I'm
going to jump into the Iraq war issue with both feet and I'll tell
you why. My maternal grandfather returned from World War I a basket
case. He had been gassed and his lungs were shot, but that wasn't
the worst of it. He was what they called shell shocked back then
-- the same thing that was known as battle fatigue in World War
II and Korea and post-traumatic stress syndrome in he Vietnam war.
He was mentally unfit to hold down a steady job and take care of
his family. Because of this, my mother was raised in a foster home
where she was little more than a servant. The effects of my grandfather's
war trauma reverberated through her entire life and into mine.
"Every generation
is crucified by its war," D. H. Lawrence wrote after World
War I. I saw the truth of his statement last night on the TV show
"Frontline." Droves of U.S. servicemen are returning from
the Iraq war without all their f-a-c-u-l-t-i-e-s intact (to quote
a J. D. Salinger short story about his experiences in World War
II.) "Frontline" highlighted the cases of two Marines
who were normal happy young men before they went to war. According
to a VA counselor, they were mentally "tricked" into killing,
but their spirits and bodies didn't go along with the program. One
Marine hanged himself after several months of increasing depression.
The other could no longer be trusted with a weapon because he wanted
to kill fellow Marines and he didn't understand why.
Hemingway
was sometimes accused of being a warmonger because he wrote about
war so often, but I think it's a bum rap. Does this sound like a
warmonger? "In modern war you will die like a dog for no good
reason." In his short story "A Way You'll Never Be" Hemingway
sought to explain how alienated soldiers feel if they survive to
return home. It's a tale of the walking wounded confronted by once-familiar
people who are blind to their psychic injuries. I have my own theory
based on the "Frontline" conclusions and my experience
with Vietnam vets. A soldier at war tends to idealize home as a
perfect place. His family and friends tend to idealize him as an
infallible fearless hero. Those kind of expectations are destined
to clash with reality when the soldier returns home. In too many
instances the result is friction, alienation and a crippling loss
of hope.
The reason
for all this misery is transparently simple -- war is the breakdown
of civilized behavior. Every religion in the world teaches that
killing people is the cardinal sin and even secular humanists believe
this is true. When a man acts against his own conscience, he "bleeds
to an everlasting death" in the words of Thoreau.
After
the stalemate of Korea and the loss of the Vietnam war, the U.S.
regained its taste for military victory in the Persian Gulf war.
But it wasn't enough for hawkish military and political leaders.
Regardless of whether or not Saddamn Hussein had anything to do
with 9/11, they wanted a successful bloodbath in Iraq instead of
falling back on the road to Baghdad as they were ordered to do in
1991. Now they have what they wanted, but with the physical and
psychological toll mounting, it's like cutting off your nose to
spite your own face.
President
Bush can continue lying about how much he cares about our troops
in Iraq, but it won't change the fact that he is the main reason
they are still there long after common sense and compassion dictated
they should leave. The majority of Iraqis don't want us there anymore,
which is why so many help insurgents they wouldn't tolerate in normal
circumstances. They have elected their own government to replace
Saddam Hussein's gang of thugs and they want us out of the picture.
This may strike some Americans as ungrateful, but I don't blame
them. How many Americans would stand for a foreign army occupying
our country for any reason? If it happened here, we would make a
deal with the Devil to force them out -- just like the Iraqis are
doing.
The situation
in Iraq is spiraling out of control and things will only get worse
if we stay any longer. It's time to declare victory and bring our
servicemen home now.
******************
Several
factors are involved in writing good fiction about the people, places
and events in your true life. But one factor is paramount -- a special
kind of "objectivity."
I
put the word in quotes because I'm not talking about ordinary objectivity,
which denotes a lack of moral judgment and bias. Fiction is biased
by nature. It is based on the unique experiences of a single person
who is more prone to making moral judgments than non-writers.
The objectivity needed
by a fiction writer comes from "the pathos of distance,"
as one author described it. You can't write well about an event
until you gain a certain perspective about it -- what I call the
fiction writer's perspective. This involves taking a second and
third look to separate the dramatic or humorous poignancy from the
banal aspects of an experience. Only distance in time and space
can provide this critical perspective.
"Never
write about a place until you are away from it, which gives you
perspective." -- Ernest Hemingway.
