So, what exactly are we talking about, when we talk about that thing that we don't talk about?
(That last sentence may be a useful IQ test of it's own!)
What is Intelligence anyway? What do we mean by the term? And if this thing we label Intelligence really exists, does it have any practical relevance in our lives? Does it matter?
After more than 100 years of vigorous--and at times controversial--research, the vast majority of experts agree:
Yes, Virginia, there is a thing called Intelligence. It is not just a concept...and idea (An artifact, as scientists say). It is real. And it matters greatly.
There are a variety of cognitive skills--verbal, numerical, spatial, memory, and so forth. But at the top of the pyramid sits a pervasive, measurable global ability, that all human being possess, to varying degrees.
General intelligence--or, as it's known: g
g has been defined in many ways. Even though we all "sort of" know what we mean when we say "She's smart," it's hard to pin down with a comprehensive, accurate definition.
It includes a capacity to learn, to analyze that information, and to use it in creative ways to solve problems.
But at its core, this quality we call Intelligence is about complexity.
Linda Gottfredson is a leading scholar and a keen observer of the research into Intelligence. Here's how she explains it, in a 1998 Scientific American article:
"More complex tasks require more mental manipulation, and this manipulation of information--discerning similarities and inconsistencies, drawing inferences, grasping new concepts and so on--constitutes intelligence in action. Indeed, intelligence can best be described as the ability to deal with cognitive complexity."
Gottfredson points out that this mental aptitude of g is consistent with what the average person thinks of as intelligence: reasoning, problem solving, abstract thinking, quick learning.
And, as I mentioned in Part One of this series, the fact that intelligence exists at all rankles some people. Gottfredson again:
"The reality is that Mother Nature is no egalitarian. People are in fact unequal in intellectual potential--and they are born that way, just as they are born with different potentials for height, physical attractiveness, artistic flair, athletic prowess, and other traits. Although subsequent experience shapes this potential, no amount of social engineering can make individuals with widely divergent mental aptitudes into intellectual equals."
As one man of high measured IQ remarked, it is more socially acceptable to talk of hemorrhoids than it is to talk of intelligence.
Yet this aptitude for dealing with complexity has implications that start very early, and follow us throughout our lives.
Reading Proficiency Scales given to school children measure a number of text elements, in order to rank a given piece of writing. Average Words Per Sentence, Average word length, vocabulary level, and so on.
All of these elements are measured on a sliding scale, from low to high complexity. You have to master "See Spot Run" before you can move on to John Grisham...or James Joyce.
Reading is an exercise in cognitive complexity. The more "difficult" the work, the more cognitive capacity is required to comprehend the text.
I'm not suggesting that all persons of above average IQ will automatically have the same preferences. There are other factors that influence those decisions. Nor is it true to say that persons of high IQ will only enjoy complicated literature.
But various kinds of fiction make different demands on readers. And research shows that persons of higher IQ tend to have a higher appreciation for the increased complexity of "literary" fiction. There is a cutoff point, below which people find the challenges of "difficult" fiction too frustrating...too much work.
And this is one element that helps shape our reading choices as adults.
Before you can decide whether you "like" a story...you have to "get" it first. People gifted with the ability to comprehend more complex information simply have a wider pool of potential "likes."
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
That Thing We Don't Talk About (Part I)
No...Not the s-thing. Because sometimes we do talk about that.
The i-thing.
Earlier, I riffed on the topic of physical appearance & author photos.
We hardly ever talk about that in writing circles, yet social psychology is clear that appearance matters...that people draw initial conclusions about others (usually false ones) based on the Hottie Scale.
But there's another taboo topic....maybe even worse:
Intelligence.
Intelligence is a trait that lurks behind everything we do...everything we are...silently running in the background. If our unique set of personality dimensions represents the "software" of life, intelligence is the "operating system."
And like personality, intelligence plays a pivotal role in our choices, our preferences, our actions and behaviors.
We just never acknowledge it. When was the last time you participated in a discussion about writing or reading where intelligence was invoked to help explain our individual differences?
I thought so. Why is that? Here's my list of three reasons, for starters:
1) The average person takes intelligence for granted. One reason we don't talk about it is that we don't think about it. Like personality, unless you consciously decide to study its meaning in your life, you don't realize how widespread the implications are.
2) Intelligence gets a bad rap. Stereotypes...warranted or not...attach to notions of intelligence. When you think of highly intelligent people, do you think of "arrogant?" "Argumentative?" "Cold?" Intelligence brings with it some baggage that can make it an unwelcome visitor.
3) We can't readily change what we're gifted with. And that contributes mightily to the "awkwardness" factor.
Modern American society ranks the value of people according to four standards: Power (status/accomplishment); Beauty; Wealth; Intelligence.
Of these four, Intelligence is the least susceptible to change (with perhaps Beauty taking second place).
If we had a proven way to create significant gains in personal intelligence, it would spark an industry to rival our current obsession with physical appearance (books, videos, cosmetics, fitness equipment & programs, surgery, etc).
But we don't.
You can change you wealth. You can change your power/status. And, to a lesser extent, you can change your physical appearance. Intelligence, not so much.
Here's the recipe for a taboo:
1) Place a societal value on high intelligence.
2) Recognize the hard truth that some have more of this trait than others.
