Being Garrulous (again) with Benjamin X. Wretlind (Part 2)

This is the second part of a conversation between author Benjamin X. Wretlind and myself. Please see Part 1 here.

---

MKR: Besides leaving a legacy through your writing, is there anyone you hope to inspire? Is there any message you hope to convey, any ideas you want to put out into the world?

BXW: I think you touched on a sort of running theme when you interviewed me way back when. I like to say people are the sum total of their experience and if we just look at the outside, we'll never really understand them. That often leads to stereotypes, discrimination and even bullying. For example, in each sketch in my novel Sketches from the Spanish Mustang, there is one man who is seen through the eyes of each character.  Most assume he's a crazy nut, a homeless man who talks to himself.  However, there's a very long history to that man--war vet, disabled, wife and child, etc.  Why does he act in a particular way, and why does he appear the same, yet different, in strangers' eyes?

I used to think people were generally bad. There was no good in them, so why bother to understand them. The older I get, however, the more I've started to see each person as that sum total of their history.  If that's the case, if I interact with that person don't I become another summand in their equation?  Shouldn't I want to instill something of value to their present?

I do have a lot to say on this subject, but I'll leave it at that right now.  For your part in writing science fiction, what do you want people to see in your characters? Do you have a central theme you're running off right now?

MKR: When one is a child, it seems that everything and everyone is good and beautiful. Sadly, some children learn too soon that that is not the case, like Maggie, in Castles. I think that as we age the misery in the world overshadows the beauty of it. We may remember a beautiful spring day for a short while, but we'll really remember the tornado that took out ten houses the next block over and swept a family of four into oblivion. A kindness done to us by a fellow human being may linger in our memory for a day, but an act of vicious cruelty can haunt us for a lifetime. I fully understand, then, the inclination to see people as inherently evil, especially considering the influence of Christianity on our culture that very explicitly states that the reason we no longer reside in Paradise is because of our wickedness. And it was this view of humanity as inherently base, as our bodies essentially worthless when weighed against the immortal soul, that led to the terrible conditions of Medieval Europe during which most everyone's life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," to quote Thomas Hobbes. And the worst part was, that was accepted!

In my view, it really took Enlightenment thinking, humanism and deism, to introduce to the Western world the idea that every human life has worth, every human being deserves to live peacefully and free of oppression. Here was an idea that if there is no immortal soul, if this body, this life, is all we have, how can any one of us justify bringing misery to another human being? We still haven't achieved the ideal of the Enlightenment but we are much closer and at least now the goal is there, where before there was only doom and gloom.

I love your view of human interaction. Yes, we each play a part in the lives of everyone else we encounter. Some of these roles may seem trivial but suppose it is something as simple as smiling at a stranger who looks sad? We may have brought a little joy, a little hope, to that person. We must always attempt to give value to one another's lives rather than take value from them. This is the foundation for forming a more-ideal society.

Now, after all that, I will answer your question. I realize I do go on. You asked "...in writing science fiction, what do you want people to see in your characters? Do you have a central theme you're running off right now?" In Sullivan's War, I hope that readers go away asking two very simple questions: what makes a man good? and what makes a man bad? This is touched on in Book I but explored in more depth in Book II. I don't have an answer for that. I am reminded of the difference between morality and ethics: if one is moral in the Christian sense, one does not lie. So, if one were living in Nazi Germany and a Jew ran by followed by the SS who asked which way he went, you would have to tell them the truth to remain moral. But if you are to be ethical, you must lie and send them in the wrong direction. I know situational ethics get a bad rep and I do believe there are universal ethical laws, just as there are universal physical laws. But it's something to think about. To whom do you owe your ethical fealty?

Another idea I explore in Sullivan's War is that of justification. Is it acceptable to do a "bad" thing if it ultimately leads to a greater good? In your stories, it seems your characters engage in an awful lot of justification but of a more personal, selfish kind. This also interests me. We seem to be able to justify an awful lot if it serves our own greater good. Counteracting this is one of the key challenges of society, I think. Is this a theme you have intentionally been exploring in Sketches from the Spanish Mustang?

BXW: I don't know if that internal justification is a subconscious result of turning 40, but Sketches from the Spanish Mustang is filled with it. I'd like to think I've been impervious to middle age, but the more I write, the more I realize I'm probably not. I really enjoy exploring a character's inner child, what makes them who they are. In A DifficultMirror, which I started when I turned 28, actually, the history of a person is forced out in the open and how they deal with whatever mistakes they've made is explored in depth.  That's dark fantasy, however, not reality. In reality, we all have our skeletons, our histories we hide away so no one can see.  However, no matter what we do, we are the sum total of our parts and we can either accept what we've done or try to justify it in some way. 

As I sit here talking about this, I realized that the characters in my upcoming novel Driving the Spike must justify their actions. Are they good, are they bad? Much like you explored in Sullivan'sWar, there is a difference between morality and ethics. Did you start out with that theme before you penned the first word of Sullivan's War or did it come out as you wrote it?

MKR: It evolved. Sullivan's War started as the story about Frank Allen investigating the murder of Assemblyman Gene Palmer. From there it got tied in to Sergeant Riley's Account, then a third story I had written called "Promises," the story of a bounty hunter tracking down a criminal, got incorporated into the beginning of Sullivan's War: Book II. Now, early on I must have decided that Sullivan's War would address these issues of right and wrong because the title All Good Men Serve the Devil was there from nearly the beginning. I actually wrote out a bit of dialogue to incorporate that line before I got to that scene in the book. By the time Book I was finished, however, I felt that it was heavy on action but character development and exploration of theme were a bit lacking. I attempted to correct that with Book II.

My next project, Chrysopteron, started a bit aimlessly but as I wrote the overarching theme began to reveal itself. It was at that point that I wrote an outline to make sure I hit on all the thematic points I wanted to address: hope, loss, faith, sacrifice, right and wrong (again). I ended up shuffling the organization a bit and added another story line but the thematic structure remained intact. I hope readers will pick up on it and appreciate what I am trying to do. Of course, the reader applies additional meaning based on his or her own perceptions. I think the best authors are able to convey their own meaning but be subtle enough about it that the reader happens upon it without explicitly being told. But I guess some readers will completely miss the point, no matter what you do. Do you worry that readers will completely miss the point of your work? Do you care, as long as they pull some meaning from it? Or are you even content for your work to be perceived as just an interesting story, with the reader taking nothing away?

BXW: I really don't worry about what readers get out of my novels, as long as they get something.  There's a meme that's been passed around regarding meaning that you've probably seen.  "What the author meant" vs. "What your English teacher thinks the author meant."  While I can laugh at the simplicity of the author's statement ("The curtains were blue") and the teacher's meaning ("The curtains represent his immense depression and his lack of will to carry on"), I find this meme more telling of what literary snobs think we should get from a novel.  For example, if the New York Times says Castles reeks of abuse and discord, then to me they didn't get it.  Conversely, if the Colorado Springs Gazette says Castles is a view into the growth of a woman through abuse and neglect and carefully questions how environment can affect genetic mutations in the brain, then I think they're pretty close.  Now, what do my readers come away with?  I would hope the literary snobs don't mutate my message, and I hope I write it clear enough that it sinks in with the masses.

I've been very focused on the themes presented in Sketchesfrom the Spanish Mustang. As I mentioned before, it's important to me that I impart the idea that people are the sum total of their days and not just a present manifestation with or without obvious merit.  I do worry the message won't reach the reader, but all I can do is try.

Do you ever worry?

MKR: Do I worry about the message not reaching the reader? I wouldn't say I worry, per se, but I do make a point of writing afterwords for my major works. I do this not so the readers "gets it" but because I want to communicate with the readers on a more personal level. I want them to know what went into creating the story, the inspirations, etc. I think that knowing these things does enrich a text.

