In college, there are majors for Creative Writing, for Journalism, and for various skill sets that fiction writers need -- such as English, Linguistics, Anthropology, Psychology.
But there are no actual majors in COMMERCIAL FICTION WRITING that I know of. If you find one that covers the material I've been including in these blog posts, please drop a comment here.
There's a major for Music Arts. But not a corresponding one for Fiction Arts to prepare you for a career in fiction writing, editing, publishing, or fictioneering in various other media such as comics, animation, dramatic writing, etc. The stage arts have a major, and so do the screen arts. But where is the major in writing novels for the commercial market?
Isn't that curious? If you want to become a professional novelist or editor you are on your own after college, and woe betide you if you didn't take the courses you need. But of course, nobody will tell you what those course are before you start college.
Now, the brutal truth is that there is a living to be made in Journalism, but very rarely in commercial fiction writing. Perhaps that's why there's no major?
Oddly, most of the best selling novels I've encountered lately were written by Journalists with long track records in magazines and newspapers.
News "papers" are dying, but "news" and news gathering and news writing are still here.
A lot of journalists are going indie after being laid off from newspapers.
And they are doing very well with blogging and building audiences that click on advertising links for which they get paid. Huffington Post, Politico and similar blog-sites have real, well trained journalists both announcing and commenting on the day's events.
Fiction writers are going indie with either publishing their own e-books or finding new e-book publishers that do packaging and presentation, but usually the writer then has to do promotion, publicity and advertising.
However, non-fiction is doing much better than fiction in paper editions, so it's worth studying non-fiction closely for clues, tips and tricks.
The competition for the attention of readers and viewers is more fierce than ever. There is a growing population, and more people online willing to read (more enchanted by images on YouTube, true, but still reading a lot), but there are more people writing and creating videos, more different media that are accessible to the indie creator, so that the result is more stuff for each reader to choose from.
There's the information glut come to full fruition just as predicted in the 1970's.
How do you, as a fiction writer, attract and hold attention?
Writing teachers will tell you that the core of that trick is "suspense." And you can see that trick being used on TV news programs as "the teaser."
Just before a commercial, they will announce what they're going to cover "next" and tell you something about it that makes you want to hear that item. When they get back from the break, they go on about some other item, with yet another "teaser" about the item that you wanted to hear about, repeatedly putting it off until the end of the show.
They string you along like that with artificially generated suspense.
If you're smart, you give up, channel surf, get bored, and go google the item up. It'll take you five minutes to find out what you wanted to know instead of sitting around for an hour watching commercials.
But solid research shows people do sit there in suspense, waiting, and letting the commercials wash over them. Research shows exposure to those commercials does change behavior later in the stores. (Sad, horrifying, but true, which is why they do it.)
Series TV fiction does the same kind of artificial suspense, cutting to commercial just where you want to see what's coming next. Good fiction writers do that at chapter ends and scene ends.
The tricks and tips for how to structure a scene so suspense is built "naturally" rather than "artificially" by tricking the reader into waiting are in these posts:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/07/6-tricks-of-scene-structure.html
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/07/6-tricks-of-scene-structure-part-2.html
Suspense works every time to create a "page turner" when it's not done as a "delay" or a "digression." Why is that and how do you learn to do it with your own material? And how do you tell a "delay" or "digression" from real suspense technique when you're the one who's written it? How do you test your own material to see if you've achieved "suspense?" (after all, you know what comes next, so you can't feel the suspense you are generating!)
How do you take a story you have had erupt into your mind whole cloth, a universe, a character, a whole complex situation that is too fascinating for words, that spreads over galaxies and is built on centuries of political history, that has the characters entangled in a huge web of bizarre science unthinkable by your reader, and criss-crossing love affairs finally erupting into True Love, and make that reader see what is fascinating about it?
Suspense is not fascinating. It makes you impatient. "Get on with it already!"
To get suspense to work for you as a writer to attract and hold a reader, you need to achieve a pace that the reader is comfortable with.
In previous blog entries here I've defined how I use the word "pace" to mean "rate of change of Situation" rather than "fast action" or "how many fight scenes how close together."
One error many beginning writers (even selling professionals!) make is to blow the suspense right at the beginning of the novel by TELLING the background.
That creates an expository lump
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/08/source-of-expository-lump.html
right at the opening.
Expository lumps are long sections (3 paragraphs or more; half a page even can be a lump) during which the Situation does not change, but the writer stops the forward momentum of the story to "fill the reader in" by telling about the background, or what has happened before, or what is happening off stage, all very interesting to the writer and crazy-boring to the reader because it does not go where the reader wants to go. Ahead.
Here's an example of how to show not tell the material in an opening paragraph of exposition so that it becomes dramatized narrative:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/05/tv-show-white-collar-fanfic-and-show.html
But that was just one paragraph of information. How do you dissect out the pieces of "an idea" that arrives with a whole Universe attached and lay it out in linear form so that someone who does not know everything about it can see just how fascinating it is?
How do you grind your idea up into bread crumbs and lay them out in a linear trail for the curious reader to follow to your HEA ending?
Well, there is a technique for that which I call INFORMATION FEED.
Every bit of "information" becomes a crumb to be laid down in a trail for the reader to follow. Pacing is all about how far apart you put the crumbs.
Here's how you take a lump of a universe and create a linear "feed" of information.
1) Ask yourself, "Why do I want to write this story?" What is the payload you want to deliver?
2) Find the vocabulary that scintillates with hints of that payload. It's all about semantics. Find the semantically loaded vocabulary you need.
3) Ask yourself, "Why would anyone NOT be interested in this?" What's boring about your universe?
4) Ask yourself, "What does my typical reader want to read about?" Tease that subject out of the morass of the "idea" you have. It's in there somewhere, but you have to bring it to the surface by submerging the rest. "Submerged" material is what gives fiction "depth." The more you submerge, the more "classic" your work will be. But submerge it under something clean, clear, simple, something you can express in one sentence.
5) Ask yourself, "What does my typical reader want to know first?" What will show the reader that this breadcrumb trail will lead to the payload that reader enjoys most at the end of the story. (i.e. the "HEA" ending, the "enemies vaquished" ending, the "hero triumphant" ending, or the "poignant loss of everything" or the "villain gets his comeuppance" ending, or the "villain becomes hero" ending).
With those 5 Answers, you now have some facts about this story that you can arrange into a series, a trail of breadcrumbs. You might have to switch it around several ways before you find the right path into the story, but you no longer have an amorphous lump.
The trick is to sort the lump so that the reader doesn't have to know all about the universe, the politics, the historic wars among kingdoms or galaxies, the succession to the throne, or anything else before the story starts. See? To have "pacing" the story and the plot must start to dance with each other, not just stand there and wait while you explain the history of the dance steps.
From those 5 answers on, your job becomes very much like plotting a mystery.
You stretch the information into a line of clues, and the protagonist follows his/her nose through to the end.
Suspense is created by what the reader does not know that the writer does know.
But the reader must never sense that the writer is "withholding" information. Suspense and surprise endings are not created by keeping the reader ignorant, but by keeping the reader engaged, moving (pacing) from one bit of information to the next at a rate that satisfies the reader.
To formulate that all important "beginning," the "downbeat" of the dance music between plot and story, choose semantically loaded words, words fraught with subtext, and weave them into a seductive, rhythmic sentence which carries the promise that you will answer the questions it raises as the story unfolds.
In the first sentence, reveal the first breadcrumb.
That will tell the reader if it's rye, whole wheat, or barley bread -- maybe raisin?
Simple choice of vocabulary can establish genre and invite the book-browser to work to figure out whether they want to buy this book by searching for the next breadcrumb.
Within a few paragraphs, reveal the next breadcrumb.
The space between breadcrumbs then defines the rhythm of the piece, the type of dance between story and plot: waltz, cha-cha, boogie, adagio, tap, break, macarena, tango!
The rest of the information on defining the conflict, the characters, and the setting is transmitted by implication, hint, symbolism, imagery, by careful selection of DETAIL.
Every detail you mention overtly when describing a scene (the color of the carpeting, the provenance of the vase on the mantel) carries information by inference. That you selected this detail to emphasize, rather than leaving it to the reader's imagination, indicates that it's important and must be remembered.
Too much detail, and the reader feels they're working too hard for too little reward. Lard in extra detail between breadcrumbs, and the effort-to-reward ratio becomes way too large. The book is not worth reading.
Too little detail between breadcrumbs, and the book is too "thin," too transparent, boring and not worth reading.
Get the proportion of detail to breadcrumbs, the distance between those crumbs of information wrong, and for the book-browser, it's like sticking their head into a room where someone is practicing playing the violin, one scratchy note at a time with repeated tries at hitting the note. The plot and story aren't dancing. There's no performance to watch.
Get the proportion of detail to breadcrumbs, and the distance between those crumbs of information just right, and the suspense becomes as engaging as watching the stage in the film Dirty Dancing when the lights come up revealing a couple posed just so, dressed just so, -- no other details on that stage but the spotlight, and you can tell they are about to tango and it'll be hellishly sexy. The downbeat, AND!, movement, suggestive, fascinating -- will she make the lift or not?
You don't have to have watched the movie up to that point to stare at the screen, holding your breath as they tango. The suspense is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
But it's natural suspense, inherent in the Situation, not artificial. The prior information about how he taught her this one dance in order to fill in as his partner, enhances the suspense, but doesn't create it.
Watch that scene in Dirty Dancing out of context. Watch how the camera "reveals" the old couple in the audience.
You don't have to know what's going on back at the resort to know that the presence of that old couple implies something is going to happen next.
That is natural suspense. Inherent in the Situation. And it works every time. That is how you want to lay down your breadcrumb trail.
And that's what News Shows don't do.
Their "coming up next" or "after the break" teasers are overt, hits over the head, carrying the information in text not sub-text.
Study news shows. Study "hard news" and "opinion" shows, study how they handle the huge and distracting commercial breaks, how they open a segment after a break and how they end off on a cliffhanger just before the break.
These are writing techniques illustrated in blatant, easy to learn caricatures. It's a clear illustration of how to grab an audience and how to hold it by arranging information in linear sequence.
In fiction, you have to do the same thing with the information you are transmitting to your readers/viewers, but you must do it by subtext, by inference, innuendo, and even mis-direction.
But it is the same technique. The same goal, too. You need to keep the reader/viewer interested in something that's interesting to you and inherently boring to them.
You have to take that lump of a universe that is so fascinating to you, and dissect it just the way TV news dissects our real world into an over simplified straight line presented by sound-bytes that don't bore the viewer (too much).
When is information boring?
When it does not answer the question you have in your mind.
When is it fun to acquire information?
When you have been harboring a burning question you need the answer to, AND when you have found that answer for yourself, by your own efforts, without anyone TELLING YOU.
Information someone tells you is boring.
Secrets you unravel for yourself are interesting.
That's what editors mean when they say they want to read a well written manuscript that "holds my interest." That's code for "make me figure it out."
Information that is kept from you is irresistibly interesting.
So how do you make your reader interested in your universe?
You lead him on a treasure hunt to the answer to a question he wants answered.
Your reader won't get interested enough to follow you if you don't let him know you are keeping a secret. But if you tell him/her the answer, he/she won't care anymore because now he/she knows.
That sounds so obvious and simple, but it is incredibly difficult to do.
In Part II, we'll look at just how to select your breadcrumbs and arrange them in a trail that is paced just right.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com - current availability
http://www.simegen.com/jl/ - full bio/biblio
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Of Bed Bugs, Wrinkles, And Men.
Do I offer my deepest apologies to John Steinbeck?
Apologies proffered.
One of the most effective English teachers I know used to stand by the blackboard at the front of the class and take a random list of ingredients for a story, which we would then, orally, make up. It was great fun. To this day, I remember the pig and the dustbin, but not the third element.
If you think that I mean to go somewhere romantic with bedbugs, wrinkles, and men.... you'd be sadly mistaken. Speculative, yes. Romantic, no.
But, I'll bet I could, if I wanted to do so.
Setting aside the wrinkly parts... my inspiration comes from Linda Marsh's article about "climate change" and diseases of the past and future (The Hot Zone) in DISCOVER Magazine, an AOL News piece on bed bugs, my own musings about whether or not to set out on road trips armed with very large plastic bags, and Avatar which I saw on cable tv this week.
Suppose aliens want to kill us. Suppose Gaia wants to kill us.
Pandora (the living moon in Avatar) was sentient but historically impartial. She promoted balance, but did not interfere in the affairs of the life forms on her surface, until the human alien invaders went too far in their quest for unobtainium.
In the interests of balance, Gaia ought to have eliminated more of us than she has. Are we as bad as cockroaches? Worse? How do we compare to dinosaurs... in terms of balance, and carbon footprints?
When we are sick, the purpose of a high fever is to make the body too hot for the germs to survive. From Linda Marsh's heat map, it looks like maybe Gaia might want to shake off some Texans. If one is inclined to think of our world as sentient, like Pandora's.
Deer ticks give us Lyme Disease. Mosquitoes give us West Nile Virus, Bird flu, malaria, dengue fever, encephalitis and more. Are mosquitoes better "agents" and "vectors" than bedbugs? One might think that a winged arthropod "vector" would be better, but one might be wrong.
The trouble with mosquitoes is twofold for a balance-loving planet. Humans fight back, usually with chemical sprays, and there is collateral damage. Mosquitoes expend too much life and energy per bite. They only live a couple of weeks, if that. Also, they're conspicuous in that they make noise, they're large enough to be seen while going about their business, and sooner or later, their bite draws attention to itself.
Quick tip. I find that when I am "bitten" by a mosquito, it's quite effective to slap on a Bioré strip. It draws the mosquito saliva out with the same action that gently eases blackheads and their "tails" out of clogged pores.
Actually, there's a lot more that is wrong with mosquitoes as agents of "change". Only the females bite, and only when they are about to lay eggs, and they don't bite everyone... just those who look dark (dark clothing), smell good, eat their leafy greens, and emit a lot of carbon dioxide. Fair, quiet, perfumed types get a free pass.
I wonder if anyone has ever studied how often politicians get bitten by mosquitoes.
Suppose the goal were simple behavior modification, instead of behavior modification through extermination. There are parasites that modify fish behavior, making the host fish act in such a way that it is far more likely to be caught and eaten by the higher host animal in the food chain into whose gut the parasite needs to travel for the next stage in its life cycle.
What kind of risky behavior might a bed bug bite stimulate in the traveling man? What gene, mania, bug-spit-borne hallucinogen, retrovirus or parasite could be passed?
By the way, this is purely speculative. I have not heard that bed bugs do anything other than suck blood, breed, and hitch rides on anything that moves.
Of course, if the plot were Us vs Our Planet, which side would we be on?
Apologies proffered.
One of the most effective English teachers I know used to stand by the blackboard at the front of the class and take a random list of ingredients for a story, which we would then, orally, make up. It was great fun. To this day, I remember the pig and the dustbin, but not the third element.
If you think that I mean to go somewhere romantic with bedbugs, wrinkles, and men.... you'd be sadly mistaken. Speculative, yes. Romantic, no.
But, I'll bet I could, if I wanted to do so.
Setting aside the wrinkly parts... my inspiration comes from Linda Marsh's article about "climate change" and diseases of the past and future (The Hot Zone) in DISCOVER Magazine, an AOL News piece on bed bugs, my own musings about whether or not to set out on road trips armed with very large plastic bags, and Avatar which I saw on cable tv this week.
Suppose aliens want to kill us. Suppose Gaia wants to kill us.
