Happy Birthday George!

 

Today is the 336th birthday of German/British composer George Frideric Handel, according to the old Julian calendar. March 5th is his birthday according to our current calendar.

In my opinion, Handel was one of the greatest composers ever. His music was impressionistic before there was any Impressionism movement. In an age of patronage, Handel was a businessman and his own boss for most of his career. In the course of his life he made and lost several fortunes, and died a millionaire by today’s standards.

David Vickers has given us a colorful synopsis of the great composer’s life and you can read it here: https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/the-mysteries-myths-and-truths-about-mr-handel

However, what is not generally known about Handel is that he was a consummate philosopher. He wrote one philosophical treatise: his last oratorio, Jephthah. The musical drama was a rebuttal to Alexander Pope’s An Essay on Man.

An Essay on Man, published 1733-34, is a poetic philosophical treatise vindicating the ways of God vis-a-vis His interactions with humans (line 16). The poem presents the natural order of things that God has decreed for human beings.

Pope goes on to argue that since it is impossible for finite humans to know the purposes of the infinite God, human beings have no right to complain about their lot in the Great Chain of Being (lines 33-34). Instead of complaining, people should simply accept the premise that “Whatever is, is right.” (line 292)

An Essay on Man found great acceptance and admiration throughout Europe. Among it’s admirers were Rousseau, Voltaire, and Kant. In fact, Kant used to read the poem to his students; and Pope’s philosophy was an important contributor to Kant’s own philosophy of religion.

While an early admirer, Voltaire later rejected Pope’s deterministic optimism and lampooned it in his book Candide.

However, Handel beat Voltaire’s rebuttal by 8 years — publishing, in 1751, his own rejection in the form of the magnificent oratorio, Jephthah.

In Jephthah, Handel questions, with biting sarcasm, that is brilliantly portrayed in the musical interpretation of the text, Pope’s assertion that “Whatever is, is right.”

The Biblical account of Jephthah is fairly short. He sets out to fight Israel’s enemies and vows to God that if God honors him with victory he will sacrifice to God the first thing he sees upon his return from the battlefield.

Foreshadowing is nothing new, writers and readers. And low and behold, what is the first thing Jephthah sees? Why, of course, his only daughter. The Biblical account clearly implies Jephthah kept his vow, after allowing his daughter a year’s reprieve.

However, such an interpretation wouldn’t fly in 18th century London. So the librettist, the Reverend Thomas Morell, took a page from the story of Abraham and Isaac and had an angel spare Iphis, Jephthah’s daughter, from death — but to honor the vow, she could not marry and had to remain a virgin her entire life.

And of course, Iphis has a lover, Hamor. Talk about star-crossed lovers!

Through the musical interpretation of the text, Handel roundly damns Pope’s sentiment, “Whatever is, is right.”

Whatever is, is not always right. The punishment for Jephthah’s misguided and witless vow falls squarely on two  innocents: Iphis and Hamor, the young lovers who have their whole lives ahead of them. And according to Handel, that is definitely not right. Those two should not have to suffer for Jephthah’s misguided zeal.

It’s as if Handel was saying, no loving and fair God would ever commit such a travesty of justice. Spare Iphis from death, but commit her to the lifelong death of separation from the one she loves? Bah! Humbug! And no father should have to honor such a vow based on belief in religious duty that flies in the face of religious common sense. Jephthah had just defeated the followers of Moloch — who practiced human sacrifice!

Pope and his absurd position be damned!

You can listen to the oratorio here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N0N-o3KAsk

The performance is 2 hours and 40 minutes of some of the most poignant and sublime music you will ever hear. Never has philosophy been so easy to enjoy!

George Frideric Handel was and is a giant among composers. He wrote French music better then the French, Italian music better than the Italians, and German music better than the Germans (although some would cite JS Bach as the exception). No British composer until Ralph Vaughan Williams could even come close to Handel.

Handel was a great musician and a great philosopher. Happy birthday, George!

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading! (And listening!)

It Starts With Need

The need of your character gives you a goal, a destination, an ending to your story. How your character achieves or does not achieve that goal becomes the action of our story.

