L.C. Barlow's Blog, page 6
September 18, 2014
Writing Advice
So, occasionally I consider jotting down pieces of writing advice - mainly for myself - but I thought I would go ahead and share just a few points that I have learned from various books and other authors. Points that are both short and long, have examples and don't. Most I have been given (or read) from other people, but a few I have figured out on my own.
Forgive me for any grammatical errors. It is late, and I am tired.
So, here are just a few pieces of writing advice that I have found to be true:
1. Write drunk. Edit sober. Imagination won't work under fear of the knife (back-space button). And, imagination is not logical. Eventually, though, you do need a sober logic to overlay the drunken writing.
2. Give the audience just enough information to keep asking questions. This leads them through the plot.
3. (Particularly true for first person). The narrator's job is not to perform the emotion. The narrator's job is to open up a place for the reader to feel the emotion.
4. A lesson learned from True Detective:
While I was watching the beautiful season play out, I made the mistake of assuming one of Hart's daughters would be implicated in the disruption between Cohle and Hart. There was something always off about her - she seemed to know much about the dark plot going on - and I figured she would somehow link back to Cohle.
I was wrong.
What I learned from this was that a dark atmosphere can play out in a character who hints at the major plot but does not actually have anything to do with it. That the contamination can be shown to pervade everything by having even the children react in ways uncharacteristic of children.
At the same time, I wonder if the writer simply created a subplot that didn't work out. And the fact that the child just needed "medication" to act normal again was an overly quick and clean way to sew up the subplot.
But it did work to add a sense of insanity to the show. To show a break down in reality, until the fever finally breaks at the end of the series, and "medication" solves the girl's problem.
Important: You never SEE her problem resolved. It is only stated that it is. So, the problem is presented as a way of upping the pressure and dark atmosphere. The resolution is underplayed so that a sick and unsettled sensation in the audience remains.
5. Another nice scene to be learned from True Detective:
Hart vomits after he beats up the two boys in the prison. It was a short scene. One could even say the writer or director did not have to add it. But it makes his character relate-able again.
He beats the shit out of two kids that are half his size, telling them that, "If you play a man's game, you pay a man's price." But, he vomits afterwards, showing to the audience that his actions did not sit right with his morality or character.
Lesson? You can get away with having your characters commit amoral acts, as long as they appropriately suffer for it. Or, you can have your character veer from his normal actions, as long as there is proof that he returns to his normal actions.
6. The path of King's writing in the book It is to define all characters that revolve around a horrific act in great detail. So, say there is a murder of a boy. First, the reaction of the authorities is described. Second, the lives of the parents who had that boy are defined in great detail, hinting at abuse. Third, the brother of the boy disappears and is described. His own death via the Clown is described. Fourth, the boy who discovers the knife that killed the second boy is described (as well as his experience with the monster).
So, basically, there's a horrible experience, four or five people are connected to that horrible experience. They are wholly described - backgrounds, everything. And this happens on large and small scales.
While many of these stories could be perceived as just entertaining dead end tales, what I think it provides is more options for the future of the book. That there are more options for connections, more to work with in terms of plot. He expands the materials in the beginning of the book and subsequently has more to work with later on in the book. He creates the greatest potential.
And maybe that potential can be felt by the reader - that there are so many paths for the story to go.
7. The more plot development you have, the less emotional development needed. There seems to be an inverse between plot and emotion. This is why Dexter has so many psychopaths he needs to kill - every single episode. There must be subplots upon subplots so that he does not emotionally mature, or at least not very quickly. IE Keep him busy, so he doesn't think deeply.
Forgive me for any grammatical errors. It is late, and I am tired.
So, here are just a few pieces of writing advice that I have found to be true:
1. Write drunk. Edit sober. Imagination won't work under fear of the knife (back-space button). And, imagination is not logical. Eventually, though, you do need a sober logic to overlay the drunken writing.
2. Give the audience just enough information to keep asking questions. This leads them through the plot.
3. (Particularly true for first person). The narrator's job is not to perform the emotion. The narrator's job is to open up a place for the reader to feel the emotion.
4. A lesson learned from True Detective:
While I was watching the beautiful season play out, I made the mistake of assuming one of Hart's daughters would be implicated in the disruption between Cohle and Hart. There was something always off about her - she seemed to know much about the dark plot going on - and I figured she would somehow link back to Cohle.
I was wrong.
What I learned from this was that a dark atmosphere can play out in a character who hints at the major plot but does not actually have anything to do with it. That the contamination can be shown to pervade everything by having even the children react in ways uncharacteristic of children.
At the same time, I wonder if the writer simply created a subplot that didn't work out. And the fact that the child just needed "medication" to act normal again was an overly quick and clean way to sew up the subplot.
But it did work to add a sense of insanity to the show. To show a break down in reality, until the fever finally breaks at the end of the series, and "medication" solves the girl's problem.
Important: You never SEE her problem resolved. It is only stated that it is. So, the problem is presented as a way of upping the pressure and dark atmosphere. The resolution is underplayed so that a sick and unsettled sensation in the audience remains.
5. Another nice scene to be learned from True Detective:
Hart vomits after he beats up the two boys in the prison. It was a short scene. One could even say the writer or director did not have to add it. But it makes his character relate-able again.
He beats the shit out of two kids that are half his size, telling them that, "If you play a man's game, you pay a man's price." But, he vomits afterwards, showing to the audience that his actions did not sit right with his morality or character.
Lesson? You can get away with having your characters commit amoral acts, as long as they appropriately suffer for it. Or, you can have your character veer from his normal actions, as long as there is proof that he returns to his normal actions.
6. The path of King's writing in the book It is to define all characters that revolve around a horrific act in great detail. So, say there is a murder of a boy. First, the reaction of the authorities is described. Second, the lives of the parents who had that boy are defined in great detail, hinting at abuse. Third, the brother of the boy disappears and is described. His own death via the Clown is described. Fourth, the boy who discovers the knife that killed the second boy is described (as well as his experience with the monster).
So, basically, there's a horrible experience, four or five people are connected to that horrible experience. They are wholly described - backgrounds, everything. And this happens on large and small scales.
While many of these stories could be perceived as just entertaining dead end tales, what I think it provides is more options for the future of the book. That there are more options for connections, more to work with in terms of plot. He expands the materials in the beginning of the book and subsequently has more to work with later on in the book. He creates the greatest potential.
And maybe that potential can be felt by the reader - that there are so many paths for the story to go.
7. The more plot development you have, the less emotional development needed. There seems to be an inverse between plot and emotion. This is why Dexter has so many psychopaths he needs to kill - every single episode. There must be subplots upon subplots so that he does not emotionally mature, or at least not very quickly. IE Keep him busy, so he doesn't think deeply.
September 13, 2014
Holy Hell, Yes!
I am done with the first round of revisions! Here is what I will say about the new version of Pivot. It is far more logical, and the tension is sustained for a longer period of time. I love it.
All I need to do now is format it and send it off to the powers that be and await their response. But I'm feeling very positive about this. And that's after stressing hard for the past one to two months.
I do believe I have altered the book staying true to its structure, its form, and the dark points it makes, while expanding, exploring, and connecting new fantastic ideas, characters, and scenes.
Everyone who reads this should have a drink. Because it's Saturday, and today is a good day. Cheers!
All I need to do now is format it and send it off to the powers that be and await their response. But I'm feeling very positive about this. And that's after stressing hard for the past one to two months.
I do believe I have altered the book staying true to its structure, its form, and the dark points it makes, while expanding, exploring, and connecting new fantastic ideas, characters, and scenes.
Everyone who reads this should have a drink. Because it's Saturday, and today is a good day. Cheers!
September 7, 2014
ISIS and the Problem of Pure Belief
When a monster like ISIS arises, I always ask myself, "What kind of monster are we dealing with?" Or, rather, "What kind of monster am I looking at?" Because I'm not really dealing with them... the United States government is.
