September 21, 2012
academia, Academic Freedom, creative writers, liberalism
academia, conservative, Creative Writing, Higher education, Intellectual, liberalism, New Left, politics, Writer
THE NEW LEFT (Photo credit: SS&SS)
Having been in academia for so many years, and involved in creative writing for the past fourteen years, I have found many of the assumptions of academics and writers to be similar. Both classes would be considered intellectuals of a sort–I know it takes a great deal of intelligence to do creative writing, and getting a Ph.D. takes a great of intellect and effort. When it comes to moral positions and politics, however, intellectuals seem no smarter than someone who could not make a D in English or science. On those areas, some of the “common people” have far more wisdom than the so-called intellectuals. The problem is that intellectuals believe that because they are experts in an academic discipline, they also have the practical reasoning to give good advice on political and moral positions. In these areas intellectuals often fall into pseudo-intellectuals. One way they reveal their ignorance is by their assumptions. Most academics and writers are liberals, and they assume falsely that other intellectuals and writers are all liberals like them. They also assume falsely that liberalism is self-evident rather than requiring justification and that any conservative is either ignorant, unethical, or both. The arguments of the academic and literary left, in my experience, are either abusive ad hominem, straw man, or poisoning the well. Very few genuine arguments are presented. It is easy to attack a person’s intelligence and/or character rather than engage in the difficult craft of good argumentation. Some academics and writers will listen to alternative points of view, but most, from my experience, are closed minded and identify the political and the personal. Conservatives, except for extremists, have no problems liking liberals personally or having liberal friends, and thankfully some liberals are the same way. But in academia and among many writers I have seen, liberals refuse to be friends with conservatives and tend to think they are bad people, especially those who defend traditional sexual ethics. Since the 1962 Port Huron Meeting, the New Left has gone on to dominate academia, poisoning it, most likely permanently. It is a shame that those who should be the most open to alternate points of view are often the most closed.
January 3, 2012
Carrie, Character (arts), Creative Writing, Fiction Writing, Novel, Novel Writing, Sigmund Freud, Stephen King, Thomas Wolfe, You Can't Go Home Again
Image via Wikipedia
My parents were taken aback by some of the content of my novel, End of Summer, because at the very beginning of the novel the main character, Jeffrey, based roughly on me, said that his parents had been killed when he was two. They asked me why I killed the parents off, perhaps subconsciously thinking of some Freudian act of patricide and matricide. I explained that since this was my first novel, I thought it best to limit the number of characters, especially since I wanted to focus on Jeffrey’s relationship to his grandfather. I also explained that the novel, while based loosely on people I had known, is a work of fiction. My sister was busy making comparisons between characters and people I had known, cataloging what did and did not “really” happen. That such reactions from family members (and friends) is common is shown by the North Carolina writer Thomas Wolfe‘s experience. He had written fiction about people with whom he grew up in western North Carolina. When he came home, people reacted with hostility, believing that they were the characters whose flaws came out in Wolfe’s works. Wolfe was so moved by this reaction that he wrote a novel, You Can’t Go Home Again, since he could not really go home to the same world after living in New York given his loved one’s anger at his writing. They did not understand that he was writing fiction–and any fiction writer writes based on that writer’s life experiences.
Sometimes characters in stories or novels are a combination of more than one person the author knew. Stephen King has said that his character, Carrie, the namesake of his novel, was based on two high school girls who suffered ridicule from their fellow students for their poverty. This does not mean that Carrie “is” those two girls–she is a fictional character in a novel with her own fictional identity. How else can a writer have any material on which to base stories if not those individuals encountered over the author’s life. Fictional characters may be based on one person, but the fictional character is not that actual person the author knew–the character is a “fictionalized version” of that person. For anyone to feel insulted by a character in a story or novel because that person says, “This is me, and I don’t like the way I was portrayed,” is experiencing a natural human reaction, but a reaction which reveals a lack of insight into the nature of fiction.
