Writers

Review: The Hunger Games

Posted by

2

This is another case of my overcoming reservations to read a novel which has made it into the hundred best of the twenty-first century. The wild popularity made me suspicious of its literary merit.

Its author is Suzanne Collins. Wikipedia says, “Collins was born on August 10, 1962, in Hartford, Connecticut, to Jane Brady Collins and Lieutenant Colonel Michael John Collins, a U. S. Air Force officer who served in the Korean and the Vietnam War. Collins graduated from the Alabama School of Fine Arts in Birmingham in 1980 as a Theater Arts major. She completed her Bachelor of Arts degree from Indiana University Bloomington in 1985 with a double major in theater and telecommunications. In 1989, Collins earned her Master of Fine Arts in dramatic writing from the New York University Tisch School of Fine Arts. Collins began her career in 1991 as a writer for children’s television shows. She worked on several shows for Nickelodeon. She was also the head writer for the PBS spin-off Clifford’s Puppy Days. She received a Writers Guild of America nomination in animation for co-writing the critically acclaimed 2001 Christmas special, Santa, Baby!. After meeting children’s author James Proimos, Collins felt inspired to write children’s books herself. In September 2008, Scholastic Press released The Hunger Games, the first book of a series by Collins. The Hunger Games was partly inspired by the Greek myth of Theseus and the Minotaur.  The trilogy’s second book, Catching Fire, was released in September 2009, and its third book, Mockingjay, was released on August 24, 2010. Within 14 months, 1.5 million copies of the first two Hunger Games books were printed in North America alone. The Hunger Games was on The New York Times Best Seller list for more than 60 weeks in a row. Lions Gate Entertainment acquired worldwide distribution rights to a film adaptation of The Hunger Games. Collins adapted the novel for film herself.” Collins lives in Connecticut with her two children.

Suzanne Collins

It is somewhat remarkable that this dystopian YA novel made in onto a list of the hundred best novels of the twenty-first century. But a plot involving the forced recruitment of twenty-four children (‘tributes’ to the dictatorship) to fight each other to the death for the entertainment of the population is horrific and at the same time compulsively compelling. It is particularly compelling when the principle characters are so attractive and real, faults and all. Collins writing is excellent, conveying each character, his/her emotions and the settings clearly and believably. Needless to say the book is very difficult to put down.

Two aspects of the book didn’t work for me. The reader is asked to accept that the combatants are filmed live, close up, for the national television. But how would this be possible, without cumbersome interference, when the characters are moving rapidly through a wild setting? No technology would be remotely capable. But one just accepts this. The other issue I had was the final scene in the arena, when the final three combatants are attacked by wolf-like creatures which stand erect as humans, have rapier-like claws and are presented as the avenging reincarnations of dead combatants. These strange creatures were presented as examples of the technological innovation of the state. This was too much for me, and the wolves killed no one. Why were they necessary?

This book is a remarkable literary milestone. It is a must read.

Aging

Posted by

0

There is an essay on the Electric Literature website about how one writer confronted her aging process; it in titled ‘Mirrors Tell the Truth but Not the Whole Story’, and it’s written by Stephanie Gangi.

Stephanie Gangi is a poet, novelist, short story writer and essayist living and writing in New York City. Her debut novel, The Next, was published by St. Martin’s Press and her second, Carry the Dog, from Algonquin Books in November 2021 and has garnered early praise. Gangi’s work has appeared in, among others, Arts & Letters, Catapult, LitHub, Hippocrates Poetry Anthology, McSweeney’s, New Ohio Review, Next Tribe, and The Woolfer. She’s working on her third novel, The Good Provider.

Stephanie Gangi

“Years ago I wrote a poem, “Mirror Window.” The gist of it was that I kept mixing up the words, mirror and window; I said one when I meant the other. It was alarming, I was not yet forty, too young to lose language. My daughters noticed and teased me about being old, as daughters will, and I wrote about that, kind of a circle of life thing.