And, usually, my questions/assessments have brought me to the same conclusion again and again that relates - in some way - to my previous post on Daniel Ashley Pierce. That is, my opinion is usually that I am looking at a set of people for whom their desires are the wheat, their religion is the chaff. That is, when I look at ISIS, I am seeing people whose sole desire is to murder, rape, and cause chaos. And they have found an ideology, twisted a religion, for their desires. They use an ideology or religion out of a need for divine permission, of a way of maintaining a deafness or blindness to their own isolating, twisted desires, and as a way to gain more troops and rally the cause.
I have, however, read something recently that has me rethinking things.
And what has me rethinking things is from Zizek's The Puppet and the Dwarf. Here is one succinct excerpt: "Recall the outrage when, two years ago, the Taliban forces in Afghanistan destroyed the ancient Buddhist statues at Bamiyan: although none of us enlightened Westerners believe in the divinity of the Buddha, we were outraged because the Taliban Muslims did not show the appropriate respect for the 'cultural heritage' of their own country and the entire world. Instead of believing through the other, like all people of culture, they really believed in their own religion, and thus had no great sensitivity toward the cultural value of the monuments of other religions - to them, the Buddha statues were just fake idols, not 'cultural treasures.'"
Zizek then, after this excerpt, basically does his Zizekian turnabout (he always likes to claim the exact opposite of what others do). He says that what should be truly surprising to philosophers is NOT that people twist and turn religion - that is, believe inconsistently - because this is the norm, but rather that there are people who actually DO "really believe" and act upon their professed principles.
Westerners, Zizek says, are not really "believing." He says, rather, "we just follow (some) religious rituals and mores as part of respect for the 'lifestyle' of the community to which we belong... What is a cultural lifestyle, if not the fact that, although we don't believe in Santa Claus, there is a Christmas tree in every house, and even in public places, every December?"
I think there is an even better example of the difference between believing and BELIEVING here: http://issuehawk.com/tamar/2014/01/20...
The above article states that the transgender woman Pamela Raintree entered a City Council meeting, placed a stone on the podium and, after quoting Leviticus's demand that homosexuals be stoned to death, said, “I brought the first stone, Mr. Webb, in case that your Bible talk isn’t just a smoke screen for personal prejudices.”
In other words, she brought the first stone, Mr. Webb. What's the problem? The problem is that you do not believe in the sense that the Taliban or ISIS believes, and you know it.
In any case... getting on with it...
This idea that the Taliban and ISIS believe more than Westerners is in direct opposition to what I naturally assume about them.
I tend to take the side that ISIS and the Taliban believe inconsistently in the sense that they don't really have a religion. They have their desires, they coat those desires in a religion, but they are no more a part of that religion than I am. My natural opinion is that they don't BELIEVE anything. They just say they do. Am I wrong?
Maybe. Or maybe there are two ways of looking at the same issue. Two truths.
Are people who join ISIS murderers who excuse themselves with religion? Or are these average human beings who take belief to the highest letter? Who are willing to follow a line like from Leviticus?
Another way of asking the question is, are they overcome with religious zeal, or have they overcome all religious zeal? Have they chosen their obsession, or has their obsession chosen them? Are they deeply entrenched in an illusion, or fully disillusioned?
Are they (in Lacanian terms) perverse or obsessional? And my answer is that they are perverse. And that the perverse really do BELIEVE. That, perhaps, ISIS really does BELIEVE.
Do you remember the Heath Ledger Joker two Batman movies ago? The one who asks, "Do you want to know how I got these scars?" And how the answer doesn't really matter? The story of how he got those scars doesn't matter? It is always in flux, always changing? That is because, for a man like The Joker, the trauma doesn't matter. Whatever the trauma was, The Joker owned it, while others are owned BY their trauma. He has chosen his obsession, his trauma (chaos) among a myriad of options. It now gets him off. Other people - most people - are generally chosen by their obsession (in other words, they didn't get a choice in the matter, the story of their trauma was inscribed on them and chooses their obsession for them). IE Batman. Batman's obsession with hunting criminals was inscribed on him against his will as a child. He didn't choose his trauma. His trauma chose him.
I tend to think of ISIS and the Taliban as the Joker. As the one who points to murder and says, "That's it. That will do it for me. You want to know how I got these scars? I'll give you a million different stories, because it doesn't really matter. Trauma didn't choose me. I choose trauma. All trauma."
Alright, I'm done making the point over and over again of the perverse nature of ISIS. I do, however, want to explore one more question:
"Does the Joker make the best believer?"
If a religion's requirement is to stone homosexuals (or murder infidels), and not out of the heat of the moment, but in stone cold duty, what type of person is required? What kind of believer is required? The person who believes in Santa Clause in the sense that they buy a Christmas tree every year? Or the believer who destroys Buddhist statues?
The Joker could stone homosexuals and murder infidels, if that is what his chosen ideology requires. For The Joker, all options are open. He can act at the drop of a hat.
Should a believer be able to act at the drop of a hat? If God commanded Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham said, "Sure," BOOM, dead, is that not the perfect believer? If God commands you to stone a homosexual, or an adulterer, or your own child to death, and you're like, "Sure," BOOM, dead, is that not the perfect believer?
Is purity, then, just a tad too impure? Have our definitions, divisions, and language failed us?
Of course they have. They always will.
I'm not sure that the greatest being in the world - the alpha and omega - the greater-than-which-ever-existed wants men who, with just a snap of His fingers, willingly slaughter their sons. In this case, there might exist the possibility of believing TOO much. Or, maybe, just maybe, the definition of "belief" and "believer" should change.
Is this not the point of The Clerk's Tale by Chaucer? In this tale, the wife Griselda obeys her husband in all things, even when he pretends to kill her daughter (hides her away for a decade), then her son (hides him, too), and then pretends to remarry, all to - at the very end of everything - say, "Ha! Gotcha! It was all a joke. The past twenty years have been a joke!"
The idea behind The Clerk's Tale is that the Bible commands women to obey their husbands, and Griselda is the perfect believer in that she perfectly obeys her husband. She obeys him as he kills her daughter. She obeys him as he kills her son. She obeys him as he divorces her. Could there exist any other woman who so perfectly obeys? No. Walter of the tale is married to the perfect, God-fearing, husband-obeying wife. And, of course, the point is that there is imperfection in this perfection. The purity looks nothing like one expects. The idea has been taken to its ultimate conclusion to show how ridiculous it is.
The point is that there is something wrong in the "perfect" believer. There are certain rules not actually meant to be purely obeyed.
(And this, as well, runs into Burke's and other philosophical theories about the paradox of purity: That the pure is actually the exact opposite of what one expects: the purest character is no character, the most perfect sound in the world is the most boring.)
Maybe the perfect believer, the man or woman of perfect, systematic obedience is perverse. Perhaps he or she is psychopathic. She shows the fallibility of the law by perfectly following it. She demonstrates the problem of ideology by never, ever mis-stepping.
And, in this sense, Zizek would be right. ISIS BELIEVES. They believe systematically, perversely, psychopathically. We do not. And it is good we do not. It is good we are impure believers, actors, obey-ors. "God prefers drunkards to a lot of respectable people," says Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited. I tend to agree. Time to get drunk.;-)
Pure belief is alluring, isn't it? To say that one has perfectly obeyed, followed, recorded, preserved, presented something is so attractive. As long as you do that, you can withstand your whole world going to hell.
Consider the poem Obedient by Shel Silverstein:
Teacher said, “You don’t obey.
You fidget and twidget
And won’t sit down.
So go stand in the corner now
‘Til I say you can turn around.”
So there I stood ‘til it got dark
Without a whimper or a tear,
‘Til everybody else went home.
I guess that she forgot me here.
