Photo Credit: Tim Sackton

Literature You Should Know: Tolkien’s The Hobbit

At semester’s end, professors and teachers everywhere face one of their least favorite tasks: grading exams.  Seriously, it’s hardly ever fun for anyone.  J. R. R. Tolkien was no exception.  In fact, one day, he got so bored that on a page that a student had left blank, he wrote what surely seemed like an inconsequential and fairly silly line: “In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.”

Little could he know then that he’d just written what was to become one of the best-loved first lines in all of literature.

hobbit coverLike a number of his other books, including Letters from Father Christmas, Roverandom, and Mr. Bliss, The Hobbit started out as a story Tolkien wrote purely for the enjoyment of his children.  But at the encouragement of C. S. Lewis, Tolkien revised it enough to pursue publication, and it was accepted by Allen & Unwin at the recommendation of the editor’s ten-year-old son, Rayner Unwin, who grew up to become Tolkien’s chief publisher.  In announcing the book’s publication in 1937, Allen & Unwin hailed it as “the children’s book of the year,” and C. S. Lewis’ first review states, “Prediction is dangerous; but The Hobbit may well prove a classic.”  Yet apparently, almost no one was quite prepared for how successful The Hobbit would be or what would follow when readers clamored for a sequel—least of all Tolkien himself.

(more…)

X Men 172

Super Comics: Uncanny X-Men #172 and 173 (1983)

Uncanny_X-Men_Vol_1_172 Let’s go back to the early days of the super-hero movie trend, to the first X-Men movie from 2000. (Spoilers ahead, but it’s been nearly 15 years.)

That movie featured Wolverine and Rogue as our viewpoints characters, and it built a friendship between, which culminated in Wolverine—at great risk to his own health—allowing Rogue to borrow his healing ability so she could recover from life-threatening injuries. I can’t find that scene on YouTube, but is the music that plays during the moment.

I’m guessing that scene was inspired by the events of Uncanny X-Men #172 and 173 from 1983, which were written by main X-architect Chris Claremont and drawn by Paul Smith. This pair of issues serves a double purpose—to follow up the excellent Wolverine miniseries Claremont had just completed with artist Frank Miller, and to establish Rogue as a bona fide X-Woman. By the way, that Wolverine miniseries influenced aspects of The Wolverine movie from 2013, but that’d be a whole other article.

(more…)

narnia

Literature You Should Know: Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

e30802d90755e019fd179e3452475a6bae0676c9We’ve all had our share of hard winters, and with the latest polar vortex causing record lows as far south as Hawaii, we may be in for another doozy this year.  And even when the weather isn’t cold, shorter days and overcast skies can still take their toll on a person’s spirits, even with holiday cheer to provide light in the darkness.  Imagine, though, a winter so severe that it lasts a full century—and a government so evil as to forbid holidays altogether, on pain of a fate worse than death.  That’s the nightmarish situation in the land of Narnia when Lucy Pevensie stumbles into it from war-ravaged England through a magic wardrobe in C. S. Lewis’ classic The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

Jadis, the White Witch, has usurped the Narnian throne and plunged the country into a magical ice age, in which it’s “always winter, but never Christmas.”  And preventing Father Christmas himself from entering the country isn’t enough.  While Lewis doesn’t reveal much about the laws Jadis has passed (wisely, considering that it’s a children’s book), she does maintain a vast network of spies that includes even trees, and her reaction to stumbling upon a celebration is telling:

“What is the meaning of this?” asked the Witch Queen.  Nobody answered.

“Speak, vermin!” she said again.  “Or do you want my dwarf to find you a tongue with his whip?  What is the meaning of all this gluttony, this waste, this self-indulgence?  Where did you get all these things?”

“Please, your Majesty,” said the Fox, “we were given them.  And if I might make so bold as to drink your Majesty’s very good health—”

“Who gave them to you?” said the Witch.

“F-F-F-Father Christmas,” stammered the Fox.

After a squirrel corroborates the story, the Witch turns the entire party into stone.

But the return of Father Christmas has already proven the prophesied arrival of Lucy and her siblings to be enough to begin destroying the Witch’s power.  And it also heralds the arrival of another visitor long absent from Narnia:  the great Lion, Aslan, Son of the Emperor-over-Sea and King of all Narnia’s creatures.  The Hundred Years of Winter ends with a dramatic shift toward spring as three of the four Pevensie children make their way to the Stone Table to meet Aslan and take their rightful place as the joint human rulers of Narnia.

Still, the end of winter doesn’t mean the end of the Witch.  And she already has a hostage:  Lucy’s brother Edmund, who now regrets having betrayed his siblings to the Witch.  Repentance alone isn’t enough to save him, though, because the Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time, which underlies the very fabric of Narnia, requires that every traitor be slain.  If Edmund goes free, the Deep Magic, like a self-destruct mechanism, will trigger a cataclysm that will completely destroy Narnia.  Yet if Edmund dies, the prophecies regarding the Witch’s death can’t be fulfilled—and the threat of eternal winter and renewed oppression becomes very real.

UnknownNow, if The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe has any emphasis aside from the Pevensies’ adventures and growth as characters, it’s on the spiritual elements.  Lewis’ supposal about Aslan’s identity, on which the book and the whole Chronicles of Narnia series hinge, has been both loved and reviled since the book’s publication in 1950.  (Aslan’s not a Christ figure, as would be the case in allegory; he answers the question of what incarnate form Christ would take in a world full of mythical creatures and talking beasts.)  But given the state in which we currently find our society, with hysteria over global warming and efforts to eject Christianity from the public sphere, it’s not hard to imagine certain groups on the Left taking “always winter, never Christmas” as their creed.  Maybe this Christmas is a good time for us to step through the wardrobe ourselves… and take heart at the idea that even when we can’t see spring’s approach, Aslan’s still on the move.

Literature You Should Know: Tolkien’s Father Christmas Letters

tolkien4Writing to Santa is a time-honored tradition among English and American families who celebrate Christmas.  But did Santa ever write you back?  If so, I hope his letters were as entertaining as the correspondence “Father Christmas” carried on for over twenty years with J. R. R. Tolkien’s children, preserved with as much love as shone through their writing and published after Tolkien’s death as The Father Christmas Letters (later revised as ).  Tolkien’s humor, inventiveness, and artistic talent made these letters a wonderful family tradition well worth sharing.

Beginning in 1920, when Tolkien’s eldest son John was only three years old, Tolkien wrote his children a letter from Father Christmas at least once a year—more often in later years, acknowledging receipt of the children’s messages and promising a longer letter at Christmas.  Each letter is itself a work of art, written in a shaky hand to indicate Father Christmas’ great age and usually decorated somewhat in the style of medieval manuscripts.  But more often than not the letter is also accompanied by a drawing or watercolor that illustrated Father Christmas’ adventures at the North Pole, which are described in greater detail in the letters.

7331And such adventures Father Christmas has!  Most involve his friend and helper Karhu, the Great North Polar Bear, who causes all manner of mischief and often adds marginal peanut-gallery comments in a runic-looking hand, with spelling errors that would be completely at home on I Can Has Cheezburger.  Later letters also include continuations by Ilbereth, the Red Elf who becomes Father Christmas’ secretary, and the cast of characters grows to include Snowpeople, other Elves, and the Cave Bear, along with Cave Bear and Polar Bear’s nephews and distant relations.  Usually, the stories are pure slapstick comedy, like Polar Bear falling through the roof or down the stairs or testing the tap for the Rory Bory Aylis and setting off two years’ worth of Northern Lights all at once.  And then there are instances of the characters snarking at each other in the margins, such as when Ilbereth has been talking smack about what Polar Bear eats and Polar Bear calls him “you thinuous elf.

“He means fatuous,” Ilbereth remarks.

No I don’t,” Polar Bear returns, “you are not fat, but thin and silly.

tolkien-letterOccasionally, however, Father Christmas has to deal with a more serious threat:  goblins who live in caves under the North Pole and steal presents.  Cave Bear, Polar Bear, and Father Christmas stumble upon a nest in 1932 quite by accident, and though they drive the goblins out that time, other years see the goblins return in force to try to conquer the North Pole.  One attempt, not coincidentally, comes during 1941; Father Christmas tells Tolkien’s daughter Priscilla, “I expect the Goblins thought that with so much war going on this was a fine chance to recapture the North.”  Other real-life concerns intrude during the Depression and the war, with Father Christmas explaining a shortage of presents several times by saying that he needs more room in his sleigh to deliver food and clothes to families that have none.  On a lighter note, however, after Oxford’s hosting of a flood of evacuees during the Battle of Britain in 1940, Father Christmas writes that the North Pole has also had evacuees—penguins!

These letters provide a fun glimpse at the state of the Tolkien household through the years—changes of address, new additions to the family, children going off to school and considering themselves too old to hang up stockings.  There’s even a brief reference to The Hobbit in 1937!  But more than that, they showcase just how much Tolkien loved his children and used his talents to bring them joy, especially around the holidays.  The smiles they bring the rest of us are merely an added bonus.

Super Comics: Flash #73-79 (1993)

Barry Allen, like many comic book characters, used to be dead. But unlike most others, he stayed dead for over twenty years. Oh, he’s alive and well now—more so than ever, thanks to The Flash television series on the CW. Nevertheless, DC Comics once killed him off, giving him a heroic death in 1985’s Crisis on Infinite Earths miniseries, and he didn’t return until 2009’s Flash: Rebirth.

unnamed-15During that time, Wally West, the former sidekick Kid Flash, took over as the Flash. Wally was introduced in the late 1950s as the young nephew of Barry’s girlfriend Iris. (Unlike their TV counterparts, Barry and Iris were together from the Flash’s first appearance, and they did not grow up together.) When Barry and Iris eventually married, Barry became not only Wally’s mentor and idol, but his uncle as well.

Wally’s series ran for about 250 issues from 1987 to 2009, and his time as the Flash can be read as a coming-of-age story. He progressed from a self-centered, twenty-year-old kid to a family man and stalwart member of the Justice League of America.

