Nelson Lowhim's Blog, page 128

Writing and getting some pieces out.

I'll include shorts that I have decided not to publish as ebooks soon enough. I am working on editing a novel and hope that Spring (a season that sounds like foreign land I've only heard of in books with the temperatures this winter) 2014 will allow for this book to come out.

A couple things. I have a short article on writing "The Struggle Trilogy" here.

And I also want to direct people's attention to a documentary that's out, on the Korean War. The trailer is here. And it's available on Amazon here.

More thoughts on Diary of a Man in Despair

Writing is coming along well, and there should be a couple shorts and more coming out soon. I will, hopefully, have parts of a short out here soon.

I wanted to further discuss the book I read recently, Diary of a Man in Despair (New York Review Books Classics). The book has found itself as the basis for a lot of my thoughts recently and I wanted to delve into why this is (btw any book that sinks its teeth into my mind like this is, no matter its flaws, definitely a candidate for the title "classic").


As I've mentioned, this book isn't without its flaws. There is a reactionary streak in our author who thinks the reason that things have gone so wrong is his nation's move away from aristocracy and towards nationalism (and I can't fault him too much, after all nationalism would seem to be a cause for many issues), and this puts him in a distinct minority as one of the few who were against the Nazis since the beginning rather than since Germany started to lose its wars. He believes, however, that Nazism is a result of what Bismarck started in the 19th century. So perhaps his diagnosis for what ailed his country was slightly off (and given what we know of his aristocratic background this is somewhat problematic), but that doesn't mean that all of his analysis was wrong. Nor is this what brought me to think over and over about this book.
What I wanted to focus on was the ability of this man to see that society was heading in the wrong direction (early on, as I mentioned, it was easy to go against Hitler when the going got rough), and by picking on a handful of actions or memes that developed around him, he was able to simply know this. This isn't as easy as it seems. Though we can look back at the Nazis and know that they were wrong, it's much harder to go against the grain when an entire nation is chanting the same hymn, and to go against that hymn will result in penury (or later, possible death) as well as being labeled as an outcast (after all, Hitler helped improve their economy; a reason that so many of the master of industries tended to support him) or a person who did not care for his country. Don't tell me that these currents (of the latter two) aren't strong in our nation.
But this man was able to, with laser like focus, see what was wrong, and see the actions which were bad, and never let go of the fact that they would always be bad, no matter how much material gain there was to be had (and his neighbors and distant friends all had some sense to at least make hay while the sun shined and cash in on this improved economy... can anyone fault them?) or how much the Jews were being picked on. And from his writing I can take at least that: that if one keeps their faculties to think independently about them, then they can weather such storms with their dignity intact.
And from there is the second question: about whether or not this man did the right thing. After all, all he did was write a diary and keep it hidden. Couldn't he have done more? Fought with pamphlets, or perhaps waged an insurrection? It's hard to say (also, it's hard to say how much some of these things would have helped). There are definitely layers to something like this, where direct action might be a step above (while not falling for the siren call of Nazism would be better than nothing, wouldn't it?), and still if everyone had acted like him, Germany would not have fallen as far as it did during this period.
All these come to the final thought: what would I (you) have done in this time period? Again I'm speaking about when the Nazis had just come into power. What does one do? What checks and balances exist in the legal route and in the other routes? Obviously everyone who rails against his society cannot take the latter route (especially if we are to take into account the Internet comments we see). Even today there are some people who are certain that the current administration (incorrectly, I believe) is taking the country down a wrong path. Surely some of those people believe this. But do we want them taking any steps? Are there only specific actions a government can take for there to be a reaction from the concerned citizens of a nation?

Tough questions, and I'm not sure I have the answers. I would say when a nation moves against a few within its borders, then its citizens will be more likely to react (for some reason it still seems that doing things outside the border does not evoke the same, though I'm not sure if this is a morally sound stance).

What you have done in such a time in Germany? Before outright atrocities were committed? What would you have done before civil war in the States (assuming you were against slavery)? Do you shrug? Do you keep counsel with close ones that it's wrong? Do you join a rebel outfit to force the issue? Surely in any given human population there are all these groups, and each will play an important role (the latter pulling more from the "less serious" levels into their ranks, or helping them to influence those in power and so forth), but where do you stand, and do you automatically assume a moral superiority for assuming such a position?
Please, let's discuss.