I like how the focus of much of your work is trying to make the point that a person is the sum of his or her experiences. It's a profound message, and yet so simple. For example, I am the product of very fortunate circumstances. Because of where and when and to whom I was born, I have been able to cultivate a life of ease and comfort in which I can spend a great deal of my time writing, reading, traveling, focusing on art, philosophy, etc. rather than worrying about where my next meal is going to come from. Reading about the problems that the characters in Sketches from the Spanish Mustang face really reinforces how good my life is, how petty my problems.

Do you think that you are trying to point humanity (or America, at least) in a different direction? Do you want readers to go away thinking that if people are the sum of their experiences, perhaps society as a whole could do something to make some of those experiences more positive? Or is it up to individuals to engage one another and help their fellow human beings along?

BXW: Afterwords are often my favorite part of a book, and I really enjoy reading them.  James Rollins typically puts in a fact or fiction section at the end based on his research.  I know it sounds petty, but that's cool.

I really never thought my writing could point America or the world toward any lofty goal, however I would like to reach at least one person.  It's very important I leave a mark on someone's life, whether or not that's with Sketches from the Spanish Mustang, Castles, the upcoming A Difficult Mirror or the next novel I'll start working on this summer.  That next novel--Driving the Spike--is probably going to be the closet I get to pointing humanity at anything, but I sincerely doubt it'll have the lofty impact I want it to have.

I think there's something to be said about a person who engages another without expectation of reward, and even the smallest attempt to help another can make the biggest impact.  To help without expectation of reward, I truly believe, makes a man (or woman).  Most of us drop money into the Salvation Army bucket during the holiday season, but how many take a full Saturday and sort donations in a food bank warehouse or stand on a serving line at a soup kitchen or walk ten miles for autism research?  These things are small and there is no reward save the feeling you get for helping.  Sadly, there are a lot of people who don't look at life this way; they expect something tangible in return for their effort--getting paid to be a foster parent, getting a t-shirt from a MS walk, showing off some certificate from the two hours they did something for someone.  Helping shouldn't be like that.

I guess I got on my soapbox again. I tend to do that.

Being Garrulous (again) with Benjamin X. Wretlind(Part 1)

For those few of you who read Chewing the Cud in the Myriad Spheres, the previous conversation between Benjamin X. Wretlind and myself, here is another exciting installment! Due to its lack of brevity (which is chiefly my fault) we have decided to break it into two parts. Enjoy!

BXW: So I was reading over your latest blog post, Inventing a Universe, and a thought popped into my head: during the writing of Sketches from the Spanish Mustang I spent a great deal of time getting into the characters' heads, walking the paths they might take, looking at the town through their eyes.  Likewise, with the novel I intend to start this summer, Driving the Spike, I have already started the process by walking some railroad tracks where an accident occurred 108 years ago.   The idea, of course, is to see the world through the eyes of my characters.  However, with Science Fiction, especially with imagined worlds (or parallel universes like you discuss), how do you see the world though your character's eyes?

MKR: What I like to keep in mind is that people are people, whether they lived ten thousand years ago or ten thousand years from now. If I were a Clovis hunter following herds of mammoth across the Great Plains I think that, despite the vastly different way of life, my fellow hunters and I would sit around the campfire at night and shoot the breeze just as I do with my friends today. The technology would be different, our clothes, our language, our way of perceiving the universe would all be different but we would still be human beings. A heart not unlike mine would beat in the breast of my Clovis twin. I would want food, shelter, love, companionship. In the two hundred thousand years our species has wandered this Earth that has not changed and there is no reason to believe it will change in the near future.

Now, I have never taken down a mammoth with a spear. But I can imagine it. As a writer, imagination is key to understanding other people, people who eventually become "characters." Would it help if I could go back in time and see how a hunting party surrounded and felled a mammoth, where they jabbed their spears, how many of them it took? Of course. But I can't, so if I were to write a mammoth-hunting scene my imagination would fill in the blanks that the archaeological record has left behind. So it is with science fiction. When we write about the future we are not writing from a blank slate. We have all of human history to draw on to understand how human beings will react in different situations. For example, we know that we tend to be suspicious and aggressive when encountering intelligent beings not like ourselves (from history, we have the sad lesson of the Europeans' encounter with the indigenous Americans. In my fiction, look at the treatment of the Squamata in Sergeant Riley's Account and Sullivan's War: Book II.) Another example from history that I draw on is the simple fact that people generally want to be free of oppression. The entire Sullivan's War series is about this and how many times throughout history has a power structure has fallen due to the discontent of the oppressed? Here where I live in the Southwest, Hohokam civilization collapsed around 1400 CE and there are Pima legends that indicate that the people rose up against the powerful.

So writing science fiction is simply writing about people. I cannot see alien worlds or travel through hyperspace in a ship but my brain is capable of understanding what they might be like. My imagination can fill in the gaps left after taking the entire shared experience of human culture into account. I see their worlds because their eyes are like mine. I share their hopes and desires because those are common to all human beings across history. And my invented universe is not that different from our own, when you really examine it. There are real-life parallels to many of the things I write about.

Now, what I find interesting is that in Castles you described experiences unfamiliar to you despite the fact that those experiences are real for all too many young women across the country, across the world. For me, that is as remarkable a feat as bringing to life an alien landscape. We've talked about this before, but would you care to talk a bit about Maggie's story?

BXW: As I've mentioned before, I believe Maggie spoke through me in a way that's really hard to describe without coming off sounding--how should I put it?--bat-shit crazy.  The fact I squirrel away information that comes to me via media may have enabled my subconscious to postulate how a woman might view a certain situation more so than a man who is trying to force the character into action.  For example, I had a lot of trouble near the middle of the story related to Maggie's view of abuse at the hand of her boyfriend because that's just not something I'd ever experienced.  Somehow after a few months or years, though--and after dealing with abusive people as a manager--Maggie spoke up.

Getting into a character's head is important to me, and that's one reason I like to interact with their supposed environment if I can, and if I can't, then to spend an inordinate amount of time researching that environment. However, in A Difficult Mirror, a dark fantasy epic novel to be released (hopefully) next winter, I couldn't walk around the environment since it didn't exist.  Not that I couldn't take clues from other stories, but that the environment just didn't exist.  (That's a bit vague, I know, but the novel isn't out yet.)

You brought up something I'm curious about. I've mentioned to you before that I was never a huge fan of science fiction; that distinction fell to my brother. I was the fantasy type, the one who believed in dragons and wizards and spells, oh my!  However, some historic science fiction I've read has held a sort of special place in my heart simply because of the impact on our present.  I am, of course, talking about the work of Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, or Arthur C. Clarke.  Even Philip K. Dick. Their imaginations of technological advances helped pave the way for our present.  Writers like Ray Bradbury or George Orwell, on the other hand, wrote people into the future--much like you describe--and did so without the need to characterize or build up technology that didn't exist.

How do you view technology in your stories? How do you imagine worlds without borders or limitations, and do you hope to one day create something that would inspire some future geneticist or engineer?

MKR: Technology. Well, let me first point out that I am not technologically-minded at all. I am endlessly fascinated by it but if I had to actually try to describe how an intricate piece of software or hardware operated, I'd probably be trying to do it with sticks and a length of string. So, the technology in my stories isn't particularly original. I'll readily admit that. I rely on many tried and true tropes of the genre: hyperspace travel, energy weapons, fold-up tablet computers, three-dimensional displays. Now, since the Sullivan's War story line is supposed to take place about five hundred years in the future, this may seem like pretty low-tech stuff. I actually have a reason for this that will eventually reveal itself as I continue to explore this universe. I will just say that just because a technological advance is made doesn't mean it will be readily accepted.