3) Tell those in the "have not" category that there's nothing they can do to alter that fact.
Sound like a volatile situation? In our egalitarian, "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" culture, it's not something we like to hear.
Over the coming weeks, we'll talk about this thing we don't talk about....how it relates to reading, and writing, and life.
What's your take? Are there other reasons why Intelligence is such a hot-button topic?
The i-thing.
Earlier, I riffed on the topic of physical appearance & author photos.
We hardly ever talk about that in writing circles, yet social psychology is clear that appearance matters...that people draw initial conclusions about others (usually false ones) based on the Hottie Scale.
But there's another taboo topic....maybe even worse:
Intelligence.
Intelligence is a trait that lurks behind everything we do...everything we are...silently running in the background. If our unique set of personality dimensions represents the "software" of life, intelligence is the "operating system."
And like personality, intelligence plays a pivotal role in our choices, our preferences, our actions and behaviors.
We just never acknowledge it. When was the last time you participated in a discussion about writing or reading where intelligence was invoked to help explain our individual differences?
I thought so. Why is that? Here's my list of three reasons, for starters:
1) The average person takes intelligence for granted. One reason we don't talk about it is that we don't think about it. Like personality, unless you consciously decide to study its meaning in your life, you don't realize how widespread the implications are.
2) Intelligence gets a bad rap. Stereotypes...warranted or not...attach to notions of intelligence. When you think of highly intelligent people, do you think of "arrogant?" "Argumentative?" "Cold?" Intelligence brings with it some baggage that can make it an unwelcome visitor.
3) We can't readily change what we're gifted with. And that contributes mightily to the "awkwardness" factor.
Modern American society ranks the value of people according to four standards: Power (status/accomplishment); Beauty; Wealth; Intelligence.
Of these four, Intelligence is the least susceptible to change (with perhaps Beauty taking second place).
If we had a proven way to create significant gains in personal intelligence, it would spark an industry to rival our current obsession with physical appearance (books, videos, cosmetics, fitness equipment & programs, surgery, etc).
But we don't.
You can change you wealth. You can change your power/status. And, to a lesser extent, you can change your physical appearance. Intelligence, not so much.
Here's the recipe for a taboo:
1) Place a societal value on high intelligence.
2) Recognize the hard truth that some have more of this trait than others.
3) Tell those in the "have not" category that there's nothing they can do to alter that fact.
Sound like a volatile situation? In our egalitarian, "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" culture, it's not something we like to hear.
Over the coming weeks, we'll talk about this thing we don't talk about....how it relates to reading, and writing, and life.
What's your take? Are there other reasons why Intelligence is such a hot-button topic?
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
George does
One of my favorite books of all time, hands down, is How to Get Ideas by Jack Foster.
Every creative person should have a copy of this book on the shelf...I heartily recommend it to you, and someday I will do a full review. But for now, one particular nugget of wisdom has been on my mind this week:
In this marvelous How-To manual for sparking creative thought, Foster tells a story about George Ade, a popular novelist/humorist/playwright from the late 1800's and early 1900's.
According to Foster, Ade's mother was once interviewed by a journalist who was quite critical of Ade's work. The man was rude enough to pepper Ade's mother with numerous questions about George's shortcomings as a writer, including his "capricious style, wobbly structure and shallow characterizations."
Eventually, George's good mother had taken all she could take.
"Oh, I know that many people can writer better than George does," she said. "But George does."
I first read "How to Get Ideas" many years ago, and since that time, the phrase has always stuck with me...
George does.
How many people sidetrack their own dreams, their own calling, because they talk about it, chat about it, Facebook about it (looking at you, Ginny!) think about it... but they don't do it.
It's easier to talk about writing a novel than to pick up a pen and write. Every day.
It's easier to dream about painting a masterpiece than to get your brushes out and start filling a canvas.
It's easier to tell people about the music career you'd like to have, than to sit down with your instrument and practice.
Despite all obstacles.... George does.
Despite imperfection.... George does.
Despite insecurities and doubts... George does.
It reminds me of the ancient proverb, oftentimes ascribed to the Chinese... "It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."
Take one small step... Do one small thing towards achieving your dream. Today. And the next day. And the next.
George does.
Do you?
Every creative person should have a copy of this book on the shelf...I heartily recommend it to you, and someday I will do a full review. But for now, one particular nugget of wisdom has been on my mind this week:
In this marvelous How-To manual for sparking creative thought, Foster tells a story about George Ade, a popular novelist/humorist/playwright from the late 1800's and early 1900's.
According to Foster, Ade's mother was once interviewed by a journalist who was quite critical of Ade's work. The man was rude enough to pepper Ade's mother with numerous questions about George's shortcomings as a writer, including his "capricious style, wobbly structure and shallow characterizations."
Eventually, George's good mother had taken all she could take.
"Oh, I know that many people can writer better than George does," she said. "But George does."
I first read "How to Get Ideas" many years ago, and since that time, the phrase has always stuck with me...
George does.
How many people sidetrack their own dreams, their own calling, because they talk about it, chat about it, Facebook about it (looking at you, Ginny!) think about it... but they don't do it.
It's easier to talk about writing a novel than to pick up a pen and write. Every day.
It's easier to dream about painting a masterpiece than to get your brushes out and start filling a canvas.