—Syd Field, Screenplay (Revised and updated edition)

A story is a fairly simple thing. As Field notes, you have a character. That character has a need. The need provides the ending of the story. How the character achieves, or fails to achieve , his or her need provides the action of the story.

The plot is not the thing. The focal point character is the thing. The character provides everything to make the story the story.

Of course the essential nature of all drama is conflict. If there is no conflict, there is no story. Knowing the main character’s need, enables you the writer to throw obstacles in the character’s path.

If the character overcomes the obstacles, he wins. He satisfies his need. If the obstacles win, the character fails.

So, you have an idea. How do you turn that idea into a story? I suggest you start with a person. The person will become your main character.

Write a brief sketch of your character and give him or her a need. The character’s need is going to provide you with the rest of the story. It’s Bradbury’s principle: create your character, have him do his thing, and there’s your story.

For example, my character Pierce Mostyn works for the uber-secret federal Office of Unidentified Phenomena. The agency’s mission is to stop monsters from destroying earth.

Mostyn’s need in each story is to discover what the monster is, the threat it poses, and to eliminate it if possible. That need provides the story’s ending, and all the action getting to the end of the story.

Another example: in The Bourne Supremacy, Jason Bourne needs to know who wants him dead and why. That need drives the action of the movie and provides the ending.

Knowing your character and his need gives you the kernel of your story. It is then your job as the writer to grow that kernel, that seed, into a full-fledged story.

I hope you found that useful.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy writing!

The Power of Negative Thinking

 The other week I got an email from a writing guru that actually made some sense.

I call what he had to say — The Power of Negative Thinking.

Now you might be asking yourself, what the heck is The Power of Negative Thinking? And if you are, continue reading and I’ll explain.

We all know the importance of setting goals. We also know the importance of setting up steps to achieve those goals.

Our goal might be to write a novel in one year. To achieve that goal, we might set a secondary goal of writing 190 words a day. Now that doesn’t seem like much, but we work full-time; have a spouse, kids, dog, relatives, friends; there’s mowing the lawn and taking care of things around the house; and what have you. And all of those things want a piece of our time.

The standard advice is to set aside a block of time at the same time every day to write, and to write a certain amount of words. In our example, that would be 190. So, say, we decide to set aside 1 hour at 5 am to write those 190 words. Easy peasy, right?

So how many of us have done just that — and not gotten our book written?

C’mon now, raise your hand with me. Yep. Just as I thought. We’ve all been there.

Setting up a writing goal often is no different than making new year resolutions or resolving to lose those extra pounds: our resolve has gone out the window by week three. Or maybe earlier.

This is where The Power of Negative Thinking can help us. It turns on its head the conventional wisdom and often exposes the real reason we don’t achieve our goals.

The Power of Negative Thinking works like this. You set your goal of writing that novel in one year.

Then you ask yourself: how can I not reach my goal?

Go ahead, make a list of all the things that you can do to not write that novel in a year. By doing this, you have now identified your goal killers. The things that you subconsciously let derail you. The things that you subconsciously let stop you from reaching your goal.

Now, once these have been identified, you strategize on how to eliminate them. You plan how you will not let those things defeat you. Stop you from achieving your goal of writing that novel in a year.

By focusing on what is hindering you, you can very  often identify hidden fears that are short circuiting your success. That happened to me. By analyzing why I kept putting other things before writing, I came to realize that I was afraid of failing. And by failing I’d prove my parents right. That I was a failure. Once I realized that, I also realized I didn’t need their approval and I was free to write. Yippee! :)

Or you might discover that there are things more important to you than writing a novel. And that’s okay. Writing isn’t for everyone. Just like fishing, or tennis, or video games.

But you may also discover that you simply fritter away much of your time. That you let other things occupy you. In which case, you can then schedule those other things to be done in some other time frame than your time to write. Knowing that they will get attention when it’s their turn, will enable you to focus on writing.

Since I retired, my biggest time sucks are 

• other people demanding my attention in real life 
• social media
• TV
• Computer games

To get my books written, I minimize those hindrances. I schedule them away from my writing time. I avoid going to the living room, for example, during writing time so the TV doesn’t tempt me. Another is that I write long hand, in part, so I don’t have to have the computer on.