I suppose I am comfortable with a certain level of technology, a level that has already been explored by many science fiction writers and is accepted and liked by a great many science fiction readers. Again, my own ignorance about technology prevents me from currently writing anything like cyberpunk. I just don't have the background to do it justice. So I really don't see my science fiction as the type that will inspire future engineers. Rather, I see my work as inspiring (if, in fact, it inspires anyone at all) future humanitarians, future philosophers. Remember, science fiction is about exploring how humans respond to fantastical situations as much as it is about inventing and describing cool technology. This is one of the reasons I consider 2001: A Space Odyssey to be my favorite book. Clarke had the scientific knowledge to make the technology one hundred percent plausible but the story is, essentially, about humanity. I mean, it begins with the dawn of consciousness, with the evolution (via external means in his story) of creatures that would one day become human beings! Because of his invented world of the near future, his characters--Dave Bowman in particular--are able to have experiences that no other humans have before experienced. How it affects them is just as fascinating as how future technology, such as the HAL 9000 computer, might work (or not work). How does the realization that an alien intelligence has visited our solar system affect them?

I often think about what would happen if we were to wake up one day and have undeniable proof that we were not alone in the universe. What effect would it have on world religions? I mean, in the 16th century Copernicus developed a heliocentric model of the solar system and while no one with any sense would deny the truth of this model today, there are many who still have a very geocentric, or Earth-centric, view of reality: that we, human beings, are at the center of God's divine plan, that, in fact, we are created in God's image and are his chosen species. Remember, it was only two thousand years ago that not only were humans God's chosen species on the planet, but a very specific group inhabiting the Levant were his chosen race. I speak from a Judeo-Christian perspective, of course, because it is the tradition that has most shaped the Western world. Now, this type of thinking has been used to justify and explain our dominance on this planet. But what if another, intellectually superior species managed to cross the vast distances between star systems and arrive at ours? God wouldn't seem to favor us so strongly then, would he?

I do believe in a creator. To believe in a specific god requires more faith than I have, though. I must trust that the creator, whatever it may be, gave me the ability--via evolution--to observe the world empirically for a reason. We are a species that is meant to question the world around us, not invent angels and devils to which to ascribe the mysteries of the universe. To return to my main point, this is my focus when I write science fiction. I hope to inspire future dreamers, people who will look at our world and see it for what it really is but also see what it can be if we throw off the shackles of tribe, of clan, of race, of nation, even of species. I know that to date my work hasn't explored this as fully as I would like but I am working toward it and my next project, Chrysopteron, will fully explore these ideas.

Read Part 2 here!

David Nevin's Adding Value Interviews

I was pleased when David Nevin asked to interview me for a series of interviews he has conducted on the topic of adding value to the writing community. The first of these interviews with Melissa Foster, a well-known and respected writer in the Indie community, was posted on April 10th. My interview went live earlier today and I would encourage you all to read both of the interviews, as well as those to come, and think about how helping other writers is not only a good thing to do because it is the right thing to do but because, ultimately, it is a way of helping yourself as well. I have had such wonderful experiences interacting with other writers ever since I published my first eBook in November of 2011 and I look forward to continued positive interaction and mutual support.

Visit this link to go directly to Mr. Nevin's interview with me:
http://davidnevin.net/2012/04/adding-value-interview-with-michael-k-rose/

The interview with Melissa Foster, as well as future interviews, can be found here:
http://davidnevin.net/category/adding-value/

A Guide to Attending the Symphony or Opera, Part II

Welcome to the next exciting installment of "A Guide to Attending the Symphony or Opera!" The first part, which can be found here, covered the basic guidelines one should follow when attending one of these events. This part will go over the musical forms one is likely to hear when attending a symphonic performance. Believe it or not, when you go to the symphony you aren't necessarily going to hear a symphony! But if your knowledge of classical music is minimal, there is no need to worry about this. I'll walk you through the five most common musical forms performed by today's symphony orchestras.

1. The Symphony - This is the obvious one. Wikipedia defines a symphony as "an extended musical composition in Western classical music, scored almost always for orchestra." Most symphonies are in multiple movements, or parts, with four movements being the "standard" organization. Typically, there are thematic elements that run through the entire symphony. These musical themes can be very apparent or they can be subtle and picked up only after repeated listenings. This is why, as I recommend in Part I, it is valuable to listen to a recording of the piece you're going to hear. It is truly exhilarating when you first pick up on a theme in a piece of music. You then begin to hear the piece as a whole, how each element relates to all the others, rather than as a series of nice-sounding notes. As also mentioned in Part I, do not applaud until the entire symphony is over. There will usually be breaks between each movement so if you are unsure, wait for the majority of the audience to clap, not just a few scattered clappers. A warning: some symphonies will try to trick you. There can be more (or fewer) than four movements, one movement can lead to the next attacca (meaning without pause; see the last two movements of Beethoven's 5th Symphony) or the movements may be atypically arranged. Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony is a superb example. It has a rousing third movement which leads many to believe it is the finale. However, there is a fourth movement, a beautiful and mournful adagio. If there is raucous applause after the third movement, the solemnity of the fourth movement can be affected.

2. The Concerto - Symphonies and concertos are the most common musical forms you will encounter when going to see a live performance. Wikipedia defines a concerto as "a musical work usually composed in three parts or movements, in which (usually) one solo instrument (for instance, a piano, violin, cello or flute) is accompanied by an orchestra." So, very simply, it is like a symphony but with a soloist playing a virtuoso part along with the orchestra. As mentioned it is usually in three movements, typically arranged fast-slow-fast. The solo instrument can be anything but you will most commonly encounters violin concertos, cello concertos and piano concertos because they are the most popular. One of my favorite concertos is actually a guitar concerto by Joaquin Rodrigo called "Concierto de Aranjuez." The second movement, the adagio, is often heard in movies, TV shows and commercials. Miles Davis brilliantly interpreted the movement for trumpet on his Sketches of Spain album.

3. Choral Music - Sometimes a symphony orchestra will pair with a choral group to present choral music which can be a nice change of pace. Some choral works include soloists singing certain parts of the work. Choral music forms some of the most beautiful and uplifting music in the Western canon, particularly the cantatas by Bach. And, of course, one of the most spectacular choral works is Mozart's Requiem. It is even more moving when one considers that it is the last piece of music he ever worked on. Beethoven's 9th Symphony is both a symphony and a choral work, with the chorus entering during the last movement to sing Schiller's inspiring words.

4. Chamber Music - It is not too common for a symphony orchestra to perform chamber music and there is a very good reason for this. Chamber music gets it's name from the fact that these works were meant to be played in a chamber, or room, of a house. So, what is chamber music? Most pieces of chamber music are called trios, quartets, quintets, septets, octets, etc. It depends on how many instruments are used to play the piece with the configurations of instruments varying wildly. However, the most common form of chamber music you will hear is the string quartet, consisting of two violins, a viola and a cello. As mentioned, symphony orchestras do not often put on programs of chamber music but in any large city there will be groups of chamber musicians or organizations that put on performances. Again, most chamber music is in several movements (four movements are typical for string quartets). This is also a nice change of pace from orchestral music because one gets to hear each player individually as well as in combination with only a few other instruments. The harmonies that can be produced by a string quartet border on the divine. Also, if you want to prepare a quiet, romantic dinner at home, chamber music is an ideal choice for the stereo.

