Gerard Houarner

RETURN TO THE STORYTELLERS HOMEPAGE

Yes, we’re all busy. All the time, it seems. There are bills to pay, responsibilities to meet, places we have to be and things we must do.

“Modern” life and its freedoms have their pressures. Choices come with consequences. The consequences, frankly, are not as dire as those that come from a lack of choices. But, hey, what’s life without drama.

For many of us, there’s a need to use every moment we can to pursue something or other. To be active, engaged. Boredom, restlessness, frustration seems to come easily. So do opportunities for distraction.

For writers, of course, there are deadlines. The next story to be written. A new market to jump into. And the perpetual complaint that there isn’t enough time to write.

Well, time is relative, as the saying goes.

A lot of us talk about how we carve out time to sit at the keyboard and punch out a few lines. But sometimes it’s hard to come up with anything during those stolen moments. Hard to switch gears, to concentrate, to return to the world we created in our imagination. We might spend a lot of time getting back into that frame of mind.

Sometimes the fight is less about finding time to write, and more about preserving the need and the frame of mind to create.

So maybe another way to approach the writing gig is looking at the time that falls into our laps inconveniently. That would be the unplanned time we spend waiting for something to happen. (There’s an argument to be made that all time is about waiting for something to happen, but I edited that out because, well, I gave you guys a break.)

Some people call it “dead time.” You’re trapped in a commute, a meeting, a waiting room, an event. Whatever. The point is, you’re in a time and place that isn’t engaging you. You’re bored, adrift, perhaps losing your mind.

Some pull out a laptop or even a “smart” phone (don’t get me started) and start working on a piece.

I suspect these days people are more likely to be texting, gaming, shopping online, etc.

Reading is a traditional pastime, and for writers, essential.

But if you want to write, and can’t pull out the project you’re working on for whatever reason (like, you’re driving, or the setting isn’t appropriate), there are ways to exercise the writing muscles, and maybe gain an inch or two on whatever you’re working on.

Writing, even though it’s done mostly sitting down (unless you’re a best-selling media writer who prefers dictating into a machine while taking walks), is an active endeavor. It requires engagement of mind and body, attunement to senses, imagination and cognition. I say again, imagination.

I think we’re encouraged, if not trained, to turn imagination off in many situations. If we live in a variety of “worlds” – family, faith, work, creative, sport, etc – we have a lot more material to work with, but we are also undercover. Spies in the house of God. Locked in roles, tucked away in boxes.

We may spend a lot of time fighting not to think outside the box.

Working out the imagination is not a bad way to pass your dead time.

It can take work. Playing games is definitely easier. So is reading. Sometimes playing someone else’s game is what’s needed to relieve the stress, to give your mind and spirit a break. But in playing your own games, I think you’re preparing yourself to write.

Perpetual daydreamers have a different problem, but the problem, as far as I can tell from my own lost ramblings inside my head, is not being focused on a specific story or purpose. A little more structure can be helpful.

One dead time problem is being stuck worrying or obsessing about whatever is going on in your life, a negative kind of daydreaming. One way to get out of that “head” is to pay attention to what’s around you, looking at things as if they were brand new, through the perspective of someone else, a stranger, someone else in the vicinity, a friend or enemy, whoever is behind the thing you’re obsessing about, an alien, a traveler from another time or place. Focus on what’s outside, rather than inside.

Details make a story real. You’re gathering information, and practicing how to fill out information from the vague, dreamy settings in your mind. You’re also practicing observing the environment from the perspective of different characters. How does a boss view a meeting room, as opposed to the clerk taking minutes, the tech guy, the presenters, the people who will be called upon to come up with reactions. Or a child’s perspective on the family holiday dinner, versus the grandparent, the friends and neighbors, the person the daughter or son brought home to meet the family, the hosts.

Doesn’t matter how many times seen the room, been down that road, passed that pile of rubble, heard the family story or institutional line. Stepping outside of yourself forces you to experience the familiar in unfamiliar ways.

Just because you’ve seen a sunset doesn’t mean you’ve seen anything like the one happening now.

I grant you, the experience is not always pleasant. It’s a little disorienting. Surreal. It’s also…work. So is writing. The value to me in this kind of exercise is that it helps me bore down to the details I need when I’m actually at the keyboard trying to get something done. The other payoff is that, sometimes, I get something out of it I can use in the piece I’m working on.

Along the same lines, you can also get into describing people and places in different literary styles. From spare to lush, hyper-realistic and detailed to metaphorical, trying out different approaches to setting a scene is a good exercise that can break the monotony of your own writing voice or style. Coming up with one-line character descriptions is, of course, an art that may never be mastered, but I guarantee practicing it during dead time on a train ride will not only be entertaining, but improve your ability to call upon the skill when you’re at the keyboard. Finding ways to describe what they’re actually doing – how a doorman stands in the door, waiting, or how a construction worker acts in the cab of a crane, are all fair game. Looking at buildings, sky, bridges, hallways, cars, etc, will either send you scurrying off to Google for concrete details or inspire you to write poetry (if you’re not already one).

You don’t have to use your overly-detailed or metaphorical gems (um, “the parking lot looked as if the earth had tried to shrug it off its tired shoulders,” for example). You just want to play at being another kind of writer. Stretch and practice skills you will absolutely need when it comes down to working on a story. You never know, you might wind up reaching for pen and paper (or electronic device) to actually write something down.

If you’re the crime kind, you can tune the observational game to find, like Sherlock Holmes, or Monk, what’s off in the details of your environment or the people around you. Or, knock one small aspect of what you see out of whack, or make the place or person too perfect. Flaws and flawlessness, the keys to conflict.

Projecting yourself, or a character you’re working with, into your dead time environment is another variation. I often discover a new level of hell in places I find myself – for instance, at work, surrounded by a massive 5 year construction project, the steady pounding of piles being driven into the earth or the whine of the machinery driving them through rock, informs my every working minute. I can look out my window and put myself in and around the machinery, in the ditches and holes, pipes, concrete, etc. My travels take me to all kinds of odd setting, like a massive food distribution warehouse where my mind riffed on hell as an endless warehouse, demons sitting on top of food supplies but providing free access to bleach.

Perhaps a more challenging exercise for me might be to think romantic comedy instead of hell. We all have our lessons to learn.

But looking out on to landscapes from your deadtime vantage point, or following the story happening in a window across the alley, or through the open doorway in another office, are just as productive in a creative exercise kind of way.

If your deadtime is not physically restrictive – say you have an hour to kill before an appointment – then an alternative to sitting in a café and reading or writing might be to explore the neighborhood you’re in, paying attention to details, differences in people and places, architecture, food, etc, from what you might be accustomed to experiencing. Walking a narrative in your mind. Listening for different speech rhythms, music, smells, sounds.

