10/astrology-just-for-writers-part-3-genre.html
I think I should point out what's so good about Romance -- only this comment nailed it first.
One of the uniquely gripping things about SF, Fantasy or genres in which the author has to build an entire world against which to tell a story is that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN, at any moment.
Romance falls into that category because of the mental and emotional state of the two people falling in love -- their perceptions of reality are altered consciousness. And as I noted in my post, miracles happen in the vicinity of true love.
The reader can be led on an exploration of our own world via questions posed with the composition of the fictional world.
For example, in our own world, science works, logical thinking yields results which, once proved, can be relied upon. We risk our lives on that every day -- flu shots come to mind. (BTW I highly recommend getting the current flu shot!)
But WHY does science work? Why did we practice superstition and magic for thousands of years and only change to science a couple hundred years ago? Why was the change to science so radical and so abrupt? (yeah, we all know the real history - but that's only what's written in history books. Do you really, really believe it?)
Of course, even today, there are cultural circles and places in the world where many of the results of science are scoffed at. Why is that?
Well, let's go on an adventure into a world where science doesn't work, but magic does. Find out why. Readers can be led to ask questions about belief systems, anthropology, psychology -- consensus science (after all, science proved conclusively that the Earth is stationary and the Sun revolves around it).
Politics drives what is accepted as science. So can Religion.
Once you've grasped that principle, you can begin to ask questions about how a person who doesn't know, who isn't educated or smart enough to understand a huge subject, can rely upon "expert opinion" for anything.
With "expert opinion" brought into doubt -- aha, now you are in a world where indeed anything can happen!
When the very assumptions about reality are in question, the writer has no problem keeping the reader in a state of suspense.
The only difficulty is directing the suspense in an artistically satisfying direction.
The writer has to make the reader suspect, hope, fear or expect certain developments, and then deliver something almost like that, but with a different twist.
It's easier and more effective to build that kind of suspense into the universe premise, the worldbuilding, than to try to force it into the plot.
People remember novels which pose questions they don't know the answer to -- and postulate answers that they have never considered.
It isn't so much Answers that produce that great AHA! moment we all love, but rather New Questions!
Romance genre -- especially with an SF or Fantasy element to the worldbuilding -- can bring out new questions better than any other genre because of the state of mind of the protagonists of a Romance, which I discussed at some length in last week's post.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
http://www.slantedconcept.com
Monday, November 03, 2008
Galactic Bachelor Number One
A recent blog by Heather Massey about one of my characters over at the Tor publishing house site (and they’re not even my publisher) not only made me all a-flutter but again made me realize that when I create my characters, I haven’t a clue in a bucket ::ka-ching to Paula L!:: about what works for readers and what doesn’t. Honest, I don’t, and I’m sure if I can get Rowena, Jacqueline, Cindy, Margaret, Susan and the rest of the SFF/SFR authors to chime in here, the general consensus would be that when creating our heroes, we are very much flying by the seat of our intergalactic pants.
It’s not that there aren’t guidelines—there are. There’ve been oodles of things written about what makes fictional characters successful. There are theories and charts about the alpha, beta, gamma and whatsis male protagonist and why those traits do or do not work. There are archetypes; most notably by Tami Cowden, who also breaks down heroes by trait, denoting them at the chief, the charmer, the lost soul, whatever.
The thing is, when you write SFF/SFR, the very genre itself adds a whole ‘nuther layer. And often a whole different slant.
When I created Detective Sergeant Theo Petrakos in The Down Home Zombie Blues, I could easily draw on “collective archetypes” because Theo—unlike my other characters—is from this planet, born in Florida in the good ol’ USA. Readers learned very quickly that Theo was 1) a homicide cop 2) divorced and
3) of Greek heritage. None of those things required great explanation. All are familiar concepts to readers. Readers know—thanks to television shows like The First 48, and less so to some of the CSI shows—what a homicide cop does, what the requirements and duties of the job are. Readers know—likely through personal or family experience—what it means to be divorced and living in the current day. They can guess with fair accuracy the kinds of experiences and emotions Theo’s been faced with because they’re things that the readers see on a daily basis.
Theo’s “one of us.”
Creating Branden Kel-Paten was a horse of a different color. Or in this case, a galactic bachelor of a different mindset.
First, let’s start by saying that yes, of course, there are similarities and commonalities. I’m still writing for an “Earth-based” readership. I have to present my characters—no matter how alien—in terms my readers can understand. And yes, love is love, hate is hate and fear is fear…or is it? When you take your characters out of the realm of the common and known, even those things can change.
Nowhere was this more true than with Gabriel Ross Sullivan, first in Gabriel’s Ghost and then in Shades of Dark (probably more so in Shades as I really put
Sully through the paces in that book.) What Sully and Kel-Paten have in common is that the rejection they’d experienced in their lives had nothing whatsoever to do with something found here on our planet. Now, we can use analogies, and we can understand being rejected because you’re a shape shifting mutant or part cyborg because we have similar prejudices in our lives: we have racial prejudice, we have gender-preference prejudices, we have religious prejudices and more. So while, yes, we can understand the concept of rejection because of prejudice, we have no exact experience with what it’s like to be a Kyi or a bio-cybe. We can guess. We don’t really know.
All an author can do is bring the reader into the character’s world…and hope something resonates.
Which brings me back to the topic of building galactic bachelors.
It’s hard enough (ask any author) creating workable fictional male protagonists in contemporary or historical fiction. And both those genres are based on “the known” of our existence. It’s simply a lot tougher creating those same sexy, brave, attractive, likeable male protagonists in the unknown of SFF/SFR.
In her blog for Tor, Heather Massey states: “And I mustn’t fail to mention that Branden Kel-Paten is a virgin hero. All of that pent-up sexual energy, fueled by a cybernetically enhanced body? That’s hot.”
To be honest, I did not, at any moment, sit down with the intention of writing a virgin hero. I intended to showcase Kel-Paten’s struggle with his emotions (or lack of) but at no point was his experience (or lack of) with women a key factor in creating the character. However, judging not only from Heather’s blog but other blogs, reviews and yes, from fan mail, this whole virgin hero thing is something that floats a lot of readers’ boats. And not just female readers. I’ve a number of nice emails from male readers who appreciated that Kel-Paten could be a hero and inept. (I guess James Bond is a tough role model to live up to.)
Kel-Paten’s virginity grew out of his isolation, and his isolation grew out of the fact that he was a bio-cybe: too much machine to be accepted by humans, too much human to fit in with machines (not that there were others he could fit in with). He was isolated by being the only surviving (that he knows of) cybernetic experiment. He was in some ways like a galactic Pit Bull: his reputation of being lethal preceded him, and molded him and his experiences with others. He learned that being feared was something he could handle because it kept him out of the uncertain territory of being accepted and ultimately rejected.
All this I knew about him as I put him through his paces in scenes, as I let him—pardon the pun—flesh himself out for me.
I had no idea he was going to resonate so strongly with readers (though my agent delights in telling me, “I told you so”)
I have no idea why he resonates so strongly with readers. Yes, I understand the whole angst-thing. I understand we relate to and root for the underdog. But gosh-golly, there are shelves full of underdog heroes and heroines out there. Kel-Paten fans are of a particular die-hard breed.
And I don’t really honestly know why. Why does Kel-Paten engender such a strong response when Theo Petrakos—certainly a worthy hero!—doesn’t? (Not that Theo doesn’t have his fan club. He does. But not to the extent Kel-Paten has.) Rhis in Finders Keepers and Mack in An Accidental Goddess also have their devoted fans. But not like Kel-Paten. The only other hero who runs neck-and-neck with him is Sully.
And both, yes, aren’t strangers to rejection by their worlds and cultures. (Worlds and cultures which, again yes, are unique to SFF/SFR. I don’t know if translating Kel-Paten’s story to, say, current day Alabama or Colorado, and making him, say, a Pagan or a Baptist or a Muslim or a Budhhist in a religiously-intolerant setting would carry the same weight or engender the same reaction from readers.)
But I don’t think it’s solely the rejection factor that makes readers resonate to these characters. If that were it, then all any author need do is create a character who’s faced rejection and she’d have an automatic best-seller.
Not.
So, see, we really don’t know what works with our characters. We have glimmerings. We had ideas. We scan our fan mails for some clues in hopes we can do it again. But we fully recognize that we might not be able to do it again in just that way.
Interestingly, I’m getting some very strong and positive feedback on the
character of Admiral Philip Guthrie in my upcoming Hope’s Folly. I’ve had a number of beta-readers and bloggers who have, in the past, been solidly in Sully’s or Kel-Paten’s camps, tell me Philip has just zoomed up there in contention for the spot of Galactic Bachelor Number One.
“Hero: Admiral Philip Guthrie was totally not what I expected. After reading Gabriel’s Ghost, I thought stodgy was the best description for him. After Shades of Dark, he was a bit more interesting but not hero material to me. But in reading this book he became the "long-lost always-forever dream hero" one always hopes for but very rarely encounters.” (Aimless Ramblings)
“Hope's Folly is simply phenomenal. I absolutely did not want to put the story down. It had action, suspense, mystery, and passion.” (Kathy’s Review Corner)
And Philip is nothing at all like Kel-Paten or Sully. No rejection factor and he’s far from a virgin. But my beta-readers (and my agent and my editor) love him.
Which is why, as I told you at the beginning of this blog, I really have no clue what makes a good character into a great one in a science fiction romance.
~Linnea
HOPE’S FOLLY, Book 3 in the Gabriel’s Ghost universe, coming Feb. 2009 from RITA award-winning author, Linnea Sinclair, and Bantam Books: http://www.linneasinclair.com/
“If we can’t do the impossible, then we need to at least be able to do the unexpected.” —Admiral Philip Guthrie
It’s not that there aren’t guidelines—there are. There’ve been oodles of things written about what makes fictional characters successful. There are theories and charts about the alpha, beta, gamma and whatsis male protagonist and why those traits do or do not work. There are archetypes; most notably by Tami Cowden, who also breaks down heroes by trait, denoting them at the chief, the charmer, the lost soul, whatever.
The thing is, when you write SFF/SFR, the very genre itself adds a whole ‘nuther layer. And often a whole different slant.
When I created Detective Sergeant Theo Petrakos in The Down Home Zombie Blues, I could easily draw on “collective archetypes” because Theo—unlike my other characters—is from this planet, born in Florida in the good ol’ USA. Readers learned very quickly that Theo was 1) a homicide cop 2) divorced and
3) of Greek heritage. None of those things required great explanation. All are familiar concepts to readers. Readers know—thanks to television shows like The First 48, and less so to some of the CSI shows—what a homicide cop does, what the requirements and duties of the job are. Readers know—likely through personal or family experience—what it means to be divorced and living in the current day. They can guess with fair accuracy the kinds of experiences and emotions Theo’s been faced with because they’re things that the readers see on a daily basis.Theo’s “one of us.”
Creating Branden Kel-Paten was a horse of a different color. Or in this case, a galactic bachelor of a different mindset.
First, let’s start by saying that yes, of course, there are similarities and commonalities. I’m still writing for an “Earth-based” readership. I have to present my characters—no matter how alien—in terms my readers can understand. And yes, love is love, hate is hate and fear is fear…or is it? When you take your characters out of the realm of the common and known, even those things can change.
Nowhere was this more true than with Gabriel Ross Sullivan, first in Gabriel’s Ghost and then in Shades of Dark (probably more so in Shades as I really put
Sully through the paces in that book.) What Sully and Kel-Paten have in common is that the rejection they’d experienced in their lives had nothing whatsoever to do with something found here on our planet. Now, we can use analogies, and we can understand being rejected because you’re a shape shifting mutant or part cyborg because we have similar prejudices in our lives: we have racial prejudice, we have gender-preference prejudices, we have religious prejudices and more. So while, yes, we can understand the concept of rejection because of prejudice, we have no exact experience with what it’s like to be a Kyi or a bio-cybe. We can guess. We don’t really know.All an author can do is bring the reader into the character’s world…and hope something resonates.
Which brings me back to the topic of building galactic bachelors.
It’s hard enough (ask any author) creating workable fictional male protagonists in contemporary or historical fiction. And both those genres are based on “the known” of our existence. It’s simply a lot tougher creating those same sexy, brave, attractive, likeable male protagonists in the unknown of SFF/SFR.
In her blog for Tor, Heather Massey states: “And I mustn’t fail to mention that Branden Kel-Paten is a virgin hero. All of that pent-up sexual energy, fueled by a cybernetically enhanced body? That’s hot.”
To be honest, I did not, at any moment, sit down with the intention of writing a virgin hero. I intended to showcase Kel-Paten’s struggle with his emotions (or lack of) but at no point was his experience (or lack of) with women a key factor in creating the character. However, judging not only from Heather’s blog but other blogs, reviews and yes, from fan mail, this whole virgin hero thing is something that floats a lot of readers’ boats. And not just female readers. I’ve a number of nice emails from male readers who appreciated that Kel-Paten could be a hero and inept. (I guess James Bond is a tough role model to live up to.)Kel-Paten’s virginity grew out of his isolation, and his isolation grew out of the fact that he was a bio-cybe: too much machine to be accepted by humans, too much human to fit in with machines (not that there were others he could fit in with). He was isolated by being the only surviving (that he knows of) cybernetic experiment. He was in some ways like a galactic Pit Bull: his reputation of being lethal preceded him, and molded him and his experiences with others. He learned that being feared was something he could handle because it kept him out of the uncertain territory of being accepted and ultimately rejected.