5. Lieder or Songs - This is another rare treat, especially if you like vocal music. A song can be sung by one or more soloists and can be accompanied by just a solo piano or a full orchestra. Often, songs will be arranged in cycles by a composer, with each song telling part of a larger story or following a common theme. Some famous song cycles include Schubert's Die schöne Müllerin (The Lovely Miller Maid) and Mahler's moving Kindertotenlieder (Songs on the Death of Children). If a symphony orchestra performs a program that includes songs, it will often only be part of the program, say the first half, with the second half devoted to orchestral music.

I hope this post has encouraged you to get out and support your local symphony! I am by far an expert on classical music, I am merely an enthusiast. However, if there are any questions you may have feel free to ask them in the comments section. I also welcome corrections to anything I have written here. Part III, coming at some undisclosed future date, will focus exclusively on opera.

See Also:
A Guide to Attending the Symphony or Opera, Part I

Classic Science Fiction 04: “The Last Question” by Isaac Asimov

(Note: After writing this I realized that it is less an examination of "The Last Question" than it is an expression of the thoughts and feelings the story inspired in me. But after all, isn't that what fiction is for?)

What is the ultimate fate of humanity? Annihilation. If our descendants are still around in five billion years and even if they somehow manage to escape our solar system when the sun expands to incinerate the Earth, they will eventually die, along with the rest of the universe. Some 100 trillion years from now star formation will cease. The universe will slowly die. Entropy will be irreversible. I doubt we would be recognizable as humans by that point but it wouldn't matter. Everything we had accomplished, all our scientific advances, all the great art and music, the books and poems, would all have been for naught. Even if the universe then collapses back upon itself and gives birth to a new big bang, a new universe, all matter will have been reverted to the molecular state. Nothing that existed before will exist any longer.

Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question" chronicles several generations of humans and their descendants pondering the question of how the entropy of the universe can be decreased. They address this question to various incarnations of supercomputers and the answer is always the same: "INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER." I will not reveal the ending in case you haven't read it (you can read it here) but the asking of the question, not the ultimate answer, is what fascinates me most about this story.

Everything humankind has accomplished will eventually be destroyed. No matter what happens to the universe, every trace of us will ultimately vanish. What does this mean? How does one process this information?

I suppose most people just end up ignoring it. They may read about entropy, etc., may briefly realize what this means, then slip comfortably back into their lives. Perhaps this is the most logical response. After all, what can you do about it? Nothing. Why let if affect you?

But I do not believe this is the correct response. What we should do is realize that no matter what happens in the future, we have today. We have the people around us that we love and care about, we have the ability to make today better not just for ourselves but for others. When you look at life on the scale of the entire history of the universe, isn't it a bit mind-boggling that of all the possible outcomes, your life is one of them? Doesn't it give you pause to think that the chain of events that led to your existence goes back nearly fourteen billion years in an unbroken line?

As Carl Sagan said, "[s]ome part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return. And we can. Because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star-stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

What do we take away from this? How should we live our lives, knowing this? I've written before about wishing to leave a literary legacy. I've expressed the hope that my work is read a hundred years from now or more. It is an egotistical wish, to be sure. But I think about legacy in more ways than one. If there is some message I can impart to future readers, if one of them reads my work and goes away thinking about notions of right and wrong, thinking about what could be done to make our little corner of the universe more just, more peaceful, then my legacy will have been secured. But I need not write a single word to accomplish this. If I can have a positive influence on the lives of the people I know, if I can live by example and show them that a life of joy and contentment can be had without exploiting or hurting others--that, in fact, the joy is more pure than if I had gained it on the backs of others--I will have left a legacy. If they, in turn, try to live their lives according to the same ideals, they can leave a legacy when they are gone.

The future illuminates the present. What can happen tomorrow tells us very clearly and without hesitation what we must do today. If tomorrow we may die, then today we must live. If tomorrow a child will go hungry, then today we must arrange to feed her. If tomorrow a war may begin, then today we must ensure peace. These are not difficult things to grasp. We have the means to largely rid the world of misery. Why haven't we? Is it the nihilistic strain within humanity that says that ultimately it won't matter? No. It is the selfishness that says whatever I give to them, I cannot have for myself. Well, that ultimately won't matter either. But if you can bring a little joy, a little happiness to someone's life, if you can remove a little misery from the world, that does matter. That will have an effect here and now. And if enough of us do it, it can have an effect until the universe comes to an end.

Perhaps we shouldn't ask "how can entropy be decreased?" but rather "how can joy be increased?" And let it not be the last question, but the first. Humanity's joy is my joy, humanity's accomplishments are my accomplishments. What benefits the planet benefits me in a very nontrivial way. Maybe that is what I am after when I speak of legacy. I want a way for my life to have not been trivial. To do this, I write. But I also live my life as well and as ethically as I can. I suppose that even if I don't leave behind a literary legacy, this will have been enough. This will have made a difference and my life, in that unbroken chain leading from the beginning of the universe to its end, will have been a link worthy of that legacy.

What Science Means to Me

I am a science fiction writer. I write in other genres, but science fiction is my first love. I love the possibilities, I love, as I said in a recent interview, asking and answering the "what ifs?" But this is the fiction part. Let's examine the science part for a moment.

It is an ironic fact that science makes science fiction more difficult. The pulp science fiction stories of the '30s did not have to adhere to the truths of the universe because those truths were not known. Rocketry was in its infancy, there was still very serious speculation about life--nay, civilizations--on Mars and Venus and the relationship between time and space that Einstein had proposed was not fully--or even partially--understood outside of the offices and laboratories of physicists.

So we had rockets taking off then landing vertically on Mars or Venus and encountering bizarre alien creatures. We had ships travelling to distant stars via standard propulsion and returning a mere months or years later.

But as science progressed, as we learned that Mars was a cold and barren landscape with little liquid water, as we learned that the atmosphere of Venus was poisonous and oppressive, as aeronautics advanced and the vast distances between the stars became insurmountable with any technology the mind of man could then dream of, those stories came to seem... ridiculous. Especially reading from our 21st century perspective, those stories are not just implausible but laughably so.

But those stories laid the groundwork for something wonderful. Future thinkers read them and let their imaginations run rampant. Some of them went on to become the physicists who showed the implausibilty of those stories. I think that for many, science fiction opened up the world of science. I recall a television program that interviewed several scientists and engineers who were directly inspired by Star Trek. Science fiction, even in its infancy, was mind-expanding stuff!

And so it was--it is--for me. But here I must make a confession: while I am endlessly fascinated by science, while I would say I know more than the average American about the evolution of the universe, much of it I find completely baffling. I simply cannot comprehend how a human mind was able to come up with relativity or string theory just by observing the universe and conducting thought experiments. I cannot do it. I am not a genius. I received my degree in anthropology, a safe, secure discipline. There are many questions still to be answered, of course, but it is much easier to get a grasp on human civilization and culture than it is the formation of the cosmos.

And here's another confession: the science in my science fiction is not "hard" by any means. I rely on tried and true tropes such as hyperspace travel. However, I think I did come up with an interesting way to explain how hyperspace travel works and if you've read Sullivan's War: Book II you can let me know what you think of it.

But despite this, despite my vast lack of understanding and my reluctance to use science rigorously in my fiction, science still means a great deal to me. It means that as a species we are beginning to get a grasp on the true origins of the universe. The physical laws that we observe are a part of the creation and if one believes in a creator, as I do, then those laws can be seen as a kind of guidepost toward the truth. Those laws have repeatedly struck down the fears and superstitions of less-enlightened ages. Science, and the knowledge that we receive through it, is a gift.

For example, an intellectually honest person cannot rigorously study biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, archaeology, primatology, paleontology, linguistics, physics, history, mythology, genetics, medicine or theology and still believe in creationism, that the Earth, and by extension the universe, simply came into being fully-formed, or very near it. One may still believe in a creator, that there was some impetus for the creation of matter, but all of the ancient creation myths--and the modern ones--must be cast aside through the use of the greatest gift given to humanity, be that gift from a creator or otherwise. They must be cast aside by the gift of knowledge.