A pivotal chapter in his growth occurred in a storyline called in 1993, which spanned issues #73 to #79 written by Mark Waid and drawn by Greg La Rocque. The story isn’t some good vs. evil struggle, but one with very personal stakes. It’s about the balance between idolizing your hero and becoming your own person, the importance of protecting a legacy, and the dreaded possibility that your role model might not live up to your expectations.

unnamed-2Just as Wally is starting to feel comfortable as the Flash, the man he always saw as “the” Flash seemingly returns from the dead. Barry Allen shows up on his doorstep, alive and well, if a bit disoriented. At first, Wally loves having his uncle back. Sure, he starts to feel a little redundant as the Flash, but that’s a small price to pay. But then Barry’s behavior becomes…erratic. He soon snaps, leaves Wally to die in a hi-tech trap set by a new criminal organization, and announces himself as the one, true Flash. Wally escapes, of course, but he has to process the fact that the man he’s dedicated his life to has turned out to be anything but heroic.

Barry’s super-speed rampage brings him into conflict with former allies. The storyline crosses over into Green Lantern #40 for a Flash vs. GL battle royale. (Whereas the TV series show a friendship between Flash and Arrow, in the comics, Barry had become best friends with a different green super-hero, the Hal Jordan incarnation of Green Lantern—yes, the one we saw in that terrible movie, but Hal’s a much better character in the comics.)

Wally eventually learns it’s not Barry, but an old foe who has gone to extraordinary lengths to emulate him—even convincing himself he was Barry for a time. And now this villain is determined to ruin Barry Allen’s heroic reputation for all time, and only Wally can stop him—provided the younger Flash can get over his subconscious fear of replacing his mentor.

unnamed-16It’s great stuff, one of the best comic book storylines of the early 1990s (which, admittedly, is not saying a lot. Those were dark, dark times for comic readers.)

For fans of the TV show, “The Return of Barry Allen” shows of a glimpse of the hero Barry Allen is destined to become—someone who’s willing to sacrifice himself to save lives, and someone capable of inspiring others to greatness. The “real” Barry may not actually appear in these issues, but his heroic nature defines the story.

Also of note, this storyline features DC Comics’ first Flash in a prominent supporting role. No, Barry wasn’t the first—he’s just the most famous incarnation. Back in 1940, Jay Garrick inhaled some vapors and gained super-speed. He’s an old man in this story, though in excellent shape for his age, and he’s just recently returned to duty. So in one story, you get three generations of Flashes.

Literature You Should Know: Twain’s “Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses”

It’s November, and all writers know what that means:  National Novel Writers Month!  For those not in the know, NaNoWriMo is an informal competition in which people commit to write 50,000 words of a novel over the course of the month.  The end result doesn’t have to be polished in any way—in fact, only word counts are checked to verify a “win”—but the goal is to prompt would-be novelists to stop making excuses and get that first draft done.  (If November’s too busy for you, as it usually is for me, there are other options like Camp NaNo throughout the year.)

James_Fenimore_Cooper_by_Brady_c1850
James Fenimore Cooper

Aspiring novelists naturally seek out writing advice, and there’s no shortage of advice-giving authors, from Elmore Leonard to Stephen King to Anne Lamott.  Some advice is helpful; some is decidedly not; and for some, your mileage may vary.  Most writing books contain lists of dos and don’ts.  But writers can benefit from detailed analysis of books that fail, or that are wildly popular and/or critically acclaimed despite being objectively bad, just as they can from books that succeed.  While amateur reviews like Mark Reads Twilight can give authors a sense of what the average reader expects from a book, it’s hard to beat the analysis of another author.  And that’s exactly what Mark Twain provides by skewering James Fenimore Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales in his 1895 essay “Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses.”

Now, in discussing a book written in an earlier era, a reviewer has to be careful not to judge by present-day standards that didn’t apply at the time.  That’s not what Twain does here, aside from one remark about dialogue style.  Rather, he begins with eighteen rules for good writing, from “a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere” to “Use the right word, not its second cousin,” and then shows

Mark Twain
Mark Twain

with specific examples how these rules are violated.  Given his experience as a Mississippi riverboat pilot, for example, Twain points out ways in which Cooper’s descriptions of a river in The Deerslayer defy logic and the number of ridiculous coincidences and improbabilities in the behavior of Indians attempting to attack a barge on said river that strain credulity to the breaking point.  Six men hiding in a sapling is only the beginning of the mess.

Other outrageous passages Twain cites are Natty Bumppo’s ability to trace a cannonball’s trajectory backward through dense fog to find a fort (“Isn’t it a daisy?” Twain snarks) and his ability in The Pathfinder to hit an unpainted nail with a flintlock rifle while standing the length of a football field away from it.  “Cooper seldom saw anything correctly,” says Twain. “He saw nearly all things as through a glass eye, darkly.”  And then there are major inconsistencies in the characters’ diction, which stand out all the more for the overall melodramatic style, and a list of thirty-one word usage errors culled from a six-page section of The Deerslayer.  Clearly, in Twain’s estimation, Cooper needed a much better editor!  And to the critics who hailed The Deerslayer as a work of art, Twain replies in conclusion:

A work of art? It has no invention; it has no order, system, sequence, or result; it has no lifelikeness, no thrill, no stir, no seeming of reality; its characters are confusedly drawn, and by their acts and words they prove that they are not the sort of people the author claims that they are; its humor is pathetic; its pathos is funny; its conversations are – oh! indescribable; its love-scenes odious; its English a crime against the language.

108195Counting these out, what is left is Art. I think we must all admit that.

Granted, any first-time author can fall into the same errors, especially those who follow models like Twilight.  But whether you apply it from the first draft or only in the revision stage, Twain’s advice is important.  What Tolkien later called “the inner consistency of reality,” crucial to keeping the reader engaged, depends not only on the plausibility of the setting and plot but also on the details like believable dialogue and correct word usage.  You have to learn the rules before you can break them—and some rules should never be broken.

Super Comics: The Avengers #19-22 (1999)

Welcome to Super Comics, where we take a look at the books that inspired the movies and TV shows. And where better to start than a great Avengers storyline featuring the titular villain of the upcoming Avengers: Age of Ultron film?

unnamed-11Avengers stories are at their best when the stakes are both huge and personal, and that’s what we get in the “Ultron Unlimited” storyline that ran in The Avengers (vol. 3) #19-22 in 1999, written by Kurt Busiek and drawn by George Perez—two top, veteran talents in the comics industry.

The cast includes a few Avengers moviegoers have already met—Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor—as well as some they’re about to meet—the Scarlet Witch and Vision—and even a couple whom they might meet versions of in the upcoming Ant-Man movie—Hank Pym and the Wasp. The Black Panther, who’s got a film in the works, rejoins the team for this adventure. And then there’s Wonder Man, who filmmakers will probably get around to eventually if the super-hero trend keeps up long enough; Firestar, who ‘80s kids might remember from the Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends cartoon; and Justice, who…well, they can’t all be in the pictures, can they?

In this storyline, Ultron is taking another shot at his usual goal of replacing organic life with robotic life. But this time includes some twists. He actually does destroy an entire small country as his opening salvo, which gives tremendous gravity to the proceedings. And he kidnaps his “family” so that he can use their brainwaves to generate unique personalities for the robotic life he wants to take over the world.

unnamed-12This story draws on the 35-plus years of Avengers continuity that comes before it, something the movies simply don’t have time to do. While it enriches the overall experience, it also bogs down some parts with exposition so the newer readers aren’t lost.

In the comics, Ultron was created by Hank Pym, who began his super-heroic career as Ant-Man, is most often identified as Giant-Man, and has even called himself Yellow Jacket at times. It looks like Tony Stark will create Ultron in the movie series, which is a logical revision. Pym’s scientific specialties were always biochemistry, insects, and size-changing. Creating artificial intelligence was a significant deviation.

In fact, in this storyline, Iron Man says, “Ultron always hits close to home for me, Firestar. He represents the dark side of technology, the soulless coldness of it—and even though it was Henry Pym who first built him, he always reminds me of the times my armor’s been used to kill others—and what a danger I can be.”

Then again, Pym has often been portrayed as an insecure, sometimes even unstable character trying to prove himself, so it’s not entirely out of left field in the grand scope of comics continuity. But writer/director Joss Whedon is correct not to be a purist in this instance.

unnamed-13Ultron, as he explicitly points out here, has always been something of a “family man,” and he is connected to an impressive family tree. In “Ultron Unlimited,” he kidnaps his “father,” Pym; his “mother,” the Wasp, who at this point is Pym’s ex-wife; his “son,” the Vision, whom he programmed with the brainwaves of the then-deceased Wonder Man, who’s alive again and also gets kidnapped; his “daughter-in-law,” the Scarlet Witch, who was married to the Vision for a while, though they’re long since divorced here; and the villainous Grim Reaper, the brother of Wonder Man.

That’s a family tree that took many years of comics to build. This story is even missing a couple of notable “relatives,” including Scarlet Witch’s brother Quicksilver, and the robotic Jocasta, whom Ultron created as a wife for himself by programming the Wasp’s brainwaves into her.

unnamed-14This storyline can be read by tracking down the individual issues or the out-of-print trade paperback Ultron Unlimited. Your best bet, however, is probably the Avengers Assemble vol. 2 trade paperback, which includes several other issues that come before (just make sure it’s written by Kurt Busiek. There’s another Avengers Assemble series by another writer, which I haven’t read). You can also subscribe to Marvel Unlimited’s digital library, which has this as well as most, if not all, of the earlier storylines it references.

Busiek’s entire run is full of good, solid super-heroic stories that balance character and action, and Perez’s art in the first couple of years is a treat. These guys are two of the best in the business, and it shows in “Ultron Unlimited.”

Literature You Should Know: Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus

Oscar_Taveras_2013As I write this morning, the baseball world is still in shock over the sudden death of 22-year-old Cardinals rookie Oscar Taveras and his 18-year-old girlfriend, Edilia Arvelo, due to a car accident in the Dominican Republic.  Such a loss would be heartbreaking enough even without the baseball connection; they were young, and their families must be devastated.  From all accounts, Taveras was a joyful, friendly guy, and the feature his teammates most recall about him was his smile.  But Taveras had been one of the Cardinals’ top prospects since he was 16 and had the potential to become one of the greats.  Of his four career home runs over eighty games, his first came in his second major-league at-bat, and the last was a game-tying pinch hit in Game 2 of the NLCS.  So it’s inevitable that there has been, and will continue to be, a lot of mourning over a career that might have been.

