To answer Steve's question from the previous comment section:
Some of The Lies of Locke Lamora may have vaguely reminded you of my style because Scott Lynch was, at the time of its writing, still a pretty hard-core Caine fan . . . but mostly, really, it's just that Scottie's a fuckin' genius, and great minds sometimes think alike.
I've said it before: Scott Lynch is what I'd be if I were younger, smarter and better looking. Since I am none of those things, I am forced to settle for being me.
I never recognize my own style in other people's writing; to me, I don't even have a style. I just try to write the best I can. I suspect Scott works the same way. I mean, if it wasn't for my name on both covers, I seriously doubt many people would have tumbled to the fact that Heroes Die and Revenge of the Sith were written by the same guy. Maybe if some hard-core Lit Geek were to analyze the word-frequency and check for my own coinages and shit -- like they do when they're trying to figure out if Shakespeare's plays were written by Shakespeare or by another playwright of the same name -- they might come up with some kind of positive match, but short of that? I dunno.
I just write it the way I'd like it to be if I were reading it instead. If Scott's style really is similar to mine, that could be part of why I like his stuff so much. It might also just be that his stuff's really good, and I have good taste.
Who knows?
Monday, March 31
Wednesday, March 19
Hey.
In response to the exchange between Aaron and Songofgreyshadows:
Just so you all know, there actually is a Stover Forum on the Web -- it was set up a couple years ago by the good folks over at SFFWorld.com -- and it's a swell place to get into all the writing advice and PersonalAnecdotesAboutHowIChangedYourLife and all that shit.
The URL is, if my browser serves as a reliable memory:
Stover Forum
With thanks to Chris Billett.
Anybody who stops by will have to kick off the tarps and blow the dust away, because nobody's posted there in months. And no swearing at the President and stuff -- they have terms of service that insist everyone play nice. Which means that it's probably not the best place for Caine-Ma'elKoth slashfic, but for everything else, it works pretty well.
I also get email notification of new posts, so it's easy for me to keep track of stuff over there.
That's all.
In response to the exchange between Aaron and Songofgreyshadows:
Just so you all know, there actually is a Stover Forum on the Web -- it was set up a couple years ago by the good folks over at SFFWorld.com -- and it's a swell place to get into all the writing advice and PersonalAnecdotesAboutHowIChangedYourLife and all that shit.
The URL is, if my browser serves as a reliable memory:
Stover Forum
With thanks to Chris Billett.
Anybody who stops by will have to kick off the tarps and blow the dust away, because nobody's posted there in months. And no swearing at the President and stuff -- they have terms of service that insist everyone play nice. Which means that it's probably not the best place for Caine-Ma'elKoth slashfic, but for everything else, it works pretty well.
I also get email notification of new posts, so it's easy for me to keep track of stuff over there.
That's all.
Wednesday, March 12
Hey, everybody.
I just got my first royalty check for Star Wars on Trial, making it my second US book in a row (after Revenge of the Sith) to earn out its advance. This is a positive trend, and one that I hope to encourage.
Now, it's not a big check, but any royalty check is essentially Found Money -- extra payment for work which was done long ago.
So I just wanted to say thanks to all you folks out there who were willing to shell out 18 bucks to read Brin and me bicker about Star Wars.
Seriously.
Thanks
I just got my first royalty check for Star Wars on Trial, making it my second US book in a row (after Revenge of the Sith) to earn out its advance. This is a positive trend, and one that I hope to encourage.
Now, it's not a big check, but any royalty check is essentially Found Money -- extra payment for work which was done long ago.
So I just wanted to say thanks to all you folks out there who were willing to shell out 18 bucks to read Brin and me bicker about Star Wars.
Seriously.
Thanks
Tuesday, March 11
From Robert, in the previous comments section:
-I've been wondering, is there any significance to what you refer to your characters and when? I've noticed you seem to call Hari "Caine" when you're referring to his Overworld exploits and Caine "Hari when referring to his life on Earth. Also that when you referred to Kris as "Deliann" a few posts back it was specifically when referencing a point in the story when he and Caine were on Overworld. I've seen authors who stick to a specific system with referring to their characters; Dennis O'Neil stands out as he would always refer to the DC Comics character The Question as "Charlie" even though most of the world knew him as "Vic Sage". Is this choice in reference an intended separation that goes along with your "Theory of Personality", or if it's just instinctual on your part?
_____________________
Instinctual, I guess: I use Caine for the character, Hari for the Actor . . . even though he's achieved significant integration by the end of BLADE. Same with Kris and Deliann. One of the things I hope people will find interesting in CAINE BLACK KNIFE is the contrasts--and similarities--Caine Back Then and Caine Nowadays.
btw, I loved the Question. He had just returned in his own monthly series maybe a year or so before I quit collecting comics, back in the late 80s/early 90s. He was the coolest . . . and not just because he was the original model for Rorschach, either.
______________________
-Something I've wondered for a while: If authors try to implant concepts and ideas into their books and what people get from said writing is a product of their own imagination meeting the words on the page, doesn't that create a sort of paradox within the process? Just something that struck me when reading your comments (not that I disagree with them, just an idea that hit me).
______________________
I don't try to implant concepts and ideas; that way lies madness and all manner of Goodkinditude. I try to use the underlying concepts of a story in an interesting way, that's all--to let them inform and enhance the action. Scott Lynch, in a love-letter to HEROES DIE he once posted on RPG.net, described it as "opt-in fiction." He was attracted, he said, by the way the Big Ideas are there, but you don't have to think about them if you don't want to. This is a model I've tried to stick to ever since (that whole Tyranny of Praise thing, y'know?), with varying success (worked out pretty well in SHATTERPOINT and REVENGE OF THE SITH, less so in TRAITOR and BLADE OF TYSHALLE, where the ideas sometimes intrude and hijack the story).
_______________________
-And finally, are there any plans for you to be doing another book signing tour for either Caine Black Knife or your next Star Wars book?
_______________________
Not currently. I'll let you know.
-I've been wondering, is there any significance to what you refer to your characters and when? I've noticed you seem to call Hari "Caine" when you're referring to his Overworld exploits and Caine "Hari when referring to his life on Earth. Also that when you referred to Kris as "Deliann" a few posts back it was specifically when referencing a point in the story when he and Caine were on Overworld. I've seen authors who stick to a specific system with referring to their characters; Dennis O'Neil stands out as he would always refer to the DC Comics character The Question as "Charlie" even though most of the world knew him as "Vic Sage". Is this choice in reference an intended separation that goes along with your "Theory of Personality", or if it's just instinctual on your part?
_____________________
Instinctual, I guess: I use Caine for the character, Hari for the Actor . . . even though he's achieved significant integration by the end of BLADE. Same with Kris and Deliann. One of the things I hope people will find interesting in CAINE BLACK KNIFE is the contrasts--and similarities--Caine Back Then and Caine Nowadays.
btw, I loved the Question. He had just returned in his own monthly series maybe a year or so before I quit collecting comics, back in the late 80s/early 90s. He was the coolest . . . and not just because he was the original model for Rorschach, either.
______________________
-Something I've wondered for a while: If authors try to implant concepts and ideas into their books and what people get from said writing is a product of their own imagination meeting the words on the page, doesn't that create a sort of paradox within the process? Just something that struck me when reading your comments (not that I disagree with them, just an idea that hit me).
______________________
I don't try to implant concepts and ideas; that way lies madness and all manner of Goodkinditude. I try to use the underlying concepts of a story in an interesting way, that's all--to let them inform and enhance the action. Scott Lynch, in a love-letter to HEROES DIE he once posted on RPG.net, described it as "opt-in fiction." He was attracted, he said, by the way the Big Ideas are there, but you don't have to think about them if you don't want to. This is a model I've tried to stick to ever since (that whole Tyranny of Praise thing, y'know?), with varying success (worked out pretty well in SHATTERPOINT and REVENGE OF THE SITH, less so in TRAITOR and BLADE OF TYSHALLE, where the ideas sometimes intrude and hijack the story).
_______________________
-And finally, are there any plans for you to be doing another book signing tour for either Caine Black Knife or your next Star Wars book?
_______________________
Not currently. I'll let you know.
Monday, March 10
From Aaron, in the comments section:
____________________________________
Meh.
So, I want to be more active and help you write more Caine novels. I'm sure your publicist has all sorts of data and crap...and I know you'll have a better idea, but here goes.
What do y'all think of the Asshole Maneuver:
1: Bombard popular blogs with content and quotes related to MWS work.
2: Subsidize tattoos or other forms of advertisement that will glean public attention.
3: Go from store to store inserting slips of paper into each and every book with clips from MWS work and indicate that they should read that work "or else."
4: Get published and dedicate our stuff to MWS.
5: End the war in Iraq - dedicate it to MWS. How?...
Make them all wear bikini clothes and shoot those who do not. No room for hidden bombs when you're mostly naked.
With these key points, I suspect change is in the wind my friends!
__________________________________________________________
I'm Matthew Woodring Stover, and I approved this message.
____________________________________
Meh.
So, I want to be more active and help you write more Caine novels. I'm sure your publicist has all sorts of data and crap...and I know you'll have a better idea, but here goes.
What do y'all think of the Asshole Maneuver:
1: Bombard popular blogs with content and quotes related to MWS work.
2: Subsidize tattoos or other forms of advertisement that will glean public attention.
3: Go from store to store inserting slips of paper into each and every book with clips from MWS work and indicate that they should read that work "or else."
4: Get published and dedicate our stuff to MWS.
5: End the war in Iraq - dedicate it to MWS. How?...
Make them all wear bikini clothes and shoot those who do not. No room for hidden bombs when you're mostly naked.
With these key points, I suspect change is in the wind my friends!
__________________________________________________________
I'm Matthew Woodring Stover, and I approved this message.
Wednesday, March 5
E. Gary Gygax died yesterday.
Nearly everybody who still hangs out here should be a big enough geek to at least know who he was. As my old friend Eric posted on his blog:
GYGAX, YOU BASTARD, YOUR FUCKING GAME RUINED MY LIFE.
