I was having a conversation with a friend recently about why capitalism is a horrible and wretched system. Invariably, when capitalism is discussed, the proposed alternative is communism (please note the lower case "c"). And when communism is brought up,the capitalism supporters will say that communism doesn't work because humans are lazy. They say that only a few people will actually do work and everybody else will leech off of them.
This is 100% false.
Humans are not lazy by nature. Since the dawn of man, we have been constantly working. We develop new tools, new technologies. We discovered more and more about the world and how it works. And all the way through, we have been creating. On top of utilitarian discoveries, we have been telling stories. Before WORDS existed, we were telling stories!
Capitalism makes people lazy. It is a system that tells people they must be making money. Anything we do that is not earning money is by definition worthless (and is actually costing us money). It warps our minds. It makes us think that we are better off doing nothing than doing something badly. Capitalism also makes us hostile against one another. Because everything we do must provide value to us, then everybody trying to do the same thing is competition.
The point of this post is not meant to be on economics (even though this post is largely concerned with an economic system). The point is to talk about human nature. Humans are not lazy; their innate desire is to create and to explore. Sociological experiments consistently show this to be true. You can see it in children.They are always moving, always talking, always searching. The only things they ever care about are learning new things, and then telling other people about the things they learned. The only thing that makes them stop is us. Adults tell children to shut up. They tell them to remember stuff they don't care about and to stop thinking about the things they do. They tell us that the only thing we should be concerned about are getting jobs and making money. And the only people humanity has ever cared about are the ones who didn't do that.
When you ever find the weight of the world on your shoulders, know that it isn't your fault. Remember that the desires you have are what makes you a person, and fulfilling those desires are what you have to do to make you happy. The mind always knows the difference between what you want to do, and what you think other people want/expect you to do. Be aware of the difference, and do the thing that will satisfy your innate human desire.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
What Words Are You Conscious Of?
A writer friend once asked me a question about the words I use. I can't remember the exact wording anymore, but it made me think about which words I use too much. For me, that means, what words am I conscious of using? It's a weird question, but I like it.
Some words we use hundreds of times a day without thinking about it. Probably 90% of the words you'll ever read in my posts you don't really think about. They have a meaning, and you think about the meaning they have, but not about the word itself. When do you start noticing words?
For me, I only notice words when they either break the rhythm of a line, are not in my lexicon, or are used too much. The last one is most interesting, because there are exceptions to it. The more common a word is, the more you can use it without flaw. Personal pronouns you almost never have to worry about. The same is true for conjunctions and other grammar words (as opposed to content words). But the less common a word is, the more conscious we become of the word when used regularly.
There is one word that I use too much, and it is "start". My prose, especially my first drafts, are thoroughly littered with people who "started to" do something. Nobody does any actions; they just start them. You would think that my stories involve a bunch of people who try to do things and are constantly interrupted (since the only time you should say that a character started to do something is if they didn't finish it). And yet, despite knowing this, I do it constantly. While the average high school or college writer spends most of their revision time removing passive tense, I spend most of it removing "starts".
The only other word I'm conscious of is "I". Although I can use "I" all the time and it is unlikely that anyone will notice it, I don't like starting paragraphs with it. Granted, I do it a lot. Almost every post in Cheff Salad has at least one paragraph that starts with "I", mostly because it's me talking in first person about what I think, so there's no reason to mince words. But if every paragraph starts with "I", it makes me uncomfortable, like I need to find some variation.
One of the interesting side-effects to the question, "what words are you conscious of", is that you see that words are not simply words. We become very aware of the difference between grammar words and content words, and beyond that, some kind of value that every word has which represents how much space there must be before we are comfortable seeing it again. But even more, we also see that words exist not on their own, but in a context that affects this value.
I am endlessly in love with words, language, and communication. This question is a doorway to more deeply explore and understand these things. I am very grateful to have pondered it over the years, and I hope other authors ponder it too, and find their own answers from the process.
Some words we use hundreds of times a day without thinking about it. Probably 90% of the words you'll ever read in my posts you don't really think about. They have a meaning, and you think about the meaning they have, but not about the word itself. When do you start noticing words?
For me, I only notice words when they either break the rhythm of a line, are not in my lexicon, or are used too much. The last one is most interesting, because there are exceptions to it. The more common a word is, the more you can use it without flaw. Personal pronouns you almost never have to worry about. The same is true for conjunctions and other grammar words (as opposed to content words). But the less common a word is, the more conscious we become of the word when used regularly.