All this I knew about him as I put him through his paces in scenes, as I let him—pardon the pun—flesh himself out for me.
I had no idea he was going to resonate so strongly with readers (though my agent delights in telling me, “I told you so”)
I have no idea why he resonates so strongly with readers. Yes, I understand the whole angst-thing. I understand we relate to and root for the underdog. But gosh-golly, there are shelves full of underdog heroes and heroines out there. Kel-Paten fans are of a particular die-hard breed.
And I don’t really honestly know why. Why does Kel-Paten engender such a strong response when Theo Petrakos—certainly a worthy hero!—doesn’t? (Not that Theo doesn’t have his fan club. He does. But not to the extent Kel-Paten has.) Rhis in Finders Keepers and Mack in An Accidental Goddess also have their devoted fans. But not like Kel-Paten. The only other hero who runs neck-and-neck with him is Sully.
And both, yes, aren’t strangers to rejection by their worlds and cultures. (Worlds and cultures which, again yes, are unique to SFF/SFR. I don’t know if translating Kel-Paten’s story to, say, current day Alabama or Colorado, and making him, say, a Pagan or a Baptist or a Muslim or a Budhhist in a religiously-intolerant setting would carry the same weight or engender the same reaction from readers.)
But I don’t think it’s solely the rejection factor that makes readers resonate to these characters. If that were it, then all any author need do is create a character who’s faced rejection and she’d have an automatic best-seller.
Not.
So, see, we really don’t know what works with our characters. We have glimmerings. We had ideas. We scan our fan mails for some clues in hopes we can do it again. But we fully recognize that we might not be able to do it again in just that way.
Interestingly, I’m getting some very strong and positive feedback on the
character of Admiral Philip Guthrie in my upcoming Hope’s Folly. I’ve had a number of beta-readers and bloggers who have, in the past, been solidly in Sully’s or Kel-Paten’s camps, tell me Philip has just zoomed up there in contention for the spot of Galactic Bachelor Number One.“Hero: Admiral Philip Guthrie was totally not what I expected. After reading Gabriel’s Ghost, I thought stodgy was the best description for him. After Shades of Dark, he was a bit more interesting but not hero material to me. But in reading this book he became the "long-lost always-forever dream hero" one always hopes for but very rarely encounters.” (Aimless Ramblings)
“Hope's Folly is simply phenomenal. I absolutely did not want to put the story down. It had action, suspense, mystery, and passion.” (Kathy’s Review Corner)
And Philip is nothing at all like Kel-Paten or Sully. No rejection factor and he’s far from a virgin. But my beta-readers (and my agent and my editor) love him.
Which is why, as I told you at the beginning of this blog, I really have no clue what makes a good character into a great one in a science fiction romance.
~Linnea
HOPE’S FOLLY, Book 3 in the Gabriel’s Ghost universe, coming Feb. 2009 from RITA award-winning author, Linnea Sinclair, and Bantam Books: http://www.linneasinclair.com/
“If we can’t do the impossible, then we need to at least be able to do the unexpected.” —Admiral Philip Guthrie
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Politics and the English Language
Disclaimer: This is not a political blog. I write humorous alien romances about power struggles and political intrigues in outer space, about heroes who are tyrants by birthright, and enchanting villains who steal elections by hypnotizing the electorate.
Real politicians don't influence me at all.
I am a word geek. I revel in words when they are used well. I feel strongly about those who misuse words, whether it is a romance lover with "baited breath", or an internet librarian who ignores definite or indefinite articles in book titles, or a political slogan that reminds me of "Star Wars".
Most of my alien romances' alpha male tyrant-heroes are smooth orators, with the notable exception of Djetth (Jeth) hero of Insufficient Mating Material who can be quite foul-mouthed, but is an admirable leader in a one-sided battle, despite his fondness for the F-word.
Since I write alien romances from the POV of the alien gods from outer space, I spend a lot of my time looking at written road signs, slogans, public directives and headlines which could be misunderstood by an alien, and wondering "What if...?"
Unfortunately, my futuristic novels are set in 1994 through 1995, so a lot that I see, I cannot use. Linnea had similar fun with contemporary gestures and written instructions in "Down Home Zombie Blues".
Since the use of language is important to the Western political process, I went looking for "Politics and the English Language", an essay written by Englishman George Orwell in 1946.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
Vicious cycle. I love the way George Orwell applied the idea to the use of language.
It is amazing to me that George Orwell wrote this in 1946. It resonated with me in the 1970s when I read his essays and also "1984" and "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia" and the others, and it still does today. It's the chicken and egg of thought. If you don't have a word for an idea or concept, can you have the idea or concept?
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
One of these days, (as I may have said before) I intend to explore the dynamics of being perceived as a god-Emperor. I think it will have a lot more to do with Big Brother type surveillance than the persuasive use of language.
What's the alternative for a speculative fiction writer? If an alien civilization, or a future human civilization didn't have a verbal or signed language, how would we choose our leaders? By aggressive displays of physical fitness and strength? By subliminal messages in campaign broadcasts? By smell? By touch? Why do politicians literally touch voters?
By pheromones? I wonder... is there a particular after shave that winning politicians wear? I've never been close enough to smell one. I'm sure it is done. Why not use every tool possible? It is said that the smell of apples makes a home buyer perceive that a house is larger, or the aroma of baking bread influences them to feel at home. Jasmine is supposed to make a female feel more attractive, and orange (or some such thing) is supposed to make her feel more alert.
However, I started with Politics and the English Language, so I'll end with it.
Sixty-two years after George Orwell wrote his essay, I suspect that the problem of murky language is much worse than it was in 1946. Arguably, we wouldn't be in a global financial crisis and other messes, too, if small print/fine print and other bad habits of spoken and written communication had been cleaned up years ago so that it wouldn't take a lawyer or an accountant to understand the tax code, the mortgage agreement, the loan contract, the stock offering, the financial statement etc.
George Orwell wrote:
Real politicians don't influence me at all.
I am a word geek. I revel in words when they are used well. I feel strongly about those who misuse words, whether it is a romance lover with "baited breath", or an internet librarian who ignores definite or indefinite articles in book titles, or a political slogan that reminds me of "Star Wars".
Most of my alien romances' alpha male tyrant-heroes are smooth orators, with the notable exception of Djetth (Jeth) hero of Insufficient Mating Material who can be quite foul-mouthed, but is an admirable leader in a one-sided battle, despite his fondness for the F-word.
Since I write alien romances from the POV of the alien gods from outer space, I spend a lot of my time looking at written road signs, slogans, public directives and headlines which could be misunderstood by an alien, and wondering "What if...?"
Unfortunately, my futuristic novels are set in 1994 through 1995, so a lot that I see, I cannot use. Linnea had similar fun with contemporary gestures and written instructions in "Down Home Zombie Blues".
Since the use of language is important to the Western political process, I went looking for "Politics and the English Language", an essay written by Englishman George Orwell in 1946.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks.
Vicious cycle. I love the way George Orwell applied the idea to the use of language.
It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.
It is amazing to me that George Orwell wrote this in 1946. It resonated with me in the 1970s when I read his essays and also "1984" and "Animal Farm" and "Homage to Catalonia" and the others, and it still does today. It's the chicken and egg of thought. If you don't have a word for an idea or concept, can you have the idea or concept?
But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
One of these days, (as I may have said before) I intend to explore the dynamics of being perceived as a god-Emperor. I think it will have a lot more to do with Big Brother type surveillance than the persuasive use of language.
What's the alternative for a speculative fiction writer? If an alien civilization, or a future human civilization didn't have a verbal or signed language, how would we choose our leaders? By aggressive displays of physical fitness and strength? By subliminal messages in campaign broadcasts? By smell? By touch? Why do politicians literally touch voters?
By pheromones? I wonder... is there a particular after shave that winning politicians wear? I've never been close enough to smell one. I'm sure it is done. Why not use every tool possible? It is said that the smell of apples makes a home buyer perceive that a house is larger, or the aroma of baking bread influences them to feel at home. Jasmine is supposed to make a female feel more attractive, and orange (or some such thing) is supposed to make her feel more alert.
However, I started with Politics and the English Language, so I'll end with it.
Sixty-two years after George Orwell wrote his essay, I suspect that the problem of murky language is much worse than it was in 1946. Arguably, we wouldn't be in a global financial crisis and other messes, too, if small print/fine print and other bad habits of spoken and written communication had been cleaned up years ago so that it wouldn't take a lawyer or an accountant to understand the tax code, the mortgage agreement, the loan contract, the stock offering, the financial statement etc.
George Orwell wrote:
Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Love at First Sight
The November-December issue of SKEPTICAL INQUIRER contains an article called "Love at First Sight," asking the age-old question (as the song puts it), "Who can explain it? Who can tell you why?" New research finds a possible explanation for instantaneous attraction in the discovery that the partners in a couple tend to look like each other "more so than chance would allow." Double-blind studies reveal that observers can correctly match up randomly selected pairs with a significant rate of accuracy. This phenomenon applies to new relationships, not just older couples who grow to look alike over the years. It seems that a dominant factor in the process of falling in love is the face, and people unconsciously identify the "right" face as one with a certain resemblance to their own.
This hypothesis undercuts the folk wisdom that "opposites attract." Also, what does it do to one of my favorite concepts, the exogamy hypothesis—that human beings are hard-wired to be drawn to the exotic and therefore would be attracted to aliens, should we ever meet any? I've think I've previously mentioned James Tiptree's poignant story propounding that theory, "And I Awoke and Found Me Here on the Cold Hill's Side." I've just finished rereading a novel on that theme, James Michener's tragic SAYONARA, about American servicemen falling in love with local women in postwar Japan, when both cultures regarded such romances with deep hostility. Maybe the song from WEST SIDE STORY, "Stick to your own kind," has a point. And yet happy cross-cultural and interracial marriages do exist, more so nowadays with tolerance for diversity becoming a core value in, at least, Western society. I'd like to believe fulfilling interplanetary relationships can exist, too, when we finally meet the aliens. Spock, the product of such a relationship, was always my favorite STAR TREK character.
Margaret L. Carter
www.margaretlcarter.com
This hypothesis undercuts the folk wisdom that "opposites attract." Also, what does it do to one of my favorite concepts, the exogamy hypothesis—that human beings are hard-wired to be drawn to the exotic and therefore would be attracted to aliens, should we ever meet any? I've think I've previously mentioned James Tiptree's poignant story propounding that theory, "And I Awoke and Found Me Here on the Cold Hill's Side." I've just finished rereading a novel on that theme, James Michener's tragic SAYONARA, about American servicemen falling in love with local women in postwar Japan, when both cultures regarded such romances with deep hostility. Maybe the song from WEST SIDE STORY, "Stick to your own kind," has a point. And yet happy cross-cultural and interracial marriages do exist, more so nowadays with tolerance for diversity becoming a core value in, at least, Western society. I'd like to believe fulfilling interplanetary relationships can exist, too, when we finally meet the aliens. Spock, the product of such a relationship, was always my favorite STAR TREK character.
Margaret L. Carter
www.margaretlcarter.com
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Astrology Just For Writers Part 3 - Genre Ghetto
Part 1 of this series is at:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/07/astrology-just-for-writers.html
Part 2 of this series is at:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/07/astrology-just-for-writers-part-2.html
Part 4 will probably appear at:
http://www.simegen.com/reviews/rereadablebooks/2009/
From time to time, http://www.aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/ contributors have kicked around the question of why the Romance Genre doesn't command the respect it deserves. I've commented on some of these discussions, all of which have been powerful presentations by very knowledgeable people. As far as I can tell, all of them are absolutely correct.
In some instances, comparisons were made to the change in the public attitude toward Science Fiction over the last few decades. Westerns have come in for their share of sneers, especially Romance with a Western Setting, and that market has changed drastically.
Mystery Genre seems to command a bit more general respect, but it's still a "genre" in the eyes of publishers. And "genre" per se seems to be a stigma.
If "Romance" -- especially, SF Romance, Paranormal, Time Travel, etc -- is going to break out of the ghetto walls that appear to be built by publishers and even TV and Film producers, professionals in the field of Romance need to find a new way of thinking about the problem.
All the solutions that have been posed on this blog should have worked. They're all good, targeted, reasonable. So why hasn't that great new blockbuster Romance appeared -- the work that would be equivalent to Star Trek and its impact on Science Fiction as a genre?
Buffy The Vampire Slayer certainly put a few cracks in the walls around Paranormal Romance. Many fantasy-romance novels are now pouring out of the Manhattan publishers demonstrating the Buffy style of universe building and how it can support a Romance plot. But they don't win the Nobel Prize. In 2008 (30+ years after Star Trek), an SF novel won the Hugo and Nebula and was by a Nobel Prize winner. SF films have won Oscars. Where are the Romance Genre big general Award Winners?
What would it take to make a Romance internationally "significant" enough to win the Nobel Prize for Literature?
What are we missing here? If our solutions don't change things - maybe we're not parsing the problem correctly?
What is it that people who don't read Romance sneer at in the genre?
A lot of people don't read Romance because others sneer at it -- so they wouldn't be caught dead anywhere near the label. On the other hand, some such embarrassed people often read under the covers with a flashlight -- just as people often read Star Trek fanzines under the covers, very late at night.
Public opinion does put a limit on the popularity of a genre -- but the appeal of strong content, controversial content, outrageous content, can eventually overwhelm or undermine the levees. Star Trek created that "hurricane" for SF by being the first real SF on TV.
