There are lots of good things you can say to someone you're in a relationship with. I like you. I love you. You're amazing. I'm glad we met. Et cetera. But there's one thing you always want to avoid saying. I don't deserve you, or another variation, You're too good for me. Never say this.
Now if it slips out a time or two, you're probably still in the clear. But if you say it with any regularity, you're setting yourself up for failure. Because say it enough, and they'll believe it too. One day they're going to say, "Hey, you're right." And they'll leave, and your tears will flow like Niagara.
You should only convey this sentiment if you legitimately believe they should get with someone else. Because when you say you're too good for me, you're also saying you deserve someone better. You're saying, "I believe you would be better off with someone else." Is that what you actually mean? Because that's what you're saying. Tell them enough and they'll believe it.
Thursday, December 17, 2015
Friday, November 6, 2015
A New Plague: Germ (chapter from new story)
I got a random idea and wrote this last Friday. It's the prologue to a novelette (hopefully around 15,000 words) I'm calling A New Plague. It will consist of four sections titled Germ, Body, Plague, and Death. I'd like to create some shorter work that will get people interested in reading my longer efforts. I present to you now section one: Germ.
Belit’s eyes danced through the crowd before him. So many people. Browsing. Buying. Bustling.
Breathing.
How could there be so many?
He cleared his throat. “You know what this city needs?”
His companion, Derf, sent him an askance glance. “Enlighten me.”
“A new plague.”
“Belit, no.”
“Belit, yes!” His eyes danced to the pudgy man.
Derf sighed. “It's hardly been a year since the third hellthresh threshed its last.”
“Exactly. Just look how happy they all are.” Repulsive. They had no right.
“Maybe that's because they're not systematically crapping out their intestines in black globs.”
“Precisely. Morale is too high! Who let them get this cheery?”
The plump fellow scrunched his right cheek in an unenthusiastic smirk, then let it fall. “A spunge or
two might have had a hand in that.”
Belit scoffed. Expungers. Their bones could erode. “We need to do something about them eventually
as well.”
Derf pursed his lips. “Something like throw them a banquet? You know your hobby would be cut
woefully short if they weren’t there to stanch the plagues every time.”
“But their hobby would disappear if I did. They need me.” A woman walking by brushed his arm.
Belit shuddered and wiped at the arm. Disgusting.
“Expunging isn’t so much a hobby as it is an occupation,” Derf murmured, rubbing his brow with soft fingers. “Do you really need to pitch in? We recently had the eleventh yellowing that lasted a month, killed forty-eight. The eighth frenzy went nearly six weeks and left opportunity for eighty-nine new graves to be dug.
“Kudda is more a plague to the epidemes than he is to the general populace.” Belit watched two little girls playing with a doll. Nauseating. “You yourself just said he released his eleventh yellowing and it was expunged in a month. How long did my first hellthresh last?”
Derf made his best show of looking uninterested. Probably because he was. “Forty-one months.”
“And the second?”
“Forty-two.”
“And what about our most recent hellthresh?”
“Forty-three.”
“Do you have any idea what it would mean if my fourth hellthresh lasted forty-four months?” He kept his voice low enough to be shielded by the mumble of the multitude, but his eyes threatened to jump out of his skull.
“No.”
Belit glared at him. How he hated the man’s eyes. The way they protruded made him look sickly even when perfectly sound.
“Neither do I.” He turned toward a door in the wall, a sloping thing that started elaborate on the high end and ended decrepit on the short. “All of Dodane, Derf. My plagues reached all of Dodane—even spilling a little into Jubea and Yap. There hasn’t been another pandemic on that scale for over a century. How many died? What was the number?”
Derf wiped his hand on his trousers before grabbing the knob and pulling the door open for Belit. “Five million six hundred thousand twelve. Belit, why are we at this place?”
“And how many are left?” He entered the threshold and was greeted by warm, damp air. Perfect.
“Across Dodane? More than six million. It’s estimated there are several hundred million in the entire earth though.”
“How dare they!” Belit ignored the exquisite right side of the room and trod into the sickly, ramshackle side. He loved the way the walls always looked like they had just been coughed on. “These expungers really need to learn to let nature run its course.”
“And yourself?” Derf asked.
Belit waved a hand. “I already learned that lesson. Now I’m on to bigger and better.”
The pudgy man grabbed his sleeve. “Belit. Why are we here? I assume you didn’t come all the way just for a sip of ale.”
“A sip? I’ll need a mug at the least.” Silly, silly, Derf. Didn’t he know anything about the workings of the world?
“Belit.”
The plague maker stopped.
Though no light came to blind him, Derf squinted. “What are we doing here?”
Belit supposed he’d have to tell the chap at some point. Irritating. “I need to get a germ. I’m going to bond with a new plague.”
Derf’s squinty, stupid eyes widened, making him look more like a fish than ever. “But...that’s… You can’t.”
“No, Derfolte,” said Belit. “You can’t. Kudda can’t. Bialt can’t. But they can’t do much more than make transient diseases, not even worthy of the plague title. Remember Dwastane? The last supreme epideme?”
Derf swallowed uncomfortably. “Belit...no. Don’t you remember how much damage…”
The epideme widened his own eyes and smiled.
“Belit, yes.”
Belit’s eyes danced through the crowd before him. So many people. Browsing. Buying. Bustling.
Breathing.
How could there be so many?
He cleared his throat. “You know what this city needs?”
His companion, Derf, sent him an askance glance. “Enlighten me.”
“A new plague.”
“Belit, no.”
“Belit, yes!” His eyes danced to the pudgy man.
Derf sighed. “It's hardly been a year since the third hellthresh threshed its last.”
“Exactly. Just look how happy they all are.” Repulsive. They had no right.
“Maybe that's because they're not systematically crapping out their intestines in black globs.”
“Precisely. Morale is too high! Who let them get this cheery?”
The plump fellow scrunched his right cheek in an unenthusiastic smirk, then let it fall. “A spunge or
two might have had a hand in that.”
Belit scoffed. Expungers. Their bones could erode. “We need to do something about them eventually
as well.”
Derf pursed his lips. “Something like throw them a banquet? You know your hobby would be cut
woefully short if they weren’t there to stanch the plagues every time.”
“But their hobby would disappear if I did. They need me.” A woman walking by brushed his arm.
Belit shuddered and wiped at the arm. Disgusting.
“Expunging isn’t so much a hobby as it is an occupation,” Derf murmured, rubbing his brow with soft fingers. “Do you really need to pitch in? We recently had the eleventh yellowing that lasted a month, killed forty-eight. The eighth frenzy went nearly six weeks and left opportunity for eighty-nine new graves to be dug.