I’ve gone back and read the poem and it’s not bad, but like all my writing at the time and from years before, from my teens, I filed it away and distracted myself with being young: sex-and-drugs-and-rock-and-roll, i.e., men, and then marriage and a shiny, happy family in a house on a hill. I have conflicted feelings about this. On the one hand, I was distracted from writing by love, lucky me; on the other, love was conditional or finite, humans being human, especially me. The writing was a constant, but me as a writer was something—someone—I could not see. I thought of it as a hobby.

In my late 40s, I tried “Mirror Window” again. This time it took the form of an essay, which came about because I was in possession of a large, antique mirror that I didn’t like but couldn’t get rid of. Let me go back.

I got the mirror when my mother died a decade earlier, not just my mother but my father too, he in March and Ma in June, both suddenly, neither yet seventy or sick. I was thirty-seven years old, an only child, or an adult only child, and a mother myself, in a complicated marriage. I was left with a split level to sell in the dead middle of Long Island. The contents were all mine, down to the coffee cup in the sink with Cherries in the Snow lipstick left on its rim. Consequently, the objects and furnishings and jewelry held—hold— outsized sentimental value.

Time passed, the parameters shifted. Love was indeed finite. My marriage ended and my little family reconstituted itself. We moved, with the mirror, to where we fit better with one less of us. That’s when I decided to paint its frame, give it a new look for my new life. I laid it out on a tiny patch of city yard on a sunny day, and in the course of sanding it down, I was on my hands and knees hovering over my reflection, focused on the task, not noticing myself. And then I did, and I saw how I’d look if I were on top of someone. How I looked during sex was on my mind at the time—I was a divorcée, it was still called that—because I was having a lusty adventure with a man seventeen years my junior. I was on top regularly.

The vantage point over my reflection showed my hair hanging in lank curtains on either side of my face, red with exertion. Gravity plus the sanding effort yielded sagging and swaying. The word “jowls” made itself manifest. I’d never looked my age before, but kneeling over this mirror, I sure did.

The distracting fling with this guy had turned into foolish fantasies about a life together. Once during pillow-talk, we did that thing of revealing something each had never told anyone else. My dark secret: Botox. We both reveled in our age difference but the truth was, I’d been trying to hide it. His dark secret? He admitted that he would stay a relationship’s course until someone new came along to provide him with a reason to leave. I knew this was true. It was the case with us; I had recently been the new one. “Mirror Window” was an essay about heartbreak. Once again, I filed my work away.

It turned out there was more to it than heartbreak. It turned out that refinishing the mirror gave me a window into a future with him I could not countenance, in both senses of the word—countenance like face and countenance like support. The truth is even if I had not sagged over the mirror that day, I was already worried about being where I am now, here in my sixties with a younger man who’d all but warned me he’d be watching for the exit. People do tell you who they are, and you should believe them, and he did, and I did.

So I reframed. My longest, truest commitment, to writing, was never a hobby. It is what I do and who I am. First novel at 60, forthcoming novel at 65, third in the works. Now and then the hot chill of regret passes through me. I should have started sooner. I should have been less high, less young, less seductive and less seduced, less distracted. Well, wait. That’s not right. I was full of life and love, and sorrow, joy, and disappointment—the open heart. Regret is beside the point. I know there’s no grace in that.

Let me keep going.

I am still new at being me, the writer. I have so many ideas that I cast around too long before I settle on something. A writer friend advised, “Just write about what you always think about.” Mirrors and windows. It’s not a sophisticated metaphor, but it is simple, it is effective. In my work, my women think a lot about how to age gracefully even as they learn to recognize themselves in their new old faces. They stare into their bathroom mirrors and wonder what to do about the jowls even when they are nobody’s lover, let alone on top. They too are startled when they catch an unexpected reflection in a shop window.