In some ways, such talk reminds me of Christopher Marlowe, whose career was likewise cut short when he was murdered in 1593 at the age of 29.  His youth and unconventional views make him a romantically tragic figure four centuries later (as Swinburne’s gushing biography from the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica amply demonstrates).  And to this day, critics speculate that Marlowe could have become an even greater dramatist than Shakespeare and lament the works he never wrote.

marlowePerhaps it’s fitting, then, that Marlowe’s best known for his 1588 masterpiece, The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, first printed in 1604.  The Faust legend had begun forming forty years earlier, loosely based on the exploits of a real German con artist, Johannes Faust, who had become infamous in the early decades of the 16th century.  Later writers, from Goethe to Dorothy Sayers, each put their own spin on the story, but Marlowe’s, coming only a year after the publication of the of the tale, is closest to that version both in details and in message.

The tragedy of Faustus is, in many ways, the exact opposite of the tragedy of Marlowe.  When the play opens, Faustus has already had a long and distinguished career, but after mastering all the arts, he’s bored and believes he has yet to reach his full potential.  So he conjures the demon Mephistopheles and eventually agrees to sell his soul to the Devil in exchange for twenty-four years of access to all types of arcane knowledge, power, wealth, and the services of Mephistopheles.  He has to sign the contract in his own blood, but his blood refuses to flow for such a purpose until Mephistopheles warms it with hellfire.  Off and on throughout the play, Faustus considers repenting, but appeals to his pride and greed invariably turn him back to his downward spiral, until at last his time runs out and the demons come to take him to Hell.

faustuswoodcutYet the displays of Faustus’ power that Marlowe shows on stage are hardly the stuff of nightmarish necromancy or of the grand dreams of empire that drive Faustus to embrace sorcery.  Rather, once the bargain is struck, Faustus seems more interested in feasting, carousing, and enjoying popularity with nobles and students alike.  He plays childish pranks on the Pope and various rubes who cross his will, conjures ghosts like Alexander the Great purely for the spectacle, takes Helen of Troy as his lover, and has Mephistopheles bring a pregnant duchess a plate of out-of-season fruit.  It doesn’t seem like the kind of life and power that would be worth selling your soul for—and that’s the point.  Whatever Marlowe himself thought on the matter, the story of Faustus has always hinged on one simple question:  “What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world but lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36).

The loss of young talents like Oscar Taveras is a terrible tragedy, especially when the death is a true accident, and we have every reason to mourn.  But sometimes high hopes are disappointed when a prospect’s potential is never quite achieved—and sometimes those hopes put pressure on young people that drives them into Faustian bargains of their own.  We can’t know what might have become of these lives cut too short.  And maybe, in the end, that’s a mercy.

Literature You Should Know: Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”

Jonathan Swift
Jonathan Swift

A young friend of mine got suckered by the National Report article claiming that a small Texas town had been quarantined due to Ebola (safe link to Snopes).  Over at Ace of Spades, Ace had just been bemoaning what he calls the Viral mentality, which seems to me to be a 21st-century hybrid of the rumor mill and mass hysteria.  Part of the problem, though, is the mistaken sense that “satire” means making up articles out of whole cloth with just enough detail to be plausible and thereby trigger the Viral mentality’s process.  Sometimes the intent is to scare, sometimes to defraud, and sometimes just to give the authors a reason to point and laugh at all the rubes falling for their hoax.  But as my friend’s dad pointed out, that’s not satire, and it’s about time we relearned the meaning of the word.

Enter Jonathan Swift, whom Alan Jacobs once proposed as a patron saint against stupidity.  Most people know his name from Gulliver’s Travels, which is both a classic and a brilliant satire and probably deserves a post of its own.  For a master class in how to write non-fiction satire, however, it’s hard to beat “A Modest Proposal.”

Now, it’s helpful to remember the standard form of a problem-solution essay that you should have learned either in high school or in college freshman comp:

  1. Identify a problem and define and describe it in enough detail to convince the reader that it is a problem that needs to be solved.

  2. Propose a solution, explaining what it is, how it addresses the problem, and why it will work.

  3. Present objections to the solution and answer them fairly.

5206937The problem Swift identifies in “A Modest Proposal” was very real.  At the time, the Irish were suffering heavily under English rule, and soul-crushing poverty was rampant in Ireland.  But knowing how often straightforward argument had already failed to convince the absentee English landlords to change their ways, Swift turns the form on its ear at the beginning of the solution section and makes a statement so outlandish, so outrageous, so over-the-top that only Hannibal Lecter could approve:

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

Yes, that’s the modest proposal:  Eat the Irish.

Swift sets forth the merits of the idea in horrifyingly hilarious detail, with plenty of zingers thrown in for good measure.  For example, after suggesting probable weights for prime Irish child, he remarks, “I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children.”  But the cumulative effect, for those who don’t catch the joke early on, is shock and horror and the growing sense that Swift can’t possibly be serious (can he?).

dorc3a9-a-modest-proposalAnd then, in the reply to objections, Swift springs his trap.  “Therefore let no man talk to me of other expedients,” he says—and proceeds to list his real recommendations, ranging from taxes on absentee landlords to what William Wilberforce would later call “the reformation of manners.”  Swift then closes this section by repeating his admonition that no one should offer such options “till he hath at least some glimpse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.”  By pretending to dismiss these ideas as wishful thinking and renewing his recommendation of a more drastic and barbaric solution, Swift prompts the reader to reconsider how quickly the aristocracy had brushed aside truly ethical and humane reforms as folly.

Granted, as Swift surely knew and as Mark Twain would lament 150 years later, it’s nearly impossible to write a satire that someone won’t mistake as being serious.  On the one hand, when we first read this essay in high school, I was the only person in the class who laughed immediately instead of being scandalized.  On the other hand, I’m quite sure there are so-called progressives, including some who masquerade as ethicists, who would happily use the essay as an instruction manual.  Even so, “A Modest Proposal” can remind us that true satire isn’t just mockery or clickbaiting for its own sake.  A real satirist has a serious purpose in mind that informs the humor at every turn.

Literature You Should Know: Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde

It’s a mistake to call Geoffrey Chaucer a (proto-)feminist, if only because doing so would tend to align him with ideas about women’s role in society that would never have occurred to even the most liberal medieval writer.  But there’s no mistaking where his sympathies lie in Troilus and Criseyde, his retelling of a classical story that he explicitly dedicates to women who don’t have a voice.  While medieval chaucerhoccleveconvention prevents him from changing the most important points of the plot, Chaucer rejects the tendency of every other version—later including Shakespeare’s—to make Criseyde the villain of the piece.  Instead, he challenges readers to rethink their assumptions about an otherwise strong woman caught in a no-win situation with no power to decide her own fate.

Chaucer first introduces the reader to Criseyde, the most beautiful woman in Troy, and then to Troilus, son of King Priam and a jerk who constantly makes fun of lovers.  Finally, Eros gets mad and shoots Troilus just as he spies Criseyde at a public celebration.  She sees him staring at her and frowns, which sends him into paroxysms of lovesick silliness.

But Criseyde is a widow in a society with strict standards of decorum and in which women have no rights and few freedoms.  Worse, her father is a traitor recently banished from Troy for aiding the Greeks, and all his kin are sentenced to death; only her plea to Hector gains her clemency.  Though she cherishes what independence she has, her livelihood is entirely dependent on the protection of her uncle Pandarus, who is a member of the royal household.

Pandarus is also a master manipulator who will stop at nothing to stay on Troilus’ good side.  And if that means bullying Criseyde into an affair with the prince, he has zero qualms about doing so.

483-Troilus-and-Criseyde-II-In-May-picture-q75-500x375Chaucer hints at this ruthlessness toward the end of Book II, when Pandarus takes Criseyde a letter from Troilus.  She tries to refuse it, but he brushes off her objections and stuffs the letter down the front of her dress.  When she succumbs to his insistence that she reply, Troilus pressures Pandarus into pushing the courtship even further… until at last, one dark and stormy night, Pandarus all but throws them into bed together and sleeps outside the door to ensure the tryst is both secret and successful. Criseyde curses Pandarus the next morning for putting her in this position, but she has finally convinced herself that she’s in love with Troilus.

Then, during a prisoner exchange in Book IV, Criseyde’s father asks Agamemnon to trade Antenor for her.  Hector objects that Criseyde’s not a prisoner, but popular opinion persuades Priam to agree to the proposal.  Troilus is understandably distraught, but he rejects Pandarus’ advice to move on or to rape Criseyde, declaring (for once) that he won’t do anything against her wishes.  She likewise rejects any option other than going through with the exchange and escaping back to Troy as soon as she can.  Both lovers pledge to remain true to each other while they’re apart.

chaucercambridgeBut Criseyde’s father prevents her from leaving camp to meet Troilus, and Diomedes decides to win her love for himself, offering her friendship and service at first.  He doesn’t press when she tells him she can’t consider accepting a Greek lover, although he does continue to court her.  And while Chaucer argues that she’s never really in love with Diomedes, he has to concede that she does eventually begin to favor Diomedes with gifts that had belonged to Troilus.

Yet when Troilus learns of Criseyde’s apparent unfaithfulness and Pandarus disavows her, Chaucer states that he’s writing this poem “most for wommen that bitraysed be / Through false folk.”  And it’s not hard to see why.  Hector and Diomedes appear to be the only men in Criseyde’s life who have any desire to look after her best interests rather than their own, and Pandarus, in particular, betrays her trust to coerce her into a relationship based solely on a prince’s lust.  Even today, in the age of #NotAllMen and #YesAllWomen, Chaucer’s take on this story can prompt useful discussion about situations where true consent becomes impossible.

This Again? Defending Comics Against Censorship

Last week was the American Library Association’s annual “Banned Books Week”, which is always a good time to reflect on the state of literary censorship in America, but this year focused specifically on one of my favorite subjects: comic books.
unnamedReasonTV put out a great short interview with Charles Brownstein, the head of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund that they shot at the San Diego Comic Con. The whole interview is worth a look, but the key takeaway is that comic books are, today, just as they were in the early years of their existence, among the most censored and challenged forms of expression. Two comic book series, the bizarre and often hilarious fantasy “Bone” by Jeff Smith, and of all things, “Captain Underpants” by Dav Pilkey, which actually won a Disney Adventures Kid’s Choice award in 2006, are among theg the top 10 most challenged books.