“Kudda is more a plague to the epidemes than he is to the general populace.” Belit watched two little girls playing with a doll. Nauseating. “You yourself just said he released his eleventh yellowing and it was expunged in a month. How long did my first hellthresh last?”
Derf made his best show of looking uninterested. Probably because he was. “Forty-one months.”
“And the second?”
“Forty-two.”
“And what about our most recent hellthresh?”
“Forty-three.”
“Do you have any idea what it would mean if my fourth hellthresh lasted forty-four months?” He kept his voice low enough to be shielded by the mumble of the multitude, but his eyes threatened to jump out of his skull.
“No.”
Belit glared at him. How he hated the man’s eyes. The way they protruded made him look sickly even when perfectly sound.
“Neither do I.” He turned toward a door in the wall, a sloping thing that started elaborate on the high end and ended decrepit on the short. “All of Dodane, Derf. My plagues reached all of Dodane—even spilling a little into Jubea and Yap. There hasn’t been another pandemic on that scale for over a century. How many died? What was the number?”
Derf wiped his hand on his trousers before grabbing the knob and pulling the door open for Belit. “Five million six hundred thousand twelve. Belit, why are we at this place?”
“And how many are left?” He entered the threshold and was greeted by warm, damp air. Perfect.
“Across Dodane? More than six million. It’s estimated there are several hundred million in the entire earth though.”
“How dare they!” Belit ignored the exquisite right side of the room and trod into the sickly, ramshackle side. He loved the way the walls always looked like they had just been coughed on. “These expungers really need to learn to let nature run its course.”
“And yourself?” Derf asked.
Belit waved a hand. “I already learned that lesson. Now I’m on to bigger and better.”
The pudgy man grabbed his sleeve. “Belit. Why are we here? I assume you didn’t come all the way just for a sip of ale.”
“A sip? I’ll need a mug at the least.” Silly, silly, Derf. Didn’t he know anything about the workings of the world?
“Belit.”
The plague maker stopped.
Though no light came to blind him, Derf squinted. “What are we doing here?”
Belit supposed he’d have to tell the chap at some point. Irritating. “I need to get a germ. I’m going to bond with a new plague.”
Derf’s squinty, stupid eyes widened, making him look more like a fish than ever. “But...that’s… You can’t.”
“No, Derfolte,” said Belit. “You can’t. Kudda can’t. Bialt can’t. But they can’t do much more than make transient diseases, not even worthy of the plague title. Remember Dwastane? The last supreme epideme?”
Derf swallowed uncomfortably. “Belit...no. Don’t you remember how much damage…”
The epideme widened his own eyes and smiled.
“Belit, yes.”
Sunday, August 23, 2015
The Unicorn of Unconditional Love
Unicorns are majestic beasts. Their appearance inspires awe. Magic runs through their very veins. Their horns, alicorns, are imbued with sorceries untold. They are never unnecessarily aggressive. We have every reason to revere them.
But they're not real, are they? So while it's fun to consider the possibility, it doesn't pay much to invest in the idea. Now comes my proposition: unconditional romantic love is a unicorn. Those three words are a paradox when juxtaposed. "Unconditional romantic love."
Let's take a look at what unconditional love is. Someone is ugly. You consider their needs at least as important as yours, if not more so. Someone is beautiful. You don't consider their needs any more important than the ugly person. Someone hurts you. Someone helps you. Someone wallows in their own laziness. Someone works as hard as they can. Someone hates you. Someone loves you. Regardless, you love them all equally. It doesn't matter what they can provide for you. It just matters that they exist. That's the only condition of unconditional love.
Now let's take a look at what romantic love is. Someone is ugly. You don't consider them a potential mate. Someone is beautiful. You put them in your sights. Someone hurts you. You distance yourself from them. Someone helps you. You grow more comfortable and grateful. Someone wallows in their own laziness. You disregard them. Someone earns their own. They gain clout in your eyes. Someone hates you. You couldn't imagine living with them. Someone loves you. You love them.
Romantic love only exists when a series of conditions are met. Only when you find someone capable of filling your needs. That may be money, attention, sex, badinage, emotional support, a nice thing to look at—numerous possibilities. A romantic interest only becomes interesting when they can fill a certain percentage of your needs. If that weren't the case, there would be no obsession with finding someone to love. You'd just walk up to somebody, ask them if they wanted to get with you, and they'd say yes. That's what romance would be like if romantic love was unconditional.
But now come the real questions: is all this bad? Are all men pigs? Are all women whores?
No.
Having standards is a good thing. It's okay to care about your own well-being and the well-being of your children (not to mention your partner). That's the entire premise of natural selection. Just keep in mind that you aren't going to find the perfect partner, and neither will your partner.
This post was inspired by the negative connotation for the word 'objectify'. We assess other people on various criteria by objectifying them. Everyone does it. Of course there's a level where you reach too much objectification, but if none existed then no one would ever mate and the species would die.
But they're not real, are they? So while it's fun to consider the possibility, it doesn't pay much to invest in the idea. Now comes my proposition: unconditional romantic love is a unicorn. Those three words are a paradox when juxtaposed. "Unconditional romantic love."
Let's take a look at what unconditional love is. Someone is ugly. You consider their needs at least as important as yours, if not more so. Someone is beautiful. You don't consider their needs any more important than the ugly person. Someone hurts you. Someone helps you. Someone wallows in their own laziness. Someone works as hard as they can. Someone hates you. Someone loves you. Regardless, you love them all equally. It doesn't matter what they can provide for you. It just matters that they exist. That's the only condition of unconditional love.
Now let's take a look at what romantic love is. Someone is ugly. You don't consider them a potential mate. Someone is beautiful. You put them in your sights. Someone hurts you. You distance yourself from them. Someone helps you. You grow more comfortable and grateful. Someone wallows in their own laziness. You disregard them. Someone earns their own. They gain clout in your eyes. Someone hates you. You couldn't imagine living with them. Someone loves you. You love them.
Romantic love only exists when a series of conditions are met. Only when you find someone capable of filling your needs. That may be money, attention, sex, badinage, emotional support, a nice thing to look at—numerous possibilities. A romantic interest only becomes interesting when they can fill a certain percentage of your needs. If that weren't the case, there would be no obsession with finding someone to love. You'd just walk up to somebody, ask them if they wanted to get with you, and they'd say yes. That's what romance would be like if romantic love was unconditional.
But now come the real questions: is all this bad? Are all men pigs? Are all women whores?