Two crazy things happened recently on the same locked-down day. I went through my apartment in a pandemic-fueled mission to spruce things up. I decided to repaint the frame on my mother’s mirror again, it’d been a long time, and I wanted it to match a smaller mirror that I bought at a yard sale in Montauk thirty years ago, with an infant in my arms and a toddler hanging from my legs. I was inspecting this smaller mirror and I was surprised. Oh. It’s a window frame. A window frame, fitted with mirrored squares instead of clear glass. I’d had it for so long I didn’t register it anymore, even though I passed it several times a day. I actually own a mirror window.

Not an hour later, I picked up a package containing the manuscript of my new novel—about distorted memory, accepting who you once were, and recognizing who you are now—from my editor. I poured some red wine and sat down, thrilled and grateful to see his old-school, handwritten edits on manuscript pages. On page 178, there was a strong delete mark through the word “window,” and his caret and note indicating it should be replaced with the word “mirror.” I’d done it again.

Mirror window. It wasn’t a mix-up, I hadn’t lost language. I was telling myself something I couldn’t hear yet. I was showing myself something I didn’t see yet. It’s like the two words were saying, and kept saying, Look inside, look outside, write it down, make it your life.

My daughters are now old enough to tease each other about getting old; I’ve aged out of the joke but I’ve revised the old poem, newly titled “Last Laugh,” wherein I give myself the final word, a circle of life kind of thing. I revised the saggy-jowls essay, and this is how it’s ended up:  published, not filed away. I’m tunneling into the third novel, and in an opening scene my protagonist is holding a chaotic yard sale, everything must go, including her dead mother’s furniture, including a window frame fitted with mirrors for panes, just like mine.”

Review: Hostage to the Devil

Posted by

0

I mentioned having bought this book when I bought Glimpses of the Devil. The two books are quite different, not only in the authors’ styles, but also, Glimpses is a scientific report by an amateur exorcist. Hostage is a researched report on the experiences of six, third party exorcists. Glimpses is a psychiatrist’s report; Hostage is the report of a high-ranking priest in the Roman Catholic Church. Still, the two books come to the same conclusions about the reality of demonic possession and the methods of exorcism.

Wikipedia says that the author, “Malachi Brendan Martin (23 July 1921 – 27 July 1999), also known under the pseudonym of Michael Serafian, was an Irish-born American Traditionalist Catholic priest, biblical archaeologist, exorcist, palaeographer, professor and writer on the Catholic Church.

“Ordained as a Jesuit, Martin became Professor of Palaeography at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. From 1958, he served as secretary to Cardinal Augustin Bea during preparations for the Second Vatican Council. Disillusioned by the council, Martin asked to be released from certain aspects of his Jesuit vows in 1964 and moved to New York City.

“Martin’s 17 novels and non-fiction books were frequently critical of the Catholic hierarchy, who he believed had failed to act on what he called “the Third Profacy” revealed by the Virgin Mary at Fatima. His works included The Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1958) and Hostage to the Devil (1976), which dealt with Satanism, demonic possession, and exorcism. The Final Conclave (1978) was a warning against Soviet espionage in the Vatican.”

Father Malachi Martin

There are five exorcisms described in detail in Hostage. The first possessed is Marianne, a young single woman in New York City. The exorcist is Father Peter, and the demon is The Smiler. The exorcism involves violence and the demon recalling in grotty detail Peter’s sexual adventure with a girl friend before he was ordained. The exorcism was successful, but Peter died a year later, a psychologically damaged man.

Then there is Father Jonathan, a priest who is a possessed nature worshiper, and Father David, who as a natural scientist is nearly possessed by the same demonic spirit, Mister Natch, as Father Jonathan. The exorcism is stopped for a period of months while Father David recommits his own faith. Jonathan’s mother exerts her faith to save her son.

Next is Father Gerald, the exorcist, the Girl-Fixer, the demon, and Richard/Rita a transsexual who is possessed. Father Gerald is physically attacked and injured by Girl-Fixer during the exorcism. This exorcism was also adjourned for a period of weeks while Father Gerald recovers. The demon leaves Richard with threat to deal with Gerald after his death.