It's easier to tell people about the music career you'd like to have, than to sit down with your instrument and practice.
Despite all obstacles.... George does.
Despite imperfection.... George does.
Despite insecurities and doubts... George does.
It reminds me of the ancient proverb, oftentimes ascribed to the Chinese... "It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."
Take one small step... Do one small thing towards achieving your dream. Today. And the next day. And the next.
George does.
Do you?
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Editing "The Resurrection" (Part Four of Four)
Today, we'll finish with some thoughts on speech patterns, and a list of line-editing comments.
MINOR SPOILERS ALERT: Read and enjoy the book first, then see if you agree:
Mid-Altitude issues (continued):
3) Character speech patterns: Mike chooses to employ a fair number of phonetic spellings throughout the novel ("lottsa," "ya know..." "shoulda..."). I would counsel him to consider using fewer, for two reasons:
a) The sheer number of repetitions became a bit distracting, for me. Dialogue that attempts to render dialect into black and white is simply harder to read, and my preference is to see it used sparingly, for particular effect. A little goes a long way, which leads to the second, related reason...
b) Almost every character in the book, with the exception of Keen, uses phonetically-spelled dialogue, at least on occasion. Consequently, the speech patterns aren't as effective as they could be as a means of differentiating characters.
Speech patterns are a wonderfully nuanced way to Show, not Tell. Mike nails this perfectly with Keen: even when agitated, Keen's speech is laced with sophisticated diction and syntax, delivered in a pedantic tone that instantly communicates this man's arrogance...the smug superiority he exudes through displaying his knowledge and philosophy. You don't have to tell us what Keen is like, we intuit it naturally, like we do in the real world, from the way he speaks.
But language used by the other characters rarely differentiates them as individuals, with varying personalities, backgrounds, and educational levels. The most noticeable and distressing example, I believe, comes from the character of Beeko.
Beeko is a physician from Nigeria, who grew up outside of Bwari, and speaks with a slight, but unmistakable British accent. From this description, and subsequent events, I infer a few things: a) English is his second language; b) at the very least, he was educated in British schools, and very likely his college years were spent in the class-conscious environment of England itself; c) he is a learned man, and d) Clark specifically seeks out Beeko because he values the doctor as a man of rational thought.
Assuming these things as given, that leads me to expect a certain language style from the character. Perhaps not an arrogant one, as with Keen, but speech patterns that are precise and formal (as with many English-as-a-second-language students), and erudite (throwing in words that even the seminary-trained Clark may be unfamiliar with). Beeko is a product of the British educational system and culture, where speech patterns and accents are badges of social standing.
And, in fact, for the first three or four statements I find what I expected. Then, Beeko unexpectedly turns a corner, and tosses out the very informal term, "critter." From that point on, through the remainder of the conversation he bounces back and forth between the formal ("I'm not daft enough to guess..." "A bit of a doubting Thomas, are we?" "The atmosphere is a manifestation of cumulative events or a series of historic concessions;") and the colloquial ("evangelism jazz" "Lotsa places..." "Don't ya, man?")
As an editor, I would counsel Mike to either a) explain this schizophrenic language pattern in the narrative (is there a motivation for it somewhere in Beeko's past?) or b) revise the doctor's speech to something more fitting with his educational and professional status. Similarly, the book would benefit from more careful attention to the other character's dialogue tendencies, as well.
Ground-level issues:
Finally, some micro-level observations...points at which I felt the line-editor missed a beat. These are the type of thing I look for when reading, because I think that training your eye to look for these makes you a better writer...and especially a better re-writer.
p45..."Well, let's say I'm getting closer. (missing punctuation, quotes not closed)
p64... shallow and erratic breathing... (why? from other indications, Jack is in a deep sleep, so you would expect slow, easy respiration)
p83...It was a black Hummer, the wide older models, with... (the Hummer is singular, "models" is plural... so better would be: It was a black Hummer, one of the wide older models,....)
p86... clear blue eyes and bright smile offset her aging features. (better with: clear blue eyes and a bright smile...)
p89... he snapped some surgical gloves on each hand ("some gloves" is plural, "hand" singular... better: he snapped a surgical glove on each hand....)
p142... got to wippin' people up. (Here, the phonetic spelling creates confusion...I think it means "whipping" people up.... but instead, it reads more like "wiping" people up. Better: Whippin' )
p165... the cabinets consisted of flat rollout trays, each one baring a typed insert... (unless the rollout trays are naked, they shouldn't be "baring" anything... they should be bearing labels)
p180/248.... on two occasions, characters say "Gentleman" (singular) when they mean "Gentlemen" (plural).
p208... "What do mean, Ruby?" (What do you mean, Ruby?)
p235... "Cool it! Both of you!" (Why is Vin yelling, and glaring, at both Jack and Rev Clark? Clark is standing still, not saying anything. Jack is the only aggressor, here)
p246... Echoes. Mike & his editors did a nice job avoiding those annoying echoes... unusual words and phrases that, when they are used twice or more, catch the attention. But here one slipped by: [tree] trunk thrust from the bowels of the earth.... (and then, two paragraphs later) a hawk burst from the bowels of the oak... ("bowels" is a word that you can go a long time without hearing in casual conversation, and here we see the phrase "bowels of..." twice in three paragraphs.)
p270...his delicate, breezy voice seemed to jive perfectly with his graceful demeanor. (Think the word we want here is jibe. To "jive" is to mislead, or pull someone's leg... to "jibe" is to be in agreement...to be in harmony.)