No.
Having standards is a good thing. It's okay to care about your own well-being and the well-being of your children (not to mention your partner). That's the entire premise of natural selection. Just keep in mind that you aren't going to find the perfect partner, and neither will your partner.
This post was inspired by the negative connotation for the word 'objectify'. We assess other people on various criteria by objectifying them. Everyone does it. Of course there's a level where you reach too much objectification, but if none existed then no one would ever mate and the species would die.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Monday, August 3, 2015
Chronic Pain Pondering
Once again, I'm going to reproduce a comment that I made in a forum. This time it was somebody lamenting about their chronic pain. If you've never dealt with pain slowly erasing all memories of what life used to be like and all hopes of what life could be, consider yourself extremely blessed. That being said, here are my thoughts that apply to a range of personal challenges.
"Hey, I know how you feel. I've dealt with my pain for 8 years (I'm 22). I'm just a piece in the medical machine that always gets pushed to the next specialist.
But check this out.
Humans can't fly. Sure, we were smart enough to build machines that will fly for us, but we can never fly. I think one needs to view chronic pain like the lack of flight. Is is sad? Yeah. We all wish we could fly. But is it the end of the world and all things joyous? No. The trick is to accept that you can't fly and instead focus on the things you can do.
You mentioned learning languages and instruments. That's awesome. I speak Danish and play over 5 instruments. Success breeds success. When you make small, achievable goals and accomplish them, it makes you realize you can accomplish more. So you do.
For example, I also write books. I can't work out or do sports or even just go on a simple hike. But I can read and write. I'm on my third book right now (at 76,000 words). I have a daily word count goal that feels great to accomplish, and it drives me to write more. When someone's getting to know you through prose you've created, they have no idea you can't fly. They don't know that you're black, that you're blind, that you're allergic to pineapple, that you never wear shoes. They know you because of your mind. It's a wonderful wall that I like to use. That's also why I like to produce my own music (not that I'm spectacularly good at it). But they know nothing about me except for my musical ability. It's beautiful.
So that's my advice. Don't focus on the fact that you can't fly. Focus on the fact that you can run. Never stop running just because the birds above you can fly."
It really takes an adjustment of worldview. I'd love to work out and be physically active like normal people. But in order to be happy, you have to calibrate yourself to your limitations. If you're judging yourself on unachievable criteria, you'll never be happy.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
A Shortage of Princes
A discussion in a writing forum came up about what makes 50 Shades and Twilight popular. I thought it might be worth it to catalog my thoughts here.
"It's about power. The only reason Fiddy Shades is successful is because the dude was rich, which is hot (money on a man is like makeup on a woman). Imagine if instead of a billionaire it had been a homeless guy.
The attraction comes in feeling special. It's the Disney narrative ("someday my prince will come"). It's the idea that there's a guy who could have any amount of women, but he chose me. A homeless guy couldn't have any amount of women, and therefore wouldn't make the protag feel special; rather she'd feel like an object of desperation.
In Twilight, here's a guy with superhuman strength, youth, etc. and he wants me. He wants to drink my blood really bad, but since I'm so special to him he won't.
As you pointed out, the series are popular because they're designed to let you vicariously live the experience of being special to men far beyond what you'll ever achieve. But deep down, you know that some day your prince will not come. It will be a fairly normal guy with a fairly normal job who fancies you. Reading these types of books is just suppressing that reality."
I'm not trying to say that there's anything wrong in wanting a good man. It only becomes unhealthy when a woman lets the fantasy (of the unachievable) delude her of reality. The inverse can be overlaid on men. Men, however, typically just want a/many hot girl/s (indicator of a healthy potential mate) and partially fulfill this desire through porn.
In short, there is a shortage of princes (and billionaires) in this world. Deceiving yourself into believing that you deserve one of them by the simple fact that you were born is untenable. It can be traced (somewhat) back to an increasingly entitled society. A society that has warped letting someone live with the negative consequences of their actions into a form of abuse. A society that would rather wallow in self-absorbed gluttony than affect positive change. Our society.
Us.
"It's about power. The only reason Fiddy Shades is successful is because the dude was rich, which is hot (money on a man is like makeup on a woman). Imagine if instead of a billionaire it had been a homeless guy.
The attraction comes in feeling special. It's the Disney narrative ("someday my prince will come"). It's the idea that there's a guy who could have any amount of women, but he chose me. A homeless guy couldn't have any amount of women, and therefore wouldn't make the protag feel special; rather she'd feel like an object of desperation.
In Twilight, here's a guy with superhuman strength, youth, etc. and he wants me. He wants to drink my blood really bad, but since I'm so special to him he won't.
As you pointed out, the series are popular because they're designed to let you vicariously live the experience of being special to men far beyond what you'll ever achieve. But deep down, you know that some day your prince will not come. It will be a fairly normal guy with a fairly normal job who fancies you. Reading these types of books is just suppressing that reality."
I'm not trying to say that there's anything wrong in wanting a good man. It only becomes unhealthy when a woman lets the fantasy (of the unachievable) delude her of reality. The inverse can be overlaid on men. Men, however, typically just want a/many hot girl/s (indicator of a healthy potential mate) and partially fulfill this desire through porn.
In short, there is a shortage of princes (and billionaires) in this world. Deceiving yourself into believing that you deserve one of them by the simple fact that you were born is untenable. It can be traced (somewhat) back to an increasingly entitled society. A society that has warped letting someone live with the negative consequences of their actions into a form of abuse. A society that would rather wallow in self-absorbed gluttony than affect positive change. Our society.
Us.
Give me my desires, for such is my right.
Absolve me of past mistakes, for the past is poor grounds for identifying patterns.
Accept me as I am, for I have already rejected who I could be.
Friday, July 24, 2015
Worldview Building
I'm not a psychologist, just an average people watcher. But I'd like to talk about the things that create a person's worldview. This is mostly for authors to craft more realistic characters. I'll give some real world examples and allow you to think how your characters would be affected in their particular worlds.
The First Impression
Perhaps the most important, and certainly the most fundamental, determinant in defining worldview is the first impression. I've found that the first impression is the hardest to erase, even when presented with contradicting evidence. That's not to say it can't be done. In fact, we have some very good instruments in our toolbox.
Betrayal
Perhaps one of the most effective tools in erasing the first impression is betrayal. It may take ten times, it may only take once. Even when the betrayal turns out to be an unfounded rumor, the new impression remains stamped over the first impression. Sometimes the distortion of worldview occurs in interpersonal relationships, and sometimes it happens on a larger plane, for example with religion. E.g. "I didn't know that [historical religious figure] did [action]. Why didn't anybody tell me?"
