reader_ahoy.pdf |
Just for today, I wanted to share a right swashbuckling critique of dumbin' down science from t' viewpoint o' a wordy pirate fed up with landlubbers muckin' where there be big words, matey. It's good, I promise. I had a marvelous time at the "Four Souls: Memory and Identity from the Borders" symposium a couple weeks ago. As Louise Erdrich said, the mixed heritage identity is becoming increasingly more common in America. That's true, and always has been true, it's just that people downplayed it whenever going out of their communities. To this day, a lot of people want to blend in, be "normal." But not all of us can do that. Most minorities can't. I can't, and I don't truly want to, since it would require sacrificing who I am. I am glad to live in a time where diversity is becoming more acceptable. A while ago, I also read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin de Becker, which I think all writers should read if they want to consider conflict and violence in their work. It recaptures much of what we know, and also rebuts some things people assume about fear. I found some vindication for my experiences, including the fact that when we are in survival mode, we are focused on survival, we are not worrying or anxious, because the worst is coming true RIGHT NOW and it requires all of our resources if we are to survive. I suspect that is part of why nonfiction accounts of trauma often fail to satisfy imaginations; there's not enough meat for our fears to feed on. Many old-time writers, I have noticed, do not dwell on the lurid aspects of violence, unlike today with the rise of TV and movies glorifying violence as visible conflict. Twain claimed to have served in the Civil War and he saw his brother killed in an explosion. He wrote in his memoir, Life on the MIssissippi, that he just couldn't bring himself to write about violence. Dickens, in Nicholas Nickleby has some violent scenes, discharged with a single sentence as brief as-- he hit him-- written almost so quickly you miss it, but Dicken makes sure you never miss the build-up to that incident or the consequences of such. It's not about the incident, it's about its meaning. Meaning drives the mystery genre. Who profits? Who loses? Who had motive? Why did this happen? The death is just a plot device. The ancient Greeks, who warred often, also removed violence from the stage; it was always off-stage. A matter of taste, which heightened the tragedy of feeling around the incident. It was Ancient Rome who brought violence onstage, with bread and circuses, with violent, even pornographic dramas, full of mock battles. Rome reduced violence to entertainment, almost random, disconnected from human emotion. Such desensitivization was good preparation for a populace that would march to war, to rule brutally, yet justly, according to the needs of the Republic, then Empire. It is disturbing to say that I've thought of the aesthetic of violence, but fiction writers should think about that topic, because conflict is the stuff of fiction, and too often, that gets equated with violence by new writers. The problem with using violence as a stand-in for conflict is, as de Becker points out, real-life violence is very predictable, seeded in frustrated desires, means, and opportunities. Neglect the "before" and the "after"-- the real conflict-- then that violence reads as random and banal, without depth of feeling or meaning. I've heard at least one writing teacher gripe about all the bar fights they've had to read from writers who decided their story needed some conflict, action, and excitement. The reason for those fights? Just random encounters between testesterone-laden males under the influence of alcohol. Over and over again. Depressing. Conflict can be humorous, confusing, any adjective you choose. It can be over any object in the world, because human nature is that varied and strange, as long as each party has their reasons. And I have the gift of time to think about conflict and the wonderful diversity of human nature, so I'm off and roaring on my thesis. I've already felt like I'm hosting multiple personalities at one time, just thinking about things from every character's point of view, finding their reasons, motives, and connections. Hopefully I will stay legally sane by the time I finish this draft, even if I turn out slightly more wide-eyed and crazed than I used to be. |
Jennifer PhillipsA former science editor and current writer, and service dog user. Archives
April 2016
Categories
All
|