Prior to Star Trek, everything on TV that they called SF was either comedy or horror (also genres). Even today, very little of what's on the SciFi Channel is actually Science Fiction.
But genres are slippery to define because they are defined by reader taste (and today, by computer sales reports) which changes faster than you can surf the web. What is published under the SF label today would not have been acceptable in the 1940's as SF. The same kind of evolution in the definition of Romance is currently under way.
I have noticed lately that many novels published as SF or Fantasy have the pacing, content, and plot structure of some of the most popular Star Trek fanzines. Sometimes, I really can't tell the difference! And many of those early Star Trek fanzines had the structure of a Romance. One, now posted at:
http://www.simegen.com/fandom/startrek/showcase/ is, I believe, the first Inspirational SF Romance.
It's taken decades, but the relationship driven SF story has emerged. That story is as much at home in Fantasy as SF -- because in Fantasy, the "aliens" are just from another dimension or have mixed heritage with Elves or Demons, or are humans born with Powers.
So already the genre labels are being redefined. That has always been the process with genre.
By the way, my definition of "genre" is the opposite of that used by Mass Market publishing. I have discovered that the real operational definition of genre used by readers, rather than editors, is based on what is LEFT OUT of the story, worldbuilding, background, and plot rather than what is put in.
For example, if a story had an Alien From Outer Space in it, it automatically could not be published as anything but SF by the publisher's definition. Thus THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (a classic film you can get on DVD) is classed as SF even though it's really a Romance with an Alien in it. Likewise, STARMAN, the film not Andre Norton's novel, is a Romance. Both these films are SF Romance and genre defining. Neither won the Nobel Prize.
There was a time when a writer could not sell a Vampire Romance to a Mass Market publisher -- because Vampires "are horror genre" and "our Romance readers won't touch anything with Horror in it." Romance genre was defined by what you put in -- not by what you leave out.
Laugh if you want, but there really was such a time when you couldn't sell a Romance with a Vampire in it.
If you use my definition of exclusion, "Vampire Romance" makes sense and can be seen in advance to be a sure hit -- and very possibly the Nobel Prize winning material we're looking for.
What do you leave out of a Vampire Romance to make it a Romance?
Well, you leave out everything that you normally leave out of a Romance.
How do you know what to "leave out" to make it a Romance?
Aha, now we come to the Astrology part as noted in the title of this piece, then we'll get to the brain research part, and finally put them together.
Do you remember, I said Romance field professionals need a new way to think about this problem in order to generate a solution that will work?
In order to "think" one must have not only something to think about, but some tools to think with.
What we're thinking about is the prestige problem of the Romance Genre.
Any reasonable person can instantly see that a fiction genre based on a universally acknowledged truism should be held in high regard.
The Romance Genre is based on the truism that "Love Conquers All." Vampires, for example, fall into the "All" category, hence they are a natural part of the Romance Genre.
Most people know that Love is divine -- the archetype behind Love is actually God. When humans Love each other as God Loves us, miracles happen. All religions I know of, and even atheists, have acknowledged the existence of these unique, highly improbable Events we call Miracles when Love is in the vicinity.
It makes no sense that such a Literature and its fans should not command high prestige.
We on this blog have been thinking about this problem using the tools of Publishing, Publicity, Promotion, Marketing, Sociology, Criminology, maybe Anthropology and Psychology too. The authors on this blog have brought to bear some of the biggest guns known to the intellectual world. And still we need a new approach.
So here let's think with the tools provided by Astrology.
When you set out to think about a problem, you have two tasks ahead of you. First you must define the problem. Then you must solve the problem.
90% of the solution to any problem lies within the definition of the problem. The other 10% is usually perspiration, but sometimes inspiration.
If you find you can't solve a problem you're working on, then restate the problem.
For a bit more on the concept of restating the problem to solve it, see my blog entry about a thought problem posing an ethical dilemma:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/05/exogamous-human-female-ive-been.html
In that example, the only reason there was a dilemma is that the problem was not correctly stated.
I believe the only reason we still have a prestige problem with the Romance Genre is that the problem is not correctly stated.
So I'm going to try a restatement, and maybe that will lead someone else to restate, and another to try a restatement using different thinking tools -- and maybe we can get somewhere with this and finally win one of those international prizes.
So let's start with a statement of the Romance Genre Problem using Astrology.
"Love Conquers All" is the central theme and major plot resolution mechanism of Romance.
What is Love?
In Astrology, "Love" is divided. Venus, Mars, Pluto and Neptune all have something to say about it. The Moon and all the other elements add nuances.
The Romance Genre as a whole is the analog of Science Fiction's "First Contact Story" where humanity meets a new alien species. The driving dynamic of the First Contact plot is all about discovering "Who" that "Other" really is. Most First Contact stories pivot on a misunderstanding, an idealism psychologically projected, or an alliance forged in improbable ways.
There have been hugely popular, widely respected novels and movies that are "Love Stories" -- in fact, there is one called Love Story. Helen of Troy comes to mind. The "Love Story" is not a Romance. The Love Story can involve Venus, Mars and sometimes Pluto symbolism, but usually excludes (remember my genre defining principle) Neptune.
The Romance Genre story often excludes Venus, Mars, and Pluto -- but always includes Neptune. Or, using my principle for defining genre, The Romance Genre is defined by the exclusion of everything BUT Neptune. Put another way, though Venus, Mars, Pluto and all other symbolisms may be in a Romance, Neptune trumps them all except sometimes Pluto.
The dominance of Neptune automatically blurs, dissolves, or renders unimportant the influences of all other planets (except sometimes Pluto). That's its nature by Astrological definition.
So using my "exclusion" definition, the presence of Romance automatically excludes everything else. Romance wipes out the world around you leaving only the one person you have become totally focused on.
The sub-division of Love that the Romance Genre focuses on is the process of "falling in love" or being "swept off your feet" and that is ruled by Neptune.
So we start our restatement of the Problem by examining the characteristics of Neptune-ruled processes.
Neptune rules Pisces, the natural 12th House, the End Of Matters -- matters of ultimate concern such as Life, Death, God, Bereavement, Self-Destruction, Idealism, Dreams. Neptune rules the stuff you can't get ahold of. Neptune, the god of the sea, rules the DEEPS, the unseen.
Oddly, Neptune is intimately connected with modern technology. On Star Trek, Scotty was the purely Pisces technician. Many of our geeks and techies have strong Pisces emphasis, though electricity is ruled by Uranus. Pisces provides focus on the unseen, spiritual and even psychic.
Barak Obama's natal chart is actually unknown, but some astrology websites have given him an Ascendant of 23 degrees of Aquarius and that would mean Neptune transits his Ascendant at the time of the Presidential Election. (Obama's Sun is in Leo.)
If that Ascendant is correct, then for ten years or so prior to the Presidential Election, Neptune transited Obama's 12th House.
Because Neptune rules the Natural 12th House, Pisces, Neptune's effect is magnified when it transits your personal natal 12th House.
Barak Obama has apparently mastered the purely spiritual energy of Neptune. This has bestowed upon him a larger than life glamour, and a huge popularity. Crowds "fall in love with" him -- study that effect and you'll come to understand the essence of Neptune's effect.
That's not the way it ordinarily works for ordinary people.
Neptune transiting the 12th House is famous for being a time of life when major changes in the foundation of life are tested and often dissolve. People go from job to job never seeming to stay long enough to be 'vested' in the Pension Fund. People change their major in college three or four times. People undergo religious conversions or fall into an endless tangle of unclear situations where they simply can't get ahead no matter how well they do. Records get lost or altered. Friends, family, and strangers come to think of the person undergoing a Neptune transit of the 12th House as rudderless, not in command of their life, a flake, a drop out, a burden or a patsy. Drug addiction is common under this transit if it is indicated elsewhere in the Natal Chart.
But Neptune is also known as the Santa Claus of the zodiac -- bestowing grand gifts. Even ordinary people may win the lottery, land the dream job of a lifetime, or get swept off their feet by Prince(ess) Charmings, be catapulted to fame and glory under some Neptune influences.
Neptune transits to various points in a Natal Chart can make you gullible, easily fooled by shysters, confidence men, fortune tellers etc. You really think that what you believe ought to be true, actually is or can be if only you do this one simple thing.
Neptune rules Hollywood, scintillating glamour, rock star status, everything to do with the stage and screen, with entertainment by illusion, or the delusion that the world really is your Ideal. Neptune also rules mind-altering drugs such as LSD -- mushrooms that give you Visions.
Neptune is hard to define -- because it is hard to define!
Yet, once you notice an example of it working in a situation you are familiar with, you will be able to identify its influence in various other situations.
For those new to Astrology, remember Neptune is just one of 8 planets (Earth doesn't count) plus the Moon and Sun, all variables (but not independent variables) that move against the fixed pattern of the moment when you were born (Natal Chart) bestowing challenges and opportunities.
Neptune will have a different effect for each person who experiences it in a specific sector of their Natal Chart such as the 12th House. That's why there are so many Romance Novels already published and we've hardly scratched the surface yet!
So, most romances are ruled by Neptune. Neptune rules the sign Pisces.
In Astrology, "rule" means "associated with" or maybe "proxy for" or possibly "avatar of" -- "rule" means that the two things share the same symbolism or archetypes, not that one is superior to the other.
Pisces is the 12th sign of the Zodiac. The Zodiac is the band of 12 constellations that encircle the Earth. There's lots of other constellations, but we don't try to calculate with them, only the 12 that delineate human psychology.
As the zodiac is imagined, each constellation occupies 30 degrees of the circle, and each constellation is a "House" -- i.e. a House is 30 degrees of the 360. The Houses are numbered; the Signs are named. House and Sign and planet ruling the Sign all share a set of symbols or archetypes.
So lets start to draw a diagram of the basic outline of human personality.
Take a piece of paper and draw a big circle. Draw a vertical diameter and a horizontal diameter at right angles to it. Slice each quadrant into 3 equal pie slices. Now you have 4 groups of 3 Houses each. 4 X 3 = 12
The point on your left where the horizontal diameter meets the circle is called The Ascendant. It's the point where the Sun rises. The 12th House is the slice of pie right above the Ascendant. That's the home of the constellation Pisces.
In the Natural Zodiac -- the Houses and Signs are exactly aligned. So the 12th Sign, Pisces, is the 12th House.
Astrology divides these 12 pie slices or Houses or Signs into 2 different groups called the Quadruplicities and the Triplicities. (the 4's and the 3's)
The first group is Cardinal, Fixed and Mutable, 3 modes of functioning.
The second group is the Elements (alchemical Elements, or psychological states, not Periodic Table elements). Earth. Air. Fire. Water.
Every constellation and every House has 2 properties, an element and a mode of functioning within that element. It goes like this (trust me, this is important for understanding Romance plotting!).
1st - Aries - Cardinal - Fire
2nd - Taurus - Fixed - Earth
3rd - Gemini - Mutable - Air
------------
4th - Cancer - Cardinal - Water
5th - Leo - Fixed - Fire
6th - Virgo - Mutable - Earth
-----------
7th - Libra - Cardinal - Air
8th - Scorpio - Fixed - Water
9th - Sagittarius - Mutable - Fire
-----------
10th - Capricorn - Cardinal - Earth
11th - Aquarius - Fixed - Air
12th - Pisces - Mutable - Water
This is easiest to understand if you actually draw yourself a sliced pie diagram and label each slice with all 4 of the labels in the table above - number, name, triplicity and quadruplicity. You'll refer to your drawing at the end of this article, so do it now and it'll save you paging back to find this table.
Put Aries on your left, in the slice right under the horizontal diameter. Down from Aires, put Taurus with its properties. Then keep going around the circle until you put Pisces on your left right above the horizontal diameter line.
Notice that Pisces, ruled by Neptune, is a WATER SIGN, and there are 3 Water Signs, Cardinal, Fixed and Mutable; a Triplicity.
The "element" Water (not actual water) is associated with emotion, feelings.
The other Water Signs are Cancer and Scorpio.
If Pisces ruled by Neptune is the heart and core of all Romance, what do the other 2 Water Signs have to do with the Romance Genre?
Pisces is MUTABLE WATER -- it's Emotion that is Changeable (i.e. Mutable = morphable = changeable)
Pisces and Neptune rule (or describe) psychic experiences -- telepathy, empathy, prophecy, psychometry.
Pisces deforms on impact -- i.e. takes an impression. Neptune rules things that don't have a shape, that can't be defined by space and time borders. Mutable Emotion.
Mutable Water is the state of mind in which one is open to emotional change -- able to Receive in the mystical or Qabalistic sense. When those 12th House, Pisces or Neptune associated bits of your psyche are activated and influencing your perceptions, things about yourself that have previously defined YOU -- things which delineate your identity and things about yourself that you take pride in (such as your ethical sense) -- can CHANGE.
The essence of your Identity can change. Who you feel you are can change.
Mutable is change; Water is Emotion -- emotions change only when the very foundation of Identity Definition changes.
And that's what happens when 2 people become 1 -- when Love Binds. "We" becomes "I."
Impact with a Soul Mate boots you one more step toward becoming your Ideal Self. (Neptune is Idealism, remember?)
So, if the nature of Pisces and its Ruler Neptune is Mutable Water, Romance Incarnate, what is the nature of Cancer?
Cancer is Cardinal Water. What do you mean, Cardinal?
"Cardinal" in astrology generally refers to the "active principle" or the "male principle." The Cardinal signs represent taking the initiative, being pro-active, aggressive, getting projects started (but not necessarily finishing).