There is one word that I use too much, and it is "start". My prose, especially my first drafts, are thoroughly littered with people who "started to" do something. Nobody does any actions; they just start them. You would think that my stories involve a bunch of people who try to do things and are constantly interrupted (since the only time you should say that a character started to do something is if they didn't finish it). And yet, despite knowing this, I do it constantly. While the average high school or college writer spends most of their revision time removing passive tense, I spend most of it removing "starts".
The only other word I'm conscious of is "I". Although I can use "I" all the time and it is unlikely that anyone will notice it, I don't like starting paragraphs with it. Granted, I do it a lot. Almost every post in Cheff Salad has at least one paragraph that starts with "I", mostly because it's me talking in first person about what I think, so there's no reason to mince words. But if every paragraph starts with "I", it makes me uncomfortable, like I need to find some variation.
One of the interesting side-effects to the question, "what words are you conscious of", is that you see that words are not simply words. We become very aware of the difference between grammar words and content words, and beyond that, some kind of value that every word has which represents how much space there must be before we are comfortable seeing it again. But even more, we also see that words exist not on their own, but in a context that affects this value.
I am endlessly in love with words, language, and communication. This question is a doorway to more deeply explore and understand these things. I am very grateful to have pondered it over the years, and I hope other authors ponder it too, and find their own answers from the process.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
The Merchant Hero
I love games that allow the player to develop their character. Some excellent recent examples are the games Dishonored and Skyrim. Dishonored basically makes you an assassin, and you get to grow your character, choosing whether you want to be stealthy or plain sight, and whether you want to be lethal or non-lethal. Skyrim has you being the hero of legend, but gives you a wide array of skills you can specialize in.
Both are excellent games and I would recommend them both readily, but I find Dishonored's character development superior. The game is perfectly balanced. Of the 4 basic combinations you can be (or any mix of them), every single choice is 100% viable. The game never forces you to kill, nor does it ever demand you hide in the shadows.
Skyrim, ironically, gives me far more choices, but upsets me with their implementation. This game is an open world and you can choose to do in it basically whatever you want. As you use the various skills at your disposal, they increase in power and allow you to unlock special perks within them. You can thoroughly specialize in about three particular skills out of 15.
In theory, all of these skills should be a way to approach life. You could focus in using melee weapons, in archery, in armors, blocking, several distinct schools of magic, smithing, alchemy, enchanting, and speechcraft. All wonderful walks of life, right?
Well, the problem here is that only a handful of them really let you beat the game. Despite all the choices and freedoms you have, the game is about killing monsters and bandits and dragons. If you aren't doing that, you can't beat the game. And I understand where they're coming from, but I have a problem with its execution.
Obviously weapon skills help you kill better. Armor let's you last longer. All the magic schools pretty much do the same. Even smithing and enchanting allow your gear to be noticeably improved (even though they, too, cannot allow you to win the game). But Speechcraft is worthless. The only thing it does is help you get better prices for buying and selling (which don't matter, since you spend must of the game flush with gold), and periodically persuading people in conversations (which also don't matter since there are at least three ways to do the same thing without Speechcraft.
Most importantly, I find it a shame that we have very few stories about merchant heroes. Slaying dragons is awesome. Banishing dragons is great. Nobody cares about the guy who politely convinced the dragon that the country to the south was a way nicer place to live. Nobody cares about the guy who ended a goblin siege by tossing treasure at them and then convincing them it was cursed.
We do have stories about heroes with cunning minds, sharp tongues, and honeyed words, but they are much rarer. People are impressed by action, by violence and often murder. Maybe it's because a contract is only as strong as the people who agree to follow it, or because might can always crush a piece of paper. Physical dominance has a finality that other forms do not have.
Still, I wish people would tell more stories of a person who showed the feasibility of a merchant hero. I think it is a story severely lacking in this day and age.
Both are excellent games and I would recommend them both readily, but I find Dishonored's character development superior. The game is perfectly balanced. Of the 4 basic combinations you can be (or any mix of them), every single choice is 100% viable. The game never forces you to kill, nor does it ever demand you hide in the shadows.
Skyrim, ironically, gives me far more choices, but upsets me with their implementation. This game is an open world and you can choose to do in it basically whatever you want. As you use the various skills at your disposal, they increase in power and allow you to unlock special perks within them. You can thoroughly specialize in about three particular skills out of 15.
In theory, all of these skills should be a way to approach life. You could focus in using melee weapons, in archery, in armors, blocking, several distinct schools of magic, smithing, alchemy, enchanting, and speechcraft. All wonderful walks of life, right?