And on a similar note, this article, gives a very good bit on German culpability in general (for WWI & WWII), as well as some historians' squabbles. (Are National Master Narratives good for any country? I'm not sure, though I naturally lean towards saying that they are indeed troublesome and don't require a look into the national self that would be productive. Also any move away from looking into finding out the truth about a nation's weaknesses and strengths tends to be something I think will only hurt in the long run... this, of course, is another discussion in of itself)

A note on another great book

I could say more, but I'll keep it short and sweet: About a man in Germany during the Nazi Regime. He goes off on many screes, some more insightful than others. But through it all you can see a man who is cut by the fall of a country he loves. Check it out with the link below.

New books up and at you

I'm not anticipating another book for some time. There's a short novella in the works (being edited), as well as a couple short stories which I'm still shopping around. I don't anticipate putting these up for some time.

There is another novel that I'll finish soon. It's very unique and different from all my previous books. Writing it has been an interesting experience. To some levels it's been influenced by my recent readings of Borges (though I dare not say it's near his level).

As time goes I'll put up some excerpts.

Best

Another Review for The Struggle

There's another solid review for The Struggle Trilogy done by Cate at Catesbooknuthut.com
Thanks Cate!
You can find the full review here. Many thanks to Cate for reviewing!
And for those who want a try, you can buy the book Here.

For all NYC area veterans: There's a free writing workshop

  Announcement: All NYC veterans, there is a free writing work shop. You can find more information here. However, to join just email David Surface here. He runs a very good class and in the end your work will be published in an anthology (he works closely with everyone). I highly recommend this class. You'll meet some other very interesting veterans as well! Check it out

[Odd Musings] On Lucifer

Some of you might have read Satan's Plea. It's an attempt by me to look into how the Devil (full disclosure: I'm an atheist) would try to portray himself through out the Bible. How would he counter this book? Mainly I try to apply things known about human history (obviously skewed towards my own experiences in life) to this important narrative. But this odd musing is about the myriad of ways that idea of Satan (or the devil) has come about.

Now one can think about the topic and come up with multiple reasons for the devil. As a child I remember that many things in the natural world were considered agents of the devil (shatani) and though things have slightly changed in this more secular world, it seems that there are still evil things/people out there, though sometimes we try to be more nuanced or provide non-supernatural explanations for them. But the fear that things can arouse, or experiences still plays a part. That makes it easy to see how our ancestors on the plains of Africa must have felt when they came up against a more powerful animal, or a place where the signs of an ambush made one's spine tickle, or the fear of heights, or a crazed man, or a foreign man who might be dangerous, or something out there in the dark. All of these must have combined to a feeling that was associated with fear and thus the devil. From there I can see creating something to symbolize the devil, or evil spirits. And from there someone unified Satan with his demons.

What I want to focus on right now is the enemy within. The specific story in the Bible (and elsewhere) about Lucifer being cast out. Here we see something a little different than the above stories of an outside enemy. Here we have an enemy within your own tribe. I can imagine a few ways this meme would have arisen in our ancestors but the most interesting one is the challenger to the power, the chief of the tribe. In the story of casting out Lucifer I see this as the strongest meme. And within the warning of the Biblical tale I see a tale to conform (or at least not to shake the powers that be). In that sense, when one looks at the story like this, we can see that perhaps Lucifer was the precursor to us all (as in a reason for our development as humans and a reason for our advancement).

How? He was the first to challenge whatever status quo existed and what was constrictive to our growth as apes. Now, take this to the next level and I see (perhaps romantically) that he was the reason we started from a small tribe in Africa and spread to the whole of that continent, then to the whole of the world. One tribe grew too big, infighting occurred and the rebel was cast out to survive in the world. Slowly, bit by bit they forged to new areas and created new tribes, the same fight and casting out repeating, albeit with new actors, whenever things got too tight or stuffy (and each time it was never enough to just allow people to move along, that might have undermined the very narrative of the village on holy ground, therefore the powers that be had to cast those who were being thrown out in a bad light).