Water is Emotion, Cardinal is a spark, an initiating start of something. So Cancer and its ruler The Moon, represent the Emotion that Initiates -- and is best understood by associating Cancer with Motherhood, the nurturer, the roots of your personality.
Note that Cancer is the 4th House and appears on the diagram at the very bottom. It's the FOUNDATION of your Life. It's where your feet stand. In this diagram, the point where the bottom of the verticle diameter meets the circle is called the 4th House Cusp or I.C. and represents the point where the Sun is at mid-night (on the other side of the Earth from you).
Cancer is the Home Maker. Cardinal is the MAKER. 4th House is HOME. Ask yourself why husbands hesitate before doing something they know their wives will not like? Wife is Cardinal. Wife is in Command. Wife Builds. Wife Raises Kids. Wife sends you out to chop wood and you jolly well better bring back an armload! Wife's main weapon in the battle of the sexes is emotion. Mother controls by poking your Guilt Button. Cardinal Water.
The 3rd Water Sign is Scorpio. Fixed Water.
Scorpio is the Natural 8th House, Inheritance (The King Is Dead, Long Live The King), Public Finance (current economic crisis coincides with a transit of Pluto over the USA Natal Chart's 8th House cusp), Spouse's Resources (an insurance policy? Alimony?) Death and Taxes are 8th House matters.
Fixed Water -- now that's a contradiction in terms (i.e. contradiction = CONFLICT which is the Essence of Story). Water flows, deforms its shape to the shape of its container, water evaporates and condenses. Fixed means just that -- doesn't change. Fixed doesn't start things. Fixed FINISHES THINGS. The Cardinal Signs are starters and leaders, Mutable Signs control the course adjustment rockets, Fixed signs just keep going the way something started them going.
Fixed signs are about momentum. It takes a lot to get them going -- but once started, they can't be stopped.
Remember, everyone has all the signs and all the planets -- everyone has everything somewhere. The differences between us are in the way it's all arranged. So everyone has Scorpio and its ruler Pluto somewhere -- everyone has something at which they can not be stopped.
Scorpio is the Juggernaut. It just rolls right over you and you are no more.
Water is strong. Think about torture by drops of water. Think about caves with stalagmites and stalactites - drip drip drip - even rock gives way after thousands of years.
Scorpio is ruled by Pluto, god of the Underworld. The force is unseen but unstoppable.
That's why Scorpio-ruled people have such a reputation. They can use emotion (Water) in such a way that they can't be stopped (fixed on course) and you'll never see it coming.
Scorpio then is fixed purpose of emotion. Pluto, the ruler of Scorpio, rules the gonads. Pure, raw, animal sexuality, untempered by the intellect, the heart, the mind.
When it's a Pluto fueled Romance, you don't ask "what does she see in him?" because she doesn't SEE and she doesn't care that she doesn't see. "He" doesn't really matter. Only getting off matters - BAM, explosive FINISH.
Fixed is about finishing, Pluto is all about power, explosive power (Uranium is the associated symbol). When manifesting as sexuality, it's all about getting off for the sheer power of it. And yes, it can edge over into S&M, Bondage, and even rape. It's all about POWER unleashed explosively -- to a CONCLUSION. Finishing. Fixed is about finishing, getting to the finish-line, nothing stopping that force that drives to a fixed target. BAM!
Scorpio, Pluto and the 8th House are all about the end of life, inheritance, -- that's the goal of all life, to reproduce and pass on the survival traits, and die.
These 3 water signs give you all the emotional parameters that drive the Romance plot elements, and they even provide the template for the Worldbuilding that supports the Romance.
April in Paris -- walking along the river (water, inexorable snowmelt runoff), an artist colony focused entirely on Fantasy Entertainment (Neptune), an Incident that requires one to rescue another, bind wounds, nurse through a dire fever, (Moon rules Cancer). An adventure forges a lifelong Bond.
These 3 Water Signs are usually present in a wide variety of stories.
When Cancer leads, you have Little House On The Prairie and The Waltons. When Scorpio leads, you have James Bond, Terminator, The Borne Identity. When Pisces leads, you have the whole Romance Genre with all its sub-genres -- a moment outside of time and space when ALL THAT MATTERS to the two people in love is each other and their vision of their future together.
Stories where Cancer leads are respected family fare. Stories where Scorpio leads are respected by men who love action stories and anything men like is respected (and the guy always gets the girl; not vice-versa).
But stories where the three Water Signs are led by Pisces are NOT respected. Why?????
I found an article that gives a clue - from science, no less!
This article, a Health for Life article titled Sad Brain, Happy Brain by Michael Craig Miller, M.D., was published in NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE, September 22, 2008.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/aml2006_library_auth_tt.pl?item_id=0286-35217285
But you have to sign in to get access to the article. I think it's free though.
Some people respect NEWSWEEK as a factual source. But I see a bias in this article. There might be an "agenda" behind this article in that many readers of Newsweek want very much to believe that everything there is in human experience can in fact be explained by brain chemistry (which might be true). The idea is that you never, ever, need to postulate an immortal soul to explain any part of human experience - not even love.
Other surveys contend that most Americans do feel a spiritual connection to a Creator -- though again, most Americans would rather not associate too closely with any organized Religion!
So Newsweek has presented this straight science report on brain research which is very factual, and coincidentally very reassuring to those who want to delete God without deleting Love. You can have Love without God in your philosophy -- you just don't automatically get the "miracles" effect that I mentioned above. You have to come up with another postulate to explain miracles.
The subtitle of the article is "What cognitive neuroscience is uncovering about the fascinating biology behind our most complex feelings. As it turns out, love really is blind."
Now doesn't that explain it all? Here is a national publication using science to lay the foundation for disregarding the Romance Genre. "Love Is Blind" as "Love Conquers All" is a legitimate theme. And "Love Is Blind" can even be used to write a Romance.
It's a fairly long and involved article. Near the end, in the section titled Faith, Love and Understanding, there's a quote I want to draw to your attention:
NEWSWEEK: "... And there's scientific evidence that love really is blind; romantic love turns down or shuts off activity in the reasoning part of the brain and the amygdala. In the context of passion, the brain's judgment and fear centers are on leave. Love also shuts down the centers necessary to mentalize or sustain a theory of mind. Lovers stop differentiating you from me."
Well, yes, isn't that the whole point?
Most people who search the spiritual realms for some meaning to Life other than grubbing in the dirt till you die generally find theories, avatars, gurus, Initiators, etc who try to explain how it is that, though we are all separate and alone, we are also nevertheless connected to each other and to something out there that is Ineffable.
Experiencing personal Love with a Soul Mate is just about as close as you can get to a personal experience of that Ineffable.
So there are two philosophies here.
One philosophy says that the experience of the Ineffable, especially through love, is an illusion (Neptune rules Illusion). All experience is just brain chemistry.
The other philosophy says that the experience of the Ineffable, especially through love, rips away the illusion and exposes the Idealistic Truth (Neptune) -- that we are all One.
Maybe love is blind -- but blind to what? To the Illusion or to The Truth?
There you are on a street corner, and you step out into traffic and jump back, narrowly missing being hit by a car. The driver yells, "What's the matter with you? You blind?" and drives on. It's not his fault he didn't see you -- it's your fault. You are defective.
Blindness is something you accuse someone of. Blindness disqualifies you from being respected in normal society.
We all have our opinions of that opinion, but the truth is, it still prevails. Blindness is a stigma, a disqualification.
If you are blind, you will make mistakes that could be fatal to yourself or others. If you are blind you CAN NOT do things "right." You can't "see" what's right in front of you -- what is obvious to everyone else.
Physical blindness is a metaphor for the kind of blindness that Neptune transits bring.
When Neptune transits certain points in a natal chart, the person loses the ability to see other people's faults (even obvious ones). The person loses the ability to assess their own faults or limitations. The person loses the kind of critical judgment this society values, the judgment that lets you tell the good guys from the bad guys.
We become "non-judgmental" -- and thus able to accept what we would reject at any other time.
This society sees that loss of critical judgment as a flaw, a weakness, a danger to ourselves and others. This society (as any writer or practitioner of the Arts will tell you) sees imagination and idealism (two Neptune traits) as worthless unless tempered with critical judgment.
Now, think about this very hard.
If you live in a universe where there is no God taking a personal interest in us, and you think this article on brain research is correct, and everything in human experience can be explained by brain chemistry -- and that "love is blind" as I've quoted above -- then you must force yourself to believe that the Romance Genre is a bunch of crap that no worthwhile person could possible associate with.
Why must you convince yourself of that? Because Romance Genre's core theme is "Love Conquers All" -- that the goal of life is to suspend that critical faculty that builds a psychic barrier between individuals and really see no difference between Self and Other - to JOIN.
When you manage to suspend that much-prized critical judgement -- and only when you can vanquish it totally -- then you can touch Truth and cause miracles to happen. "And they lived happily ever after." The Prince marries the housemaid and they live happily ever after. (Princess Di notwithstanding.)
Whatever threat has been barreling down on them is averted by Love. True Love overcomes all obstacles, vanquishes every challenge, dissolves all social barriers (My Fair Lady) makes everything come out right in the end (even if it costs an arm, a leg and maybe your native accent.)
That core theme - "Love Conquers All" - is utter, blithering nonsense without the "miracles" attached. And its the miracles they sneer at. They know about Princess Di.
If, however, (even unbeknownst to yourself) you live in a universe where The Ineffable can be accessed through Love, and when accessed, can be argued into producing a miracle or two, you know that in the harsh light of reality, only Love matters. And so Romance Genre stories make sense, match your perception of reality, and define a goal to shoot for.
Now, humans, being human, don't always know what they believe, think or feel about the Universe. Many aren't old enough to have an epistemology -- others developed one haphazardly and have no idea what they believe or believe contradictory things about everything.
Those bewildered (Neptune rules the bewildered and perplexed) folks are the primary readership of Romance novels. They deem Romance an important part of life and want to figure out how to inject some into their own everyday existence.
The novel or film that can show them how to do that will break the ghetto walls around the Romance Genre.
That book or film has to explain the mechanism by which Love causes miracles to happen so that indeed Love does conquer all.
That book or film has to explain how it can be that, blinded and without critical judgment or a modicum of fear (the amygdala, the article explains, is activated when you feel fear), you actually make better decisions and do "right" things rather than "wrong" things to steer your life.
That book or film has to explain how it can be that, blinded by Love, you are less of a danger to yourself or others.
That book or film has to explain how this world is illusion and the world of Love is the truth. (which it is, in my opinion)
The book or film we need to see out there has to challenge the thematic thesis that "Love Conquers All" and show the harmonious connection between Pisces (the Ideal, the Illusion, the Dream), Cancer (the Home), and Scorpio (Sexual Power).
It has to be fascinating and entertaining to the people who are scared of the Ineffable, so they'll listen to the explanation of how Love works and why it conquers all.
Remember my definition of Genre rests on what is excluded?
Well, the definitive work that will bring Romance Genre the prestige it deserves has to INCLUDE All. Thus, it wouldn't actually be a Romance Genre work, but a wider work that has the scope to define not just the one genre, but the concept "genre" itself.
Let's go back to the Astrology table associating the 12 signs of the Zodiac with their properties.
The driving power of the Romance Genre is entirely Neptune /Pisces /12th House.
The Romance Genre formula takes that one essential ingredient in Life (everyone has Pisces somewhere; everyone has Neptune somewhere) and isolates it from most of the others. Neptune is hard enough to make sense of in context nevermind out of context! So let's put it in context.
The essence of story is conflict. What conflicts with Neptune? In Astrology, Squares and Oppositions give "conflict" as challenges and opportunities, as pressure to develop and mature in personality and spirit. "Story" is about a character changing under pressure of life's patterns and we've drawn a diagram of life's patterns.
Look at the pie slices you've drawn and find the natural conflicts that generate plots.
Opposite Pisces is Virgo - Mutable Earth. Virgo is ruled by Mercury (thought, travel). Virgo is organized, defined, practical, the Accountant, the bean-counter personality, all about DETAILS. You know the kind of person who packs a suitcase with everything in ziplock bags and shaped into rectangles laid in precise rows? That's a kind of Virgo -- not necessarily Sun in Virgo, but an emphasis in Virgo and/or the 6th House (Virgo is the Natural 6th House of Service). John McCain has Sun and 3 planets in Virgo, all about Service and balancing the budget.
6th House is your "work" -- what you do to make money, not your vocation. So Neptune transiting your 12th House opposite your 6th House tends to dissolve away your job(s) but not your vocation.
Square Pisces is Gemini, Mutable Air, also ruled by Mercury, but usually a messy housekeeper who thinks fast, communicates faster, and just can't be still. Barak Obama probably (his exact chart is unknown) has Moon in Gemini, and oddly when asked what his worst fault is, he responded by noting he keeps a messy desk and has trouble finding things. So maybe the websites have his chart nailed.
Square Pisces in the other direction, opposite Gemini, is Sagittarius, Mutable Fire -- ruled by Jupiter, (the inclusion principle). Sagittarius is all about Truth. Sagittarius can't tell a lie, not even a "white lie" and in fact is apt to blurt out the truth at inopportune moments.
Notice what conflicts most with Pisces/Neptune are the other Mutables. Like repels like.
Pisces is Sacrifice -- Virgo is Service. Same thing? Or opposites?
Gemini is communication -- Sagittarius is honesty. Same thing? Or opposites?
Now take Cancer - opposite is Capricorn, squaring are Aries and Libra.
Now take Scorpio - opposite is Taurus, squaring are Leo and Aquarius.