Superciliousness
Also known as haughty disdain or arrogance. Betrayal is often, but not always, the overture to disdain. It's the feeling that "I have secret knowledge and am therefore better," or "anyone who doesn't realize what I do is mentally inferior." It can also be derived from advantage of physical/monetary circumstance, but I've found for the average person it's knowledge-based. These feelings are often gleaned from reading/hearing language laced with the following fallacies: argument by emotive language, appeal to spite, alleged certainty, cherry picking, definist fallacy, historian's fallacy, is-should fallacy (naturalistic), political correctness fallacy, overwhelming exception, proving non-existence (burden of proof), and many others.
Repetition
I think we all know it's a logical fallacy, but that doesn't stop us from falling for it. Argument by repetition, or argumentum ad nauseum, is the act of repeating a premise over and over to bolster its veracity. A fantastic example is, "Fat is attractive." We're hearing this argument more and more (and more and more ad nauseum) until we reach the point that we start to think, "Wow, I don't think fat people are attractive. Maybe there's something wrong with me." Taking a step back and assessing the situation, it's easy to see that ignoring millions of years of evolution to validate aversion to self improvement is unsound and not those who aren't romantically attracted to obesity.
Shaming/Humiliation
Often accompanying argument by repetition is argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to shame, closely overlapping strawman fallacy, appeal to emotion, and argumentum ad hominem. Let's take our fat attraction example. Society wants to thresh us with shame if we don't experience romantic attraction to obesity, thereby trying to short-circuit our brains and remove us from a logical, biological context and thrust us into an emotional, irrational context. This is often accomplished by setting up the defending party's views as a strawman (a grotesque misrepresentation) and then trouncing it. They shame you by telling you that you're shaming them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are many other things that influence worldview, but I think these are some of the strongest points. For example, aphorisms and proverbs can change worldviews, but how often do you think the people reposting maxims on Facebook actually apply them to their lives? To craft more realistic, flawed characters, I encourage you to study logical fallacies and program some of them into your characters' worldviews. Challenging a character's worldview is easy and compelling conflict. I'll close with one that I really like, the sunk-cost fallacy. It's the erroneous assumption that since you've already invested so much in a project/idea you have to see it through to the end.
Edit: I might add more as I think of them, but another important one I thought of is Indignation, or more specifically indignation affirmation. This isn't so much a change in worldview as it is a deepening of one's current view. It occurs when someone takes offense at an opposing worldview and then invests more emotion into their own. This reeks of the sunk-cost fallacy and self-imposed appeal to emotion, but we all do it.
Bonus fallacy: Argumentum ad Homonym - when you try and use there instead of their.
The First Impression
Perhaps the most important, and certainly the most fundamental, determinant in defining worldview is the first impression. I've found that the first impression is the hardest to erase, even when presented with contradicting evidence. That's not to say it can't be done. In fact, we have some very good instruments in our toolbox.
Betrayal
Perhaps one of the most effective tools in erasing the first impression is betrayal. It may take ten times, it may only take once. Even when the betrayal turns out to be an unfounded rumor, the new impression remains stamped over the first impression. Sometimes the distortion of worldview occurs in interpersonal relationships, and sometimes it happens on a larger plane, for example with religion. E.g. "I didn't know that [historical religious figure] did [action]. Why didn't anybody tell me?"
Superciliousness
Also known as haughty disdain or arrogance. Betrayal is often, but not always, the overture to disdain. It's the feeling that "I have secret knowledge and am therefore better," or "anyone who doesn't realize what I do is mentally inferior." It can also be derived from advantage of physical/monetary circumstance, but I've found for the average person it's knowledge-based. These feelings are often gleaned from reading/hearing language laced with the following fallacies: argument by emotive language, appeal to spite, alleged certainty, cherry picking, definist fallacy, historian's fallacy, is-should fallacy (naturalistic), political correctness fallacy, overwhelming exception, proving non-existence (burden of proof), and many others.
Repetition
I think we all know it's a logical fallacy, but that doesn't stop us from falling for it. Argument by repetition, or argumentum ad nauseum, is the act of repeating a premise over and over to bolster its veracity. A fantastic example is, "Fat is attractive." We're hearing this argument more and more (and more and more ad nauseum) until we reach the point that we start to think, "Wow, I don't think fat people are attractive. Maybe there's something wrong with me." Taking a step back and assessing the situation, it's easy to see that ignoring millions of years of evolution to validate aversion to self improvement is unsound and not those who aren't romantically attracted to obesity.
Shaming/Humiliation
Often accompanying argument by repetition is argumentum ad verecundiam, appeal to shame, closely overlapping strawman fallacy, appeal to emotion, and argumentum ad hominem. Let's take our fat attraction example. Society wants to thresh us with shame if we don't experience romantic attraction to obesity, thereby trying to short-circuit our brains and remove us from a logical, biological context and thrust us into an emotional, irrational context. This is often accomplished by setting up the defending party's views as a strawman (a grotesque misrepresentation) and then trouncing it. They shame you by telling you that you're shaming them.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are many other things that influence worldview, but I think these are some of the strongest points. For example, aphorisms and proverbs can change worldviews, but how often do you think the people reposting maxims on Facebook actually apply them to their lives? To craft more realistic, flawed characters, I encourage you to study logical fallacies and program some of them into your characters' worldviews. Challenging a character's worldview is easy and compelling conflict. I'll close with one that I really like, the sunk-cost fallacy. It's the erroneous assumption that since you've already invested so much in a project/idea you have to see it through to the end.
Edit: I might add more as I think of them, but another important one I thought of is Indignation, or more specifically indignation affirmation. This isn't so much a change in worldview as it is a deepening of one's current view. It occurs when someone takes offense at an opposing worldview and then invests more emotion into their own. This reeks of the sunk-cost fallacy and self-imposed appeal to emotion, but we all do it.
Bonus fallacy: Argumentum ad Homonym - when you try and use there instead of their.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Ruination of Transliteration: How Two Loanwords Changed History
Transliteration happens all the time. We often call them loanwords. Some examples from Arabic (remember, it reads from right to left):
- القرآن (Al-)Quran: The holy book of Islam. It's a verbal noun of the word قرأ (qar'a), meaning "he read" or "he recited".
- مسلم Muslim: A follower of Islam. Its meaning is "one who submits", derived from the verb أَسْلَمَ (aslama), meaning "he resigned". إِسْلَٰم (Islam) is the verbal noun meaning "voluntary submission to God". You can see the relation in the S-L-M root.