Now, I'm sure there are more factors at play here (some even contradictory). Some malevolent chief who merely wanted a scapegoat and the normal sacrifices weren't cutting it. Then he would point out some man on the fringes of the village and the cycle would move from there. Another matter is to look at the time of agriculture. Perhaps here that story of the castoff wasn't looked upon with disdain, but perhaps as the explorer. Here we can see as the society can have more people the rebellious forces that wouldn't have been so bad in a smaller setting could be devastating in a new town. Therefore it was necessary to highlight this story even more and thus cement the hierarchy that existed by calling this meme to rebel or ask for more from the leader as the root of all evil.

Your thoughts?

Donations from my Royalties.

I have watched the Syrian war (and other tragedies) from the sidelines for too long of late. So I'm announcing that from now on I'll send 10% of all my personal royalties to helping victims (I'll announce, quarterly, whenever the royalties and the percentage reach an amount I can donate, increments of five and so forth). Specifically, I'll be donating to Doctors Without Borders—though that can be subject to change and I welcome anyone to provide other worthwhile charities. You too can donate here.

Have an essay on Iraq

Just wanted to point people to my latest essay on the recent situation in Iraq.
It's sad to see the return of violence to Iraq, but only the most deluded must have not seen it coming. As we pulled out the underlying forces for a return to civil war was still there. Nothing indicates that we applied the necessary pressure to the Iraqi and Iranian government to make sure the situation didn't fall back into chaos.

You can find the article here. Thanks to Juan Cole (at juancole.com for the opportunity to put up the essay.

[Odd musings again] [A non-historic and perhaps heretical look at architecture]