I'll
go one step farther than Hemingway: never write about an event until
years later. In the throes of an emotional experience it is impossible
to be a rational observer and the obscuring effects can last a long
time. When I was a young man, I had my share of interesting experiences,
but I couldn't write well about them at the time. I was too close
to the forest to see the trees, too busy trying to cope with the
flux of experience to deal with it effectively as a writer. The
lack of objectivity lubricates the gears of social life (while cold
truth is a monkey wrench), but it's a barrier to writing worthwhile
fiction.
And real
life often needs creative license to form a solid foundation for
fiction. Do I mean stretching the truth or just plain lying? Well,
both, but with a noble purpose in mind. Truth is a mysterious quality.
Various writers have described it as "a desperate thing"
and "a woman that has to be seduced." The truest truth
doesn't spring from the mere recitation of "facts." (If
it did, journalism would be superior to literature.) In any case
facts don't exist, only interpretations. Writing that is true without
being accurate in every detail may seem like a paradox, but it's
not. To capture the truth of an experience, it is always necessary
to omit or change certain details. As fiction, nothing is more boring
than a blow-by-blow account of an event. The experience must be
given an overarching trestle of meaning to make it stand larger
than everyday life.
Hemingway
also touched on another problem facing the fiction writer: "In
going where you have to go, and doing what you have to do, and seeing
what you have to see, you dull and blunt the instrument you write
with. But I would rather have it bent and dulled and know I had
to put it on the grindstone again and hammer it into shape and put
a whetstone to it, and know that I had something to write about,
than to have it bright and shining and nothing to say, or smooth
and well oiled in the closet, but unused."
If
living an exciting existence tends to lessen your ability to write
about it, a humdrum life leaves you with little interesting enough
to write about. Obviously, a balance must be struck between the
two extremes. You don't have to hunt lions in Africa to write as
well as Hemingway. On the other hand, no readers will be spellbound
by a description of the dust motes floating in the office cubicle
where you work ten hours a day in tedium.
***************
Fiction
writers live in constant fear of being exposed as frauds. The reason
is simple. They're making it up as the go along -- not only their
stories, but their lives as well. John Steinbeck once said all writers
conceal their faults in their work. Before he became famous, Steinbeck
was hiding from the disapproval of his parents, who considered him
a lazy bum because he didn't want to work at a 9 to 5 job.
Many
writers create a public personna to hide behind. Hemingway, the
macho big game hunter. Salinger, the recluse. Hunter Thompson, the
drug-crazed lunatic. They are surprised and upset when these charades
occasionally backfire on them. But it helps to sell books and romanticize
lives that are often boring.
The
reading public's view of writers is a false stereotype. Writers
are seen to be politically liberal or even radical. The evidence
seems convincing on the surface. The majority of writers drink a
lot and some use drugs. Many writers lead a bohemian existence,
stay up late with loose women, sleep until noon. All of this ignores
the fact that a sizeable percentage of writers work regular hours,
remain faithful to their wives, vote Republican and invest in the
stock market. They are what Mark Twain called the irritation of
good examples.
Fortunately,
Twain wasn't one of them. He smoked and drank heavily, fornicated
and ridiculed the moral hypocrisy of respectable citizens. Whenever
he felt the urge for vigorous exercise, he would lay down until
the feeling went away. Twain was my kind of writer -- depraved,
but showing an incisive wit about the absurdities of life. Oscar
Wilde and Dorothy Parker were cast in a similar vein. Wilde could
resist anything but temptation. He believed that a good friend stabs
you in the front. When Parker was informed that ex-President Calvin
Coolidge had just died, she replied: "How could they tell?"
She once described an educated woman this way: "She speaks
eight languages and can't say no in any of them."
The
most famous group of writers was the "lost generation"
of the twenties. They lived on the Left Bank in Paris, drank wine
and "sniffed" cocaine, hung out with painters and anarchists
and prostitutes. This phenomenon was repeated after World War II
with the Beatnik writers, only they lived in San Francisco, New
York or Morocco. Then came the hippy generation of writers centered
in the Frisco bay area. Each era ended with a massive spiritual
hangover filled with regret and recrimination. The writers fell
out of fashion, sold themselves to Hollywood, committed suicide.