For years, I kept a notebook filled with observations like these...culled from a wide range of novels. It's invaluable practice at helping you build your revision skills...Something every writer should strive to improve.
Again, I hope you'll make room on your reading list for this one. I look forward to watching the progression of Mike's writing career.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Editing "The Resurrection" (Part Three of Four)
We're in a series based on my recent reading of Mike Duran's debut novel, "The Resurrection."
Knowing I would be writing a review, I jotted down my thoughts along the way, from the perspective of: If I was handed The Resurrection as a test reader, what feedback would I give?
THIS MAY CONTAIN MINOR SPOILERS, so please... get a copy and let Mike take you on the journey first. Then you can judge for yourself whether I'm all wet. If you've already read the book, hit me in the comments and give me your perspective.
So, donning my Amateur Editor hat, here are the conversations I would have with Mike, pre-publication...
High-altitude issues: As I stated earlier, most of the big-picture, strategic decisions...premise, plot, etc, worked just fine for me. If I were to question anything at this level, it would be the moments when potential drama is left unplayed.
The drama that is present is good...but there were times when opportunities to ratchet up the suspense even further were overlooked. Three examples to illustrate what I mean:
1) Crank the Lizard. Mike chose to play the scene in the Magic Shop for laughs...ending with the huge, intimidating welder slipping on glass beads like an actor in a silent comedy, and Gwen the owner screeching after her 6-foot iguana, Crank, as if it were a pampered poodle running out into traffic..."My baby!"
Not a bad choice...it was humorous. But I would have preferred to see more suspense, here. What if the Lizard, instead of busting loose and racing down the street, had chased Ruby and her friends? What if they had been cornered, trapped in the back room of the magic shop, perhaps....in serious peril from a giant reptile that seems to supernaturally know and hate what they represent? Maybe someone is actually bitten, with later results?
2) The confrontation on the Mount. Our friend Gwen from the magic shop is back again, this time in the company of a warlock. And apparently, they have trailed Ruby to a cemetery high on a mountain slope. But when Ruby's husband Jack and Ian Clark follow, they find the "bad guys" alone, fussing over a grave...and Ruby stumbles in later, having hidden from the magic users.
Again, this would be an opportunity to place Ruby in much greater danger...and present the "bad guys" as more of a legitimate threat. What if they had stalked Ruby up the mountainside, captured her and buried her alive as part of their gruesome rituals? You could showcase Ruby's fear in a series of short segments...and when Jack and Ian arrive, they can't find Ruby, and maybe are about to give up, until.... ?
3) Doire, the tree spirit. If Doire is real, as Keen certainly believes, then it would be good for Clark to encounter her on one of his three visits....most likely, during the final drama. As a tree spirit, (a guardian?) she may read Clark's intentions, and be protective of her "master." It needn't have been a protracted battle...in fact may not have been a physical battle at all...but Clark could have been seduced, distracted, or almost killed before reaching Keen's front steps. (Alternately, Doire could have tried to warn Clark...tried to prevent him from going inside out of concern for the Reverend)
Mid-Altitude issues:
1) I was a bit puzzled by the two very different reactions Clark had to the most important spiritual phenomena in the story... Mr. Cellophane, and the resurrection event. Even for a jaded, liberal pastor running from God, a translucent apparition should give reason for pause and reflection. Long before the resurrection occurs, Clark is so apathetic that a ghost/demon/whatever in the corner of his office produces nothing more than a shrug and irritation. At one point, it is hinted that Clark sees this as nothing more than a biological echo... but I would have preferred Mike to address this more directly. At least once, Clark should have thought to himself or perhaps talked to Ruby about why the ghost leaves him yawning, but, conversely, the resurrection struck him so powerfully. Either one would get my attention, big time.
2) Why doesn't someone ask Mondo, or Aida, what their death experiences were like? For multiple reasons, Mike may have chosen not to "go there" (we do learn, offhandedly, that Aida experienced it as a "blacking out"), but it seems odd that none of the other characters display the curiosity to inquire. If I had the chance to talk with Lazarus, you can bet that would be my very first question..."So, what happened while you were away?"
Next time..... Language Issues & Line Edits.
Knowing I would be writing a review, I jotted down my thoughts along the way, from the perspective of: If I was handed The Resurrection as a test reader, what feedback would I give?
THIS MAY CONTAIN MINOR SPOILERS, so please... get a copy and let Mike take you on the journey first. Then you can judge for yourself whether I'm all wet. If you've already read the book, hit me in the comments and give me your perspective.
So, donning my Amateur Editor hat, here are the conversations I would have with Mike, pre-publication...
High-altitude issues: As I stated earlier, most of the big-picture, strategic decisions...premise, plot, etc, worked just fine for me. If I were to question anything at this level, it would be the moments when potential drama is left unplayed.
The drama that is present is good...but there were times when opportunities to ratchet up the suspense even further were overlooked. Three examples to illustrate what I mean:
1) Crank the Lizard. Mike chose to play the scene in the Magic Shop for laughs...ending with the huge, intimidating welder slipping on glass beads like an actor in a silent comedy, and Gwen the owner screeching after her 6-foot iguana, Crank, as if it were a pampered poodle running out into traffic..."My baby!"