And thanks.
Most folks 'round here should know, too, that the genesis of the whole Acts of Caine/Overworld cycle sprang from an attempt to "SFnalize" the experience of playing in a truly immersive AD&D campaign. In my original gaming days, our players and game-masters were all actors and writers . . . so the games were, at their best, exactly what Gygax was shooting for: interactive novels, created on the spot and in the moment by a bunch of geeks fueled by two-liter bottles of Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper, and vast amounts of accumulated fatigue toxins.
I still miss them, too. As many folks around here know, I am not a particularly happy person. Those long nights hanging out in somebody's basement or living room over sheets of paper and high-impact polyhedra were pretty much the most fun I've ever had in my life, before or since.
It was also a transformative moment that has determined the course of my life: because one day it came to me that plotting a novel well involves the same skills as planning a campaign: devising exciting problems for your characters, and making sure they are personally invested in solving them . . . It really is a powerful defense against idiot plotting, because you can never depend on your players to do something stupid just to advance the story.
That's all.
Nearly everybody who still hangs out here should be a big enough geek to at least know who he was. As my old friend Eric posted on his blog:
GYGAX, YOU BASTARD, YOUR FUCKING GAME RUINED MY LIFE.
And thanks.
Most folks 'round here should know, too, that the genesis of the whole Acts of Caine/Overworld cycle sprang from an attempt to "SFnalize" the experience of playing in a truly immersive AD&D campaign. In my original gaming days, our players and game-masters were all actors and writers . . . so the games were, at their best, exactly what Gygax was shooting for: interactive novels, created on the spot and in the moment by a bunch of geeks fueled by two-liter bottles of Mountain Dew, Dr. Pepper, and vast amounts of accumulated fatigue toxins.
I still miss them, too. As many folks around here know, I am not a particularly happy person. Those long nights hanging out in somebody's basement or living room over sheets of paper and high-impact polyhedra were pretty much the most fun I've ever had in my life, before or since.
It was also a transformative moment that has determined the course of my life: because one day it came to me that plotting a novel well involves the same skills as planning a campaign: devising exciting problems for your characters, and making sure they are personally invested in solving them . . . It really is a powerful defense against idiot plotting, because you can never depend on your players to do something stupid just to advance the story.
That's all.
Wednesday, February 27
They come at him one at a time, each warrior in turn charging toward honorable single combat.
Then--
They come two at a time.
By the time they begin to come in groups, they have to scramble over the bodies of their dead comrades to reach him. A pile of bodies.
A pile that becomes a wall, a rampart.
Ganner Rhysode builds a fortress of the dead.
That makes me feel inferior.
Doesn't look like much, here . . . but in context, the emotion that very, very simple, straightforward prose evokes make me wonder if I was using the same brain then that I am now.
Here's the thing:
I am very happy, and deeply honored, that my fiction has been important to several folks 'round these parts, and elsewhere. But you all should understand: it's not because I'm anything special, or because my stories have some particular depth or significance. What is special is the intersection of my words with your imaginations.
You've probably heard it said that "What you get out of it depends on what you put into it." What you may not have realized is how literally true that platitude becomes when you apply it to the act of reading fiction.
I've tried other formulations of the same sentiment, especially in Blade of Tyshalle: "What any work of art means depends on who you are when you look at it." And, once or twice, in reference to uncomplimentary reviews: "When you judge a book, the book also judges you."
These are all ways of saying the same thing. Look: a work of fiction is not words on a page, or on a screen. That's part of it, and it's not the most important part. The actual story--the Real Novel--is what unfolds in your head as you read those words.
You get it?
This is why I can find myself feeling inferior to authors some readers might not consider my equals--because their books inspire in me feelings and images and all manner of experience that I can never get from my own books.
Except sometimes, a few years down the road, when I have enough distance from a story I've penned to approach it as a reader, rather than as its author. Then I do occasionally feel inferior to my (younger) self.
So this is the thing I really want to drive home for any and all people who find something special in my books (or, for that matter, in anyone else's).
It's not the book. It's you. It's your mind doing all the work. Your commitment, your willingness to be touched, your suspension of disbelief and the power of your imagination. That's why there are many, many people who will never be moved by some story you love -- or, for some impoverished souls, by any story at all.
If you find something extraordinary in one of my books, it's because it was already inside you, and the words just helped you locate it, that's all.
And for those who don't find anything extraordinary in any of my books, fuck you anyway. Read something else, punk ass.
Then--
They come two at a time.
By the time they begin to come in groups, they have to scramble over the bodies of their dead comrades to reach him. A pile of bodies.
A pile that becomes a wall, a rampart.
Ganner Rhysode builds a fortress of the dead.
That makes me feel inferior.
Doesn't look like much, here . . . but in context, the emotion that very, very simple, straightforward prose evokes make me wonder if I was using the same brain then that I am now.
Here's the thing:
I am very happy, and deeply honored, that my fiction has been important to several folks 'round these parts, and elsewhere. But you all should understand: it's not because I'm anything special, or because my stories have some particular depth or significance. What is special is the intersection of my words with your imaginations.
You've probably heard it said that "What you get out of it depends on what you put into it." What you may not have realized is how literally true that platitude becomes when you apply it to the act of reading fiction.
I've tried other formulations of the same sentiment, especially in Blade of Tyshalle: "What any work of art means depends on who you are when you look at it." And, once or twice, in reference to uncomplimentary reviews: "When you judge a book, the book also judges you."
These are all ways of saying the same thing. Look: a work of fiction is not words on a page, or on a screen. That's part of it, and it's not the most important part. The actual story--the Real Novel--is what unfolds in your head as you read those words.
You get it?
This is why I can find myself feeling inferior to authors some readers might not consider my equals--because their books inspire in me feelings and images and all manner of experience that I can never get from my own books.
Except sometimes, a few years down the road, when I have enough distance from a story I've penned to approach it as a reader, rather than as its author. Then I do occasionally feel inferior to my (younger) self.
So this is the thing I really want to drive home for any and all people who find something special in my books (or, for that matter, in anyone else's).
It's not the book. It's you. It's your mind doing all the work. Your commitment, your willingness to be touched, your suspension of disbelief and the power of your imagination. That's why there are many, many people who will never be moved by some story you love -- or, for some impoverished souls, by any story at all.
If you find something extraordinary in one of my books, it's because it was already inside you, and the words just helped you locate it, that's all.
And for those who don't find anything extraordinary in any of my books, fuck you anyway. Read something else, punk ass.
Monday, February 25
In response to the question "Michael" left on my last post: I don't really read much fiction any more. I recommended Scott Lynch because his publisher very considerately floated me an ARC of The Lies of Locke Lamora, which I thought was the best fantasy adventure I'd read in maybe ten years. It was, however, entirely painful for me to admit this, as Scotty is a friend of mine (as well as some fifteen years my junior) and I think he's already better at this shit than I am.
This is why I rarely read new SFF authors: professional jealousy. My reaction to a book by a new writer usually falls into one of two clearly-defined categories:
1) How Did This Pile of Dogshit Get Into Print -- and Why Is It Out-Selling My Books Ten-to-One?
or
2) This Is How I Would Have Written My Own Books, if I Weren't a Complete Fucking Loser.
You can see how this unfortunate quirk of psychology makes reading my peers kind of painful.
So I mostly read non-fiction, and classics. If I'm going to feel inferior anyway, I prefer to feel inferior to Hemingway, Chandler or Conrad, y'know?
This is why I rarely read new SFF authors: professional jealousy. My reaction to a book by a new writer usually falls into one of two clearly-defined categories:
1) How Did This Pile of Dogshit Get Into Print -- and Why Is It Out-Selling My Books Ten-to-One?
or
2) This Is How I Would Have Written My Own Books, if I Weren't a Complete Fucking Loser.
You can see how this unfortunate quirk of psychology makes reading my peers kind of painful.
So I mostly read non-fiction, and classics. If I'm going to feel inferior anyway, I prefer to feel inferior to Hemingway, Chandler or Conrad, y'know?
Sunday, February 24
Hey, everybody.
A couple things: Caine Black Knife looks to be the shortest (in word count) of the Acts of Caine, for two reasons:
1) unlike the other two, this one is All About Caine (he's in every single scene), and
2) I'm trying something new with this novel . . . a narrative technique borrowed from comics (and minimalist fiction), one that Scott McCloud, in his seminal work Understanding Comics, refers to as "psychological closure" -- which is a term for how our minds fill in detail that isn't actually shown. Hemingway was probably the greatest English-language master of this technique, and you all know my long-standing affection for Uncle Ernie.
So, essentially, I was (and still am) trying to figure out a way to write an entire novel without any Boring Crap -- you know, the linking narration and scene transitions, the background info-dumps, that kind of shit. Now I know some of you actually like the info-dump kind of stuff (I'm looking at you, Ilya!), but personally I can't stand it . . . and it's my story, after all. If I did it right, all pertinent questions will be answered, at least tangentially. I'm just trying to distill the story . . . if Heroes Die was a sixpack of strong beer, and Blade of Tyshalle was a magnum of amarone, then Caine Black Knife will be a gallon of barrel-proof bourbon.
If I screwed it up . . . ? Well, so it goes. Del Rey no longer expects to make any kind of serious money off Caine -- as near as I can tell, they are publishing this book due to some arm-twisting by my estimable editor, and to keep me happily plugging away on Star Wars. Which works for me.
As for the Bush Administration's ass-hattery, well . . . I get tired of being angry all the time. So I've been pretty much ignoring their crap.
If any of you are interested, I voted for Barack Obama in the Wisconsin primary . . . though if Senator Clinton stages another improbable comeback and wins the Democratic nomination, I will happily support her for President. There are many things to admire about John McCain, but his politics are not among them.