This is followed by Jamsie who is semi-possessed by Uncle Ponto, a lower level evil spirit who wants to make his abode in Jamsie and try to control him. This is termed ‘familiarization’ or possession by a familiar spirit. Father Mark expels Uncle Ponto, but he then discovers that there is a senior demon, Multus, wants to take possession of Jamie. Father Mark uses Jamsie’s will to complete the exorcism.

In the last case, Carl, a prominent parapsychologist, who can read minds, travel back in time, and who has learned he was a Roman in a prior life is possessed by the Tortoise, an evil spirit who was able to create Carl’s illusions for him. Father Hartney is the exorcist. During the exorcism, Carl is reluctant to let go of the privileges which the Tortoise has given him, but he finally decides he wants freedom of mind, body and spirit.

There is a sixth exorcism mentioned in the book, briefly. It is the only one for which Father Martin had no recording to rely on, and no witnesses, other than the priest to question. This sixth exorcism took place in China, and involved a Thomas Wu, who was possessed and who died in a fire before Father Michael Strong could complete the exorcism. Father Michael’s health was severely affected by the exorcism.

These brief summaries sound quite improbable, but the book is over 450 pages long, and if it has a fault it is that there is too much detail about what the various participants were feeling or thinking at critical moments. The five cases are laid out in excruciating detail. One can deny their accuracy, but this becomes a matter of personal choice and denial. For my part, they make sense, as they align with my Christian faith.

The book caused a sensation when it was first published in 1976.

Review: Glimpses of the Devil

Posted by

0

This is a book that I had been seeking for several years. I thought the title was “Hostage to the Devil” and I thought the author was Scott Peck. Looking on Amazon.co.uk, I wasn’t having any luck, but on Amazon.it, I had success on both searches. Under the author M. Scott Peck, M.D., I found Glimpses of the Devil, which is subtitled ‘A Psychiatrist’s Personal Accounts of Possession, Exorcism and Redemption’. I also found Hostage to the Devil whose author is Malachi Martin. Perhaps my search of the UK website was ineffective, or perhaps Italy being a Catholic country has a keener interest in exorcism. In any event, I bought both books, and I have finished reading Glimpses of the Devil.

The back cover of the book has this biography: “M. Scott Peck’s publishing history reflects his own evolution as a serious and widely acclaimed writer, thinker, psychiatrist, and spiritual guide. Since his groundbreaking bestseller, The Road Less Traveled, was first published in 1978, his insatiable intellectual curiosity has taken him in various new directions with virtually each new book: the subject of healing human evil in People of the Lie (1982), where he first briefly discussed exorcism and possession; the creative experience of community in The Different Drum (1987); the role of civility in personal relationships and society in A World Waiting to Be Born (1993); an examination of the complexities of life and the paradoxical nature of belief in Further Along the Road Less Traveled (1993); and an exploration of the medical, ethical, and spiritual issues of euthanasia in Denial of the Soul (1999); as well as a novel, a children’s book, and other works. A graduate of both Harvard University and Case Western Reserve, Dr. Peck served in the Army Medical Corps before maintaining a private practice in psychiatry.” Glimpses of the Devil was published in 2005. Dr Peck was born in 1936 and died in 2005.

M. Scott Peck

Glimpses of the Devil recounts two exorcisms actually performed by Dr Peck along with a team of religious leaders and volunteers. Both exorcisms were video recorded, and in writing the book, Dr Peck called on the recollections of the members of his team, the possessed person and members of her family.

Until Dr. Peck first met the young woman called Jersey, he did not believe in the devil. In fact, as a mature, highly experienced psychiatrist, he expected that this case would resolve his ongoing effort to prove to himself, as scientifically as possible, that there were absolutely no grounds for such beliefs.  Twenty-seven-year-old Jersey was of average intelligence; a caring and devoted wife and mother to her husband and two young daughters, she had no history of mental illness.Yet what he discovered could not be explained away simply as madness or by any standard clinical diagnosis. Through a series of unanticipated events, Dr. Peck found himself thrust into the role of exorcist, and his desire to treat and help Jersey led him down a path of blurred boundaries between science and religion. Once there, he came face-to-face with deeply entrenched evil.