Look up the associated traits of the opposition and squares of any sign, and presto, you have a theme, a plot, and the elements of the World you must Build to display them, and all the elements will automatically be in harmony -- AND ordinary readers who know nothing of Astrology will recognize the conglomeration you've created as a coherent set of things that reflects "reality" and lets them suspend disbelief. Using these sets defined by Astrology, the writer can create "plausibility" without seeming "contrived."
Pisces, Cancer and Scorpio form the Grand Water Trine -- three elements that work easily together without conflict. They advance each others' causes, progress smoothly. Whichever one you're working in, the other two are supportive. Each of the three is opposed and squared by the signs that give it the most trouble -- and incidentally the most opportunity for growth and self actualization, the most opportunity for a writer to demonstrate character growth.
Aries, Leo and Sagitarrius are the Fire Trine. Taurus, Virgo and Capricorn are the Earth Trine. Each is opposed and squared by a naturally conflicting sign.
Think about that and you should see the conflicts, themes, and Worlds which could present the argument for the Romance Genre thesis, Love Conquers All.
The trick here is to put Romance, and the Neptune effect of stripping away judgment, into context and argue that without our normal fears and judgments, without the barriers between us that define us as individuals, we function more in tune with the world, and get more accurate, profitable and usable results.
Astrology, with this neat pie-slice layout of Triplicities and Quadruplicities provides writers with a uniquely compact paradigm for all the available Archetypes and their natural conflicts -- plus the natural resolutions that most people would be able to see as "Poetic Justice."
To me, Astrology graphically shows us that "life" isn't about conflict, war, strife, dominance, submission, angst, grief, or competition. The Wheel of Life shows graphically that Life is really about balance, combinations, resolution and above all Peace.
So what do you leave out to make a story a genre Romance?
From Astrology and modern brain research together, we learn that you leave out "critical judgment" factors, the ones that rely on the difference between Self and Other and the ones that rely on the amygdala which is actived when fear is triggered. These are the factors which keep you from blending with the Ineffable by bonding with a Soul Mate.
So, using "Love Conquers All" as your main theme means that you may include things which are monstrously fearsome, horrible beyond all imagining, repulsive (one mythical frog/prince comes to mine), Vampire, Alien From Another Planet, or terrifying in some primal way (Simes come to my mind instantly).
To make a story pure Romance Genre, you leave out the POV character's response of FEAR! Love is fearless. Romance is the state in which one is capable of overcoming barriers to reach out and Love. So to make it a story, you must start with the part where there are barriers -- impossible barriers -- then show how they dissolve as Love grows.
The point that would win The Nobel Prize in Literature might be, as I said above, that in the state of not-fearing and not-distinguishing between Self and Other, one makes the best of all possible decisions - not the worst, as common wisdom currently holds.
For a glimpse of a real world model of how this dissolving (Neptune) of barriers (Saturn) between people is currently in progress, read this article on surfing the web affecting brain circuitry and social skills:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20081027/tc_nm/us_technology_ibrain_tech_net_1
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/07/astrology-just-for-writers.html
Part 2 of this series is at:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/07/astrology-just-for-writers-part-2.html
Part 4 will probably appear at:
http://www.simegen.com/reviews/rereadablebooks/2009/
From time to time, http://www.aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/ contributors have kicked around the question of why the Romance Genre doesn't command the respect it deserves. I've commented on some of these discussions, all of which have been powerful presentations by very knowledgeable people. As far as I can tell, all of them are absolutely correct.
In some instances, comparisons were made to the change in the public attitude toward Science Fiction over the last few decades. Westerns have come in for their share of sneers, especially Romance with a Western Setting, and that market has changed drastically.
Mystery Genre seems to command a bit more general respect, but it's still a "genre" in the eyes of publishers. And "genre" per se seems to be a stigma.
If "Romance" -- especially, SF Romance, Paranormal, Time Travel, etc -- is going to break out of the ghetto walls that appear to be built by publishers and even TV and Film producers, professionals in the field of Romance need to find a new way of thinking about the problem.
All the solutions that have been posed on this blog should have worked. They're all good, targeted, reasonable. So why hasn't that great new blockbuster Romance appeared -- the work that would be equivalent to Star Trek and its impact on Science Fiction as a genre?
Buffy The Vampire Slayer certainly put a few cracks in the walls around Paranormal Romance. Many fantasy-romance novels are now pouring out of the Manhattan publishers demonstrating the Buffy style of universe building and how it can support a Romance plot. But they don't win the Nobel Prize. In 2008 (30+ years after Star Trek), an SF novel won the Hugo and Nebula and was by a Nobel Prize winner. SF films have won Oscars. Where are the Romance Genre big general Award Winners?
What would it take to make a Romance internationally "significant" enough to win the Nobel Prize for Literature?
What are we missing here? If our solutions don't change things - maybe we're not parsing the problem correctly?
What is it that people who don't read Romance sneer at in the genre?
A lot of people don't read Romance because others sneer at it -- so they wouldn't be caught dead anywhere near the label. On the other hand, some such embarrassed people often read under the covers with a flashlight -- just as people often read Star Trek fanzines under the covers, very late at night.
Public opinion does put a limit on the popularity of a genre -- but the appeal of strong content, controversial content, outrageous content, can eventually overwhelm or undermine the levees. Star Trek created that "hurricane" for SF by being the first real SF on TV.
Prior to Star Trek, everything on TV that they called SF was either comedy or horror (also genres). Even today, very little of what's on the SciFi Channel is actually Science Fiction.
But genres are slippery to define because they are defined by reader taste (and today, by computer sales reports) which changes faster than you can surf the web. What is published under the SF label today would not have been acceptable in the 1940's as SF. The same kind of evolution in the definition of Romance is currently under way.
I have noticed lately that many novels published as SF or Fantasy have the pacing, content, and plot structure of some of the most popular Star Trek fanzines. Sometimes, I really can't tell the difference! And many of those early Star Trek fanzines had the structure of a Romance. One, now posted at:
http://www.simegen.com/fandom/startrek/showcase/ is, I believe, the first Inspirational SF Romance.
It's taken decades, but the relationship driven SF story has emerged. That story is as much at home in Fantasy as SF -- because in Fantasy, the "aliens" are just from another dimension or have mixed heritage with Elves or Demons, or are humans born with Powers.
So already the genre labels are being redefined. That has always been the process with genre.
By the way, my definition of "genre" is the opposite of that used by Mass Market publishing. I have discovered that the real operational definition of genre used by readers, rather than editors, is based on what is LEFT OUT of the story, worldbuilding, background, and plot rather than what is put in.
For example, if a story had an Alien From Outer Space in it, it automatically could not be published as anything but SF by the publisher's definition. Thus THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (a classic film you can get on DVD) is classed as SF even though it's really a Romance with an Alien in it. Likewise, STARMAN, the film not Andre Norton's novel, is a Romance. Both these films are SF Romance and genre defining. Neither won the Nobel Prize.
There was a time when a writer could not sell a Vampire Romance to a Mass Market publisher -- because Vampires "are horror genre" and "our Romance readers won't touch anything with Horror in it." Romance genre was defined by what you put in -- not by what you leave out.
Laugh if you want, but there really was such a time when you couldn't sell a Romance with a Vampire in it.
If you use my definition of exclusion, "Vampire Romance" makes sense and can be seen in advance to be a sure hit -- and very possibly the Nobel Prize winning material we're looking for.
What do you leave out of a Vampire Romance to make it a Romance?
Well, you leave out everything that you normally leave out of a Romance.
How do you know what to "leave out" to make it a Romance?
Aha, now we come to the Astrology part as noted in the title of this piece, then we'll get to the brain research part, and finally put them together.
Do you remember, I said Romance field professionals need a new way to think about this problem in order to generate a solution that will work?
In order to "think" one must have not only something to think about, but some tools to think with.
What we're thinking about is the prestige problem of the Romance Genre.
Any reasonable person can instantly see that a fiction genre based on a universally acknowledged truism should be held in high regard.
The Romance Genre is based on the truism that "Love Conquers All." Vampires, for example, fall into the "All" category, hence they are a natural part of the Romance Genre.
Most people know that Love is divine -- the archetype behind Love is actually God. When humans Love each other as God Loves us, miracles happen. All religions I know of, and even atheists, have acknowledged the existence of these unique, highly improbable Events we call Miracles when Love is in the vicinity.
It makes no sense that such a Literature and its fans should not command high prestige.
We on this blog have been thinking about this problem using the tools of Publishing, Publicity, Promotion, Marketing, Sociology, Criminology, maybe Anthropology and Psychology too. The authors on this blog have brought to bear some of the biggest guns known to the intellectual world. And still we need a new approach.
So here let's think with the tools provided by Astrology.
When you set out to think about a problem, you have two tasks ahead of you. First you must define the problem. Then you must solve the problem.
90% of the solution to any problem lies within the definition of the problem. The other 10% is usually perspiration, but sometimes inspiration.
If you find you can't solve a problem you're working on, then restate the problem.
For a bit more on the concept of restating the problem to solve it, see my blog entry about a thought problem posing an ethical dilemma:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/05/exogamous-human-female-ive-been.html
In that example, the only reason there was a dilemma is that the problem was not correctly stated.
I believe the only reason we still have a prestige problem with the Romance Genre is that the problem is not correctly stated.
So I'm going to try a restatement, and maybe that will lead someone else to restate, and another to try a restatement using different thinking tools -- and maybe we can get somewhere with this and finally win one of those international prizes.
So let's start with a statement of the Romance Genre Problem using Astrology.
"Love Conquers All" is the central theme and major plot resolution mechanism of Romance.
What is Love?
In Astrology, "Love" is divided. Venus, Mars, Pluto and Neptune all have something to say about it. The Moon and all the other elements add nuances.
The Romance Genre as a whole is the analog of Science Fiction's "First Contact Story" where humanity meets a new alien species. The driving dynamic of the First Contact plot is all about discovering "Who" that "Other" really is. Most First Contact stories pivot on a misunderstanding, an idealism psychologically projected, or an alliance forged in improbable ways.
There have been hugely popular, widely respected novels and movies that are "Love Stories" -- in fact, there is one called Love Story. Helen of Troy comes to mind. The "Love Story" is not a Romance. The Love Story can involve Venus, Mars and sometimes Pluto symbolism, but usually excludes (remember my genre defining principle) Neptune.
The Romance Genre story often excludes Venus, Mars, and Pluto -- but always includes Neptune. Or, using my principle for defining genre, The Romance Genre is defined by the exclusion of everything BUT Neptune. Put another way, though Venus, Mars, Pluto and all other symbolisms may be in a Romance, Neptune trumps them all except sometimes Pluto.
The dominance of Neptune automatically blurs, dissolves, or renders unimportant the influences of all other planets (except sometimes Pluto). That's its nature by Astrological definition.
So using my "exclusion" definition, the presence of Romance automatically excludes everything else. Romance wipes out the world around you leaving only the one person you have become totally focused on.
The sub-division of Love that the Romance Genre focuses on is the process of "falling in love" or being "swept off your feet" and that is ruled by Neptune.
So we start our restatement of the Problem by examining the characteristics of Neptune-ruled processes.
Neptune rules Pisces, the natural 12th House, the End Of Matters -- matters of ultimate concern such as Life, Death, God, Bereavement, Self-Destruction, Idealism, Dreams. Neptune rules the stuff you can't get ahold of. Neptune, the god of the sea, rules the DEEPS, the unseen.
Oddly, Neptune is intimately connected with modern technology. On Star Trek, Scotty was the purely Pisces technician. Many of our geeks and techies have strong Pisces emphasis, though electricity is ruled by Uranus. Pisces provides focus on the unseen, spiritual and even psychic.
Barak Obama's natal chart is actually unknown, but some astrology websites have given him an Ascendant of 23 degrees of Aquarius and that would mean Neptune transits his Ascendant at the time of the Presidential Election. (Obama's Sun is in Leo.)
If that Ascendant is correct, then for ten years or so prior to the Presidential Election, Neptune transited Obama's 12th House.
Because Neptune rules the Natural 12th House, Pisces, Neptune's effect is magnified when it transits your personal natal 12th House.
Barak Obama has apparently mastered the purely spiritual energy of Neptune. This has bestowed upon him a larger than life glamour, and a huge popularity. Crowds "fall in love with" him -- study that effect and you'll come to understand the essence of Neptune's effect.
That's not the way it ordinarily works for ordinary people.
Neptune transiting the 12th House is famous for being a time of life when major changes in the foundation of life are tested and often dissolve. People go from job to job never seeming to stay long enough to be 'vested' in the Pension Fund. People change their major in college three or four times. People undergo religious conversions or fall into an endless tangle of unclear situations where they simply can't get ahead no matter how well they do. Records get lost or altered. Friends, family, and strangers come to think of the person undergoing a Neptune transit of the 12th House as rudderless, not in command of their life, a flake, a drop out, a burden or a patsy. Drug addiction is common under this transit if it is indicated elsewhere in the Natal Chart.
But Neptune is also known as the Santa Claus of the zodiac -- bestowing grand gifts. Even ordinary people may win the lottery, land the dream job of a lifetime, or get swept off their feet by Prince(ess) Charmings, be catapulted to fame and glory under some Neptune influences.
Neptune transits to various points in a Natal Chart can make you gullible, easily fooled by shysters, confidence men, fortune tellers etc. You really think that what you believe ought to be true, actually is or can be if only you do this one simple thing.