The current generation
has produced no great writers in America. A handful of writers have
gotten filthy rich with mediocre work that no one will remember
in the future. Fiction writing itself has become a business rather
than a creative process. The art of story telling has largely been
surrendered to television, films and music. People are not illiterate,
they're just tastelessly unliterate.
**********
Political
correctness is the new facism in intellectual circles. When Hitler
came to power in Nazi Germany, one of the first things he did was
censor what people could say. The next step was controlling what
people thought. By banning certain words and phrases and enforcing
polite euphemisms, the advocates of political correctness are not
fostering liberal ideals any more than Hitler did. Polite language
doesn't eliminate bigoted attitudes. In fact, it is a sneaky method
of hiding prejudice. Only ignorant savages believe that words have
a magical power.
We
should speak and write exactly as we feel and let the cards fall
where they may. If we are not free to do this, we are not free in
any other sense. Cunt may be an ugly way to describe a woman, but
a few women deserve it -- just like a few men deserve to be called
pricks. The same goes for spic, nigger, honkey, peckerwood, greaser,
wog, etc. These are words of anger, not external realities. Anyone
who doesn't understand that is too easily offended as well as boneheaded.
We don't live in a perfect world. Hate exists and is truthfully
expressed by hateful words. Fists, knives and guns do a lot more
damage than words.
Another
tenet of political correctness is that we should not be judgmental.
This shows a complete misunderstanding of human psychology. Man
is the only animal that judges. It is our essence and what separates
us from the other animals. By judging I mean valuing one thing over
another, assigning subjective degrees of worth, measuring, comparing
and so forth. It is literally impossible for humans to stop judging
as long as they have a pulse. Only the dead see all things as undifferentiated--
"oil and water the same as air," in the words of one writer.
I make my own judgments
like everyone else. Call it a "prejudice" if you wish,
but I believe there are basically two types of people. The higher
type uses his mind to solve problems and find satisfaction in life.
The lower type is not intelligent enough to do this and relies on
his physical attributes: muscular strength, looks, sexual prowess.
This division has nothing to do with race or ethnic background and
may go back to the evolutionary origin of modern humans. Forty thousand
years ago two different human species came into contact. Cro-Magnon
was intelligent, but had a modest physique. Neanderthal was powerfully
muscular with less intelligence. I can easily distinguish these
two types of humans in today's population. On rare occasions I see
both types in the same individual, which is always a disaster. You
can't serve two Gods or two genetic codes.
**********
The
opening scene of "Moulin Rouge" is the most amazing piece
of surrealistic film making I have ever seen. The rest of the movie
isn't as good (I admit to a bias against musicals), but the film
is worth seeing just for those first several minutes of magic. However,
I did like the way modern songs were used in a film set in 1899
Paris -- the first summer of love long before the word hippy was
ever invented. The wild plot is guaranteed to make your head spin.
***********
Some
readers expect the wrong things from works of fiction. Fiction writers
are not sociologists, psychologists or philosophers even if a few
put on such airs. They are story tellers. Their stories don't come
from years of scientific research. They are based primarily on dreams,
fantasies, hallucinations, nightmares, megalomania, hopes, phobias,
spiritual revelations, etc. They are only as interesting as the
inner life of the writer, which is much more important than his
external experiences. Proust had no social life to speak of and
wrote books from the isolation of his bed. Without a robust inner
life, a writer lacks the source of all fiction.
The
question is why have people always hungered for stories? Since there
seems to be no utilitarian purpose, is it simply a case of wanting
to escape a dull existence and live vicariously in the imagination
of writers? I think not. Those who lead fascinating lives read fiction
even more than the average person and therein lies the key to understanding
this mystery.
Fiction
is myth-making and myths are much older than science, philosophy
or religion. More than one social scientist has concluded that individual
consciousness arrived relatively recently in human history. Before
that we shared a common consciousness and we continue to share a
collective unconscious as a remnant of our primordial mentality.
By definition myths
are larger than life. They allow us to break the bounds of ordinary
existence and live briefly like gods in our imagination. They are
a bridge to an ethereal realm of awe and wonder that we enjoyed
as children but lost when we became "rational" adults.
They give us a sense of connection to the universe that we can find
in no other way. As myth-making, fiction fulfills a human need as
important to our survival as clothing and shelter. Without it, we
would stagnate in a cesspool of mental stereotypes.