And that was Friday, so I stayed
All through the weekend--bein’ good,
And Monday was the first day of
Summer vacation, so I stood
Through hot July and sticky August,
Tryin’ to obey her rule.
Stood right there until September,
When--yikes-- they closed down the school!
Boarded up the doors and windows,
Moved to a new one way ‘cross town.
So here I’ve stood for forty years
In dark and dust and creaky sounds,
Waiting for her to say, “Turn around.”
This might not be just what she meant,
But me--I’m so obedient.
The attraction of getting it perfectly right - of believing perfectly - can sometimes overcome someone. It is almost like a fetish object: As long as I can get THIS right, that's all that matters. As long as I can have THIS, everything will be alright. Of course, though the individual gets obedience perfect, there is something horribly wrong here, isn't there? There is something wrong with "getting it right."
The Joker chooses his requirements; they do not choose him. Just like the boy in the poem Obedient chooses his obedience. Just like Griselda does. She OWNS obedience. The process is not just obeying the law, but of internalizing it, upholding it, living it, breathing it, being it, to the highest letter. Just like ISIS. And what they show us is the problem of true belief and obedience to those beliefs.
Perhaps, then, the purest believer is not the best one, and the only good believer is the heretic. Maybe heaven is filled with heretics.
I don't know.
And, usually, my questions/assessments have brought me to the same conclusion again and again that relates - in some way - to my previous post on Daniel Ashley Pierce. That is, my opinion is usually that I am looking at a set of people for whom their desires are the wheat, their religion is the chaff. That is, when I look at ISIS, I am seeing people whose sole desire is to murder, rape, and cause chaos. And they have found an ideology, twisted a religion, for their desires. They use an ideology or religion out of a need for divine permission, of a way of maintaining a deafness or blindness to their own isolating, twisted desires, and as a way to gain more troops and rally the cause.
I have, however, read something recently that has me rethinking things.
And what has me rethinking things is from Zizek's The Puppet and the Dwarf. Here is one succinct excerpt: "Recall the outrage when, two years ago, the Taliban forces in Afghanistan destroyed the ancient Buddhist statues at Bamiyan: although none of us enlightened Westerners believe in the divinity of the Buddha, we were outraged because the Taliban Muslims did not show the appropriate respect for the 'cultural heritage' of their own country and the entire world. Instead of believing through the other, like all people of culture, they really believed in their own religion, and thus had no great sensitivity toward the cultural value of the monuments of other religions - to them, the Buddha statues were just fake idols, not 'cultural treasures.'"
Zizek then, after this excerpt, basically does his Zizekian turnabout (he always likes to claim the exact opposite of what others do). He says that what should be truly surprising to philosophers is NOT that people twist and turn religion - that is, believe inconsistently - because this is the norm, but rather that there are people who actually DO "really believe" and act upon their professed principles.
Westerners, Zizek says, are not really "believing." He says, rather, "we just follow (some) religious rituals and mores as part of respect for the 'lifestyle' of the community to which we belong... What is a cultural lifestyle, if not the fact that, although we don't believe in Santa Claus, there is a Christmas tree in every house, and even in public places, every December?"
I think there is an even better example of the difference between believing and BELIEVING here: http://issuehawk.com/tamar/2014/01/20...
The above article states that the transgender woman Pamela Raintree entered a City Council meeting, placed a stone on the podium and, after quoting Leviticus's demand that homosexuals be stoned to death, said, “I brought the first stone, Mr. Webb, in case that your Bible talk isn’t just a smoke screen for personal prejudices.”
In other words, she brought the first stone, Mr. Webb. What's the problem? The problem is that you do not believe in the sense that the Taliban or ISIS believes, and you know it.
In any case... getting on with it...
This idea that the Taliban and ISIS believe more than Westerners is in direct opposition to what I naturally assume about them.
I tend to take the side that ISIS and the Taliban believe inconsistently in the sense that they don't really have a religion. They have their desires, they coat those desires in a religion, but they are no more a part of that religion than I am. My natural opinion is that they don't BELIEVE anything. They just say they do. Am I wrong?
Maybe. Or maybe there are two ways of looking at the same issue. Two truths.
Are people who join ISIS murderers who excuse themselves with religion? Or are these average human beings who take belief to the highest letter? Who are willing to follow a line like from Leviticus?
Another way of asking the question is, are they overcome with religious zeal, or have they overcome all religious zeal? Have they chosen their obsession, or has their obsession chosen them? Are they deeply entrenched in an illusion, or fully disillusioned?
Are they (in Lacanian terms) perverse or obsessional? And my answer is that they are perverse. And that the perverse really do BELIEVE. That, perhaps, ISIS really does BELIEVE.
Do you remember the Heath Ledger Joker two Batman movies ago? The one who asks, "Do you want to know how I got these scars?" And how the answer doesn't really matter? The story of how he got those scars doesn't matter? It is always in flux, always changing? That is because, for a man like The Joker, the trauma doesn't matter. Whatever the trauma was, The Joker owned it, while others are owned BY their trauma. He has chosen his obsession, his trauma (chaos) among a myriad of options. It now gets him off. Other people - most people - are generally chosen by their obsession (in other words, they didn't get a choice in the matter, the story of their trauma was inscribed on them and chooses their obsession for them). IE Batman. Batman's obsession with hunting criminals was inscribed on him against his will as a child. He didn't choose his trauma. His trauma chose him.
I tend to think of ISIS and the Taliban as the Joker. As the one who points to murder and says, "That's it. That will do it for me. You want to know how I got these scars? I'll give you a million different stories, because it doesn't really matter. Trauma didn't choose me. I choose trauma. All trauma."
Alright, I'm done making the point over and over again of the perverse nature of ISIS. I do, however, want to explore one more question:
"Does the Joker make the best believer?"
If a religion's requirement is to stone homosexuals (or murder infidels), and not out of the heat of the moment, but in stone cold duty, what type of person is required? What kind of believer is required? The person who believes in Santa Clause in the sense that they buy a Christmas tree every year? Or the believer who destroys Buddhist statues?
The Joker could stone homosexuals and murder infidels, if that is what his chosen ideology requires. For The Joker, all options are open. He can act at the drop of a hat.
Should a believer be able to act at the drop of a hat? If God commanded Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham said, "Sure," BOOM, dead, is that not the perfect believer? If God commands you to stone a homosexual, or an adulterer, or your own child to death, and you're like, "Sure," BOOM, dead, is that not the perfect believer?
Is purity, then, just a tad too impure? Have our definitions, divisions, and language failed us?
Of course they have. They always will.
I'm not sure that the greatest being in the world - the alpha and omega - the greater-than-which-ever-existed wants men who, with just a snap of His fingers, willingly slaughter their sons. In this case, there might exist the possibility of believing TOO much. Or, maybe, just maybe, the definition of "belief" and "believer" should change.
Is this not the point of The Clerk's Tale by Chaucer? In this tale, the wife Griselda obeys her husband in all things, even when he pretends to kill her daughter (hides her away for a decade), then her son (hides him, too), and then pretends to remarry, all to - at the very end of everything - say, "Ha! Gotcha! It was all a joke. The past twenty years have been a joke!"
The idea behind The Clerk's Tale is that the Bible commands women to obey their husbands, and Griselda is the perfect believer in that she perfectly obeys her husband. She obeys him as he kills her daughter. She obeys him as he kills her son. She obeys him as he divorces her. Could there exist any other woman who so perfectly obeys? No. Walter of the tale is married to the perfect, God-fearing, husband-obeying wife. And, of course, the point is that there is imperfection in this perfection. The purity looks nothing like one expects. The idea has been taken to its ultimate conclusion to show how ridiculous it is.
The point is that there is something wrong in the "perfect" believer. There are certain rules not actually meant to be purely obeyed.