A couple things: Caine Black Knife looks to be the shortest (in word count) of the Acts of Caine, for two reasons:
1) unlike the other two, this one is All About Caine (he's in every single scene), and
2) I'm trying something new with this novel . . . a narrative technique borrowed from comics (and minimalist fiction), one that Scott McCloud, in his seminal work Understanding Comics, refers to as "psychological closure" -- which is a term for how our minds fill in detail that isn't actually shown. Hemingway was probably the greatest English-language master of this technique, and you all know my long-standing affection for Uncle Ernie.
So, essentially, I was (and still am) trying to figure out a way to write an entire novel without any Boring Crap -- you know, the linking narration and scene transitions, the background info-dumps, that kind of shit. Now I know some of you actually like the info-dump kind of stuff (I'm looking at you, Ilya!), but personally I can't stand it . . . and it's my story, after all. If I did it right, all pertinent questions will be answered, at least tangentially. I'm just trying to distill the story . . . if Heroes Die was a sixpack of strong beer, and Blade of Tyshalle was a magnum of amarone, then Caine Black Knife will be a gallon of barrel-proof bourbon.
If I screwed it up . . . ? Well, so it goes. Del Rey no longer expects to make any kind of serious money off Caine -- as near as I can tell, they are publishing this book due to some arm-twisting by my estimable editor, and to keep me happily plugging away on Star Wars. Which works for me.
As for the Bush Administration's ass-hattery, well . . . I get tired of being angry all the time. So I've been pretty much ignoring their crap.
If any of you are interested, I voted for Barack Obama in the Wisconsin primary . . . though if Senator Clinton stages another improbable comeback and wins the Democratic nomination, I will happily support her for President. There are many things to admire about John McCain, but his politics are not among them.
Tuesday, February 12
Friday, December 7
And from Peter again:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 6:21 AM, Peter wrote:
Hm. That answers my question of where your caste system came from. I admit to having thought you were a libertarian, that's my mistake. I guess I assumed you sort of fit your own perspectives into the book under the guise of Duncan, as sort of a wise old man who could tell the answers as you know it. Knowing that you actually created the character gives me much more respect for you as an author, regardless of your political standings.
I guess he just does a great job of seeming to have the answers when he should when Hari needs a bit of a push, but I suppose that gets back to your idea of your characters rationalizing their circumstances into what they think they need. If so, nicely done.
Did you think that the 'Reality-TV-From-Hell' required, specifically, a business-based caste system, or did it require little more than unwashed masses and the rest is part of the eternal sci-fi idea of drawing lines into the future based on current problems and their evolving solutions?
------
A lot of people make that Stover-Must-Be-a-Libertarian mistake; one spectacularly dippy reviewer (I won't mention any names, but her initials are C. How Stupid I. M. Morgan) claimed she could tell I was a Libertarian by looking at my author photo.
Apparently it never actually strikes anyone that Duncan's good advice to Hari (essentially: keep your head down and inch toward daylight) has NOTHING TO DO with political philosophy; as for Duncan being the "voice of the author," it never seems to strike anyone that Duncan is consistently portrayed as being (periodically) ENTIRELY FUCKING BUGNUTS.
One would think someone might have noticed that Duncan gets his philosophical ass handed to him when he goes head-to-head against Tan'elKoth, who can be read as a direct personification of mystic fascism. Or that the only character who is more often right than wrong in either of those books is Deliann, who doesn't really believe in ANYTHING . . . he's just stumbling along, trying to do the right thing . . . and Caine, who doesn't believe in anything either, except that people he cares about are worth dying for.
But hey, that's the breaks.
Anyway: it takes more than the "unwashed masses" to make the Studio work, because Actors have to participate voluntarily (facing almost certain death or dismemberment -- not to mention the willingness to murder innocent people -- for the hope of economic advantage and social advancement). Unlike, say, Roman slave gladiators, who could just be given a weapon and thrown into the ring, an Actor has to play along -- has to create a character that people enjoy being, and portray that character convincingly. I could go into greater detail on the social mechanics of it, but that's the fundamental concept.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
On Dec 7, 2007, at 6:21 AM, Peter wrote:
Hm. That answers my question of where your caste system came from. I admit to having thought you were a libertarian, that's my mistake. I guess I assumed you sort of fit your own perspectives into the book under the guise of Duncan, as sort of a wise old man who could tell the answers as you know it. Knowing that you actually created the character gives me much more respect for you as an author, regardless of your political standings.
I guess he just does a great job of seeming to have the answers when he should when Hari needs a bit of a push, but I suppose that gets back to your idea of your characters rationalizing their circumstances into what they think they need. If so, nicely done.
Did you think that the 'Reality-TV-From-Hell' required, specifically, a business-based caste system, or did it require little more than unwashed masses and the rest is part of the eternal sci-fi idea of drawing lines into the future based on current problems and their evolving solutions?
------
A lot of people make that Stover-Must-Be-a-Libertarian mistake; one spectacularly dippy reviewer (I won't mention any names, but her initials are C. How Stupid I. M. Morgan) claimed she could tell I was a Libertarian by looking at my author photo.
Apparently it never actually strikes anyone that Duncan's good advice to Hari (essentially: keep your head down and inch toward daylight) has NOTHING TO DO with political philosophy; as for Duncan being the "voice of the author," it never seems to strike anyone that Duncan is consistently portrayed as being (periodically) ENTIRELY FUCKING BUGNUTS.
One would think someone might have noticed that Duncan gets his philosophical ass handed to him when he goes head-to-head against Tan'elKoth, who can be read as a direct personification of mystic fascism. Or that the only character who is more often right than wrong in either of those books is Deliann, who doesn't really believe in ANYTHING . . . he's just stumbling along, trying to do the right thing . . . and Caine, who doesn't believe in anything either, except that people he cares about are worth dying for.
But hey, that's the breaks.
Anyway: it takes more than the "unwashed masses" to make the Studio work, because Actors have to participate voluntarily (facing almost certain death or dismemberment -- not to mention the willingness to murder innocent people -- for the hope of economic advantage and social advancement). Unlike, say, Roman slave gladiators, who could just be given a weapon and thrown into the ring, an Actor has to play along -- has to create a character that people enjoy being, and portray that character convincingly. I could go into greater detail on the social mechanics of it, but that's the fundamental concept.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
Thursday, December 6
And Peter again:
On Nov 30, 2007, at 2:54 AM, Peter wrote:
I think I'm starting to get a good grip on where most of your writing comes from, so unfortunately my questions are starting to dry up into questions about suggested readings and such.
I'm still a bit curious about the caste system you used to create your future earth. It's been called dystopian, and Duncan suggests it's not libertarian, at least in the traditional sense. Yet it's based around business and exploitation, which are founded in libertarian principles as far as I can tell. The whole 'Leisureman' caste is about as libertarian as possible, and the implication of the fact that it's relatively small despite proof that advancement through the castes is possible seems to suggest that advancement is very difficult.
Some other things I've noticed about your system are that as you advance you gain the ability to simply use your power more freely (without concern for soapie intervention), and you also gain access to increasing amount of potential systematic safeguards based around your actual income. Basically, as you get higher up you can afford better protection and you automatically have implied power. As a connoiseur of political systems, I'm curious about where your system came from. I like its flavor in some ways, but in others it seems curiously and unnecessarily restrictive. Obviously you made it that way, but why?
------
This is a complex question. The caste system was created originally around the necessities of the novel's premise (i.e. what sort of society would have this Reality-TV-From-Hell as its #1 form of mass entertainment?), combined with a speculative extrapolation from the realities of American society -- You Are What You Do, and increased power (whether from celebrity, political connection, or simple wealth) brings with it proportionally greater immunity from legal jeopardy. Fundamentally, it is an expression of real free-market economics. In reality, there is NO SUCH THING as a "free market" -- because every privileged class organizes government (and hence, social economics) to protect its own privileges. What makes the caste system stable is that it preserves the mythology of the American Experiment: that hard work and determination enable one to rise above one's birth or social status. This is the ultimate incentive for the less-privileged classes to support the system; the dream that someday they (or their descendants) might join the ranks of the Privileged . . . so long as nobody makes waves. The caste system also arises from what I see as the innate tribalism of human nature; each caste carries its own mythology of exceptionalism (demonstrated graphically by Kollberg's disquisition on the superior virtues of Administration in HEROES DIE). The essence of Libertarian principle is freedom from government intervention. The caste system is the opposite of Libertarianism; it depends on rigorous regulation of all forms of social and economic interaction. It's a substantial mistake to characterize me as a Libertarian; I'm not. Even remotely. Duncan is (in spirit, anyway), Hari isn't. Heinlein was, more or less . . . and his Libertarian manifesto, THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, is specifically referenced in HEROES DIE, with Pallas Ril taking on Heinlein's Scarlet Pimpernel persona of Simon Jester -- which leads her to cause more death and destruction than Caine could ever dream of . . .
I could go into a great deal more detail here, but the simple answer on the caste system is: I made it up.
In fact, when I originally conceived the caste system (back in the 80s), it seemed a great deal more outlandishly dystopian than it does today; now it largely appears to be a direct allegory for the emerging character of American society under Bushism: hands off the privileged, and fist-fuck everybody else.
Feel free to inquire further, if this doesn't answer your question.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
On Nov 30, 2007, at 2:54 AM, Peter wrote:
I think I'm starting to get a good grip on where most of your writing comes from, so unfortunately my questions are starting to dry up into questions about suggested readings and such.
I'm still a bit curious about the caste system you used to create your future earth. It's been called dystopian, and Duncan suggests it's not libertarian, at least in the traditional sense. Yet it's based around business and exploitation, which are founded in libertarian principles as far as I can tell. The whole 'Leisureman' caste is about as libertarian as possible, and the implication of the fact that it's relatively small despite proof that advancement through the castes is possible seems to suggest that advancement is very difficult.
Some other things I've noticed about your system are that as you advance you gain the ability to simply use your power more freely (without concern for soapie intervention), and you also gain access to increasing amount of potential systematic safeguards based around your actual income. Basically, as you get higher up you can afford better protection and you automatically have implied power. As a connoiseur of political systems, I'm curious about where your system came from. I like its flavor in some ways, but in others it seems curiously and unnecessarily restrictive. Obviously you made it that way, but why?