The Power of Negative Thinking is actually an old Stoic recommendation for dealing with all the crap life sends our way. And it works! Give it a try.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy Negative Thinking! 

No Cost Editing

Indie writers get a lot of flak for their lack of proofreading. And quite honestly, some of it is justified. Although, the big corporate publishers have released proofreading horrors as well. I’ve read those books and am glad I bought them used and not at full price.

But no writer need have a problem with producing a clean text. And I’m going to tell you a very simple solution to your proofreading and line editing headache.

Read Out Loud

My writing method dates back to high school and college. I write my story longhand. Then I type it, and make corrections as I type. Once typed, I read the story, catch the typos, and maybe make a line edit or two. Then comes the trick that I read about years ago, but took a long time to put into practice.

I read the story out loud. Reading out loud brings your ear into play. Your ear will catch those clunky sentences that you thought looked okay, but they don’t read okay.

Reading out loud, also helps to catch typos and wrong words. Those things your eye glossed over, but of which your tongue and ear are less forgiving.

When I started reading out loud, I began getting a much smoother text than just letting my eyes catch things.

The ear and the tongue are invaluable assistants to the eye. Use them to get a cleaner text.

The Computer Reads

Yep. I let my MacBook read the text to me — while I visually follow along. Don’t close your eyes here!

By listening to someone else read your story (yes, you could use a human to read your story to you), you catch things that sound off. 

The advantage of the computer over a human is that the computer reads exactly what is on the page. It doesn’t have a brain that compensates for your mistakes. And if you are reading the text as the computer reads, you will catch even more goofs you made.

No Money

Neither of the above editing tips cost a cent. They are available to everyone. Yet, I’m surprised how few writers use them! 

By bringing in your other senses and by using the technology you already paid for, you can get a very clean text. Which will make your readers happy.

There’s no reason to write a good story and then ruin the reader’s experience with a sloppy text. None.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy editing!

Comments on Craft

The other day I read an article on writing craft entitled, “25 Essential Notes on Craft from Matthew Salesses”.

I found the article both thought provoking and disturbing. Thought provoking in that it gave me a sneak peak at how other cultures view craft. Disturbing in that it was a typical academic rant condemning Western culture in the promotion of diversity.

Why academics, and the Left in general, feel the need to promote diversity by bashing the West baffles me. In so doing, they strip diversity of the very diversity they are trying to promote. We cannot embrace diversity (which I see as a good thing) if we condemn a part of the human community. If we truly are one, then all cultures and people are one — and all approaches to the craft of writing have value.

In my own writing journey, I am deeply indebted to the Japanese outlook regarding storytelling. The, by Western standards, “plotless” approach of Japanese craft suits me. And in discovering the so-called plotless novel, I found the freedom to write fiction.

I learned much of my craft from the poets Basho, Saigyō, and Ishikawa Takuboku; the movies of Yasujirō Ozu; and the novels of Kazuo Ishiguro. Yet, I’d say I write very much in a Western style.

What the above artists gave me was an appreciation for the impact that under-telling has on the reader. Of course Elmore Leonard said much the same thing when he advised writers to leave out the parts readers skip over.

The Japanese writer also views himself in partnership with the reader. For example: a tanka poem is said to be the middle of the story. The reader is expected to supply the beginning and the end. Both writer and reader contribute to the wholeness of the poem.

Both of the above aspects of Japanese writing remain with me. I don’t have to write everything. The reader can (and will) fill in.

Cultural exchange has been going on ever since there have been cultures, and I think it’s a good thing. We all become richer by adopting the good aspects of each other’s cultures.

Sure, there are purists in all cultures who want to isolate their culture from all outside influence. That leads to stagnation. And there are plenty of examples in history. And none worked in favor of the isolationists.

What’s worse, though, to my mind, is the hypocrisy of one-way appropriation: one culture taking from others, while at the same time being opposed to anyone taking from them. Unfortunately, we see a lot of this going on today.