To quote Mr. Brownstein, “The books kids are reading in their leisure hours are the objects of censorship.”
Sadly, this is hardly new.
Moralizing busybodies have been censoring expression and ruining everything good and fun in the world in the name of protecting “the children” for a long, long time. In America, all it took to shut down comic publishing was one lousy book by an unscrupulous psychiatrist named Fredric Wertham.
In the 1950s, superheroes weren’t what they are today, and the most popular comic books (and movies) were horror and crime titles that featured monsters and murder mystery detective stories. Wertham’s book, “Seduction of the Innocent,” published in 1954, claimed that the themes of violence, death, fantasy, and even (imagined) homosexuality in comic books were corrupting the good nature of America’s youth. In support of this theory, he trotted out evidence compiled from his own clinical research which was since found to have been likely falsified and misrepresented.
To quote the NY Times, following their write-up of the research paper that exposed Wertham’s deception:

“‘Seduction of the Innocent’ was released to a public already teeming with anti-comics sentiment, and Wertham was embraced by millions of citizens who feared for America’s moral sanctity; he even testified in televised hearings.

Yet according to Dr. [Carol L.] Tilley, he may have exaggerated the number of youths he worked with at the low-cost mental-health clinic he established in Harlem, who might have totaled in the hundreds instead of the ‘many thousands’ he claimed. Dr. Tilley said he misstated their ages, combined quotations taken from many children to appear as if they came from one speaker and attributed remarks said by a single speaker to larger groups.”

But, ironically perhaps, it was “Seduction of the Innocent” that had the truly profound impact on American culture, as it provided all the ammunition needed for petty tyrants and moral scolds who pushed the US Government to do something about all those pernicious comic books.
For the children, of course.
unnamed-1Facing a wave of attacks from the government, the comic book industry took a cue from the Motion Picture Association of America, and created its own preemptive censorship board known as the Comics Code Authority. The Comics Code established in 1954 laid out 19 criteria that comic books had to abide by. They include things like, “Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority,” and “Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.”
Naturally, this had a severe . Comic book sales plummeted. According to penciler/inker Joe Sinnott of Marvel Comics (Fantastic Four, Silver Surfer, Inhumans, The Avengers) by 1958, the industry had suffered so much that rates for the writers and artists had been cut in half. The hugely successful horror and mystery genre comics were gone, and what remained endured a period of creative stagnation while publishers figured out how to work within the new rules. Eventually, some independent publishers began ignoring the Code and produced some darker stories, but without the Comics Code Authority seal of approval, those books would never see the light of day on store shelves.
It wasn’t until 2001 that Marvel Comics finally abandoned the code, and DC continued to abide by it until just 4 years ago in 2010.
unnamed-2It’s important to understand here that while it was technically the industry “self-censoring”, it did so purely as a result of repeated threats from a government which had by that point a well-established history of censoring “undesireable” speech in numerous forms – a government, it should be remembered, that is legally constrained by the 1st Amendment, which expressly prohibits the creation of laws abridging the freedom of individual speech, or of the press.
Censorship is clearly alive and well in America. Even today, the United States is ranked a shocking 46th place on Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index, our public schools and libraries routinely ban books, and government-funded colleges severely limit speech on campus. Just a few years ago, we saw a hotly controversial Supreme Court case (“Citizens United”) to decide whether or not it was ok for the government to restrict the promotion and distribution of a documentary film simply because it was unfavorable to a prominent and powerful politician (Hillary Clinton) during an election year.
unnamed-3The restrictions on comic books, films, and other entertainment media are one small piece of a very scary picture where the government of the country which is supposed to be the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world is continually grabbing more and more authority to control what people say. A world where ideas and art cannot be shared if a vocal minority of nannies deems those ideas “unsuitable” is a world headed for collapse.
It’s good to know there are people like Charles Brownstein out there standing up for free speech.

Literature You Should Know: The Works of John Donne

I mentioned Shakespeare’s sonnets last time, but it’s impossible to discuss Renaissance poetry without touching on the Metaphysical Poets, chief of whom was John Donne.  Enlightenment figures like Samuel Johnson disdained Donne’s tendency to bring philosophical topics into love poetry, but Samuel Taylor johndColeridge and Charles Lamb revived his reputation among the Romantics.  Contemporary Thomas Carew went so far as to claim in an elegy that English poetry had died with Donne because no other poet would dare achieve the same level of originality and creativity.  Nor was Donne renowned only for his poetry.  After he was named a Royal Chaplain and later Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, he became known as one of the greatest preachers of his day.  And Meditation 17 from Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions (“No man is an island, entire of itself”) has inspired writers from Ernest Hemingway to Brad Bird.

No, really.  Watch The Incredibles with the subtitles on and pay attention to the name of Syndrome’s hideout.  You’ll laugh.

What’s startling about Donne, however, is sometimes where his works don’t show up when they are expected.  Take, for example, one of the best character introductions in television history, from the fifth season of Supernatural:

I cannot speak highly enough of Julian Richings’ portrayal of Death.  He’s regal.  He’s powerful.  He’s old.  He’s composed.  He doesn’t get angry, though he will get snarky.  He’s seen it all and has a taste for Chicago-style pizza and fried pickles.

And yet I keep waiting for someone like Sam Winchester to look him in the eye and say:

Death, be not proud, though some have called thee
Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so;
For those, whom thou think’st thou dost overthrow,
Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me.
From rest and sleep, which but thy picture be,
Much pleasure, then from thee much more must flow,
And soonest our best men with thee do go,
Rest of their bones, and soul’s delivery.
Thou’rt slave to Fate, chance, kings, and desperate men,
And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell,
And poppy, or charms can make us sleep as well,
And better than thy stroke; why swell’st thou then?
One short sleep past, we wake eternally,
And Death shall be no more; Death, thou shalt die.

For Death is proud in Supernatural.  He claims that neither he nor God can remember which of them is older and that, once all other life has reached its natural end, he will eventually reap God.  Gnostic as it sounds, that may be true in that universe, given the number of other heresies that have made their way into the show’s underlying theology.  But so far, the viewer has only Death’s word for it—and in a universe as riddled with unreliable narrators as Supernatural’s is, one character’s word counts for very little.  Yet to date, not even Sam and Bobby, the show’s most scholarly characters, have thrown Holy Sonnet X at Death, and I’m not sure why.

Even so, whether a Donne quote turns up where you least expect it or doesn’t where you most expect it, his poetry and prose alike give us important ideas to ponder as well as examples of what a skilled author can do with the English language.  And whatever you think of Donne’s philosophy and theology, his writings may inspire you to try to prove Carew wrong.  English poetry was not done for with Donne’s death, any more than his soul was.

Literature You Should Know: The Works of William Shakespeare

Remember that “hopeless lute player” I mentioned last time?*

Did you know he had a direct effect on the composition of The Lord of the Rings?

1377606_700850756628050_3911591133837439565_n
Mathew Baynton and the cast of BILL

In “On Fairy-Stories,” Tolkien gives Macbeth as an example of the incompatibility between fantasy and staged drama and argues that it’s “a work by a playwright who ought, at least on this occasion, to have written a story, if he had the skill or patience for that art.”  He specifically mentions the Weird Sisters there, but he confesses in a letter to W. H. Auden that he felt “bitter disappointment and disgust from schooldays with the shabby use made in Shakespeare of the coming of ‘Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill,’” and though he never says so that I’ve found, I suspect he also felt let down by the use of the idea that “no man of woman born” could harm Macbeth.  (SPOILER: MacDuff, who was delivered by C-section, orders his men to hide in Birnam Wood and disguise themselves as trees before attacking Dunsinane.)  Thus, in The Two Towers, Tolkien shows Fangorn Forest—the trees themselves—marching on Isengard, and though it’s said that no living man can kill the Witch-king of Angmar, he meets his fate in The Return of the King at the hands of Merry and Éowyn.

1941396_657358310977295_935769098_o
The stars of BILL (L to R): Laurence Rickard, Simon Farnaby, Mathew Baynton as Bill Shakespeare, Martha Howe-Douglas as Anne Hathaway, Ben Willbond as King Philip II, Jim Howick

 

Love him or hate him, you need to know Shakespeare’s works simply because their influence on the English language and on Western culture as a whole is incalculable.  For example, no less a playwright than Friedrich Schiller adapted Macbeth for the German stage, and Hamlet and Much Ado about Nothing have even been translated into Klingon.  Cinematic and television versions abound; IMDb lists over a thousand, ranging from an 1898 short of Macbeth to Joss Whedon’s version of Much Ado, with dozens more in various stages of development and production, and that’s not counting loose adaptations like The Lion King, Kiss Me, Kate, and McLintock!  (My current favorite is the recent Royal Shakespeare Company rendition of Hamlet with David Tennant and Sir Patrick Stewart.)  And then there are commonplace phrases that originate from Shakespeare’s plays.  “To be or not to be” is obvious, of course, but “sound and fury signifying nothing,” “all the world’s a stage,” “brave new world,” and many, many more show up in everyday conversation without our even realizing where they came from.

Then there are the sonnets, a form Shakespeare made uniquely his own.  Many of these have also become commonplaces—“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”, “Let me not to the marriage of true minds / Admit impediments,” “That time of year thou mayest in me behold,” and more—but they’ve also served as a model for sonneteers ever since.  There’s even a Tumblr account dedicated to recasting !

Not too bad for a 450-year-old “upstart crow,” eh?

* The Bill Facebook team tells me a preview should be out sometime around Christmas.

Literature Movie You Should See

You read that right.  This is a movie rec—for a movie that doesn’t even have a trailer out yet, no less.