Pandora (the living moon in Avatar) was sentient but historically impartial. She promoted balance, but did not interfere in the affairs of the life forms on her surface, until the human alien invaders went too far in their quest for unobtainium.
In the interests of balance, Gaia ought to have eliminated more of us than she has. Are we as bad as cockroaches? Worse? How do we compare to dinosaurs... in terms of balance, and carbon footprints?
When we are sick, the purpose of a high fever is to make the body too hot for the germs to survive. From Linda Marsh's heat map, it looks like maybe Gaia might want to shake off some Texans. If one is inclined to think of our world as sentient, like Pandora's.
Deer ticks give us Lyme Disease. Mosquitoes give us West Nile Virus, Bird flu, malaria, dengue fever, encephalitis and more. Are mosquitoes better "agents" and "vectors" than bedbugs? One might think that a winged arthropod "vector" would be better, but one might be wrong.
The trouble with mosquitoes is twofold for a balance-loving planet. Humans fight back, usually with chemical sprays, and there is collateral damage. Mosquitoes expend too much life and energy per bite. They only live a couple of weeks, if that. Also, they're conspicuous in that they make noise, they're large enough to be seen while going about their business, and sooner or later, their bite draws attention to itself.
Quick tip. I find that when I am "bitten" by a mosquito, it's quite effective to slap on a Bioré strip. It draws the mosquito saliva out with the same action that gently eases blackheads and their "tails" out of clogged pores.
Actually, there's a lot more that is wrong with mosquitoes as agents of "change". Only the females bite, and only when they are about to lay eggs, and they don't bite everyone... just those who look dark (dark clothing), smell good, eat their leafy greens, and emit a lot of carbon dioxide. Fair, quiet, perfumed types get a free pass.
I wonder if anyone has ever studied how often politicians get bitten by mosquitoes.
Suppose the goal were simple behavior modification, instead of behavior modification through extermination. There are parasites that modify fish behavior, making the host fish act in such a way that it is far more likely to be caught and eaten by the higher host animal in the food chain into whose gut the parasite needs to travel for the next stage in its life cycle.
What kind of risky behavior might a bed bug bite stimulate in the traveling man? What gene, mania, bug-spit-borne hallucinogen, retrovirus or parasite could be passed?
By the way, this is purely speculative. I have not heard that bed bugs do anything other than suck blood, breed, and hitch rides on anything that moves.
Of course, if the plot were Us vs Our Planet, which side would we be on?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Brain Rewards
Recently someone gave me an article by Richard Beck called "Certainty and Dogmatism: The Feeling of Knowing." Beck's comments, in turn, are based on the book ON BEING CERTAIN: BELIEVING YOU ARE RIGHT EVEN WHEN YOU'RE NOT, by Robert Burton. Burton and Beck propose that "knowing is a feeling." The "tip of the tongue" experience ("I know that, I just can't remember it") illustrates that the feeling of knowledge can be separated from the content of knowledge. We experience this "feeling of knowing" or "feeling of conviction" as rewarding in itself, an obvious evolutionary advantage for large-brained mammals. Knowing in itself feels good, produces pleasure. The down side of this reward system is that once we think we've found the right answer, the pleasurable emotion discourages us from seeking alternatives. We've already reached our goal, so why bother looking further? Open-minded people, Beck suggests, are those who can resist the temptation to bask in the pleasure of the first satisfying answer they arrive at. In effect, the feeling of knowledge works on our neurological circuits like alcohol or ice cream. As Beck puts it, "People might need a diet from certainty." This brain phenomenon helps to explain the prevalence of confirmation bias. Once we've settled on a side in a controversy, we tend to notice evidence that supports our belief and ignore or automatically reject evidence to the contrary.
Here's an article from NEWSWEEK on reasoning and confirmation bias:
Limits of Reason
Evolution may actually favor irrationality. The marshaling of arguments, says this article, serves the purpose of persuading other people to support our position. For that purpose, emotional appeals work better than rational and logical arguments. Therefore, evolution supports such phenomena as confirmation bias and what the article calls "motivated reasoning." Spock would be appalled.
Not that Vulcans necessarily evolved differently. The STAR TREK universe tells us that in their early history Vulcans were a passionate, violent species. They achieved their reliance on rationality and logic by hard-won self-discipline.
Also on the subject of neurological reward processes, the human brain may be hard-wired to love curves. Not just in appreciation of natural images—people's response to abstract paintings and sculptures depends heavily on the presence and shape of curves:
Baltimore Sun
All intelligent species probably experience "knowing" as pleasurable and positively reinforcing, but what about the preference for curves? A species evolved in a different physical environment or having a nonhuman body structure might be left unmoved by what we see as the beauty of curves. Many extraterrestrials would probably have esthetic standards as alien to us as their biology. They might like angles better. They might even see additional dimensions besides the three visible to us, not to mention the likelihood that they'd see colors differently. (Lots of Earth creatures see other parts of the spectrum from what human vision perceives.) When we try to communicate with aliens, we will have to take into account esthetic and emotional gaps as well as differences based on purely intellectual brain wiring.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's Crypt
Here's an article from NEWSWEEK on reasoning and confirmation bias:
Limits of Reason
Evolution may actually favor irrationality. The marshaling of arguments, says this article, serves the purpose of persuading other people to support our position. For that purpose, emotional appeals work better than rational and logical arguments. Therefore, evolution supports such phenomena as confirmation bias and what the article calls "motivated reasoning." Spock would be appalled.
Not that Vulcans necessarily evolved differently. The STAR TREK universe tells us that in their early history Vulcans were a passionate, violent species. They achieved their reliance on rationality and logic by hard-won self-discipline.
Also on the subject of neurological reward processes, the human brain may be hard-wired to love curves. Not just in appreciation of natural images—people's response to abstract paintings and sculptures depends heavily on the presence and shape of curves:
Baltimore Sun
All intelligent species probably experience "knowing" as pleasurable and positively reinforcing, but what about the preference for curves? A species evolved in a different physical environment or having a nonhuman body structure might be left unmoved by what we see as the beauty of curves. Many extraterrestrials would probably have esthetic standards as alien to us as their biology. They might like angles better. They might even see additional dimensions besides the three visible to us, not to mention the likelihood that they'd see colors differently. (Lots of Earth creatures see other parts of the spectrum from what human vision perceives.) When we try to communicate with aliens, we will have to take into account esthetic and emotional gaps as well as differences based on purely intellectual brain wiring.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's Crypt
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Worldbuilding With Fire And Ice Part III
Whew! Now the election's over we can drop politics because it's not important anymore, right? Ooooo. Ummmm. Oy, I don't think so.
CAUTION: don't for a moment think that I'm a "Conservative" -- or for that matter "Progressive" or "Liberal" -- the "politics" that describes my personal philosophy does not exist on this Earth and as far as I know never has yet. I'm not arguing either side of this issue. I'm examining why the HEA is so universally scoffed at.
We began in Part I of Worldbuilding With Fire And Ice on October 26, 2010, discussing Glenn Beck and noted:
Maybe he's right - maybe not. Our question is, "Does it matter?"
And to whom does it matter? And what can we do with that information?
In my blog post "Glenn Beck Did Not Invent The Overton Window" (October 19, 2010, aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com ) I mentioned that I disagree (personally) with some of what Beck is "selling" (and he uses a "hard sell" technique right out of his enemy's playbook). But I don't disagree with all of it.
So what do I disagree with and why should you care?
As I pointed out in the October 19th 2010 post on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com Glenn Beck is moving the Overton Window, or trying to, or maybe just doing it inadvertently in response to commercial demands and pressures.
He got the concept of the Overton Window from a Think Tank which got it from some mathematicians researching how to describe the behavior of large numbers of people making decisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
That mathematics is employed by advertisers to make people buy products. It's proven stuff and it works.
The Mackinac Center http://www.mackinac.org/7504 -- uses this math to describe the political behavior of people by the millions while advertising uses it to shape preferences for brands of toothpaste or perfume. There isn't enough profit in novels to afford to hire those folks to sell a novel -- but film producers definitely use their services.
This math is not just statistics, it's a method of changing what the majority hold to be true and unquestioned. It can change what is deemed "politically correct."
And it has.
The entire technique is rooted in a view of the universe based on the "zero-sum-game" -- which is why this branch of mathematics came from and informs game-theory. (which is why video games have become so popular; they depict and infuse the player with the zero-sum-game philosophy).
That the physical universe is a zero-sum-game becomes an unconscious assumption.
That the social universe is a zero-sum-game becomes an unconscious assumption.
That the economic universe is a zero-sum-game becomes an unconscious assumption.
Nowhere in our mainstream, Hollywood films, Manhattan publishing, nowhere in the big money, high capital cost/high profit margin business models do we see evidence of anything but a zero-sum-game model of the universe.
The biggest TV audiences are drawn by sports - and every professional sport is based on the zero-sum-game model of reality. I win means you lose.
I win causes you to lose.
"There Can Be Only One"
In Part II we noted that it seems (to me, and others) that the Socialist and Communist views of the world are based on this zero-sum-game model.
The reason that some people are poor is that other people are rich.
That's connected as cause-effect. The only way that rich people get rich is by taking away from (oppressing) "workers" who work themselves to death for bare subsistence wages and there is no way for these hard working, upstanding, deserving workers to get rich other than to demand justice from the rich who have stolen the product of the worker's sweat and tears. (That's not all pure fantasy either. There is proof it has happened, but not that it must be the only way it can ever happen.)
The theory is that there is a limited amount of "rich" -- You win means I lose.
Well, I won't stand for that. I'm taking your win away from you right now! And that's only justice. I demand justice.
The clear, clean, beyond question obviousness of this point of view is simply irrefutable.
If you are inherently incapable of questioning the unconscious assumption about the nature of reality rooted in the zero-sum-game model, you can not rationally come to any other conclusion than that the rich are rich because they suck the life-juices out of the poor.
The rich are "winners" and the poor are "losers."
Put another way, the poor are "losers" BECAUSE the rich are "winners." AND THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!
It's simply too obvious to be denied by any rational person.
The HEA, the HAPPILY EVER AFTER ending, can not be had by all!
It's pie in the sky. Only certain "chosen" golden children ever dare aspire to happiness, and YOU ARE NOT CHOSEN. Therefore you must fight yourself, using all your energy to subdue your inner self. See the example I found involving oral sex in Part II (posted November 2, 2010 on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com).
But why is it obvious?
Well, look at marriage, especially through the prism of that item on oral sex in marriage. Look at our most intimate relationships. Look at how parents raise children. Look back on how your parents raised you.
From the child's point of view, "because I said so" is how parents rule -- and parents get their way because they're big.
If parents "negotiate" with a child before the child is really old enough to process all the variables at once, the parent is seen as weak, incompetent, manipulatable, and the child gets an inflated view of Self.
There is a corporate executive training program that companies pay thousands and thousands of dollars to put their trainees and new hires through. The program teaches "YOU DON'T GET WHAT YOU DESERVE; YOU GET WHAT YOU NEGOTIATE."
And it teaches the art of negotiation as a form of warfare.
Warfare has always been practiced as a zero-sum-game. Our professional sports are modeled after warfare. Corporate culture is modeled on football.
Our culture has forced us to adopt the zero-sum-game model of the universe by excluding any other style activities from your notice (yes, such activities exist but you are flimflammed into not-noticing or not-recognizing them).
Now look at the dust-up recently on bullying in the school yards and how much damage that does to children that then subsequently shapes their potential as adults.
Parents have come out passionately against bullying in school yards. Teachers and school administrators must stop the bullying - it's the school's responsibility to protect my child against bullies.
But where do bullies come from?
How many really creative people have admitted in biographies that they were bullied, and thus forced to learn a response?
How many chimp studies have examined chimp tribes and bullying, or jockeying for pecking order among say, ducks.
Should we intervene in the society of children to stop bullying?
It's an unexamined assumption among parents that their child must not be bullied. (which doesn't mean it's wrong; just not thought out carefully)
It's an unexamined assumption among the parents of children that do the bullying that their child is showing leadership potential, a winner's profile, not a loser's profile, and their pride (however secret even from themselves) knows no bounds. WINNER means NOT LOSER.
Why must our children not "be bullied?"
Recent research on mice has shown us a possible chemical mechanism for the end result of having been bullied.
See my post on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com on October 12, 2010 titled GENETIC MECHANISM BY WHICH LOVE CONQUERS ALL
Yeah, we're still on the HEA subject.
The mice that had repeated lost fights with other mice in that experiment showed a later life tendency to be timid, not to fight for their place, and not to explore.
Dissection of their brains revealed a chemical in the submissive mice's brains, wrapped around their genes, that wasn't present in the mice that had not lost the fights. These chemicals wrap around the genes and allow or suppress expression of the genes.
So we have a purely chemical (not spiritual or soul-based) explanation of how it is that kids who are bullied in school yards grow up to become submissive - and don't explore.
"Explore" for a mouse is a kind of boldness.
We're talking about the kind of boldness that makes human beings explore questions, that makes human beings question unconscious assumptions being "sold" to them by clever mathematicians manipulating the Overton Window. To question authority, such as teachers.
Because of human creativity, artistic talent, a lot of bullied kids turn out to be the boldest questioners. Maybe they get bullied because they are artistic?
But most don't turn out to be artists.
Allowing school-yard bullying while assuring the parents "we're doing all we can" (God Forbid anyone in this world should heroically exceed their abilities and actually grow as a person and a hero by doing something they can't do - something outside their job description!) is one of many ways to create a pliable and obedient population.
Allowing schools to teach "the truth" (carefully editing textbooks) keeps children from being confused, feeling threatened, and needing to think before deciding or expressing an opinion.
They grow up to be adults who want "the government" (or someone) to keep them safe.
Since they never learned in school that one of the basic principles that made the USA successful as a country is that the police do not prevent crime, they expect to live in a crime free world where police prevent crime.
However, in principle, the police (and all criminal statutes) are aimed only at people who have actually done criminal deeds -- and thus the police (an arm of government) can act only after the fact, lest government gain power over individuals. That is, the majority must never inhibit the exploration activities of any individual. Freedom of thought, religion, speech - all rests on the concept that the Police must not prevent any activity.
Under no circumstances can any arm of government ever be allowed to prevent anyone from doing anything. Government must not be allowed control.
Yeah, they don't teach that in school any more, but it was a core principle in the civics classes in my grammar school, and today it is a fully examined and questioned assumption of mine -- though it started out as unquestioned.
Today, however, "Crime Prevention" (another sobriquet promulgated by those with a very specific political agenda) is lauded, and when it fails people are so offended they throw out their elected officials who failed to prevent crime. Remember we're talking about the plausibility of the HEA here. You can't have happiness if your expectations regarding safety and predictability are not met.
We're missing a social mechanism that damps down if not prevents aberrant behavior, keeps it at a tolerable level where expectations are mostly met.
Today huge, massively funded federal agencies are devoted to public safety - and to protecting consumers.
The government's role is primarily to protect us (seal the borders, for example). Very often we are being protected from ourselves -- pharmaceuticals legal in Europe can't be sold here because they would undercut the market of some big pharma company here, but we're told we are being protected from potential harm caused by our own bad decisions.
But big corporations are seen as bullies because they're big.
Glenn Beck showed (I caught a quick clip of this channel surfing) a cartoon line-drawing animation that is being shown in schools to instruct kids on the relationship between corporations and government.
The government was shown as a small image, a neat, clean straight line drawing, of I think, a building. The corporation was shown as a huge, round, blown-up quasi-human image -- something like humpty-dumpty is often drawn. Bloated and distorted.
The corporations were noted to be bigger than government, and positioned by artistic composition to be menacing the little government.
