Cary Neeper's Blog: Reviewing World-changing Nonfiction - Posts Tagged "writing"

In "My Writing" I have posted excerpts from the original version of "A Place Beyond Man," and a revised version I wrote in 1999, where the introductory long poetic setting was dropped in favor of starting the action with a ... bear. I have to admit that I enjoy both styles. I love Tolkein for his use of English in "The Hobbit." And I soon tire of action when you don't know who to care about or where they are and why. Some authors find a happy balance, and I am trying as I revise for the last time the five novels related to "APBM."

Add these two books:
for exploring the impact of diversity on complexity Scott E. Page's "Diversity and Complexity"
for exploring the saga of the Chacoans and Puebloans as an example of the staying power of efficiency and the role of complexity in the survival of a culture, add David E. Stuart's "Anasazi America."

Completing the Picture--Adding Ecological Economics and steadystate.org imperatives to Complexity Economics

A little late with a big Aha--it's time to put together a mini-Bibliography to review the new economical thinking that could save the future.

Start with a general overview of problems with classical economics, economics as a complex system, and the role of government, leaving the How of solving problems to citizens. Be sure to read The Gardens of Democracy by Eric Liu and Eric Hanauer, Seattle, WA: Sasquatch Books, 2011.

For tending the economic garden that has become overgrown, go to steadystate.org and see C.A.S.S.E.'s twelve steps to a no-growth economy--how to get over our obsession with growth and its cause, uncontrolled debt.

For the latter idea and a connection to complex systems, see Gaian Democracies by Roy Madron and John Jopling, Devon UK: Green Books Ltd., Schumacher Society Briefing #9, 2003.

Don't forget to stir into your reading Thomas L. Friedman's Hot, Flat and Crowded, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008 as a reminder that nothing can grow forever.

Related studies are found in Lester R. Brown's Eco-Economy, New York, WW Norton and Co., 2001 and Plan B, 2003.

The moral implications of all this and a scathing critique of classical economics is beautifully covered by Herman E. Daly and John B. Cobb Jr. in For The Common Good: Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the Environment and A Sustainable Future, Boston: Beacon Press, 1994.

Eric D. Beinhocker's The Origin of Wealth, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2006 covers such a critique and tells good stories that define economics as complex, giving us a huge bibliography and lots of useful notes. However, he fails to talk about how an overused planet is impacted, hugely, given the reality of economic complexity, with its tendency to do unpredictable amplification. Remember 2008.

Finally, for an understanding of complexity, first read Per Bak's How Nature Works: The Science of Self-organized Criticality, New York, Springer-Verlag, 1996, then Thinking In Systems --A Primer by Donella Meadows,VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2008. The newest recommended primers I've found are Deep Simplicity, John Gribbin, New York: Random House, 2004 and Diversity and Complexity, Scott E. Page, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.

Let's do it.

Finally, after working on editing the sequel to A Place Beyond Man for two weeks, I will be continuing the social saga of forty years living with ducks, turkeys, hens, one rooster who lived 11 years, and the dogs who have watched over them--on my web site blog page. I'm not sure the connection is working here.
I would love to hear from you. Is this good book material? Or is it too off the cuff?
When I have more time, I'll check in and see what's happening. Soon, I'll be ready to share some new readings. Meanwhile, don't miss Liu's "Garden of Democracy."
Right up my scifi alley.

What makes you put down a mystery or fantasy? When something is incredible? When some detail changes mid-story? When a thesis is too incredible to swallow?
Does the professional protagonist or the expert over-react too often to obvious situations or to situations she has been trained to handle? Can someone commute to a river in the Amazon, coming home on weekends to the states? (I can't get from the Arizona to Indianapolis in less than 12 hours.) Lack of credibility means I put a book down and never finish it. And there's the rub--why are Harry Potter, Alice In Wonderland and the Oz books among my favorites? I love strange new worlds, but they lose my interest if their structure is not clear, or something is not credible. I wonder what.

While preparing the setting and backstory for THE WEBS OF VAROK, the soon-to-be-released sequel to A PLACE BEYOND MAN, I had to face the problem of making Varok credible as an undiscovered, inhabited planet in "our" solar system. No way. Every year NASA discovers more tiny moons of this or that planet. Even the larger rocks, Pluto's companions, in the Kuiper Belt are being named or photographed.