------
This is a complex question. The caste system was created originally around the necessities of the novel's premise (i.e. what sort of society would have this Reality-TV-From-Hell as its #1 form of mass entertainment?), combined with a speculative extrapolation from the realities of American society -- You Are What You Do, and increased power (whether from celebrity, political connection, or simple wealth) brings with it proportionally greater immunity from legal jeopardy. Fundamentally, it is an expression of real free-market economics. In reality, there is NO SUCH THING as a "free market" -- because every privileged class organizes government (and hence, social economics) to protect its own privileges. What makes the caste system stable is that it preserves the mythology of the American Experiment: that hard work and determination enable one to rise above one's birth or social status. This is the ultimate incentive for the less-privileged classes to support the system; the dream that someday they (or their descendants) might join the ranks of the Privileged . . . so long as nobody makes waves. The caste system also arises from what I see as the innate tribalism of human nature; each caste carries its own mythology of exceptionalism (demonstrated graphically by Kollberg's disquisition on the superior virtues of Administration in HEROES DIE). The essence of Libertarian principle is freedom from government intervention. The caste system is the opposite of Libertarianism; it depends on rigorous regulation of all forms of social and economic interaction. It's a substantial mistake to characterize me as a Libertarian; I'm not. Even remotely. Duncan is (in spirit, anyway), Hari isn't. Heinlein was, more or less . . . and his Libertarian manifesto, THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, is specifically referenced in HEROES DIE, with Pallas Ril taking on Heinlein's Scarlet Pimpernel persona of Simon Jester -- which leads her to cause more death and destruction than Caine could ever dream of . . .
I could go into a great deal more detail here, but the simple answer on the caste system is: I made it up.
In fact, when I originally conceived the caste system (back in the 80s), it seemed a great deal more outlandishly dystopian than it does today; now it largely appears to be a direct allegory for the emerging character of American society under Bushism: hands off the privileged, and fist-fuck everybody else.
Feel free to inquire further, if this doesn't answer your question.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
Thursday, November 29
More from Peter:
------
On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:43 AM, Peter wrote:
Good point on the philosophy thing... I think the reason why I (being the one who argued for that genre) fit Blade in particular there was because of the advent of Cainism. I tend to think of books as 'philosophical' when they make an attempt to define or state the perspectives of its characters explicitly, separately from their actions. Hence I like to put Atlas Shrugged, some of the new Star Wars work by Karen Traviss in particular on the Mandalorians, and Blade of Tyshalle into that genre. My favorite books have a perspective so well-defined that it becomes a philosophy in my head, and one of the reasons I like Blade so much is because your characters do the same thing with people instead of books. I like seeing that done and how it works out for your people.
Thanks for the answer to my question on your Genre. I tend to think of Science Fiction when I think of your favorite themes, but now that you put it into those terms High Fantasy and Science Fiction aren't all that different. I think Science Fiction brings the themes into a more understandable format because in most SciFi the people are just us with bigger guns (or whatev) and the power that accompanies better tools, but Fantasy is the same thing, changing physics instead of our point in history.
In my experience the main problem with fantasy is that the author writes a book playing around with their new tools instead of one where the characters are using them as though, you know, they grew up with them. Always breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. I like your way of doing it, it makes much more sense for people to think magic is a big deal if it's not intrinsic to their universe.
Gah, your stating of some of your favorite themes opens up a whole new field of questions. Mostly though, I noted that they tend to be things that everyone encounters in daily life, or would if they took responsibility for their own actions.
You seem to deal neatly with the idea of someone moving beyond their 'assigned' responsibilities through the caste system and how people break it in Heroes and Blade, but I'm curious as to how you designed the Caste system itself. Did you just sort of look at the castes inherent in business and codify them a bit? I'm also a bit curious as to how someone advances in caste. It's sort of explained through Kollberg in Heroes, but I didn't quite grasp it.
Quick Question; I'm always looking for more readings. Do you have a list of some good books you've found that address or use some of those themes?
In particular, I can never seem to find good books on the responsibilities of power which take into account chaos theory. They're always a bit too clear-cut for me. Got anything?
-------
Well . . . none of my characters is entirely a product of their intellectual convictions (unlike Ayn Rand's, for example). But because I prefer to write about really, really smart people, they often have constructed a sort of philosophical framework to explain to themselves why they do what they do . . . but sometimes (usually, in fact -- viz. Caine, Deliann, Raithe, t'Passe, Tan'elKoth and all) the truth underlying their actions doesn't match with their personal view. In fact, it seems to me (speaking now as a reader, rather than as the author) that the only characters who aren't self-deluded to a lesser or greater extent are the simpler ones . . . the ones who tend not to think about themselves too much, like Kierendal, Majesty, Tommie, Orbek . . . there's a strong undercurrent of Nietzsche's observation that "Man is not the rational animal so much as he is the rationalizing animal: the primary use to which we put our reason is to justify our unconscious drives and desires."
Caine says that dual-valued systems always break down in contact with reality, but when he doesn't mention is that ALL systems break down in contact with reality. Back to Nietzsche:
"It is we alone who have fabricated causes, succession, reciprocity, relativity, compulsion, number, law, freedom, motive, purpose; and when we falsely introduce this world of symbols into things and mingle it with them as though this symbol-world were an 'in-itself,' we once more behave as we have always behaved, namely mythologically." [Emphasis Nietzsche's]
Or, for that matter, another of Caine's favorite philosophers: "The best system is no system."
Meaning that intellectual frameworks are valuable, but only so long as one constantly bears in mind that the map is not the territory, so to speak.
I don't know of any other books that integrate chaos theory with moral philosophy; the two are kinda incompatible (another example of systems breaking down in contact with reality). The quote on chaos at the beginning of BLADE is from JURASSIC PARK . . . while that novel doesn't really delve into the implications of real chaos theory, especially the spontaneous "islands of order" that inevitably arise within the boundary conditions of chaotic systems (I suspect Crichton understands even less about chaos theory than I do, which ain't all that much), that particular quote sums up the hole it knocks in moral philosophy.
To put it another way, I'll quote the eminent (now departed) historian Arthur Schlesinger:
"The future outwits all our certitudes."
I've been thinking about putting that one at the beginning of CAINE BLACK KNIFE.
------
On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:43 AM, Peter wrote:
Good point on the philosophy thing... I think the reason why I (being the one who argued for that genre) fit Blade in particular there was because of the advent of Cainism. I tend to think of books as 'philosophical' when they make an attempt to define or state the perspectives of its characters explicitly, separately from their actions. Hence I like to put Atlas Shrugged, some of the new Star Wars work by Karen Traviss in particular on the Mandalorians, and Blade of Tyshalle into that genre. My favorite books have a perspective so well-defined that it becomes a philosophy in my head, and one of the reasons I like Blade so much is because your characters do the same thing with people instead of books. I like seeing that done and how it works out for your people.
Thanks for the answer to my question on your Genre. I tend to think of Science Fiction when I think of your favorite themes, but now that you put it into those terms High Fantasy and Science Fiction aren't all that different. I think Science Fiction brings the themes into a more understandable format because in most SciFi the people are just us with bigger guns (or whatev) and the power that accompanies better tools, but Fantasy is the same thing, changing physics instead of our point in history.
In my experience the main problem with fantasy is that the author writes a book playing around with their new tools instead of one where the characters are using them as though, you know, they grew up with them. Always breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. I like your way of doing it, it makes much more sense for people to think magic is a big deal if it's not intrinsic to their universe.
Gah, your stating of some of your favorite themes opens up a whole new field of questions. Mostly though, I noted that they tend to be things that everyone encounters in daily life, or would if they took responsibility for their own actions.
You seem to deal neatly with the idea of someone moving beyond their 'assigned' responsibilities through the caste system and how people break it in Heroes and Blade, but I'm curious as to how you designed the Caste system itself. Did you just sort of look at the castes inherent in business and codify them a bit? I'm also a bit curious as to how someone advances in caste. It's sort of explained through Kollberg in Heroes, but I didn't quite grasp it.
Quick Question; I'm always looking for more readings. Do you have a list of some good books you've found that address or use some of those themes?
In particular, I can never seem to find good books on the responsibilities of power which take into account chaos theory. They're always a bit too clear-cut for me. Got anything?
-------
Well . . . none of my characters is entirely a product of their intellectual convictions (unlike Ayn Rand's, for example). But because I prefer to write about really, really smart people, they often have constructed a sort of philosophical framework to explain to themselves why they do what they do . . . but sometimes (usually, in fact -- viz. Caine, Deliann, Raithe, t'Passe, Tan'elKoth and all) the truth underlying their actions doesn't match with their personal view. In fact, it seems to me (speaking now as a reader, rather than as the author) that the only characters who aren't self-deluded to a lesser or greater extent are the simpler ones . . . the ones who tend not to think about themselves too much, like Kierendal, Majesty, Tommie, Orbek . . . there's a strong undercurrent of Nietzsche's observation that "Man is not the rational animal so much as he is the rationalizing animal: the primary use to which we put our reason is to justify our unconscious drives and desires."
Caine says that dual-valued systems always break down in contact with reality, but when he doesn't mention is that ALL systems break down in contact with reality. Back to Nietzsche:
"It is we alone who have fabricated causes, succession, reciprocity, relativity, compulsion, number, law, freedom, motive, purpose; and when we falsely introduce this world of symbols into things and mingle it with them as though this symbol-world were an 'in-itself,' we once more behave as we have always behaved, namely mythologically." [Emphasis Nietzsche's]
Or, for that matter, another of Caine's favorite philosophers: "The best system is no system."
Meaning that intellectual frameworks are valuable, but only so long as one constantly bears in mind that the map is not the territory, so to speak.