(And this, as well, runs into Burke's and other philosophical theories about the paradox of purity: That the pure is actually the exact opposite of what one expects: the purest character is no character, the most perfect sound in the world is the most boring.)
Maybe the perfect believer, the man or woman of perfect, systematic obedience is perverse. Perhaps he or she is psychopathic. She shows the fallibility of the law by perfectly following it. She demonstrates the problem of ideology by never, ever mis-stepping.
And, in this sense, Zizek would be right. ISIS BELIEVES. They believe systematically, perversely, psychopathically. We do not. And it is good we do not. It is good we are impure believers, actors, obey-ors. "God prefers drunkards to a lot of respectable people," says Sebastian Flyte in Brideshead Revisited. I tend to agree. Time to get drunk.;-)
Pure belief is alluring, isn't it? To say that one has perfectly obeyed, followed, recorded, preserved, presented something is so attractive. As long as you do that, you can withstand your whole world going to hell.
Consider the poem Obedient by Shel Silverstein:
Teacher said, “You don’t obey.
You fidget and twidget
And won’t sit down.
So go stand in the corner now
‘Til I say you can turn around.”
So there I stood ‘til it got dark
Without a whimper or a tear,
‘Til everybody else went home.
I guess that she forgot me here.
And that was Friday, so I stayed
All through the weekend--bein’ good,
And Monday was the first day of
Summer vacation, so I stood
Through hot July and sticky August,
Tryin’ to obey her rule.
Stood right there until September,
When--yikes-- they closed down the school!
Boarded up the doors and windows,
Moved to a new one way ‘cross town.
So here I’ve stood for forty years
In dark and dust and creaky sounds,
Waiting for her to say, “Turn around.”
This might not be just what she meant,
But me--I’m so obedient.
The attraction of getting it perfectly right - of believing perfectly - can sometimes overcome someone. It is almost like a fetish object: As long as I can get THIS right, that's all that matters. As long as I can have THIS, everything will be alright. Of course, though the individual gets obedience perfect, there is something horribly wrong here, isn't there? There is something wrong with "getting it right."
The Joker chooses his requirements; they do not choose him. Just like the boy in the poem Obedient chooses his obedience. Just like Griselda does. She OWNS obedience. The process is not just obeying the law, but of internalizing it, upholding it, living it, breathing it, being it, to the highest letter. Just like ISIS. And what they show us is the problem of true belief and obedience to those beliefs.
Perhaps, then, the purest believer is not the best one, and the only good believer is the heretic. Maybe heaven is filled with heretics.
I don't know.
September 5, 2014
A Few Pics by the Talented John Urbancik
Pivot - edition 2 - is coming along. I have finished the latest draft of the Cyrus portion of the novel, and I am going back through the Patrick portion again. Once I am finished with this second run-through, I will wait a week, go over it one more time, and then submit it to the powers that be and pray. And pray. While I eat grapes genetically modified to taste like cotton candy. Did I mention I'd pray? Did I mention there exist grapes genetically modified to taste like cotton candy? You can find them all over the place right now. I bought mine at Sprouts. Take a look: http://www.grapery.biz/index.php/grap...
There are two photos that were taken of me in Portland at the World Horror Convention by the talented John Urbancik, and I have been meaning to post them for some time. Urbancik is an author, as well as a photographer, and he is always at these conventions with his camera, at the ready, capturing and shooting people with the greatest of skill. He's also a really genuine guy.
You can find his tumblr blog here: http://urbancik.tumblr.com/
He just sat me down and came up with these:
There are two photos that were taken of me in Portland at the World Horror Convention by the talented John Urbancik, and I have been meaning to post them for some time. Urbancik is an author, as well as a photographer, and he is always at these conventions with his camera, at the ready, capturing and shooting people with the greatest of skill. He's also a really genuine guy.
You can find his tumblr blog here: http://urbancik.tumblr.com/
He just sat me down and came up with these:
August 29, 2014
A Short Post on Daniel Ashley Pierce and Desire
I haven't really posted on things going on in the real world. Usually, I focus on my writing - fictional, pop-cultural, and otherwise. But last night I watched the viral video of Daniel Ashley Pierce's family disowning him and abusing him. And today I'm still thinking about it.
If you don't know who Daniel Ashley Pierce is, or why people are talking about him, you can read up on his story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08...
and take a look at his GoFundMe success here: http://www.gofundme.com/dnoqgg
I am writing a post to catalog my usual reaction to these stories. Each time I hear a story similar to Pierce's, I run through a critical thinking exercise where I carefully try to separate 1. ideology (or religion) and 2. desire, and I look at them separately (both for the sake of understanding others, and to better understand myself). And now, if you keep reading, you'll have to forgive me for over-indulging in over-thinking.
My thinking exercise kind of goes like this:
For a family who disowns their gay son, is there any difference between their ideology and their desire? Is there any gap between what they think they /should/ believe and what they /want/ to believe? Put simply, would they have it any other way if they could (Would they ever have it to where their God accepts homosexuality)? If their answer is "No," then that means they /desire/ that God does not accept homosexuality, and if that is the case, I would say that this exposes a very disturbing personality flaw: "We not only have a God who despises homosexuality, but we desire a God who despises homosexuality."
It is one thing to say, "I wish I could love someone, but my God says I can't," versus, "I want to despise these people, and my God says I can." I think it would be a useful exercise to force people to say, "My God desires _____," and "I desire ______" so that 1. they show they know how to separate themselves from God (he is not an extension of them), and 2. one can ascertain their true beliefs and, more importantly, motive and explanation. To avoid doing this seems like a way of hiding one's own desires behind the face of God, of an inability to cope with what one wants. It is also a way in which one never has to explain one's hatred, for if God is unknowable and inexplicable, you can lump everything you don't know or can't explain onto him (including your desire). I don't think this process is inherently evil (it can be therapeutic), but it is manipulative to use God as a way of never having to explain what you desire and why, of forcing a person to trust wholly in what you say, rather than why you say it, because the reasons for it arrive from a realm where there is no human understanding. "You can't understand it, so just trust in the demand itself. You can't understand it, so just trust in me."
In which case, we return to the same question: If you can't understand it, then why do you desire it? And the answer, most likely, is that it was never about God. It was always about you.
If you don't know who Daniel Ashley Pierce is, or why people are talking about him, you can read up on his story here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08...
and take a look at his GoFundMe success here: http://www.gofundme.com/dnoqgg
I am writing a post to catalog my usual reaction to these stories. Each time I hear a story similar to Pierce's, I run through a critical thinking exercise where I carefully try to separate 1. ideology (or religion) and 2. desire, and I look at them separately (both for the sake of understanding others, and to better understand myself). And now, if you keep reading, you'll have to forgive me for over-indulging in over-thinking.
My thinking exercise kind of goes like this:
For a family who disowns their gay son, is there any difference between their ideology and their desire? Is there any gap between what they think they /should/ believe and what they /want/ to believe? Put simply, would they have it any other way if they could (Would they ever have it to where their God accepts homosexuality)? If their answer is "No," then that means they /desire/ that God does not accept homosexuality, and if that is the case, I would say that this exposes a very disturbing personality flaw: "We not only have a God who despises homosexuality, but we desire a God who despises homosexuality."
It is one thing to say, "I wish I could love someone, but my God says I can't," versus, "I want to despise these people, and my God says I can." I think it would be a useful exercise to force people to say, "My God desires _____," and "I desire ______" so that 1. they show they know how to separate themselves from God (he is not an extension of them), and 2. one can ascertain their true beliefs and, more importantly, motive and explanation. To avoid doing this seems like a way of hiding one's own desires behind the face of God, of an inability to cope with what one wants. It is also a way in which one never has to explain one's hatred, for if God is unknowable and inexplicable, you can lump everything you don't know or can't explain onto him (including your desire). I don't think this process is inherently evil (it can be therapeutic), but it is manipulative to use God as a way of never having to explain what you desire and why, of forcing a person to trust wholly in what you say, rather than why you say it, because the reasons for it arrive from a realm where there is no human understanding. "You can't understand it, so just trust in the demand itself. You can't understand it, so just trust in me."