Okay--so inhabiting our solar system with quirky, challenging aliens will have to lean on flimsy evidence, and, as an author, I will have to lean on human imagination and acceptance of my unlikely premise that Varok was missed by the cameras of Pioneer and Voyager. Other than that, the details of Varok's astrogeology, biology and culture had better be credible,since I'm exploring real problems. Harry Potter's world of magic worked because the details were so rich, and there were rules that made it all work--just like complex systems everywhere. Varok has plenty of rules, and my aliens have their own set of quirks--though they share the features I see in all life, which is one of the themes I like to explore.

I remember Roger Zelazny, a delightful acquaintance, but I didn't read many of his books because Anything seemed possible in his stories. You never knew what might happen because anything could. There seemed to be no rules, no reliable structure to get lost in. A different example--Voldemort was scary to me, not because he could zap things better than anyone, but because you never knew when or where or how he would appear. I like suspense. Harry's triumph worked because even Voldemort had to follow weird rules. I've been called the type who is more frightened by reality than made up horror, but that reality has to have a reliable structure. What do you think? What makes a fantasy work? Or not?

I wouldn't recommend this for most Thesaurus's, but these two are so entertaining (even the introductions) that I've decided to stick my neck out (Ooops that's a nono) and just say it--I'm treating myself to one alphabet letter per day in The Dimwit's Dictionary by ?Castle Books? (or maybe Robert H. Fiske [email protected]) and in Peter Meltzer's The Thinker's Thesaurus. Dimwit has some shocking reminders. I'm underlining some. And The Thinker's Thesaurus comes up with some doozies (Ooops again--nope, it's not in the Dimwit's Dictionary), most of which are not useable unless you go to some lengths to make your meaning clear in context. But then, maybe that's the purpose of most books??

The rumors are true. I am reading Robert Fishe's "The Dimwit's Dictinary cover to cover. I'm underlining it too. What? You heard me. (Ha! I just looked up that phrase. He forgot that one.) I said, I'm underlining words and phrases that I probably would use, phrases like "express (concern)" or "attitude." Fiske lists helpful alternative words, sometimes, so I'll continue reading and underlining. I'm up to G. I'm sure his book will help me in the ongoing struggle to ramp up my verbiage to new heights. (Ooops. No, that one's not there, either.)

That said, I'm moving on. (Ha again! Neither phrase is listed, but "moving forward," is.) I'm going to express my doubts about the phrases listed in the Dimwit's Dictionary. Some are too useful; they express too precisely what I mean to say, sometimes with a tone that no alternative phrase or word captures. Take, for example, the title of Rob Dietz and Dan O'Neill's excellent, concise summary of why we need to do this and that to begin the conversion to a steady state, now. "Economics for Dummies?" No! It's called "Enough Is Enough." Rob thought long and hard about using that title. A search can get 150 hits on the phrase. But it says exactly what they wanted to say, and I agree. They say why. They say how to make a steady state work for the betterment of all. It's a text that should be required reading in every school in the country, important for all of us to read before we can't stop imploding. I doubt that the title will hurt his sales. Enough Is Enough memorable and right on target. Just be sure to add the Dietz and O'Neill to your search.
Enough Is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources

(Yes, "play fast and loose" is in the Dimwit's Dictionary,
so should the title of this blog be "Being Unpredictable with POV?"
The other alternate suggestions are too unkind.)

The Webs of Varok is told by two storytellers--the third person omniscient and Tandra's first person view of things. She is not omniscient, doesn't have a clue what ahlorks or ellls think, not even Conn, though I suspect she thinks she does. We let her tell her view of things to add more dimension to the story. Sorry if it confused you at first. Her first person POV gets even more complicated because she is in "mind-link" with Orram, a talent that is not well developed in humans, so the sharing of thoughts comes and goes. I'm not really sorry about that, either. I think it adds to the fun. Some reviewers liked it.

It is not in the rule books, you know, jumping from first to third person as the story progresses, but in The Webs of Varok I believe it serves a good purpose. You wouldn't want to be stuck in Tandra's head, or even the author's head, would you? Wasn't it fun to get into Nidok's head? Ahlork probably don't share many genes with anyone else except ancient varoks, the same way many of us humans carry Neanderthal genes. Ahlork can gargle noises that almost sound like bipedal language--hence the translation in Webs--but I have taken great artistic license with their thoughts.