Well, the problem here is that only a handful of them really let you beat the game. Despite all the choices and freedoms you have, the game is about killing monsters and bandits and dragons. If you aren't doing that, you can't beat the game. And I understand where they're coming from, but I have a problem with its execution.
Obviously weapon skills help you kill better. Armor let's you last longer. All the magic schools pretty much do the same. Even smithing and enchanting allow your gear to be noticeably improved (even though they, too, cannot allow you to win the game). But Speechcraft is worthless. The only thing it does is help you get better prices for buying and selling (which don't matter, since you spend must of the game flush with gold), and periodically persuading people in conversations (which also don't matter since there are at least three ways to do the same thing without Speechcraft.
Most importantly, I find it a shame that we have very few stories about merchant heroes. Slaying dragons is awesome. Banishing dragons is great. Nobody cares about the guy who politely convinced the dragon that the country to the south was a way nicer place to live. Nobody cares about the guy who ended a goblin siege by tossing treasure at them and then convincing them it was cursed.
We do have stories about heroes with cunning minds, sharp tongues, and honeyed words, but they are much rarer. People are impressed by action, by violence and often murder. Maybe it's because a contract is only as strong as the people who agree to follow it, or because might can always crush a piece of paper. Physical dominance has a finality that other forms do not have.
Still, I wish people would tell more stories of a person who showed the feasibility of a merchant hero. I think it is a story severely lacking in this day and age.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
How We Remember Our Past
If somebody asked me what my life was like five years ago, my immediate response would be, "what the hell was I doing five years ago?" I would then proceed to close my eyes, look up (which is a weird thing to do with my eyes closed), stroke my beard, and try to figure it out.
Five years ago was 2007, and since it is late November, I would be approaching the end of my first semester as a Junior in college. I don't remember all the specifics of my life at the time, but I was getting very deep into my Professional Writing classes. I was also getting very deep into my capoeira classes outside of school. I was living in Higgins Hall on the second floor, which was the same floor as the suite my friends lived in. I remember many late nights on my laptop, chatting with a number of friends, helping them get through personal problems, which means that at that point in my life, I had gone through one of the major revelations and personal developments at college and realized that one of the things I most enjoy in life is helping people feel better and work toward making their world a better place (which subsequently makes my life equally better).
I don't particularly care about my life five years ago. That was just an example. The point I really want to make is that humans do not think about their past the way computers would. The mind remembers bits and pieces. Every chunk of information may have bits that remind us of other chunks of information (like how the year indicated my year in college, which indicated the room I was in, which reminded me of activities in that room, which informed me of my mental state at the time), which ultimately gives us a fairly full picture of ourselves.
Humans also have the wonderful technology to give us memory aids. This could include photographs, journal entries, mementos/keepsakes which remind us of past experiences that were previously forgotten.
This imperfect, relative memory system is an intriguing one to explore. We have seen it used in stories where people with amnesia slowly reclaim their identity, and similarly used with dementia patients. But there is more that it can be used for. Consider a person simply reliving their youth, going to old schools or hangouts, visiting former teachers or other important adults. A person making such a trip would have a number of key places to go and people to see, but each new location would remind them of new places they had forgotten about, or stories that made these places more important than they originally thought.
This could also be used interestingly for a detective mystery. Sometimes just seeing evidence doesn't immediately spark an idea. Sometimes you have to be in the right place to trigger the brain to make a connection. (e.g. When you actually slip on a patch of ice, you realize that the body tends to fall in a particular way to avoid danger, so if the victim didn't fall that way, she must have been dead or unconscious.)
The one downside to the Digital Age is that it is easier to lose sight of how humanity works. Without going too deeply down that rabbit hole, I will conclude by saying that everyone can benefit by looking in themselves and trying to become aware of how they work, physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. And as a writer, use that knowledge, not only on yourself, but on all the other people you create.
Five years ago was 2007, and since it is late November, I would be approaching the end of my first semester as a Junior in college. I don't remember all the specifics of my life at the time, but I was getting very deep into my Professional Writing classes. I was also getting very deep into my capoeira classes outside of school. I was living in Higgins Hall on the second floor, which was the same floor as the suite my friends lived in. I remember many late nights on my laptop, chatting with a number of friends, helping them get through personal problems, which means that at that point in my life, I had gone through one of the major revelations and personal developments at college and realized that one of the things I most enjoy in life is helping people feel better and work toward making their world a better place (which subsequently makes my life equally better).