- Czech: dollar, pistol, robot
- Etruscan: antenna, arena, autumn, serve
- Old French and Latin: letter, person, budget
- Icelandic: saga, geyser
- Algonquin: Mississippi, Wyoming, Chicago, Illinois, Wisconsin, caribou, hickory, moose, muskrat, pecan, raccoon, skunk, squash
- Nahuatl (Aztec): avocado, cocoa, chocolate, coyote, guacamole, tomato
- Arawakan: barbecue, canoe, hammock, hurricane, potato, tobacco
- Various American Languages: cougar, cashew, bayou, manatee, igloo, kayak, jerky
There are many other loanwords that I didn't include (safari, zen, chi, zebra, luau, ukulele, guru, buddha, fjord, tundra, et cetera, et cetera), but I think you get the picture. We like to borrow words instead of translating them. A noteworthy exception to this rule is Icelandic, though more loanwords are creeping in. Instead of using a variant of telephone (a Greek word), they resurrected the word sími, an old word for "long thread". Another one is læknastokkrós, meaning marshmallow. As far as I can deconstruct this one, að lækna means to heal and stokkrós means hibiscus, a member of the mallow family. The healing hibiscus. They do this so that the new words will comply with Icelandic grammar.
Now that we've overviewed transliteration in English, let's look at two Greek to Latin transliterations that changed the world.
First, βαπτίζω, baptizo. This comes from the word bapto meaning to dip; therefore, baptizo means to immerse or submerge. This was all fine until around the fourth century when Latin became the primary language of Christianity. At that time, baptizo was transliterated into Latin. It was adapted to Latin grammar and changed to baptizare, making baptizo the first person singular present tense, i.e. "I baptize".
What this did is sever the tie between the root understanding and the definition. What was once understood intrinsically as an act of immersion became an act of mere ablution (ceremonial washing), and was altered to include aspersion (sprinkling) and eventually exclude immersion. The alteration of one holy ceremony is a beautiful precedent for further alteration.
Second, βιβλία, biblia. This is the plural of biblion, book. Once again, before the fourth century, the extant holy writings of Christianity weren't compiled into one body. Rather, they were a collection of texts called ta biblia, the books. As Latin became Christianity's primary language, they once again transliterated this word from Greek. Biblia is what they called them—it. To explain, Latin has a conjugation system that allows you to distinguish between singular and plural. What started as "the books" eventually migrated to take on the meaning of "the book".
What this did is set in the minds of Christians that canon was immutable post fourth century. You had the Book, what more could you need? Gone were the days when God could speak as He pleased through servants that He chose. Because who needs the Books when you have the Book?
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
How to Forge True Love: An Overiew of Relationship Investment
True love is found in the union of two people who never truly feel worthy of one another. Service and validation are imparted of freely and bounteously. True love is lost when an air of superiority seeps into that union; when at least one of the parties concludes they are entitled to the service and validation of the other.
True service can only be accomplished from a position of unpretentious humility and love. If a person feels angry and does something to benefit the other party, it's not actually to benefit the other party but themselves. If a person renders a beneficial act to another from a position of condescension, it's not service nor love but pity.
True love therefore is bred by true service. True service is not a thing to be tallied. It's not a contest of high scores and rivalries. It's a river that flows from your heart, buoying your partner up and carrying them to a sea of bliss.
You may assume that the reason service is the secret is because your efforts will endear you in your partner's eyes, but that's only a sliver of the reason. Most people, referring to the first paragraph, forget to return gratitude for nice acts, especially when acts of kindness are commonplace. No, what service does is it endears you to your partner.
It's all about investment. The time that you spend with a partner is an investment, but even more important is the quality of the time. When the time you spend with them is consumed by transient cares or even brooding over areas in which you think they're lacking, that's like investing your money in fireworks. It's no surprise when it ends in flames. When your time with your partner is spent serving and building them up, that's like investing in a house. You expect many long, comfortable years with it.
Of course, you see the relationships where one person is making payments on a house while the other is building up their fireworks stockpile. Eventually the second person lights off their investment and burns the house to the ground. Make sure you don't miss the signs if your partner doesn't care about investing in you as much as you do in them.
In the end, that's the goal. You need to find someone who's willing to invest as much in you as you are in them. And that amount should be 100%.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Oneironauts 2 Cover
So I had a grandiose idea about the cover of the second Oneironauts. It was going to involve nice cameras and paint in water. Unfortunately I couldn't muster a fish tank for the photos, so it turned out out to be only a dream...
It was at this point that I decided to take matters into my own hands. I fired up GIMP yesterday and came up with the following. It likely won't be the final draft of the cover, but it's a big step in the right direction. I'm going to try and finish everything tomorrow (interior included) and order a proof. If everything looks good, I'm going to publish These Apparitions next week. Until then, enjoy the cover. Please comment with any feedback.
Update 2 (6.18.15): The final cover is nearly complete. I just need to get a picture of my own model (as I don't have rights to the one I used). I'm in talks with some people right now, Hopefully I'll have the shots before the end of the week.
Update 3 (6.19.15): I ended up just using myself as the model for the cover. I would have preferred someone else, but meh. I can change it later if I want. I spent all day yesterday doing the eBook for book 2 and fixing the eBook for book 1. My proof is on the way, so it should be published next week! Anyway, here's the final cover:
It was at this point that I decided to take matters into my own hands. I fired up GIMP yesterday and came up with the following. It likely won't be the final draft of the cover, but it's a big step in the right direction. I'm going to try and finish everything tomorrow (interior included) and order a proof. If everything looks good, I'm going to publish These Apparitions next week. Until then, enjoy the cover. Please comment with any feedback.
FYI: the word count for this book is about 97,000 words. It will be 344 pages (not including front and back material).
Update (6.16.15): I've finished the interior. The chapter names took quite a while. Luckily I learned some good lessons from my first time around so creating the interior was a fairly smooth process. I also posted my cover on an authors' forum and have gotten some feedback which I'll be implementing.
Update 2 (6.18.15): The final cover is nearly complete. I just need to get a picture of my own model (as I don't have rights to the one I used). I'm in talks with some people right now, Hopefully I'll have the shots before the end of the week.
Update 3 (6.19.15): I ended up just using myself as the model for the cover. I would have preferred someone else, but meh. I can change it later if I want. I spent all day yesterday doing the eBook for book 2 and fixing the eBook for book 1. My proof is on the way, so it should be published next week! Anyway, here's the final cover:
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
The Unofficial Author's Contract
Series. We've all read them. And we've all read an under construction series, id est, an unfinished string of novels. It can be excruciating waiting for the next sequence of events concerning characters you've invested time and emotion in. At the same time, sometimes part of the fun is grouping up with other fans online and trading theories or commiserating. But sometimes you realize it's been several years, and still there's not much news about that next installment... What's going on?