Any reasonable person, especially someone bullied as a child, would conclude that government must be grown bigger to face down the ugly big bully corporations. That's how we conquer schoolyard bullies - we grow larger, hit harder or get friends to gang up on them with us.
This is a truth that becomes internalized as an unquestioned assumption. Government must grow or the world won't be safe. (maybe so, but who knows?)
Worse, the assumption becomes unconsciously processed because of the graphics - and I could see the art of this Overton Window mathematics behind that composition in the cartoon. As I said previously I don't see what most viewers see when I watch TV. This image of the relationship between government and corporations becomes UNQUESTIONABLE TRUTH, not merely an assumption, a hypothesis or a theory subject to revision according to new facts unearthed.
An assumption can never be called into question because you don't know it's there.
It has been presented to the very young in their own language, the language of the bully in the play yard, and presented to be true by authority in the form of the teacher.
Every time a parent says, "listen to the teacher" "sit still in class" "don't act out" "don't pester the teacher with questions, you'll get bad grades" -- every time a parent reinforces a teacher's authority, the result is more assumptions driven into the child's mind that will become unquestionable assumptions later in life (which might be good if the assumptions stay reliable throughout the child's lifetime).
Was this done to you?
Are you doing it to your children?
Have you ever had to change any "fact" you learned in school?
Look at this: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/11/discovery-pushes-human-tool-use-years/
Every so often, we have to revise what we know to be true. Are you preparing your children to do that?
What has all that to do with the HEA?
If you live in the world I've described above, you have been taught by these zero-sum-game based philosophical methods that you are not qualified to live the HEA - that it's not realistic to expect your life to reach HEA. It's not even "right" to try because if you get an HEA life, that means you took it away from someone else! (zero-sum-game - there isn't enough happiness in the world to go around - you win, someone else loses.)
It's not realistic because not everyone can be a winner.
How do you know that?
Because in that same grammar school class that taught you about big bad corporations, you learned that only some kids in class can get an A, and a few more a B, most will get C's, and a few D's and F's -- or whatever numerical or euphemistic substitute for those grades is used.
The use of euphemisms like "needs improvement" "excels" etc does not mask the fact that it's a zero-sum-game. School is graded on a curve, and eventually we learn what that means. A few are chosen to be winners, and all the rest of us lose because those winners took away our right to win.
There can be only 10% or fewer A's, or "Excels" in a class. Not everybody can "excel" or "excel" means nothing.
Whether they know it or not, all teachers are taught that statistically humans fall on a bell curve and it's their job to sort out the top 10% for college bound.
The rest are "workers." Oppressed, you will see, if you read the first part of this series WORLDBUILDING WITH FIRE AND ICE on October 26, 2010.
The only way you can ever begin to even wonder if any of that is true is to question the assumption that reality is a zero-sum-game, inherently, intrinsically and realistically, there really is only so much good crop land, only so much drinkable water, only so much gold mine country, only so much uranium, only so much zinc, copper, oil, and only so many can be happy. The only way to be happy is to "win" -- so that means half lose.
But if you win, you did it by being a bully, so you have to be miserable with what you've won. Which half of humanity then can have an HEA?
We have to organize into countries big enough and mean enough to fight and win those critical resources or we will die.
Our big, muscular HE-MAN MEN must "fight for us" and win, so we can be protected to raise our children to fight and win.
It's all about competing and winning. Competition is the only correct way to organize human beings. It brings out the best in us.
We MUST compete with each other, and we must be the winner. And only winners then get to have children.
Therefore, if you hold the unconscious assumption (possibly implanted, possibly actually true) that you are not a winner, you have only one logical recourse - rise up and smite the winners and take what they have (i.e. raise taxes on the rich).
In that universe, there can be no HEA for anyone.
If you win Happily Ever After, it won't bring you happiness because you got it by taking it away from someone else. And you know in your heart that the someone you deprived will rise up and take what you took from them.
Why would it bother you that you caused someone pain so you could win? If you didn't snatch what happiness you can, someone else would take it - probably waste it, too. After all, you can do better with resources than others.
If you live in a universe where the only way to satisfy your heart's desire is by preventing someone else from satisfying their heart's desire -- i.e. you have to GET A MAN by "winning" him away from some other woman in a contest of beauty or fellatio, and the only way to hold a man (whether he prefers to be held or not) is by doing something you'd really rather not do because "men can't help it" -- then your happiness is achieved at the expense of someone else's misery.
Now we elevate this discussion to a dimension few are willing to access.
As far as I know, the only universe of discourse where the zero-sum-game assumption about reality can be questioned (not dispensed with, just questioned) is the universe where the Soul is real.
The part of you that prevents you from exulting totally in causing others misery is what we call the Soul.
OK, maybe SPIRIT. Conscience?
Maybe some other term applies. But it's a non-tangible, immortal part of Self that matters more than "here and now" because its joy and its pain is eternal. It's the part of you that's miserable when you lose, and can't be happy when you win because that means someone else lost. It's the non-sportsman in you. It's where your Charity comes from, where your Hope and Joy reside.
And there is some part of every human's awareness that connects to that dimension.
But that connection is like a switch. It's not always open. Sometimes it rusts shut.
In my personal philosophy, judging whether that rusted-shut switch's condition is good or bad for you is above my pay grade. I just use it in characterization.
I think there are people who need to be cut off from their awareness of the existence of their Soul, Spirit or whatever you want to call it, at least for part of their life.
There are people who need to be fully in touch. Sometimes switch's rust can be dissolved by Love.
Most people are sporadically and partially aware, or just aspire to repeat moments of contact through an open connection.
Whoever you are and however you are, you're just fine. You'll change when you're ready - opening or closing that contact as you need to in order to accomplish your purposes in life and beyond.
My attitude is, it's none of my business. I have enough on my own plate.
But given the notion that there exists such a thing as a non-material part of a human being, the whole "model of the universe" thing changes.
The worlds you can, as a writer, build to tell stories in become richer, deeper, more complex, harder to handle, but ever so much more realistic (to me anyway).
If the Soul is real, there may in fact be SOUL MATES -- in which case, the HEA becomes an inevitable end-point for each of us, not a ridiculous fantasy that's not "realistic."
If you live your life wearing blinders, refusing to question the zero-sum-game model of the universe because answers would be dangerous, confusing, or doom you to being a loser, then you don't dare accept the HEA except as a pie-in-the-sky fantasy achievable in real life only by the chosen few, and then only temporarily.
If you live your life totally aware of your own Soul, and can see the Soul behind the eyes of others, and know there is a Divine Spirit somehow intimately interacting with this world and your personal life, then when you get to the HEA in a novel that reflects the particular Soul hypothesis you are using, you are emotionally satisfied.
If you live your life putting your blinders on to function in a corporate environment, in the world of science, and peeking around them during your family time, then quickly taking them off for an hour once a week to worship, then the HEA will attract you, reassure you, seem somehow RIGHT, but it's just a novel. Real life is not so simple. But you'll never stop striving for your own happiness without taking it away from others.
Awareness of Soul makes people unable to tolerate being the agent of deprivation and pain to others.
Now, it's true, many people who scoff at the notion of Soul and are committed to explaining all human behavior with brain chemistry and science, people who have been successful commanding the Overton Window to move to where they want it, are equally unable to tolerate being the agent of pain to others.
In fact, MOST of the people involved in "Progressive" or "Liberal" causes, helping the poor, running free clinics, fighting AIDs in Africa, bravely standing up to corporate bullies with Green Peace ships are purely motivated to alleviate human suffering everywhere once and for all and forever.
And frankly, I'd stand with them, put my life on the line with them. I hold nothing back from these causes. They are my causes and always have been. Green energy, anti-global warming measures, reducing our collateral ecological damage -- walking softly in the world, caring for our environment, all of that is core principle with me.
But how many of them are fighting with all their might because they see the world as a zero-sum-game while at the same time feeling their Souls aching for the unfortunate, the poor, and the victims of corporate greed (which is also very real).
How many of them have a good solid plan for what they'll do when they've WON and thus caused someone else to lose?
On the one hand, you feel your Soul, you know it's real.
On the other hand, you feel your Body, and you know you must fight for the resources to stay alive.
Something is telling you it isn't right, it isn't just, that some people don't have and it's up to everyone to keep all humans safe.
You demand your HEA and won't give up your zero-sum-game fight-and-win scenario.
There's a High Concept film in that conundrum. Think about it.
Turn around now and take another look at politics.
My stand on politics is that no politician should ever be allowed to hold public office.
The steering decisions for a whole country, state, even county, should not be made by compromise. You can't find the right answer to a problem by partially giving up a principle.
I don't want anyone fighting for me, or fighting for my rights, or my anything.
You can't get anything worth having by winning.
So what do you do instead?
Become more interested in what is right rather than who is right.
Argue until you, cooperatively as a group, figure out a right answer. (not THE right answer - there are lots of right answers, usually only a very few really wrong ones)
Govern by consensus not compromise? That's never yet worked, though compromise has sputtered along for the 200 years or so the USA has used it. We need to think some more.
The problem is this Overton Window thing that allows a few people to manipulate consensus to be what they want it to be. So everyone has to be armored against unconscious assumptions in grammar school, trained to be very aware of their personal philosophy but knowing theirs isn't any better or worse than anyone else's.
We'd have to immunize our children to the Overton Window. It would take a new philosophy. (Isn't that what SF/F writers are supposed to be doing?)
Some philosophies though, are more effective and efficient at producing an HEA style life. Fiction exploring the possibilities could be a "pen mightier than the sword" moment for humanity.
Think of the Blind Men And The Elephant. The men are all correct, all have an opinion that isn't the truth, but they won't know it until they stop fighting and start cooperating to create the total holographic, 3-dimensional image from all the fragmented points of view.
Right now, we don't combine our philosophies, we fight to win by cramming our philosophy down someone else's throat.
The zero-sum-game assumptions require that we must fight.
Look again at this entire election process and the results, scrutinize everything that's being said, everything "they" are making you feel, and try to see how to question the underlying zero-sum-game philosophical assumption they are cramming down your throat.
Ask yourself who benefits if you swallow their assumption that all life is fighting and not everyone can win.
Now think about all the discussions we've had about Love, and how Love Conquers All isn't just a novel theme, it's actually true about real reality.
Love is the most powerful binding force in the universe.
If the universe is constructed in such a way that Love Conquers All, how can it possibly be a zero-sum-game?
If "All" is conquered, there is only one winner -- ALL.
What is "all"? - it includes you but is not limited to you.
You see why I don't want politicians fighting for me? The more fighting, the less Love.
Fighting doesn't conquer anything, least of all All.
You can't win by fighting, just as you can't get rid of starfish in your clam beds by cutting the starfish in half and throwing the halves back in the water. The more you fight, the more enemies you have.
When you start to fight, you lose. If you win, you're miserable because you caused someone else misery. If you lose, you're miserable because you don't have what you went after.
It's the zero-sum-game model of the universe that causes people to reject the HEA, to be unable to feel the emotion generated by novels that lead, however logically, to the HEA.
The zero-sum-game model of the universe has become an unquestionable assumption at the bottom level of our subconscious minds. You don't even know you believe it, or how it limits your actions.
To gain acceptance for the HEA, artists must successfully challenge the zero-sum-game philosophy by worldbuilding with Fire and Ice.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com
CAUTION: don't for a moment think that I'm a "Conservative" -- or for that matter "Progressive" or "Liberal" -- the "politics" that describes my personal philosophy does not exist on this Earth and as far as I know never has yet. I'm not arguing either side of this issue. I'm examining why the HEA is so universally scoffed at.
We began in Part I of Worldbuilding With Fire And Ice on October 26, 2010, discussing Glenn Beck and noted:
Maybe he's right - maybe not. Our question is, "Does it matter?"
And to whom does it matter? And what can we do with that information?
In my blog post "Glenn Beck Did Not Invent The Overton Window" (October 19, 2010, aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com ) I mentioned that I disagree (personally) with some of what Beck is "selling" (and he uses a "hard sell" technique right out of his enemy's playbook). But I don't disagree with all of it.
So what do I disagree with and why should you care?
As I pointed out in the October 19th 2010 post on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com Glenn Beck is moving the Overton Window, or trying to, or maybe just doing it inadvertently in response to commercial demands and pressures.
He got the concept of the Overton Window from a Think Tank which got it from some mathematicians researching how to describe the behavior of large numbers of people making decisions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
That mathematics is employed by advertisers to make people buy products. It's proven stuff and it works.
The Mackinac Center http://www.mackinac.org/7504 -- uses this math to describe the political behavior of people by the millions while advertising uses it to shape preferences for brands of toothpaste or perfume. There isn't enough profit in novels to afford to hire those folks to sell a novel -- but film producers definitely use their services.
This math is not just statistics, it's a method of changing what the majority hold to be true and unquestioned. It can change what is deemed "politically correct."
And it has.
The entire technique is rooted in a view of the universe based on the "zero-sum-game" -- which is why this branch of mathematics came from and informs game-theory. (which is why video games have become so popular; they depict and infuse the player with the zero-sum-game philosophy).
That the physical universe is a zero-sum-game becomes an unconscious assumption.
That the social universe is a zero-sum-game becomes an unconscious assumption.
That the economic universe is a zero-sum-game becomes an unconscious assumption.
Nowhere in our mainstream, Hollywood films, Manhattan publishing, nowhere in the big money, high capital cost/high profit margin business models do we see evidence of anything but a zero-sum-game model of the universe.
The biggest TV audiences are drawn by sports - and every professional sport is based on the zero-sum-game model of reality. I win means you lose.
I win causes you to lose.
"There Can Be Only One"
In Part II we noted that it seems (to me, and others) that the Socialist and Communist views of the world are based on this zero-sum-game model.
The reason that some people are poor is that other people are rich.
That's connected as cause-effect. The only way that rich people get rich is by taking away from (oppressing) "workers" who work themselves to death for bare subsistence wages and there is no way for these hard working, upstanding, deserving workers to get rich other than to demand justice from the rich who have stolen the product of the worker's sweat and tears. (That's not all pure fantasy either. There is proof it has happened, but not that it must be the only way it can ever happen.)
The theory is that there is a limited amount of "rich" -- You win means I lose.
Well, I won't stand for that. I'm taking your win away from you right now! And that's only justice. I demand justice.
The clear, clean, beyond question obviousness of this point of view is simply irrefutable.
If you are inherently incapable of questioning the unconscious assumption about the nature of reality rooted in the zero-sum-game model, you can not rationally come to any other conclusion than that the rich are rich because they suck the life-juices out of the poor.
The rich are "winners" and the poor are "losers."
Put another way, the poor are "losers" BECAUSE the rich are "winners." AND THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!
It's simply too obvious to be denied by any rational person.
The HEA, the HAPPILY EVER AFTER ending, can not be had by all!
It's pie in the sky. Only certain "chosen" golden children ever dare aspire to happiness, and YOU ARE NOT CHOSEN. Therefore you must fight yourself, using all your energy to subdue your inner self. See the example I found involving oral sex in Part II (posted November 2, 2010 on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com).
But why is it obvious?
Well, look at marriage, especially through the prism of that item on oral sex in marriage. Look at our most intimate relationships. Look at how parents raise children. Look back on how your parents raised you.
From the child's point of view, "because I said so" is how parents rule -- and parents get their way because they're big.
If parents "negotiate" with a child before the child is really old enough to process all the variables at once, the parent is seen as weak, incompetent, manipulatable, and the child gets an inflated view of Self.