Through science, the truth is illuminated. Through science, ignorance can be left in the past if we so choose. Through science, we can make the world a better place for our descendants and leave a legacy of striving to understand the marvelous universe that surrounds us.

What does science mean to you? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

Chewing the Cud in the Myriad Spheres

The following is an e-mail conversation between Benjamin X. Wretlind and myself between March 6th and March 14th. Both Ben and I thought it would be interesting for readers to see how a couple of Indie writers look at the world. We tried to talk mostly about writing but, of course, it quickly got sidetracked into the meaning of life, what makes for good art and Justin Bieber.

MKR: Ben, we’ve both written about the topic of “legacy.” In your case, you have stated that the reason you write is to leave a legacy (link). I wrote that I believe writers–at least this writer–have an obligation to leave something of value to society, something that enriches our culture rather than cheapens it (link). Do you have any further thoughts on this?

BXW: I’ve been thinking about this a lot, lately, although I don’t like to admit it’s because I’m almost 40 and I’m falling victim to that whole “mid-life crisis” thing. I actually spent a good amount of time in the early ‘90s studying philosophy and various religious texts to see if I could come up with an answer to the question that was on my mind: not what the meaning of life is but if it’s a reasonable goal to expect to leave something of value for future generations and if so, what defines value.

I read your blog article on the topic of whether or not a writer has a responsibility to leave a legacy behind, and I thought it amusing that a snippet of Star Trek IV popped into my head after one of your statements. If I may quote your blog:

“Good art has staying power. A work of art may take the nation by storm for a summer–think of films or pop songs or mass market thrillers–but who will remember it a year from now? A generation from now? In two hundred years the works of Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, will still be performed. Adele? Probably not. MC Hammer? Certainly not…Great art has to transcend those boundaries and be as meaningful for a person a hundred years from now and a continent away as it is for those who were around when it was created.”

And now the Star Trek IV banter between Kirk and Spock:

Kirk: You mean the profanity? That’s simply the way they talk here. Nobody pays attention to you unless you swear every other word. You’ll find it in all the literature of the period.
Spock: For example?
Kirk: Oh the neglected works of Jacqueline Susan. The novels of Harold Robbins…
Spock: Ah, the “Giants.”

While amusing, the conversation sort of “fine tunes” your statement that great art must be as relevant centuries from now as it is now. Does this mean that we must–and I stress must–create art that lasts the test of time? Should that be our goal and a good part of the legacy we leave behind? Or should we focus more on art in the now–write that which is fits into whatever Jell-O mold that’s currently in vogue?
Personally, I say screw the Jell-O and write what you want, hoping Spock reads it years from now.

MKR: On that same topic as that Star Trek quote, I personally feel that Catcher in the Rye hasn’t aged well at all. I feel like it’s one of those novels that got onto the high school reading lists because it was about a teen-aged kid and teachers have clung to it ever since based on that alone. Mainly, I think Holden Caulfield’s attitude/personality is not reflective of “the Universal teen,” so to speak. He came out of a very specific Jell-O mold that doesn't play in the 21st century. His particular brand of “angst” just doesn’t seem authentic.

As to whether or not we must leave something that will last the test of time, I think we must at least strive to do it. Ultimately, it’s not up to us. But if we only write books that are in the currently popular mold, it’ll be like disco: rarely spoken of and, when it is, much maligned.

Tell me, when you were studying philosophy and religion did you find the answer you were looking for? It’s actually funny that you mentioned that because yesterday I wrote a blog post about politics and religion in fiction (link). I’ll probably post it sometime today. And while we’re on it, do you feel there is one specific “meaning of life?”

BXW: I think there is only one meaning, but it’s different for every person. For me, the meaning of life, the universe and everything is 42. Or was that the answer?

No, I didn’t find what I was looking for in those religious and philosophical texts, and although this sounds like a U2 song, I still haven’t found what I was looking for. I think, like you said, it’s reasonable to strive to leave a legacy–and for those who have the gift of storytelling, perhaps leaving a legacy might even be considered a responsibility. However, there are those who want to leave their mark and, believe me, the mark they leave doesn’t have the impact they hoped it would.

I’ve been tossing around a blog post on literary fiction, what defines it and how it can be marketed well. Not that I have any idea how to market anything (see here), but it’s been an interesting research topic. Part of the Wikipedia article on literary fiction (link) contains an interesting line, especially in light of our conversation here. “Literary fiction may also be characterized as lasting fiction–literature which continues to be read and in-demand many decades and perhaps centuries after the author has died.”
Interesting….

MKR: You say the meaning of life will be different for every person. But wouldn’t you say that there are some things that definitely aren’t the meaning of life? For example, can desiring to die a millionaire be a valid meaning? True, if one has children that will leave them in good shape financially but what if one neglected his children during life to amass that fortune? I guess my point is I reject the idea that anything can be meaningful–truly meaningful. What if someone sees it as their life’s goal to build the ultimate Justin Bieber fan site? That may be the meaning of that individual’s life but is it valid and valuable to society as a whole? This also gets back to my art vs. great art discussion. I am very liberal in what I will call art. If fact, the only criterion I have is that it must have been intentionally created as art. Now, it may be created to serve other purposes as well–religious or architectural, for example–but there is still an artistic desire in the heart of its creator. But just because I will call something art does not mean it is great art.

So, I think the meaning of one’s life–whatever it may be–must have meaning to society as a whole. And for that meaning to be great it must endure, as we’ve talked about. In a hundred years Justin Bieber will be dead and his music will be largely forgotten. If that fan site exists at all it will be rarely visited. What will that person’s life work have amounted to?

How many millions of lives have been spent worrying about ultimately inconsequential things? How many billions of days were wasted on idle frivolity? It’s kind of a depressing thought but the overwhelming majority of humanity is destined to be forgotten. Once we are dead and everyone who knew us personally is dead we will be nothing more than unvisited gravestones, ghosts in photographs and meaningless names. I think that the meaning of life–my life–is to avoid this fate. I probably won’t have children so I won’t leave a genetic legacy but I hope that I can leave a lasting literary legacy. Which is why I like that definition that you provided for “literary fiction.” It is exactly what I hope to accomplish.

If one considers one’s own life, it can be largely broken up into three pursuits, each occupying about a third of our life. The first third is occupied by work, the second third by sleep and the last third by everything else. It is in that last third–unless one is fortunate enough to have a job that allows one to work toward one’s legacy–that one must accomplish all of this. Eight hours a day–perhaps six or even five, when one takes out time spent preparing for work or bed, commuting, taking care of the necessities of life–are left to us to achieve our dreams. It is ironic that such little time is given to us to work toward immortality. Even eternity has an expiration date.

BXW: Sorry for the delay in responding. I got stuck on the Justin Bieber fan site.
You say that eternity has an expiration date. Can you elaborate on that a bit?

MKR: Simply that if we want to be remembered for eternity we have a very short time in which to accomplish that. As a self-professed idler, I am guilty of this myself, but how much time do we spend watching television, surfing Justin Bieber fan sites, oversleeping, playing video games, etc., when we could be working toward immortality? Of course, there are things we have to do and things we do because they bring us pleasure; this is understandable. Human interaction is important, maintaining good mental health is important, having some form of release is important. But I think that the vast majority of us here in the Western world (I won’t pretend to presume what the lives of those in developing countries are like) seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on frivolities. What are your thoughts on it?

BXW: We do spend a lot of our time on frivolities, but perhaps some of life should be spent that way. In my own world, I write early in the morning before anyone is awake. In the free time I have after the day job, I usually paint, read or sing poor karaoke tunes with the significant other. I think it’s necessary for a writer who has the ultimate goal of immortality via art, to work at it as much as possible. However, as James Howell told us in 1659: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.”

