From the outset it is clear I am a Christian and it is quite true I folloqw the teachings of Jesus and some of his diciples, but what isn't obvious is that I also approach my faith from a historical and scientific background.
This usually become obvious around Christmas time when competeing belief systems set out to bring down the whole idea of Christmas, which the term suggests is a Christ Mass. The time of year is historically important though and not just because Christiansd also started celebrating this time in 330AD. There are the traditions of the Solstice, The Harvest, even Isis in Rome was celebrated around this time.
Historically Christians made the celebration more prominent through time and through countries around the world, where variations of paganism and even wicca was being followed. The early Christians, like St Patrick, who was first driven off for being against Celtic traditions eventually set aside his rigid Roman Catholic Church teaching to develop faith along the lines of inclusivity of culture and tradition; this is why through Europe we see the Christmas tradition well developed with many traditional nature elements.
There came a time of inquisition that swept through the world, or reformations that unravelled the nature of the church while it was trying to enforce power over the very people it said it was protecting. Good Christians still kept on developing strong relationships with their neighbours and accepted traditions and incorporated many of them. Sadly history only records much of the bad that was done and in circles where it is easier to quote something out of context it is hard to deliver and type of understanding about those nightmarish times. The inquisition failed, more people came to the side of Jesus, but not to stand alongside the Catholic Church, but to stand up against the wrongs that were being done on the name of Jesus the Christ.
In many ways the exploitation of people does continue and it comes not from Christians endeavouring to help others but from the new versions of the inquisitipon that call themselves Christians and Churches. Penticostal Churches (At times rabit religious fundamentalists) are infiltarting poor countries and spreading a belief system that, on the surface is a salvation from hatred, develops a kind of deeper hatred of self and those who are not like you. Where this can lead has already been played out in the USA bible belt where you see religious types (I have difficulty even calling them Christian) deliver rant after rant of nonsense and misdirection as if it were some for of God spoken truth. Watch a TV evangelist to see what I mean. These types of Christians do not make up the majority of Christaians in the world today, but like the inquisitions of older times, it is hard to fight against this type of persecution when minorities are not taking the time to understand the differeneces between people and what they believe.
Sometimes, at Christmas, I like to incorporate as the systems that made the early Christian world so vibrant, caring and adventurous - not the TV version people do like to recite in argument, but the guy changing lighbulbs for the old couplwe down the road, the woman mending clothes for ex-cons, or the small church on the corner that sends care packages to soldiers in war torn parts of the world regardless of what the soldier has as a faith.
Today, in the times we try to share there are new voices crying out to be heard, but not crying out in a manner that is of any benefit to others in a tangible sense, but more the individual sound of someone thinking they have more rights than everyone else. Something, if a Christian is of the Jesus following kind, doesn't really consider. That is not to say self is not important, but that self is not something pushed above all others. I think communism tried to be like a atheist model of Christian ideals, and we know how well that worked out. It is at Christmas time that the minority groups scream the loudest, scamper for their piece of dirt so they can hoist their flag higher than anyone elses. Why? What difference does it make if the majority of the country follows a Christian styled Christmas - what harm does this do?
Consider the red suited father Christmas being promoted. This varriant which people seem sometimes to feel more comfortable with is actually the worst kind of Christmas iconism. The red suit and product promotion is only 90 years old, it is a Coca Cola advertisemnt from the 20s, the most effective product ADVERTISING CAMPAIN IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET. While [people balk at the idea of celebrating the birth of a baby who brought hope into the world when the world needed it, they scamper with self righteous pride to an incidious ad campain that commercialised a form of Christmas for profit.
Even Pagan and Wicca belief systems, which would have moree familiarity with the new hope (harvest, birth) ideal would find the red suited fat man too much to accept - yet people do argue this is the true meaning of Christmas when much, much older celebrations created this time of year.
The term Christmas didn't even appear until 330AD, well after much of the old Rome had fallen.