Not a bad choice...it was humorous. But I would have preferred to see more suspense, here. What if the Lizard, instead of busting loose and racing down the street, had chased Ruby and her friends? What if they had been cornered, trapped in the back room of the magic shop, perhaps....in serious peril from a giant reptile that seems to supernaturally know and hate what they represent? Maybe someone is actually bitten, with later results?
2) The confrontation on the Mount. Our friend Gwen from the magic shop is back again, this time in the company of a warlock. And apparently, they have trailed Ruby to a cemetery high on a mountain slope. But when Ruby's husband Jack and Ian Clark follow, they find the "bad guys" alone, fussing over a grave...and Ruby stumbles in later, having hidden from the magic users.
Again, this would be an opportunity to place Ruby in much greater danger...and present the "bad guys" as more of a legitimate threat. What if they had stalked Ruby up the mountainside, captured her and buried her alive as part of their gruesome rituals? You could showcase Ruby's fear in a series of short segments...and when Jack and Ian arrive, they can't find Ruby, and maybe are about to give up, until.... ?
3) Doire, the tree spirit. If Doire is real, as Keen certainly believes, then it would be good for Clark to encounter her on one of his three visits....most likely, during the final drama. As a tree spirit, (a guardian?) she may read Clark's intentions, and be protective of her "master." It needn't have been a protracted battle...in fact may not have been a physical battle at all...but Clark could have been seduced, distracted, or almost killed before reaching Keen's front steps. (Alternately, Doire could have tried to warn Clark...tried to prevent him from going inside out of concern for the Reverend)
Mid-Altitude issues:
1) I was a bit puzzled by the two very different reactions Clark had to the most important spiritual phenomena in the story... Mr. Cellophane, and the resurrection event. Even for a jaded, liberal pastor running from God, a translucent apparition should give reason for pause and reflection. Long before the resurrection occurs, Clark is so apathetic that a ghost/demon/whatever in the corner of his office produces nothing more than a shrug and irritation. At one point, it is hinted that Clark sees this as nothing more than a biological echo... but I would have preferred Mike to address this more directly. At least once, Clark should have thought to himself or perhaps talked to Ruby about why the ghost leaves him yawning, but, conversely, the resurrection struck him so powerfully. Either one would get my attention, big time.
2) Why doesn't someone ask Mondo, or Aida, what their death experiences were like? For multiple reasons, Mike may have chosen not to "go there" (we do learn, offhandedly, that Aida experienced it as a "blacking out"), but it seems odd that none of the other characters display the curiosity to inquire. If I had the chance to talk with Lazarus, you can bet that would be my very first question..."So, what happened while you were away?"
Next time..... Language Issues & Line Edits.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Reading "The Resurrection" (Part Two of Four)
Last time, I began a list of seven reasons why I appreciated Mike Duran's "The Resurrection."
Let's pick it up with #6:
6) Fiction Grounded in Historical Fact & Research:
I'm a huge proponent of reading widely, and frankly I have a hard time understanding those who deliberately limit themselves to one category of fiction.
But if I was forced to pick one--and only one--favorite, it would have to be stories where historical fact serves as the basis for fictional events.
Umberto Eco with The Name of the Rose and Focault's Pendulum
Arturo Perez-Reverte with The Club Dumas, The Flanders Panel, The Nautical Chart, and others.
Katherine Neville with The Eight
Elizabeth Kostova with The Historian
And dozens more...
So one of the reasons I loved The Resurrection was the detail Mike included pertaining to false gods, pantheons, and syncretistic philosophies.
He did his homework, and that always impresses me. When I trust that an author has put in the research time, I'm more willing to embrace his/her fictional world and let myself believe.
Loved it. Ate it up. Wished for more.
7) The Characters:
The Resurrection features a rich cast of varied personalities. In particular, I found myself drawn to Ian Clark, a tormented man of doubt who deals with the pain of life by seeking escape. This time, events are flowing too quickly and before he can resign and move away, God forces him to look in a mirror and come to terms. His intense struggles are the linchpin of the book, for me.
Ruby is well-drawn as the reluctant "prophet," a woman with troubles of her own who would rather be faithful than famous.
And Benjamin Keen...the world-travelling scholar who brilliantly illustrates the difference between intellect and wisdom. Mike hits a home run with Keen...and I imagine he found this character fun to portray. The spirited exchanges between Clark and his former mentor suggest the author felt more than a little biographical bonding with Keen, though their theological conclusions may differ significantly. Keen showcases Duran's gifts of intellectual curiosity and drive to understand. Keen is what Duran might have been, had he chosen another path.
The characters balance one another, provoke one another, and keep reader interest high. Mike spends just the right amount of "face time" on each, given their respective roles in the story.
Now, a confession: I love editing.
I love having a first draft in my hand, cutting and pasting and making a good thing better.
I used to think all writers felt that way: you know, Good writing is re-writing....
But lately I'm running across more and more people who just don't care for the process. And I can see why some personalities don't relish the detail work.
To me, it's enjoyable...so I tend to do it in my head, whenever I'm reading. I've found that I'll click into "Edit mode" automatically when something occurs to pull me out of the fictional dream.