Dr Peck’s second exorcism was Beccah, in her mid-forties and with a superior intellect, who had suffered from profound depression throughout her life, choosing to remain in an abusive relationship with her husband, one dominated by distrust and greed. This exorcism, like Jersey’s took four days, but this one was not successful in that Beccah was repossessed. Dr Peck attributed her repossession to the length of her possession, which was thought to be about 40 years. Beccah went back to her fraudulent financial business and died of osteomyelitis or morphine addiction fifteen or twenty years later by which time, Dr Peck was no longer in touch with her.

Dr Peck breaks an exorcism down into stages of Presence, Pretense, Break Point, Voice, Clash and Expulsion, the same stages as mentioned by Malachi Martin on Hostage to the Devil. In Presence, the team becomes aware of a demonic presence in the room. The temperature seems to drop, there is no other outward sign, but everyone can feel it. In Pretence, the demon pretends to be the possessed person, using his/her voice to speak. At Break Point, the Pretense ends and the demon uses the possessed’s vocal chords to speak in its own Voice. Clash, as the word suggests, marks the crucial disagreement with the demon and can include the exorcist, the possessed and members of the team. Expulsion marks the exit of the demon, which happens because the possessed turns against the demon, because of demands made by the exorcist, or (the Catholic church believes) by the intervention of Jesus.

Glimpses of the Devil is not a work of fiction. It is rather scientific work by a nationally recognised doctor. Nor is it one man’s testimony. Videotapes of both exorcisms exist and Dr Peck identifies all of the people involved in each process, though for obvious reasons, they are anonymised. One feels that one is actually present at each exorcism, observing all of the details worth observing. The author does not speculate or draw unproven conclusions. His principle conclusions are that the devil is a real being who is a huge threat to individual human beings, and the devil is afraid of Jesus.

It is a very difficult book to put down!

Best Seller List

Posted by

0

There is an article on the Literature News website, 10 March 2024, written by ‘Manish’ which confirms my long-held suspicions about the New York Times Best Seller List.

“When bestseller book lists are curated based on editorial whims rather than objective sales figures, the transparency and reliability of such rankings are compromised, leading to challenges for readers seeking genuine insights into popular literary tastes. In an ideal scenario, bestseller lists serve as valuable tools for readers to discover widely acclaimed books and gauge the preferences of their peers. However, when these lists are influenced by subjective judgments rather than concrete sales data, the distinction between truly popular books and those merely promoted or favoured by a select group of editors becomes blurred.

“This phenomenon undermines the credibility of bestseller lists and hampers readers’ ability to make informed decisions about their reading choices. Books that receive prominent placement on these lists due to editorial biases may garner unwarranted attention and overshadow lesser-known titles that may be more deserving of recognition based on their actual sales and reader reception. As a result, readers may miss out on discovering hidden gems that resonate with their interests and preferences.

“Now, let’s reveal the moot point of this article. In recent years, the New York Times Bestsellers List has come under scrutiny for its alleged editorial bias and lack of transparency. The controversy has sparked a heated debate within the publishing industry, with some authors and publishers questioning the list’s credibility and relevance. At the heart of the controversy is the claim that the New York Times Bestsellers List is not a true reflection of book sales but rather an editorial product subject to the editors’ preferences and biases. Critics argue that the list does not accurately represent the actual sales figures of their books, suggesting that the list is not a reliable indicator of a book’s popularity or success.

“In response to these claims, the New York Times maintains that the list is an editorial product and that they have the right to make decisions about which books to include and which to exclude. They argue that the list is not solely based on sales numbers but also takes into account other factors, such as the quality of the writing and the book’s overall impact.