Of course, a more immediate use of deadtime might be to keep the last couple of pages of what you’re working refreshed in your mind, even if you haven’t had time to work on the piece. Some of these games might serve to shake up what you’ve written, force you to look deeper, or come up with another angle on character, setting, plot.

From personal experience, it can also extend the amount of time you’re working on a project. Nothing like getting new perspective on work you think is already done. Maybe it’s good, maybe it’s just putting off the inevitable slide into anonymity. But, for the moment, it can be fun.

Somebody once told me I’m always seem to be working because, at that time, I’d was always writing things down – snatches of conversations from which I harvested titles and dialogue; odd facts; descriptions of friends and family members other people would talk about who seemed interesting as potential characters. I guess I had a lot of dead time, back then. Or, perhaps truer, I used my time better in those days. I certainly aim to get back to those days.

Perhaps, I may even email myself my clever bits, if there are any, while everyone else is texting under the table.

The following was first published in Aberrations 38, 1996, and reprinted in Nasty Snippets in 1999.  Maybe more of a meditation than a story, it serves today to maintain the old site tradition of putting up something appropriate for the upcoming holiday.  Hope you dig it…

In the first box, by the door, she keeps her public face.  Every day she scrubs it clean, smooths its wrinkles, adds a touch of color where the sun has bleached the skin.  Eyes and lips are in clear plastic tubes next to the face, a shade for every occasion.  They float in a special fluid which keeps the flesh moist and nourished.

The second box has her wigs, her shape, the clothes she wears, and pretty nails.   Clothes are lined along the side.

The third box holds her voice, the words she knows, the thoughts she has to give to the world around her.  There are some songs, a string of curses, screams of pain and of delight, and other sounds a woman is expected to make.

The fourth box is not kept by the door, as are the first three.  It is not made from cardboard and replaced every few months, nor is the top casually tossed back on after being opened and its contents used.  Built from strong oak, with runes from a secret tongue and animal faces carved into its side, the box is sealed with a heavy iron lock which has only one key.  Tears have corroded the lock with rust, and the key is lost.

In the box rests her name,her heart, and most of the feelings it contains.  Her soul is kept in there as well, nourished by the warmth of emotions smouldering in the darkness.  A long time has passed since the box was opened.

In the attic is a glass box, sealed on every edge and corner with gold and silver.  The glass is clean and clear, cared for at least once a week.  Lace covers the table on which the box rests.  The soft, warm light of a lamp glows beside the table day and night.  The windows are shuttered, latches nailed in place, and the walls and roof are lined with lead.  The door to the attic is hidden, and the stairwell is so small only she can fit through the passage.

The box holds her dreams.  They are bright and full of colors, and hard like jewels, with facets and faces hidden from view.  They do not breathe, and they never dance.  The have the stillness of death.

Below, in the basement, at the core of a maze cast in eternal night, a box has been carved from the stone on which the house rests.  The lid is a boulder moved only once, when glaciers last shaped the earth.  Vipers, spiders, beetles and rats, fangs dripping poison, slither and scuttle in the dark.  In this crypt rests her desires.  The flesh of her appetite is dry, and hangs loosely on the withered meat of her hunger.

Finally, in the garden, where vegetables grow and flowers bloom, and the scent from an herb patch hangs in the air during the evening, there are five stones marking the graves of her past.  The bodies in the five buried boxes have no names, but they bear traces of her kisses.  Hidden behind a bush in a far corner is a sixth box, already set into the ground and awaiting only the caretaker to fill the hole with the dirt piled beside it.  On moonless nights, when the stars are veiled by clouds and the world pauses in its journey towards death, she comes out and lowers herself into the hole.  She lies down in the open box and closes her eyes.  Sometimes she draws the lid shut and holds her breath.

That is when the few feelings left to run free in the house all come to her at once, like birds alighting on a favorite perch.  That is when rage makes her tremble, and sorrow burns the empty places inside of her.  And fear makes her feel the cold of the endless night beyond the walls of her box.

end

In a recent BBC interview, Sir David Hare, Oscar-nominated screenwriter, playwright, and general curmudgeon, talked about writing –http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9568401.stm

Brief and bitter-sweet in the clip, he talks about having to write, and writing being one of the most important things in life even as he acknowledges that he makes films not very many people see.
Now, of course, you have to take some of the negative things he says, when his work has earned him a title as well as an enviable lifestyle, with a hefty grain of salt.

But for this little, irrelevant writer, what’s really interesting is his belief that writing, as a profession, is not about self-expression. The implication, at least what I gathered from the clip, is that writing is about, in part, surviving the need to write.

He talked about a writer being at the mercy of one’s gifts and imagination. Writing is about, for some, trying to write the Great Thing, and then, dealing with the reality that one is always at the mercy of one’s gift and imagination. Writing is also about the painful process of coming to terms with the limits of one’s “gifts” and imagination, and the reality that the Great Thing can’t be done.

He also talks about dealing with being judged, which I interpret as being critiqued, misinterpreted, misunderstood or, simply, not being liked. Well, okay, I suppose, though money, awards and a title might go a long way to smoothing out any feelings about a lack of validation. After all, very few people may see his movies, but people still give him money to make them. But for the vast majority of writers, yes, dealing with rejection – from editors, yes, but also audiences — is a professional challenge that must be faced.

Finally, and perhaps most relevant for everyone, is the need for regeneration. Whether you call it being blocked, or running out of ideas or inspiration, or coming to a commercial dead-end, writing is certainly about finding the energy and creativity to start over again once a story is finished, a project is published, and the moment of publishing success, or failure, has passed.

Writing as life is no different from life as life. Denial is a beautiful thing, and seems to carry some a very long way, but as in life, I’m too much a realist to try ducking the stone walls of talent, imagination, audiences or lack thereof. And I am a fan of regeneration, feeding that thing inside that wants to make something someone else might find interesting. Writing as life means having to find a way through the disappointments and failures and keep going. Where? Well, you know how that goes, it’s the journey not the destination…

On a perhaps more inspirational note, Ray Bradbury’s birthday was August 22nd, and recognized in the LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2011/08/happy-91st-birthday-ray-bradbury.html

Hard to come up with a better example of writing as life, integrating gifts and imagination, dealing with being judged, and finding strength through regeneration…

The world changes based on physical laws and dynamics; people change based on physiological and psychological processes.

How people perceive these changes and react to them is the stuff of, if not legend, certainly story.

A recent David Brooks Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html) on “The New Humanism” (which doesn’t look like the old or even current New Humanism stuff I’ve encountered) sparked some thinking about people and stories I hope is interesting.

The notion I cling to from the article is that the disasters we visit on ourselves are caused, at least in part, by the “distorted” and simplistic view that reason and emotion are separate spheres.  We trust in and use the (so-called) rational self to suppress our untrustworthy emotional selves.