I don't particularly care about my life five years ago. That was just an example. The point I really want to make is that humans do not think about their past the way computers would. The mind remembers bits and pieces. Every chunk of information may have bits that remind us of other chunks of information (like how the year indicated my year in college, which indicated the room I was in, which reminded me of activities in that room, which informed me of my mental state at the time), which ultimately gives us a fairly full picture of ourselves.
Humans also have the wonderful technology to give us memory aids. This could include photographs, journal entries, mementos/keepsakes which remind us of past experiences that were previously forgotten.
This imperfect, relative memory system is an intriguing one to explore. We have seen it used in stories where people with amnesia slowly reclaim their identity, and similarly used with dementia patients. But there is more that it can be used for. Consider a person simply reliving their youth, going to old schools or hangouts, visiting former teachers or other important adults. A person making such a trip would have a number of key places to go and people to see, but each new location would remind them of new places they had forgotten about, or stories that made these places more important than they originally thought.
This could also be used interestingly for a detective mystery. Sometimes just seeing evidence doesn't immediately spark an idea. Sometimes you have to be in the right place to trigger the brain to make a connection. (e.g. When you actually slip on a patch of ice, you realize that the body tends to fall in a particular way to avoid danger, so if the victim didn't fall that way, she must have been dead or unconscious.)
The one downside to the Digital Age is that it is easier to lose sight of how humanity works. Without going too deeply down that rabbit hole, I will conclude by saying that everyone can benefit by looking in themselves and trying to become aware of how they work, physically, mentally, emotionally, etc. And as a writer, use that knowledge, not only on yourself, but on all the other people you create.
Monday, November 26, 2012
The Hoplessly Positive Are Hopeless
Some people are hopelessly positive. It sounds like the least significant problem somebody could have, and maybe it is, but it can still be an annoyance to have to deal with. We are trained from a young age that every problem has a solution, and that brains always beat brawn, so a plan is always the clear winner (despite the fact that the best-laid plans are oft to go awry).
The problem with hopelessly positive people is that they're hopeless. Unless they live in a world where faith can overcome fate (and there are certainly a great number of stories that take place in such a world), then such a person would one day get completely crushed. There is such a thing as insurmountable odds. There is such a thing as a no-win situation. If everything is against you, it doesn't matter how plucky you are. You either run or get flattened.
I think this is the reason that I have issues with most stories aimed at children. They all tell us that a good attitude can solve any and all problems, and that as long as you believe hard enough, you will always make it through any difficulties you come across. These are lessons that warp people's minds and make reality a torturous punishment to enter as an adult. (Imagine how you would feel on the day you find out that everything you had ever been taught is a straight-up lie, and that it's far, far worse than you expected.)
Pragmatic, practical, realistic characters are the ones we should idolize. They are people we can reasonably expect to be as adults with enough effort. They may not be super-powered, but they are attainable. Having a hero that you could eventually become as great as should be inspiring. And that's what children's stories should do.
The problem with hopelessly positive people is that they're hopeless. Unless they live in a world where faith can overcome fate (and there are certainly a great number of stories that take place in such a world), then such a person would one day get completely crushed. There is such a thing as insurmountable odds. There is such a thing as a no-win situation. If everything is against you, it doesn't matter how plucky you are. You either run or get flattened.
I think this is the reason that I have issues with most stories aimed at children. They all tell us that a good attitude can solve any and all problems, and that as long as you believe hard enough, you will always make it through any difficulties you come across. These are lessons that warp people's minds and make reality a torturous punishment to enter as an adult. (Imagine how you would feel on the day you find out that everything you had ever been taught is a straight-up lie, and that it's far, far worse than you expected.)
Pragmatic, practical, realistic characters are the ones we should idolize. They are people we can reasonably expect to be as adults with enough effort. They may not be super-powered, but they are attainable. Having a hero that you could eventually become as great as should be inspiring. And that's what children's stories should do.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Apply Analogies Meaningfully
Analogies are awesome tools. They are a means to explain concepts with established knowledge. For example, if I am explaining statistics to somebody, I might use dice. A standard six-sided die should land on all of its sides equally. If we threw it 60 times, each number should come up about 10 times. And the more we throw it, the more those results would smooth out.
But the world isn't perfect. You might do the test and find that the number three shows up noticeably more than all the other numbers. This is a sign that something funny is going on. Most likely, the die is not evenly weighted, which makes one side more likely to land than others. This is called a loaded die.
Once we understand about loaded dice, then they, too can be used as analogies. They are ways to understand fairness. The world is a random place, like rolling dice. No matter what your experiences are or what your predictions are, you can never be entirely certain what you are going to get. But the nice thing about randomness is that it tends to balance out. Bad things happen, but good things happen, too. However, if bad things happen noticeably more than good things, then it is like the dice that represent life are loaded.