In which case, we return to the same question: If you can't understand it, then why do you desire it? And the answer, most likely, is that it was never about God. It was always about you.
July 10, 2014
Update
So! After speaking with several professionals, I believe it's time for an update. Parts of Pivot are going to be rewritten. Things will be altered and added, and I happily agreed with all of the recommendations that were given to me. This will take time. This will require a lot of effort. But it will be worth it. And in the end, a more polished Pivot will bloom.
That is not to say that there is anything wrong with this first version (although, you're also welcome to say there is plenty wrong with this first version), but there are multiple ways to write or present a book, and I am very much looking forward to creating a new and improved version. To smooth the edges. Allow myself to file and chip like a rock tumbler while I ruminate inside Pivot's beautifully dark universe.
Wish me the best of luck, and keep me in your thoughts. This will be a long journey requiring much coffee and many sublime realizations. Again, though, so incredibly worth it.
That is not to say that there is anything wrong with this first version (although, you're also welcome to say there is plenty wrong with this first version), but there are multiple ways to write or present a book, and I am very much looking forward to creating a new and improved version. To smooth the edges. Allow myself to file and chip like a rock tumbler while I ruminate inside Pivot's beautifully dark universe.
Wish me the best of luck, and keep me in your thoughts. This will be a long journey requiring much coffee and many sublime realizations. Again, though, so incredibly worth it.
May 16, 2014
Amazing News and A Comment on Self-Publishing
This last week has been a whirlwind.
I went to Portland, Oregon to my very first Horror Writer's Association convention. If you remember, and even if you don't, Pivot was on the preliminary ballot for the Bram Stoker Award for Superior Achievement in a First Novel, and so I became more interested in the HWA. I wanted to see what they were all about.
Wow. The convention was simply amazing. I have never met so many brilliant, kind, and funny people. The authors there are so friendly, and the panels are quite informative. I recommend everyone and anyone to go to the HWA convention. The future one will be in Atlanta, Georgia, and George R. R. Martin will be a guest.
I will add that the parties at the convention were fantastic, and I met a plethora of authors, as well as editors, agents, and lawyers. They were all wonderful, all fun. They know how to party, and they are like one giant, happy family.
Now for some amazing news. While I was in Portland, I received an e-mail from the Next Generation Indie Book Awards. Pivot is a finalist for their award, and I am invited to go to The Harvard Club in New York City to receive a medal. In addition, I am invited to sign books at the Book Expo of America in New York City on one of the following days, and I am spending my time getting everything ready for that.
To say the least, I have been stunned and shocked and breathless. New York City?? I've never been there and always wanted to go. The Harvard Club? Holy shit. I mean, I am absolutely astonished. I thank the Next Generation Indie Book Awards again and again, even though 'thank you' will never cover it. I simply cannot believe this path that has opened up for me. What an amazing acknowledgment. I am just... yeah. There are no words.
There was even more good news, however! I received two days ago yet another thrilling e-mail that Pivot was made Indie Reader Approved and is on the final ballot for the IRDAs - Indie Reader Discovery Awards. The winner will be announced at the Book Expo of America (where I will also be signing books) on May 31st. Again, I am simply overwhelmed with so much joy and excitement. I am thrilled by Indie Reader's acknowledgment of Pivot, and I do not know exactly how to express my elation.
This is so amazing. So wonderful. So unreal. It is like I have stepped into another world.
I was also invited to do an author interview with Shindig at the BEA. I e-mailed them, and we will see what ends up happening. I have never done an author interview before, and I am very glad that I went to the HWA - where I learned how important it is to be myself.
All that amazing and elating stuff having been said, I want to make a comment on self-publishing for a moment.
Self-publishing can work. It can open up paths for you in a way that traditional publishing may not. I'm not saying it always works, and I'm not saying that it is the right path for everyone. I do not believe that there is any ONE right path for everyone. But it is A path, and a path that can work. Just consider Hugh Howey and his amazing accomplishments through self-publishing. Or C.J. Lyons, the amazing ER Doctor and author who will be announcing the winner of the Indie Reader Discovery Awards on May 31st. Consider that many authors who go through traditional agents and publishers don't necessarily get more books to people than self-publishers. Also, consider that writing is in the midst of a revolution - where a more experimental path has been forged for novels. An experimental path that allows for unique writing. Realize, as well, though that there is "something" to a traditional agent and publisher. There are advantages to both self-publishing AND traditional publishing.
If you do go the route of self-publishing, enter your book into as many awards as possible. That is something I have learned in this process. Two things get you noticed in the production of a novel: quality and quantity. 1. Make your book free has been the advice of many self-publishers (and I took that advice and was able to get over 30,000 copies of Pivot out there). I don't know if making one's self-published novel free is necessary or not. I suspect it is, but I am leery of giving out that advice. All I can say is that this is something I followed. 2. Enter your book into as many awards as possible (this is not advice that I ever remember reading, but it is incredibly important). Indie Reader has a stamp called "Indie Reader Approved." It is given to self-published novels to note a quality book, quality writing. I didn't know how important this sticker was until it was given to Pivot. I'm telling you now, if you're going to self-publish, pay attention to these awards and acknowledgments. They will help you, and you want help. Always.
While you are establishing indicators of your novel's quantity and quality, the best advice you can be given is: go to writer's conventions and connect with other authors. This allows you to realize that you are not alone, but you may also learn many things that you may not have previously considered. For instance, many of the things I have learned while at the convention are the following:
1. The difference between sprinters and marathoners - the difference between writing a few books versus grinding them out every day, every year, for a lifetime of writing. You have to decide which of these authors you want to be, and again, one choice isn't right for everyone. Some are sprinters, and some are marathoners. The marathoners write every day, no matter hell or high water, rain or shine. The marathoners are fewer than the sprinters.
2. Even successful authors have day jobs. Writing doesn't necessarily pay all the bills. Even marathoners may be required to have something else to do, something else in their lives.
3. You have to decide if you are setting out to be an author who "changes the world," or an author who "makes a living." Sometimes they are one and the same, but not always. Just keep in mind that a stigma should not be attached to either of these. Again, there's no one route for every person. I, myself, know that in English departments there is often a push towards writing to change the world, rather than to make money, but this is not necessarily the "right" thing or only thing. You just have to decide what type of writer you are.
4. Writers are given shit all the time. What I mean by this is that even famous authors have been called a "sick fuck" for what they wrote, no matter the money they make, no matter the quality of their work, no matter how impressive they are. Sometimes it comes with the territory of the business. And this is particularly true for horror. Are you ready to self-publish as a "sick fuck?" Perhaps that is a question for you; perhaps it never will be.
To conclude, I'll give a short road map to self-publishing that I have followed that may, or may not, be of assistance to you:
1. Write until you hurt. By that I mean write and write and write. If you write shit, keep writing. Something will come out of it. You may only be able to see it in hindsight.
2. When you finally have your first novel, make sure it gets on Kindle, if nowhere else, and try to get it permanently free.
3. Send out free paperbacks on GoodReads until you have 25-35 reviews on GoodReads and Amazon.
4. Submit a request to advertise on BookBub.
5. Submit your book to as many awards as possible (and yes, many of these are $80 a piece or more... the cost can be brutal).
6. Attend writer's conferences. Even if you are not a horror writer, consider going to the HWA convention. Not everyone who goes there writes horror, and I am told that other conferences are not nearly as friendly and open as the HWA is. I have very little experience with other conventions, but I can say that the conferences I have been to have not been nearly as alive, fiery, or interesting as the HWA. They really have something there. They will open your eyes and heart in a way that nothing else may. They are accepting of all. They are absolutely amazing.