First, let me introduce you to the BAFTA-winning minds behind this movie, the zany gentlemen and lady at the heart of CBBC’s Horrible Histories and Sky1’s Yonderland:

Horrible Histories, which is based on books by Terry Deary and bills itself as “History with the nasty bits left in,” has both taught and delighted British children and parents alike for five immensely popular seasons.  Because it’s a children’s show, the Python-esque humor is clean (except for the gross-out gags) and conveys facts in a memorable manner, especially through recurring sketches like “” and “Stupid Deaths” and parodies like “” and “.”  In fact, the team composed “The Rulers Song” in response to fanmail, to challenge young viewers to memorize the kings and queens since the Norman Conquest—and !

The show’s covered Shakespeare a few times before in sketch and song:

But now that Horrible Histories has ended, the cast is moving to the big screen to tackle Shakespeare again… from a different perspective.

If you’ve studied Shakespeare much—and if you haven’t, get thee to a bookstore!—you know that there’s a twelve-year gap in his chronology for which almost no records survive, the “Lost Years” between his leaving school and his marriage to Anne Hathaway (1578-1582) and between his marriage and the first record of a performance of his plays (1582-1592).  Screenwriters and stars Laurence Rickard and Ben Willbond realized that Shakespeare could have been doing anything in that period, which gave them free reign to tell whatever story their imaginations could conjure.

The result is , which looks to be part fact, part fantasy, part comedy of errors, part Tudor spy thriller.  Here’s the official synopsis:

Bill tells the story of ‘what really happened’ during Shakespeare’s ‘lost years’ – how the hopeless lute player Bill Shakespeare left his family and home to follow his dream. Along the way he encounters murderous kings, spies, lost loves, and a plot to blow up Queen Elizabeth.

The six main cast members—Rickard, Willbond, Simon Farnaby, Jim Howick, Mathew Baynton, and Martha Howe-Douglas—together play over 40 roles in the film, including Bill (Baynton) and Anne (Howe-Douglas).  But that still leaves room for other co-stars, including Homeland’s Damien Lewis as Sir Richard Hawkins, who appears to be in cahoots with King Philip II of Spain (Willbond).

Production partners BBC Films, Cowboy Films, and Punk Cinema haven’t released many details about the movie, which has a UK release date of February 20; they haven’t even announced when the film will premiere in the US. However, given the team’s track record, I expect first-rate silliness, if nothing else… and if it gets people interested in Shakespeare again, so much the better.

Knowing Your Audience

I’m taking a brief break this week from the Literature You Should Know posts to share some reflections on a topic that came up as I prepared to teach a poetry-writing class.  Most of us found this blog through and want to talk about culture because we’re content creators of a conservatarian bent.  But whether you’re a poet, novelist, screenwriter, filmmaker, TV producer, songwriter, or blogger, I want to ask you one simple question:

Who’s your audience?

21404488No matter what we write, we write for an audience, even if it’s only an audience of one.  It doesn’t matter whether you immediately close the document without saving or burn the paper you’ve just written on—you wouldn’t put pen to paper or fingers to keyboard unless you wanted to say something to someone else.  And audience awareness becomes all the more critical when you publish, regardless of medium.

Granted, the question need not arise at the outset.  Sometimes you have to get the idea written before you figure out who you’re writing it to.  And sometimes the audience you have in mind when you start writing and the audience who’ll appreciate what you have at the end of your first draft are vastly different, in which case you have to decide whether to keep going, revise heavily, or start over from scratch.  Sooner or later, though, you’re going to need to figure out who your audience is, if only to make sure the marketing campaign takes the right path.

For example, when it came time to hash out a cover design for my novella , I didn’t have a clue what I wanted because the story mixes so many genres at once.  Is it fantasy?  Alt-history?  World War II?  Western?  Trying to cram them all in would make for a terrible mess, but what should appear and what shouldn’t?  I knew what the local market would find most interesting, but my cover artist knew that a broader market would be most interested in another aspect entirely!  Fortunately, my rambling about where I plan to take the rest of the series helped her prompt me to look for other covers I liked in the historical fantasy field, and that got us on the same page at last.

21510688Audience awareness doesn’t necessarily mean you have to be afraid to say something.  It does mean you have to figure out the best way to say it and be willing to defend your choices if and when you receive any backlash.  I know, for example, that some people in my hometown will pick up Look Behind You simply because I wrote it and be Shocked! at the fantasy elements (especially a Christian writing about Nazi necromancers!!!), generally because they’re unaware of the history I’ve incorporated.  So I try to give fair warning when I talk to people, and I’ve written a blog post explaining that no, I’ve not gone off the deep end… and I’m leaving it at that.  Caveat lector.  Conversely, I’m sure there are people who’ll read the book for the Nazi necromancers and find other elements too Christian!  And, well, caveat lector again… I went to Baylor, after all.

unnamedThere are limits, though, to which caveat lector applies.  One is the point at which it runs up against “show, don’t tell.”  A long-winded digression on why people can’t just do the right thing isn’t going to be nearly as effective as Merry challenging the Ents to take action against Saruman in movie-verse The Two Towers or a group of cowboys conversing over a meal and a beer, expressing their dismay over the townspeople’s unwillingness to risk their own lives to help a neighbor.  (I used the latter scene in , if you want to see how it works.)  Another limit is the point at which the message becomes more important than the story.  A conservative/libertarian message isn’t any more attractive in this regard than a liberal one.   If you’re writing only to people who already agree with you, it might not matter so much.  If you’re trying to reach a liberal audience, though, it’s more important that the story be good—if you want to make a point about the ticking time bomb dilemma, for instance, write something like 24.  Get the liberals sucked into an engaging adventure and then watch them squirm as they grapple with its implications.

You can’t reason people out of a position they weren’t reasoned into.  But you can make them question their assumptions with a well-told story.  And it’s easiest to craft the right story in the right way if you know your audience.

Literature You Should Know: Frisch’s Biedermann und die Brandstifter

1132279How could free people willingly subject themselves to a monstrous tyranny?  That’s the question Swiss author Max Frisch tries to answer in his 1958 play (translated variously as , , and ).  A grotesque reminiscent of Flannery O’Connor’s novels, Biedermann bears the subtitle, “A Morality Play without a Moral.”  And in many respects, it does what it says on the box.  Frisch intended the story as an allegory of how the Nazis came to power in Germany, but it functions just as well on a literal level, and even the allegorical level has applications far beyond its post-war setting.

The play’s protagonist is Gottlieb Biedermann, a middle-aged CEO who could easily be described with The Kinks’ “A Well-Respected Man.”  He makes cynical business decisions, such as downsizing an impoverished scientist whose hair tonic (of dubious worth) his company manufactures, and talks tough about an ongoing wave of arson attacks.  Yet he and his wife Babette pride themselves on being modern, open-minded, and nice; Biedermann even insists to the maid that he’s not a monster, despite what the inventor’s ailing wife claims.

Max-FrischBiedermann’s bluster falls flat, however, when a homeless former heavyweight wrestler named Josef Schmitz politely forces his way into Biedermann’s house and asks permission to spend the night.  Even though Biedermann has just read a newspaper article stating that the arsonists’ MO always begins this way, he’s too terrified that Schmitz will hurt him—or worse, think ill of him—to throw Schmitz out or call the police.  Schmitz even gets material for emotional blackmail when the inventor asks to see Biedermann and Biedermann tells him either to sue or to kill himself.  Using a mixture of sentimentality, flattery, and appeal for trust, Schmitz manipulates Biedermann into letting him sleep in the attic and hiding the fact from Babette.

But Schmitz is one half of the firebug team, and his arrival isn’t simply a search for room and board.  It’s a scouting mission.

As the play continues, the Biedermanns repeatedly try to work up the courage to take back their lives, only to fail at the last moment and be pulled further into the machinations of Schmitz and his partner in crime, a sophisticated former head waiter named Wilhelm Eisenring.  In one scene, for example, Biedermann goes to the attic to complain about the ruckus Schmitz had made the night before but is shocked by Eisenring’s arrival and dumbfounded by the discovery that the pair has packed the attic to the rafters with drums of gasoline.  They even admit openly that they’re arsonists, but Biedermann can’t bring himself to believe that they’re telling the truth.  And when a policeman turns up to inform Biedermann that the inventor has indeed committed suicide, Biedermann loses his nerve and lies about who and what his attic holds.  As Eisenring tells him later, “A joke is the third best disguise. The second best: sentimentality…. But the best and safest disguise, I find, is always the utter, naked truth. It’s funny. Nobody believes that.”

8641098486_4b84b2846fThe local fire department serves throughout the play as a chorus, commenting on the action and even breaking with classical convention to speak directly to Biedermann and warn him of his danger. Despite the ominous tone of their contributions, however, their point is that the entirely foreseeable end of the play is also entirely evitable.  Even when Biedermann has to admit his suspicions to himself and to the audience, he clings to the desperate false hope that if he just stays on the firebugs’ good side, they’ll spare him. But then he turns the tables on the audience at the end of his soliloquy by asking, “What would you have done, dammitall, if you were in my place? And when?”

Biedermann’s willful blindness and frantic attempts at appeasement, while comical, also prove his undoing.  Yet by refusing to have the chorus state an explicit moral to the story, Frisch invites the audience to give Biedermann’s question serious thought and explore its applications.  On a personal level, are we too worried about being nice to protect ourselves against criminals?  In domestic politics and foreign policy, does fear of popular opinion keep us from doing the right thing?  But if we accept that, as Alfred says in The Dark Knight, “Some men just want to watch the world burn,” how do we stop them in a way that’s both just and merciful?  Frisch doesn’t offer any easy answers—but it’s a conversation every generation needs to have.

Literature You Should Know: Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov

4934An adequate summary of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s is far beyond the scope of this post.  There are too many plots, subplots, side plots, twists, and turns, too many characters with a long list of nicknames, and even—I must confess—parts that I, as a 21st-century American and forensic science nerd, simply couldn’t get through.  (The fault is mine, not the book’s.)  Rather than giving an overview of the whole book, therefore, I want to focus on one of its many themes, presented in a single recurring quote:  “If there is no God, everything is permissible.”