It’s the “Western way,” I suppose.  And there’s certainly good cause to fear the emotional aspects of ourselves and others.  Lynch mobs would be one.  However, there is also good cause to be afraid of ignoring emotional realities.  Loss of empathy might fall into that category, leading to the ever-popular genocidal binge.

Suppressing emotional aspects of culture and reinforcing the rational has certainly lead to great leaps in science, technology, philosophy.  But, of course, that suppression has certainly led to some interesting choices in the use of said tech.

As usual, my reaction is probably tangential.  Basically, we’re creatures of perception, and all conflict and miracles stem from this reality, the only reality any of us really care about.  If we perceive ourselves to be rational, the world and our own actions make a certain kind of sense.  If we perceive ourselves grounded in an emotional world, we understand ourselves and the mechanics of our surroundings in a different way.  In genre terms, it’s science vs magic.  One door opens, the other closes.

At least, that’s my theory, my understanding of things as I see them today, through the lens of the article, which, by the way, calls for a more balanced and integrated view, a “new humanism,” to save us from ourselves.

Anyway, I’m struck by the power of perception, and the importance of how the individual and group perceives themselves and the world.

Yes, it is true that when someone pushes a button and nukes everyone, or the asteroid we failed to track crashes into earth, or even when the aliens show up promising harmony and technological wonders and then exterminate us from the safety of somewhere beyond the orbit of Mars, a larger reality will engulf our many-splendored individual realities and make all those precious personal perceptions irrelevant.

And it is true we are often smart enough to evade that larger reality, because we built our earthquake-proof reactors close to the sea to make cooling more efficient, or we tested our brand new and exciting vehicles beyond industry standard to make sure they wouldn’t go off careening down highways on their own.

We built community developments on mountainsides knowing they would never slide off during a hard rain, while laughing at primitive people who built stone towns and cities in sub-tropical regions which have yet to show any inclination toward falling off.  Or, we built monumental apartment buildings to house the poor because that was efficient and cost-effective.

Or, we believed certain kinds of people, like, say, bankers, are fiscally responsible and motivated to preserve capital and wouldn’t dream of lowering themselves to speculation.

A priest, after all, is a priest.  A scientist, the same.  From an emotional or a rational point of view, neither should have any reason to act irresponsibly or stupidly in their role.

They’ve got those emotions locked down because they went to Harvard or MIT, and they’re adults, and they’re rich and responsible.  And stuff.

Indeed, until that larger reality actually manifests itself, we stumble along immersed in our stews of thought and emotion, cooking whatever the hell is going on around us into the gumbo of reality.

We reach conclusions, take actions, reap rewards and punishments based on the most tenuous beliefs: we are reasonable creatures, predictable, with motivations and intentions based on the certainties of evidence.  Or, if you prefer non-rational faith, a Higher Power is on our side.

We are certain of what we know, what we think.  And the best part of that is we have evidence to support our certainty.  There are studies.  Sometimes, experts gather and through consensus, select a “best practice” based solely on the scientific data and without any influence from manufacturers, insurance companies, or other entities with dubious motivations.  Sometimes, God just talks to us.

Often, it all works out.

A disappointing percentage of the time, however, the asteroid hits.

We’re driving along merrily drinking our home-brewed or pundit-bought brew, faithfully and quite rationally following our internal GPS right off the cliff.

Back to my clinging to the notion of a “distorted” and simplistic view of separate rational and emotional selves.

What I take from this idea is that, though the percentage of “right” from the rational approach to things may be impressive, may even be much better than some of the emotional viewpoints past and present, what we consider “rational” is not all that it’s cracked up to be.

The same, of course, can be said to those who navigate principally by an emotional compass.

After all, when the asteroid hits, it doesn’t matter if you made human sacrifices or launched nuclear bombs.  Despite your deepest convictions, what you tried failed.

Just because we elected our shamans, or made them go to college for degrees and licenses and other non-shamanistic accoutrements of non-shamanistic knowledge, insight and wisdom, doesn’t mean what they know or believe is right.

Sometimes, I think we’re all just ants blundering around, putting our heads down and doing our individual thing to the best of whatever our brain circuitry and personal chemistry can do, following one another, picking up scents left by trailblazers who survived and came back with the sugar.  Somehow, our combined chaotic efforts result through trial and error in what we call civilization.  Culture.  Flat screen TV’s filled with sports and digital effects.

I think that’s the latest in ant theory, anyway – there’s no Borg-esque Queen directing the hive, just a bunch of organic machines doing their jobs, stupidly making mistakes, and making up for those mistakes by trying again and again until, eventually, an efficient and practical solution for whatever is challenging the little buggers is found.  Or they die trying.

I also like the word “distorted.”   To me, I means there may well be something there in our funhouse image of what is true and real, but what we have not considered, what may be beyond our grasp or ability to perceive, is what distorts the image.  We believe the image to be true.  But it’s not.  And we are led astray, even to our doom, thinking we are doing the right thing.

I do sympathize with the article’s point that the rational and irrational are enmeshed, inseparable, and to think otherwise may not only be foolish, but dangerous.  Reminds me of the “old” humanism, like a ying yang tattoo staring you in the face.

I also appreciated the research on other measure of intelligence – lord knows we need other forms of intelligence.  The research may be a bit dense, but things like the Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence might lead to some creative perspectives on how your particular demon, fairy, Elder God or alien might perceive and understand the human world.  But go to a library for the thing – even the Kindle price is a heart attack.

There are other ways thinking about the rational and emotional aspects of humanity in terms of story and character.

Yes, there are the obvious and massive dramatic and comedic situations to be mined by playing the rational against the emotional, from I Love Lucy to The Big Bang Theory. Possibly, there’s art in their fusion.

And, an awareness of the varying definitions of humanity, intelligence and talents can help in establishing concrete needs and behaviors of the “new” or alternative human and the alien, and the conflicts and possible resolutions that come out of that.  Could be the new X-Men, could be the transformation of Remembrances of Things Past to the Perceptions of Things Now.

How much trust, and distrust, characters have in their rational/emotional selves is a fundamental anchor for their perception of the world.  And from that anchor, as I’ve been saying, all hell can break loose.  From the best of intentions, horrors can come, and from the worst, miracles.  Or maybe something a little less melodramatic.

Certainly at the root of genres like thriller, mystery, crime, suspense, there is tension between the rational and emotional in individuals and opposing groups.  Character perceptions are skewed, “distorted,” by their perspectives, by the information they allow themselves to process and what they do not take into account.

Decisions are made based on incomplete information.  The rational, or perhaps the emotional mind, blocked relevant information and observations.  Perhaps something was missed in the conflict between the two.  Actions are taken, horribly flawed, and if perceptions don’t change and characters don’t adapt, tragedy results.