Of course the addition to that proverb as written in 1825 by Maria Edgeworth warns us that “All play and no work makes Jack a mere toy.”

I guess, in that respect, life must be balanced appropriately with the pursuit of immortality.

MKR: You are, of course, correct. As writers we place upon our shoulders the task of revealing the world, revealing life, in a unique way. To do this we must, of course, live life! A writer who attempts to separate himself from the world so that he might work at his art is doing himself a great disservice. I think that the important thing is to spend a good portion of your time doing things of value, things that will strengthen your craft as a writer or improve and enrich your life–or the lives of others–in some way.

-----

Benjamin X. Wretlind is the author of the literary horror novel Castles: A Fictional Memoir of a Girl with Scissors as well as the ongoing Sketches from the Spanish Mustang.

If you've enjoyed our conversation, feel free to add to it in the comments section below! Look for to a continuation of our ramblings over the next month or so!

Links:

Benjamin X. Wretlind's Blog

Benjamin X. Wretlind's Amazon Author Page 

Michael K. Rose's Amazon Author Page

A Conversation with Benjamin X. Wretlind - An interview I conducted in January

Chewing the Cud with Author Michael K. Rose - An interview Ben conducted in February

A Writer's Responsibility

     Two blog posts ago (in the post entitled Reflections on Writing and "Buy Indie Month") I mentioned that writers are inherently selfish. Some who read the post took minor issue with this statement. I, of course, did not mean that only writers are selfish and that compared to us the balance of the world's population is dripping with the milk of human kindness. No, not at all. I consider myself to be a rather generous person, actually, as long as I don't inconvenience myself in the process. And every human being who ever walked the Earth has been selfish in one way or another. Anything we do for our own sake is selfish. Whenever we spend time pursuing things that bring us pleasure rather than working to end hunger or prejudice, for example, is selfish.

     But this did set me thinking more about an issue I touched on in that post. I wrote that those with a voice to which the masses listen, those who are able to reach a great many people, should ask themselves what their voices are contributing to society. In a writer's selfish pursuit of writing--whatever his reasons for writing may be--shouldn't he endeavor to ensure that his writing results in a net positive to society?

     I believe that art is anything that is done for the sake of art. There may be additional motives (such as fame or fortune) and there is, of course, a vast difference between "good art" and "bad art" but I have found that works which are broadly defined as "good art" or "great art" possess a few common features.

     1. It is done for the art first. Of course, many of the greatest artists and composers had wealthy patrons but were they artists because they believed it would make them some scratch? I'm sure more than one skilled artist hoped to become the darling of a particular court or city but if the driving force was the art itself, then I believe by its very nature it will be superior to art which is done for other reasons. Commercial art, for example, is produced to sell products. The work of Thomas Kinkade, I am certain, is driven chiefly by profit. There is nothing wrong with making your art commercially viable, of course, but to create truly great art the impetus must be the art itself.

     2. Good art is attractive. Note that I do not say "beautiful" but "attractive." This means that good art must attract the attention of an audience. To do this it can be exceedingly beautiful, of course, or it can be exceedingly ugly and disturbing, it can be terrifying or saddening. But without the attention of an audience, it will fail, no matter what its other merits may be.

     3. Good art is meaningful. For me, this is the high bar. I enjoy a pretty picture or a catchy song as much as the next person but if there is no meaning I will quickly lose interest. If there is no meaning, I will not remember it much beyond my initial viewing/reading/listening. In music, this has led to a personal shift from the rock and pop music of my younger years to classical and jazz. I still like rock and pop and listen to it on occasion but classical music is what you will almost always find on my stereo. As an aside, I will point out that there is meaningless classical music as well. For the same reason, this music doesn't stay with me for long.

     4. Good art has staying power. A work of art may take the nation by storm for a summer--think of films or pop songs or mass market thrillers--but who will remember it a year from now? A generation from now? In two hundred years the works of Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, will still be performed. Adele? Probably not. MC Hammer? Certainly not. Often a lack of staying power is the result of a lack of meaning, but not always. Sometimes it is simply not attractive enough. Dadaism was certainly attractive when it came about and it certainly had meaning--although some would argue that point--but the problem was that it created a spectacle for a few short years and, aside from freshmen studying Art History 101, no one gives it any thought these days. It was too rooted in its time and place. Great art has to transcend those boundaries and be as meaningful for a person a hundred years from now and a continent away as it is for those who were around when it was created.

     Now, I'm sure that many will be able to object to and pick apart my criteria for great art. But I would emphasize that these are my criteria. Others are welcome to disagree; in fact, I would love to know (in the comments section below) what you all think makes for great art.

     As is often the case when I write, Point A has to be informed by Point B before I can continue. So, now that you have my Point B (the makings of great art) I can return to Point A (a writer's responsibility).

     So, my main query is this: does a writer have a responsibility to attempt to create great art? I answer with a resounding maybe. As I've mentioned elsewhere there is a place for everything. People need catchy tunes to dance to in nightclubs just as I need a composer like Marjan Mozetich to carry me away on the wings of bliss. But you can only bump and grind for so long. Eventually, a person needs to feed his mind and his soul with something of substance, something that will expand one's consciousness. And it pains me to think that so many people in this world go through their lives and have very few of those types of experiences. With all the beauty and wonder in this world, it is saddening that so much of it is ignored by the majority of humanity.

     Again, I am sure that some will argue that a teen-aged girl can find as much meaning in a Justin Bieber song as I do in Beethoven's 9th Symphony, as much profound realization in Twilight as I do in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I also suppose that some will say I am a cultural snob. Perhaps I am. But pop culture can only go so far toward feeding the artistic desires of a society. At some point, we must move past the banal and realize that these things which seem so important, so profound today, will be fading memories come tomorrow and beyond.

     So, does a writer have a responsibility to create works that will transcend this time and this place, works which will be read a hundred years from now? The "maybe" I gave in response still holds. Some of us do. Some of us will. Others will write good, enjoyable books that will fill a particular need in a particular time and place. There is no shame in that. I feel that my own current series, Sullivan's War, walks a line between those two extremes. I am satisfied, for now, with providing an entertaining story that has some meaning and speaks to the human condition but by no means contains any great, original, profound realizations. But I will not always be satisfied with that. I yearn to create a work that will meet my own criteria. I want--in my selfish egotism--to create a work of lasting significance.

     I believe that I will fulfill my responsibility to society some day. And I hope that you all, whether you be writers, musicians, painters--any of you who are creative in any way--will join me in attempting to achieve the goal of leaving a legacy that will enrich our culture and carry on to generations yet to come.

Why Do You Write? Part II

Here is Part II of "Why Do You Write?," with insights from six more writers. Part I can be found here. Based on the responses I've received, there is a disturbing trend on display: writers and insane and if they didn't write, they'd go out of their gourds. So the lesson is this: be nice to writers and buy their books. Right? RIGHT?!