“It’s absolutely ridiculous that the New York Times has the audacity to call their list a “Bestseller List” when it’s clearly nothing more than a biased, subjective, and editorial-driven selection of books. It’s a slap in the face to authors and readers alike, who expect a bestseller list to be based on actual sales numbers and merit, not the whims of a few editors. The fact that the NYT openly admits to considering their list an “editorial product” and claims the right to include or exclude books based on factors like “quality of writing” and “overall impact” is a complete joke. Who are they to decide what constitutes quality or impact? It’s nothing more than an elitist, self-serving attempt to control the narrative and push their own agenda. If the New York Times wants to maintain any credibility, it should stop masquerading its list as a “Bestseller List” and rename it something more accurate, like “NYT Editorial Subjective Choices.” It’s time for them to own up to their biased, subjective, and editorial-driven selection process and stop misleading readers with their so-called “Bestseller List.”

“Evidently, the controversy has led to calls for greater transparency in the selection process for the New York Times Bestsellers List. Some authors and publishers have demanded that the New York Times provide more information about the criteria used to select books for the list and the data sources used to compile it.

“The debate has also highlighted the role of other bestseller lists, such as those published by Amazon and other retailers. These lists are based on actual sales data and are seen by some as more objective and reliable indicators of a book’s popularity.

“In conclusion, the controversy surrounding the New York Times Bestsellers List is an ongoing debate that raises important questions about the role of editorial judgment in the selection of books for bestseller lists and the need for transparency in the selection process. As the debate continues, whether the New York Times will respond to the criticisms and change how it compiles its Bestsellers List remains to be seen.”

Review: The Hobbit

Posted by

1

I had never read any J R R Tolkien, because I had the impression it is trendy, other worldly. But I decided that I had to give him a try when he made the One Hundred Best Writers’ list, and I bought a copy of The Hobbit, his first novel. I’m glad I did.

J R R Tolkien

The Tolkien Society says,”John Ronald Reuel Tolkien (1892–1973) was a major scholar of the English language, specialising in Old and Middle English. Twice Professor of Anglo-Saxon (Old English) at the University of Oxford, he also wrote a number of stories, including most famously The Hobbit (1937) and The Lord of the Rings (1954–1955), which are set in a pre-historic era in an invented version of our world which he called by the Middle English name of Middle-earth. This was peopled by Men (and women), Elves, Dwarves, Trolls, Orcs (or Goblins) and of course Hobbits. He has regularly been condemned by the Eng. Lit. establishment, with honourable exceptions, but loved by literally millions of readers worldwide”.

The Hobbit was written to entertain his children. Incidentally, Tolkien defined ‘hobbit’ as ‘little people, about half our height, and smaller than the bearded Dwarves…. There is little or no magic about them, except the ordinary everyday sort which helps them to disappear when large stupid folk like you and me come blundering along…. are inclined to be fat and have good-natured faces, and deep fruity laughs (especially after dinner).’ They also live in comfortable accommodation underground.

The Hobbit begins with Mr Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit, being called upon unexpectedly in his home by Gandalf, the magician, who invites him to go on a profitable adventure. Baggins declines, but the next day he finds himself serving tea to Gandalf and thirteen dwarves, who have a plan to kill a distant evil dragon and take his immense riches which had been stolen from the king of the dwarves and others. Gandalf identifies Baggins as the burglar of the group. They set off across dense forests, rivers and mountains, experiencing many exciting events, including attacks by wolves, giant spiders, hostile elves, goblins. During these adventures, Bilbo finds a magic ring which makes him invisible when he wears it. The ring is very useful as he sneaks into the dragon’s den and spots its fatal vulnerability. The dragon is killed by a human archer as it flies over a village setting fire to the thatched roofs with its flaming breath. A great war is fought over the dragon’s immense wealth between the goblins and wolves on one side and the dwarves, men, elves and eagles on the other. The latter prevail. Bilbo, having been given a chest of gold and another of silver for his services returns to his home in the company of Gandalf.