I can’t even imagine how many papers have been written on the rational versus the emotional in Shakespeare.  The heart of horror is emotion, but getting to that heart may take raging tooth and claw, or the clean, precise rationality of a surgical blade.  What’s a love story without the heart and mind at war?

In fact, if you look at literature – from love stories to war stories, perhaps even post modern lit – you’d be hard-pressed not to find the conflict between the rational and the emotional at the heart of most stories.

Yes, sides may be taken, which may run counter to this “New Humanism” or its plain old Taoist philosophical roots.  True love wins out, or emotional horror, or the logic of the master detective or the science of the future.

The audience, immersed in their cultural perspectives, craves the comfort of the reality it perceives.

Sometimes, however, a certain balance can be achieved.  The audience may get what it needs rather than what it wants and be satisfied – a richer, more complex resolution than the triumph of the rational, the demise of the emotional, or vice versa.

I know, looking at the news, its hard to believe.  Unrealistic.  Certainly not mimetic.

A hard sell.

Whatever story you choose to tell, a long, hard look at the conflict between the emotional and the rational in characters, in the forces aligned against each other in the grand plot, might not be a total waste of time.  At least, that’s today’s theory.

It seemed to work for Shakespeare.

As writers, we think and talk a lot about plot and characters, and how they form the structure of our stories.

What’s common to this, and many other discussions, is the idea of change.

There wouldn’t be a story without change, not even in the literary genre where, like Vladimir and Estragon waiting for Godot, characters might be trapped in the expectation of a change that never happens – but the possibility of change is still out there. We talk about emotional throughlines, or the transformations great and small characters experience through the actions they take in the story. We set off explosive events – change the rules, make zombies and invading aliens or monsters from out of time and space – and make our characters deal with what we’ve done.

Change, whether or not it actually happens, is the engine that drives a story.

Change comes as crisis, as evolution, transformation, as part of a cycle, or a break from that cycle. Change is birth and death, creation and destruction. It comes with shocking suddenness, hard and fast, and in tiny, excruciating increments of pain, or perhaps joy. Change comes with an opening of a door, or one closing. Change alters perspectives, brings character to an epiphany, a realization, an acceptance, a sensation of satisfaction and completion.

How a character (and of course the reader) perceives and reacts to change in all its flavors reveals everything about that person – their strengths and weaknesses, the brittleness and resiliency. What mix of emotion and intellectuality rises to process the change? What is mobilized in the character, what parts go into hiding?

Does the character embrace, or at least face, the reality of the changes occurring in their world, or do they want to pick and choose, stay in control of that change, even if deals with the devils and taking wishes from djinn popping out of magic lamps is historically shaky business.

What a character does in the face of a transforming situation is the story.

Of course, things may not change, inside, for our character. For every end of the world scenario, for every modernist ironic character study, change can be frustratingly remote. We remain human, even when we transform our characters into something else. Because, really, the inhuman just doesn’t translate. That may also be the point. And, there’s the approach to fiction that requires a return to the norm – you’ve got to come back from Oz.

Or not. If you can sell it, then you stay in whatever brave new world you’ve landed the rest of us in with your story.

Maybe.

You were expecting me to change?

When I was a kid, paper ruled.

Like new cars, new books and comics had that special smell. Of course, that smell came from processed wood pulp and ink instead of fresh plastic and metal, and the aged stuff was always at least a little bit ripe but never as stinky as broken down jalopy, but the sense memories are just as intense for pulp hounds as it is for car junkies.
We didn’t worry about grading back then. If an old comic had a cover, it was a bonus.

For a dime each we could pick up 50’s Gold Medallion crime and Berkely, Signet, Dell and other SF (always taking the ones with Powers covers) mixed with 60’s Ace and Belmont Doubles (I still have a copy of Doomsman somewhere)….

I used to spend hours going through boxes of old books and comics in the back of weird little mom and pop stores – the usual candy stores, but sometimes deli’s, or thrift stores, and the best, a craft store just off the main shopping street. Doctor’s offices sometimes had comics, and other places kids were dragged to and made to wait.
The world of paper opened up the wonder of words and their power to enflame the imagination.

Kids these days, they have electrons.

If you can smell the electrons, I think it’s a bad sign.
The internet has become the new/used book/record/movie/comic/whatever store. Where I used to spend hours going through boxes in the back of weird little stores, kids take breaks from living alternative lifestyles in online games (being Thundarr the Barbarian, I suppose, rather than just watching the cartoons) to go shop for their entertainment through a variety of personal multi-media environments.

It’s taken me a while to adjust. I’ve been using computers to write since the mid-80’s and dig it. Mp3 players and little nano pods are cool but I find the whole downloading, ripping, copying tapes and records, converting files and making up play lists tedious. Games – computer, online or console – bore me because, well, they’re programmed, aren’t they, and so a bit predictable and repetitive. Or, I just don’t care about the challenges they present.

I wasn’t of this world when I was growing up, and I still haven’t completely joined it.

However, despite the lack of a comforting scent, I find myself growing rather attached to my Kindle.
I don’t have a whole library in it, yet. But I have bunches of books from a few of my favorite writers, and I’ve spent a couple of hours loading cheap or free versions of classics and obscure, copyright-free myth reference books. I have a vision of being able to carry my entire reference library in a little book-shaped device, accessing it whenever I need it.

That vision, like my portable music library, is a bit further in the future. I’ve been on facebook for years and, well, I still don’t really know how to work it. I need the social network for socially ambivalent people. Not sure there’s one out there, or what the point of one would be. I need the device that will follow my instructions, intuitively divine my tastes, and get the crap I like without my having to seek it out, convert it, file it, elude the authorities for it, etc. Because, I really can’t be bothered to spend the necessary hours to do all of that.

I know. I’m practically Medieval.

However, what is here is the ability to carry your own library of crap in some sort of portable storage device, and what is arriving is carrying just the device to access that library of crap — games, music, video, alternate lives, other people both real and unreal, archaic things like books, and all kinds of other things — stored in a science fictional cloud anywhere anytime.

Kind of a Zen thing – it’s there, but not physically there. It’s almost like inventing a new lifestyle, a new class of the population that doesn’t buy “things” (outside of some clothes and the instruments that give them access to their electronic possessions). This population just rents, or buys access to stuff.

That, as they say, is progress. Evolution. We read from stone, papyrus, paper and now electrons. We saw pictures on cave walls, on stone, canvas, celluloid, television, cable, internet, from still to moving. We moved by foot, mount, car, plane, rocket. We hunted, grew things, and now we buy stuff in packages or have stuff prepared for us, slow or fast.

The old stuff still exists. People still work with stone, walk, hunt. Human needs haven’t changed. We’ve just found more efficient ways to satisfy them. More convenient. Given ourselves more choices with which to satisfy ourselves.

There will always be readers.

There’ll always be a hardcore collector types, too. These are hardwired personality types, just a human thing. Horses didn’t go away because of trains, cars and planes. They’re just not in the mainstream of everyday life. But it is like living in a sf world where Cordwainer Smith’s Lords of the Instrumentality are being born and getting ready to shape and take over the world.

I do find myself catching something of the zeitgeist. Maybe it’s because I’m getting old, or maybe life has taught me some unfortunate lessons, but I find myself growing impatient with the ton of stuff I’ve accumulated over the decades. There are still things I treasure, but more easily I find things that just weigh me down. I still love books, but often I look on my “stock” and say, when am I ever going to look at this? Some things have lost their connection; their meaning has become irrelevant. I guess it’s a process of self-editing, cutting things down to an essential core. Almost like trying to find the touchstones of a life, what thing symbolizes or gathers a much meaning as possible from different periods of life. Certainly having been around for a while puts perspective on so-called possessions…

From what I can see, the new materialism is only partially physical — electronic equipment is the new Mustang or Corvette. Oh, the old Mustang and Corvette is still there, make no mistake. There are clubs and car shows and auctions and whole industries devoted to that and all the former new materialisms that have swept across Western consumerism. Stuff to put in that electronic equipment is the new collectible — people download (steal) just about everything and anything (even years ago, Peter David was talking about losing money because of downloads of his media stuff, which used to be reprinted for additional fee but then wouldn’t be because people had the electronic versions). People brag about how many games or movies they have on their equipment. The latest car features are electronic – usb ports, bluetooth, electronic engines.
Writers need to plug in.

So. There’s another world out there, evolving at light speed. Words will not vanish. There will always a place for words, a need for them in some part of the human world. But the method of delivery is changing fast. Readers are becoming comfortable with the tech required, and the tech is becoming friendly to the words (and the eyes that read them). Even the big guys are moving their comic book franchises online, I hear.

As writers, we’re aware how the business is changing. The print magazines are almost gone. Self-publishing is evolving into the realm of ebooks. Electronic rights matter. They really, really matter. What was wild speculation five years ago is fact now.

The subject has been discussed here by others, but I just thought I’d add my perspective as, well, whatever I am. I’m trying to catch up. I listen to Dave here at Storytellersunplugged, I’ve joined the gang at Crossroads Press. I visit sites http://www.kristinekathrynrusch.com/ and http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/ and http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/ . Locus online is full of electronic publishing news. We’ve come a long way from Doug Clegg’s Naomi and King’s Riding the Bullet. Like my mp3 players, I find the technical details a little tedious. I’d rather be writing. But I still want readers, however they choose to read my stuff. I’d still like to make some cash out of this business.

So I’m grateful for the guys willing to do the heavy lifting, for the people who have the passion, time and commitment for the level of merchandising required. The old school is still out there, paper and ink is and will still be available. But, let’s face it, the production cost of digital product can’t be beat. Like selling water – it’s right there. I’m grateful to be a part of the future, however small that part may be. We’ll see what this electronic world is going to be all about.

Inspired in part by Brian Hodge’s post last month on predictability, and in part by a quick exchange of emails with a writing buddy about readers’ reactions to story endings, I had already been thinking about this month’s topic over the past few weeks.

Then current events added a new dimension to what passes for my thinking.  The question I’ve been struggling with is, what constitutes a story’s ending, exactly?

First impression:

It depends on reader expectations, based on taste, need, author reputation, cover, blurbs, description.

For context, it’s been less than 24 hours, as I write this, since America’s #1 target has been killed and buried at sea.  I’ve seen about 20 reaction interviews, from generals to soldiers, 9/11 survivors, first responders, family members of victims and soldiers who’ve died in the two wars, and just general citizens.  As a national story, 9/11 and its consequences certainly ranks high on the consciousness scale.  Of course, the story is “real” and we’re all characters in that story, not readers.  The story, being real, is not clean and packaged.  It’s not edited, other than through our own interior and highly subjective review panel.  Still, as a barometer, this particular villain’s story fate offers an interesting take on endings.

For some, the end of this particular story thread provided a degree of closure.  To paraphrase one guy’s reaction, “He won’t even be able to orchestrate another trip to the bathroom.”   For others, there’s the satisfaction of justice, of revenge, of a debt fulfilled.  Occasionally, there is the keen and biting awareness that payment is no substitute for what was taken.  In short, the story hasn’t really ended.  Like life, consequences continue to unfold.  Not everyone, particularly those who have actually suffered directly from 9/11 and its consequences, has gained that warm and fuzzy sensation of closure and completion.

For many, there’s no “happily,” and no “ever.”  There’s only “after.”

Of course, stories are not reality.  We are in the entertainment business, supposedly.  But at the same time, there is also the business of art, perhaps an ambition to have an effect on another person with nothing more than words on paper (or computer screen).   There may even be a responsibility to culture and society, perhaps something like “do no harm,” or even, “make a difference.”  Perhaps, there is only an artistic stance – to be true to one’s vision, or to reflect nature and reality, or to be provocative.  If nothing else, there a foundation to storytelling that supposes that, though stories may not be “real,” they’d sure better reflect what readers feel and know about reality.  Whether set in World War II or your mother’s backyard or a magical kingdom, there is a general sense of logic and order to be followed.

In the sense of connecting to an audience, stories are real. They’re real when they’re happening inside our heads.  We feel them.  We live in them, as readers.  They linger, like memories.  When they go over the edge, we go over with them.  That’s scary, yes.  But in going over the edge, they can also be truthful.  Often, at least for me, stories can leave threads that continue past the word “end” on the last page.  They can even be open-ended, a story road that goes beyond the book’s pages, in the reader’s imagination.

Sometimes this upsets people.

This is when the writer runs into trouble by creating an ending that’s too dark, or open-ended.  When the wrong characters get together, die, survive.  When things get too damned “existential” or, well, okay, too happy.  Predictable, or surprising in a way that doesn’t satisfy the reader.

No one ever said catharsis, for characters or audience, was supposed to be pretty.  But try explaining that to the paying public at the foot of the stage, down in the “pit,” rotten produce in hand.

An individual’s reaction depends on the contract with the signed.  Expectations.  There are bound to be problems, and lousy Amazon reviews, and possibly worse sales, if someone picks up a book anticipating fuzzy and getting razors.

And I can sympathize.  I don’t want “chef’s surprise, “unless I’m a fan of the chef.  And even then, that chef shouldn’t stray too far from the “Italian” I’m familiar with.  No liquid nitrogen cuisine, thanks.  But then again, maybe I’m due for a change.  Maybe I really need to experience flash frozen protein froth.  Who am I to sue over an imaginary contract?  Unfortunately, not many readers are that laid back.  Some get ornery when they think they wasted their beer money.

All artists struggle with the slippery slope of artistic integrity and commercial viability.  Endings are when writers say goodbye to their story, too, and that can be tough.  A world, a bunch of folks who’ve been living in the imagination for months, perhaps years, annihilated in the seconds it takes to type “the end.”  How to say goodbye, how to wrap it up, move on?  Oh, and bank that check, and maybe get back in with a sequel, maybe a series, a cable or movie option.

For readers, the struggle is simpler – the ending is where it all needs to come together.  And if frozen froth is the ending the storyteller finds necessary, how to convince a reader that the froth does indeed have a higher calorie count, and far more texture, flavor and complexity, than that meaty lasagna?

Is an ending okay if it ticks people off, not because it’s predictable, but because it’s unpredictable in the “wrong” way?

I’ve been told that people don’t always know what they want.  My buddy pointed out that, though the reader wanted a more definitive conclusion rather than an open ending, that reader still really wanted to read his work.

This made me think about one of Brian’s observations about characters and knowing them fully.  Oh, yeah, and novel use of language.  I can’t really speak to that one.  But I think characters, a cast of characters, and what happens to them, big and small, not only at the end but over the course of the story, can satisfy the reader enough so they don’t ask for their beer money back.  I think it can be important to reach, or at least offer, different conclusions at an ending, depending on each character’s point of view.

I know, in my reading for Space and Time, I like the main character achieving something, but a secondary character (or “entity” or other force because, let’s face it, it is Space and Time) accomplishing something else, and perhaps even the antagonist comes out with a piece of the pie.  Somehow, that sounds realistic.   Downright mimetic.

In Brian’s words, transformation, not death.  For all.

When I’ve been asked to go back and rethink an ending, it’s generally because the ending is too bleak, dark, hopeless and destitute.  Sort of The Road without the kid.  “What happened?” I’ve been asked, meaning why I did I destroy everything and everyone so completely?  Why did choices and circumstances have to be so dark?  There is, as far as I understand the reaction, a certain lack of meaning.  To me, the situation may reflect s view of reality but, I understand the feedback that, no, I don’t have to beat my readers over the head with that point of view.  And, really, the bleakness doesn’t reflect the totality of my viewpoint.

I do not wear black nail polish or velour on the inside and the out.

Incidents of random joy or humor aside, I still believe the dark path is a legitimate one to take.  I’m a fan of noir, after all.  Horror, dark fantasy, that kind of thing.  But, there is the market to consider.  The editor.  And the choices you leave yourself as a writer.   Meaning, and in the context of commercial fiction, hope, is a legitimate goal.  Those kinds of things do make a difference, they belong in a legitimate artistic vision of the world.  I think readers search for meaning.  I also think meaning can be found in wonder and terror, so you don’t have to be literal about providing “meaning.”

In shorter works, I try to introduce at least one character who is just “passing through” whenever I can.  Spear-carriers, perhaps, but that doesn’t mean they can’t serve the story.  Their tiny one scene arc not only puts the main character in context, in a living world that is going on around the protagonist as he, um, agonizes, but of course they also (Ihope) propel the plot, and, they offer a different point of view on what is going, a lingering presence that will probably survive the main character’s arc and perhaps make the story more real, more vivid, for the reader.   A mom or dad, a best friend, a husband or wife on the phone, a seer or a homeless person, a dog or a cat.  Whatever.  But their little walk through, in my mind, serves a host of purposes, including, I hope, a tiny beginning, middle and end in the scene in which they appear.

In a  longer story, I think there can be as many endings as there are character arcs.  Of course, there’s the main one.  But usually, you have a cast and, for the story to work, they should be of some variety (otherwise there’s no conflict).  A character’s story may be short – perhaps only a scene in a short story, perhaps a few scenes throughout a novel.  There’s usually a cluster of characters and their changes that need to be orchestrated at the end of a longer, more complex work.  An early novel of mine was episodic, so the arcs for the secondary characters were short, but the more recent stuff – with characters dying, or “moving on” (quite literally, in the supernatural sense) or just moving on – required a bit more coordination.

At each of those moments when a character is about to leave the story, either in the middle or the end of the work, here’s a chance to make that character really stand out for a reader.  Every character should be on their own journey, and those little endings and transformations can linger in a reader’s mind if it hits the particular mental or emotional target he or she carries inside them.

You hit them high, you hit them low.  You point in all kinds of directions, hopefully with some pattern or cohesion.

Darkness.  Light.  Humor.  Cruelty.  Love.  Despair.

Well, that’s being overdramatic, of course.  But I hope I’m making sense, if not an actual case, by treasuring the characters you’ve invented, and looking how their individual endings in the story can accent and spice up the overall narrative.  When everybody dies, or falls in love and lives happily ever after, it may taste like burnt chicken.

Another way to look at ends is the technique of revisiting fairy tales by looking at the story from different points of view –  Wolf instead of Red.  Same ending, different meaning.  Put the arcs together, and you have a third story.  Throw in the woodsman, grandma, and you have a richer ending.  Yes, a much longer story, I know, but richer.

Or, as always, you can look to Shakespeare and his major and minor character arcs for those juxtapositions of individual endings.  Well, maybe not Titus Andronicus, but you get the idea.  And, oh yeah, that elevated language thing Brian was talking about.

Going back to the beginning (which is one of my favorite ways to end a story – full circle, very different place), killing Osama puts a meaning to 9/11 – not necessarily the definitive one, just the one we have today, knowing what we know, still in the unfolding story.  Do this, and you die.  That’s a good enough meaning for many.

The more complex meanings are in the reaction interviews – he’s dead, and we are #1.  Or, he’s dead, but I’m still not happy.

In longer works, you can have multiple “endings” from a variety of character arcs, so that individual major, minor, diminished, augmented and what have you characters and secondary story lines can stick in a reader’s mind.  You have two good endings?  Use them both, hell, end on a power chord of endings.

Or, yes, trickle away at the very end, or fade away on the chorus.  Whatever.  I think if you’ve provided memorable characters – and by that, I mean not just colorful or interesting personalities, but vivid and contrasting journeys for those characters to fulfill in the story – you won’t make readers demand their beer money back.  I think that’s why my buddy’s fan wants to continue reading his books – she may not have liked the structural end, the long view of the road vanishing into the horizon with some characters on it, but I’m pretty sure she dug the characters and where most of them wound up.

I bet she liked the language, too.

“I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”

I haven’t the foggiest idea if Abraham Maslow had much experience with the arts, but certainly his observation works for more than therapists and their menu of interventions.  (Maslow being a psychologist of the “humanist” tradition famous for, among other things, a view of personality based on a hierarchy of needs, which some might find useful tool as a way to look at characters and  conflict – check out http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html as a start if you’re interested.)

The hammer and nail observation certainly relates to a lot of situations.  No matter what the profession, it’s never a good thing when a co-worker’s options for appropriate responses is severely limited.  As a matter of fact, the hammer and nail approach often serves as comic relief in storytelling.  And, as a predictor of a character’s early demise.