Finally, I just want to say that I again thank everyone who read, rated, and/or believed in Pivot. Without you, I don't know what would have happened. I am working on the second book right now, and I am hoping it will be just as strange and sublime.
Don't be a stranger. Feel free to e-mail me whenever. Thanks again to everyone.
I went to Portland, Oregon to my very first Horror Writer's Association convention. If you remember, and even if you don't, Pivot was on the preliminary ballot for the Bram Stoker Award for Superior Achievement in a First Novel, and so I became more interested in the HWA. I wanted to see what they were all about.
Wow. The convention was simply amazing. I have never met so many brilliant, kind, and funny people. The authors there are so friendly, and the panels are quite informative. I recommend everyone and anyone to go to the HWA convention. The future one will be in Atlanta, Georgia, and George R. R. Martin will be a guest.
I will add that the parties at the convention were fantastic, and I met a plethora of authors, as well as editors, agents, and lawyers. They were all wonderful, all fun. They know how to party, and they are like one giant, happy family.
Now for some amazing news. While I was in Portland, I received an e-mail from the Next Generation Indie Book Awards. Pivot is a finalist for their award, and I am invited to go to The Harvard Club in New York City to receive a medal. In addition, I am invited to sign books at the Book Expo of America in New York City on one of the following days, and I am spending my time getting everything ready for that.
To say the least, I have been stunned and shocked and breathless. New York City?? I've never been there and always wanted to go. The Harvard Club? Holy shit. I mean, I am absolutely astonished. I thank the Next Generation Indie Book Awards again and again, even though 'thank you' will never cover it. I simply cannot believe this path that has opened up for me. What an amazing acknowledgment. I am just... yeah. There are no words.
There was even more good news, however! I received two days ago yet another thrilling e-mail that Pivot was made Indie Reader Approved and is on the final ballot for the IRDAs - Indie Reader Discovery Awards. The winner will be announced at the Book Expo of America (where I will also be signing books) on May 31st. Again, I am simply overwhelmed with so much joy and excitement. I am thrilled by Indie Reader's acknowledgment of Pivot, and I do not know exactly how to express my elation.
This is so amazing. So wonderful. So unreal. It is like I have stepped into another world.
I was also invited to do an author interview with Shindig at the BEA. I e-mailed them, and we will see what ends up happening. I have never done an author interview before, and I am very glad that I went to the HWA - where I learned how important it is to be myself.
All that amazing and elating stuff having been said, I want to make a comment on self-publishing for a moment.
Self-publishing can work. It can open up paths for you in a way that traditional publishing may not. I'm not saying it always works, and I'm not saying that it is the right path for everyone. I do not believe that there is any ONE right path for everyone. But it is A path, and a path that can work. Just consider Hugh Howey and his amazing accomplishments through self-publishing. Or C.J. Lyons, the amazing ER Doctor and author who will be announcing the winner of the Indie Reader Discovery Awards on May 31st. Consider that many authors who go through traditional agents and publishers don't necessarily get more books to people than self-publishers. Also, consider that writing is in the midst of a revolution - where a more experimental path has been forged for novels. An experimental path that allows for unique writing. Realize, as well, though that there is "something" to a traditional agent and publisher. There are advantages to both self-publishing AND traditional publishing.
If you do go the route of self-publishing, enter your book into as many awards as possible. That is something I have learned in this process. Two things get you noticed in the production of a novel: quality and quantity. 1. Make your book free has been the advice of many self-publishers (and I took that advice and was able to get over 30,000 copies of Pivot out there). I don't know if making one's self-published novel free is necessary or not. I suspect it is, but I am leery of giving out that advice. All I can say is that this is something I followed. 2. Enter your book into as many awards as possible (this is not advice that I ever remember reading, but it is incredibly important). Indie Reader has a stamp called "Indie Reader Approved." It is given to self-published novels to note a quality book, quality writing. I didn't know how important this sticker was until it was given to Pivot. I'm telling you now, if you're going to self-publish, pay attention to these awards and acknowledgments. They will help you, and you want help. Always.
While you are establishing indicators of your novel's quantity and quality, the best advice you can be given is: go to writer's conventions and connect with other authors. This allows you to realize that you are not alone, but you may also learn many things that you may not have previously considered. For instance, many of the things I have learned while at the convention are the following:
1. The difference between sprinters and marathoners - the difference between writing a few books versus grinding them out every day, every year, for a lifetime of writing. You have to decide which of these authors you want to be, and again, one choice isn't right for everyone. Some are sprinters, and some are marathoners. The marathoners write every day, no matter hell or high water, rain or shine. The marathoners are fewer than the sprinters.
2. Even successful authors have day jobs. Writing doesn't necessarily pay all the bills. Even marathoners may be required to have something else to do, something else in their lives.
3. You have to decide if you are setting out to be an author who "changes the world," or an author who "makes a living." Sometimes they are one and the same, but not always. Just keep in mind that a stigma should not be attached to either of these. Again, there's no one route for every person. I, myself, know that in English departments there is often a push towards writing to change the world, rather than to make money, but this is not necessarily the "right" thing or only thing. You just have to decide what type of writer you are.
4. Writers are given shit all the time. What I mean by this is that even famous authors have been called a "sick fuck" for what they wrote, no matter the money they make, no matter the quality of their work, no matter how impressive they are. Sometimes it comes with the territory of the business. And this is particularly true for horror. Are you ready to self-publish as a "sick fuck?" Perhaps that is a question for you; perhaps it never will be.
To conclude, I'll give a short road map to self-publishing that I have followed that may, or may not, be of assistance to you:
1. Write until you hurt. By that I mean write and write and write. If you write shit, keep writing. Something will come out of it. You may only be able to see it in hindsight.
2. When you finally have your first novel, make sure it gets on Kindle, if nowhere else, and try to get it permanently free.
3. Send out free paperbacks on GoodReads until you have 25-35 reviews on GoodReads and Amazon.
4. Submit a request to advertise on BookBub.
5. Submit your book to as many awards as possible (and yes, many of these are $80 a piece or more... the cost can be brutal).
6. Attend writer's conferences. Even if you are not a horror writer, consider going to the HWA convention. Not everyone who goes there writes horror, and I am told that other conferences are not nearly as friendly and open as the HWA is. I have very little experience with other conventions, but I can say that the conferences I have been to have not been nearly as alive, fiery, or interesting as the HWA. They really have something there. They will open your eyes and heart in a way that nothing else may. They are accepting of all. They are absolutely amazing.
Finally, I just want to say that I again thank everyone who read, rated, and/or believed in Pivot. Without you, I don't know what would have happened. I am working on the second book right now, and I am hoping it will be just as strange and sublime.
Don't be a stranger. Feel free to e-mail me whenever. Thanks again to everyone.
March 30, 2014
The Uncanny
Do you have strong feelings about the uncanny? I am beginning to, and I wrote a short blog post on the uncanny for my Rhetoric of the Future course that - of course - fits well with horror and, perhaps, everything else.
I am going to put this blog post below. It's useful, I think, to consider why the uncanny exists, how it exists even within ourselves (as the thing outside ourselves that is more us than us), which Lacan and others would call the "extimate."
I think it's useful to remember that none of us are wholly what we seem in one moment or all moments.
If you are unaware of the uncanny valley (or need a refresher) - the uncanny valley is based on a graph of A) resemblance of something (like a robot) to a human, and B)the ability of us humans to relate to that thing. As resemblance increases, human affection or relation increases up until a certain point, where it suddenly plunges in a "valley." In other words, similarity is not always a good thing. For the good old Wikipedia entry on the uncanny valley, voila: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_...