Middle brother Ivan Karamazov, an intellectual cleric having a crisis of faith, wrestles with this idea throughout the novel.  He discusses his philosophical objections to belief in God and the afterlife with anyone who will listen, primarily with tender-hearted youngest brother Alyosha and the family’s epileptic cook Smerdyakov.  Alyosha’s only answer to Ivan is love, with the acknowledgment that some questions can’t be answered by anyone but Jesus.  Ivan counters that such a response doesn’t resolve his doubts.  And Alyosha, in turn, briefly experiences his own crisis of faith and runs away from his monastery when reality doesn’t meet his expectations—only to be shocked back to faith when he discovers he’s misjudged the town prostitute as well.

Smerdyakov, on the other hand, readily agrees with everything Ivan has to say.  He’s not interested in philosophy as an intellectual exercise, however.  He sees far more practical applications for Ivan’s thesis.  The child of a mentally handicapped woman allegedly raped by patriarch Fyodor Karamazov, Smerdyakov is already notorious for torturing cats and similar bad behavior.  But then Ivan leaves town, and eldest brother Dmitri has a violent argument with Fyodor and strikes a servant with a pestle on his way out of the house.  Sensing an opportunity, Smerdyakov graduates to murder.  Not only does he batter drunken, abusive Fyodor to death, he does so with the pestle Dmitri has left behind and steals the money that was the subject of the argument, effectively framing Dmitri with circumstantial evidence.  When Ivan confronts him, Smerdyakov confesses his crimes but argues that Ivan shares the culpability, both for leaving the scene of a murder Ivan suspected might occur and for giving him the moral justification for the act:

If there is no God, everything is permissible.

Smerdyakov then kills himself, not out of remorse or fear of being apprehended as the real murderer, but because he can.  And thus the frame is complete.

c6a4468caefdff2ae99c2439b2932ee0Already fighting a fever and crippled with guilt over seeing the logical, practical consequences of his philosophy, Ivan suffers a major psychotic break.  Alyosha nurses him through the night, but when Ivan finally appears at Dmitri’s trial the next day, he’s so incoherent that even his revelations of the truth are dismissed out of hand.  Without another witness to confirm any of what Ivan says, the peasant jury convicts Dmitri, and the judge sentences him to twenty years in Siberia.  Ivan has already arranged for Dmitri to escape to America, and he tells Alyosha he could never kill himself; but his repentance has come too late and at the cost of his health and sanity.

In this storyline as in the rest of the novel, Dostoevsky is careful not to give any one character the last word or to present any one perspective as definitively right.  Even Ivan’s fate is left ambiguous in the epilogue.  Instead, by structuring the book as an interwoven group of dialogues, Dostoevsky leaves topics like this one open for the reader to ponder, allowing each of us to form our own opinions… and grapple with their ramifications.

Ending Point: My Journey Through Miyazaki’s Essays In Light of Studio Ghibli’s Possible End

71EuDoeYx5LAbout two weeks ago, I started reading “” a collection of essays, speeches. interviews, and newspaper articles written by Hayao Miyazaki. For those of you who don’t know, Miyazaki is one of the biggest reasons artistic animation is taken seriously in the U.S. Miyazaki animated several blockbuster hits such as “Spirited Away,” “Kiki’s Delivery Service,” and “Princess Mononoke,” one of the highest-grossing films of all time in Japan. He also animated “My Neighbor Totoro,” the first movie I remember seeing. To put it simply, he did a lot for me as a kid, mainly opening up my brain a little every time I sat down to watch one of his films. His imagination, couple with his brilliant team at Ghibli, have produced fantastic worlds that draw you in with their sights, sounds, and gorgeous rich colors.

In short, my feelings toward the guy are nothing short of adoration. And to read “Starting Point” is to feel a little closer to the person who inspired my side work in comics and made my childhood really special. I’d really recommend the book to anyone who was interested in animation, or who likes picking the brain of a creative person. I’ve loved every page of the book, and it’s full of meaningful little quotes that really make his work and personality come alive, like this one:

“A moving perspective that incorporates a sense of space in the picture, that creates a sense of liberation, and that makes our souls want to greet the wind, the clouds, and the beautiful earth we see unfolding far below – these are the wonderful scenes and machines I dream of someday depicting.”

But when it was rumored that Ghibli Studios might be putting down its pens only a few months after Miyazaki had retired, I had some mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, it seemed wise for them to know when to pack it in; they spent years making beautiful films and if they ended now, they could still be remembered that way, not as a company that desperately tried to cling to a reputation that had changed into something new over the years. But on the other hand, just because Miyazaki knew his time in the sun was over with, it didn’t mean the studio couldn’t go on and create more beautiful things. Plus, it’s a selfish reason, but I wanted Studio Ghibli to continue making movies because, well, why wouldn’t they? There was so much to want to cling to, there was such a large legacy there – and I know that if I was personally working there, I’d put up a fight to keep on animating.

Either way, it’s just a rumor, but there is something to think about here – how do we as creative people (and people in general) regard the things we create? I know that my own personal connection to things that I’ve written or drawn is a strong one, and I wouldn’t want to just give it up because in some small way, it proves I made something of my life, I did something worthwhile – no matter how small. And the more successful those creations get, the harder it is to come to terms with one day letting it go.

But Miyazaki had another lesson to teach me here as well. Below, you can see stills from the Studio Ghibli documentary “The Kingdom of Dreams and Madness,” which was originally released in Japan last year. These stills are from Tumblr site Nicholas Kole:

unnamed

unnamed

unnamed

unnamed

unnamed

unnamed

unnamed

 

To me, a statement like that takes a lot of humility to say. I think that a lot of people, including myself, would practically throw themselves at Miyazaki’s feet and beg him not to let the company go, asking him to keep it around for reasons – some big and extravagant, like making beautiful movies, and some for practical reasons, like making money or keeping jobs in the animation arena open.

Because as creative people, things like recognition and fame still matter. We still vie for the attention of others and chase the elusive, all consuming aspect of fame. But I really think that Miyazaki challenges us to remain dedicated to what we love, not what can become of it – and in a way, he also challenges us to embrace how small we are as humans. Yes, he founded one of the biggest, most successful animation studios of all time, and yes, he’ll be remembered long after he passes away. But for him, it’s about knowing when to let go, because even if Ghibli isn’t closing up shop now, it will eventually. But it seems that he knows when to say, “I have done what I loved to do, and now it’s time to rest.” There’s a certain grace to it, and it makes the argument that fame isn’t what lasts, but rather the experiences and love you share with others during the journey.

But all in all, no matter how I view the possible closing of one of my favorite companies, I do recommend Miyzaki’s book to you. Even if you aren’t into animation, it’s about much, much more than lines on a page.

Literature You Should Know: Browning’s The Ring and the Book

867406Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon is widely regarded as the quintessential cinematic study in perception.  But ninety years earlier, Robert Browning found fodder for a similar study in the records of a real-life Italian murder trial.  Knowing a good story when he saw one, Browning decided to turn it into a group of his famous dramatic monologues.  The result is The Ring and the Book, a twelve-book epic that explores not only questions of truth and subjectivity but also of human depravity and the mercy of unflinching justice.

Certain facts of the case were never in dispute.  In 1693, Guido Franceschini of Arezzo, an impoverished, middle-aged nobleman, married 13-year-old Pompilia Comparini, the only child and heir of an elderly upper-middle-class Roman couple.  Accusations of abuse abounded from the beginning, worsened by the behavior of Pompilia’s… alleged parents.  In truth, Violante Comparini had illegally adopted Pompilia, a prostitute’s daughter, and manufactured a miracle to trick her husband.  Now they renounced the fraud and tried to reclaim Pompilia’s dowry, and lawsuit after lawsuit followed.  Then, in 1697, Pompilia ran away with a young cleric, Giuseppe Caponsacchi.  Guido claimed they were having an affair; both Pompilia and 432px-Robert_Browning_by_Herbert_Rose_Barraud_c1888Caponsacchi denied it.  The court sent Pompilia to a convent in Rome until her health failed a few months later, then allowed her to return to the Comparinis’ house.  By December, however, the reason for Pompilia’s flight and breakdown became clear:  she was pregnant.  The Comparinis arranged for friends to hide the baby, fearing Guido’s reaction.  And on the night of January 2, 1698, Guido and three accomplices broke into the Comparini villa, killed the Comparinis, and fatally wounded Pompilia.  The attackers were arrested later that night, caught literally red-handed.

The story is thus less whodunit than whydunit.  Guido pled that he’d acted within his rights as a husband to kill his unfaithful wife.  But Caponsacchi still swore that Pompilia wasn’t unfaithful; she’d begged his help to escape her abusive marriage, he claimed, and Guido had framed them with forged love letters.  And Pompilia lingered for four days, ample time to give her own deposition confirming Caponsacchi’s.  The court therefore convicted Guido of capital murder.  Then Guido played his trump card:  he had taken minor clerical orders before his marriage and was entitled to appeal his case to the Pope.

Browning builds the story to this point in a series of monologues, each from a different perspective.  Book I gives an account of his finding the court documents and an overview of the case, in which he admits his own biases but promises to give all sides and let the reader decide among them.  Books II through IV showcase three schools of popular Roman opinion, one siding with Guido, one with Pompilia, and one attempting to stay neutral.  Book V portrays Guido’s deposition, Book VI Caponsacchi’s, and Book VII Pompilia’s, and Books VIII and IX present fictionalized writs filed by Guido’s and Pompilia’s lawyers.  With this circular structure, Browning highlights the idea that there is an objective truth to this matter, even if the he-said-she-said nature renders a straightforward approach impossible.

49153The climax of the poem is Book X, in which the Pope reviews the case.  He admits that none of these narrators are reliable, but their testimony has revealed enough about their character for him to discern the truth.  Thus, he acquits Pompilia of infidelity, praises Caponsacchi for his courage, and denounces everyone who failed to help Pompilia.  He then confirms Guido’s death sentence because he sees no other way for Guido to understand his soul’s peril and repent.  And in Book XI, once Guido’s alone with the friendly priests who’ve come to hear his last confession, his mask comes off, revealing the unrepentant sadistic psychopath beneath.  Not only does Guido renounce his faith and confess to having hated Pompilia all along, he even rages against the idea of his son supplanting him.