I don't know of any other books that integrate chaos theory with moral philosophy; the two are kinda incompatible (another example of systems breaking down in contact with reality). The quote on chaos at the beginning of BLADE is from JURASSIC PARK . . . while that novel doesn't really delve into the implications of real chaos theory, especially the spontaneous "islands of order" that inevitably arise within the boundary conditions of chaotic systems (I suspect Crichton understands even less about chaos theory than I do, which ain't all that much), that particular quote sums up the hole it knocks in moral philosophy.
To put it another way, I'll quote the eminent (now departed) historian Arthur Schlesinger:
"The future outwits all our certitudes."
I've been thinking about putting that one at the beginning of CAINE BLACK KNIFE.
Wednesday, November 28
And now from Rob, a long-time correspondent:
On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Rob Suder wrote:
Hey Matt, I always appreciate you taking the time to answer emails and such. So thank you, especially considering how busy you probably are with you current works. I have a mixture of questions, a few about writing and a few observations mostly about the Caine novels. I’ve been rereading Blade of Tyshalle and I’m about three-fourths the way through it, at the point where Caine has been moved from the Pit to the Shaft. Something I’m just not sure if I caught onto the first time or not regarding Tan’elkoth, Ma’elkoth, and Hannto the Scythe is how they could be viewed as a split-personality disorder. They way there’s countless personalities, but some are more dominant than others each believing they need to be in control, rather than Ma’elkoth truly being a God it throws an interesting view into Heroes Die when Caine first meets Ma’elkoth and wonders. It also parallels Deliann’s argument to Caine, that Hari is merely a mask so Caine could get by on Earth as a parapalegic. At any rate I know you do an enormous amount of research on the background sources for your novels, and I wondered if you did any into psychiatric disorders? Of course Overwold magic is still more…traditional…than it is on Earth in the novels, and sometimes the simplest answer is correct. But with a lot of the philosophy in the story, I’ve been trying to think (and hopefully not over-think) aspects from a different point of view. In regards to the philosphies, especially in Blade of Tyshalle, I was wondering which ones much of Caine’s, Duncan’s, and Tan’elkoth’s musing are based on? Tao for example? Or Hindu beliefs? I’ll admit my knowledge of them is pretty small, but I’ve tried to research them in the past and most of the books in stores or libraries don’t seem very accessible to the average person. Okay…now I have a few writing questions I was hoping to I could pester you with. I’ve been working on an outline for a story, and I have an overall plot but I find myself constantly stuck on the catalyst at the beginning of the story. I have my main character, where he’s at emotionally/personally and where I want him to go. I know the basics of the overall journey, but I’m having trouble finding an event that starts or prompts him to move through the story. So I guess I’m hoping you would be willing to give me a different perspective, when you hit a tought spot while working on a story? Did you skip past the trouble spot, and come back to it later? Have you found it more difficult to jump around when writing in such a manner? I haven’t really tried writing later events, because I’m inclined to try to write the story from start to finish. Regardless I’m grateful for any advice you might be able to give. With that I’ll wrap this up with one last, probably always asked question: How are things going with Caine Black Knife? Any news you’re allowed to mention? Thanks again for taking the time to write!
------
Hey, Rob.
I didn't do any research specifically into psychiatric disorders, though I have read any number of the novelized case histories (THE THREE FACES OF EVE, SIBYL, etc) that were popular in the second half of the last century, and I do keep up, more or less, with developments in the field.
The theory of personality that underlies HD and BLADE is largely my own, cribbed from my own experience as an actor -- how a character played with sufficient conviction becomes a secondary (sometimes primary) personality. It's not so much a question of MPD as it is that personality, in my view, is a perceptual framework one uses to filter experience. Personality is not a discrete feature of life, but rather an aggregate of certain habits of mind. Tan'elKoth's view of art is specifically a metaphor for this, for example. (It's also my personal view of art, but let that go.)
Duncan's political philosophy is grounded in John Locke, by way of Abraham Lincoln . . . though its primary basis is in the works of mid-period Robert Heinlein, specifically THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS. There are ways HEROES DIE, specifically, can be read as a critical reply to Heinlein's political theories, but that's a side issue.
The theory of consciousness that underlies Deliann's discussions with Caine (and, for that matter, the metaphysics of Ma'elKoth), is mostly mine . . . though I have seen a few references in neuroscience journals in support of the premise, which is that the human nervous system is not the producer of the mind, but merely its receiver, tuned to a specific frequency of a greater "field of mind," which -- you will note -- neatly explains the results of "identical twin separated at birth" studies, as well as the occasional flashes of telepathy and insights one experiences while under the influence of certain "mind-altering drugs" -- as well as the personality and cognitive changes that proceed from traumatic brain injury . . . it also explains the physical changes in the wiring of the brain that we naturally produce when we learn . . . we're re-tuning our nervous systems. It also explains the effects of differing styles of religio-mystic training, everything from yoga to Zen to Catholic mass -- each of these is designed to tune the nervous system to certain frequencies that eventually result in a specific type of mental experience . . . and the type of experience depends on the type of training, if you follow me. The inspiration for that came from the Western mystic traditions (i.e. the Greek mystery religions, druidic lore, and some of the Native American shamanic traditions, as well as the works of Teilhard de Chardin).
The conceptual framework of Cainism is an outgrowth of Nieztschean perspectivism, leavened with a dash of chaos theory.
As far as the writing problem goes, it sounds to me like you're trying to start the story too early in the plot. The genesis of any good story is in the initial problem: you need to make sure than when we first meet your protagonist, he's ALREADY in so much trouble that he MUST act . . . and then his action produces a counter-action from his antagonists (whether they be villains, society, or an uncaring universe) so that it escalates the tension rather than relieving it. If you're just writing a short, then you need to start at the climax, and fill in the plot that led there as you go along; if you're writing a longer piece -- novella-length on up -- then you want at least a couple of escalations in there before you hit the climax.
Let me know if this helps.
--Oh, and can I post this correspondence on my blog? It seems to be a good way to keep the thing going, and some of these questions are worth sharing.
Matt
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
On Nov 22, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Rob Suder wrote:
Hey Matt, I always appreciate you taking the time to answer emails and such. So thank you, especially considering how busy you probably are with you current works. I have a mixture of questions, a few about writing and a few observations mostly about the Caine novels. I’ve been rereading Blade of Tyshalle and I’m about three-fourths the way through it, at the point where Caine has been moved from the Pit to the Shaft. Something I’m just not sure if I caught onto the first time or not regarding Tan’elkoth, Ma’elkoth, and Hannto the Scythe is how they could be viewed as a split-personality disorder. They way there’s countless personalities, but some are more dominant than others each believing they need to be in control, rather than Ma’elkoth truly being a God it throws an interesting view into Heroes Die when Caine first meets Ma’elkoth and wonders. It also parallels Deliann’s argument to Caine, that Hari is merely a mask so Caine could get by on Earth as a parapalegic. At any rate I know you do an enormous amount of research on the background sources for your novels, and I wondered if you did any into psychiatric disorders? Of course Overwold magic is still more…traditional…than it is on Earth in the novels, and sometimes the simplest answer is correct. But with a lot of the philosophy in the story, I’ve been trying to think (and hopefully not over-think) aspects from a different point of view. In regards to the philosphies, especially in Blade of Tyshalle, I was wondering which ones much of Caine’s, Duncan’s, and Tan’elkoth’s musing are based on? Tao for example? Or Hindu beliefs? I’ll admit my knowledge of them is pretty small, but I’ve tried to research them in the past and most of the books in stores or libraries don’t seem very accessible to the average person. Okay…now I have a few writing questions I was hoping to I could pester you with. I’ve been working on an outline for a story, and I have an overall plot but I find myself constantly stuck on the catalyst at the beginning of the story. I have my main character, where he’s at emotionally/personally and where I want him to go. I know the basics of the overall journey, but I’m having trouble finding an event that starts or prompts him to move through the story. So I guess I’m hoping you would be willing to give me a different perspective, when you hit a tought spot while working on a story? Did you skip past the trouble spot, and come back to it later? Have you found it more difficult to jump around when writing in such a manner? I haven’t really tried writing later events, because I’m inclined to try to write the story from start to finish. Regardless I’m grateful for any advice you might be able to give. With that I’ll wrap this up with one last, probably always asked question: How are things going with Caine Black Knife? Any news you’re allowed to mention? Thanks again for taking the time to write!
------
Hey, Rob.
I didn't do any research specifically into psychiatric disorders, though I have read any number of the novelized case histories (THE THREE FACES OF EVE, SIBYL, etc) that were popular in the second half of the last century, and I do keep up, more or less, with developments in the field.
The theory of personality that underlies HD and BLADE is largely my own, cribbed from my own experience as an actor -- how a character played with sufficient conviction becomes a secondary (sometimes primary) personality. It's not so much a question of MPD as it is that personality, in my view, is a perceptual framework one uses to filter experience. Personality is not a discrete feature of life, but rather an aggregate of certain habits of mind. Tan'elKoth's view of art is specifically a metaphor for this, for example. (It's also my personal view of art, but let that go.)
Duncan's political philosophy is grounded in John Locke, by way of Abraham Lincoln . . . though its primary basis is in the works of mid-period Robert Heinlein, specifically THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS. There are ways HEROES DIE, specifically, can be read as a critical reply to Heinlein's political theories, but that's a side issue.
The theory of consciousness that underlies Deliann's discussions with Caine (and, for that matter, the metaphysics of Ma'elKoth), is mostly mine . . . though I have seen a few references in neuroscience journals in support of the premise, which is that the human nervous system is not the producer of the mind, but merely its receiver, tuned to a specific frequency of a greater "field of mind," which -- you will note -- neatly explains the results of "identical twin separated at birth" studies, as well as the occasional flashes of telepathy and insights one experiences while under the influence of certain "mind-altering drugs" -- as well as the personality and cognitive changes that proceed from traumatic brain injury . . . it also explains the physical changes in the wiring of the brain that we naturally produce when we learn . . . we're re-tuning our nervous systems. It also explains the effects of differing styles of religio-mystic training, everything from yoga to Zen to Catholic mass -- each of these is designed to tune the nervous system to certain frequencies that eventually result in a specific type of mental experience . . . and the type of experience depends on the type of training, if you follow me. The inspiration for that came from the Western mystic traditions (i.e. the Greek mystery religions, druidic lore, and some of the Native American shamanic traditions, as well as the works of Teilhard de Chardin).