[A non-historic and perhaps heretical look at architecture]Disclaimer: I am no architect, and I know little history about it. If there is a proper refutation please expound upon it. In the name of a good discussion I would like to hear something incorporating an opposing viewpoint (I would even like to be swayed). Or perhaps I'm ignorant about a certain branch of architecture.
A year ago or so, I visited the Morgan Library. Through out the visit I, like most people, was very impressed with what I saw. Perhaps I should temper that. What I mean is that I was impressed by the size of the place (and right in midtown nyc) as well as its content. Mr. Morgan was blessed an intellectual curiosity that led him to amass a large collection (and varied, I might add) of various items. This collection seemed to speak to something more than just the work of a headhunter trying to be wealthy. In the end, it's a valuable place for the city to have.But there was something about the building that seemed lacking. Walking into his library, collection aside, all I could think of was being in a place that lacked a lot of imagination. The foyer was one that could be found in any public building created at the time. True, a lot of it was taken from old European palaces, but one would hope that Mr. Morgan was aiming for something more than a graveyard. Yet in the end, given the time the building was built, I can see why this building was made in this very specific way. (Note: In the Morgan Library, there is a modern section that looks absolutely lovely—it is an open space, using glass and sculptures to bring the outside in and open one’s mind)
Which leads me to my main question: why is it—in most places of the rich, and those trying to emulate the rich—there is this need to have extra space and mimic one another? A lot of these places would be better served, and perhaps be similar aesthetically speaking, being built as large warehouses. Of course, one could easily retort that the rich aren’t after originality but status, and the only way one gains that is by mimicking something in history and going the extra mile by simply increasing the size, and the cost of the material. This is understandable, given that we are status seeking apes (most of us anyhow). But in the wake of the new tech moguls, I would say that one would hope that something more original is created.Now, in Morgan’s time, his obsession with the past is fine. And with respect to even a Japanese garden I visited in Tokyo, or British gardens I’ve seen, I can understand that old and boring is fine as long as it speaks to your higher status. But shouldn't some of the new super-rich seek something more?
I’d like to see more imaginative houses (and not just the outer facades), a new kind of house. One that doesn’t speak merely to history (though surely it can incorporate that), but to our visceral needs as well as our future.First of all, if one is going to build something lavish, why would you simply build the largest thing possible?  Can't the status be about being remembered? (I will assume only private houses. There is much to be said for incorporating a public aspect of a house. The continuous presence of people can only help one’s imagination, even strangers, so I think that this is valid, but it’s neither here nor there for now. We will only deal with a private residence)First: incorporate more of the outdoors inside. In the past, with limits from materials and maintenance, I can see why this was needed. But now, I’m not sure why this even exists. Yes, a shelter was meant to keep out the elements, and this house should do the same, but it should also allow the outside in and manage just fine.The entrance: In keeping with a natural theme, I will say this: there is something to be said for surprises. What strikes me as the most impressive places are ones that appear "discovered": in southeast Asia there are abandoned palaces that are reached, slowly, through boat, with low mangrove trees on either side, opening up (with only the slightest of hints at the possible civilization ahead) to the palace's front. In Petra, one walks through wind curved red rock, winding and opening, before finally opening up to the first facade (an awe inducing experience). How to have this, without paying for a place built into rock?For the front yard, and entrance, one could have a wall-like sculpture on either side, leading up to the front door. The sculpture itself could be anything, so long as it, or some trees, lean over and above the visitor, providing a very cozy feeling. Should you care to, it could be a settled pathway with water to either side (even I think that only boat access might be a little much).The front door itself can be anything. I prefer archways, but I can see why someone would want a solid rectangular door. Same for the facade. It’s once you get in that things start to matter.I hope that upon entering, or afterwards somewhere, there should be a moment of contemplation. Not god-filled, but rather you enter a foyer (and one only needs to see smaller churches/temples to see that this doesn’t need to be done with great amounts of space) and have light only coming from above through glass stained windows, or something of the like, and a small quiet space with a domed ceiling (or perhaps another shape that can control the sound). Now you reach the main house. Here one could have a mix of straight lines and arcs. There will also be the outside moving in. I’m not speaking of a few potted plants. I’m saying that a stream should be running through. At some points its banks could be marble, straight and true. At other points it could have a beachhead with grains of sand, or perhaps a rocky shore. In other places the spring could turn into a hot spring. A small waterfall you can hide behind.As far as plant life (I suppose animal life, might be too much) is concerned, I’m speaking about enough soil for gardens, or grass or fields, and trees. Yes, trees (bonsai if you wish). Most of the roof should be created with enough glass to allow for this. To help with tracking, one can add mats or places to clean your shoes/feet. But imagine having such a thing inside?! One could sections of a greenhouse to add variety to the plants.Again, throughout this house there will be perfectly cubic rooms (or try some divine geometry) as well as well as a mix. Imagine a room with only one side made of a slanting wall. I have found myself, that outside of houses of religion, that only natural formations will evoke a strong feeling in me. And not just expansive vistas like coming to the top of a mountain (out of our scope). Rather: being surrounded by rock in a tight space, or seeing a rock out of place on a smooth meadow, or walking through a mossy forest with light filtering through the trees (there are many more, and it's usually something about the angles and closeness to materials that causes this)... We can evoke the feeling one gets when inside a lit cave, or a sculpture somewhere unexpected. I’m speaking of allowing the floor to tilt one way or another (a curved connection just to not always be 90 degrees). And if you’re walking in a hallway, it doesn’t have to have parallel walls, they can change, or the ceiling can suddenly give way to a glass ceiling, that allows the outside in. Now note, I would advocate that all of the house be connected, in one way or another, so that one doesn’t have to leave the comforts of the shelter to reach another spot. I’m assuming temperate climate, not tropical. If it were the latter it could be more open. This means the house does need to provide warmth. Finally, we get to where the people who live here (assuming they care for each other). The rooms should all be centered on a small circular area, like a plaza, where people can immediately sit and perhaps hang out. This could be an open space—or possibly closed like a green house—like a garden. I would say that at least one part of the house should enclose an open garden (nothing original here, though).Since we can have sloping walls (that slope in and out), we could have at least one wall for the garden slope so that you can walk from the garden to the roof. Where the roof isn’t glass, it should be walkable. Possibly with grass or something else that's interesting.
I trust that you will find it at least thought-provoking if not incomplete. Or how am I completely wrong? Or am I simply providing for a white elephant project? Please, discuss.