Salesses makes a point regarding audience: that craft is tied to audience expectations. The two reinforce each other. I think this is true and inevitable. Especially with regards to popular fiction. Lit Fic writers have a much freer hand to experiment.

In my opinion, Salesses is merely stating the obvious. And in doing so, I can’t help but get the feeling that he doesn’t like it. That somehow readers should divorce themselves from their culture.

If I’m writing in a particular genre, if I wish to communicate to my audience, I must write in their language. That is, I must use the conventions of the genre that the reader expects to see.

I can’t write an urban fantasy action-adventure novel using a sweet romance formula — it won’t communicate. We especially see this in book covers — which are the first tool in the marketer’s arsenal.

Craft dictates that I meet my reader’s expectations. 

At the end of the day, a writer must be true to himself or herself. He or she cannot be something they are not. I cannot write an honest novel from the perspective of Native Americans, or Americans of African descent. Because I’m not Native or Black. We need writers from those cultures to tell their story.

In addition to being true to themselves, writers must also be true to their audience. If they aren’t, they will fail to communicate and they will fail to entertain.

And in the end, fiction is about communication and entertainment.

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, happy reading!

On Anger

Let’s be kinder to one another. After all, we’re just wicked people living among wicked people. Only one thing can give us peace, and that’s a pact of mutual leniency.

                           —Seneca, in “On Anger”

Seneca’s treatise, On Anger, even though written 2,000 years ago, is very much an essay for today.

Over the last 4 years, I’ve observed anger and hate and vitriol on a scale that I’ve not witnessed in my lifetime. Not even the 1960s were as bad.

What the left has done during the Trump administration, I’m afraid has set a precedent for the right to follow during the coming Biden administration. A spiraling cycle of anger and hate and vitriol no matter who is in the White House or who controls Congress.

I’ve seen people publicly say that they no longer wanted to be friends with anyone who supported Trump. And those who publicly said they weren’t friends with anyone who didn’t support Trump.

Politics is a pretty small reason over which to destroy a friendship.

Just think about this: name 10 presidents from before you were born. Presidents are here today and gone tomorrow. Can you name 5 speakers of the house, or 5 Senate majority leaders. Or 10 vice presidents?

Why destroy a friendship, that can last a lifetime, over something so evanescent as politics? In my mind, that is just plain stupid. But then we are living in an age of stupidity.

In the above quote, Seneca hits the nail on the head. We the people are all the same: wicked. Or to be more contemporary, flawed. Not perfect.

If we are to have any hope of living together, we have to extend to everyone — whether we agree with them or not — a pact of leniency.

What does that mean? Leniency is “the fact or quality of being more merciful or tolerant than expected”.

If we exhibited mercy and tolerance in a greater degree than the person we’re extending it to expected — then we are being lenient. And in being lenient, we aren’t saying, I agree with you. We’re saying, I will be your friend even though I disagree with you. Our friendship is more valuable than the individual views we hold.

We are currently at a place where intolerance is destroying the fabric of our society. There is no longer a place for civil disagreement. When in fact we cannot but help disagreeing with each other over something. No two people ever agree 100% on anything.

I’ve become over the years essentially apolitical. After observing the political process for the past 50+ years, I’ve come to the conclusion that it matters little who is in power. President A does things, and then President B undoes them. It’s a case of 2 steps forwards and 2 steps backwards.

But what I do find alarming is the amount of anger I am seeing freely expressed by people in public and on social media. No society can survive if people do not extend leniency towards each other.

Seneca knew this. He was involved in Imperial Roman politics. He had to endure and survive the anger of emperors. Anger that meant instant death if it turned on you. His wise advice regarding anger is something all of us need to heed today.

You can find Seneca’s excellent treatise in a new translation on Amazon.

There is, in addition, a fine abridged version geared more towards practical application, also to be found on Amazon.

I have both, and both are good. They are highly recommended. And who knows? Perhaps we all can become less angered by what is happening all around us and with events in our daily lives, and find a little peace. And who doesn’t want peace?

Comments are always welcome! And until next time, may you enjoy peace in your life!