I'd like to address what I term the Unofficial Author's Contract. It reads, "By publishing the first of a series of books, I, the author, do promise to complete the remainder of the novels in a timely fashion. I will honor this agreement even if I occasionally have to ignore other activities that seem more entertaining, and even if I grow weary of my own story and characters."
I finished the first Oneironauts in 2012 and published it in October 2014. I finished the first draft of the second book in March and just finished the second draft tonight. All together, it's about a 200,000 word sequence. I was going to school during the second one, which explains why it took 7 months to write, then I waited for finals to be over to edit. I will have physical copies before July, a 9-month turnaround from book to book. Part of what motivated me to keep writing even though school was pressing was the fact that I had people waiting for book 2. I was locked in the Contract.
Now there are writers like Martin and Rothfuss who have made big promises on books they will produce, but take great periods of time to deliver on those promises. Game of Thrones came out in 1996. The intervals for the next books are 1998, 2000, 2005, 2011, TBA, TBA. That's 5 then 6 years for two books, and it will be at least 5 for Winds of Winter. Rothfuss published in 2007 and 2011, and the third is TBA. So 4 years for the first gap, then at least 5 for the second. The reason why readers are annoyed with Rothfuss' output is that when the first novel came out, it was announced that he had the series complete.
For some contrast, I've compiled a small list (some word counts are estimated from page lengths):
Patrick Rothfuss
720,000 words in 9 years
George R R Martin
1,770,000 words in 20 years
Jim Butcher
3,200,000 words in 16 years (not including his forthcoming novel)
Steven Erikson
3,300,000 words in 12 years (for the Malazan novels alone)
Robert Jordan
3,400,000 words in 16 years
Brandon Sanderson
3,900,000 words in 11 years (this is including short stories and Shadows of Self)
Now, all of these authors have put out a bit more than what's shown here, but the fundamental information is obvious. I won't speculate on the various factors that affect the authors' release schedules, but I will say this: Sanderson, Erickson, Jordan, and Butcher all consider their fans while they write. The fans are the only reason an author can write for a living. If you don't consider a consumer when creating a product, it will likely flop.
Let's draw a parallel to Google+. People were mental about G+ from about 10-4 months before it came out (I can't exactly remember). But Google kept doing invite only. Eventually buzz died down. Then they released it and it flopped marvelously. If they had put it out about half a year before, there would have been a massive migration over to G+. But they waited and people lost interest.
Books obviously have a longer timeline than social media, but honestly, the longer an author waits to deliver on a book, the more the hype dies down (generally). Martin is surfing on back catalog orders for the first five borne by the success of the TV series. Rothfuss is still riding on the fact that he was going to release the three books within 3 years of each other. Butcher, Erikson, and Sanderson however consistently put out new material that readers enjoy. They honor the Contract, and I love them for that.
Saturday, May 2, 2015
A Godawful Observation
Source: Rita Ip
In my various pursuits, I make a casual study of the Hebrew language. One thing that people acquiring a new language find is that it gives us insight into our own language. For example when I was learning Danish, I learned that the word for circumstance is omstændighed. Om means about or around and stænde roughly translates to stance or standing. Therefore omstændighed literally translates to "the state of things around one." If we break down the English word, circum is Latin for around or about, and stance comes from the Latin word stare, meaning to stand. So circumstance literally means "the standing of the surroundings." It wasn't until I learned the Danish that I realized the roots of the English.
There are many other insights that language learning can provide other than etymology. A conspicuous example finds place in slang. If you were to say "rock on" in Danish, it would literally mean there's a stone on...something. You haven't specified that yet. Another thing, you can say "rock on," but "stone on" comes with completely different connotations. In Danish to express coolness (and not the temperature kind), you say something is fat. "He's a fat guy" = "He's a cool guy/cat." It really makes you examine your own slang and realize how illogical some of it sounds.
But now I come to my Hebrew observation. The word el in Hebrew means god. It finds itself in many modern personal names, e.g. Michael, who is like God?; Daniel, God is my judge; Nathaniel, God has given. You also see its cognate in the Arabic Allah, a contraction of al-ilah (the (sole) God).
However, god or deity isn't the only denotation of el. It also means mighty. Therefore in places like Psalm 82 (which is poetry) you get nice little word plays.
God (elohim) standeth in the congregation of the mighty (el, could also be rendered god); he judgeth among the gods (elohim).Elohim is merely the plural of eloah, a derivative of el, and can be translated as God, gods, or powers. It is the name of God in the Old Testament (HEB: Tanakh). You can see here that the poet uses the different connotations of elohim and el to make a nice wordplay.
But all poetry set aside, learning this fact about the Hebrew language made me realize something about my mother tongue. I've heard the expression godawful a decent number of times during my life, but in light of this, it gave the expression a new depth. Something that's godawful is mighty awful, or so terrible that only an omnipotent being could create such a debacle. This makes it possibly the biggest hyperbole known to the English language.
Monday, April 27, 2015
The Beginning of God's Creations
A quasar via Wikipedia.
This post was inspired by a crazy Kolob theory, specifically one that said that God resides at the center of our galaxy and that the extent of his dominion is the fringes of the Milky Way. I'm here to prove that wrong. Deeply wrong.
Our friend Enoch, in Moses 7:30, says, "Were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations." The Milky Way contains perhaps 300 billion stars, 100 billion planets, 100 million black holes, and is about 120,000 light years across. The number of atoms in the Earth is about 10^50, approximately 10^40 times greater than the number of celestial bodies in the galaxy. Millions of earths would yield greater than 10^56 atoms. And that's not even the beginning of Elohim's creations.
It's estimated that the number of stars in the universe is about 7x10^22; we can round up to 10^23. If we want to be nice, we can say there are about the same number of planets. That brings us up to 2x10^23. If you factor in black holes and nubulae and stuff—being quite generous—you might have double that. That brings you to 4x10^23 astronomical objects, or not even .0000000000000000000000001% of the particles in the Earth (10^-25%). That means to not even reach the beginning of God's creations, you would need approximately 10^32 universes like ours.
For comparison, the sun is on the order of 10^30 kg (~1,000,000 times Earth's mass) and a pineapple is about a kilogram. If you were to compare a pineapple to the universe, you would need enough pineapples to weigh as much as 100 suns, or 100,000,000 Earths. In other words, 10^32 pineapples. One hundred nonillion pineapples.