Neptune rules Hollywood, scintillating glamour, rock star status, everything to do with the stage and screen, with entertainment by illusion, or the delusion that the world really is your Ideal. Neptune also rules mind-altering drugs such as LSD -- mushrooms that give you Visions.
Neptune is hard to define -- because it is hard to define!
Yet, once you notice an example of it working in a situation you are familiar with, you will be able to identify its influence in various other situations.
For those new to Astrology, remember Neptune is just one of 8 planets (Earth doesn't count) plus the Moon and Sun, all variables (but not independent variables) that move against the fixed pattern of the moment when you were born (Natal Chart) bestowing challenges and opportunities.
Neptune will have a different effect for each person who experiences it in a specific sector of their Natal Chart such as the 12th House. That's why there are so many Romance Novels already published and we've hardly scratched the surface yet!
So, most romances are ruled by Neptune. Neptune rules the sign Pisces.
In Astrology, "rule" means "associated with" or maybe "proxy for" or possibly "avatar of" -- "rule" means that the two things share the same symbolism or archetypes, not that one is superior to the other.
Pisces is the 12th sign of the Zodiac. The Zodiac is the band of 12 constellations that encircle the Earth. There's lots of other constellations, but we don't try to calculate with them, only the 12 that delineate human psychology.
As the zodiac is imagined, each constellation occupies 30 degrees of the circle, and each constellation is a "House" -- i.e. a House is 30 degrees of the 360. The Houses are numbered; the Signs are named. House and Sign and planet ruling the Sign all share a set of symbols or archetypes.
So lets start to draw a diagram of the basic outline of human personality.
Take a piece of paper and draw a big circle. Draw a vertical diameter and a horizontal diameter at right angles to it. Slice each quadrant into 3 equal pie slices. Now you have 4 groups of 3 Houses each. 4 X 3 = 12
The point on your left where the horizontal diameter meets the circle is called The Ascendant. It's the point where the Sun rises. The 12th House is the slice of pie right above the Ascendant. That's the home of the constellation Pisces.
In the Natural Zodiac -- the Houses and Signs are exactly aligned. So the 12th Sign, Pisces, is the 12th House.
Astrology divides these 12 pie slices or Houses or Signs into 2 different groups called the Quadruplicities and the Triplicities. (the 4's and the 3's)
The first group is Cardinal, Fixed and Mutable, 3 modes of functioning.
The second group is the Elements (alchemical Elements, or psychological states, not Periodic Table elements). Earth. Air. Fire. Water.
Every constellation and every House has 2 properties, an element and a mode of functioning within that element. It goes like this (trust me, this is important for understanding Romance plotting!).
1st - Aries - Cardinal - Fire
2nd - Taurus - Fixed - Earth
3rd - Gemini - Mutable - Air
------------
4th - Cancer - Cardinal - Water
5th - Leo - Fixed - Fire
6th - Virgo - Mutable - Earth
-----------
7th - Libra - Cardinal - Air
8th - Scorpio - Fixed - Water
9th - Sagittarius - Mutable - Fire
-----------
10th - Capricorn - Cardinal - Earth
11th - Aquarius - Fixed - Air
12th - Pisces - Mutable - Water
This is easiest to understand if you actually draw yourself a sliced pie diagram and label each slice with all 4 of the labels in the table above - number, name, triplicity and quadruplicity. You'll refer to your drawing at the end of this article, so do it now and it'll save you paging back to find this table.
Put Aries on your left, in the slice right under the horizontal diameter. Down from Aires, put Taurus with its properties. Then keep going around the circle until you put Pisces on your left right above the horizontal diameter line.
Notice that Pisces, ruled by Neptune, is a WATER SIGN, and there are 3 Water Signs, Cardinal, Fixed and Mutable; a Triplicity.
The "element" Water (not actual water) is associated with emotion, feelings.
The other Water Signs are Cancer and Scorpio.
If Pisces ruled by Neptune is the heart and core of all Romance, what do the other 2 Water Signs have to do with the Romance Genre?
Pisces is MUTABLE WATER -- it's Emotion that is Changeable (i.e. Mutable = morphable = changeable)
Pisces and Neptune rule (or describe) psychic experiences -- telepathy, empathy, prophecy, psychometry.
Pisces deforms on impact -- i.e. takes an impression. Neptune rules things that don't have a shape, that can't be defined by space and time borders. Mutable Emotion.
Mutable Water is the state of mind in which one is open to emotional change -- able to Receive in the mystical or Qabalistic sense. When those 12th House, Pisces or Neptune associated bits of your psyche are activated and influencing your perceptions, things about yourself that have previously defined YOU -- things which delineate your identity and things about yourself that you take pride in (such as your ethical sense) -- can CHANGE.
The essence of your Identity can change. Who you feel you are can change.
Mutable is change; Water is Emotion -- emotions change only when the very foundation of Identity Definition changes.
And that's what happens when 2 people become 1 -- when Love Binds. "We" becomes "I."
Impact with a Soul Mate boots you one more step toward becoming your Ideal Self. (Neptune is Idealism, remember?)
So, if the nature of Pisces and its Ruler Neptune is Mutable Water, Romance Incarnate, what is the nature of Cancer?
Cancer is Cardinal Water. What do you mean, Cardinal?
"Cardinal" in astrology generally refers to the "active principle" or the "male principle." The Cardinal signs represent taking the initiative, being pro-active, aggressive, getting projects started (but not necessarily finishing).
Water is Emotion, Cardinal is a spark, an initiating start of something. So Cancer and its ruler The Moon, represent the Emotion that Initiates -- and is best understood by associating Cancer with Motherhood, the nurturer, the roots of your personality.
Note that Cancer is the 4th House and appears on the diagram at the very bottom. It's the FOUNDATION of your Life. It's where your feet stand. In this diagram, the point where the bottom of the verticle diameter meets the circle is called the 4th House Cusp or I.C. and represents the point where the Sun is at mid-night (on the other side of the Earth from you).
Cancer is the Home Maker. Cardinal is the MAKER. 4th House is HOME. Ask yourself why husbands hesitate before doing something they know their wives will not like? Wife is Cardinal. Wife is in Command. Wife Builds. Wife Raises Kids. Wife sends you out to chop wood and you jolly well better bring back an armload! Wife's main weapon in the battle of the sexes is emotion. Mother controls by poking your Guilt Button. Cardinal Water.
The 3rd Water Sign is Scorpio. Fixed Water.
Scorpio is the Natural 8th House, Inheritance (The King Is Dead, Long Live The King), Public Finance (current economic crisis coincides with a transit of Pluto over the USA Natal Chart's 8th House cusp), Spouse's Resources (an insurance policy? Alimony?) Death and Taxes are 8th House matters.
Fixed Water -- now that's a contradiction in terms (i.e. contradiction = CONFLICT which is the Essence of Story). Water flows, deforms its shape to the shape of its container, water evaporates and condenses. Fixed means just that -- doesn't change. Fixed doesn't start things. Fixed FINISHES THINGS. The Cardinal Signs are starters and leaders, Mutable Signs control the course adjustment rockets, Fixed signs just keep going the way something started them going.
Fixed signs are about momentum. It takes a lot to get them going -- but once started, they can't be stopped.
Remember, everyone has all the signs and all the planets -- everyone has everything somewhere. The differences between us are in the way it's all arranged. So everyone has Scorpio and its ruler Pluto somewhere -- everyone has something at which they can not be stopped.
Scorpio is the Juggernaut. It just rolls right over you and you are no more.
Water is strong. Think about torture by drops of water. Think about caves with stalagmites and stalactites - drip drip drip - even rock gives way after thousands of years.
Scorpio is ruled by Pluto, god of the Underworld. The force is unseen but unstoppable.
That's why Scorpio-ruled people have such a reputation. They can use emotion (Water) in such a way that they can't be stopped (fixed on course) and you'll never see it coming.
Scorpio then is fixed purpose of emotion. Pluto, the ruler of Scorpio, rules the gonads. Pure, raw, animal sexuality, untempered by the intellect, the heart, the mind.
When it's a Pluto fueled Romance, you don't ask "what does she see in him?" because she doesn't SEE and she doesn't care that she doesn't see. "He" doesn't really matter. Only getting off matters - BAM, explosive FINISH.
Fixed is about finishing, Pluto is all about power, explosive power (Uranium is the associated symbol). When manifesting as sexuality, it's all about getting off for the sheer power of it. And yes, it can edge over into S&M, Bondage, and even rape. It's all about POWER unleashed explosively -- to a CONCLUSION. Finishing. Fixed is about finishing, getting to the finish-line, nothing stopping that force that drives to a fixed target. BAM!
Scorpio, Pluto and the 8th House are all about the end of life, inheritance, -- that's the goal of all life, to reproduce and pass on the survival traits, and die.
These 3 water signs give you all the emotional parameters that drive the Romance plot elements, and they even provide the template for the Worldbuilding that supports the Romance.
April in Paris -- walking along the river (water, inexorable snowmelt runoff), an artist colony focused entirely on Fantasy Entertainment (Neptune), an Incident that requires one to rescue another, bind wounds, nurse through a dire fever, (Moon rules Cancer). An adventure forges a lifelong Bond.
These 3 Water Signs are usually present in a wide variety of stories.
When Cancer leads, you have Little House On The Prairie and The Waltons. When Scorpio leads, you have James Bond, Terminator, The Borne Identity. When Pisces leads, you have the whole Romance Genre with all its sub-genres -- a moment outside of time and space when ALL THAT MATTERS to the two people in love is each other and their vision of their future together.
Stories where Cancer leads are respected family fare. Stories where Scorpio leads are respected by men who love action stories and anything men like is respected (and the guy always gets the girl; not vice-versa).
But stories where the three Water Signs are led by Pisces are NOT respected. Why?????
I found an article that gives a clue - from science, no less!
This article, a Health for Life article titled Sad Brain, Happy Brain by Michael Craig Miller, M.D., was published in NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE, September 22, 2008.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/aml2006_library_auth_tt.pl?item_id=0286-35217285
But you have to sign in to get access to the article. I think it's free though.
Some people respect NEWSWEEK as a factual source. But I see a bias in this article. There might be an "agenda" behind this article in that many readers of Newsweek want very much to believe that everything there is in human experience can in fact be explained by brain chemistry (which might be true). The idea is that you never, ever, need to postulate an immortal soul to explain any part of human experience - not even love.
Other surveys contend that most Americans do feel a spiritual connection to a Creator -- though again, most Americans would rather not associate too closely with any organized Religion!
So Newsweek has presented this straight science report on brain research which is very factual, and coincidentally very reassuring to those who want to delete God without deleting Love. You can have Love without God in your philosophy -- you just don't automatically get the "miracles" effect that I mentioned above. You have to come up with another postulate to explain miracles.
The subtitle of the article is "What cognitive neuroscience is uncovering about the fascinating biology behind our most complex feelings. As it turns out, love really is blind."
Now doesn't that explain it all? Here is a national publication using science to lay the foundation for disregarding the Romance Genre. "Love Is Blind" as "Love Conquers All" is a legitimate theme. And "Love Is Blind" can even be used to write a Romance.
It's a fairly long and involved article. Near the end, in the section titled Faith, Love and Understanding, there's a quote I want to draw to your attention:
NEWSWEEK: "... And there's scientific evidence that love really is blind; romantic love turns down or shuts off activity in the reasoning part of the brain and the amygdala. In the context of passion, the brain's judgment and fear centers are on leave. Love also shuts down the centers necessary to mentalize or sustain a theory of mind. Lovers stop differentiating you from me."
Well, yes, isn't that the whole point?
Most people who search the spiritual realms for some meaning to Life other than grubbing in the dirt till you die generally find theories, avatars, gurus, Initiators, etc who try to explain how it is that, though we are all separate and alone, we are also nevertheless connected to each other and to something out there that is Ineffable.
Experiencing personal Love with a Soul Mate is just about as close as you can get to a personal experience of that Ineffable.
So there are two philosophies here.
One philosophy says that the experience of the Ineffable, especially through love, is an illusion (Neptune rules Illusion). All experience is just brain chemistry.
The other philosophy says that the experience of the Ineffable, especially through love, rips away the illusion and exposes the Idealistic Truth (Neptune) -- that we are all One.
Maybe love is blind -- but blind to what? To the Illusion or to The Truth?
There you are on a street corner, and you step out into traffic and jump back, narrowly missing being hit by a car. The driver yells, "What's the matter with you? You blind?" and drives on. It's not his fault he didn't see you -- it's your fault. You are defective.
Blindness is something you accuse someone of. Blindness disqualifies you from being respected in normal society.
We all have our opinions of that opinion, but the truth is, it still prevails. Blindness is a stigma, a disqualification.
If you are blind, you will make mistakes that could be fatal to yourself or others. If you are blind you CAN NOT do things "right." You can't "see" what's right in front of you -- what is obvious to everyone else.
Physical blindness is a metaphor for the kind of blindness that Neptune transits bring.
When Neptune transits certain points in a natal chart, the person loses the ability to see other people's faults (even obvious ones). The person loses the ability to assess their own faults or limitations. The person loses the kind of critical judgment this society values, the judgment that lets you tell the good guys from the bad guys.
We become "non-judgmental" -- and thus able to accept what we would reject at any other time.
This society sees that loss of critical judgment as a flaw, a weakness, a danger to ourselves and others. This society (as any writer or practitioner of the Arts will tell you) sees imagination and idealism (two Neptune traits) as worthless unless tempered with critical judgment.
Now, think about this very hard.