**********
We
need an antidote to all of the desperate cheerfulness that exists
in society. It conceals a lurking despair that we should bring out
in the open and deal with candidly. What are we so afraid of that
we feel compelled to plaster a smile on our faces and only talk
about sunny matters? The truth has warts. Let's not be squeamish
Polyannas with each other.
**********
I will never accept the idea that creative
fiction writing can be done well in collaboration, by committee
or any other way involving more than one person. The fact that virtually
all Hollywood film scripts are group written only proves my point:
not one in a hundred has any literary merit. Accomplished novelists
such as Faulkner, Fitzgerald and Chandler were either miserable
failures in Hollywood and/or they went through the most aggravating
experience of their careers.
A
mob mentality lurks behind all group activities. People are tempted
to abandon their values, compromise, conform to the power dynamics
of the group. This has a devastating effect on the creative process.
Writing can only flourish in an atmosphere of solitude and introspection.
Like soul-searching or meditation, it requires a quiet mind and
a lack of distraction. Other people are the worst kind of distraction
because nobody thinks in the presence of others the same way he
thinks when he is alone.
Writing
is also not a 9 to 5 job nor the kind of work that can be fruitful
on someone else's schedule. The only deadline embraced by a good
writer is the inspiration of an inner vision. He waits until the
spirit moves him. The nonsense of daily word quotas leads inevitably
to hack writing. The garbage a writer successfully avoids during
sterile times may prevent him from becoming discouraged. And even
great writers can crank out garbage when they force themselves to
work without inspiration (i.e. Hemingway's "The Garden of Eden").
My own writing flows
best when I am under no pressure and simply let it happen by itself.
In contrast my most taxing experience was my second paperback book.
I wanted it to be a full-length novel, but I was up against the
publisher's deadline and the end result was a novella. Of the 38
short stories I have written, "Dust Devils" has received
the most praise from readers. This strange little tale just came
to me one day and I finished it in two brief writing sessions. I
have no idea what inspired me since the story isn't based on autobiography
like most of my writing.
The
success of "Dust Devils" offers a clue to how the creative
process works. I think the story struck a nerve in readers precisely
because it came from a dark corner of my unconscious, practically
writing itself. The importance of premeditated structure and conscious
input in general may be highly overrated. Sometimes it is useful
for a writer not to know what will happen next in a story. This
forces him to rely on intuition and emotional insight rather than
logic.
I received
a surprisingly hostile response when I tried to discuss these matters
in a writers' newsgroup recently. One poster declared that writing
was a trade, not a spiritual endeavor, and should be learned like
any other trade. Another writer ridiculed my convictions as "mysticism"
(obviously a dirty word to him). Such bourgeois attitudes do not
bode well for the future of writing. I pity anyone who thinks writing
is a kind of verbal bricklaying that can be learned from a reference
manual and I certainly don't want to read anything he writes.
**********
The
war on drugs has always been about marijuana, not coke or speed
or heroin. Eighty percent of the people in prison for drugs are
pot law convicts. There wouldn't be a war on drugs without marijuana.
I've smoked a few joints
in my time and I never understood what all of the hysteria was about.
Pot is a relatively innocuous natural substance. Straight-laced
people take stronger and more dangerous drugs every day just because
some doctor thought it was a good idea.
I
admit I've seen a small number of smokers go overboard. Some people
can get hooked on anything -- booze, food, pills, the internet,
raunchy sex, etc. A few people would be better off if they didn't
get out of bed in the morning. How any of this justifies locking
up hundreds of thousands of pot users is beyond me. It smacks of
a Puritanical witch hunt, which is an insidious tradition in America.
After we burned supposed witches at the stake, Prohibition turned
drinking into a federal offense and gangsters thrived. Then Congress
went after supposed communists in the McCarthy era. Anyone to the
left of Attila the Hun was persecuted, blacklisted out of work or
jailed. A few victims took their own lives in desperation. These
were shameful periods of American history that should never be excused
or forgotten.
Now
we have history repeating itself with pot smokers this time. I don't
smoke any longer myself, disproving the lie that pot is addictive,
but I couldn't care less if other adults choose to imbide in the
privacy of their homes. They certainly don't deserve to be treated
like criminals.
Make
no mistake about it: the war on drugs is ugly Puritanical politics.