And you would not have even reached the beginning of how many pineapples God has made.
Monday, February 16, 2015
Dating the Death of Shiz
A question I think most LDS members consider lightly or not at all is, When did the Jaredites perish? I think the reason behind this is most people make sweeping, cursory assumptions about the Jaredite timeline. The common mentality is that as Lehi's foot first pressed the American shores, Shiz' head fell from his shoulders. I would like to show that this is conception utterly false.
Absolute Upper Limit
If we only take into account one event, namely Mulek's landing, we find that the soonest the Jaredites could have foregone is about 530 BC. We learn that Mulek was the only son of Zedekiah not slain (Hel 8:21). From the Bible, we learn that Zedekiah died at 32 (2 Kings 24:18). By common concession, Jerusalem was razed in 587 BC. The oldest Mulek could have possibly been at the time is 20 years old. The oldest he could have plausibly been is 14-16. The problem with imagining him as a stripling is that all of Zedekiah's sons were killed by Babylon. A teenager, especially the eldest son, would be hard to miss—for invader and historian alike—so it's improbable.
The leading theory is that Mulek was either an infant (so he could have been disguised as a girl or more easily snuck out in a basket), or he was unborn. The leading theory for how Mulek got to the Americas is through the Phoenicians. This is supported by (1) the identification of the Jaredites as the Olmec people, and (2) the fact that Mulek and his party first landed among the Jaredites in the land northward (Alma 22:30). The Olmecs lived primarily along the eastern coast of Mexico, meaning Mulek would have to take an Atlantic route to arrive there.
So the earliest Mulek could have landed in the Americas is 586 BC, five or so years after Lehi. The oldest he could possibly be at that point is about 20, but more likely he would have been an infant. It's more likely that he lived in the eastern hemisphere for a time, gained a few years under his belt, then made the voyage. One of my main sources for that inference is Hel 6:10 where it says, "the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south." I'm assuming that Mormon is making parallel references to the leader of the traveling parties. It's also easier to imagine a 20+ year-old man as the leader of the party than a baby. That puts a more likely date of Mulek's earliest arrival at ~565 BC, though it could have been even later.
However, we cannot yet assume that 565 is when the Jaredites perished. Omni 1:16 tells us "[the people of Zarahemla's] language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them." Verse 21 tells us that Coriantumr (the "last Jaredite") dwelt with the people of Zarahemla for nine moons. It may just be me, but a people who put no emphasis on records and who had forgotten God don't strike me as the type to remember a single man who lived with them more than 400 years before. That indicates that the Jaredite civilization ended closer to 130 than 587 BC.
Chemical Degradation Factors
That was a fun exercise using chronology alone, but now I'd like to introduce the factors of corrosion and decomposition. Mos 8:8-11 (the Limhi expedition, ca. 130 BC) reports that Limhi's scouts found
Absolute Upper Limit
If we only take into account one event, namely Mulek's landing, we find that the soonest the Jaredites could have foregone is about 530 BC. We learn that Mulek was the only son of Zedekiah not slain (Hel 8:21). From the Bible, we learn that Zedekiah died at 32 (2 Kings 24:18). By common concession, Jerusalem was razed in 587 BC. The oldest Mulek could have possibly been at the time is 20 years old. The oldest he could have plausibly been is 14-16. The problem with imagining him as a stripling is that all of Zedekiah's sons were killed by Babylon. A teenager, especially the eldest son, would be hard to miss—for invader and historian alike—so it's improbable.
The leading theory is that Mulek was either an infant (so he could have been disguised as a girl or more easily snuck out in a basket), or he was unborn. The leading theory for how Mulek got to the Americas is through the Phoenicians. This is supported by (1) the identification of the Jaredites as the Olmec people, and (2) the fact that Mulek and his party first landed among the Jaredites in the land northward (Alma 22:30). The Olmecs lived primarily along the eastern coast of Mexico, meaning Mulek would have to take an Atlantic route to arrive there.
So the earliest Mulek could have landed in the Americas is 586 BC, five or so years after Lehi. The oldest he could possibly be at that point is about 20, but more likely he would have been an infant. It's more likely that he lived in the eastern hemisphere for a time, gained a few years under his belt, then made the voyage. One of my main sources for that inference is Hel 6:10 where it says, "the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south." I'm assuming that Mormon is making parallel references to the leader of the traveling parties. It's also easier to imagine a 20+ year-old man as the leader of the party than a baby. That puts a more likely date of Mulek's earliest arrival at ~565 BC, though it could have been even later.
However, we cannot yet assume that 565 is when the Jaredites perished. Omni 1:16 tells us "[the people of Zarahemla's] language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them." Verse 21 tells us that Coriantumr (the "last Jaredite") dwelt with the people of Zarahemla for nine moons. It may just be me, but a people who put no emphasis on records and who had forgotten God don't strike me as the type to remember a single man who lived with them more than 400 years before. That indicates that the Jaredite civilization ended closer to 130 than 587 BC.
Chemical Degradation Factors
That was a fun exercise using chronology alone, but now I'd like to introduce the factors of corrosion and decomposition. Mos 8:8-11 (the Limhi expedition, ca. 130 BC) reports that Limhi's scouts found
- Bones (ch. 21 specifies dry bones) of man and beast of a very numerous people
- Ruins of buildings
- 24 gold plates
- Perfectly sound brass and copper breastplates
- Sword with perished hilts and rusted blades
In my mind, I also identify the Jaredites with the Olmecs, but even if you think they lived in North America, this will be relevant. This brings up some questions, namely
- How long does it take corpses to skeletonize in the open air, but not for bone decomposition to take place?
- How long does it take blades to rust in open air, but not oxidize entirely?
- How long does it take wood to decompose (the hilts)?
Copper and brass don't come into the question because they tarnish and don't rust. Gold also doesn't rust.
I've done a lot of searching on the internet, but haven't found too much conclusive material. To summarize my findings, I set an upper limit for the destruction of the Jaredites at 100 years before the Limhi expedition. A more likely limit in the tropical climate of Mexico is 50 years. Heat and humidity will make all of the applicable processes go faster. Taking decomposition into account, a new time frame for the end of the Jaredites is 180-230 BC.
This site dedicated to "online information regarding the funeral and cremation process" states that "decomposition in the air is twice as fast as when the body is under water and four times as fast as underground." It also states that "When buried six feet down, without a coffin, in ordinary soil, an unembalmed adult normally takes eight to twelve years to decompose to a skeleton." Using these two statements, bodies above ground would take two to three years to skeletonize (in the UK). Add in the higher heat and insect population in Mexico and the number will be even lower.