If you live in a universe where there is no God taking a personal interest in us, and you think this article on brain research is correct, and everything in human experience can be explained by brain chemistry -- and that "love is blind" as I've quoted above -- then you must force yourself to believe that the Romance Genre is a bunch of crap that no worthwhile person could possible associate with.
Why must you convince yourself of that? Because Romance Genre's core theme is "Love Conquers All" -- that the goal of life is to suspend that critical faculty that builds a psychic barrier between individuals and really see no difference between Self and Other - to JOIN.
When you manage to suspend that much-prized critical judgement -- and only when you can vanquish it totally -- then you can touch Truth and cause miracles to happen. "And they lived happily ever after." The Prince marries the housemaid and they live happily ever after. (Princess Di notwithstanding.)
Whatever threat has been barreling down on them is averted by Love. True Love overcomes all obstacles, vanquishes every challenge, dissolves all social barriers (My Fair Lady) makes everything come out right in the end (even if it costs an arm, a leg and maybe your native accent.)
That core theme - "Love Conquers All" - is utter, blithering nonsense without the "miracles" attached. And its the miracles they sneer at. They know about Princess Di.
If, however, (even unbeknownst to yourself) you live in a universe where The Ineffable can be accessed through Love, and when accessed, can be argued into producing a miracle or two, you know that in the harsh light of reality, only Love matters. And so Romance Genre stories make sense, match your perception of reality, and define a goal to shoot for.
Now, humans, being human, don't always know what they believe, think or feel about the Universe. Many aren't old enough to have an epistemology -- others developed one haphazardly and have no idea what they believe or believe contradictory things about everything.
Those bewildered (Neptune rules the bewildered and perplexed) folks are the primary readership of Romance novels. They deem Romance an important part of life and want to figure out how to inject some into their own everyday existence.
The novel or film that can show them how to do that will break the ghetto walls around the Romance Genre.
That book or film has to explain the mechanism by which Love causes miracles to happen so that indeed Love does conquer all.
That book or film has to explain how it can be that, blinded and without critical judgment or a modicum of fear (the amygdala, the article explains, is activated when you feel fear), you actually make better decisions and do "right" things rather than "wrong" things to steer your life.
That book or film has to explain how it can be that, blinded by Love, you are less of a danger to yourself or others.
That book or film has to explain how this world is illusion and the world of Love is the truth. (which it is, in my opinion)
The book or film we need to see out there has to challenge the thematic thesis that "Love Conquers All" and show the harmonious connection between Pisces (the Ideal, the Illusion, the Dream), Cancer (the Home), and Scorpio (Sexual Power).
It has to be fascinating and entertaining to the people who are scared of the Ineffable, so they'll listen to the explanation of how Love works and why it conquers all.
Remember my definition of Genre rests on what is excluded?
Well, the definitive work that will bring Romance Genre the prestige it deserves has to INCLUDE All. Thus, it wouldn't actually be a Romance Genre work, but a wider work that has the scope to define not just the one genre, but the concept "genre" itself.
Let's go back to the Astrology table associating the 12 signs of the Zodiac with their properties.
The driving power of the Romance Genre is entirely Neptune /Pisces /12th House.
The Romance Genre formula takes that one essential ingredient in Life (everyone has Pisces somewhere; everyone has Neptune somewhere) and isolates it from most of the others. Neptune is hard enough to make sense of in context nevermind out of context! So let's put it in context.
The essence of story is conflict. What conflicts with Neptune? In Astrology, Squares and Oppositions give "conflict" as challenges and opportunities, as pressure to develop and mature in personality and spirit. "Story" is about a character changing under pressure of life's patterns and we've drawn a diagram of life's patterns.
Look at the pie slices you've drawn and find the natural conflicts that generate plots.
Opposite Pisces is Virgo - Mutable Earth. Virgo is ruled by Mercury (thought, travel). Virgo is organized, defined, practical, the Accountant, the bean-counter personality, all about DETAILS. You know the kind of person who packs a suitcase with everything in ziplock bags and shaped into rectangles laid in precise rows? That's a kind of Virgo -- not necessarily Sun in Virgo, but an emphasis in Virgo and/or the 6th House (Virgo is the Natural 6th House of Service). John McCain has Sun and 3 planets in Virgo, all about Service and balancing the budget.
6th House is your "work" -- what you do to make money, not your vocation. So Neptune transiting your 12th House opposite your 6th House tends to dissolve away your job(s) but not your vocation.
Square Pisces is Gemini, Mutable Air, also ruled by Mercury, but usually a messy housekeeper who thinks fast, communicates faster, and just can't be still. Barak Obama probably (his exact chart is unknown) has Moon in Gemini, and oddly when asked what his worst fault is, he responded by noting he keeps a messy desk and has trouble finding things. So maybe the websites have his chart nailed.
Square Pisces in the other direction, opposite Gemini, is Sagittarius, Mutable Fire -- ruled by Jupiter, (the inclusion principle). Sagittarius is all about Truth. Sagittarius can't tell a lie, not even a "white lie" and in fact is apt to blurt out the truth at inopportune moments.
Notice what conflicts most with Pisces/Neptune are the other Mutables. Like repels like.
Pisces is Sacrifice -- Virgo is Service. Same thing? Or opposites?
Gemini is communication -- Sagittarius is honesty. Same thing? Or opposites?
Now take Cancer - opposite is Capricorn, squaring are Aries and Libra.
Now take Scorpio - opposite is Taurus, squaring are Leo and Aquarius.
Look up the associated traits of the opposition and squares of any sign, and presto, you have a theme, a plot, and the elements of the World you must Build to display them, and all the elements will automatically be in harmony -- AND ordinary readers who know nothing of Astrology will recognize the conglomeration you've created as a coherent set of things that reflects "reality" and lets them suspend disbelief. Using these sets defined by Astrology, the writer can create "plausibility" without seeming "contrived."
Pisces, Cancer and Scorpio form the Grand Water Trine -- three elements that work easily together without conflict. They advance each others' causes, progress smoothly. Whichever one you're working in, the other two are supportive. Each of the three is opposed and squared by the signs that give it the most trouble -- and incidentally the most opportunity for growth and self actualization, the most opportunity for a writer to demonstrate character growth.
Aries, Leo and Sagitarrius are the Fire Trine. Taurus, Virgo and Capricorn are the Earth Trine. Each is opposed and squared by a naturally conflicting sign.
Think about that and you should see the conflicts, themes, and Worlds which could present the argument for the Romance Genre thesis, Love Conquers All.
The trick here is to put Romance, and the Neptune effect of stripping away judgment, into context and argue that without our normal fears and judgments, without the barriers between us that define us as individuals, we function more in tune with the world, and get more accurate, profitable and usable results.
Astrology, with this neat pie-slice layout of Triplicities and Quadruplicities provides writers with a uniquely compact paradigm for all the available Archetypes and their natural conflicts -- plus the natural resolutions that most people would be able to see as "Poetic Justice."
To me, Astrology graphically shows us that "life" isn't about conflict, war, strife, dominance, submission, angst, grief, or competition. The Wheel of Life shows graphically that Life is really about balance, combinations, resolution and above all Peace.
So what do you leave out to make a story a genre Romance?
From Astrology and modern brain research together, we learn that you leave out "critical judgment" factors, the ones that rely on the difference between Self and Other and the ones that rely on the amygdala which is actived when fear is triggered. These are the factors which keep you from blending with the Ineffable by bonding with a Soul Mate.
So, using "Love Conquers All" as your main theme means that you may include things which are monstrously fearsome, horrible beyond all imagining, repulsive (one mythical frog/prince comes to mine), Vampire, Alien From Another Planet, or terrifying in some primal way (Simes come to my mind instantly).
To make a story pure Romance Genre, you leave out the POV character's response of FEAR! Love is fearless. Romance is the state in which one is capable of overcoming barriers to reach out and Love. So to make it a story, you must start with the part where there are barriers -- impossible barriers -- then show how they dissolve as Love grows.
The point that would win The Nobel Prize in Literature might be, as I said above, that in the state of not-fearing and not-distinguishing between Self and Other, one makes the best of all possible decisions - not the worst, as common wisdom currently holds.
For a glimpse of a real world model of how this dissolving (Neptune) of barriers (Saturn) between people is currently in progress, read this article on surfing the web affecting brain circuitry and social skills:
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20081027/tc_nm/us_technology_ibrain_tech_net_1
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Sex and the place-holder
I'm at a loss for something truly "Crafty" to say. On the other hand, I was very interested in Margaret's post, particularly since the idea of doing a NaNoWriMo intrigues and horrifies me, so talking about Karen's techniques for writing a book in a month was timely.
My first reaction to Margaret's post was dismay. How many sex scenes are they talking about? I think it makes a difference, don't you? Some genres require sex in every chapter. I should think there would be a practical difficulty in trying to write...what? thirty?? sex scenes all in one go for later insertion. One might just as well draft the entire book.
It hadn't occurred to me that having sex is particularly character-building.
I can imagine. Chapter One is a quickie. He is selfish. Chapter Two, another quickie, but afterwards he asks if it was good for her. And so forth.
For those of us who have disastrously bad sex once or twice.... (by which I mean, well-written, but interrupted) in our books there is something to be said for writing such scenes together, so you can have echoes and refrains (opera metaphor) when it comes to the satisfactory climactic scene.
In Forced Mate, I had a bad kiss (nothing more harrowing than that) early in the book, a long-lasting consensual love scene around Chapter 15-through-16, but didn't see the need to repeat good sex to indicate that the hero and heroine would have a happy ever after together.
I'm all in favor of place holders. I assume that Karen's advice could apply equally well to fight scenes, or diagnosis scenes, or entering-orbit scenes, or chess playing scenes.
Yes, I will draft all my chess scenes at once. I'll chose a couple of games that demonstrate the title of the book, and play them on a real chess board a few times, and also on the internet to check out well-known variations.
In a Romance, the chess moves have to be easy to explain, and I need to make the point as economically as possible. The actions aren't the point of the scene. It's the dialogue that matters. Moving the chess pieces and pawns is busy-ness, although nuances of character and mood can be conveyed depending on whether the actions are decisive or hesitant, whether captures are accompanied by a taunt or a lifted eyebrow or am emphatic clicking of wood on wood.
Of course, I want to include a double entendre around "You're forked!" or "I'm ready to force a Mate," or "Neither of us can get to Mate... we've insufficient mating material." That will dictate my choice of a suitable order of play.
It's the same with fight scenes. Once I've immersed myself in the moves, and the way young swordsmen talk to each other around the strip, and how they boast afterwards, and watched movies (which probably shoot all the fight scenes one after the other... otherwise, they'd have to keep the swordmaster-choreographer kicking his heels while they shot love scenes), I want to at least draft several fights.
If you've got the moves down, you can always change who is fighting whom, and what they say to each other, and add or subtract fancy footwork. However, if one of the duelists is your hero, you do have to be careful, because you can legally do things with a saber, for instance, that no hero would dream of doing with an epee.
Grin!
My first reaction to Margaret's post was dismay. How many sex scenes are they talking about? I think it makes a difference, don't you? Some genres require sex in every chapter. I should think there would be a practical difficulty in trying to write...what? thirty?? sex scenes all in one go for later insertion. One might just as well draft the entire book.
It hadn't occurred to me that having sex is particularly character-building.
I can imagine. Chapter One is a quickie. He is selfish. Chapter Two, another quickie, but afterwards he asks if it was good for her. And so forth.
For those of us who have disastrously bad sex once or twice.... (by which I mean, well-written, but interrupted) in our books there is something to be said for writing such scenes together, so you can have echoes and refrains (opera metaphor) when it comes to the satisfactory climactic scene.
In Forced Mate, I had a bad kiss (nothing more harrowing than that) early in the book, a long-lasting consensual love scene around Chapter 15-through-16, but didn't see the need to repeat good sex to indicate that the hero and heroine would have a happy ever after together.
I'm all in favor of place holders. I assume that Karen's advice could apply equally well to fight scenes, or diagnosis scenes, or entering-orbit scenes, or chess playing scenes.
Yes, I will draft all my chess scenes at once. I'll chose a couple of games that demonstrate the title of the book, and play them on a real chess board a few times, and also on the internet to check out well-known variations.
In a Romance, the chess moves have to be easy to explain, and I need to make the point as economically as possible. The actions aren't the point of the scene. It's the dialogue that matters. Moving the chess pieces and pawns is busy-ness, although nuances of character and mood can be conveyed depending on whether the actions are decisive or hesitant, whether captures are accompanied by a taunt or a lifted eyebrow or am emphatic clicking of wood on wood.
Of course, I want to include a double entendre around "You're forked!" or "I'm ready to force a Mate," or "Neither of us can get to Mate... we've insufficient mating material." That will dictate my choice of a suitable order of play.
It's the same with fight scenes. Once I've immersed myself in the moves, and the way young swordsmen talk to each other around the strip, and how they boast afterwards, and watched movies (which probably shoot all the fight scenes one after the other... otherwise, they'd have to keep the swordmaster-choreographer kicking his heels while they shot love scenes), I want to at least draft several fights.
If you've got the moves down, you can always change who is fighting whom, and what they say to each other, and add or subtract fancy footwork. However, if one of the duelists is your hero, you do have to be careful, because you can legally do things with a saber, for instance, that no hero would dream of doing with an epee.
Grin!