There is a corporate executive training program that companies pay thousands and thousands of dollars to put their trainees and new hires through. The program teaches "YOU DON'T GET WHAT YOU DESERVE; YOU GET WHAT YOU NEGOTIATE."
And it teaches the art of negotiation as a form of warfare.
Warfare has always been practiced as a zero-sum-game. Our professional sports are modeled after warfare. Corporate culture is modeled on football.
Our culture has forced us to adopt the zero-sum-game model of the universe by excluding any other style activities from your notice (yes, such activities exist but you are flimflammed into not-noticing or not-recognizing them).
Now look at the dust-up recently on bullying in the school yards and how much damage that does to children that then subsequently shapes their potential as adults.
Parents have come out passionately against bullying in school yards. Teachers and school administrators must stop the bullying - it's the school's responsibility to protect my child against bullies.
But where do bullies come from?
How many really creative people have admitted in biographies that they were bullied, and thus forced to learn a response?
How many chimp studies have examined chimp tribes and bullying, or jockeying for pecking order among say, ducks.
Should we intervene in the society of children to stop bullying?
It's an unexamined assumption among parents that their child must not be bullied. (which doesn't mean it's wrong; just not thought out carefully)
It's an unexamined assumption among the parents of children that do the bullying that their child is showing leadership potential, a winner's profile, not a loser's profile, and their pride (however secret even from themselves) knows no bounds. WINNER means NOT LOSER.
Why must our children not "be bullied?"
Recent research on mice has shown us a possible chemical mechanism for the end result of having been bullied.
See my post on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com on October 12, 2010 titled GENETIC MECHANISM BY WHICH LOVE CONQUERS ALL
Yeah, we're still on the HEA subject.
The mice that had repeated lost fights with other mice in that experiment showed a later life tendency to be timid, not to fight for their place, and not to explore.
Dissection of their brains revealed a chemical in the submissive mice's brains, wrapped around their genes, that wasn't present in the mice that had not lost the fights. These chemicals wrap around the genes and allow or suppress expression of the genes.
So we have a purely chemical (not spiritual or soul-based) explanation of how it is that kids who are bullied in school yards grow up to become submissive - and don't explore.
"Explore" for a mouse is a kind of boldness.
We're talking about the kind of boldness that makes human beings explore questions, that makes human beings question unconscious assumptions being "sold" to them by clever mathematicians manipulating the Overton Window. To question authority, such as teachers.
Because of human creativity, artistic talent, a lot of bullied kids turn out to be the boldest questioners. Maybe they get bullied because they are artistic?
But most don't turn out to be artists.
Allowing school-yard bullying while assuring the parents "we're doing all we can" (God Forbid anyone in this world should heroically exceed their abilities and actually grow as a person and a hero by doing something they can't do - something outside their job description!) is one of many ways to create a pliable and obedient population.
Allowing schools to teach "the truth" (carefully editing textbooks) keeps children from being confused, feeling threatened, and needing to think before deciding or expressing an opinion.
They grow up to be adults who want "the government" (or someone) to keep them safe.
Since they never learned in school that one of the basic principles that made the USA successful as a country is that the police do not prevent crime, they expect to live in a crime free world where police prevent crime.
However, in principle, the police (and all criminal statutes) are aimed only at people who have actually done criminal deeds -- and thus the police (an arm of government) can act only after the fact, lest government gain power over individuals. That is, the majority must never inhibit the exploration activities of any individual. Freedom of thought, religion, speech - all rests on the concept that the Police must not prevent any activity.
Under no circumstances can any arm of government ever be allowed to prevent anyone from doing anything. Government must not be allowed control.
Yeah, they don't teach that in school any more, but it was a core principle in the civics classes in my grammar school, and today it is a fully examined and questioned assumption of mine -- though it started out as unquestioned.
Today, however, "Crime Prevention" (another sobriquet promulgated by those with a very specific political agenda) is lauded, and when it fails people are so offended they throw out their elected officials who failed to prevent crime. Remember we're talking about the plausibility of the HEA here. You can't have happiness if your expectations regarding safety and predictability are not met.
We're missing a social mechanism that damps down if not prevents aberrant behavior, keeps it at a tolerable level where expectations are mostly met.
Today huge, massively funded federal agencies are devoted to public safety - and to protecting consumers.
The government's role is primarily to protect us (seal the borders, for example). Very often we are being protected from ourselves -- pharmaceuticals legal in Europe can't be sold here because they would undercut the market of some big pharma company here, but we're told we are being protected from potential harm caused by our own bad decisions.
But big corporations are seen as bullies because they're big.
Glenn Beck showed (I caught a quick clip of this channel surfing) a cartoon line-drawing animation that is being shown in schools to instruct kids on the relationship between corporations and government.
The government was shown as a small image, a neat, clean straight line drawing, of I think, a building. The corporation was shown as a huge, round, blown-up quasi-human image -- something like humpty-dumpty is often drawn. Bloated and distorted.
The corporations were noted to be bigger than government, and positioned by artistic composition to be menacing the little government.
Any reasonable person, especially someone bullied as a child, would conclude that government must be grown bigger to face down the ugly big bully corporations. That's how we conquer schoolyard bullies - we grow larger, hit harder or get friends to gang up on them with us.
This is a truth that becomes internalized as an unquestioned assumption. Government must grow or the world won't be safe. (maybe so, but who knows?)
Worse, the assumption becomes unconsciously processed because of the graphics - and I could see the art of this Overton Window mathematics behind that composition in the cartoon. As I said previously I don't see what most viewers see when I watch TV. This image of the relationship between government and corporations becomes UNQUESTIONABLE TRUTH, not merely an assumption, a hypothesis or a theory subject to revision according to new facts unearthed.
An assumption can never be called into question because you don't know it's there.
It has been presented to the very young in their own language, the language of the bully in the play yard, and presented to be true by authority in the form of the teacher.
Every time a parent says, "listen to the teacher" "sit still in class" "don't act out" "don't pester the teacher with questions, you'll get bad grades" -- every time a parent reinforces a teacher's authority, the result is more assumptions driven into the child's mind that will become unquestionable assumptions later in life (which might be good if the assumptions stay reliable throughout the child's lifetime).
Was this done to you?
Are you doing it to your children?
Have you ever had to change any "fact" you learned in school?
Look at this: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/08/11/discovery-pushes-human-tool-use-years/
Every so often, we have to revise what we know to be true. Are you preparing your children to do that?
What has all that to do with the HEA?
If you live in the world I've described above, you have been taught by these zero-sum-game based philosophical methods that you are not qualified to live the HEA - that it's not realistic to expect your life to reach HEA. It's not even "right" to try because if you get an HEA life, that means you took it away from someone else! (zero-sum-game - there isn't enough happiness in the world to go around - you win, someone else loses.)
It's not realistic because not everyone can be a winner.
How do you know that?
Because in that same grammar school class that taught you about big bad corporations, you learned that only some kids in class can get an A, and a few more a B, most will get C's, and a few D's and F's -- or whatever numerical or euphemistic substitute for those grades is used.
The use of euphemisms like "needs improvement" "excels" etc does not mask the fact that it's a zero-sum-game. School is graded on a curve, and eventually we learn what that means. A few are chosen to be winners, and all the rest of us lose because those winners took away our right to win.
There can be only 10% or fewer A's, or "Excels" in a class. Not everybody can "excel" or "excel" means nothing.
Whether they know it or not, all teachers are taught that statistically humans fall on a bell curve and it's their job to sort out the top 10% for college bound.
The rest are "workers." Oppressed, you will see, if you read the first part of this series WORLDBUILDING WITH FIRE AND ICE on October 26, 2010.
The only way you can ever begin to even wonder if any of that is true is to question the assumption that reality is a zero-sum-game, inherently, intrinsically and realistically, there really is only so much good crop land, only so much drinkable water, only so much gold mine country, only so much uranium, only so much zinc, copper, oil, and only so many can be happy. The only way to be happy is to "win" -- so that means half lose.
But if you win, you did it by being a bully, so you have to be miserable with what you've won. Which half of humanity then can have an HEA?
We have to organize into countries big enough and mean enough to fight and win those critical resources or we will die.
Our big, muscular HE-MAN MEN must "fight for us" and win, so we can be protected to raise our children to fight and win.
It's all about competing and winning. Competition is the only correct way to organize human beings. It brings out the best in us.
We MUST compete with each other, and we must be the winner. And only winners then get to have children.
Therefore, if you hold the unconscious assumption (possibly implanted, possibly actually true) that you are not a winner, you have only one logical recourse - rise up and smite the winners and take what they have (i.e. raise taxes on the rich).
In that universe, there can be no HEA for anyone.
If you win Happily Ever After, it won't bring you happiness because you got it by taking it away from someone else. And you know in your heart that the someone you deprived will rise up and take what you took from them.
Why would it bother you that you caused someone pain so you could win? If you didn't snatch what happiness you can, someone else would take it - probably waste it, too. After all, you can do better with resources than others.
If you live in a universe where the only way to satisfy your heart's desire is by preventing someone else from satisfying their heart's desire -- i.e. you have to GET A MAN by "winning" him away from some other woman in a contest of beauty or fellatio, and the only way to hold a man (whether he prefers to be held or not) is by doing something you'd really rather not do because "men can't help it" -- then your happiness is achieved at the expense of someone else's misery.
Now we elevate this discussion to a dimension few are willing to access.
As far as I know, the only universe of discourse where the zero-sum-game assumption about reality can be questioned (not dispensed with, just questioned) is the universe where the Soul is real.
The part of you that prevents you from exulting totally in causing others misery is what we call the Soul.
OK, maybe SPIRIT. Conscience?
Maybe some other term applies. But it's a non-tangible, immortal part of Self that matters more than "here and now" because its joy and its pain is eternal. It's the part of you that's miserable when you lose, and can't be happy when you win because that means someone else lost. It's the non-sportsman in you. It's where your Charity comes from, where your Hope and Joy reside.
And there is some part of every human's awareness that connects to that dimension.
But that connection is like a switch. It's not always open. Sometimes it rusts shut.
In my personal philosophy, judging whether that rusted-shut switch's condition is good or bad for you is above my pay grade. I just use it in characterization.
I think there are people who need to be cut off from their awareness of the existence of their Soul, Spirit or whatever you want to call it, at least for part of their life.
There are people who need to be fully in touch. Sometimes switch's rust can be dissolved by Love.
Most people are sporadically and partially aware, or just aspire to repeat moments of contact through an open connection.
Whoever you are and however you are, you're just fine. You'll change when you're ready - opening or closing that contact as you need to in order to accomplish your purposes in life and beyond.
My attitude is, it's none of my business. I have enough on my own plate.
But given the notion that there exists such a thing as a non-material part of a human being, the whole "model of the universe" thing changes.
The worlds you can, as a writer, build to tell stories in become richer, deeper, more complex, harder to handle, but ever so much more realistic (to me anyway).
If the Soul is real, there may in fact be SOUL MATES -- in which case, the HEA becomes an inevitable end-point for each of us, not a ridiculous fantasy that's not "realistic."
If you live your life wearing blinders, refusing to question the zero-sum-game model of the universe because answers would be dangerous, confusing, or doom you to being a loser, then you don't dare accept the HEA except as a pie-in-the-sky fantasy achievable in real life only by the chosen few, and then only temporarily.
If you live your life totally aware of your own Soul, and can see the Soul behind the eyes of others, and know there is a Divine Spirit somehow intimately interacting with this world and your personal life, then when you get to the HEA in a novel that reflects the particular Soul hypothesis you are using, you are emotionally satisfied.
If you live your life putting your blinders on to function in a corporate environment, in the world of science, and peeking around them during your family time, then quickly taking them off for an hour once a week to worship, then the HEA will attract you, reassure you, seem somehow RIGHT, but it's just a novel. Real life is not so simple. But you'll never stop striving for your own happiness without taking it away from others.
Awareness of Soul makes people unable to tolerate being the agent of deprivation and pain to others.
Now, it's true, many people who scoff at the notion of Soul and are committed to explaining all human behavior with brain chemistry and science, people who have been successful commanding the Overton Window to move to where they want it, are equally unable to tolerate being the agent of pain to others.
In fact, MOST of the people involved in "Progressive" or "Liberal" causes, helping the poor, running free clinics, fighting AIDs in Africa, bravely standing up to corporate bullies with Green Peace ships are purely motivated to alleviate human suffering everywhere once and for all and forever.
And frankly, I'd stand with them, put my life on the line with them. I hold nothing back from these causes. They are my causes and always have been. Green energy, anti-global warming measures, reducing our collateral ecological damage -- walking softly in the world, caring for our environment, all of that is core principle with me.
But how many of them are fighting with all their might because they see the world as a zero-sum-game while at the same time feeling their Souls aching for the unfortunate, the poor, and the victims of corporate greed (which is also very real).
How many of them have a good solid plan for what they'll do when they've WON and thus caused someone else to lose?
On the one hand, you feel your Soul, you know it's real.
On the other hand, you feel your Body, and you know you must fight for the resources to stay alive.
Something is telling you it isn't right, it isn't just, that some people don't have and it's up to everyone to keep all humans safe.
You demand your HEA and won't give up your zero-sum-game fight-and-win scenario.
There's a High Concept film in that conundrum. Think about it.
Turn around now and take another look at politics.
My stand on politics is that no politician should ever be allowed to hold public office.
The steering decisions for a whole country, state, even county, should not be made by compromise. You can't find the right answer to a problem by partially giving up a principle.
I don't want anyone fighting for me, or fighting for my rights, or my anything.
You can't get anything worth having by winning.
So what do you do instead?
Become more interested in what is right rather than who is right.
Argue until you, cooperatively as a group, figure out a right answer. (not THE right answer - there are lots of right answers, usually only a very few really wrong ones)
Govern by consensus not compromise? That's never yet worked, though compromise has sputtered along for the 200 years or so the USA has used it. We need to think some more.
The problem is this Overton Window thing that allows a few people to manipulate consensus to be what they want it to be. So everyone has to be armored against unconscious assumptions in grammar school, trained to be very aware of their personal philosophy but knowing theirs isn't any better or worse than anyone else's.
We'd have to immunize our children to the Overton Window. It would take a new philosophy. (Isn't that what SF/F writers are supposed to be doing?)
Some philosophies though, are more effective and efficient at producing an HEA style life. Fiction exploring the possibilities could be a "pen mightier than the sword" moment for humanity.
Think of the Blind Men And The Elephant. The men are all correct, all have an opinion that isn't the truth, but they won't know it until they stop fighting and start cooperating to create the total holographic, 3-dimensional image from all the fragmented points of view.
Right now, we don't combine our philosophies, we fight to win by cramming our philosophy down someone else's throat.
The zero-sum-game assumptions require that we must fight.
Look again at this entire election process and the results, scrutinize everything that's being said, everything "they" are making you feel, and try to see how to question the underlying zero-sum-game philosophical assumption they are cramming down your throat.
Ask yourself who benefits if you swallow their assumption that all life is fighting and not everyone can win.
Now think about all the discussions we've had about Love, and how Love Conquers All isn't just a novel theme, it's actually true about real reality.
Love is the most powerful binding force in the universe.
If the universe is constructed in such a way that Love Conquers All, how can it possibly be a zero-sum-game?
If "All" is conquered, there is only one winner -- ALL.
What is "all"? - it includes you but is not limited to you.
You see why I don't want politicians fighting for me? The more fighting, the less Love.
Fighting doesn't conquer anything, least of all All.
You can't win by fighting, just as you can't get rid of starfish in your clam beds by cutting the starfish in half and throwing the halves back in the water. The more you fight, the more enemies you have.