So, why does all this matter to me? It matters because minorities who are not happy with just celebrating their own understanding of the time of year, set out to bring down any other varriant of this celebration. Even I, knowing the history behind the red suit, do not try and bring it down, or stop people from believing in the icon. What is important, and is always important, is that hope is the key to this time of year. Be it solstice, harvest or new birth, all bring the idea of hope into the mind and allow us to astep forward a little more confidently into the future.
I know the history of Christmas (the Christian version that created the name) but that knowing allows me to see the value to all people no matter what they want to believe. If you find negativity in Christmas, than this negativity exiasts in your own heart and mind - true you may find others to join you in some bitterness, there are always plenty of mean spirited people in the world, but on the whole Christmas is a good thing.
With such a long blog for Christmas, my last for the year, it is hard to know what the future will be for people I know and the ones I have yet to meet. Some will naturally of pre conceptions of me as Christian, which will make friendship difficult, and some will find it even appropriate to simply tell me I believe in make beleive. That is the sadness of the modern ages I suppose.
Within myself I know I mean no harm and only wish all people a reasonable life with steady moments of peace, safety and good health.
I could say a lot more, but to be honest, I feel I would then be infringing on othhers opinions and beliefs. I do not want to do that, so please know even as I write this I am cautious not to offend anyone too deliberately.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
In View of the Character
In the modern form a fictional writing the development of the character has become paramount to the sucess of a novel, regardless of which genre you are writing in. In Romance if your hero is not engaging then your reader will simply throw your book away and never consider your work ever again.
Regardless of whether or not your character is a vampire, a fairy or even a woman who finds dressing as a man on weekends, all need to have a connection to the person who is reading the words before them.
I often hear talk amoung new writers or less experienced writers that they need time to set up the story, time to develop the character in order to get the story in motion. In realistic terms do you know how long you have to capture a reader with your character? How long you have to create someone so engaging the reader will want to know more? If you are lucky a reader will give you one whole page, some will even give you two pages, but when a reader is standing at that book shelf in the store you might only have the opening paragraph to say; 'read me, you will like me'.
So, how do you create a connecting character so quickly? And is it hard? The idea is to create immediate empathy with as many people as possible - naturally you won't capture every single person who picks up the book or looks at the story, but you want to create the impression this is what you are doing. The character we first see is the character we will see in the final stages of the book, the person we hear about in those opening words is the character we will be following through the story; is the same chracater who will make us laugh, cry and feel frustration for. And yes it is hard.
Let me look at a simple plot of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back. I know the main character is Roger and it is his story we are really following, yes, later we meet Sarah, but for now we need to establish a connection with Roger from the outset.
Here is what we don't do:
Roger is a home boy, he loves him mom and enjoys playing football with his friends in the park. He is bored with the same chores about the house and hates putting out the garbage on a Thursday night and the only reason he does is so he can see Sarah, the girl next door who practices her basketball in the drive every Thursday nights with her dad.
I have seen openings exactly like this and whenever I confront the author about just how maddeningly bland this is I am hit with abuse and qualifiers as to why it is important to start the novel and story this way. Yes, it might be well written, yes it might introduce us to Roger and yes you do get an idea of the story, but it is total rubbish.
How to engage immeditaely:
Roger slammed the bedroom door, he didn't care what his mother said, he was asking the girl next door to the prom; he was sixteen he could do what he liked. He dropped on the bed and stared up at the Green Day poster on the wall, he only started listening to them because he knew Sarah liked the band. How was he ever going to ask her out now?
Here we open with angst, the idea of a questionable love and a character who seemed to want to do whatever it took to find his girl. A multiple of small things thrown together to, at the very least, trigger some connection back to a time of forbidden love or even forgotten love. Or if this is a teen novel it is an immediate connection to what the teen is already dealing with. Empathy, the opportunity for emptahy exists in the revised opening.
But why angst? Why not a nice story?