It has nothing to do with public health, public safety or helping
people to stop using truly addictive drugs like heroin. If it did,
drug addicts would be treated as medical patients rather than being
imprisoned. The war on drugs is an expression of the government's
love affair with the punishment ethic, which is based on the insane
notion that it is acceptable to lock up a thousand harmless people
in order to keep one dangerous criminal off the streets.
**********
I
can't explain the sorry state of fiction book publishing nowadays
without focusing on the example of writers like Stephen King. The
richest writer in the world has made his fortune by telling essentially
the same story over and over with lousy writing skills. King admitted
he was too drunk to remember writing a single word of "Cujo,"
which came as no surprise to me. The fact that he became popular
during the "greed is good" 80s is also no surprise.
But King is only one example
of the current malaise. John Saul lives in a million-dollar beach
estate in Hawaii, purchased with the royalties of his best-selling
novels, yet he can barely write a complete sentence in his native
language. The list of bad writers who made it big includes Danielle
Steele, Tom Clancy, Dean Koontz and Saul Bellow. Bellow has the
embarrassing distinction of being considered "the other"
American writer who won the Nobel Prize to separate him from giants
like Hemingway, Steinbeck and Faulkner.
The
list of financially successful authors is relatively short, which
is my point. There is only so much money available in the book market
at any given time and if a few mediocre authors hog all of it, there
is nothing left for a sizeable number of good writers who never
get published. Although the reading public can't avoid blame for
this deplorable situation, publishers are just as guilty. To paraphrase
Dorothy Parker, readers don't know what they like until publishers
tell them what to like through advertising. Books are sold in exactly
the same way as toothpaste, hair dryers or any other consumer product.
The quality of the advertising campaign has a lot more to do with
sales than the quality of the writing.
I
am reminded of two one-book wonders of the past few decades. "Love
Story" sold millions of copies as did "The Bridges of
Madison County" later on. In both cases it was the advertising
and not the skills of the authors that made them so successful.
This is obvious from the fact that neither author ever wrote another
best-seller. The advertising departments couldn't render the miracle
a second time, which is easy to understand since miracles are rare
by nature.
Even though
I haven't made much money from my books, I don't consider this rant
"sour grapes" on my part. It is more like the sour reality
of book publishing that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I may not
be a great writer, but I am as good or better than several authors
who make a lavish living. I personally know a few writers more talented
than me whose work will likely never see print. If nobody ever reads
what they have to say, it will be the public's loss as well as theirs.
Instead of buying the
latest best-seller, do yourself a favor and read a manuscript by
an unpublished author. You can find many on the web by searching
Google and using the keywords short story, novel,
poetry or fiction. You might find a literary gem you couldn't buy
in any bookstore.
**********
"The
Matrix" (the first version) is a psychological nightmare couched
in the format of a sci-fi action thriller. If anyone but a writer
expressed the thoughts behind the plot, he would be diagnosed as
a schizoprhenic and pumped full of anti-psychotic drugs.
However,
the movie has an interesting premise that lurks on the periphery
of many sane minds. Is the everyday reality we experience actually
real or is it a carefully-constructed illusion maintained on an
unconscious level? This is one of the oldest questions in philosophy.
Plato thought we only see the shadows of an ideal reality. Berkeley
believed that sensory perception pointed to an unknowable reality.
Eastern philosophers were convinced that our senses give us false
information about ultimate reality.
"We
are all born into bondage," a character named Morpheus says
in the film. The matrix is a mental construct of the gilded cages
we inhabit, the scripted roles we play, but we are not aware of
its existence. This situation prevents us from experiencing the
underlying horror of our lives and breaking free.
I
think the screenwriter was motivated by a disgust for modern life.
Unwittingly, we sell our birthright (freedom) for money, social
status, power and possessions. But these are hollow goals that can
never bring any lasting fulfillment. Special effects aside, this
film is actually set in the present, not the future, and that is
its most frightening aspect.
**********
In
the realm of business and consumerism there is a strange phenomenon
known as buyer's remorse. It's the feeling that you have once again
been conned into buying something you really didn't want or need.
Retailers place obstacles in the path of a customer who suffers
from buyer's remorse and wants to cancel his purchase: return fees,
no-refund policy, credit toward another purchase, etc.