When you start to fight, you lose. If you win, you're miserable because you caused someone else misery. If you lose, you're miserable because you don't have what you went after.
It's the zero-sum-game model of the universe that causes people to reject the HEA, to be unable to feel the emotion generated by novels that lead, however logically, to the HEA.
The zero-sum-game model of the universe has become an unquestionable assumption at the bottom level of our subconscious minds. You don't even know you believe it, or how it limits your actions.
To gain acceptance for the HEA, artists must successfully challenge the zero-sum-game philosophy by worldbuilding with Fire and Ice.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Links You May Have Missed
Basically, I've amused myself with the labels, and also with alliteration. I thought I'd share a list of some of the places on the internet that I've been.
Sites that I've bookmarked this week:
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (you value more what you have to work harder to obtain)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/la-heb-food-hard-to-get-20111105,0,6232759.story
Fantasy world-building
http://www.sfwa.org/2009/08/fantasy-worldbuilding-questions/
The well-being of sperm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bpa-semen-quality
Neanderthals Live On
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ozzy-osbourne-genome
Or maybe they don't
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dna-sequence-may-be-lost-in-tr
Did We Mate With Neanderthals Or Eat Them?
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/nov/30-did-we-mate-with-neanderthals-or-murder-them
Motivated Reasoning (Believing what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence)
http://www.skepdic.com/motivatedreasoning.html
Critique of the Kindle and its ilk, and gobsmacking ignorance about copyright law
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-trouble-with-e-readers&page=2&posted=1#comments
One ripped-off author
http://www.kpho.com/news/25653553/detail.html
Ripping (Rightly) Into (an alleged) Ripper-Offer
http://illadore.livejournal.com/30674.html
http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/1
A lot of good info about copyright and a who's who of professionals who care passionately about plagiarism and copyright infringement.
For Lovers Of Lists (10 Things You Didn't Know...)
http://discovermagazine.com/columns/20-things-you-didnt-know
Do let me know which you enjoyed most, if any!
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Sites that I've bookmarked this week:
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (you value more what you have to work harder to obtain)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/la-heb-food-hard-to-get-20111105,0,6232759.story
Fantasy world-building
http://www.sfwa.org/2009/08/fantasy-worldbuilding-questions/
The well-being of sperm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bpa-semen-quality
Neanderthals Live On
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ozzy-osbourne-genome
Or maybe they don't
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dna-sequence-may-be-lost-in-tr
Did We Mate With Neanderthals Or Eat Them?
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/nov/30-did-we-mate-with-neanderthals-or-murder-them
Motivated Reasoning (Believing what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence)
http://www.skepdic.com/motivatedreasoning.html
Critique of the Kindle and its ilk, and gobsmacking ignorance about copyright law
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-trouble-with-e-readers&page=2&posted=1#comments
One ripped-off author
http://www.kpho.com/news/25653553/detail.html
Ripping (Rightly) Into (an alleged) Ripper-Offer
http://illadore.livejournal.com/30674.html
http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/1
A lot of good info about copyright and a who's who of professionals who care passionately about plagiarism and copyright infringement.
For Lovers Of Lists (10 Things You Didn't Know...)
http://discovermagazine.com/columns/20-things-you-didnt-know
Do let me know which you enjoyed most, if any!
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Friday, November 05, 2010
Which Cover Do You Like Better?
These are works in progress, so I know that the photoshopping is not perfect, but before the images are refined and the layers locked, I should like to know what is good, and what needs work.
I intend to put Insufficient Mating Material out as an e-book, and my own personal taste does not matter.
I need a look that will stand out and intrigue.
I'd like to give a shout out to Judy and Marianne of Goddessfish.com who are helping me, and also to Kim McDougall of Blazing Trailers, who has shared her expert opinions most generously.
Thanks for any constructive comments.
Rowena Cherry
I intend to put Insufficient Mating Material out as an e-book, and my own personal taste does not matter.
I need a look that will stand out and intrigue.
I'd like to give a shout out to Judy and Marianne of Goddessfish.com who are helping me, and also to Kim McDougall of Blazing Trailers, who has shared her expert opinions most generously.
Thanks for any constructive comments.
Rowena Cherry
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Erasing Memories
According to a report in the Baltimore SUN on Tuesday, researchers at Johns Hopkins University have been working on deleting memories of frightening events from the brains of mice. "Removing a protein from the region of the brain responsible for recalling fear means they can permanently delete traumatic memories." If this process can eventually be applied to human beings, scientists may be able to erase the memories of traumatic events. Not just eliminate the emotion of fear, not soften the memory, but get rid of the fear by obliterating recall of the event that induced it. Richard L. Huganir, a neuroscience professor, hopes this technique may become usable along with traditional therapy to cure the debilitating effect of severe post-traumatic stress in human patients.
A worthy goal, but is that the way we really want PTSD healed? If the emotional pain could be softened or removed while the memories themselves remained, wouldn't most sufferers prefer that outcome? (I think I would.) Doesn't losing important pieces of memory amount to losing parts of the self? The assumption of therapists who try to "recover" supposedly buried memories of horrific experiences seems to be that burying the memories has an emotionally crippling effect and uncovering them leads to liberation. (Irrelevant, for this topic, is the question of whether most if not all "recovered memories" are iatrogenic, as I believe they are, based on what I've read. But the point is still valid.) The idea of selectively erasing records stored in the brain brings to mind lots of dystopic science fiction. Wouldn't choosing to forget important parts of one's life, no matter how painful, mean choosing to live in an illusion? Speculative fiction writers have been warning us against that kind of "happiness" at least as far back as BRAVE NEW WORLD.
I tried to find a link by searching the Baltimore SUN page but didn't have any luck. It's a short article, anyway, without many details other than what I've mentioned.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's Crypt
A worthy goal, but is that the way we really want PTSD healed? If the emotional pain could be softened or removed while the memories themselves remained, wouldn't most sufferers prefer that outcome? (I think I would.) Doesn't losing important pieces of memory amount to losing parts of the self? The assumption of therapists who try to "recover" supposedly buried memories of horrific experiences seems to be that burying the memories has an emotionally crippling effect and uncovering them leads to liberation. (Irrelevant, for this topic, is the question of whether most if not all "recovered memories" are iatrogenic, as I believe they are, based on what I've read. But the point is still valid.) The idea of selectively erasing records stored in the brain brings to mind lots of dystopic science fiction. Wouldn't choosing to forget important parts of one's life, no matter how painful, mean choosing to live in an illusion? Speculative fiction writers have been warning us against that kind of "happiness" at least as far back as BRAVE NEW WORLD.
I tried to find a link by searching the Baltimore SUN page but didn't have any luck. It's a short article, anyway, without many details other than what I've mentioned.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's Crypt
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Worldbuilding With Fire And Ice Part II
CAUTION: don't for a moment think that I'm a "Conservative" -- or for that matter "Progressive" or "Liberal" -- the "politics" that describes my personal philosophy does not exist on this Earth and as far as I know never has yet.
Furthermore, I'm not at all sure I know what my politics is. I just know that I'll know it when I see it - and haven't seen it yet. What my political position is, though, is very relevant, so if you pay attention you may discover something about me that even I don't yet know. Listen carefully now.
Previously in Part I, Worldbuilding With Fire And Ice,
posted on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com on October 26th, 2010,
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/10/worldbuilding-with-fire-and-ice-part-i.html
we noted how "Communists" had taken over Hollywood and McCarthy went after them in a Witch Hunt mode and created "blacklist" status for people who didn't deserve or earn that exclusion.
I told you that if you don't recall learning about the McCarthy Hearings in school - google it up. It's important to understand that he created an "Inquisition" atmosphere, "demonizing" people and institutions.
The personal, raging passion he poured into that project obscured any actual truth he might have discovered. He destroyed the innocent and very often missed the guilty, setting the stage for a real takeover of Hollywood by a very specific group with a very specific philosophy.
Eventually, decades later, anyone who stood against their philosophy was denied success in Hollywood.
Today, projects which would reach vast audiences have to be shaped to exemplify that now institutionalized philosophy.
Audiences are just looking to be entertained, value for a buck. They don't care about philosophy. It's abstract and irrelevant to the thrill, kick, payoff of the "ending." But when everything you entertain yourself with conforms to a certain philosophy, it becomes an unquestionable truth within the unconscious part of your mind. It becomes your philosophy by which you make judgments and behave, regardless of what you think you believe or want or prefer to believe.
It's the steady diet that does that.
The entertainment diet has become steady, and it projects the philosophy (via the theme) that there's no such thing as an HEA in real life, and you are a fool or idiot if you believe there is. You're a mark, a patsy, a sub-standard human being if you can't accept "reality" and understand that you will never be rich, beautiful, or successful.
Only "superheros" or fantasy characters ever achieve. Enjoy it in a story but understand that it's not real, and you can not have it.
Glenn Beck is pointing out (with a copy on his website glennbeck.com ) that the Weather Underground manifesto declares, as an article of faith, that the rich are rich because they "oppress" the poor. Only certain people are chosen to become rich, and your name is not on that list.
Being rich (i.e. successful, popular, powerful) is only for the elite in this world, and that elite makes it their business to see to it that you never become one of them.
The sobriquet is "class warfare."
Forget the "class" part of that and wrap your mind about the "warfare" part of that concept.
That concept is built on a specific view of the universe, and can be "sold" only to those who share that view of the universe.
I've discussed that view of the universe in many, many posts here, since my first post in June of 2006.
It is called the "zero sum game" view of the universe.
In that view of the universe (that philosophy) to have anything means that someone else does not have it.
If you win, that means I lose. Everything has to balance out to zero. There is only a limited amount of any resource, and it is "human nature" (inescapable) that "life" means fighting to the death with each other over possession of limited resources.
The only spiritual and just solution that Communists and Socialists and other ists and isms can see to this problem (total failure of imagination there - or deliberately misleading?) of Life Is A Zero Sum Game is to take your resources from you.
The view of the universe is simply that the reason "I" don't have is that "You" do have.
The Universe is finite, resources scarce and exhaustible.
That is as obviously true as it is obvious that the world is either flat or bowl shaped, but certainly not round. I mean, I can see it. How can seeing not be believing?
And that's how people now view the HEA -- nobody has a Happily Ever After life! The divorce rate is 50 percent after 5 years. When was the last time you saw a celebrity magazine displaying a perfect celebrity marriage?
A few decades ago, in the Babyboomer generation, the birthrate of females outstripped the birthrate of males, and as a result we have an adult population with a lot of single women living alone.
The "nuclear family" has disintegrated. "Leave It To Beaver" and "The Brady Bunch" "The Waltons" were the last of their ilk on TV. Films do not depict family life, raising kids, and a conflict that originates outside the family unit that the family must pull together to resolve.
Occasionally, there's a heart-rending film of a dog saving some kid's life, of a couple moving to Alaska and learning hard lessons about independence from civilization.
But watch the old classics rerun on TV or downloaded, and you'll see they depict a different world, thematically.
There has been a tectonic shift in the underpinnings and belief systems of the world we live in, and this is reflected in both fiction and non-fiction.
I'm not passing "judgment" on the nature of this shift, just noting it as part of "the problem" we have set ourselves to solve, the problem of the HEA and its place in the entertainment world.
I was in a waiting room recently, and picked up a women's magazine because there was no TIME or NEWSWEEK or WIRED or DISCOVER. I learned a lot just looking at the advertisements, the ink colors, the composition of pages, the COST vs. PRICE of the magazine, the number of words on a page and the size of the fonts used. I didn't get a chance to do the same to FIELD AND STREAM.
But the women's magazine had several Q&A sections where putative readers send in questions some "expert" then answers. It's an article style. The truth is the authors create the questions for most of those columns and use few of the questions actually sent in by readers.
One question was from a woman asking if she really-really had to give her husband oral sex to prevent her marriage from breaking up citing an "ick factor" in the process.
The answer was an unequivocal YES YOU DO and specific instructions on how, when, where, how to get over the "ick factor" and how much pleasure she could get from getting over her neurosis that is preventing her from giving her husband pleasure which is the only true basis for a marriage.
That is advice geared to or representing a non-HEA worldview. It is advice that comes straight out of the "zero-sum-game" view of the universe. There is only one way to win, and you must win or you lose and someone else will get your "possession" that you treasure most (i.e. another woman.)
If you don't win, you lose Happiness.
Furthermore, if your personal preferences and beliefs aren't exactly just precisely SO, then you deserve to lose -- because you aren't qualified to be one of the winners.
Or worse yet - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HAPPINESS, there is no HEA, you have to pretend you have it by doing something repugnant to you. It will always be repugnant to you, but you must do it to keep what you have. Just get over it and be an adult about it.
It is natural to men to demand a woman do something repugnant to herself; (actually the answer said this) - MEN CAN'T HELP IT. All women have to give in to male "natural" inclinations or lose their husbands. (this article is talking to young women who live among a 50% divorce rate and celebrities who can't stay married more than a couple years).
Again, I'm not passing a value judgment here. I'm illustrating how a PHILOSOPHY materializes as a "show don't tell" -- which soaks in and becomes an unquestioned assumption.
Assumptions aren't in and of themselves bad.
We need our assumptions, our shortcuts, or we couldn't function in this rapid-fire world. Our brains are hardwired to solve complex problems by applying a series of pre-created assumptions to the problem -- you live or die by your assessment of the danger of the saber toothed tiger.
What is problematic (not bad, mind you, problematic and thus fodder for plot-conflicts and resolutions gallore including the inevitability of the HEA) is the "unquestioned" part of the "assumption" matrix that commands behavior.
The "unquestioning" part of our assumption matrix is the meat-and-potatoes of the artist, the writer. It's the area where you can manipulate your readership - but only if you've questioned your own assumptions to a fair-thee-well.
How do you learn to do that? Aha, Election Season is an ideal time! Watch candidate commercials and read the literature carefully, listen to your emotions, watch how they jerk you around, play on sympathies, make their answer to problems seem inevitable, natural, obvious, and the only choice of reasonable people.
"Only" being the operative word - there are no other solutions because it's a zero-sum-game; we know that because "reality" is all based on football, isn't it?
At the moment, politicians and their advertising and publicity teams are using your unquestioned assumptions against you. Elections are a zero-sum-game - one wins, the other loses, and that's obvious isn't it? You have an either-or choice to make, black and white, zero-sum.
Elections are set up that way, maybe on purpose. The reason for that is an unquestioned assumption in our world (one of those assumptions I haven't caught Glenn Beck questioning, and therefore his rants don't touch me persuasively) Life is a zero-sum-game, like football or all sports. One wins, the other loses, and it has to be that way. Don't you dare question that. You might get confused.
Many of these unquestioned assumptions are implanted in school (no matter how long ago you went to school).
Schools are set up to "make it clear" to young people so they won't be confused by things like whether the theory of Evolution is true, or really Creationism is true -- of course, only one can be true which makes the other false, a zero-sum game so it'll all be clear. We have to tell children the truth so they won't be confused.
Some of your unquestioned assumptions have come from the "steady diet" of entertainment mentioned above. Having only one philosophy represented in your entertainment (Traditional Publishers are pretty close to that now) keeps things clear in your mind. We can't have you getting confused.
Some other assumptions came from your parents, your religious training, your college buddies, your first sexual experience.
Some have come from corporate training and on-the-job-training in how to behave in a corporate culture.
Many sets of these assumptions contradict each other and thus introduce anxiety sources that are very confusing, so we learn to keep our minds compartmentalized -- religion is only for an hour on Sunday, whew! We can't have religion in the workplace or workplace values in Sunday School.