Anyways, the blog post I wrote for class deals with several articles that state the failings of AIs created as twins to people (how they are nevertheless uncanny), and then I talk about how this relates to the movie /Her/, which you should see if you haven't, and the sexual (or lack thereof) relationship. In any case, I think this one of the more interesting things I've said in the past month or so, so I'll put it up here:
Course Post #9: The Uncanny
Robot twin 1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology...
Robot twin 2: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology...
I recently read this article from three years ago about the inability to bridge the uncanny valley by creating robotic doppelgangers of three different people in Japan: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology...
I found the idea to create robots as twins to people to be very strange, because I would think this would be the exact opposite way to destroying the uncanny sensation with an AI.
The uncanny valley is, of course, the sudden dip in human affection when the human similarity of, say, a robot becomes too great. In other words, there must always be a certain amount of difference between humans and robots for humans to be comfortable. Sexton claims that the “uncanny feeling relies on something strange occurring amid the familiar; it is when things largely seem normal but something is not quite right” (576). The problem, it seems - in terms of a robot - is not the amount of the strange, but rather the amount of the familiar. To get rid of this sensation, one must destroy the familiarity and keep the strange. The opposite would be true for an uncanny human: you would want to keep the familiar and get rid of the strange.
The connection between the uncanny and the extimate was made clear in class. For a good reading on the extimate, though, there is always Jacques-Alain Miller’s http://www.lacan.com/symptom/?p=36
According to Miller, “Extimacy says that the intimate is Other - like a foreign body, a parasite.” Miller then takes the extimate - an intimate experience that has something external to it - and shows how it lies in one’s relationship to an analyst, to God, and to the unconscious self. In terms of religion, Miller says, “There are several covers of this point of extimacy, one of which is the religious cover. Thus Saint Augustine speaks of God as interior /intimo meo/, ‘more interior than my innermost being.’ God here is thus a word which covers this point of extimacy which in itself has nothing likeable.” The intimacy of God is external, is alien, and this externality is more core to us than ourselves. We can be uncanny to ourselves.
It could be said that in the movie /Her/, a body is denied Samantha so as to avoid the uncanny (and, more importantly, to infinitely increase the sensation of the uncanny during the surrogate scene). The uncanny, then, seems to primarily live in terms of what is seen. It is the visual that creates a sensation of the uncanny. And I think this is particularly interesting in terms of the idea of Lacan’s mirror stage. There is a reason that Lacan uses the mirror as a metaphor for the split Subject. The image holds a power over the individual that, seemingly, nothing else can compete with. (There’s a reason Narcissus falls in love with the reflection of himself, rather than the echo of his voice). The image holds a power unlike anything else, and it is in the image that the uncanny valley seems to reside.
But is this true? Has there been a case where one tastes one’s normally favorite food only to find something off - perhaps there’s a sense of some underlying rottenness, or a different recipe with a strange variation of ingredients - and this is more disturbing or dissatisfying to him or her than his or her most hated food? Or how about the nail polish in /American Hustle/ - that is described as having a sweet scent with something rotten beneath it? (Is this scent “uncanny?”) Is there ever a time when the uncanny has not been in terms of the visual?
I think, perhaps, the answer to avoiding the uncanny valley is to keep the AI out of the realm of the visual - just like in /Her/ - which means to keep the strange out of the familiar. As for robots, one needs to keep the familiar out of the realm of the strange (in this sense, alien).
The need for difference does remind me of Lacan’s sexuation graph, where men and women can fall on either side of the graph (women can fall onto the masculine side, and men can fall onto the feminine side). In a homosexual relationship, there is still some form of difference maintained, where each partner resides on each side of the graph (in other words, there is no true homosexual relationship, because even if two people are of the same sex, they are nevertheless not the same). There is always a difference.
I have no idea if the sexuation graph and need for difference can be applied to the uncanny or not. I’m merely drawing a connection between the need for difference between a robot and human and the need for difference between two people in a relationship… which I think /Her/ might naturally connect.
I am going to put this blog post below. It's useful, I think, to consider why the uncanny exists, how it exists even within ourselves (as the thing outside ourselves that is more us than us), which Lacan and others would call the "extimate."
I think it's useful to remember that none of us are wholly what we seem in one moment or all moments.
If you are unaware of the uncanny valley (or need a refresher) - the uncanny valley is based on a graph of A) resemblance of something (like a robot) to a human, and B)the ability of us humans to relate to that thing. As resemblance increases, human affection or relation increases up until a certain point, where it suddenly plunges in a "valley." In other words, similarity is not always a good thing. For the good old Wikipedia entry on the uncanny valley, voila: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_...
Anyways, the blog post I wrote for class deals with several articles that state the failings of AIs created as twins to people (how they are nevertheless uncanny), and then I talk about how this relates to the movie /Her/, which you should see if you haven't, and the sexual (or lack thereof) relationship. In any case, I think this one of the more interesting things I've said in the past month or so, so I'll put it up here:
Course Post #9: The Uncanny
Robot twin 1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology...
Robot twin 2: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology...
I recently read this article from three years ago about the inability to bridge the uncanny valley by creating robotic doppelgangers of three different people in Japan: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology...
I found the idea to create robots as twins to people to be very strange, because I would think this would be the exact opposite way to destroying the uncanny sensation with an AI.
The uncanny valley is, of course, the sudden dip in human affection when the human similarity of, say, a robot becomes too great. In other words, there must always be a certain amount of difference between humans and robots for humans to be comfortable. Sexton claims that the “uncanny feeling relies on something strange occurring amid the familiar; it is when things largely seem normal but something is not quite right” (576). The problem, it seems - in terms of a robot - is not the amount of the strange, but rather the amount of the familiar. To get rid of this sensation, one must destroy the familiarity and keep the strange. The opposite would be true for an uncanny human: you would want to keep the familiar and get rid of the strange.
The connection between the uncanny and the extimate was made clear in class. For a good reading on the extimate, though, there is always Jacques-Alain Miller’s http://www.lacan.com/symptom/?p=36
According to Miller, “Extimacy says that the intimate is Other - like a foreign body, a parasite.” Miller then takes the extimate - an intimate experience that has something external to it - and shows how it lies in one’s relationship to an analyst, to God, and to the unconscious self. In terms of religion, Miller says, “There are several covers of this point of extimacy, one of which is the religious cover. Thus Saint Augustine speaks of God as interior /intimo meo/, ‘more interior than my innermost being.’ God here is thus a word which covers this point of extimacy which in itself has nothing likeable.” The intimacy of God is external, is alien, and this externality is more core to us than ourselves. We can be uncanny to ourselves.
It could be said that in the movie /Her/, a body is denied Samantha so as to avoid the uncanny (and, more importantly, to infinitely increase the sensation of the uncanny during the surrogate scene). The uncanny, then, seems to primarily live in terms of what is seen. It is the visual that creates a sensation of the uncanny. And I think this is particularly interesting in terms of the idea of Lacan’s mirror stage. There is a reason that Lacan uses the mirror as a metaphor for the split Subject. The image holds a power over the individual that, seemingly, nothing else can compete with. (There’s a reason Narcissus falls in love with the reflection of himself, rather than the echo of his voice). The image holds a power unlike anything else, and it is in the image that the uncanny valley seems to reside.
But is this true? Has there been a case where one tastes one’s normally favorite food only to find something off - perhaps there’s a sense of some underlying rottenness, or a different recipe with a strange variation of ingredients - and this is more disturbing or dissatisfying to him or her than his or her most hated food? Or how about the nail polish in /American Hustle/ - that is described as having a sweet scent with something rotten beneath it? (Is this scent “uncanny?”) Is there ever a time when the uncanny has not been in terms of the visual?
I think, perhaps, the answer to avoiding the uncanny valley is to keep the AI out of the realm of the visual - just like in /Her/ - which means to keep the strange out of the familiar. As for robots, one needs to keep the familiar out of the realm of the strange (in this sense, alien).