The downside to using analogies is that sometimes the similarity between two things only goes so far. Suppose somebody says that the dice of life are loaded against her. If you wanted to be positive you could say something like, "If the dice keep giving you the same result, you just need to play a different game where that's a good result." It's a lovely thought if you are literally dealing with loaded dice. The problem is, how the heck does that apply to real life? There might be a feasible answer depending on the context, but more likely than not, the analogy has broken down and the advice just doesn't make sense.
Beware of bad analogies. They can be a great tool, or they can be the bane of your arguments. Make sure that you are checking every step of the way that your analogy still parallels your actual subject.
But the world isn't perfect. You might do the test and find that the number three shows up noticeably more than all the other numbers. This is a sign that something funny is going on. Most likely, the die is not evenly weighted, which makes one side more likely to land than others. This is called a loaded die.
Once we understand about loaded dice, then they, too can be used as analogies. They are ways to understand fairness. The world is a random place, like rolling dice. No matter what your experiences are or what your predictions are, you can never be entirely certain what you are going to get. But the nice thing about randomness is that it tends to balance out. Bad things happen, but good things happen, too. However, if bad things happen noticeably more than good things, then it is like the dice that represent life are loaded.
The downside to using analogies is that sometimes the similarity between two things only goes so far. Suppose somebody says that the dice of life are loaded against her. If you wanted to be positive you could say something like, "If the dice keep giving you the same result, you just need to play a different game where that's a good result." It's a lovely thought if you are literally dealing with loaded dice. The problem is, how the heck does that apply to real life? There might be a feasible answer depending on the context, but more likely than not, the analogy has broken down and the advice just doesn't make sense.
Beware of bad analogies. They can be a great tool, or they can be the bane of your arguments. Make sure that you are checking every step of the way that your analogy still parallels your actual subject.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Make All Characters Matter
I just watched the movie The Late Quartet. It's the story of a string quartet who, after 25 straight years of playing, finally have to deal with a whole lot of changes. It was a solid film. As with any story, I had some problems with it. One of them was an ancillary character who existed basically to ruin one of the characters' life.
**Spoiler Warning**
In one scene early on, the 2nd Violin player is jogging in the park with his jogging buddy (who is an abnormally attractive woman) and they're talking music. At one point, the guy explains that 2nd violin is an important part because it is what connects and blends the other three sounds and parts together. The woman then ignores everything he said and says that he should play first violin (all while stretching and bending over in front of him).
The violin player then brings up the subject of playing 1st Violin sometimes, which brings lots of hostility up and he has a fight with his wife (who plays viola in the quartet). In his anger, he sleeps with the jogging buddy and his wife finds out. This results in more than half of the problems that happen in this story.
But here's the thing: that jogging buddy never shows up for the rest of the movie. All she does is poison his mind and ruin his marriage. If she wasn't there everyone's life would be unequivocally better.
I really hate that. I hate useless characters. Or maybe I should call them utility characters. They only exist to make the story do what you want. Sure, you could argue that life can be random like that, but it just reeks of convenience here.
Make all of your characters matter. If somebody is significant in the plot, they should be critical. The world or story should be completely different without them. If taking out a character either makes everything better, makes everything worse, or brings the story to a complete halt, then that character doesn't matter enough, but should.
**Spoiler Warning**
In one scene early on, the 2nd Violin player is jogging in the park with his jogging buddy (who is an abnormally attractive woman) and they're talking music. At one point, the guy explains that 2nd violin is an important part because it is what connects and blends the other three sounds and parts together. The woman then ignores everything he said and says that he should play first violin (all while stretching and bending over in front of him).
The violin player then brings up the subject of playing 1st Violin sometimes, which brings lots of hostility up and he has a fight with his wife (who plays viola in the quartet). In his anger, he sleeps with the jogging buddy and his wife finds out. This results in more than half of the problems that happen in this story.
But here's the thing: that jogging buddy never shows up for the rest of the movie. All she does is poison his mind and ruin his marriage. If she wasn't there everyone's life would be unequivocally better.
I really hate that. I hate useless characters. Or maybe I should call them utility characters. They only exist to make the story do what you want. Sure, you could argue that life can be random like that, but it just reeks of convenience here.
Make all of your characters matter. If somebody is significant in the plot, they should be critical. The world or story should be completely different without them. If taking out a character either makes everything better, makes everything worse, or brings the story to a complete halt, then that character doesn't matter enough, but should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