We've been carefully trained from grammar school up never, ever, to let ourselves get confused. Anyone's opinion is just as good as anyone else's, regardless of what unconscious assumptions they're basing their opinions on because we all share the same unconscious assumptions (sobriquet, "Political Correctness.")
In previous posts we've been exploring how we might be able to boost a true Romance Genre film into "High Concept Opens Everywhere Blockbuster" status and "sell" the HEA to the general audience as a true depiction of real life, a plausible and necessary story-ending.
It may be happening as we speak. Check out this film which I discovered on thegalaxyexpress.net
The Adjustment Bureau
We "know" the HEA is real and true, it's our unconscious assumption, but not shared by everyone. The artist, the performing artist, the writer must be able to see the world through the eyes of people who have unconscious assumptions (Philosophies) different from the writer's and explain one reader's assumptions to another reader who does not share those assumptions.
I've said this before. The artist's subconscious communicates with the art-customer's subconscious directly, and does that best when the conscious mind is directed elsewhere (as a magician points at something to prevent you from noticing something he's doing on the other side).
Philosophy resides in the subconscious and over-rides the conscious mind's decisions (that's why it's so hard to stick to a diet unless your subconscious has decided to do it). That's why married folk have affairs against their conscious will and desire. The subconscious rules, and so the philosophy programmed into the subconscious is the deciding factor in the HEA problem and argument.
The method we have to figure out how to employ is the method the publicity and advertising folks who work for politicians are using against us -- our unexamined, unquestioned, unknown-to-us ASSUMPTIONS. A philosophy that lurks within the subconscious, unknown to us, can command our life-decisions -- and determine what fiction we enjoy.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com
Furthermore, I'm not at all sure I know what my politics is. I just know that I'll know it when I see it - and haven't seen it yet. What my political position is, though, is very relevant, so if you pay attention you may discover something about me that even I don't yet know. Listen carefully now.
Previously in Part I, Worldbuilding With Fire And Ice,
posted on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com on October 26th, 2010,
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/10/worldbuilding-with-fire-and-ice-part-i.html
we noted how "Communists" had taken over Hollywood and McCarthy went after them in a Witch Hunt mode and created "blacklist" status for people who didn't deserve or earn that exclusion.
I told you that if you don't recall learning about the McCarthy Hearings in school - google it up. It's important to understand that he created an "Inquisition" atmosphere, "demonizing" people and institutions.
The personal, raging passion he poured into that project obscured any actual truth he might have discovered. He destroyed the innocent and very often missed the guilty, setting the stage for a real takeover of Hollywood by a very specific group with a very specific philosophy.
Eventually, decades later, anyone who stood against their philosophy was denied success in Hollywood.
Today, projects which would reach vast audiences have to be shaped to exemplify that now institutionalized philosophy.
Audiences are just looking to be entertained, value for a buck. They don't care about philosophy. It's abstract and irrelevant to the thrill, kick, payoff of the "ending." But when everything you entertain yourself with conforms to a certain philosophy, it becomes an unquestionable truth within the unconscious part of your mind. It becomes your philosophy by which you make judgments and behave, regardless of what you think you believe or want or prefer to believe.
It's the steady diet that does that.
The entertainment diet has become steady, and it projects the philosophy (via the theme) that there's no such thing as an HEA in real life, and you are a fool or idiot if you believe there is. You're a mark, a patsy, a sub-standard human being if you can't accept "reality" and understand that you will never be rich, beautiful, or successful.
Only "superheros" or fantasy characters ever achieve. Enjoy it in a story but understand that it's not real, and you can not have it.
Glenn Beck is pointing out (with a copy on his website glennbeck.com ) that the Weather Underground manifesto declares, as an article of faith, that the rich are rich because they "oppress" the poor. Only certain people are chosen to become rich, and your name is not on that list.
Being rich (i.e. successful, popular, powerful) is only for the elite in this world, and that elite makes it their business to see to it that you never become one of them.
The sobriquet is "class warfare."
Forget the "class" part of that and wrap your mind about the "warfare" part of that concept.
That concept is built on a specific view of the universe, and can be "sold" only to those who share that view of the universe.
I've discussed that view of the universe in many, many posts here, since my first post in June of 2006.
It is called the "zero sum game" view of the universe.
In that view of the universe (that philosophy) to have anything means that someone else does not have it.
If you win, that means I lose. Everything has to balance out to zero. There is only a limited amount of any resource, and it is "human nature" (inescapable) that "life" means fighting to the death with each other over possession of limited resources.
The only spiritual and just solution that Communists and Socialists and other ists and isms can see to this problem (total failure of imagination there - or deliberately misleading?) of Life Is A Zero Sum Game is to take your resources from you.
The view of the universe is simply that the reason "I" don't have is that "You" do have.
The Universe is finite, resources scarce and exhaustible.
That is as obviously true as it is obvious that the world is either flat or bowl shaped, but certainly not round. I mean, I can see it. How can seeing not be believing?
And that's how people now view the HEA -- nobody has a Happily Ever After life! The divorce rate is 50 percent after 5 years. When was the last time you saw a celebrity magazine displaying a perfect celebrity marriage?
A few decades ago, in the Babyboomer generation, the birthrate of females outstripped the birthrate of males, and as a result we have an adult population with a lot of single women living alone.
The "nuclear family" has disintegrated. "Leave It To Beaver" and "The Brady Bunch" "The Waltons" were the last of their ilk on TV. Films do not depict family life, raising kids, and a conflict that originates outside the family unit that the family must pull together to resolve.
Occasionally, there's a heart-rending film of a dog saving some kid's life, of a couple moving to Alaska and learning hard lessons about independence from civilization.
But watch the old classics rerun on TV or downloaded, and you'll see they depict a different world, thematically.
There has been a tectonic shift in the underpinnings and belief systems of the world we live in, and this is reflected in both fiction and non-fiction.
I'm not passing "judgment" on the nature of this shift, just noting it as part of "the problem" we have set ourselves to solve, the problem of the HEA and its place in the entertainment world.
I was in a waiting room recently, and picked up a women's magazine because there was no TIME or NEWSWEEK or WIRED or DISCOVER. I learned a lot just looking at the advertisements, the ink colors, the composition of pages, the COST vs. PRICE of the magazine, the number of words on a page and the size of the fonts used. I didn't get a chance to do the same to FIELD AND STREAM.
But the women's magazine had several Q&A sections where putative readers send in questions some "expert" then answers. It's an article style. The truth is the authors create the questions for most of those columns and use few of the questions actually sent in by readers.
One question was from a woman asking if she really-really had to give her husband oral sex to prevent her marriage from breaking up citing an "ick factor" in the process.
The answer was an unequivocal YES YOU DO and specific instructions on how, when, where, how to get over the "ick factor" and how much pleasure she could get from getting over her neurosis that is preventing her from giving her husband pleasure which is the only true basis for a marriage.
That is advice geared to or representing a non-HEA worldview. It is advice that comes straight out of the "zero-sum-game" view of the universe. There is only one way to win, and you must win or you lose and someone else will get your "possession" that you treasure most (i.e. another woman.)
If you don't win, you lose Happiness.
Furthermore, if your personal preferences and beliefs aren't exactly just precisely SO, then you deserve to lose -- because you aren't qualified to be one of the winners.
Or worse yet - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HAPPINESS, there is no HEA, you have to pretend you have it by doing something repugnant to you. It will always be repugnant to you, but you must do it to keep what you have. Just get over it and be an adult about it.
It is natural to men to demand a woman do something repugnant to herself; (actually the answer said this) - MEN CAN'T HELP IT. All women have to give in to male "natural" inclinations or lose their husbands. (this article is talking to young women who live among a 50% divorce rate and celebrities who can't stay married more than a couple years).
Again, I'm not passing a value judgment here. I'm illustrating how a PHILOSOPHY materializes as a "show don't tell" -- which soaks in and becomes an unquestioned assumption.
Assumptions aren't in and of themselves bad.
We need our assumptions, our shortcuts, or we couldn't function in this rapid-fire world. Our brains are hardwired to solve complex problems by applying a series of pre-created assumptions to the problem -- you live or die by your assessment of the danger of the saber toothed tiger.
What is problematic (not bad, mind you, problematic and thus fodder for plot-conflicts and resolutions gallore including the inevitability of the HEA) is the "unquestioned" part of the "assumption" matrix that commands behavior.
The "unquestioning" part of our assumption matrix is the meat-and-potatoes of the artist, the writer. It's the area where you can manipulate your readership - but only if you've questioned your own assumptions to a fair-thee-well.
How do you learn to do that? Aha, Election Season is an ideal time! Watch candidate commercials and read the literature carefully, listen to your emotions, watch how they jerk you around, play on sympathies, make their answer to problems seem inevitable, natural, obvious, and the only choice of reasonable people.
"Only" being the operative word - there are no other solutions because it's a zero-sum-game; we know that because "reality" is all based on football, isn't it?
At the moment, politicians and their advertising and publicity teams are using your unquestioned assumptions against you. Elections are a zero-sum-game - one wins, the other loses, and that's obvious isn't it? You have an either-or choice to make, black and white, zero-sum.
Elections are set up that way, maybe on purpose. The reason for that is an unquestioned assumption in our world (one of those assumptions I haven't caught Glenn Beck questioning, and therefore his rants don't touch me persuasively) Life is a zero-sum-game, like football or all sports. One wins, the other loses, and it has to be that way. Don't you dare question that. You might get confused.
Many of these unquestioned assumptions are implanted in school (no matter how long ago you went to school).
Schools are set up to "make it clear" to young people so they won't be confused by things like whether the theory of Evolution is true, or really Creationism is true -- of course, only one can be true which makes the other false, a zero-sum game so it'll all be clear. We have to tell children the truth so they won't be confused.
Some of your unquestioned assumptions have come from the "steady diet" of entertainment mentioned above. Having only one philosophy represented in your entertainment (Traditional Publishers are pretty close to that now) keeps things clear in your mind. We can't have you getting confused.
Some other assumptions came from your parents, your religious training, your college buddies, your first sexual experience.
Some have come from corporate training and on-the-job-training in how to behave in a corporate culture.
Many sets of these assumptions contradict each other and thus introduce anxiety sources that are very confusing, so we learn to keep our minds compartmentalized -- religion is only for an hour on Sunday, whew! We can't have religion in the workplace or workplace values in Sunday School.
We've been carefully trained from grammar school up never, ever, to let ourselves get confused. Anyone's opinion is just as good as anyone else's, regardless of what unconscious assumptions they're basing their opinions on because we all share the same unconscious assumptions (sobriquet, "Political Correctness.")
In previous posts we've been exploring how we might be able to boost a true Romance Genre film into "High Concept Opens Everywhere Blockbuster" status and "sell" the HEA to the general audience as a true depiction of real life, a plausible and necessary story-ending.
It may be happening as we speak. Check out this film which I discovered on thegalaxyexpress.net
The Adjustment Bureau
We "know" the HEA is real and true, it's our unconscious assumption, but not shared by everyone. The artist, the performing artist, the writer must be able to see the world through the eyes of people who have unconscious assumptions (Philosophies) different from the writer's and explain one reader's assumptions to another reader who does not share those assumptions.
I've said this before. The artist's subconscious communicates with the art-customer's subconscious directly, and does that best when the conscious mind is directed elsewhere (as a magician points at something to prevent you from noticing something he's doing on the other side).
Philosophy resides in the subconscious and over-rides the conscious mind's decisions (that's why it's so hard to stick to a diet unless your subconscious has decided to do it). That's why married folk have affairs against their conscious will and desire. The subconscious rules, and so the philosophy programmed into the subconscious is the deciding factor in the HEA problem and argument.
The method we have to figure out how to employ is the method the publicity and advertising folks who work for politicians are using against us -- our unexamined, unquestioned, unknown-to-us ASSUMPTIONS. A philosophy that lurks within the subconscious, unknown to us, can command our life-decisions -- and determine what fiction we enjoy.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Suspension Of Disbelief
I've renewed my library book five times, so far. It's not exactly a "page-turner" and I'm starting to wonder why exactly I am finding "Gulliver's Travels" such heavy going.
It's a classic. It's considered a children's book. It's said to be a clever and witty satire. It's humiliating to me that I cannot enjoy it. What's wrong with me?
One issue, which I may have mentioned before --and I am afraid it is in very poor taste to mention this, not for the first time-- is that poor Gulliver has been a prisoner for several weeks, tethered securely by an ankle to a tiny temple which is just big enough to shelter him when he lies down full length on a specially constructed pallet bed.
His captors are less than six inches tall.
Great lengths are taken to calculate how much food and drink he needs (as much as 1728 Lilliputians). Much is made of the size of his hat, and so forth. There is also some ado about the fact that the Lilliputians consider and reject the notion of killing the potentially dangerous "man mountain". They worry about the smell of his decaying corpse, and the probability of pestilence and disease if he dies, owing to the logistics of disposing of a dead body of such a size (twelve times their own).
But the most interesting and necessary feat of domestic engineering is not mentioned at all. There ought, by now, to be more than one eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the vicinity, even if the unfortunate Mr. Gulliver is on an exceptionally low fiber diet.
Jonathan Swift has not succeeded in making me suspend my disbelief. In fact, I find that as every day of Gulliver's captivity passes, I am more and more aware of what he is not passing.
It could have been dealt with. An enormous bed pan would work for me. A plate on wheels (shades of a haemoccult test). A leashed walk to the seaside twice a day. A Big Dig. A conveniently exhausted local quarry. His own hat, even! The matter could have been managed in the totally indiscreet style of a French levée of the Sun King, or under cover of a newly mandated curfew.
We have precedents in our own history for almost everything imaginable.
It seems to me that perhaps the Lilliputians are a mockery of Freemasons.
The punctuation from the 1894 printing is also an annoyance. Each antiquated spelling, or unfashionable upper case character pulls me out of the story.
One wants one's reader to suspend disbelief, and to become totally wrapped up in the story. That means that bothersome questions must be answered, or they will niggle and fester. Spelling, punctuation and grammar should be as "invisible" as possible. That's why many educators prefer the use of "said" instead of a couple score of pretentious synonyms.
Should one spoof Swift? If one did, would it be pitched as "Lemuel Gulliver meets Thomas Crapper"? (I added first names in the interest of good taste.)
Trick or Treat?
Happy Halloween!
It's a classic. It's considered a children's book. It's said to be a clever and witty satire. It's humiliating to me that I cannot enjoy it. What's wrong with me?
One issue, which I may have mentioned before --and I am afraid it is in very poor taste to mention this, not for the first time-- is that poor Gulliver has been a prisoner for several weeks, tethered securely by an ankle to a tiny temple which is just big enough to shelter him when he lies down full length on a specially constructed pallet bed.
His captors are less than six inches tall.
Great lengths are taken to calculate how much food and drink he needs (as much as 1728 Lilliputians). Much is made of the size of his hat, and so forth. There is also some ado about the fact that the Lilliputians consider and reject the notion of killing the potentially dangerous "man mountain". They worry about the smell of his decaying corpse, and the probability of pestilence and disease if he dies, owing to the logistics of disposing of a dead body of such a size (twelve times their own).
But the most interesting and necessary feat of domestic engineering is not mentioned at all. There ought, by now, to be more than one eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the vicinity, even if the unfortunate Mr. Gulliver is on an exceptionally low fiber diet.
Jonathan Swift has not succeeded in making me suspend my disbelief. In fact, I find that as every day of Gulliver's captivity passes, I am more and more aware of what he is not passing.