This is a thoroughly engaging and remarkable story. It is set a long time ago in an environment we would recognise: nothing strange about rivers, mountains, forest and lakes. We know about magicians, goblins, elves and dragons. and we know about dwarves, wolves, eagles and spiders, but perhaps not really giant spiders. The only new character is the hobbit, but his endearing character soon makes him our hero. The story is not fantasy and does not struggle with credibility. The principal characters, good and evil, each has his own quirky identity which builds his stature. The mishaps that befall the dwarves and hobbit are real, credible emergencies, and each is unique. The level of tension is constantly high. Even the narrator (Tolkien) does not remain anonymous. He comments, occasionally on the characters and their situations.

The Hobbit is a masterful piece of story telling!

Dealing with Adversity

Posted by

0

On the Novelry website, Dr Stephany Carty has a post dated October 22, 2023 in which she, a psychologist and a novelist, talks about how to write characters’ responses to adversity that are interesting, credible and define the character by showing, rather than telling.

Dr Stephanie Carty is a published writer, as well as a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and NHS Head of Psychology in the UK. Her fiction has been shortlisted for many competitions, and her writers’ craft book, Inside Fictional Minds: Tips from Psychology for Creating Characters, has been an invaluable source of inspiration and education.

Dr Stephany Carty

Dr Carty says, “At some point in all of our novels, our characters – be they protagonists, villains, or even the person holding up the queue in the coffee shop – are going to have to deal with some sort of adversity. Adversity is what propels our characters to change, as they stand in the face of their demons, or are given the wrong Starbucks order.

And how our characters react to that adversity can tell our readers a whole lot about who they are as people. In fact, it’s a great tool for showing (and not telling) your reader, what your characters are truly like.

But how do you decide on their reaction? Where will it come from? And how can you be sure it’s psychologically sound?

Survival mode: characters dealing with adversity

When we hurl difficult situations at our characters, they react in ways that match their history. Some will have picked up methods that focus on how to survive whereas others are able to thrive.

You can either work backwards from how you need your character to react, then figure out a backstory that matches; or you can take what you know about them already and discover their reaction by digging deeper into their survival mechanisms.

Decide on their worldview

In their early years and beyond, what did your character learn about how safe other people are?

If they were mistreated, bullied, surrounded by anger or fear, then they learned from a young age that the world is a dangerous place and that other people are potentially harmful.

This leads them to developing hypervigilance for danger and learning which responses help them to survive: fight back, withdraw, be charming, feign illness, make allies with the aggressor, blame someone else, and so on.

These early strategies reoccur in times that are (or are perceived to be) threatening. Their focus under real or anticipated danger is to go into survival mode.

Now consider a different trajectory for your character: they were cherished and nurtured in childhood. They were allowed to take steps to independence safe in the knowledge there would be back-up if needed. They learned that the world is a relatively safe place, and that other people help you when things get tough.

So their response to a challenge as an adult is to trust in their capacity to cope, to seek help and to help others, to believe that there is a way forward which facilitates problem-solving. They have a potential to thrive in difficult circumstances.

As you can see, the worldview informs what behaviour occurs. These can differ widely according to what has been learned to be effective.

Distinguish the root cause

What looks like the same behaviour on the surface could be either a sign of thriving or a sign of surviving.

Let’s take the example of a character who is cheerful at the harshest time, focusing their efforts on helping others.

This could be an example of thriving in someone who genuinely believes in themselves and that the future will be positive. However, it could also be a mask that has been learned as a survival strategy – that to act happy instead of scared and put other people first keeps them safe from the anger of others.

Your task is to show the reader the difference between the two by writing through the eyes of the character.

Choose some subtle signs of survival

Your reader can absorb clues about your character all the way through your novel without even realising. What little details could you choose to pay attention to that give more information than would appear at first glance?