Wikipedia says that "After skeletonization has occurred, if scavenging animals do not destroy the bones, acids in many fertile soils take about twenty years to completely dissolve the skeleton of mid- to large-size mammals, such as humans, leaving no trace of the organism. In neutral-pH soil or sand, the skeleton can persist for hundreds of years before it finally disintegrates." I looked but couldn't find any good information on the pH levels of the soil in Olmec areas.
Here's a site for a high school rusting experiment with pictures. It states that visible rust (Iron (III) Oxide) forms within hours. In this article, Tim Scarlett, archaeologist, says, "Put partly corroded nails in a zip-lock bag, store them awhile, open the bag years later, and end find 'lumps of rust powder,'” I don't know what "end find" means (likely bad editing), but it's clear that iron doesn't have that long of a lifespan. I just can't find exact numbers on that lifespan. Also, everywhere I've found says that heat and humidity will make rusting faster.
Answers.com says that wood an inch in diameter can take 3 years to decompose, and logs a foot across can take ten years. It's safe to say that the hilts of the swords were gone within five years of the final battle.
Conclusion
Pictured: the head of Shiz
There's much more that can be said on the topic, but I think I'll stop here. If you have any further information about rusting and decomposition, please drop it in the comments! I just wanted to point out that the Jaredites lived on the same continent as the Nephites for about 400 years before they perished.
In conjunction with Alma 22:30 (which states that the land northward where Limhi's expedition found the bones was the people of Zarahemla's first landing site), Mos 25:2 talks about "Zarahemla, who was a descendant of Mulek, and those who came with him into the wilderness." That means that some of the Mulekites stayed with the Jaredites, and it also likely means that the two groups had intermarried. So even though Coriantumr is appellated "the last Jaredite," Jaredite blood (and culture) still lived on in the people of Zarahemla. That's probably why their "language [was] corrupted; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them."
Anyways, my thoughts.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Emotional Investment and Return
When reading fiction, we look for one of two things (but probably two of two things): mental or emotional stimulation. I suppose there is spiritual, but that's generally classified into a different category. How good a book is hinges on the accumulation of mental and emotional points.
Now, all authors excel at some things and...excel less at others. Some are quite good at making magic with words (like Patrick Rothfuss). Others weave the plot so perfectly that you're reeling for days after you finish a book (like Brandon Sanderson). Others have many cool devices that keep you interested (like sci-fi). Most of these things accrue mental points during the reading. The prose that makes you think. The plot that blows your mind. The devices that intrigue. The political structures. The worldbuilding.
But there's another category in which to score points. This happens when you build compelling characters and convince us of how they react in a situation. Make us fall in love with that girl your protagonist is falling in love with. Make us laugh when a side character does something characteristically silly. Make us cry when loss occurs. Make us furious when the enemy prevails. Make us glory when the protagonist succeeds. Make us feel.
Here's the thing. Every book that you start reading is an investment. An investment of time and emotion. I'm committing to spending maybe ten hours with these characters; they had better well make my investment worth it!
Which brings me to the main point I want to make: POV character deaths. Let me describe exactly what an author does when s/he kills off a POV character. If you've done it right, I've developed an emotional bond with this person. If you've done it right, I'll be devastated when it happens. I might accept that it needed to happen, but that won't make me any less distraught.
Killing off a POV character, specifically the protagonist, is like having a spouse die or divorce you. It's someone you've grown to love, now they're gone forever. For POV characters with less ink to their names, it's like dating someone you love and getting broken up with. It's an important and powerful literary device and can be used very well and to great acclaim.
But imagine this: you start dating someone, even fall in love with them, but you're almost 100% positive they're going to break up with you. That might be okay once. You can take that emotional battering. But imagine there's a slew people waiting to date then break up with you. You're not going to want to go through that turmoil.
It's the same with killing off characters. If you kill off nearly every character you write, I'm getting crappy returns on my emotional investments. It's a tool, but like any tool, it can be over used. It can be the emotional analog to building up to a great climax, and then finishing with a lame cop out. I'm not going to want to read 200 pages about a ton of characters if I know they're just going to die at the end.
Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it's worth writing about. People browsing the internet for hours a day is real, but it would make a crappy book.
This post may or may not have been an A Song of Ice and Fire rant in disguise.
Now, all authors excel at some things and...excel less at others. Some are quite good at making magic with words (like Patrick Rothfuss). Others weave the plot so perfectly that you're reeling for days after you finish a book (like Brandon Sanderson). Others have many cool devices that keep you interested (like sci-fi). Most of these things accrue mental points during the reading. The prose that makes you think. The plot that blows your mind. The devices that intrigue. The political structures. The worldbuilding.
But there's another category in which to score points. This happens when you build compelling characters and convince us of how they react in a situation. Make us fall in love with that girl your protagonist is falling in love with. Make us laugh when a side character does something characteristically silly. Make us cry when loss occurs. Make us furious when the enemy prevails. Make us glory when the protagonist succeeds. Make us feel.
Here's the thing. Every book that you start reading is an investment. An investment of time and emotion. I'm committing to spending maybe ten hours with these characters; they had better well make my investment worth it!
Which brings me to the main point I want to make: POV character deaths. Let me describe exactly what an author does when s/he kills off a POV character. If you've done it right, I've developed an emotional bond with this person. If you've done it right, I'll be devastated when it happens. I might accept that it needed to happen, but that won't make me any less distraught.
Killing off a POV character, specifically the protagonist, is like having a spouse die or divorce you. It's someone you've grown to love, now they're gone forever. For POV characters with less ink to their names, it's like dating someone you love and getting broken up with. It's an important and powerful literary device and can be used very well and to great acclaim.
But imagine this: you start dating someone, even fall in love with them, but you're almost 100% positive they're going to break up with you. That might be okay once. You can take that emotional battering. But imagine there's a slew people waiting to date then break up with you. You're not going to want to go through that turmoil.
It's the same with killing off characters. If you kill off nearly every character you write, I'm getting crappy returns on my emotional investments. It's a tool, but like any tool, it can be over used. It can be the emotional analog to building up to a great climax, and then finishing with a lame cop out. I'm not going to want to read 200 pages about a ton of characters if I know they're just going to die at the end.
Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it's worth writing about. People browsing the internet for hours a day is real, but it would make a crappy book.
This post may or may not have been an A Song of Ice and Fire rant in disguise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)