It could have been dealt with. An enormous bed pan would work for me. A plate on wheels (shades of a haemoccult test). A leashed walk to the seaside twice a day. A Big Dig. A conveniently exhausted local quarry. His own hat, even! The matter could have been managed in the totally indiscreet style of a French levée of the Sun King, or under cover of a newly mandated curfew.
We have precedents in our own history for almost everything imaginable.
It seems to me that perhaps the Lilliputians are a mockery of Freemasons.
"I was demanded to swear to the performance of (Articles); first in the manner of my own countrey, and afterwards in the method prescribed by their Laws; which was to hold my Right foot in my Left hand, to place my Middle finger on the Tip of my Right ear."Is that it? Frankly, I was expecting something more sophisticated, particularly after the lengthy and laudatory introduction to the work.
The punctuation from the 1894 printing is also an annoyance. Each antiquated spelling, or unfashionable upper case character pulls me out of the story.
One wants one's reader to suspend disbelief, and to become totally wrapped up in the story. That means that bothersome questions must be answered, or they will niggle and fester. Spelling, punctuation and grammar should be as "invisible" as possible. That's why many educators prefer the use of "said" instead of a couple score of pretentious synonyms.
Should one spoof Swift? If one did, would it be pitched as "Lemuel Gulliver meets Thomas Crapper"? (I added first names in the interest of good taste.)
Trick or Treat?
Happy Halloween!
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Presumed Dead?
Here's a news article about an 89-year-old woman in our area who was mistakenly pronounced dead:
Baltimore Sun
In brief, neighbors called 9-1-1 because she had not been seen in several days. Police found her on the bathroom floor, "blue" and apparently not breathing. Concluding she was dead, they contacted her family and discovered she had planned to donate her body for anatomical study. After she'd lain on the floor for three hours, an official from the anatomy board arrived to collect the "body" and noticed movement.
Sadly, she died for real fifteen days later. At this stage in the investigation, there's no telling whether she would have recovered if given prompt treatment. Of course, the primary lesson of this incident is that the local police need better training in dealing with medical emergencies.
However, some thoughts for Halloween week:
As a lifelong reader of horror and fantasy, I couldn't help thinking that if I were writing this story, the woman would recover and survive for a long time—but changed. She would have "really" died, and another entity would have taken possession of her body to restore it to "life." A TWILIGHT ZONE episode involved a "dead" man who came back to life in his coffin during his funeral. We're not sure whether he's truly himself or a demon in his body, until the final scene when he produces fire from the tip of his finger. As far as I can remember, this character seemed like a fairly benign demon; he didn't do any harm and apparently just wanted a body to live in. A delightfully chilling, yet subtle and understated classic horror story, "Clay-Shuttered Doors" (1926) by Helen R. Hull, has the same premise. A woman appears to die but comes back to life. It gradually becomes clear that some other entity dwells in her body. And, of course, the entire plot of Stephen King's PET SEMATARY (one of my favorite horror novels of all time, and one of the small number that have actually scared me) rests on the concept of a dark power animating bodies interred in the cursed burial ground.
TVtropes.org, an irresistibly fascinating Internet time vampire, has a page devoted to this motif, "Came Back Wrong."
In my erotic ghost romance novella "Heart Diamond" (Ellora's Cave), I have the ghost taking over the body of his brother at the moment of death, one of the few ways I could think of to give a ghost and his mortal lover a life together. In this case the possessor has a benign motive.
Not-so-benign ghost possession goes at least as far back as Poe's "Ligeia," in which the dead first wife apparently kills the second wife to steal her body.
Suppose aliens who needed a new home but couldn't survive on our planet in their natural forms decided to establish a life here by taking over the bodies of the recently dead? From their perspective, they wouldn't be doing any harm; the deceased aren't using those bodies anymore. (Contrast the alien minds-in-fishbowls in one STAR TREK episode who take over *living* bodies among the crew of the Enterprise.) That's sort of what the hero in STARMAN does, except that he doesn't possess the dead husband's body; he generates a clone of it from a lock of hair. Think of the young widow's emotional confusion multiplied by thousands or millions—such an "invasion" could produce quite a social upheaval.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's Crypt
Baltimore Sun
In brief, neighbors called 9-1-1 because she had not been seen in several days. Police found her on the bathroom floor, "blue" and apparently not breathing. Concluding she was dead, they contacted her family and discovered she had planned to donate her body for anatomical study. After she'd lain on the floor for three hours, an official from the anatomy board arrived to collect the "body" and noticed movement.
Sadly, she died for real fifteen days later. At this stage in the investigation, there's no telling whether she would have recovered if given prompt treatment. Of course, the primary lesson of this incident is that the local police need better training in dealing with medical emergencies.
However, some thoughts for Halloween week:
As a lifelong reader of horror and fantasy, I couldn't help thinking that if I were writing this story, the woman would recover and survive for a long time—but changed. She would have "really" died, and another entity would have taken possession of her body to restore it to "life." A TWILIGHT ZONE episode involved a "dead" man who came back to life in his coffin during his funeral. We're not sure whether he's truly himself or a demon in his body, until the final scene when he produces fire from the tip of his finger. As far as I can remember, this character seemed like a fairly benign demon; he didn't do any harm and apparently just wanted a body to live in. A delightfully chilling, yet subtle and understated classic horror story, "Clay-Shuttered Doors" (1926) by Helen R. Hull, has the same premise. A woman appears to die but comes back to life. It gradually becomes clear that some other entity dwells in her body. And, of course, the entire plot of Stephen King's PET SEMATARY (one of my favorite horror novels of all time, and one of the small number that have actually scared me) rests on the concept of a dark power animating bodies interred in the cursed burial ground.
TVtropes.org, an irresistibly fascinating Internet time vampire, has a page devoted to this motif, "Came Back Wrong."
In my erotic ghost romance novella "Heart Diamond" (Ellora's Cave), I have the ghost taking over the body of his brother at the moment of death, one of the few ways I could think of to give a ghost and his mortal lover a life together. In this case the possessor has a benign motive.
Not-so-benign ghost possession goes at least as far back as Poe's "Ligeia," in which the dead first wife apparently kills the second wife to steal her body.
Suppose aliens who needed a new home but couldn't survive on our planet in their natural forms decided to establish a life here by taking over the bodies of the recently dead? From their perspective, they wouldn't be doing any harm; the deceased aren't using those bodies anymore. (Contrast the alien minds-in-fishbowls in one STAR TREK episode who take over *living* bodies among the crew of the Enterprise.) That's sort of what the hero in STARMAN does, except that he doesn't possess the dead husband's body; he generates a clone of it from a lock of hair. Think of the young widow's emotional confusion multiplied by thousands or millions—such an "invasion" could produce quite a social upheaval.
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's Crypt
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Worldbuilding with Fire and Ice Part I Failure of Imagination Part IV
Worldbuilding with Fire and Ice Part I
Failure of Imagination Part IV
Politics is surely fire, especially in the run-up to an Election.
Philosophy is surely ice, especially in the run-up to an Election.
Mix in pair-bonding in any variety or style, especially if you include Soul Mates which implies some dimension of spirituality, immortality, possibly reincarnation - i.e. a larger point to your life than is apparent in this life itself --
Stand back and just admire the mushroom cloud.
And that tall mushroom cloud creates the potential for a huge audience "reach."
But you (the writer) have to make the mushroom cloud comprehensible as a mushroom cloud.
You have to show-don't-tell your readership and audience that it's beautiful and captivating and they should just sit back and enjoy the show.
How, exactly, does a writer do that? How does a reader become a writer?
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/09/are-commercial-writers-born-or-made.html
What is the transformative moment when the passive person who just imbibes and enjoys fiction becomes the active creator and purveyor of that inner pleasure we all know but can't name (probably because English doesn't have a word, or the word has fallen into disuse).
As I've explained and explored in a number of posts, the key ingredient in the writer's craft tool box is philosophy.
That's why it's so hard to explain to a new writer what a "Concept" actually is (as opposed to an Idea For A Story) and how to identify a "High" concept. A High Concept is that cap on the mushroom cloud mentioned above. At that moment of recognition: "My Idea Is Actually A High Concept" a reader may be spurred to write, if not become a writer. Very often a reader sees a novel they are reading as a movie -- or a movie as a novel -- or a TV show as missing a "story" (hence fanfiction).
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2006/11/converting-novel-to-screenplay.html
The artist's job, role in "society" is to translate the abstract into the concrete, to make theory visible, to make aspirations and dreams tangible, to give the customer a whiff of what life on Earth will be like when they reach "success" (whatever that might be for the individual) -- which for us means the elusive HEA.
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/worldbuilding-from-reality.html
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-does-intelligence-work.html
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/beauty-and-beast-constructing-hea.html
Right now, the USA has returned to a knife-edge balance, half passionately convinced that one philosophy is the only honorable and true philosophy, and the other half convinced that the opposite philosophy is the one and only honorable and true philosophy. A hefty percentage of the electorate stands in the middle of this half-and-half split, convinced that neither side is right, but both sides are right.
Few, if any, are doubting or questioning what they "know" to be true.
Leaders, entertainers, and information vendors (i.e. "news") are using every sophisticated tool in their toolboxes to sell their ideas, to convince a lot more people that this one idea is correct. But they aren't thinking in terms of Concept - the highest crest of that mushroom cloud that can be seen from afar.
Read again this description of High Concept and why it serves so well to convey Idea to so many.
http://www.blakesnyder.com/2006/02/02/the-death-of-high-concept/
Read Sarah Beach's comment of Sept 9th on that page where she says:
---SARAH BEACH----
I’ve always felt that High Concept was like seeing a line of mountains on the horizon. You know exactly what is in front of you, and even at a distance, you can see the main features of it. Low Concept was like a rolling landscape where features are hidden, waiting to surprise you.
Notice that High Concept can also have surprises in the detail (like hidden canyons and rivers). But you still have a very clear idea of what you’re heading into.
-----END QUOTE-----
Or you can think of it as the top of that huge mushroom cloud formed by the explosive force of Fire and Ice, Politics and Philosophy.
But there are some whose work is extremely effective and efficient who are indeed thinking in terms of Concept rather than Idea.
My blog post on October 19, 2010, "Glenn Beck Didn't Invent The Overton Window"...
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/10/glenn-beck-didnt-invent-overton-window.html
...flicked past this issue which I'm going to explore now from the point of view of the Failure of Imagination preventing the popularization of the Happily Ever After concept of real life.
See my post FAILURE OF IMAGINATION PART III, September 28, 2010 on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/09/failure-of-imagination-part-iii.html
Failure of Imagination Part II is
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/07/failure-of-imagination-part-ii-society.html
Part I is
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/06/where-expert-romance-writers-fail.html
Where Imagination has Failed is in questioning basic assumptions about the nature of reality.
We saw in Where Expert Romance Writers Fail that when asked, ordinary people say the reason they refuse to read "Romance genre" novels is that the HEA isn't "realistic" or is a requirement of the genre that just does not satisfy them in their hunt for an emotional payoff.
We discussed that "emotional payoff" problem referring to a blog post by an SFR writer reviewed on thegalaxyexpress.net chaffing at the "restriction" of the HEA requirement for storytelling.
See my post on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com on September 21, 2010 titled "Do Your Lovers Live The HEA"
From our point of view the HEA is not a restriction or formulaic requirement but the natural, inevitable, unavoidable point at which "the story" is over. Until you get to the HEA, you haven't finished the story. Would you think you'd finished having sex if you didn't finish?
From our point of view, it's inconceivable that anyone could possibly even think, nevermind actually say, that the HEA is a recipe for boredom.
But that's a point of view, not a fact of life.
It's hard to understand how it might be possible for anyone to fail to understand that the HEA is NOT a "fact of life."
But that's what writers (artists of all stripes) do for a living. Understand the alien. Explain it.
We have to put yourselves into the mind of "other" people - people who really do live in "alien" universes, who look out of their eyes and do not see what we see.
We have to be able to understand how different people see the world, then create a piece of art that explains one kind of people's views to the other kind of people.
What kinds? Men. Women. Gay. Bi. Rich. Poor. Democrat. Republican. Independent. Christian. Muslim. Hindu. Jew. Human. Non-human. (WRITING EXERCISE: extend that list to 10 more kinds of viewpoints.)
Take any category from that list, and explain it to another category.
To achieve that explanation, you will find yourself grappling with politics, philosophy, religion, sexuality, morality, ethics, -- all manner of intangibles that must be made tangible in order to tell the story. Show Don't Tell.
To present that story, you must worldbuild.
You must create the "world" that one kind sees that the other kind does not see, and create it in show-don't-tell so that it can be understood by those who can't see it, won't believe it if they do, and must suspend disbelief to enter the story.
Neither one of those worlds will be your own world (most of the time).
But your own world, your point of view on reality, your essential take on Creation, The Soul, Evolution, Justice, Ethics, Morals, will show through.
Not only can you not help it - you should not help it, because that show-through is the carrier wave of your own ART. It's your "voice" - the thing that makes you distinctive as a writer.
OK, now back to the "real" world.
It has been noted any number of places, the Glenn Beck show in particular in 2010, that in the last 50 years or so, the "Liberal" political viewpoint has become utterly dominant in Hollywood.
There was a whiff of Liberalism in "Hollywood" in the 1950's which sparked the Witch Hunt conducted by Senator McCarthy - if you're too young to have studied the McCarthy Hearings in school, go google it up. Hold your nose and read carefully.
McCarthy was right - Communists and proto-Communists and pre-Socialists, and people who were generally critical of and obstinately against many of the values held most dear in the USA during the 1800's had begun infiltrating the entertainment media. Or perhaps the entertainment media had summoned them because they had a High Concept to display.
Being writers, creative types, they re-invented the entire vocabulary by which their vision of how a country should organize its economy and government could be discussed, a vocabulary of images and characters, of symbols. They renamed philosophies without changing the tenants much. They set out to use their artistic skills to change the "image" of the then-demonized philosophies.
Three generations later, according to Glenn Beck, they've succeeded. He's made a huge fortune exploiting the absolute lack of his point of view in the media. He has hit on a High Concept and tickled imaginations into gear with it. Remember, this man is an actor who got his start in comedy, exploiting his ADD tendencies to advantage, and never lets you forget he's a recovering alcoholic. He's a performer who presents himself as an overgrown child, but does that in and of itself totally invalidate what he's saying? After all, he employs 40 researchers in addition to the Fox News resources. His imagination hasn't failed. And he's making money from it. He's holding out, as a carrot on a stick, the inkling of a suspicion that the HEA might be possible in real life, and it's making him a fortune.
Maybe he's right - maybe not. Our question is, "Does it matter?"
CAUTION: don't for a moment think that I'm a "Conservative" -- or for that matter "Progressive" or "Liberal" -- the "politics" that describes my personal philosophy does not exist on this Earth and as far as I know never has yet. I'm a writer. I build worlds to ask entertaining questions. You have to do the answering.
If you let yourself get all wound up in Glenn Beck's politics, you'll never be able to discern the mechanism he's using behind that smokescreen. So take a few deep breaths, cool off (yeah, it's hard, but being a writer is not an easy life), and study the phenomenon Beck has created with his High Concept.
That's the kind of phenomenon we need to create for the HEA driven fiction that is the core of the Romance and SFR and PNR genres.
Part II of Worldbuilding with Fire and Ice next week.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
Failure of Imagination Part IV
Politics is surely fire, especially in the run-up to an Election.
Philosophy is surely ice, especially in the run-up to an Election.
Mix in pair-bonding in any variety or style, especially if you include Soul Mates which implies some dimension of spirituality, immortality, possibly reincarnation - i.e. a larger point to your life than is apparent in this life itself --
Stand back and just admire the mushroom cloud.