The conceptual framework of Cainism is an outgrowth of Nieztschean perspectivism, leavened with a dash of chaos theory.
As far as the writing problem goes, it sounds to me like you're trying to start the story too early in the plot. The genesis of any good story is in the initial problem: you need to make sure than when we first meet your protagonist, he's ALREADY in so much trouble that he MUST act . . . and then his action produces a counter-action from his antagonists (whether they be villains, society, or an uncaring universe) so that it escalates the tension rather than relieving it. If you're just writing a short, then you need to start at the climax, and fill in the plot that led there as you go along; if you're writing a longer piece -- novella-length on up -- then you want at least a couple of escalations in there before you hit the climax.
Let me know if this helps.
--Oh, and can I post this correspondence on my blog? It seems to be a good way to keep the thing going, and some of these questions are worth sharing.
Matt
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
Thursday, November 22
More from Peter:
On Nov 20, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Peter wrote:
Yeah, you definitely answered the question I was trying to ask, whether you felt there was an implied moral imperative in publishing your writing. Good to know there's someone out there not trying to force me to be like their characters.
The pre-moral stance bit is interesting. I find that I have a liking for science fiction (and truth that approaches it) for a reason which is beyond approval for the perspectives embodied in the work. I just like reading what happens when people draw lines into the future of science, or philosophy, or morality through fantasy.
I'm curious, did you choose your genre, or did it choose you?
I've had discussions with my friends over whether your writing is sci-fi, fantasy, or philosophy, and we figured it's sort of a gray area in the middle of genre. Did you set out to create a world where that was possible, or just tell what you wanted to and place it where it fit?
-----
I don't think of my work as philosophy at all . . . unless you take the word philosophy to its etymologic roots, in which case any form of narrative can be considered to fall under that rubric; all narrative reflects the internal metaphysic of its creator(s) willy-nilly, even something as grossly pandering as a night-time soap or Robyn Williams film. The philosophy, it seems to me, arises of the act of interpretation; what I'm putting into the work is less philosophy than it is perspective. I write the world as I see the world--even when I'm writing about someone else's world, like Mr Lucas's, for example.
As far as "my genre" goes, what I really wanted to write was comic books -- specifically superhero books; I've always loved the stew of unrestrained imagineering that goes into the best comics. Which are always a mix of fantasy, SF, and psychological honesty. My favorite comics often deal directly with many of the themes that I seem to keep coming back to: the role of performance in the nature of identity, the responsibilities of power, the consequences of imposing one's will upon one's world, and the consequences of refusing to do so . . . all that stuff, and more.
I specifically chose to work in heroic fantasy because when I was starting out, HF was considered the lowest kind of trash-reading, with only very few exceptions (Donaldson, late Moorcock, Vonnegut, a few others) -- but from my reading, grounded in Greek and Roman myth, it could (and should) be the HIGHEST form of literature. It's the one where Everything's on the Table. Nothing's off-limits. But sadly, very very few writers can make a decent living at it, and I don't seem to be one of the few. I started strong, but (due to issues with my health) my average income from writing has been been static over the course of my career. Money that looks pretty good when you're thirty-three isn't so swell when you're forty-five . . . especially when it's not even keeping up with inflation.
The "tell what you want to tell" thing is great in theory, but when your work doesn't fall squarely into a pre-defined publishing category, a publisher has no idea how to market it, and such works tend to fell through the cracks. Kind of like HEROES DIE and BLADE did. I suspect that Del Rey has a better idea how to handle CBK, though. We'll see.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
On Nov 20, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Peter wrote:
Yeah, you definitely answered the question I was trying to ask, whether you felt there was an implied moral imperative in publishing your writing. Good to know there's someone out there not trying to force me to be like their characters.
The pre-moral stance bit is interesting. I find that I have a liking for science fiction (and truth that approaches it) for a reason which is beyond approval for the perspectives embodied in the work. I just like reading what happens when people draw lines into the future of science, or philosophy, or morality through fantasy.
I'm curious, did you choose your genre, or did it choose you?
I've had discussions with my friends over whether your writing is sci-fi, fantasy, or philosophy, and we figured it's sort of a gray area in the middle of genre. Did you set out to create a world where that was possible, or just tell what you wanted to and place it where it fit?
-----
I don't think of my work as philosophy at all . . . unless you take the word philosophy to its etymologic roots, in which case any form of narrative can be considered to fall under that rubric; all narrative reflects the internal metaphysic of its creator(s) willy-nilly, even something as grossly pandering as a night-time soap or Robyn Williams film. The philosophy, it seems to me, arises of the act of interpretation; what I'm putting into the work is less philosophy than it is perspective. I write the world as I see the world--even when I'm writing about someone else's world, like Mr Lucas's, for example.
As far as "my genre" goes, what I really wanted to write was comic books -- specifically superhero books; I've always loved the stew of unrestrained imagineering that goes into the best comics. Which are always a mix of fantasy, SF, and psychological honesty. My favorite comics often deal directly with many of the themes that I seem to keep coming back to: the role of performance in the nature of identity, the responsibilities of power, the consequences of imposing one's will upon one's world, and the consequences of refusing to do so . . . all that stuff, and more.
I specifically chose to work in heroic fantasy because when I was starting out, HF was considered the lowest kind of trash-reading, with only very few exceptions (Donaldson, late Moorcock, Vonnegut, a few others) -- but from my reading, grounded in Greek and Roman myth, it could (and should) be the HIGHEST form of literature. It's the one where Everything's on the Table. Nothing's off-limits. But sadly, very very few writers can make a decent living at it, and I don't seem to be one of the few. I started strong, but (due to issues with my health) my average income from writing has been been static over the course of my career. Money that looks pretty good when you're thirty-three isn't so swell when you're forty-five . . . especially when it's not even keeping up with inflation.
The "tell what you want to tell" thing is great in theory, but when your work doesn't fall squarely into a pre-defined publishing category, a publisher has no idea how to market it, and such works tend to fell through the cracks. Kind of like HEROES DIE and BLADE did. I suspect that Del Rey has a better idea how to handle CBK, though. We'll see.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
Tuesday, November 20
Hey. I have risen. Or something.
Got the following e-mail from some thoughtful fellow upon finishing BLADE, and it's led to some correspondence that I think fans of the Acts of Caine might find interesting. So I'm putting it up here.
------
Hey, I finished Blade of Tyshalle and am rereading Heroes Die. I'm finding that the philosophies of Cainism resonate with the perspectives I use to act and am a bit curious as to whether you're planning on releasing a Cainist Philosophy book. Sort of seeing you as an Ayn Rand, with a book that shows your philosophies through characters and the potential for a more clear statement.
I don't know if that sort of thing would appeal to you, but I'm curious, so sue me.
-Peter.
------
Hey.
No, BLADE OF TYSHALLE is itself my Cainist Philosophy book. Unlike Ms Rand, Cainism is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not about how people should live, it's about how they do live, whether they want to or not. Caine's just the most extreme case . . . if you see what I mean.
And my philosophy isn't really my philosophy; it's (roughly speaking) a blend of Nietzschean perspectivism with classical Taoism, leavened with chaos theory. In other words (as some critics have pointed out), there's nothing particularly original about it. Which is okay with me, because I don't actually care about being original. I care about telling the truth as I see it, and about writing novels that people will want to read more than once . . . not necessarily in that order.
Thanks for your interest, and thanks for writing.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
------
I think that's why I like it so much, it's a more real philosophy than most stuff I get smacked around with. More true to life instead of how things should be.
Aren't all philosophies just blends of ideas from before? Methinks you give yourself too little credit... or maybe this is the 'be humble in front of my fans' act. Either way, I like the ideas a lot. The chaos theory bit in particular.
Question; if your books aren't meant to be prescriptive, why do you pick a cast of characters? Heroes Die was all Caine, but showing a cast leads me to assume the people have something in common worth noting in your story. I know assumption is the first step into a shallow grave (or something like that), but how is it possible to write without being prescriptive while using more than one character?
------
Hmm. Some readers might take the story as prescriptive: "You should act like Caine, and you'll always win," or "If you act like Caine, your victories will always cost more than they're worth," or whatever (gods help them if they do . . .). That's a factor of interpretation, which is not my business. My business is telling a story as honestly as I can, given the limitations of my subject matter and the limitations of my personal insight and authorial skill. I don't approach my characters from a moral stance, but from an esthetic one; in other words, I don't much care whether they're Good or Bad, only whether I Like 'Em or I Don't. My bias in that regard might be read as an implicit moral endorsement or moral condemnation of their behavior, but it is not intended that way. The things BLADE's characters have in common are not moral factors, but mythological ones.
As I implied in BLADE -- and stated explicitly in STAR WARS ON TRIAL -- interpretation is subjective. What anything means, as Caine says, depends on how you tell the story. It also depends on who's hearing/reading/watching it. A book, as I've said elsewhere, is nothing but words on a page. The actual novel is what happens inside your head when you read that book. If there's something you can take away from that experience that you feel deepens your understanding of your own life, then that's a bonus -- but it's not necessarily thanks to me; people can find things in books that the author had no intention of putting there. A novel (a good one, anyway) is like a shovel you can use to excavate your own mind . . . find the treasures buried in there, polish 'em a bit, then hold 'em up to see how much they sparkle . . .
Hey, would you mind very much if I posted this correspondence on my blog? I only update the damned thing every three or four months, and I think it's due.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
------
I would be honored to be on your blog. Just high-fived my roommate at the very thought.