     Lately, I've had a lot of people ask why I write. This is usually preceded by, "I think you're a psycho!" Or, "You definitely have an imagination." Or, "Did your parents keep you locked up as a kid?" I just smile and indulge them. They usually walk away shaking their heads. Guess I'm not a very good salesman. So, let's try it: "You definitely have an imagination. Why do you write?" I always say, "Because I have to." "I don't get it," they say. "Nobody has to do anything." I point out that we have to breath and eat and sleep and...you get it, and like those life sustaining functions, I have to write. "Oh...so it's like an urge. Like a sex thing." Then they smile. "Not really." Though I would like it to be. Let's put it like this: If I DON'T write, I go psycho. If I DON'T write, I grow stagnant. If I DON'T write, I would rather be locked up and the key thrown away. It's just something I must do, something that consumes me, something that MAKES me. "You're just saying this to be cute," they say. "You really just want to be rich and famous." I wouldn't mind, no, but really, it's just a matter of necessity. If I didn't make a penny, If I didn't have a single reader, If no one would publish my musings, I would still do it. Everyday. Always. Plus...it's fun. And it buys me a taco or two every once in a while.
     - Richard C. Hale, Author of Near Death

     I think, fundamentally, writers write because we're driven to it. There are so very many stories, worlds, and ideas to explore that can only be expelled by the catharsis of words on the page. For me, it's like a passion, or possibly an obsession. Also, the voices in my head get grumpy if I don't let them out.
     - Eugie Foster, Nebula Award-Winning Author of Sinner, Baker, Fabulist, Priest; Red Mask, Black Mask, Gentleman, Beast

     I write because I've tried not writing and it just didn't work. Whilst I love getting my stories published and I do want to be successful and create something memorable, those aren't the reasons why I do it, they're just by-products. I write for me. Because my life feels better for it. And I know that if I were told I would never have anything published ever again, I would carry on regardless because the stories will still be there in me, whether there's someone to read them or not.
     - J.C. Piech

     Writing allows me to empty out all those strange and annoying voices rattling around in my head on a daily basis. Seriously, it’s a creative avenue to write about all of the inspirations that surround us, whether it’s people, places or interesting tidbits of information. There are millions of stories out there just waiting to be written. I choose to write about crime, suspense, and mystery, but it’s so much more involved. Writing challenges me as much as it rewards me – I love that! I can hear the most innocuous story and think about all of the ways to make it more entertaining, oh and course, with a murder to two. I write because it is something that is a part of me and cannot imagine my daily life without it.
     - Jennifer Chase, Author of Dark Mind

     For as long as I can remember, my brain has always entertained me with stories. To be honest, I was perfectly happy keeping those stories to myself. When I shared some of my ideas with others, they challenged me to write a book. Once I got going, the story literally poured out. It was frustrating because my brain is not especially organized and shows me things out of order and I didn’t always know how things were going to work out; but during that process I discovered something else. It was…fun. I brought these characters to life. I created a world that I could share with others. All those times I lost myself in a book, and now I could do that for someone else. What an amazing thing. I realized that writing is a gift, and I shouldn’t waste it. Why do I write? Because I absolutely love it; writing is the greatest adventure of all. There are no limits; no boundaries. I can travel through time, meet supernatural beings, go to far off places, meet new people all of my own creation. How cool is that?
     - M.E. Franco, Author of Where Will You Run?

     Why do I write? Because if I don't, the voices get too loud inside my head! :) Slightly more seriously, for a long time I ran a tabletop roleplaying game for some friends. It was a hobby that let me be creative, and come up with new stories and worlds every week for them to explore and interact with. We stopped playing a long time ago, but my mind didn't stop coming up with new ideas. Writing is a way for me to express those ideas, and get them out of my mind. Admittedly that just gives my mind space to come up with even more ideas, but I'm sure I'll survive ;)
     - Jason G. Anderson, Author of Gears of Wonderland

Why Do You Write?

     Why do writers write?

     It's a question I've been interested in for a long time. What possesses otherwise sane, intelligent people to take up pen and paper, or open up a new Word document, and proceed to spill their thoughts and feelings out onto the page? I suppose the question interests me because I can't really answer it for myself. I suppose there is an element of wanting to be a part of the larger literary world, to leave my mark, however insignificant, on the annals of time. I suppose another part of it is a desire to achieve recognition for something that I have created, something that is wholly of my own invention--as much as anything can be, of course. Or maybe it's as simple as having stories to tell and wanting to tell them, wanting to do for others what so many authors have done for me: shown me entire universes that exist only in the imagination; brought to life people and places that are as real as any man or woman who passes me on the street--more real, actually, for I haven't but glimpsed these characters in passing but have lived with them. I have shared their joys and sorrows, I have known their deepest thoughts and desires. For me, this has always seemed like something of a miracle. I suppose, in a way, I want to work some of these miracles myself.

     That's my answer today but I'm not sure I'm entirely satisfied with it. It sounds good, it sounds "writerly," but if you ask me the same question tomorrow, I may have a different answer. So I decided I would ask some of my fellow miracle-makers the question. Why Do You Write? I hope you find the answers as interesting and revealing as I did.

     I write for llamas. I've had a ten year dream to own a llama farm, and what better way to achieve that goal than to write fiction and eat bacon? Okay? Maybe not.
     I believe I write to get the seeds of ideas which populate my head out in the sun, to let them germinate, water them and see what grows. Sometimes what grows is a big bushy novel, full of berries and leaves and prickly sticks where insects can thrive. Other times, I find only a tiny blade of grass or a dandelion that needs just a little nudging to bloom. Basically, I write because I have seeds to sow, and I've been sowing those seeds since the 2nd grade when I graduated from crayon on the wall to pencil and paper.
     - Benjamin X. Wretlind, Author of Castles: A Fictional Memoir of a Girl with Scissors

     As half of the writing team, Wodke Hawkinson, one reason I write is so my co-author, PJ, will remain happy with me. Joking aside, I write because it gives me a place to put the ideas and scenes in my head, so they don't just leak out and make a mess everywhere. Holding all that chaos inside is not good for a person! It's much more productive to turn it into stories. And both PJ and I have a goal of earning our living through writing. We are honored every time someone reads our work, and we are thrilled to be doing something we enjoy.
     - K. Wodke, co-Author of Betrayed

     I agree with my co-author, Karen. It does get messy when the words leak out of your head. One time, the words were six inches deep on my carpet and they clogged up my vacuum cleaner. I had to go buy a new one. So now, I prefer to put my words in books for other people to enjoy, so they're not wasted.
     - PJ Hawkinson, co-Author of Betrayed

     I write to let the voices in my head tell their stories. I have lived countless lifetimes in my imagination and from reading books. I have always wanted to do the same for others, therefore, I write. That and I’m pretty sure I would lose my sanity if I didn’t let the crazies out of my head! Hey, it’s pretty cheap therapy and I love it! If I couldn’t write, I would just die–it is like breathing to me, an essential I embrace with every word.
     - Alexia Purdy, Author of Ever Shade: A Dark Faerie Tale

     I started writing as an escape from the continual torture I received from other kids when I was a child. It was a way for me to live through the 'perfect lives' of my characters. I would put the pen to paper and escape into another world where I was accepted and liked by others. As I got older, I found writing to be a therapeutic way to hash out my thoughts. I suffer from Genetic Anxiety/Depression which causes me to suffer from many emotions at once and it also makes it hard to focus on what I would like to write. Writing is not only my passion, but it has also helped me to find a 'smile' in my worst moments. I also write because I truly enjoy it. It has become a major part of who I am today!
     - Kristin Conner

     There has to be an extra gene somewhere in the pool making its demands. Being a glutton for punishment I work longer hours than I would like to remember. The simple act of running an errand becomes a fiasco when my thoughts become a raging nightmare for another story. My mind never shuts down! Between all of this I am having an affair with the keyboard and I love it. Why do I write? The answer is simple, it is who I am.
     - Micheal Rivers, Author of The Black Witch