The more that happens, the less enthusiastic I become about the book. In a few cases, I'll read through an entire novel not because I enjoy it...but because it has so many editing flaws that I stop reading for pleasure, and start reading for educational purposes.
I'll make mental (and sometimes written) notes to myself: don't do this....don't do this...don't do this...
So I had fun with The Resurrection, as I do with most books, asking myself what counsel I would give, if it was my job to edit the manuscript.
THIS WILL INCLUDE MINOR SPOILERS...so I highly recommend you pick up a copy, and enjoy it first.
Next time: unsolicited advice!
Let's pick it up with #6:
6) Fiction Grounded in Historical Fact & Research:
I'm a huge proponent of reading widely, and frankly I have a hard time understanding those who deliberately limit themselves to one category of fiction.
But if I was forced to pick one--and only one--favorite, it would have to be stories where historical fact serves as the basis for fictional events.
Umberto Eco with The Name of the Rose and Focault's Pendulum
Arturo Perez-Reverte with The Club Dumas, The Flanders Panel, The Nautical Chart, and others.
Katherine Neville with The Eight
Elizabeth Kostova with The Historian
And dozens more...
So one of the reasons I loved The Resurrection was the detail Mike included pertaining to false gods, pantheons, and syncretistic philosophies.
He did his homework, and that always impresses me. When I trust that an author has put in the research time, I'm more willing to embrace his/her fictional world and let myself believe.
Loved it. Ate it up. Wished for more.
7) The Characters:
The Resurrection features a rich cast of varied personalities. In particular, I found myself drawn to Ian Clark, a tormented man of doubt who deals with the pain of life by seeking escape. This time, events are flowing too quickly and before he can resign and move away, God forces him to look in a mirror and come to terms. His intense struggles are the linchpin of the book, for me.
Ruby is well-drawn as the reluctant "prophet," a woman with troubles of her own who would rather be faithful than famous.
And Benjamin Keen...the world-travelling scholar who brilliantly illustrates the difference between intellect and wisdom. Mike hits a home run with Keen...and I imagine he found this character fun to portray. The spirited exchanges between Clark and his former mentor suggest the author felt more than a little biographical bonding with Keen, though their theological conclusions may differ significantly. Keen showcases Duran's gifts of intellectual curiosity and drive to understand. Keen is what Duran might have been, had he chosen another path.
The characters balance one another, provoke one another, and keep reader interest high. Mike spends just the right amount of "face time" on each, given their respective roles in the story.
Now, a confession: I love editing.
I love having a first draft in my hand, cutting and pasting and making a good thing better.
I used to think all writers felt that way: you know, Good writing is re-writing....
But lately I'm running across more and more people who just don't care for the process. And I can see why some personalities don't relish the detail work.
To me, it's enjoyable...so I tend to do it in my head, whenever I'm reading. I've found that I'll click into "Edit mode" automatically when something occurs to pull me out of the fictional dream.
The more that happens, the less enthusiastic I become about the book. In a few cases, I'll read through an entire novel not because I enjoy it...but because it has so many editing flaws that I stop reading for pleasure, and start reading for educational purposes.
I'll make mental (and sometimes written) notes to myself: don't do this....don't do this...don't do this...
So I had fun with The Resurrection, as I do with most books, asking myself what counsel I would give, if it was my job to edit the manuscript.
THIS WILL INCLUDE MINOR SPOILERS...so I highly recommend you pick up a copy, and enjoy it first.
Next time: unsolicited advice!
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Reading "The Resurrection" (Part One of Four)
When I finished my first (unpublished) novel, I solicited feedback from a small group of test readers.
One of these brave souls later confessed that she suffered some anxiety after agreeing to serve as a reviewer. She wondered: what if it's no good?
Since we knew each other, she struggled with the fear that if she honestly didn't care for my work, and honestly told me so, it would damage our relationship. And this potential conflict had her worried.
After immersing herself in that sprawling epic she was able to report, with some relief, that she loved it...had, in fact, stayed up well past her bedtime to keep reading. And though she offered suggestions for improvement, her overall impression was very positive.
I felt a bit like that reviewer, when my copy of The Resurrection by Mike Duran arrived recently. I had enjoyed Mike's website for some time, with its deep thoughtfulness and probing insight. If his fiction was anything like his ability to challenge and engage blog readers, I anticipated a great experience.
But what if it was no good?
As readers of his blog know, one of Mike's "causes" is the promotion of honest, forthright review of fiction from the Christian worldview. Breaking the code of silence that suggests any "Christian" book should be exempt from careful literary criticism, simply because: a) the author meant well, and b) to openly critique someone's work is considered discouraging...and Christians are instructed to be edifying.
Mike applies this refreshing philosophy to his own writing, and publicly invites feedback. So I always figured that I'd pass along my two cents, when I got a chance to read his debut novel. But a part of me pondered the question: what do I say if his blogging skills far outweigh his writing?
I needn't have worried.
The Resurrection was a delight. Today, in part one, I'll give you five reasons why. Next time, I'll add two more. Then in a couple additional posts, I'll weigh in with my editorial suggestions, large & small.
SEVEN REASONS YOU SHOULD BUY "THE RESURRECTION."