One more question. For now. :)
If you're telling a story that you like and I like it too, i assume we have something in common. Some sort of shared perspective or common sense of entertainment which gives us that commonality.
If we both like Caine because he does what we've always wanted to do (true or not) or at least wanted to see done, and you put it there, are you pulling a sort of Studio shield? I just give the people, myself included, what they say they want, and how they take it isn't what I did it for. I'm in it for the money, so to speak.
Not saying that the Studio is wrong, I can often empathize with the idea of wanting a shield, saying that when you write a story the way you do, true to life's inner forms, it's more likely to cater to the people who don't want a shield. They're the ones looking for sparkly things in their heads, instead of in their bodies. Dunno if you know what i mean by that.
The question of this mini-rant is; are the 'moral factors' what makes a story prescriptive (more likely to be insubstantial), or is the knowledge of the idea of potentially prescriptive elements in the mind of the reader a sort of lens which causes stories which could lead to the sort of digging we both like to lose their potency.
Basically, do we make 'superficial' stories that way because we've got a heuristic for it, or do they perpetuate their own demise?
Your fault, or mine?
If it's my fault, do you think that the people looking for jewels do so out of a trained impulse, like others looking for prescriptions, or out of a desire to find what really entertains them?
wow. lotsa questions there. Running on no sleep... sorry.
------
I confess to not being entirely clear on the question. I'll do my best to answer what I THINK you're asking . . . then if I'm wrong, we can work it out from there.
The question, it seems to me, proceeds from a flawed premise: that our shared affection for the character of Caine proceeds from approval of his actions, and that this (presumed) approval translates into some sort of Kantian categorical imperative (which is something Cainism explicitly rejects -- see t'Passe's observation on sheep and wolves). I just don't see it that way. My affection for Caine (and that of most of his fans, I think) proceeds from what I would call a pre-moral stance, or even an anti-moral stance. It's a largely visceral reaction -- a hormone-driven one, I believe, with the dominant hormone being adrenaline, closely followed by testosterone. We like him because he gets us charged up . . . a reaction that takes place without regard to our moral sensibilities, whatever they may be.
Which is not to say he's without intellectual virtues or admirable qualities, but that's another discussion.
For the record, I DON'T give the people what they want. I give the people what I want. What the hypothetical people make of it, however, is inherently beyond my control. And I don't do it for the money (God knows!). I do it because I want to tell you a story that will keep you up at night . . . and maybe get you to spend some time, now and then, just thinking about your reaction to it.
I don't disavow responsibility for my readers' reactions, because much of what I write is intended to provoke reaction. I just can't control what that reaction will be, you follow? It's very much like Cainism itself: I control what I can control, and let the rest go. Because I have to; it's out of my hands.
In fact, I tend to disapprove of artists who insist on controlling your reaction to their work; that strikes me as crossing the line from art to propaganda. Ayn Rand would be a prime example, as would Steven Spielberg. We tend to find such things less objectionable when the points being hammered home are ones we already agree with . . . but I'm no great fan of the concept. I mean, when was the last time you re-read Aesop's Fables and found yourself thinking that "Geez, now that I'm older, I find myself kind of LIKING King Stork . . ."
I do think that readers who are looking for prescriptive elements in fiction are going to inherently miss some of the simple pleasures of reading -- because they're adding a layer of intellectual filtering that keeps them that much more removed from the immersive experience that good fiction should be.
I hope that no one's looking for jewels . . . because of that intellectual filtering thing, see? Besides, jewels sparkle all the more when you come upon them unexpectedly.
Again: I hope you find this response pertinent. If it isn't, please feel free to clarify your question.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
Got the following e-mail from some thoughtful fellow upon finishing BLADE, and it's led to some correspondence that I think fans of the Acts of Caine might find interesting. So I'm putting it up here.
------
Hey, I finished Blade of Tyshalle and am rereading Heroes Die. I'm finding that the philosophies of Cainism resonate with the perspectives I use to act and am a bit curious as to whether you're planning on releasing a Cainist Philosophy book. Sort of seeing you as an Ayn Rand, with a book that shows your philosophies through characters and the potential for a more clear statement.
I don't know if that sort of thing would appeal to you, but I'm curious, so sue me.
-Peter.
------
Hey.
No, BLADE OF TYSHALLE is itself my Cainist Philosophy book. Unlike Ms Rand, Cainism is descriptive, not prescriptive. It's not about how people should live, it's about how they do live, whether they want to or not. Caine's just the most extreme case . . . if you see what I mean.
And my philosophy isn't really my philosophy; it's (roughly speaking) a blend of Nietzschean perspectivism with classical Taoism, leavened with chaos theory. In other words (as some critics have pointed out), there's nothing particularly original about it. Which is okay with me, because I don't actually care about being original. I care about telling the truth as I see it, and about writing novels that people will want to read more than once . . . not necessarily in that order.
Thanks for your interest, and thanks for writing.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
------
I think that's why I like it so much, it's a more real philosophy than most stuff I get smacked around with. More true to life instead of how things should be.
Aren't all philosophies just blends of ideas from before? Methinks you give yourself too little credit... or maybe this is the 'be humble in front of my fans' act. Either way, I like the ideas a lot. The chaos theory bit in particular.
Question; if your books aren't meant to be prescriptive, why do you pick a cast of characters? Heroes Die was all Caine, but showing a cast leads me to assume the people have something in common worth noting in your story. I know assumption is the first step into a shallow grave (or something like that), but how is it possible to write without being prescriptive while using more than one character?
------
Hmm. Some readers might take the story as prescriptive: "You should act like Caine, and you'll always win," or "If you act like Caine, your victories will always cost more than they're worth," or whatever (gods help them if they do . . .). That's a factor of interpretation, which is not my business. My business is telling a story as honestly as I can, given the limitations of my subject matter and the limitations of my personal insight and authorial skill. I don't approach my characters from a moral stance, but from an esthetic one; in other words, I don't much care whether they're Good or Bad, only whether I Like 'Em or I Don't. My bias in that regard might be read as an implicit moral endorsement or moral condemnation of their behavior, but it is not intended that way. The things BLADE's characters have in common are not moral factors, but mythological ones.
As I implied in BLADE -- and stated explicitly in STAR WARS ON TRIAL -- interpretation is subjective. What anything means, as Caine says, depends on how you tell the story. It also depends on who's hearing/reading/watching it. A book, as I've said elsewhere, is nothing but words on a page. The actual novel is what happens inside your head when you read that book. If there's something you can take away from that experience that you feel deepens your understanding of your own life, then that's a bonus -- but it's not necessarily thanks to me; people can find things in books that the author had no intention of putting there. A novel (a good one, anyway) is like a shovel you can use to excavate your own mind . . . find the treasures buried in there, polish 'em a bit, then hold 'em up to see how much they sparkle . . .
Hey, would you mind very much if I posted this correspondence on my blog? I only update the damned thing every three or four months, and I think it's due.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
------
I would be honored to be on your blog. Just high-fived my roommate at the very thought.
One more question. For now. :)
If you're telling a story that you like and I like it too, i assume we have something in common. Some sort of shared perspective or common sense of entertainment which gives us that commonality.
If we both like Caine because he does what we've always wanted to do (true or not) or at least wanted to see done, and you put it there, are you pulling a sort of Studio shield? I just give the people, myself included, what they say they want, and how they take it isn't what I did it for. I'm in it for the money, so to speak.
Not saying that the Studio is wrong, I can often empathize with the idea of wanting a shield, saying that when you write a story the way you do, true to life's inner forms, it's more likely to cater to the people who don't want a shield. They're the ones looking for sparkly things in their heads, instead of in their bodies. Dunno if you know what i mean by that.
The question of this mini-rant is; are the 'moral factors' what makes a story prescriptive (more likely to be insubstantial), or is the knowledge of the idea of potentially prescriptive elements in the mind of the reader a sort of lens which causes stories which could lead to the sort of digging we both like to lose their potency.
Basically, do we make 'superficial' stories that way because we've got a heuristic for it, or do they perpetuate their own demise?
Your fault, or mine?
If it's my fault, do you think that the people looking for jewels do so out of a trained impulse, like others looking for prescriptions, or out of a desire to find what really entertains them?
wow. lotsa questions there. Running on no sleep... sorry.
------
I confess to not being entirely clear on the question. I'll do my best to answer what I THINK you're asking . . . then if I'm wrong, we can work it out from there.
The question, it seems to me, proceeds from a flawed premise: that our shared affection for the character of Caine proceeds from approval of his actions, and that this (presumed) approval translates into some sort of Kantian categorical imperative (which is something Cainism explicitly rejects -- see t'Passe's observation on sheep and wolves). I just don't see it that way. My affection for Caine (and that of most of his fans, I think) proceeds from what I would call a pre-moral stance, or even an anti-moral stance. It's a largely visceral reaction -- a hormone-driven one, I believe, with the dominant hormone being adrenaline, closely followed by testosterone. We like him because he gets us charged up . . . a reaction that takes place without regard to our moral sensibilities, whatever they may be.
Which is not to say he's without intellectual virtues or admirable qualities, but that's another discussion.
For the record, I DON'T give the people what they want. I give the people what I want. What the hypothetical people make of it, however, is inherently beyond my control. And I don't do it for the money (God knows!). I do it because I want to tell you a story that will keep you up at night . . . and maybe get you to spend some time, now and then, just thinking about your reaction to it.
I don't disavow responsibility for my readers' reactions, because much of what I write is intended to provoke reaction. I just can't control what that reaction will be, you follow? It's very much like Cainism itself: I control what I can control, and let the rest go. Because I have to; it's out of my hands.
In fact, I tend to disapprove of artists who insist on controlling your reaction to their work; that strikes me as crossing the line from art to propaganda. Ayn Rand would be a prime example, as would Steven Spielberg. We tend to find such things less objectionable when the points being hammered home are ones we already agree with . . . but I'm no great fan of the concept. I mean, when was the last time you re-read Aesop's Fables and found yourself thinking that "Geez, now that I'm older, I find myself kind of LIKING King Stork . . ."