Reading fiction is one way to gain insight into the human condition through a story. The fundamental virtue of fiction is not to be didactic, though, but to tell a good story, a story with a plot and characters that grip the reader and allow the reader to “suspend disbelief” and, for a time, live in the world of the story. If any of you who read this blog are relatives or friends of fiction writers and have read or plan to read the author’s work, remember that you are reading about characters who may “exist” in some possible world, but do not exist in the actual world. In a good story, they may seem more real than the people you know. You may find “events you remember,” but do not focus on finding parallels to the world shared by you and the author you know. Relax, have some iced tea, and enjoy the story.
November 24, 2011
creative writers, Tennessee
Arts, Asperger syndrome, Autism, Autism spectrum, End of Summer, Novel, Southern Gothic
Image by tricky ™ via Flickr
The feeling after a novel is first published is different from the feeling when an academic book or article is published–at least for me. There is a greater sense of accomplishment, perhaps because a novel is the product of a different kind of creativity than is involved in academic writing. I can say from experience that creative and academic writing involve two different skill sets. Now before I forget it, here is the link to the site where the novel is offered for purchase: https://www.createspace.com/3719267. It will be available on Amazon in both hard copy and e-book format in a few days. Crass advertising out of the way, I continue….
Novels are works of love, or at least they should be. Anyone who writes a novel for the sole purpose of making money will most likely write a sorry novel. Fiction writing delves deeply into the author’s heart and is a highly emotional experience. An author must bare himself emotionally to the world since fiction, though made up, by necessity is based on events, thoughts, and feelings from a person’s life, sometimes deep feelings. End of Summer is a coming-of-age novel, a fictionalized account of my childhood. I feel guilty for killing off the parents when the main character is two-years-old, but in my first novel I wanted to have fewer characters–and the death of the parents fit the plot of a young boy obsessed with death. The boy has Asperger Syndrome, but has no idea since the story is set in 1968, long before Asperger Syndrome was known in the United States. He desires things to stay the same in his life, but has to face the sickness of his grandfather and the threat of the ultimate change, death. But there are funny moments and moments of great beauty in the main character, Jeffrey’s, simple rural life. Without giving away the ending, the book ultimately affirms meaning and transcendence in the face of a world that all too often changes for the worst. It is Southern fiction with Southern Gothic elements, literary and nonpreachy though Christian in world view, and valuing rural life without falling into sentimentality. I think it is a good read–it was the distillation of my heart, not my mind, going into the depths of the reasons I eventually became a philosopher through the main character I named for my twin brother who died two hours after he was born of pulmonary hemorrhage. When I wrote the first draft, it was as if I had been transferred to another world, living it, with my surroundings in my small room at the beautiful Weymouth Center disappearing and the world of Jeffrey’s childhood surrounding me. The editing later helped refine what had already been written from the heart. If you read it, you will discover it is a novel written from the heart in more ways than one. I am thankful to God that it has finally been published.
January 15, 2011
Christianity, creative writers
Anti-Christian sentiment, Christian, Conservative Christianity, Manhattan Declaration, Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, Morality, Sexual ethics
Image via Wikipedia
I attended two excellent writing workshops today and learned a great deal. However, one thing that disturbs me deeply about the vast majority of the creative writers I have met is their utter hatred and disdain for traditional Christianity and traditional morality. They do not even respect traditionalist positions (such as those defended in the “Manhattan Declaration“) positions and assume that anyone with intelligence and “compassion” would automatically agree with them (at this evening’s meeting the writers’ position was in favor of same-sex marriage but it could just as well be any other practice opposed by traditional Christians). They demonize those who disagree with them as being “haters.” Now I do not hate those with whom I disagree, nor do I hate a person who performs actions that are morally wrong–we are all sinners, after all, and I sin too often and too deeply in my own life. But most of the artistic community HATES any traditional moral position, especially if it concerns sexual ethics. Realizing that some writers and artists are exceptions, why do most writers and other artists hate traditional Christianity so much? Should a traditional Christian even try to do such creative work, even if it is not preachy and “shows” rather than “tells” given such hostility by almost all his or her cohorts in writing?