1) Telling details: The Resurrection is full of vivid descriptors. Concrete images that bring a scene to life without being overly intrusive. For example, on p239 a young girl is coloring at the kitchen table. She reaches for a crayon from the box...but it's not just any box. It's a cigar box.
I smiled when I read that, for my brother and I had just such a box for our crayons when we were young. That telling detail had huge impact on my ability to imagine the scene and be there. Will that particular detail have great meaning for everyone? No. Some won't even remember cigar boxes. But a lesser writer would have been content with: she grabbed a crayon from the box... and missed an opportunity to connect with some readers in a small but significant way.
One small image at a time, a novel full of thoughtful descriptors adds up to a very believable world.
2) The Evocative Cover: The guys & gals at Strang/Charisma House did a stellar job with the cover. The ethereal green of the front, and the sunset red of the back set off a haunting image of skeletal tree limbs and blackbirds, setting just the right tone.
3) Beautiful Prose: With few exceptions, Mike's prose is like reading through butter...smooth and effortless, with pleasing rhythms and excellent word choices. Only rarely did the writing itself interrupt the "fictional dream." From the first few pages, I knew I could relax, tell the critic in my head to take a rest, and enjoy the journey without being constantly pulled out of the story by craft issues.
4) Delicious Turns of Phrase: I like a writer who writes.
One who understands that it's more than just blandly recording what happened. It's how you say it.
Not everyone feels the same way...and I get that. Some prefer a plain, unadorned, "invisible" style.
Not me. I want to be mesmerized and enthralled by the writer's mastery of the language. Surprise me. Make me smile with a clever phrase. Show me that words matter to you. It's not necessary to "overwrite"...but be a craftsman who cares about his/her tools and keeps them polished to a sheen.
Too many times I've read decently good stories that still fell flat because there was no life, no spark to the prose. If I want bland, I'll read the manual for my DVD player.
In other words, creativity counts for more than just the premise and plot--it should drive down deep, to the sentence level.
Mike delivers that in spades, and for me it was a large part of the joy of reading The Resurrection.
For one example, take the description of the Police Department building. In the hands of a lesser scribe, it might have looked like this:
The Police Department was housed in an ugly, limestone-block building.
Get's the job done, yes, but it's about as exciting as a kiss from your Aunt Maude.
Mike takes the time...and more importantly the effort...to turn that prosaic moment into something special:
Well over seventy years old, the Stonetree Police Department headquarters remained untainted by the city's downtown renovation.
Untainted by renovation...Did you catch the beauty and humor of that? It's unexpected and fresh. We think of being "untainted" as a good thing. Here, the customary usage is turned on its head, and we picture this old, no-frills pile of stone stubbornly refusing to be improved.
A second quick example, from p148: ...Clark twisted like a spiritual invertebrate.
A unique word picture, to illustrate the indecision and uncertainty of the character's inner struggle. Again, with a touch of humor.
I love a writer who makes me smile...not with corny jokes, but with clever wordplay, oh-so subtly infused in the text. Blink and you'll miss it...that's part of the fun.
5) Using Action to "Show" States of Mind: If you're reading this, there's a better than 50/50 chance you're a part of the writing community. A participant in the Grand Tradition both as a reader and a creator of fiction.
So stop me if you've heard this one before: Show, don't Tell.
Early in The Resurrection, Mike provides a textbook example of how to use an action sequence to demonstrate a characters' frame of mind. And by allowing the reader to draw his/her own inferences, a minor aside becomes a powerful foreshadowing.
On p18, after delivering a lackluster sermon, Ian Clark exits the church, onto the flagstone walkway leading back to his residence. How may times has he walked this path in the past year? Hundreds of times, if not a thousand. And he *must* know that the shaded stones are mossy...and that it's been a damp, foggy morning.
But that knowledge isn't registering, because he is preoccupied with doubt and internal struggle.
So, he hits the walkway in full stride, his feet slide out from under him, and he flails the air to regain his balance and prevent a bad fall.
Ever been there? Angry about something, or agitated, or focused on your own thoughts...and you're not paying attention? That's when you lock your keys in the car, or forget to turn off the stove, or bump your head on that low rafter that you *always* know to avoid. And it just makes your mood worse.
By watching Clark embarrass himself in this manner, the reader feels on a visceral level how distracted and unfocused the Good Reverend truly is. And (symbolically) we sense that Clark will be struggling to maintain his balance through the entire narrative.
Next time, 2 additional reasons I thoroughly enjoyed The Resurrection.
One of these brave souls later confessed that she suffered some anxiety after agreeing to serve as a reviewer. She wondered: what if it's no good?
Since we knew each other, she struggled with the fear that if she honestly didn't care for my work, and honestly told me so, it would damage our relationship. And this potential conflict had her worried.
After immersing herself in that sprawling epic she was able to report, with some relief, that she loved it...had, in fact, stayed up well past her bedtime to keep reading. And though she offered suggestions for improvement, her overall impression was very positive.
I felt a bit like that reviewer, when my copy of The Resurrection by Mike Duran arrived recently. I had enjoyed Mike's website for some time, with its deep thoughtfulness and probing insight. If his fiction was anything like his ability to challenge and engage blog readers, I anticipated a great experience.
But what if it was no good?