Book XII returns to Browning’s point of view and presents both fictional and factual accounts of Guido’s execution and the fate of Pompilia’s son and estate.  Among these, however, Browning includes a sermon on the Scripture verse “Let God be true and every man a liar.”  This lesson allows him to conclude with an even broader moral:  since no human narrator can be completely reliable, objective truth sometimes has to be told obliquely, especially through art.  Precisely what truths Browning wants the reader to discern beyond the mere facts of the case are nowhere stated, but there are more than enough of them present to make the book worth many re-readings.

Should You Self-Publish?

The short answer is yes, you should start getting your work out there and building an audience. This applies not only to novelists, but musicians, filmmakers, theatre artists—all creative fields.

unnamedBut let’s focus on books. That’s what lately.

Advances in technology mean we don’t have to follow the conventional wisdom of decades ago. Traditional publishers are still relevant, important, and deserving of respect, but they don’t have to be the sole gatekeepers of the literary world. Readers can do an excellent job of that, too.

If you’re a writer who yearns for a career in fiction, self-publishing should be your proving grounds. Show the world you’re capable of developing a professional-quality work, and demonstrate the thick skin of letting readers form their own opinions about it. Make connections with other authors, and conduct yourself as a professional.

But becoming a self-published author is not for everyone. Here are just a few considerations, and this list is by no means exhaustive:

1 – Can you resist the temptation to rush to publication? You don’t want to publish prematurely. Readers will see the plot holes and typos, and unless your book has other qualities that are so incredibly amazing that they’ll forgive any other flaws, they probably won’t pay any attention to anything else you publish. So make sure you’re willing to take the time to revise, revise, and revise several more times. Finish the manuscript and put it aside for a few months. Let other people read it and offer feedback. Make more revisions. Are you still excited about the project? Then hire a professional editor. Then proofread again. You’ll never get it perfect, and eventually you’ll need to take the leap, but patience will improve your product a thousandfold.

2 – Are you at least 25 years old? Along the lines of #1, I’d advise against self-publishing until you have at least 25 years of life experience. Even if you’re an incredibly talented 19-year-old, just think how extraordinary you’ll be with those additional six years of practice before you make your first impression on the world. So promise yourself: “I will not self-publish before I turn 25. I will use my early 20s to sharpen my skills, make a bunch of mistakes, and learn all I can.” Of course, still make sure you’re writing constantly. The earlier you start practicing, the better.

unnamed3 – Are you willing to invest your own money? True, Amazon charges you nothing for putting your book up for sale. But unless you’re also a talented graphic designer who also possesses the rare skill of being able to objectively edit your own work, you’re going to need to engage the professional services of freelancers. Be ready to shell out hundreds of dollars for editing, and at least another hundred (probably more) for a quality cover. And then you’ll probably want to set aside some money for marketing, too.

4 – Will you bother to market your book? Whether you publish independently or traditionally, you’re going to have to be involved in the marketing process. By going the indie route, most if not all of the work will fall on your shoulders. Be prepared to embrace social media platforms, get a table at book festivals, and constantly seek creative opportunities to spread the word about your book. The good thing about self-publishing—it’s just your own money on the line, so no one’s rushing you to achieve immediate success. A trial-and-error approach is fine as you figure things out, provided you don’t alienate any potential fans along the way.

5 – Are your expectations realistic? If you think you’re going to be an overnight success, or if you even think you’ll earn an extra few thousand dollars your first year, you’re in for serious disappointment. It’s possible your debut novel will reach the right readers and take off, but assume it won’t. Assume you’ll need to publish several titles before any of them start catching on. The process is a marathon spanning years, with each year full of hard work and perseverance. It’s a crowded marketplace, and readers don’t even know to look for you yet.

Aren’t I a ray of sunshine? I could go on, but that’s a decent starting point. I’m still learning about the world of self-publishing myself. I published my first e-book at age 29 in late 2012 and my first paperbacks in the fall of 2013. My sales are nothing to boast about, even though I’ve gotten some strong reviews from readers and bloggers.

But I can be patient. I’ve got more books planned. What I’ve done so far is only the beginning.

Literature You Should Know: Chesterton’s Ballad of the White Horse

Civilization is under attack.  An army masses to destroy Christians and their hated book learning, to plunder their wealth and ravish their women.  Unless these savages are stopped, the lights may go out for good… but the Christian forces are few and scattered.  Hope for victory seems dim.

c6352This plot sounds like it’s ripped from the headlines, and it could have been—twelve centuries ago.  The rampaging enemy in this case is the Viking horde, and the story itself is The Ballad of the White Horse, G. K. Chesterton’s fictionalized account of the Battle of Ethandune (read here by Malcolm Guite).  The title refers to the White Horse of Uffington, which now-discounted legend held to commemorate Alfred the Great’s victory at Ethandune.  Published in 1911, this poetic mixture of fact, legend, and fantasy inspired English troops through two world wars and can still bring encouragement to those of us who feel our way of life is under assault.

Book I opens with the state of Alfred’s England, moving from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Danish onslaught against the Saxons.  The barbarians beat back Alfred to Athelney, “and no help came at all” until Alfred receives a vision of the Virgin Mary.  But she has no soothing platitudes for him:

“I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.

“Night shall be thrice night over you,
And heaven an iron cope.
Do you have joy without a cause,
Yea, faith without a hope?”

gkc2001large
G.K. Chesterton

Our reaction would probably be, “Oh, THANKS!”  But not only does Alfred understand what Mary’s saying, Book II declares he does have “the joy of giants, / The joy without a cause.”  His three allies also respond favorably to Mary’s message, agreeing to fight a battle that they seem certain to lose.  Even the White Horse, grey and overgrown from neglect, presents a discouraging sight at the beginning of Book III.  Yet Alfred dares to walk unarmed toward the Danish king’s camp and, once captured, to play his harp and sing of English victory.  The Danish earls mock him and praise destruction and nihilism, since even their gods will die, but Alfred answers, “You are more tired of victory, / Than we are tired of shame…. / We have more lust again to lose / Than you to win again.”  The Danes can only laugh.

This exchange of taunts doubles as a scouting mission, however, and Alfred studies the Danish camp’s layout as he leaves at the beginning of Book IV.  After an interlude where Alfred agrees to watch a peasant woman’s fire, muses too long on the plight of the poor, and gets slapped for accidentally letting one of her cakes burn, his allies arrive to find him laughing at himself.  “This blow that I return not,” he declares, “Ten times will I return / On kings and earls of all degree,” and with that, he leads his army into battle.

Uffington-White-Horse-sat
The White Horse

The fight that follows in the next three books showcases Chesterton’s love of paradox.  First blood is struck by Colan the Celt, who throws his rusty sword to kill Earl Harold and to whom Alfred in turn offers his own sword.  The English take their toll on the Danes, but the Danes drive them back, kill Alfred’s captains, and think the battle is over.  At last, however, Alfred rallies the Saxons with a horn blast and a victory-or-death speech, has another vision of Mary, and leads the final charge against the Danes with the cry, “The high tide and the turn!”  Between the Saxons’ sudden onslaught and a surprise rear attack from the Celts, the Danes are utterly defeated.

But the story doesn’t end there.  In peacetime, Alfred still has to deal with courtiers who want him to drive the Danes out of Britain entirely rather than allowing them to keep the Danelaw, and the White Horse still has to be scoured regularly to keep it white and free of weeds.  And when the Danes again raid the south of England, the aged Alfred warns that barbarians will always attack free peoples and the worst are the ones who come not with swords but with books.  Chesterton closes Book VII with a juxtaposition of descriptions, weeds trying once more to overwhelm the White Horse while Alfred retakes London.

Freedom isn’t free.  Do we have “the joy without a cause” to defend it even when all seems lost?

Literature You Should Know: Lewis’ On Stories and Other Essays

People who think of C. S. Lewis only as the author of The Chronicles of Narnia or as a Christian apologist forget—if they ever knew—that he was a professor of English literature, first at Oxford, then at Cambridge.  As such, he published a sizable number of critical essays and reviews and gave talks and interviews on the 127231b0648bab4aac8c5aacdcdf2741subject.  Twenty of these appear in .  Apart from specific reviews of and tributes to authors like J. R. R. Tolkien, H. Rider Haggard, and Dorothy L. Sayers, the collection examines what story is and what makes it work.  It thus contains useful advice for any writer, regardless of religious or political persuasion, especially those who want to write works with any kind of message.

“On Stories” focuses on one of the most overlooked aspects of storytelling:  why one would choose to tell (or read) one particular story and not another.  Among his many examples, Lewis cites the 1937 adaptation of King Solomon’s Mines, in which he felt the screenwriter had ruined the story by replacing the original ending, involving the quiet horror of being trapped in a crypt, with an action-packed volcanic eruption and earthquake.  He concedes that this ending might be more cinematic but argues, “There must be a pleasure in such stories distinct from mere excitement or I should not feel that I had been cheated in being given the earthquake instead of Haggard’s actual scene….  Different kinds of danger strike different chords from the imagination.”  (Paging Peter Jackson!)  By contrast, David Lindsey’s Voyage to Arcturus, which Lewis admits is lacking in style, nevertheless captures a spiritual element that most pulp “scientifiction” of the ’30s and ’40s missed.  “On Science Fiction” similarly criticizes stories that are sci-fi only because they’re set in the future or in space but would otherwise fall into conventional genres like romance or thriller.  Rather, Lewis argues, the futuristic setting “is a legitimate ‘machine’ if it enables the author to develop a story of real value which could not have been told (or not so economically) in any other way.”

CS Lewis
CS Lewis

The danger, as Lewis sees it in “On Stories,” is that the plot of any given story is a sequential series of events that has to serve as a net in which to catch some wholly non-sequential idea, and it’s very easy for the author to miss the target.  Yet sometimes a given plot or genre is the only net that can catch a given idea.  Lewis explores this point in more detail in “On Three Ways of Writing for Children” and “Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What’s to Be Said,” both of which cite Tolkien’s “On Fairy-Stories.”  In “Sometimes,” drawing on Tasso, Lewis posits a distinction between two writing impulses, one arising from the author as author and one from the author as human or citizen.  The Author cares only about the story material, which carries with it implications about form.  The Man, however, is concerned about everything else, including the story’s message.  Only when the two work together can a good story result.  Here Lewis cites his experience in writing the Narnia books, which began with pictures that coalesced into a story that needed the form of a fairy tale.  Only after the Author had gotten that far did the Man assert himself by looking at the potential for fantasy to present a moral message in ways the audience would accept.  Had he tried to reverse the process and start with the moral, he would have failed.