The need for difference does remind me of Lacan’s sexuation graph, where men and women can fall on either side of the graph (women can fall onto the masculine side, and men can fall onto the feminine side). In a homosexual relationship, there is still some form of difference maintained, where each partner resides on each side of the graph (in other words, there is no true homosexual relationship, because even if two people are of the same sex, they are nevertheless not the same). There is always a difference.
I have no idea if the sexuation graph and need for difference can be applied to the uncanny or not. I’m merely drawing a connection between the need for difference between a robot and human and the need for difference between two people in a relationship… which I think /Her/ might naturally connect.
February 24, 2014
Thank You
I want to begin by stating what an honor it is for Pivot, my self-published first novel, to be on the preliminary ballot for the Bram Stoker Awards in the Superior Achievement in a First Novel category. A copy of the preliminary ballot can actually be found here: http://www.locusmag.com/News/2014/02/...
Though Pivot did not make the final ballot, I am nevertheless thrilled and humbled to have the HWA's recognition. The fact they even considered self-published novels is amazing.
I'd also like to say that this is probably the only moment in time when my name will ever appear on William F. Nolan's blog: http://www.williamfnolan.com/
Actually, now that I checked his blog again, the list has been deleted. So, I should say "that was the only time my name will ever appear on William F. Nolan's blog."
That being said, I will be attending the HWA conference in Portland this year, and I look forward to it. I also purchased the HWA's book On Writing Horror, which I completely recommend, whether or not your interest is in writing horror. It's just a fantastic collection of writing advice in general, all of which is from a variety of authors.
I think that what has stuck with me the most is Tina Jens' statement that "Writing with three-dimensional characters is kind of like herding ducks." I thoroughly enjoyed Stephen King's National Book Award acceptance speech. But Morrell's advice on speech tags was also helpful, and the history of the HWA (which originally started as HOWL) was informative and interesting. So, yeah... I haven't finished the book yet, but I do recommend it.
Currently, I'm looking at my options for my PhD. I'm also currently sitting in on one class titled Rhetoric of the Future at the university from which I received my MA. The aspect of Hauntology has - I think - been the most interesting to me, and I may write something on this later. If you would like to read my short Tumblr blog post on Hauntology for my class, though, you can take a look here: http://lincbarlow.tumblr.com/post/776...
Aside from this, I'm currently hooked on True Detective. And I recommend the show - so long as you don't mind watching a certain kind of cosmic horror - it is very heavy. I am familiarizing myself with The King in Yellow currently to better understand one of the references in the series: http://io9.com/the-one-literary-refer...
Apparently, Lovecraft was influenced by Chambers, but I personally like Chambers better than Lovecraft. Chambers' stories have a payoff, a resolution, that you don't normally get with Lovecraft. The King in Yellow is a collection of short stories that all have some reference to yellow, the king in yellow, or the play called The King in Yellow that supposedly causes insanity to anyone who reads it. The play, of course, is not included with the short stories, so it works as a McGuffin device - a kind of box around which everything revolves, but which you never see the contents.
Speaking of the McGuffin device, I read this recently, and I think it might be helpful for anyone who writes or loves writing or movies: http://mentalfloss.com/article/55105/...
All that being said, I'm going to return to the fact that my novel made the preliminary ballot, and I want to thank every single person who has read Pivot, every single person who has rated Pivot, and every single person who has reviewed Pivot. Thank you and thank you again. There are tons of books out there vying for your attention, and you only have so much time to give. But thank you, avid and non-avid readers alike. Thanks for spending a little time on this book. You didn't have to, but you did. Damn... it's awesome.
Alright, I'm hungry. I'm going to go eat. But hopefully something on hauntology, afrofuturism, and the "talking book" theme in slave narratives soon.
Though Pivot did not make the final ballot, I am nevertheless thrilled and humbled to have the HWA's recognition. The fact they even considered self-published novels is amazing.
I'd also like to say that this is probably the only moment in time when my name will ever appear on William F. Nolan's blog: http://www.williamfnolan.com/
Actually, now that I checked his blog again, the list has been deleted. So, I should say "that was the only time my name will ever appear on William F. Nolan's blog."
That being said, I will be attending the HWA conference in Portland this year, and I look forward to it. I also purchased the HWA's book On Writing Horror, which I completely recommend, whether or not your interest is in writing horror. It's just a fantastic collection of writing advice in general, all of which is from a variety of authors.
I think that what has stuck with me the most is Tina Jens' statement that "Writing with three-dimensional characters is kind of like herding ducks." I thoroughly enjoyed Stephen King's National Book Award acceptance speech. But Morrell's advice on speech tags was also helpful, and the history of the HWA (which originally started as HOWL) was informative and interesting. So, yeah... I haven't finished the book yet, but I do recommend it.
Currently, I'm looking at my options for my PhD. I'm also currently sitting in on one class titled Rhetoric of the Future at the university from which I received my MA. The aspect of Hauntology has - I think - been the most interesting to me, and I may write something on this later. If you would like to read my short Tumblr blog post on Hauntology for my class, though, you can take a look here: http://lincbarlow.tumblr.com/post/776...
Aside from this, I'm currently hooked on True Detective. And I recommend the show - so long as you don't mind watching a certain kind of cosmic horror - it is very heavy. I am familiarizing myself with The King in Yellow currently to better understand one of the references in the series: http://io9.com/the-one-literary-refer...
Apparently, Lovecraft was influenced by Chambers, but I personally like Chambers better than Lovecraft. Chambers' stories have a payoff, a resolution, that you don't normally get with Lovecraft. The King in Yellow is a collection of short stories that all have some reference to yellow, the king in yellow, or the play called The King in Yellow that supposedly causes insanity to anyone who reads it. The play, of course, is not included with the short stories, so it works as a McGuffin device - a kind of box around which everything revolves, but which you never see the contents.
Speaking of the McGuffin device, I read this recently, and I think it might be helpful for anyone who writes or loves writing or movies: http://mentalfloss.com/article/55105/...
All that being said, I'm going to return to the fact that my novel made the preliminary ballot, and I want to thank every single person who has read Pivot, every single person who has rated Pivot, and every single person who has reviewed Pivot. Thank you and thank you again. There are tons of books out there vying for your attention, and you only have so much time to give. But thank you, avid and non-avid readers alike. Thanks for spending a little time on this book. You didn't have to, but you did. Damn... it's awesome.
Alright, I'm hungry. I'm going to go eat. But hopefully something on hauntology, afrofuturism, and the "talking book" theme in slave narratives soon.
December 25, 2013
So Incredibly Happy!
Tonight, it is a Merry Christmas for several reasons. I saw my wonderful family - several of them at least. I ate delicious food, received fantastic presents, gave fantastic presents, watched Doctor Who, wondered if my conception of God was correct or corrupt, wondered if I think about God more or less than the average person, followed Stephen King on Twitter, played with Inga (my cat), painted my nails gold, began to mentally prepare myself for the Jim Gaffigan performance on Friday, thought about how lucky I am to be alive and healthy, and wrote a little. I also realized about an hour ago that Pivot had been downloaded over 12,000 times today and is now in the #1 position in free Horror, #13 free overall.
Today has been a good day.
This Christmas has been a wonderful Christmas.
I hope, whoever you are, wherever you are, you have a wonderful, love-filled, awe-inspiring holiday. Or... that you eat a lot of chocolate and food until you're satisfyingly sleepy.
I'm off to go watch more Doctor Who! There is no other show that feels more like Christmas than that one. So much friendship! So much love!
Today has been a good day.
This Christmas has been a wonderful Christmas.
I hope, whoever you are, wherever you are, you have a wonderful, love-filled, awe-inspiring holiday. Or... that you eat a lot of chocolate and food until you're satisfyingly sleepy.
I'm off to go watch more Doctor Who! There is no other show that feels more like Christmas than that one. So much friendship! So much love!