I do think that readers who are looking for prescriptive elements in fiction are going to inherently miss some of the simple pleasures of reading -- because they're adding a layer of intellectual filtering that keeps them that much more removed from the immersive experience that good fiction should be.
I hope that no one's looking for jewels . . . because of that intellectual filtering thing, see? Besides, jewels sparkle all the more when you come upon them unexpectedly.
Again: I hope you find this response pertinent. If it isn't, please feel free to clarify your question.
Matthew Woodring Stover
numquam desisto
Saturday, June 30
Surrendering to the pressure . . .
Yeah, I know: I'm never here. Partly it's because I really don't care for writing about myself directly (of course, all my books are about myself--specifically, how I see the world--at least indirectly, but still . . .).
I've never forgotten a general social maxim from my dissipated youth:
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
This, like so many bits of Received Wisdom, is less an observation than an ideal . . . and one that seems more honor'd in the breach than th' observance, as Hamlet might say.
Here's the Business Part:
CAINE BLACK KNIFE is grinding its way through the editorial process, somewhere in Purgatory--erm, that is, in the literary void between Del Rey (which is the contractee for publication) and Ballantine, Bertlesmann AG's local corporate viceroy, which is currently the employer of Caine's editor. It appears to be tentatively slated for publication in mid-2008, roughly the same time-frame as LUKE SKYWALKER AND THE SHADOWS OF MINDOR. Which seems like a long time to wait, but, y'know, right now I'm just grateful it's coming out at all.
Also:
I've been corresponding once more with Dan Moran (Daniel Keys Moran, for those heretics among you who don't know him--you can buy his books on Amazon, and you should). He did me the favor of looking over CBK for me with a semi-critical eye. I say "semi-critical" because he's also a long-time Caine fan . . . in fact, he's married to Amy Stout (now Stout-Moran), who was the editor who bought HEROES DIE for Del Rey.
Anyway, here's the point: Just for fun, I thought I'd send him a copy of the late, lamented REAL FLASH GORDON. But when I opened the file, some of the formatting was corrupted, so I've been cleaning it up, and in the process discovering how much I really like my own writing. I always say I write the kind of books I like to read. Well, I'm telling the truth. Even my lightweight crap. Especially my lightweight crap. I guess because I was writing to exactly my own sense of humor, this book tickles the hell out of me.
I just wish I could find a concept for a book or two of my own that is as much flat-out fun as FLASH.
I must have been in a REALLY good mood while I was writing that.
That's all.
Yeah, I know: I'm never here. Partly it's because I really don't care for writing about myself directly (of course, all my books are about myself--specifically, how I see the world--at least indirectly, but still . . .).
I've never forgotten a general social maxim from my dissipated youth:
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
This, like so many bits of Received Wisdom, is less an observation than an ideal . . . and one that seems more honor'd in the breach than th' observance, as Hamlet might say.
Here's the Business Part:
CAINE BLACK KNIFE is grinding its way through the editorial process, somewhere in Purgatory--erm, that is, in the literary void between Del Rey (which is the contractee for publication) and Ballantine, Bertlesmann AG's local corporate viceroy, which is currently the employer of Caine's editor. It appears to be tentatively slated for publication in mid-2008, roughly the same time-frame as LUKE SKYWALKER AND THE SHADOWS OF MINDOR. Which seems like a long time to wait, but, y'know, right now I'm just grateful it's coming out at all.
Also:
I've been corresponding once more with Dan Moran (Daniel Keys Moran, for those heretics among you who don't know him--you can buy his books on Amazon, and you should). He did me the favor of looking over CBK for me with a semi-critical eye. I say "semi-critical" because he's also a long-time Caine fan . . . in fact, he's married to Amy Stout (now Stout-Moran), who was the editor who bought HEROES DIE for Del Rey.
Anyway, here's the point: Just for fun, I thought I'd send him a copy of the late, lamented REAL FLASH GORDON. But when I opened the file, some of the formatting was corrupted, so I've been cleaning it up, and in the process discovering how much I really like my own writing. I always say I write the kind of books I like to read. Well, I'm telling the truth. Even my lightweight crap. Especially my lightweight crap. I guess because I was writing to exactly my own sense of humor, this book tickles the hell out of me.
I just wish I could find a concept for a book or two of my own that is as much flat-out fun as FLASH.
I must have been in a REALLY good mood while I was writing that.
That's all.
Friday, April 27
Sick. Sick sick and more sick.
Here's the point: too sick to do my own research. To any and all available netmonkeys who still bother to show up here:
Who's the guy who wrote that book about his interviews with Osama bin Laden? I seem to recall it's titled something like "Talking to Osama." Along those lines, anyway.
I heard him talking about the book on the radio (late last year, I suspect); the salient point o the book was that in it, bin Laden specifically states that al Qaeda's long-term goal was to draw the United States into a endless guerrilla war in Afghanistan, where the mujahedeen could whip up on our military and break us the way they broke the Soviets.
This is pertinent because Our Glorious Bush cleverly avoided this trap (well, almost), and then -- perhaps out of a sort of professional courtesy, one nutjob fanatic to another -- created an all-new, improved version of Afghanistan out of a previously stable state (this being Iraq). Where we promptly locked outselves into an endless guerrilla war that is breaking our military, and our republic's will to fight.
I bring this up because it suddenly occurred to me that the Bush Administration could actually be correct (gods forbid!) in one thing: that the war in Iraq actually HAS been the reason there have been no further attacks here in the continental US. They haven't attacked us because they don't need to -- we're already doing exactly what they WANT.
This would be the al Qaeda version of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Which means that if we do pull out, there really IS an increased chance of a new attack. It also means that as long as we stay in, we're automatically losing. No matter how many people we kill. Because keeping us in is exactly bin Laden's strategic objective. Which Bush is intent on doing, which (from my limited political perspective) sounds a hell of a lot like giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Does anyone out there know the phrase "monkey trap"?
Well, we're the fucking monkey.
Here's the point: too sick to do my own research. To any and all available netmonkeys who still bother to show up here:
Who's the guy who wrote that book about his interviews with Osama bin Laden? I seem to recall it's titled something like "Talking to Osama." Along those lines, anyway.
I heard him talking about the book on the radio (late last year, I suspect); the salient point o the book was that in it, bin Laden specifically states that al Qaeda's long-term goal was to draw the United States into a endless guerrilla war in Afghanistan, where the mujahedeen could whip up on our military and break us the way they broke the Soviets.
This is pertinent because Our Glorious Bush cleverly avoided this trap (well, almost), and then -- perhaps out of a sort of professional courtesy, one nutjob fanatic to another -- created an all-new, improved version of Afghanistan out of a previously stable state (this being Iraq). Where we promptly locked outselves into an endless guerrilla war that is breaking our military, and our republic's will to fight.
I bring this up because it suddenly occurred to me that the Bush Administration could actually be correct (gods forbid!) in one thing: that the war in Iraq actually HAS been the reason there have been no further attacks here in the continental US. They haven't attacked us because they don't need to -- we're already doing exactly what they WANT.
This would be the al Qaeda version of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Which means that if we do pull out, there really IS an increased chance of a new attack. It also means that as long as we stay in, we're automatically losing. No matter how many people we kill. Because keeping us in is exactly bin Laden's strategic objective. Which Bush is intent on doing, which (from my limited political perspective) sounds a hell of a lot like giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Does anyone out there know the phrase "monkey trap"?
Well, we're the fucking monkey.
Thursday, April 12
Kurt Vonnegut died last night.
God damn it.
Never met him. Never wrote to him. The year I was born, he was writing his fourth novel. When it was published the next year, it sold 500 copies. It was called CAT'S CRADLE.
I don't feel bad for him. I feel bad for me. I feel like I've lost family.
The last lines of "Requiem," the final poem of his last book:
When the last living thing
has died on account of us,
how poetical it would be
if Earth could say,
in a voice floating up
perhaps
from the floor
of the Grand Canyon,
"It is done."
People did not like it here.
God damn it.
God damn it.
Never met him. Never wrote to him. The year I was born, he was writing his fourth novel. When it was published the next year, it sold 500 copies. It was called CAT'S CRADLE.
I don't feel bad for him. I feel bad for me. I feel like I've lost family.
The last lines of "Requiem," the final poem of his last book:
When the last living thing
has died on account of us,
how poetical it would be
if Earth could say,
in a voice floating up
perhaps
from the floor
of the Grand Canyon,
"It is done."
People did not like it here.
God damn it.
Friday, March 2
Every Language Snob in the English-speaking world is now cordially invited to kiss my ass.
Remember all those stuck-up horsebutts who've told you, over the years, that there is no English rhyme for "orange"?
The next time some dumbass pulls that, look hiim straight in the eye and say --
"Door-hinge."
Then tell him you stole it from me.
And send me a dollar.
If they want to pretend it's actually pronounced "or-raynj," say:
"Short-range."
And send me a dollar.
And if they insist on pronouncing in the French mode -- "or-rahnj" -- say:
"Melange."
And tell them to shut the fuck up.
And, of course, send me a dollar.
Don't forget to inform them that every time THEY use this to embarrass some know-it-less-than-all, they have to send me a dollar, too. And so forth.
No rhyme for orange, my ginger-haired butthole.
Or whatever.
Remember all those stuck-up horsebutts who've told you, over the years, that there is no English rhyme for "orange"?
The next time some dumbass pulls that, look hiim straight in the eye and say --
"Door-hinge."
Then tell him you stole it from me.
And send me a dollar.
If they want to pretend it's actually pronounced "or-raynj," say:
"Short-range."
And send me a dollar.
And if they insist on pronouncing in the French mode -- "or-rahnj" -- say:
"Melange."
And tell them to shut the fuck up.
And, of course, send me a dollar.
Don't forget to inform them that every time THEY use this to embarrass some know-it-less-than-all, they have to send me a dollar, too. And so forth.
No rhyme for orange, my ginger-haired butthole.
Or whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)