“On Three Ways” contrasts this method, in which a fantasy for children was the only form the story could take, with an approach that views children as a generic target audience who all like the same juvenile things.  Not only is the latter method condescending, its proponents are usually wrong about what kids like, and “a children’s story which is enjoyed only by children is a bad children’s story.”  Finally, to the argument that fairy tales are too scary, Lewis answers, “Since it is so likely that [children] will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage….  Let there be wicked kings and beheadings, battles and dungeons, giants and dragons, and let the villains be soundly killed at the end of the book”—sound advice even when writing for adults!

Literature You Should Know: Tolkien’s Tree and Leaf

I was already planning to write on this week before I read Sean 394422da6bda916b75635832890205fdMalone’s review of Snowpiercer, but Sean’s discussion of internal logic only confirmed my choice.  If there’s one book every writer of science fiction and fantasy absolutely must read, it’s Tree and Leaf.  Several different editions have been released over the years, but all contain two vitally important works: On Fairy-Stories and Leaf by Niggle.

“On Fairy-Stories” began as a keynote address Tolkien delivered in 1937, around the same time he published The Hobbit and began writing The Lord of the Rings.  The first part of the essay addresses what fairy-stories are, though Tolkien gives no more precise definition than that they are stories about Faërie; misconceptions of the Fair Folk; the muddle critics make when discussing the origins of fairy tales; and the modern mistake of thinking that fairy tales are only for children.  Tolkien moves beyond mere criticism, however, when he turns to the topics of how fairy tales are written and why they are worthwhile.  He never cites Sidney’s Defense of Poesy, but his view of literary creativity is in a similar vein.

unnamedTolkien defines human creativity as sub-creation.  Only God can create something from nothing, and Tolkien calls the world God created the Primary World.  Yet humans, made in God’s image, have the right to use our sub-creative powers, defined as Art, to form Secondary Worlds from the material we find in the Primary World.  Here Tolkien quotes from his poem “Mythopoeia,” which appears in full in recent editions of Tree and Leaf.  Written for C. S. Lewis shortly after the famous conversation on Addison’s Walk in 1931, “Mythopoeia” attacks Lewis’ assertion at the time that myths are “lies breathed through silver.”  Tolkien counters not only that myth is a vehicle for truth but also that myth-making is a human right—“we make still by the law in which we’re made.”  And “Leaf by Niggle,” Tolkien’s only deliberate allegory, celebrates the idea that God may someday grant us the great gift of seeing our Secondary Worlds given primary reality.

Yet Tolkien argues in “On Fairy-Stories” that the purpose of Art isn’t just the author’s own enjoyment.  A well-made Secondary World is one into which author and audience alike can enter.  The Secondary World therefore needs to have “the inner consistency of reality” that allows the audience to believe that what the author says is true within that world.  If disbelief has to be suspended, the art has failed.  Tolkien notes,

Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language can say the green sun. Many can then imagine or picture it.  But that is not enough…. To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft.  Few attempt such difficult tasks.   But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art:  indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most potent mode.

Tolkien3_01Fantasy is the most difficult genre, in Tolkien’s view, because it’s characterized by “arresting strangeness” and is vastly different from the Primary World.  Yet that’s also what makes fantasy worthwhile and is a consolation in itself.  It carries with it Recovery, not just renewed perspective but renewed mental and spiritual health from “regaining a clear view… ‘seeing things as we are (or were) meant to see them.’”  Fantasy also allows Escape, not from reality as a whole, but from the elements that stifle our spiritual health and growth, and thus can offer the consolation of satisfied desire.  Best of all is the Consolation of the Happy Ending, the good turn Tolkien calls eucatastrophe:

In its fairy-tale—or otherworld—setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace:  never to be counted on to recur.  It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure:  the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.

Such elements, Tolkien argues, should not be scorned because they take us away from “real life”—for who is more hostile to escape than a jailer?

Literature You Should Know: Sidney’s Defense of Poesy

In the wake of the English Reformation, Puritan leaders began denouncing forms of entertainment they considered sinful, especially theater and poetry.  When one former playwright addressed an anti-theater treatise to Sir Philip Sidney, Sidney responded with An Apologie for Poetrie (later retitled ), the first work of its kind in English literature.  Sidney’s arguments about the purpose of poetry—by which he meant all forms of creative writing—still resonate for content creators who want to smash cut our postmodern culture toward a healthier direction.

Sir Phillip Sidney
Sir Phillip Sidney

Sidney applies the term poetry broadly because it derives from the Greek verb poiein, “to make.”  He points out that many poets don’t write verse, and many people who write verse don’t deserve to be called poets.  More modern forms of prose and scripted fiction would therefore also fall under the heading of poetry in Sidney’s view.  For him, creativity is the hallmark of poetry, far more than any given medium or genre.

Throughout the Defense, Sidney presents the thesis that poetry’s purpose is to teach and delight, and especially to teach by delighting.  Writing for a Renaissance audience, Sidney draws most heavily on classical literature, but he also hints at the Puritans’ hypocrisy with examples from Scripture.  When it comes to virtue, he argues, philosophy can present dry rules and history can furnish plain examples, but only poetry can combine the rule with the example in a way most people will enjoy.  And enjoyment is the key to convincing people to apply moral lessons to their own lives.  Sidney notes that even cultures that don’t have historians or philosophers still learn from their poets and storytellers.

Yet the message isn’t the only reason creative writing is worthwhile.  Sidney states that poetry’s the highest of the written arts because it’s the only one in which the author makes something new out of nature rather than recording what’s in nature.  As such, he argues, it’s also the highest expression of the imago Dei, the image of God in which all humans are made.  Because we’re created in the likeness of the Creator, the Author of history, what could be a more fitting human activity than making up our own stories?

Sidney then addresses the Puritan arguments against poetry, quickly dismissing those that are only mockery and agreeing to disagree with those who say that poetry’s a waste of time.  To the charge that poetry consists of lies, he points out that a lie affirms a falsehood to be true; scientists and historians can’t always avoid getting their facts wrong, but a poet never claims to be writing anything but fiction.  (And we all know how many documentaries and textbooks are riddled with errors and outright lies!)  Then there’s the objection that Plato banished poets from his republic, to which Sidney replies that Plato was really talking about poets who misused poetry to present harmful opinions of the gods.

apology-for-poetry-or-the-defence-of-poesy-sir-philip-sidneyThe one objection to which Sidney grants any credence is that poetry can be, and often is, abused to encourage the audience to embrace vice rather than rejecting it.   This debate continues today, whether we’re discussing the sexual content of television or music, railing against pro-statist movies, or arguing whether violent video games encourage violent behavior.  The problem, as Sidney sees it, is not “that poetry abuseth man’s wit, but that man’s wit abuseth poetry.”  He distinguishes between two types of poetic imitation:  eikastike, “figuring forth good things,” and phantastike, “which doth contrariwise infect the [imagination] with unworthy objects…. But what!” he adds, “shall the abuse of a thing make the right use odious?”  Even what we call fantasy—The Lord of the Rings comes to mind—can be eicastic in Sidney’s sense in that it encourages virtue.  Lines do need to be drawn; the trick is drawing them in the right places.

Later, Sidney notes that a large part of the problem with English poetry is that it’s badly written by classical standards, regardless of the content.  Nor is the quality problem limited to verse; he gives examples from plays and even sermons.  Conservatives, especially Christians, have been having this same discussion for years—since so much pop culture is dreck, is it enough to support good content, regardless of writing quality?  The solution, I think Sidney would argue, is to create better works, good writing that teaches a good message… or, as Mary Poppins put it, the “spoonful of sugar [that] makes the medicine go down in a most delightful way.”

Veronica Mars Lives On… In Books

Fans of the late Veronica Mars television series wanted a continuation so badly, they were willing to shell out money through Kickstarter to help fund a movie.

unnamedGiven that it only made about $3.3 million at the box office, according to imdb.com, that’s probably the only Veronica Mars film anyone’s ever getting. (At least it was great fun.)

But that’s not the end of the franchise. Shortly after the movie came out, the story continued in a

Veronica Mars: The Thousand Dollar Tan Line was written by series creator Rob Thomas, along with Jennifer Graham, and it’s only the first of a new series of mystery novels. A second novel by the same authors, , is available for pre-order and will be released Oct. 28.

So how does a television series translate into a novel series? In this case, exceptionally well.

Sure, it lacks Kristen Bell and the rest of the exceptional cast, but the reader can easily hear all their voices in the dialogue and can picture them playing out the scenes as if this were the next movie that will never be.

The basic plot involves a couple of girls going missing during spring break in Neptune, and the local Chamber of Commerce hires Veronica to investigate.

unnamedThat sounds like just a throwaway storyline, but, without giving away any details, it becomes rather personal for Veronica. Her character growth (or perhaps it’s regression to some extent) continues right where the movie left off, and we see her father Keith trying to get her to confront what it means to be an adult P.I.

The closest comparisons in the pop culture world might be the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic books currently published by Dark Horse that picked up where that television series left off, beginning with “Season Eight,” and they’re up to “Season Ten” now.

The Buffy continuation also features direct involvement from its series creator, Joss Whedon, but the jump to comic books was initially used as an excuse to do all the special effects that would have ruined their television budgets, such as a giant Dawn and a flying Buffy. Plus, no matter how talented the artist, seeing the characters essentially turned into cartoons takes a little getting used to. I’ve read Season Eight, and it’s fun, but it’s definitely not the TV show.

Veronica Mars, however, doesn’t feel at all tainted. This book is the Veronica Mars fans have come to expect. The characters are all there acting in-character. The rules of the world remain the same, though circumstances reflect the passage of time (and adult language is now allowed, apparently). This very well could have been a storyline in Season Twelve.

The beloved first two seasons felt like televised novels, anyway, so it shouldn’t be surprising that prose is such an excellent fit.

Really, the only major flaw as a Veronica Mars story is that we don’t get to see Kristen Bell acting it out—though she does narrate the audiobook.

Works for this Veronica Mars fan.