It is time to face the truth about the reader, or us the reader. On the most part the majority of readers don't want nice stories, they want to see tension, conflict and the over coming or failing because of that conflict. If the reader wanted nice they would turn on a documentary on TV. It is wise to understand what the reader actually expects from the book they have just paid good money for - they are wanting to be transported throught the character and put in another place. Yes, the story will do this, and how you tell the story will be a huge advantage to you, but if they cannot connect immediately to the principle character then no amount of good writing and purple prose will save you.
Look at your very first chapter, and then look at the openings of all your chapters, if they are not captivating, empathetic and engaging, every single one of them, then there is work to be done. Get the character connected, that is your real challenge.
Robert N Stephenson
author of Uttuku Novel.
Regardless of whether or not your character is a vampire, a fairy or even a woman who finds dressing as a man on weekends, all need to have a connection to the person who is reading the words before them.
I often hear talk amoung new writers or less experienced writers that they need time to set up the story, time to develop the character in order to get the story in motion. In realistic terms do you know how long you have to capture a reader with your character? How long you have to create someone so engaging the reader will want to know more? If you are lucky a reader will give you one whole page, some will even give you two pages, but when a reader is standing at that book shelf in the store you might only have the opening paragraph to say; 'read me, you will like me'.
So, how do you create a connecting character so quickly? And is it hard? The idea is to create immediate empathy with as many people as possible - naturally you won't capture every single person who picks up the book or looks at the story, but you want to create the impression this is what you are doing. The character we first see is the character we will see in the final stages of the book, the person we hear about in those opening words is the character we will be following through the story; is the same chracater who will make us laugh, cry and feel frustration for. And yes it is hard.
Let me look at a simple plot of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back. I know the main character is Roger and it is his story we are really following, yes, later we meet Sarah, but for now we need to establish a connection with Roger from the outset.
Here is what we don't do:
Roger is a home boy, he loves him mom and enjoys playing football with his friends in the park. He is bored with the same chores about the house and hates putting out the garbage on a Thursday night and the only reason he does is so he can see Sarah, the girl next door who practices her basketball in the drive every Thursday nights with her dad.
I have seen openings exactly like this and whenever I confront the author about just how maddeningly bland this is I am hit with abuse and qualifiers as to why it is important to start the novel and story this way. Yes, it might be well written, yes it might introduce us to Roger and yes you do get an idea of the story, but it is total rubbish.
How to engage immeditaely:
Roger slammed the bedroom door, he didn't care what his mother said, he was asking the girl next door to the prom; he was sixteen he could do what he liked. He dropped on the bed and stared up at the Green Day poster on the wall, he only started listening to them because he knew Sarah liked the band. How was he ever going to ask her out now?
Here we open with angst, the idea of a questionable love and a character who seemed to want to do whatever it took to find his girl. A multiple of small things thrown together to, at the very least, trigger some connection back to a time of forbidden love or even forgotten love. Or if this is a teen novel it is an immediate connection to what the teen is already dealing with. Empathy, the opportunity for emptahy exists in the revised opening.
But why angst? Why not a nice story?
It is time to face the truth about the reader, or us the reader. On the most part the majority of readers don't want nice stories, they want to see tension, conflict and the over coming or failing because of that conflict. If the reader wanted nice they would turn on a documentary on TV. It is wise to understand what the reader actually expects from the book they have just paid good money for - they are wanting to be transported throught the character and put in another place. Yes, the story will do this, and how you tell the story will be a huge advantage to you, but if they cannot connect immediately to the principle character then no amount of good writing and purple prose will save you.
Look at your very first chapter, and then look at the openings of all your chapters, if they are not captivating, empathetic and engaging, every single one of them, then there is work to be done. Get the character connected, that is your real challenge.
Robert N Stephenson
author of Uttuku Novel.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Art of Layering Your Fiction
Over the years I have read many great authors and studied their works in order to improve mine. I wrote a book about writing -The Writing Soldier (available from www.altair-australia.com)- which does look at some of what I have learned but one of the most interesting aspects of writing is learning how to layer and layer well.