As readers of his blog know, one of Mike's "causes" is the promotion of honest, forthright review of fiction from the Christian worldview. Breaking the code of silence that suggests any "Christian" book should be exempt from careful literary criticism, simply because: a) the author meant well, and b) to openly critique someone's work is considered discouraging...and Christians are instructed to be edifying.
Mike applies this refreshing philosophy to his own writing, and publicly invites feedback. So I always figured that I'd pass along my two cents, when I got a chance to read his debut novel. But a part of me pondered the question: what do I say if his blogging skills far outweigh his writing?
I needn't have worried.
The Resurrection was a delight. Today, in part one, I'll give you five reasons why. Next time, I'll add two more. Then in a couple additional posts, I'll weigh in with my editorial suggestions, large & small.
SEVEN REASONS YOU SHOULD BUY "THE RESURRECTION."
1) Telling details: The Resurrection is full of vivid descriptors. Concrete images that bring a scene to life without being overly intrusive. For example, on p239 a young girl is coloring at the kitchen table. She reaches for a crayon from the box...but it's not just any box. It's a cigar box.
I smiled when I read that, for my brother and I had just such a box for our crayons when we were young. That telling detail had huge impact on my ability to imagine the scene and be there. Will that particular detail have great meaning for everyone? No. Some won't even remember cigar boxes. But a lesser writer would have been content with: she grabbed a crayon from the box... and missed an opportunity to connect with some readers in a small but significant way.
One small image at a time, a novel full of thoughtful descriptors adds up to a very believable world.
2) The Evocative Cover: The guys & gals at Strang/Charisma House did a stellar job with the cover. The ethereal green of the front, and the sunset red of the back set off a haunting image of skeletal tree limbs and blackbirds, setting just the right tone.
3) Beautiful Prose: With few exceptions, Mike's prose is like reading through butter...smooth and effortless, with pleasing rhythms and excellent word choices. Only rarely did the writing itself interrupt the "fictional dream." From the first few pages, I knew I could relax, tell the critic in my head to take a rest, and enjoy the journey without being constantly pulled out of the story by craft issues.
4) Delicious Turns of Phrase: I like a writer who writes.
One who understands that it's more than just blandly recording what happened. It's how you say it.
Not everyone feels the same way...and I get that. Some prefer a plain, unadorned, "invisible" style.
Not me. I want to be mesmerized and enthralled by the writer's mastery of the language. Surprise me. Make me smile with a clever phrase. Show me that words matter to you. It's not necessary to "overwrite"...but be a craftsman who cares about his/her tools and keeps them polished to a sheen.
Too many times I've read decently good stories that still fell flat because there was no life, no spark to the prose. If I want bland, I'll read the manual for my DVD player.
In other words, creativity counts for more than just the premise and plot--it should drive down deep, to the sentence level.
Mike delivers that in spades, and for me it was a large part of the joy of reading The Resurrection.
For one example, take the description of the Police Department building. In the hands of a lesser scribe, it might have looked like this:
The Police Department was housed in an ugly, limestone-block building.
Get's the job done, yes, but it's about as exciting as a kiss from your Aunt Maude.
Mike takes the time...and more importantly the effort...to turn that prosaic moment into something special:
Well over seventy years old, the Stonetree Police Department headquarters remained untainted by the city's downtown renovation.
Untainted by renovation...Did you catch the beauty and humor of that? It's unexpected and fresh. We think of being "untainted" as a good thing. Here, the customary usage is turned on its head, and we picture this old, no-frills pile of stone stubbornly refusing to be improved.
A second quick example, from p148: ...Clark twisted like a spiritual invertebrate.
A unique word picture, to illustrate the indecision and uncertainty of the character's inner struggle. Again, with a touch of humor.
I love a writer who makes me smile...not with corny jokes, but with clever wordplay, oh-so subtly infused in the text. Blink and you'll miss it...that's part of the fun.
5) Using Action to "Show" States of Mind: If you're reading this, there's a better than 50/50 chance you're a part of the writing community. A participant in the Grand Tradition both as a reader and a creator of fiction.
So stop me if you've heard this one before: Show, don't Tell.
Early in The Resurrection, Mike provides a textbook example of how to use an action sequence to demonstrate a characters' frame of mind. And by allowing the reader to draw his/her own inferences, a minor aside becomes a powerful foreshadowing.
On p18, after delivering a lackluster sermon, Ian Clark exits the church, onto the flagstone walkway leading back to his residence. How may times has he walked this path in the past year? Hundreds of times, if not a thousand. And he *must* know that the shaded stones are mossy...and that it's been a damp, foggy morning.
But that knowledge isn't registering, because he is preoccupied with doubt and internal struggle.
So, he hits the walkway in full stride, his feet slide out from under him, and he flails the air to regain his balance and prevent a bad fall.
Ever been there? Angry about something, or agitated, or focused on your own thoughts...and you're not paying attention? That's when you lock your keys in the car, or forget to turn off the stove, or bump your head on that low rafter that you *always* know to avoid. And it just makes your mood worse.
By watching Clark embarrass himself in this manner, the reader feels on a visceral level how distracted and unfocused the Good Reverend truly is. And (symbolically) we sense that Clark will be struggling to maintain his balance through the entire narrative.
Next time, 2 additional reasons I thoroughly enjoyed The Resurrection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)