I also had fun playing in Mahntik's head, slamming shut her mental block and annoying her mates, just for the power trip it gave her. This talent also came in handy as a metaphor for what's been going on lately with humans and the economic casino games they've been playing. Their minds are slammed shut by nature, so not even the courts can find ways to throw the errant bankers in jail.

My conclusion? It doesn't hurt to break a few rules, if you're consistent about it. I'm doing it again--author's privilege when the publisher agrees. In the next book of the Archives of Varok, Orram tells the story in first person omniscient. Is this another rule broken? Too bad. Orram is a mood- and thought-sensing varok, isn't he? And he's in constant radio communication with everyone else in the story, so we'll give him a break. We'll give him a little character's license.

Quoting Bryant Meyers: "Every community needs a big story, a story that frames our lives and our understanding of the world. . . that gives answers to questions of meaning and provides moral direction and social purpose. We need to know who we are..., where we are..., what went wrong (making sense of the poverty, pain, and injustice we see), what we must do (what must change and how it can be changed), and what time it is (how our past, present, and future fit into this picture....Any vision of a better human future must have its roots in the story that makes sense of our lives.
--Bryant L. Myers, Walking with the Poor : Principles and Practices of Transformational Development (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1999), 20-21.
Read about it here.

Why do we write? Why do we read? Why have there been one million books published every year in the US alone? And countless blogs? Why are there so many more, now that self-publishing is so easy? I suspect it's because we all have a "big story." We want to share the "frame" that give us "understanding of the world." Perhaps our vision will provide nourishing roots for a "better human future."

As Bryant Myers suggests in the quote above, we need to know for following:
"Who we are?" I see my angst, my caring, my joy reflected in this blog's Hen House gang. I experience aging with my 13 year-old dogs. I want to reflect that awareness of things common to all life by creating alien characters in my fiction. They also share, in spite of differences so vast they are at first beyond awareness or comprehension.
"Where are we?" I thrill at the magnificence of the universe in new pictures from NASA and gorgeous photos of Earth on Pinterest. I want everyone to experience the awe I feel when hard evidence reveals the intricacies of how genes work, how cosmology and biophysics give birth to and sustain life and mind. I shiver at the knowledge of complex systems that describes everything connected in nonlinear ways, providing the possibility for amplification of our every effort (thus meaning?), along with the threat of unpredictability with those same efforts. This also invades my writing.
"What we must do." this is the hard part. We not only see different solutions, we see different problems, because all our experiences differ. Perhaps the best we can do is focus. "Write what you know," say some pundits. Perhaps we should write from or out of what we have experienced. We can try to provide a positive vision, a way out, a dream scenario that reassures and guides.
"What time it is." As we learn from the past, and look at what is happening now, can we paint in words a picture of the future grounded in realism, one that contributes to a "moral direction" and a nourishing "social purpose," a story that provides faith or hope in "questions of meaning" if not unquestioned "answers."Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practice of Transformational Development

My article about the power of story has been published by the Daly News at steadystate.org http://bit.ly/12uQdhH

Here is my recent review of "1001 Paintings You Must See Before You Die"
This is an amazing collection of small reproductions, one or two to a page, each with a short history of the painter and comments about the painting. It is unlike any other view of history--seen through the eyes of recognized artists of every type of painting and world view. The chronological order of the paintings provides the orientation needed to understand the passions of each age from the 1400s though part of the 2000s. I'm flagging the paintings that strike me as inspiring or striking, and there are more than a few.

I hesitate to review a prize-winning book, especially one well written and insightful. The introspection of the first person character carried me on, for I could identify with his youthful doubts and mediocrities. I could also identify with him as an older person looking back on a life well-lived but questionably significant. However, too much can begin to sound like whining.

My main criticism is that the story's suspense is built on failure to communicate--a device used way too often in soap operas. Too little motivation is given for both the actions taken and the dire consequences of reactions to those actions.

I kept reading. I love well-written English--but in the end, the book didn't tell me anything useful about human nature. It merely raised questions about the author's motivation. He seemed to be more interested in trying to shock the reader than carrying his exploration of human nature to a satisfying insight. What are we supposed to learn? That we are Not designed to carry on tragedies with resignation, at least with some understanding of fate or a touch of forgiveness? Is genius our undoing? Bitterness our destiny? Our mediocrity our salvation? Maybe that's it.