     I write because I enjoy the creative activity and the resulting psychological benefits that come from it. Writing can be very therapeutic. For a time I get to inhabit my heroes and live vicariously through them. I can be President Kennedy or Sherlock Holmes or the hero of Future Perfect with a lower than normal body temperature. I’m still more comfortable in the summer time after inventing Jamie McCord. My next book, Ghosts of Forgotten Empires, will feature a Star Trek quoting spy who stumbles upon an alien technology that will help him answer questions about his own family. These characters can live in wondrous alternate realities or come to ours equipped with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men… or women. There’s also the satisfaction of telling a story that not only appeals to you the writer but that others appreciate as well. So I write for myself in hopes that others will relish the same fantasy and perhaps even draw inspiration from it as I have from other works of fiction.
     - Michael J. Foy, Author of The Kennedy Effect

     I write because a million tales reside within me, waiting to be spawned. These stories can only be told by me, nobody else will ever know them unless I pen their saga; they will never live without me, nor I without them. There are lives within them waiting to walk and talk, to run and fight and love. These are lives which will never exist if I don’t create them, like babes born into this wretched world. I write because I am a writer, a storyteller designed to tell stories, and without them my life would be wasted, a shell of what I am supposed to be. But with them I hold purpose, and if a single soul is touched by my words it will have been a life well lived.
     - Luke Romyn, Author of The Dark Path

     If you're a writer and would like to tell the world just why it is you do what you do, I'll be posting "Why Do You Write? Part II" once I get a sufficient amount of submissions.
     Send yours to myriad_spheres@yahoo.com with the subject "Why Do You Write?" and I'll be happy to include you!

You might also be interested in:
Why Do You Write? Part II
Buying Indie Month
A Conversation with Benjamin X. Wretlind
A Morning in the Life of a Writer
5 Ways to Help Authors without Spending a Dime

Buying Indie Month

Inspired by a blog post by Benjamin X. Wretlind (He outlines the reasons why quite elegantly; read them here: http://bxwretlind.com/blog/2012/02/02/buying-indie-month/) I am buying one Indie book a day for the month of February. I will update this page with each purchase throughout the month. If you want to recommend your book to me--I favor science fiction and literary fiction--leave a comment below with the Amazon US store link and I'll take a look! I also encourage you to hop on board with this idea, even if only for part of the month. Indie writers need to stick together and show the rest of the world the great quality that is out there by getting our books to the top of the best-seller lists!

01. Ties that Bind by Carolyn Arnold
02. Moonlight on the Nantahala by Micheal Rivers
03. Nighteyes: A Will Castleton Adventure by David Bain
04. Betrayed by Wodke Hawkinson
05. The Dark Path by Luke Romyn
06. The Fall of Billy Hitchings by Kirkus MacGowan
07. Judgment Tramp (An Eb Maclean novel) by JD Currie
08. Space Orville by Jeff Whelan
09. A Dream of Storms (In the Shadow of the Black Sun) by William Kenney
10. The Watchers of Ur: Cradle by LaMonte M. Fowler
11. Hope Road by John Barlow
12. California Blood by Pete Palamountain
13. Black Beast by RS Guthrie
14. The Rings of Alathea by Dan Moore
15. Legend Unborn, The Key of Souls - Book 1 by David G. Welsh
16. Xenocide by Larry Kollar
17. Archaea by Dain White
18. Outback Love by Teri Heyer
19. Lunara: Seth and Chloe by Wyatt Davenport
20. Convergent Space by John-Paul Cleary
21. Gabriel's Redemption by Steve Umstead
      Attic Clowns: Complete Collection by Jeremy C. Shipp
22. Vigilante by Claude Bouchard
23. Dead of Knight by William R. Potter
24. Hot Roast Beef with Mustard by James Paddock
25. Leiyatel's Embrace by Clive S. Johnson
26. The Code by Craig McGray
27. What in Hell is up with Heaven? by Christopher David Petersen
28. Weimar Vibes by Phil Rowan
29. Farewell to Tyrn by Ryan Harvey

Related Posts:
Benjamin X. Wretlind's "Buying Indie Month" Post
Benjamin X. Wretlind's "Buying Indie Month, Revisited" Post
J.D. Currie's "Buying Indie Month" Post
Five Ways to Help Authors without Spending a Dime

A New Year's Wish

A New Year's wish: may you have a year filled with miracles, and may you stop, on occasion, to appreciate that they are there. I now turn you over to Mr. Walt Whitman.

--

MIRACLES

WHY, who makes much of a miracle?
As to me I know of nothing else but miracles,
Whether I walk the streets of Manhattan,
Or dart my sight over the roofs of houses toward the sky,
Or wade with naked feet along the beach just in the edge of the water,
Or stand under trees in the woods,
Or talk by day with any one I love, or sleep in the bed at night with any one I love,
Or sit at table at dinner with the rest,
Or look at strangers opposite me riding in the car,
Or watch honey-bees busy around the hive of a summer forenoon,
Or animals feeding in the fields,
Or birds, or the wonderfulness of insects in the air,
Or the wonderfulness of the sundown, or of stars shining so quiet and bright,
Or the exquisite delicate thin curve of the new moon in spring;
These with the rest, one and all, are to me miracles,
The whole referring, yet each distinct and in its place.

To me every hour of the light and dark is a miracle,
Every cubic inch of space is a miracle,
Every square yard of the surface of the earth is spread with the same,
Every foot of the interior swarms with the same.

To me the sea is a continual miracle,
The fishes that swim—the rocks—the motion of the waves—
the ships with men in them,
What stranger miracles are there?

Setting the Tone

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a lesson in tone. As writers, we may have great dialogue, action, what-have-you, but sometimes a scene just doesn't feel right. This could be an issue of tone. A story's tone builds from the first sentence onward. Everything you write effects what comes after it, for good or bad. So, it is important to view a scene as part of the whole.

For this example we'll say you're writing a dramatic scene. If a reader has just read, say, a humorous scene, then has to jump into the dramatic scene, the tone might not yet be properly established for them to feel the weight of the drama. Even if the scene itself is perfectly executed, the reader has to be eased into it. A good way to do this is with a segue, perhaps a bit of description to set the tone. If you describe an ominous or foreboding scene, the reader will be ready to accept that tone. You are mentally preparing the reader for what is about to happen.

From the world of television, here is a good example.
Watch the intro to the show Diff'rent Strokes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6BxDr6mr3M
Now look at the same video with diff'rent music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwxLekENDw0

So, this is an example of tone. Exact same video, but the effect on the viewer is completely changed by the tone set by the music. The very first notes of the second video set an ominous, disturbing tone and what the viewer sees is colored by that music, which continues on through the piece. Think about this the next time you sit down to write. Humorous asides are fine to alleviate tense situations but make sure they don't have the effect that adding a funky back beat in the middle of the second video would have. Keep your tone consistent throughout the scene. The humor, if you have it, has to be countered quickly with drama. This keeps the tone consistent and also helps to heighten tension.

Now, you may decide to keep the reader on a rollercoaster ride of funny and tense. This is fine if done intentionally, many writers do it. But be sure it is intentional. If your scene is meant to be sad and dramatic, meant to elicit the single tear in the corner of the eye, you don't want the reader to expect your hero to crack wise while his partner, just ten days from retirement, lies dying in his arms while the man's wife and two small children look on.

Do any of you have good ideas on setting the tone? I'd love to hear about them!

Best,
Michael

Some Quotes

Here are a few quotes that I love and find profound or inspiring. I'd like to see your favorite quotes as well. Share them in the comments section below!

"What is the value of any political freedom, but as a means to moral freedom?"
Henry David Thoreau, Life Without Principle

"I hear and behold God in every object, yet I understand God not in the least,
Nor do I understand who there can be more wonderful than myself."
Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

"I exist as I am, that is enough,
If no other in the world be aware I sit content,
And if each and all be aware, I sit content."
Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

"It seems to me that everything in the light and air ought to be happy;
Whoever is not in his coffin and the dark grave, let him know he has enough."
Walt Whitman, "The Sleepers"