Portal to Realms On Our Bookshelves -
Realms On Our Bookshelves Mini-Interview with: Rowena Cherry
http://portaltorealmsonourbookshelves.blogspot.com/2008/10/realms-on-our-bookshelves-mini_26.html
http://portaltorealmsonourbookshelves.blogspot.com/2008/10/realms-on-our-bookshelves-mini_26.html
Thursday, October 23, 2008
New Book by Karen Wiesner
I want to draw your attention to a new writing manual recently published by Writer’s Digest, FROM FIRST DRAFT TO FINISHED NOVEL, by Karen S. Wiesner. It’s a “sequel” to her FIRST DRAFT IN 30 DAYS, which I immediately came to rely on for plotting my novels. Here’s the review that will appear in the next issue of my monthly newsletter:
Although this writing manual is a companion book to FIRST DRAFT IN 30 DAYS, one can work with it independently of the earlier book. FROM FIRST DRAFT... begins with a lucid summary of the method in FIRST DRAFT IN 30 DAYS so that a writer can adopt that method and go on to integrate it with the techniques recommended in the new book. Using the metaphor of building a house from a blueprint and a solid foundation, Wiesner lays out a step-by-step plan for developing a polished novel from the "formatted outline" produced by the FIRST DRAFT IN 30 DAYS method. She gives an abundance of examples from published novels so that the reader has no trouble grasping exactly what she means by each of her recommendations. This book introduces two very helpful concepts new to me, "story sparks" and the "punch list." It also includes a large quantity of useful checklists and worksheets. For writers like me, to whom outlining and pre-planning come naturally, FROM FIRST DRAFT TO FINISHED NOVEL will definitely be of great value. Many of its suggestions are bound to benefit "pantsers," too, however. If you already have FIRST DRAFT IN 30 DAYS, be sure to add this "sequel" to your collection. If not, consider buying it anyway; the new book, as I mentioned, can stand on its own. (end of review)
One of Karen’s suggestions surprised me by directly addressing a habit I often follow in writing erotic romance—leaving place-holders for erotic scenes and composing them all at once after finishing the rest of the story. My reasoning has been that this method makes it easier to avoid falling into the trap of having all the sex scenes look alike. She recommends against this practice on the grounds that writing the love scenes along with the rest of the story, in order, facilitates integrating those scenes into the flow of character development. Good point. What do you think? And how does this recommendation apply to writers who regularly write out of order and stitch the plot sequence together later in the process (something I found I couldn’t do, because I’d write the “best parts” first and then lose interest in the rest)?
Margaret L. Carter
www.margaretlcarter.com
Newsletter: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/margaretlcartersnewsfromthecrypt
Although this writing manual is a companion book to FIRST DRAFT IN 30 DAYS, one can work with it independently of the earlier book. FROM FIRST DRAFT... begins with a lucid summary of the method in FIRST DRAFT IN 30 DAYS so that a writer can adopt that method and go on to integrate it with the techniques recommended in the new book. Using the metaphor of building a house from a blueprint and a solid foundation, Wiesner lays out a step-by-step plan for developing a polished novel from the "formatted outline" produced by the FIRST DRAFT IN 30 DAYS method. She gives an abundance of examples from published novels so that the reader has no trouble grasping exactly what she means by each of her recommendations. This book introduces two very helpful concepts new to me, "story sparks" and the "punch list." It also includes a large quantity of useful checklists and worksheets. For writers like me, to whom outlining and pre-planning come naturally, FROM FIRST DRAFT TO FINISHED NOVEL will definitely be of great value. Many of its suggestions are bound to benefit "pantsers," too, however. If you already have FIRST DRAFT IN 30 DAYS, be sure to add this "sequel" to your collection. If not, consider buying it anyway; the new book, as I mentioned, can stand on its own. (end of review)
One of Karen’s suggestions surprised me by directly addressing a habit I often follow in writing erotic romance—leaving place-holders for erotic scenes and composing them all at once after finishing the rest of the story. My reasoning has been that this method makes it easier to avoid falling into the trap of having all the sex scenes look alike. She recommends against this practice on the grounds that writing the love scenes along with the rest of the story, in order, facilitates integrating those scenes into the flow of character development. Good point. What do you think? And how does this recommendation apply to writers who regularly write out of order and stitch the plot sequence together later in the process (something I found I couldn’t do, because I’d write the “best parts” first and then lose interest in the rest)?
Margaret L. Carter
www.margaretlcarter.com
Newsletter: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/margaretlcartersnewsfromthecrypt
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Future is Now
Rowena’s post about chastity, abstinence and time periods brought up an interesting issue that I’ve dealt with since I’ve been writing SFR professionally. From time to time I get emails from readings telling me that the militaries portrayed in my books aren’t structured properly because “that’s not the way the USAF or USN” functions (or RAF or whatever other military you want to include).
And I have to reply, “Yes, I know. But my books aren’t about any Earth-based military.” (The Down Home Zombie Blues being the notable exception).
But, but, you write science fiction romance! It’s about the future!
No, it’s not. It’s about my character’s present day.
FINDERS KEEPERS is not Trilby Elliot’s future. It’s her present day. Granted, AN ACCIDENTAL GODDESS throws Gillie almost four hundred years into the future but it’s not four hundred years into Earth’s future, but hers. She’s Raheiran. She’s never heard of Earth, Florida, France, Malaysia, Ohio, Moscow, London, South Africa or Canada. Honest. She hasn’t.
The same is true for the rest of my books (other than ZOMBIE). The same is true for a lot of science fiction and science fiction romance.
One of the reasons to read SF and SFR is to move your mind out of the usual and the known. It’s to set the “givens” aside and open up to what else just might be. Our characters’ stories often aren’t ones you can plug into your home calendar—your can’t fast forward to 2075 and think you’ll find Trilby Elliot. Or Tasha Sebastian.
The cultures, the mores, the beliefs our characters have often are not Earth-In-The-Future but right here, right now for those characters. So chastity or abstinence, if it exists in that character’s life, is because of the current beliefs or life’s structure (as it was for Branden Kel-Paten in GAMES OF COMMAND). And what god or gods they worship, how they’re educated, what they eat, how they run their militaries—these are all things unique to their current time and place.
Which isn’t here.
Except when you’re reading my books.
Then the future is now.
And I have to reply, “Yes, I know. But my books aren’t about any Earth-based military.” (The Down Home Zombie Blues being the notable exception).But, but, you write science fiction romance! It’s about the future!
No, it’s not. It’s about my character’s present day.
FINDERS KEEPERS is not Trilby Elliot’s future. It’s her present day. Granted, AN ACCIDENTAL GODDESS throws Gillie almost four hundred years into the future but it’s not four hundred years into Earth’s future, but hers. She’s Raheiran. She’s never heard of Earth, Florida, France, Malaysia, Ohio, Moscow, London, South Africa or Canada. Honest. She hasn’t.
The same is true for the rest of my books (other than ZOMBIE). The same is true for a lot of science fiction and science fiction romance.
One of the reasons to read SF and SFR is to move your mind out of the usual and the known. It’s to set the “givens” aside and open up to what else just might be. Our characters’ stories often aren’t ones you can plug into your home calendar—your can’t fast forward to 2075 and think you’ll find Trilby Elliot. Or Tasha Sebastian.
The cultures, the mores, the beliefs our characters have often are not Earth-In-The-Future but right here, right now for those characters. So chastity or abstinence, if it exists in that character’s life, is because of the current beliefs or life’s structure (as it was for Branden Kel-Paten in GAMES OF COMMAND). And what god or gods they worship, how they’re educated, what they eat, how they run their militaries—these are all things unique to their current time and place.
Which isn’t here.
Except when you’re reading my books.
Then the future is now.
~Linnea
www.linneasinclair.com
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Everyone needs a good fork (sexual emancipation in outer space)
Never in my tamest dreams did I ever imagine that I'd see one of my covers on the same page as a quote by Barbara Cartland.
It happened.
Thank you, Just Jinny. You've got me thinking.
“A historical romance is the only kind of book where chastity really counts.” ~ Barbara Cartland quotes
Does chastity count?
In my debut futuristic romance, Forced Mate, chastity counted. Technically. Royal males tended tended to cheat, but an heir to the Tigron Imperial throne was legally required to take his Princess Consort's virginity at their Mating ceremony.
However, Forced Mate was an affectionate spoof of a historical romance, so Djinni-vera's story isn't particularly interesting as an example.
My next heroine was a widow, and reasonably sexually continent (my editor abhors that expression) more for lack of opportunity than anything else. When opportunity knocked in the buff and ripped form of Commander Jason, whom she took to be a lesser being, totally unsuitable, sexually safe, and deliciously beneath her, she took him to bed, made a video the occasion, and got herself into trouble. A Royal shotgun wedding was the result.
Again, Insufficient Mating Material could have been an historical romance if it hadn't been in outer space.
The heroine of Knight's Fork is an Imperial Princess. She is also a Queen because she is married to a King. Her King is an alien and a lesser being, so he cannot impregnate her. She requires a sperm donor. No chastity there!
However, her choice for a potential stud has sworn a vow of chastity. Sexual chastity. (During poverty awareness week, I learned that chastity doesn't necessarily refer to sexual abstinence. Chastity can refer to absolute respect for oneself and others.)
Carnal chastity matters very much to 'Rhett, hero of Knight's Fork.
What about other authors' fantasies, futuristics, science fiction romances, spec roms, space operas and even paranormals?
Where do we stand? Does chastity count for some of our heroes and heroines? In other words, does Barbara Cartland's quote still apply?
I think editors of pulp fiction assume that in the future, human scientists will have solved all the problems the fear of which keep us chaste: social diseases, unplanned pregnancies, disapproving parents/pastors/presidents... Is there anything else?
Therefore, and rather conveniently (given that sex sells) our heroines of the future can have as much--if not more--zipless fun as the bad boys of history.
I wonder, though. If there's no risk, no danger, no love, no reason--as we understand it--for chastity to matter, will it?
Possibly, it is more likely that in the future there will be new reasons for chastity. I'm thinking of Dune. What a hassle to get in and out of those suits! What a waste of water! What happens if in the future, we are rationed to one bath a month (whether we want it or not)? Perhaps we'd spray ourselves with futuristic Febreeze, and rub ourselves with minty fresh hand-sanitizer.
On that happy thought, I will leave you.
Rowena Cherry
It happened.
Thank you, Just Jinny. You've got me thinking.
“A historical romance is the only kind of book where chastity really counts.” ~ Barbara Cartland quotes
Does chastity count?
In my debut futuristic romance, Forced Mate, chastity counted. Technically. Royal males tended tended to cheat, but an heir to the Tigron Imperial throne was legally required to take his Princess Consort's virginity at their Mating ceremony.
However, Forced Mate was an affectionate spoof of a historical romance, so Djinni-vera's story isn't particularly interesting as an example.
My next heroine was a widow, and reasonably sexually continent (my editor abhors that expression) more for lack of opportunity than anything else. When opportunity knocked in the buff and ripped form of Commander Jason, whom she took to be a lesser being, totally unsuitable, sexually safe, and deliciously beneath her, she took him to bed, made a video the occasion, and got herself into trouble. A Royal shotgun wedding was the result.
Again, Insufficient Mating Material could have been an historical romance if it hadn't been in outer space.
The heroine of Knight's Fork is an Imperial Princess. She is also a Queen because she is married to a King. Her King is an alien and a lesser being, so he cannot impregnate her. She requires a sperm donor. No chastity there!
However, her choice for a potential stud has sworn a vow of chastity. Sexual chastity. (During poverty awareness week, I learned that chastity doesn't necessarily refer to sexual abstinence. Chastity can refer to absolute respect for oneself and others.)
Carnal chastity matters very much to 'Rhett, hero of Knight's Fork.
What about other authors' fantasies, futuristics, science fiction romances, spec roms, space operas and even paranormals?
Where do we stand? Does chastity count for some of our heroes and heroines? In other words, does Barbara Cartland's quote still apply?
I think editors of pulp fiction assume that in the future, human scientists will have solved all the problems the fear of which keep us chaste: social diseases, unplanned pregnancies, disapproving parents/pastors/presidents... Is there anything else?
Therefore, and rather conveniently (given that sex sells) our heroines of the future can have as much--if not more--zipless fun as the bad boys of history.
I wonder, though. If there's no risk, no danger, no love, no reason--as we understand it--for chastity to matter, will it?
Interjection: they're just playing Viva Viagra on the TV. Why is this issue (is it an issue?) so normal and socially acceptable? What effect will Viagra in our drinking water (you know it is getting there after it's been passed by our water inspectors) have on future generations? Why is there such a burning need for these products (or is there?)
Possibly, it is more likely that in the future there will be new reasons for chastity. I'm thinking of Dune. What a hassle to get in and out of those suits! What a waste of water! What happens if in the future, we are rationed to one bath a month (whether we want it or not)? Perhaps we'd spray ourselves with futuristic Febreeze, and rub ourselves with minty fresh hand-sanitizer.
On that happy thought, I will leave you.
Rowena Cherry
Thursday, October 16, 2008
How Rich Are You?
Because yesterday was Blog Action Day 2008: Poverty, I want to draw your attention to the Global Rich List page: www.globalrichlist.com. It's maintained by an organization based in London, with the purpose of encouraging visitors to give out of their abundance to help the poorest of the Earth. Enter your annual income in the box and discover where you stand in terms of wealth compared to the total population of the world. All major religions teach that the rich have a duty to relieve the sufferings of those less fortunate. All of us who live in North America and belong to the working class, middle class, or above are among the rich! Even my college-age son who works only part time falls into the upper 13.7 percent. Something positive to think about while contemplating the current economic crisis!
www.margaretlcarter.com
www.margaretlcarter.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