The Fourth Wall, aka Secondary Belief

 

Anyone familiar with drama knows about the Fourth Wall. It’s that invisible wall that separates the world of the play from the world of the audience. The Fourth Wall prevents the characters from knowing the audience exists, while letting the audience observe the world of the characters in the play.

In literature, this is known as Secondary Belief. The world of the story is separate from the world of the reader. And as long as the world of the story is believable — even though perhaps very different from the world of the reader — the reader will accept it and be entertained.

Magic acts, for example, work on this principle. The audience knows the woman is not cut in half, but accepts what it sees as real in order to be entertained.

In order for the Fourth Wall, or Secondary Belief, to work two things must happen:

• The writer must make the fictional world believable
• The audience/reader must accept the fictional world as believable.

The Burden of the Writer

How does the writer make the fictional world believable? That is the burden of the storyteller — to create a consistent world that, because of its consistency, is believable.

The operative word here is consistent.

For example, we know there are no such things as orcs, or hobbits, or elves, or a place called Middle Earth. However, JRR Tolkien created his world so that it was consistent and therefore appears real and believable to us. And we are thus entertained by the story.

The Burden of the Audience

The audience/reader knows when he or she reads a novel, or watches a movie, that the story or movie is fiction. It is not true. That is called Primary Belief.

However, if the world comes across as realistic and consistent, and therefore believable, the audience/reader will choose to believe what is going on as though it is true. That is Secondary Belief.

If the writer fails to make the story completely believable, or consistent, the audience can choose to suspend disbelief in order to continue to be entertained.

However, once the audience can no longer suspend disbelief, the writer has completely failed.

The Storyteller’s Art

A good storyteller draws you in. Sometimes without you even fully knowing it.

Saki, in “Sredni Vashtar”, starts with a sickly boy, Conradin. Saki paints us a picture of Conradin that we find believable. Perhaps because the boy is like us. We learn of Conradin’s world and of his over protective cousin, who is also his guardian. And slowly, slowly we find ourselves on Conradin’s side in his struggle with his cousin — because it is also our struggle against authority. We believe because something similar has happened to us. The author has hooked us without our even knowing it.

But he couldn’t have done that if the world of the story wasn’t consistent and therefore believable.

A poor storyteller may hit all the plot points on the head and may pack the story with action on every page, but if the tale isn’t consistent within what we understand to be believable — we will feel the story to be artificial and not ring true. And sadly forgettable.

Some time ago, I started reading a novel where the main character was bonded with some sort of sentient cat and, even though they couldn’t stand each other, they couldn’t separate because of their bond. That was difficult to believe, but I accepted it and continued reading.

But when the cat kills several people and the townsfolk just stand around and look at the dead bodies, don’t call the authorities, and don’t do anything against the cat and main character, who are outsiders, the writer lost me. Where was the normal human reaction to murder? I found it very difficult to believe not a single one of the witnesses raised any manner of alarm.

That disbelief, coupled with wooden storytelling, made me put the book aside.

The key to telling a good story is consistency in the fictional world. There’s a reason for the old saying that fiction must be believable, whereas real life doesn’t.

We can accept the inconsistencies in real life, even though they might not make sense, because that is how real life is. But we are intolerant of those same inconsistencies when it comes to fiction. The fictional world must hang together. It must be reasonable. That is just how we are.

The advantage of traditional publishing is that the editor at the publishing house will most likely reject any manuscript that is unbelievable. We the reader are spared, for the most part, lousy stories. That isn’t always the case, but mostly. 

Indie authors have no such gatekeeper — other than their readers. Even if the author uses an editor, there is nothing to make the writer incorporate the editor’s suggestions.

The biggest failing I find among a significant number of indie authors is that their storylines, characters, and the world of the story lack consistency. They simply aren’t believable. Sometimes I can suspend disbelief, but most of the time the books are just too bad to do so.

Therefore my advice to would-be authors is to make sure your characters are consistent with themselves, that there are no gaping holes in your fictional world (in other words, that your world is consistent), and that your storyline flows naturally and doesn’t appear to have been written by the numbers.

We readers want to believe. You writers, help us to believe by being consistent.

Comments are always welcome. And until next time, happy reading!