Ideas for how you can ‘show’ a character’s survival pattern:

  • Environment – if your character tends to be in survival mode, then in scenes from their point of view, use what seems like background description of a room or street to show the reader what is foremost in the character’s attention. For example, you could mention that the exit is to their left (without needing to state this is someone who automatically checks for an escape route due to being in high threat mode), or that the second streetlight is flickering as if it could switch off any moment (they are hypervigilant to threat outdoors as well as inside).
  • Self-monitoring – show the focus that a character in survival mode may have on their own body. For example, someone who has learned to act passive in order to stay safe might sit on their hands or grip a chair to hide their anger; whilst a character who has been conditioned to act tough, and never show weakness to avoid being harmed, may be very aware if they are sweating or flushed.
  • Appearance – has your character learned to keep themselves looking drab and folded over to avoid unwanted attention, or are they immaculately turned out in popular brand name clothes as a survival strategy of fitting in to avoid bullying? You don’t need to explain this or make it stand out too much, you can simply name drop a label or the particular shade of nail polish in mint condition for example.

Differentiate

It’s really important to remember that survival mode has developed in a certain set of circumstances. This means that survival responses differ for each character.

Let’s say you have a section of the novel where your three characters are reacting to a threatening note that has been delivered to their flat.

Milly is fearful of coming to harm, just like her mum who was attacked in her twenties. This triggers her to panic and want to leave the area.

Jamie is fearful of being seen to be scared. He was bullied at school and learned to mask his fear to avoid being beaten up – or worse. He makes jokes about the letter but inside is scared that he’ll not be able to protect his friends.

Daniella’s survival strategy means she doesn’t notice her fear and goes straight into anger. She learned in her teens that the only way to stop her dad from hurting her mum was to fight back. She grabs a knife and sits by the door, ready for action.

Outside of this clear threat, you could find that Milly often stays home and does a lot of her social life online, Jamie is focused on how he looks in public and lifts weights at the gym for hours on end, whereas Daniella goads people to test them out and prove she’s the most capable.

You want the small scenes to add up to the same picture as the behaviour found towards the main threat.

You can plan this out for your characters by answering the following statements for each:

  • My survival mode is triggered by… (type of threat)
  • I keep myself safe by… (action)
  • I get my needs met by… (action)

A final point to remember is that your characters don’t have to fit neatly into one box or another. They may go into survival mode in some contexts and thrive in others, or you can have an arc that moves them out of threat mode across time.”

Review: Someone Else’s Shoes

Posted by

0

My wife and I listened to this novel on the road from London to Sicily. At a length of 12 hours, 21 minutes, it entertained us for about half of our journey. It is written by Jojo Moyes and follows her formula: good women in trouble caused, at least partially by thoughtless men, plenty of action and emotion.

Jojo Moyes

Wikipedia says: ‘Pauline Sara Jo Moyes (born 4 August 1969), known professionally as Jojo Moyes, is an English journalist and, since 2002, an award-winning romance novelist, #1 New York Times best selling author and screenwriter. She is one of only a few authors to have twice won the Romantic Novel of the Year Award by the Romantic Novelists’ Association. Her works have been translated into twenty-eight languages and have sold over 40 million copies worldwide.’

There are two female protagonists in this novel. Sam Kemp works as sales manager for a printing company run by a despicable man who harasses her constantly for negligible failings. Her parents treat her like a handyman/servant; her husband has lost his job, his father died, and he is in a blue funk, watching TV all day. Nisha Cantor is the trophy wife of a super rich, totally selfish business man. She travels the world, staying in the best hotels, and her clothes are her identity, but she discovers that she is to be replaced by a younger trophy wife, and left without access to any money in London. Making it worse for her is that somebody has stolen her designer gym bag which held her six-inch high Christian Louboutin red crocodile shoes. Sam’s knock-off designer gym bag contains a pair of her comfortable flat shoes, but in her hurry to attend a meeting with a client, she picks the wrong gym bag. Left without her own shoes, Sam puts on the six-inch red crocks, and is amazed at the awe she strikes in workmates and clients. Her own confidence skyrockets. From that point, the story solves the following dilemmas with the help of hotel staff, