Cultural Templates

I've begun the research into what will become the world for my next novel. I think it will be a story of the Fae, so will involve immortal beings thousands of years old, their technology and culture. So, of course, I watched a handful of Dawson's Creek episodes.

There are assumptions made by all of us as to what form our relationships will take. We also make assumptions about our friends and family and their relationships, all based on our culture, what we know of their culture, etc. Watching Dawson's Creek, I got to see how the writer(s) of those episodes portrayed the young people, their group of friends, their relationships, sexual or otherwise. Particularly how the dynamics of the group strained and were changed when two of the people began a sexual relationship.I found it fascinating to discover what the depiction of the reactions told me about the assumptions -- shared between the writer and the audience -- of how this newly sexual couple should/would react and exist amongst their friends.

I also read this article on the Moral Case for Sex Before Marriage and thought that it did a great job of arguing the case for moving beyond the religiously inspired cultural assumption that the "best" way of forming a relationship is a chaste one until marriage (which, while dominant, is still only one of many templates for how relationships will proceed). It also laid bare the distance between how people act and how they say they should act, as well as the shift in cultural mores and assumptions that are made over time. Technology, exposure to other cultures, and actively working to progress toward a more egalitarian society work changes on our cultural assumptions regarding relationships. There wouldn't have to be such strident insistence on the Only Right Way to have a relationship if it was assumed by all to actually be THE only right way.

I'm in a relationship that one could call "non traditional." That means that together my GF and I had to create what she called a "deliberate" relationship. We sat down and discussed/are discussing, the terms of our relationship. We delineate both boundaries and expectations. We make mistakes and misunderstandings, of course, but that means we go back and clarify. There are far fewer assumptions, and the ones that we run into we root out, pull up into the light of day, and examine to see if there's anything worth keeping.

This is hard work.

But if I may continue my metaphor a bit, it's work like gardening is work. There is something very beautiful and nourishing as a result of all that work. But what is there is unique in my experience because it is based on what the individuals involved want from the relationship, not what is assumed based on cultural expectations.

One of the ideas that I'm considering as part of the world building for my next story/novel is creating a culture for which that kind of lack of assumptions regarding relationships is the norm. Or rather, that the assumption of the culture is that each relationship is consciously created based on the needs and wants of the people involved. There are no assumptions about genders of those involved or numbers of those involved. The duration of the relationship is not assumed: it is assumed neither to be fleeting nor forever. (the only time the culture insists on  something different is when children are concerned, which makes sense given the rest of the culture which I haven't written about here).

What would such relationships look like? I feel like they'd be better for the people involved. I could be missing something. Perhaps there are several "templates" or relationships so that people can at least be in the same hymnal if not singing the same song.Another challenge is that I'm not setting up a utopia. What are the problems associated with every relationship being built from scratch every time?

Where is all this going? Not sure. These are just some of the several threads that I notice dangling because I'm in the stage of novel writing where I go looking for threads. But it could be pretty interesting, if I can find the story that weaves the threads together.

Hunger Games, movie and book review

Last week I watched the movie Hunger Games and last weekend I read the book by Suzanne Collins. I’m not usually a YA reader, although I’ve read more in last year than I usually do. My gf had bought the book on Kindle and so, when we were together last week, we watched the movie on PPV. I was impressed enough to ask for the book, and she was able to loan me the first one.

Now, having both watched the movie and read the book, I have to say that the movie was one of the best adaptations of a book into film that I have ever seen. Like Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, the writers managed to capture the essence of the book and make a movie out of it that captures the story but makes it a movie, not a book. No mean feat.

Reading and watching movies are such completely different entertainment modes that it amazes me how often people expect movies to be "just like" the book and vice versa. They want the story the know from the book and are (almost universally) disappointed when the viewing experience doesn't manage to capture the reading experience they had (I'm not even going to go into the whole participatory element of reading. But I could. You stand warned). Utilizing differences between those two types of experiences to tell the best story that the movie medium allows, while still retaining the impact of the book is impressive. Take Point of View for instance.

The book is told in first person point of view. For this story, it is the perfect choice. We get to experience Katniss’ reactions to the events in her world, learning just enough at just the right time to keep the world understandable for us (always a challenge in any SF/Fantasy or Historical fiction where the world building has to happen fast enough to allow us to follow the action but not so fast we lose track of the action in the details of the world). The first chapter of Hunger Games is the perfect first chapter. Plenty of action, smooth introduction of characters, just the right amount of world building. I think that most of this is a credit to the choice of first person as the POV.

In the Games section of the book, the close POV heightens the feeling of dread as she doesn’t know (so we don’t know) who of her enemies is where. We get her dread, her resilience, her pain, her motivations as she tries to stay alive in the game. I don’t think that even a close 3^rd would have given the readers as much. At the end of the game, we get to follow her thoughts as she realizes that the double-suicide would mess with the gamemakers’ plans and to the extent that (she hopes!) the gamemakers will interrupt them before they're both dead. Because we know her true motivation, that she know what would push the gamemakers and chose that action because of it, we then know at the end that she *did* rebel as far as they were concerned. The danger as it is shown at the end of the story is real. The same is true for the “romance” between her and Peeta: we see her motivation and so we know it is a ruse for her, even as it becomes gradually more than a stratagem. She doesn’t know, and so we don’t, just how much of it is a ruse for Peeta, and just how much is heartrendingly in earnest.

The movie, however, is a movie. First person isn’t really an option. And, for the film, it wouldn’t be a good idea. This is a visual medium and we want to be able to have the expansive scope available to us. The film makers can raise the stakes by showing us how close her opponents are, for example, showing us what she doesn’t know. Effective in the movie given the visual medium. Would not have been as effective in the book. Because it is 3rd person, we get to see the machinations of the president and the efforts of Haymitch and others on her behalf. This works in the movie to add tension. In the book, it might have worked as well, but the close identification with Katniss worked better.

But. It is a different story than the book. They are both good, they are both effective, they are both eerie and enraging as hell. In both cases, the writer(s) used the medium best to tell their story.

One quibble: the “meta” fact of the movie wasn’t played up as much as it should have been, in my opinion. The book, being a book, telling us about the televised Hunger Games, gives us a distance. We’re not watching the games, like those ghouls, those decadent assholes in the capitol. No, we’re with Katniss, in her story, not outside of it. Watching the movie, however, is the same psychic distance as watching the televised Games would be for those other decadent assholes. The movie could have made much more of this by using shots that showed the story as if we were seeing it on TV. More “hidden camera” shots, more documentary style filming. We should be uncomfortable watching the violence. We know it’s not real, but our society has very little compunction about watching simulated violence. Being made uncomfortable by that, wouldn’t have been a bad thing.

Let's Get the Band Back Together

Tuesday night, Smokey Wizard Bacon got “the band back together.” Not sure if it was for one last heist or not, but we had a good time. Kat Beyer was with us and she brought the two things she came out with this summer: her baby and her book The Demon Catchers of Milan. We talked for a bit about the trials and tribulations she went through getting both moved into production.

I enjoy my writing group and find them to  be a great group of people. We now have one book in print, two of us commencing an agent search, another one close to finishing a second novel-length project, and others working on various short story projects. I’ve tried to think back to when the group began and honestly can’t anymore. I remember it began at WisCon, I remember bringing it up in a “living room” with Delia Sherman and Ellen Kushner and having a few people talk to me immediately after the discussion and us forming a group. We’ve met monthly since. IDK, a decade now?

Kat managed what I’m just now trying to figure out: how to shift from creative mode to business mode. She’s offered advice and that’s been great. But now it’s on me: getting the pitch/log line (I hate both those terms) that encapsulate and elucidate my novel, create the bones for the query letter, and a draft a synopsis (it’s down to five pages. You can’t ask for more of me!). Now it is down to divining who, out of the thousands of agents working in the field today, do I send the query to so that I don’t waste my time or theirs. There’s a certain amount of analysis paralysis going on, but since it seems each agent is a Use Once then Discard kind of proposition, I don’t want to engage until I’m ready, my project is ready.

One of the things I didn't realize was that Kat knows Patrick Rothfuss, and that he lives in Madison  (I wonder if she knows him well enough to invite him to an upcoming SWB gathering?). She knows all kinds of interesting people. That is one thing that I do not do well at all: networking. Kat is a wonderful person: charming, intelligent, kind. She's made all kinds of friends at WisCon and those friends became important to her in the agent search process. I mean, good on her, but those aren't my skills. Are those like other skills, something one can learn? To add to the already- long list of skills needed?

That Time of Year

Maybe it’s the time of year. Labor day has come and gone, Autumn is near, and I’m getting geared back up to get to work. I always liked school – even high school, but particularly college – so perhaps at this time of year the old habits kick in and I’m more open to the rigorous work of writing and reading.

Sure. That works. We’ll go with that.

Not that I’ve been uninvolved since the last real update to this blog. At the Weekend with the Novel, I got great feedback on how to proceed. I dove into the polishing process of the manuscript and began to build up the sales documents for the novel: query, pitch, synopsis, etc. In April I went to the UW Writers’ Institute and had the opportunity to pitch my novel to Laurie McLean. In early May I went to Amsterdam on a working vacation, and in late May I attended WisCon.

Then, I got distracted. I waited to hear back from Laurie and when I got her very polite rejection I didn’t jump back in to the fray. Other things to do, don’t you know. Like biking. And dealing with record-breaking heat. And I’m sure there were lots of other things. Must have been.

But that “working vacation” I mentioned needs to be paid for, or at least justified. I’ve spent over 5 years on a novel, I’d like to see if it will sell. I’m feeling the very powerful itch to be writing again. I need to get back to the business of being a writer, and that (unfortunately) involves the writing business.

Part of that process is going to be this space. Not only writing about the process but also just getting back into writing. The earliest writing on this blog kept to a strictly limited scope: about writing, my writing, and that process. <<Yawn>> I’m sorry, I nodded off for a minute. I’m interested in a lot more than writing, so I need to write about a lot more than writing.

So, I’m going to write about the things that interest me. You’ve been warned.

*** edited to add tags, fix typos ***

Wow! It is really dusty in here.


Hello? Anybody home?