And, from the viewpoint of the “other side of the coin,” the hammer and nail can also flip from humor to horror, and become the sole motivating factor and/or technique for a predator.

But as a writer, it pays to have a bag of tricks, a few tools in the box to get your character from one place to another, another way to rescue characters besides blood and bullets.  Yes, writers and artists in general have their passions, obsessions, visions and all of that.  Lovecraft overcame his hammer and nail by making it a mighty special hammer, but too many would-be imitators/followers have tried using that same combination and found themselves on the unintentionally humorous side of the coin.  Writers have stock characters they lean on again and again, settings they wear thin, descriptive phrases that appear in story after story, set ups and pay offs that make their tales predictable, a reflection of the genre to which they belong.

It pays to experiment, to read and learn (never steal, writes never steal, they only learn from their betters, trust me), to try and fail (I know, the economic consequences can be dire, but calculated risks are part of every profession).

It pays to pay attention to how many times you describe a street, or a character, or a room, in exactly the same way.  It pays to pay attention to the plots you pick, the characters you rely on, the phrasings like, well, it pays to pay attention…

Zombies.  There’s a tempting target for hammer and nail.  And yet, as an example of how a writer might work different angles with the same very limited subject, you might try Scott Edelman’s collection, What Will Come After.

I think part of the struggle for artists in general is balancing passion and vision, which sometimes tends toward using the hammer of their particular talent and viewpoint to on every project, with the work of trying out new tools to shape different takes on the material.

By this, I mean doing obvious stuff like switching character viewpoints from male to female to “other,” experimenting with language and style and voice, stepping out of the comfort zone of habit, telling a “straight” story if you’re an experimental type and playing with structure if you’re already a straight-shooter.

Do something you don’t want to do.

Pick up a new tool, do something other than hit what you think is a nail.

I had a great conversation recently with a supervisor of a substance abuse clinic, talking about staff issues  and the learning process.  One of the things he talked about was dealing with counselors who used confrontation, a traditional substance abuse counseling tool, for every patient and situation.  And there he was, talking about hammer and nail.

To be applied to so many things in life, of course, from taking a different route to work to, well, you can figure it out…and to writing stories.

My buddy Tom Piccirilli edited a great little magazine a while ago by that name.  Alas, this post won’t match anything he ever published, but a few random sightings of these things on the internet a while back did stir the creative juices (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Famous_last_words ), so I thought I’d share the experience.  Basically a story and character generating idea – a lot of these attributions are pure fantasy or hearsay, but what if somebody actually did say one of these things as their last words?  Who would they be, what would have been the story behind those words?  Or, can you get into your character’s head deeply enough to imagine his or her last words?

Maybe if you dig hard enough, and maybe you’ll find your “rosebud.”

And if you don’t know the story of that most famous of all fictional last words, look it up and check it out.

Anyway, here’s a bunch culled from various sites, emails, posts, etc

Dammit…Don’t you dare ask God to help me.  (Joan Crawford to her housekeeper who began to pray aloud.)

I am perplexed. Satan Get Out  (Aleister Crowley – famous occultist)

Now why did I do that?  (General William Erskine, after he jumped from a window in Lisbon, Portugal in 1813.)

Pardon me, sir. I did not do it on purpose.  (Queen Marie Antoinette after she accidentally stepped on the foot of her executioner as she went to the guillotine.)

I can’t sleep  (J. M. Barrie, author of Peter Pan)

I should never have switched from Scotch to Martinis.  (Humphrey Bogart)

I am about to — or I am going to — die: either expression is correct.  (Dominique Bouhours, famous French grammarian)

I live!  (Roman Emperor, as he was being murdered by his own soldiers.)

Bugger Bognor.  (King George V whose physician had suggested that he relax at his seaside palace in Bognor Regis.)

It’s stopped.  (Joseph Henry Green, upon checking his own pulse.)

LSD, 100 micrograms I.M.  (Aldous Huxley (Author) to his wife. She obliged and he was injected twice before his death.)

You have won, O Galilean  (Emperor Julian, having attempted to reverse the official endorsement of Christianity by the Roman Empire.)

No, you certainly can’t.  (John F. Kennedy in reply to Nellie Connally, wife of Governor John Connelly, commenting “You certainly can’t say that the people of Dallas haven’t given you a nice welcome, Mr. President.)

I feel ill. Call the doctors.  (Mao Zedong (Chairman of China)

Tomorrow, I shall no longer be here  (Nostradamus)

Hurry up, you Hoosier bastard, I could kill ten men while you’re fooling around! (Carl Panzram, serial killer, shortly before he was executed by hanging.)

Put out the bloody cigarette!!  (Saki, to a fellow officer while in a trench during World War One, for fear the smoke would give away their positions. He was then shot by a German sniper who had heard the remark.)

Please don’t let me fall.   (Mary Surratt, before being hanged for her part in the conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln. She was the first woman executed by the United States federal government.)

Now, now, my good man, this is no time for making enemies.  (Voltaire when asked by a priest to renounce Satan.)

“My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One or other of us has got to go.”  (Oscar Wilde)

“I’ve had eighteen whiskeys. I think that’s the record.”  (Dylan Thomas)

“Wait a minute… ” (Pope Alexander VI)
“Don’t disturb my equation” (Archimedes)
“I’m bored with it all.”  (Winston Churchill)

“Thank God. I’m tired of being the funniest person in the room.” (Del Close)

“Lady, you shot me!” (Sam Cooke )

“This is funny.”  (Doc Holliday, said as he was looking down at his bootless feet while lying in bed. He always figured he would die with his boots on.)

“Such is life” (Ned Kelly, Australian outlaw “bush ranger”)

“Don’t let it end like this, tell them I said something!”  (Poncho Villa)

“Moose. Indian.”  (Henry David Thoreau)

“Don’t worry, it’s not loaded” (Terry Kath from the band Chicago, before he shot himself.)

“Pity, pity…..too late!”  (Beethoven)

“I am not in the least bit afraid to die”  (Charles Darwin)

“Who is it?” (Billy the Kid).

“Why, yes, a bulletproof vest”  (Dominic Willard, just before his death by firing squad, whenasked if he had any last requests).

“I did not get my Spaghetti-O’s, I got spaghetti. I want the press to know this.” (Thomas J. Grasso, a confessed multiple murderer, concerning one item he had requested on a lengthy and detailed last meal list.)

All my possessions for a moment of time. (Elizabeth I, Queen of England, d. 1603 )

“I’ve seen many die. The Christians die differently. What is their secret?” (A Chinese Communist Executioner.)

“I shall be with Christ, and that is enough”. (Scientist Michael Faraday upon being asked: “Have you ever pondered what will be your occupation in the next world?”)