And that tall mushroom cloud creates the potential for a huge audience "reach."
But you (the writer) have to make the mushroom cloud comprehensible as a mushroom cloud.
You have to show-don't-tell your readership and audience that it's beautiful and captivating and they should just sit back and enjoy the show.
How, exactly, does a writer do that? How does a reader become a writer?
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/09/are-commercial-writers-born-or-made.html
What is the transformative moment when the passive person who just imbibes and enjoys fiction becomes the active creator and purveyor of that inner pleasure we all know but can't name (probably because English doesn't have a word, or the word has fallen into disuse).
As I've explained and explored in a number of posts, the key ingredient in the writer's craft tool box is philosophy.
That's why it's so hard to explain to a new writer what a "Concept" actually is (as opposed to an Idea For A Story) and how to identify a "High" concept. A High Concept is that cap on the mushroom cloud mentioned above. At that moment of recognition: "My Idea Is Actually A High Concept" a reader may be spurred to write, if not become a writer. Very often a reader sees a novel they are reading as a movie -- or a movie as a novel -- or a TV show as missing a "story" (hence fanfiction).
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2006/11/converting-novel-to-screenplay.html
The artist's job, role in "society" is to translate the abstract into the concrete, to make theory visible, to make aspirations and dreams tangible, to give the customer a whiff of what life on Earth will be like when they reach "success" (whatever that might be for the individual) -- which for us means the elusive HEA.
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/worldbuilding-from-reality.html
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-does-intelligence-work.html
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/beauty-and-beast-constructing-hea.html
Right now, the USA has returned to a knife-edge balance, half passionately convinced that one philosophy is the only honorable and true philosophy, and the other half convinced that the opposite philosophy is the one and only honorable and true philosophy. A hefty percentage of the electorate stands in the middle of this half-and-half split, convinced that neither side is right, but both sides are right.
Few, if any, are doubting or questioning what they "know" to be true.
Leaders, entertainers, and information vendors (i.e. "news") are using every sophisticated tool in their toolboxes to sell their ideas, to convince a lot more people that this one idea is correct. But they aren't thinking in terms of Concept - the highest crest of that mushroom cloud that can be seen from afar.
Read again this description of High Concept and why it serves so well to convey Idea to so many.
http://www.blakesnyder.com/2006/02/02/the-death-of-high-concept/
Read Sarah Beach's comment of Sept 9th on that page where she says:
---SARAH BEACH----
I’ve always felt that High Concept was like seeing a line of mountains on the horizon. You know exactly what is in front of you, and even at a distance, you can see the main features of it. Low Concept was like a rolling landscape where features are hidden, waiting to surprise you.
Notice that High Concept can also have surprises in the detail (like hidden canyons and rivers). But you still have a very clear idea of what you’re heading into.
-----END QUOTE-----
Or you can think of it as the top of that huge mushroom cloud formed by the explosive force of Fire and Ice, Politics and Philosophy.
But there are some whose work is extremely effective and efficient who are indeed thinking in terms of Concept rather than Idea.
My blog post on October 19, 2010, "Glenn Beck Didn't Invent The Overton Window"...
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/10/glenn-beck-didnt-invent-overton-window.html
...flicked past this issue which I'm going to explore now from the point of view of the Failure of Imagination preventing the popularization of the Happily Ever After concept of real life.
See my post FAILURE OF IMAGINATION PART III, September 28, 2010 on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/09/failure-of-imagination-part-iii.html
Failure of Imagination Part II is
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/07/failure-of-imagination-part-ii-society.html
Part I is
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/06/where-expert-romance-writers-fail.html
Where Imagination has Failed is in questioning basic assumptions about the nature of reality.
We saw in Where Expert Romance Writers Fail that when asked, ordinary people say the reason they refuse to read "Romance genre" novels is that the HEA isn't "realistic" or is a requirement of the genre that just does not satisfy them in their hunt for an emotional payoff.
We discussed that "emotional payoff" problem referring to a blog post by an SFR writer reviewed on thegalaxyexpress.net chaffing at the "restriction" of the HEA requirement for storytelling.
See my post on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com on September 21, 2010 titled "Do Your Lovers Live The HEA"
From our point of view the HEA is not a restriction or formulaic requirement but the natural, inevitable, unavoidable point at which "the story" is over. Until you get to the HEA, you haven't finished the story. Would you think you'd finished having sex if you didn't finish?
From our point of view, it's inconceivable that anyone could possibly even think, nevermind actually say, that the HEA is a recipe for boredom.
But that's a point of view, not a fact of life.
It's hard to understand how it might be possible for anyone to fail to understand that the HEA is NOT a "fact of life."
But that's what writers (artists of all stripes) do for a living. Understand the alien. Explain it.
We have to put yourselves into the mind of "other" people - people who really do live in "alien" universes, who look out of their eyes and do not see what we see.
We have to be able to understand how different people see the world, then create a piece of art that explains one kind of people's views to the other kind of people.
What kinds? Men. Women. Gay. Bi. Rich. Poor. Democrat. Republican. Independent. Christian. Muslim. Hindu. Jew. Human. Non-human. (WRITING EXERCISE: extend that list to 10 more kinds of viewpoints.)
Take any category from that list, and explain it to another category.
To achieve that explanation, you will find yourself grappling with politics, philosophy, religion, sexuality, morality, ethics, -- all manner of intangibles that must be made tangible in order to tell the story. Show Don't Tell.
To present that story, you must worldbuild.
You must create the "world" that one kind sees that the other kind does not see, and create it in show-don't-tell so that it can be understood by those who can't see it, won't believe it if they do, and must suspend disbelief to enter the story.
Neither one of those worlds will be your own world (most of the time).
But your own world, your point of view on reality, your essential take on Creation, The Soul, Evolution, Justice, Ethics, Morals, will show through.
Not only can you not help it - you should not help it, because that show-through is the carrier wave of your own ART. It's your "voice" - the thing that makes you distinctive as a writer.
OK, now back to the "real" world.
It has been noted any number of places, the Glenn Beck show in particular in 2010, that in the last 50 years or so, the "Liberal" political viewpoint has become utterly dominant in Hollywood.
There was a whiff of Liberalism in "Hollywood" in the 1950's which sparked the Witch Hunt conducted by Senator McCarthy - if you're too young to have studied the McCarthy Hearings in school, go google it up. Hold your nose and read carefully.
McCarthy was right - Communists and proto-Communists and pre-Socialists, and people who were generally critical of and obstinately against many of the values held most dear in the USA during the 1800's had begun infiltrating the entertainment media. Or perhaps the entertainment media had summoned them because they had a High Concept to display.
Being writers, creative types, they re-invented the entire vocabulary by which their vision of how a country should organize its economy and government could be discussed, a vocabulary of images and characters, of symbols. They renamed philosophies without changing the tenants much. They set out to use their artistic skills to change the "image" of the then-demonized philosophies.
Three generations later, according to Glenn Beck, they've succeeded. He's made a huge fortune exploiting the absolute lack of his point of view in the media. He has hit on a High Concept and tickled imaginations into gear with it. Remember, this man is an actor who got his start in comedy, exploiting his ADD tendencies to advantage, and never lets you forget he's a recovering alcoholic. He's a performer who presents himself as an overgrown child, but does that in and of itself totally invalidate what he's saying? After all, he employs 40 researchers in addition to the Fox News resources. His imagination hasn't failed. And he's making money from it. He's holding out, as a carrot on a stick, the inkling of a suspicion that the HEA might be possible in real life, and it's making him a fortune.
Maybe he's right - maybe not. Our question is, "Does it matter?"
CAUTION: don't for a moment think that I'm a "Conservative" -- or for that matter "Progressive" or "Liberal" -- the "politics" that describes my personal philosophy does not exist on this Earth and as far as I know never has yet. I'm a writer. I build worlds to ask entertaining questions. You have to do the answering.
If you let yourself get all wound up in Glenn Beck's politics, you'll never be able to discern the mechanism he's using behind that smokescreen. So take a few deep breaths, cool off (yeah, it's hard, but being a writer is not an easy life), and study the phenomenon Beck has created with his High Concept.
That's the kind of phenomenon we need to create for the HEA driven fiction that is the core of the Romance and SFR and PNR genres.
Part II of Worldbuilding with Fire and Ice next week.
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com
http://www.simegen.com/jl/
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Cuckoos
So, you want to take over a world. Are you sure? It's been done. No point reinventing the wheel.
Assuming that you have identified a suitable world, and are certain that it is right for you,
your first "tough choice" is going to be about the mess.
You're taking property away from those who already own the world.
They're not going to like it.
How will you handle their objections to being taken over?
Do you want to kill them, enslave them, infiltrate them, or assimilate them?
Does your choice depend on how easily duped your targets are? How docile? How useful? How many?
Will you pass yourself off as one of them, and destroy them from within?
(Cuckoo model. Convergence model. Sith.)
Will you conquer by force of arms and assimilate as far as pragmatic?
(Romans, Christians, Normans, European Empires)
Will you eradicate as many of them as possible, and settle the new land?
(War of The Worlds, Independence Day, Sauron. Conquistadors.)
Can you live side by side, making use of them?
(The Time Machine. Parasite model.)
Dhimmitude model
(Dhimmitude is a system of taxing aliens while encouraging aliens who wish to avoid taxation to convert.)
Beauty/Beast model
Most babies are irresistibly cute, even babies of another species. Presumably, one could infiltrate and conquer
through love of the alien as a baby until the adoptive parents are vulnerable to tyranny.
(Tribbles. Gremlins. Cuckoos again?)Washington Watch This
You may have noticed heated discussions about "COICA"
This is what it is:
S.3804 -- Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (Introduced in Senate - IS)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3804:
I won't summarize it. It's not a long document. Moreover, as you read the bill itself, there is a function (look for the + sign in square brackets) so that you can submit your own comments.
There is also a comments page (2 pages, now) where copyright owners are voicing their opinions of pirates and their own suggestions for what needs to be done about internet copyright infringement.
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_SN_3804.html?page=2#commentform
If you don't like the bill as written, suggest improvements! It's your right, and a unique opportunity.
This is what it is:
S.3804 -- Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (Introduced in Senate - IS)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3804:
I won't summarize it. It's not a long document. Moreover, as you read the bill itself, there is a function (look for the + sign in square brackets) so that you can submit your own comments.
There is also a comments page (2 pages, now) where copyright owners are voicing their opinions of pirates and their own suggestions for what needs to be done about internet copyright infringement.
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/111_SN_3804.html?page=2#commentform
If you don't like the bill as written, suggest improvements! It's your right, and a unique opportunity.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Teens, Trekkies, and Heroic Ideal
I remember back when I was just a reader I thought authors knew everything about their worlds and how they worked. Naturally, authors who’ve been around know a whole lot, but I’m a brand new baby author and, let me tell you, I feel pretty stupid most of the time. Much of what I do know I learned right here on this blog, like Theme.
Ophelia is a Trekkie. She’s the heroine of my YA SFR, Sugar Rush. Why is she a Trekkie? It all comes down to Theme. The story’s theme is Achieving the Freedom to Live.
Ophelia and her sister are obsessed with movies. They live in a small, isolated Alaskan town. Movies, via a massive DVD collection, and the Internet are their windows to the world. Ophelia’s favorite movies happen to be Star Trek. Ophelia went to a real movie theater in the big city when she was diagnosed with diabetes at age nine and her sister has never been to one.
This brings to mind a hilarious movie starring Eddie Murphy, Daddy Daycare. He’s an unemployed dad who opens a daycare with a friend. (I used to be a professional childcare provider, so I loved this movie.)
After overcoming some initial bias against male childcare providers, they begin caring for a few children. One little boy seems to speak only gibberish. When Eddie must hire a new dad-care provider, the new employee, a Trekkie, immediately recognizes that the little boy is speaking Klingon, a fictional language from the Star Trek universe. Very sweet, but I was most intrigued by the little boy who constantly wears a superhero costume. He wears the costume of a superhero, because he’s working through his fear of the new daycare situation. A superhero fears nothing, you know. Once the little boy learns to trust his new caregivers, he takes off the costume.
The bad guys have Ophelia cornered like an animal in Sugar Rush. She’s a smart girl desperate to be free, but she hasn’t figured out her own strengths or how to use them. Like the little boy wearing the superhero costume, she clutches a Captain Janeway Christmas tree ornament (her boyfriend gave it to her) at her father’s funeral in the first half of the book. Her courage matures over the course of the story, however, and by the last battle she’s on her own.
A hero or heroic ideal helps even an adult focus and believe in themselves. In the story, it’s not enough for Ophelia to have a perfect grade point average. She needs to believe herself capable.
And that is why Ophelia is a Trekkie.
Speaking of heroes, the authors of this blog helped me believe I could achieve publication too, and here I am! A great, big, huge THANK YOU!
Kimber An
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Technology Predictions
There's an article in the fall issue of the Phi Beta Kappa newsletter called "The Manifold Problems of Technology Forecasting," by Andrew Odlyzko. Two important points the author makes: That "what people do with technology differs widely from what inventors had in mind" and that instead of replacing old technologies, new ones "frequently serve to strengthen their predecessors." One example he cites is the relationship between railroads and horses. Contrary to expectation, the railroad didn't make the horse obsolete, because the need for transportation to the railheads created a bigger market for horse-drawn transportation. Referring to more recent developments, he refutes the prediction that faster communication would result in less need for transportation, for instance, that the Internet would enable telecommunication to replace physical presence and thus get traffic off the roads. So far, it hasn't happened. He argues against the belief that transportation and communication are "substitutes for each other." Instead, they're complementary.
The example that first comes to mind for me is television. Television didn't kill radio. Nor did it kill movies, as might have been expected. The movie industry found ways to use TV to its advantage. Similarly, I don't have any fear that new media will destroy the book, nor that e-books will make paper books obsolete any time soon.
As for the effect of new media on reading in general, Isaac Asimov pointed out decades ago that the percentage of the population who are dedicated readers (as opposed to reading when there's absolutely nothing else to do, or not reading at all except when forced to, for information) has always been a tiny minority. What changes from one era to the next is what kind of entertainment they choose instead of books. We might even argue that the rise of the Internet means more people are reading more than ever before, even if not the kind of sustained, long-format reading a novel invites.
As for new technology's being used differently from how the inventors had in mind, the Internet, of course, was first developed for military applications. And I wonder whether anyone who saw the first automobiles take to the road around 1900 would have predicted suburban "sprawl," the impact of oil on the global economy, or the car's profound effect on American courtship patterns?
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's Crypt
The example that first comes to mind for me is television. Television didn't kill radio. Nor did it kill movies, as might have been expected. The movie industry found ways to use TV to its advantage. Similarly, I don't have any fear that new media will destroy the book, nor that e-books will make paper books obsolete any time soon.
As for the effect of new media on reading in general, Isaac Asimov pointed out decades ago that the percentage of the population who are dedicated readers (as opposed to reading when there's absolutely nothing else to do, or not reading at all except when forced to, for information) has always been a tiny minority. What changes from one era to the next is what kind of entertainment they choose instead of books. We might even argue that the rise of the Internet means more people are reading more than ever before, even if not the kind of sustained, long-format reading a novel invites.
As for new technology's being used differently from how the inventors had in mind, the Internet, of course, was first developed for military applications. And I wonder whether anyone who saw the first automobiles take to the road around 1900 would have predicted suburban "sprawl," the impact of oil on the global economy, or the car's profound effect on American courtship patterns?
Margaret L. Carter
Carter's Crypt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