Credit
cards encourage impulse buying, which often leads to buyer's remorse.
The only cure for this malady is prevention. Don't ever buy anything
unless you are absolutely sure you want it, especially when using
a credit card. This wouldn't be a problem if we didn't live in a
society that depends on consumer idiots for continued prosperity.
**********
A
friend described one of my short stories as a "good snapshot"
of our experiences in San Francisco when we were teenagers. He had
tried unsuccessfully to write a novel about it and he thought my
story covered the high points well. Another story I submitted to
a writer's newsgroup drew criticism that it was a mere outline of
a story that should be fleshed out with more detail.
Both
assessments pinpointed an essential feature of my fiction writing
style. A snapshot is a small photograph that shows only the most
prominent features clearly. An outline is a pithy description of
a subject. These are perfect metaphors for what I term impressionistic
or minimalist writing. Like impressionist painters I strive to convey
a scene not through photographic clarity, but with bold strokes
that cut directly to the heart of the matter. I also follow Hemingway's
rule: what is left out of a story is just as important as what is
put in. The latter is a principle of Zen and Taoism, two similar
philosophies that intrigue me.
Minimalist
fiction is not very popular. Readers are accustomed to verbose windbags
who rattle on as if the quality of their stories hinged on length.
I have never cared for this type of writing. The only exceptions
are the short stories of Vladimir Nabokov, which display such an
incredible level of detail they fascinate as amazing feats of memory
or imagination.
My
own writing style is heavily influenced by my years in journalism.
When I was a newspaper reporter, my colleagues used to say I could
write the end of the world in four paragraphs and not leave anything
out. That was a compliment in journalism and I have always felt
it applied to fiction writing as well.
Minimalist/impressionistic
fiction is driven by dialogue, actions and thoughts. The writing
must be concise and the story line advanced at a rapid pace. A Hollywood
screenwriter once gave me this advice: establish the characters
and setting and then rush to the ending. Nothing kills interest
in a story more than a middle part that drags on endlessly. Elmore
Leonard taught me that characters don't need to be described in
detail: their words and actions will paint a picture of them. I
find it useful to climb inside the mind of my main character, reveal
his or her thoughts to the reader and portray the story from that
individual's point of view. Narrative description of setting should
be kept to a minimum.
Why
stick to a writing style that isn't very popular? That's a good
question and I think I have the answer. Because it turned out to
be my voice, developed after years of experimenting with different
styles. Every writer has to find his own unique voice that grows
out of his experience. Copying other writers is a complete waste
of time. Pandering to the fads of the reading public is also pointless.
Writing fiction is either an expression of a unique perspective
or else it's worthless, no matter how well it might pay in money.
It's the spiritual process of finding your own voice that counts
for everything.
Is
the impressionistic/minimalist style of writing suited to you? Probably
not. I'm afraid you will have to find your own style -- the hard
way, like every other writer who was ever worth a damn. Good luck
because you will definitely need it.
************
Love
is not only blind. It is deaf and dumb and a bit schizophrenic,
too. The saving grace of love is that it's the only true religious
experience that most people ever have in their lives. Many writers
have tried to shed some light on why it often ends so badly.
W. Somerset Maugham: In
every relationship, there is one who loves and one who is loved.
The Bible: And God placed
enmity between man and woman.
A
writer whose name escapes me: A man marries a woman hoping she will
stay the same. A woman marries a man hoping she can reform him.
They are both doomed to disappointment.
************
(Note:
The animated cartoon at the top of the page is not an accurate depiction
of me. I am MUCH better looking, I never scratch my ass, I wear
undershorts when I write rather than going al fresco, and I drink
beer instead of coffee. Caffeine makes me psychotically nervous
while beer gets my creative juices flowing. Drinking beer wearing
only shorts is every real man's dream -- plus it cools me down in
the sauna-like climate of Honolulu where I live in a gecko-infested
apartment near Punch Bowl. No, it's not an actual bowl of punch,
it's a tall volcanic crater lined with military graves.)
Only Nola, a very funny website by a woman writer in Missouri >>
The
coming of American Peonage.
Snappy
quotes from Raymond Chandler.
The weird humor of
Stephen
Wright.
Biography
of surrealist music composer Erik Satie.
The
Year of the Cat, a song by Al Stewart.
To send comments, contact me
|