Writers are certainly familiar with the concept of failure.  Some of us have stacks of rejections to remind us, just in case we forget.  But this go-around, I’d like to approach this all-too-familiar concept from a different, larger point of view.

A couple of years (or more) ago, J.K. Rowling delivered a commencement speech to the Harvard Alumni Association called, amusingly enough considering the audience, The Fringe Benefits of Failure, and the Importance of Imagination.

What strikes me, as someone who has walked away from certain kinds of “success” and who has been ambushed by unthinkable “failure,” in her approach is the valuable lesson regarding embracing failure.

I know, it’s practically un-American.  Un-anything, for that matter.

Anti-human.  Perhaps even monstrous.

Her angle on failure was freedom.  So maybe the hanging party can pause of while to reconsider, the torch-bearing mob stop at the gates before setting fire to the castle.  Because there’s nothing more American than freedom.

What I most identify with in her speech was the idea of “stripping away of the inessential.”  Now if there’s anything the last few years, hell, the last few decades has taught us is that some parts of the world’s various societies have created a whole hell of a lot of inessential stuff.  With it has come some pretty cool things, incredible feats of engineering and breakthrough science.  But still, a lot wound up being glamour.  Fairy dust in the eyes.  A mirage.  Ultimately, failure.

Individually, maybe we thought we belonged.  We wanted to, tried real hard, did everything we had to be one of the gang.  To beat the Joneses.  Whatever the gang was that we hoped would make us feel okay, protect us from the Big Bad, guarantee us success.  Whatever the Joneses meant to us that they had to be “beaten” in the race to accumulate the latest “things.”

We had to be just that little bit extra special.  So maybe people would notice us.  To feel good about ourselves.  To fill the emptiness inside with someone’s applause, or envy.

I’m sure many of us can look back on our lives and see periods where, well, things didn’t quite work out the way we thought they would.  Things were done as they were supposed to be done.  Certificates, degrees, social circle spokes were all accumulated and nurtured with due diligence and practiced charm.  Money and family and house and hobbies all neatly established to meet the standards of whatever club we wanted to belong to.

Then, if we’re lucky, we found out the club we wanted to be a part of didn’t turn out to be what we thought it would be.

Or, the club simply wouldn’t have us.

Failure.

Rowling  points out that if she had really ever succeeded at anything other than writing, she would never have “found the determination to succeed in the one arena I believed I truly belonged.”

Now here’s a key, I thought – the definition of failure, and the discovery of freedom, for her came as the realization of her greatest fear, which in this case was failure.

We protect ourselves from what we fear with the armor of what our culture values – the perfect spouse, the high-velocity career, car, degrees, property.  Perhaps we believe we have a pipeline to God, or the Spiritual Master of Your Choice.  Certainly, we also protect ourselves from what we fear with the trappings of failure – addiction, ignorance, obsession.

This is what people do, have always done, will always do.

Let’s be blunt.  Failure is hardwired into living.

Systems break down.  Errors occur.  Death looms.

Everybody loves a winner, but to be a winner, everybody else must lose.  That’s the price of competition.  And even today’s winner is tomorrow’s loser.

I’ll stop short of saying there’s “no winning.”  I won’t even go into the aspect of game theory that says the point is not to win or lose, but to keep playing.

I don’t want to bring anyone down, here.  But there is, actually, a point or two to be made…

Half of what I’m saying here relates, of course, to writing.  Creating and building characters.

Nobody wants to read a story in which the character succeeds at every turn.  The point of a plot is to pile one failure on top of another, to “up the ante” and repay the first Act’s successful handling of an initial crisis with a double dose of plot twists – more failures.

Overcoming failures by adapting and changing priorities, changing directions, stripping away the inessential, is bascially what story, and life, is about.

Experimenting, trying things out, accepting and even embracing failure for the lessons it can teach us is actually the way everything from evolution (um, if you happen to believe in that) to growing up to science actually works.

So in thinking of characters, it is sometimes more rewarding to think less in terms of the “heroic” aspects of a personality, and focus more on weaknesses, faults, blind spots.  Or perhaps, to consider “heroic” not in terms of power and bluster, but as flawed and fragile, with the true heroism expressing itself as self-sacrifice for others when clearly there are few resources for self.

It is more revealing and certainly entertaining to consider how people and organizations cope with failure – out of this good and well fertilized earth grows horror and comedy.

We identify, to a certain extent, with those who fail, mostly because we want to see them win, at least once in a while.

And think about those Secret Masters of the Universe graduating from Harvard, listening to one of the most financially successful authors in modern times, who made her fortune writing, of all things, fantasy, talk to them about failure and how it might not be such a bad thing.

Think about what failure might look like for them, and what failure looks like to someone whose life was blown away by 9/11 or Katrina, or who landed here from someplace else (like, maybe, your ancestors) with nothing, hoping to find a way to survive.

That’s the stuff of story…

The other point I want to make is about the business in general.

It’s not a good beginning if, by Sturgeon’s Law, 90% of everything is crap.  One could be generous and say the stuff you write and get published doesn’t contribute too much to that percentage.  But the odds, you have to admit, are not golden, or even sterling.

Failure is built into the system.

So in terms of business, and of creativity and art, don’t be afraid.

I know, easier said than done.  But, really, the only way to succeed in any business, including a creative one, is to take risks.  If you are constantly copying the cutting edge of your field, instead of contributing to that edge, how soon are you going to be replaced by someone faster, cheaper, better at doing the same thing?  Successful artists and businesses – those who stay in business and make money – find a way to innovate, to create niches for themselves and their customers.

So.  Risk leads to growth and success.

Sometimes.

It also leads to failure, very often.  Our personal visions are not shared by others.  Our art wanders from the public’s center of interest.

Risk leads to failure.  But so does standing pat, refusing to change and grow and adapt to the transforming world around us.

Failure.  You really can’t escape it.

So.  For those contemplating the writing life, I am certainly not arguing for a deliberate leap into the unknown without a parachute to discover one’s writing groove.  Besides, the issue of struggling with failure as opposed to hiding behind success is a completely different one, often times requiring professional help of one kind or another.

I am really talking to those who are on some level comfortable in their life.  Perhaps even complacent.  Ill at ease, at times.  Maybe a touch miserable, deep inside.  Remember, this was a commencement address for the future masters of the universe.

Pursue what you must.  There are developmental needs, stages of life we must all go through.  The path to success is as relative and twisty as its meaning.  Take risks.  Or don’t.  Play it safe.

When the “Katrina” of your life hits – and it will – when what you’ve feared comes to pass and you’ve failed, when you’ve lost the thing or things that protected you, made you feel lost your job, your house, someone you love, or whatever else that has psychologically and emotionally protected you from the terrible certainties you most fear from reality, take stock.

What was essential.

Let us not forget, as well, the importance of finding a place to belong.  Belonging to what is essential is not a bad place to be in…