This is a typical short scene:
Jeff walked into the room, the oak door opening to reveal an ornately decorated study with Turkish rugs on the floor, antique European furniture that could have been from the 1700s and a fire buring warmly in the hearth.
"Good morning, Jeffrey." Mrs Witherly said. She sat in a large armchair that almost swallowed her diminutive size.
"Mr's Witherly. Why have you called me here?"
On the most part you could say this is quite a reasonable scene, and on first look it is like any scene as described in any popular book today, but, and this is an interesting but, the scene could be better if it was layered rather than compartmentalised as most modern writing is. This also brings us to the concept of Show V Tell and layering is part of the show doctrine only it isn't as rigid as some may believe. If I were to take this same scene and add some extra skil,l it might read like this:
Jeff's hand touched the warm surety of the oak door, the smooth finish helped him consider the slipperyness of the situation. Easing the door inwards, the hinges groaning under the weight of solid timber he caught the acridness of wood smoke and the too sweet odour of perfume; even with the Turkish rugs and antique European furniture the room was oppressive; he could feel the presence before she actually spoke.
"Good morning, Jeffrey." Mrs Witherly looked up from her book, a shrunken woman in an oversized leather chair. The flaming hearth as a backdrop gave her a demonic appearance.
He took a deep breath, a steadying of his mind and words; the heavy air made him choke and the sound of crackling of burning wood was a indicator as to how dangerous this meeting was. "Why have you called me here?"
The differences are quite slight but enough of a difference to add life, or extra life to a scene and allow it to breath within the reader's chest as they read. Why you do this is so the reader can feel and experience every word, rather than have to simply piece the words together to make an image.
Layering allows you to build the image of the world, the characters and their interactions together in a smoothly flowing stream of prose, where the compartmentalised approach has a tendency to keep these three elements uniquely seperate.
Okay, this is my first observation, I will look more on this later, but consider your words now and how you use them and create scenes that breath rather than just create a static picture of slightly connected elements.
This is a typical short scene:
Jeff walked into the room, the oak door opening to reveal an ornately decorated study with Turkish rugs on the floor, antique European furniture that could have been from the 1700s and a fire buring warmly in the hearth.
"Good morning, Jeffrey." Mrs Witherly said. She sat in a large armchair that almost swallowed her diminutive size.
"Mr's Witherly. Why have you called me here?"
On the most part you could say this is quite a reasonable scene, and on first look it is like any scene as described in any popular book today, but, and this is an interesting but, the scene could be better if it was layered rather than compartmentalised as most modern writing is. This also brings us to the concept of Show V Tell and layering is part of the show doctrine only it isn't as rigid as some may believe. If I were to take this same scene and add some extra skil,l it might read like this:
Jeff's hand touched the warm surety of the oak door, the smooth finish helped him consider the slipperyness of the situation. Easing the door inwards, the hinges groaning under the weight of solid timber he caught the acridness of wood smoke and the too sweet odour of perfume; even with the Turkish rugs and antique European furniture the room was oppressive; he could feel the presence before she actually spoke.
"Good morning, Jeffrey." Mrs Witherly looked up from her book, a shrunken woman in an oversized leather chair. The flaming hearth as a backdrop gave her a demonic appearance.
He took a deep breath, a steadying of his mind and words; the heavy air made him choke and the sound of crackling of burning wood was a indicator as to how dangerous this meeting was. "Why have you called me here?"
The differences are quite slight but enough of a difference to add life, or extra life to a scene and allow it to breath within the reader's chest as they read. Why you do this is so the reader can feel and experience every word, rather than have to simply piece the words together to make an image.
Layering allows you to build the image of the world, the characters and their interactions together in a smoothly flowing stream of prose, where the compartmentalised approach has a tendency to keep these three elements uniquely seperate.
Okay, this is my first observation, I will look more on this later, but consider your words now and how you use them and create scenes that breath rather than just create a static picture of slightly connected elements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
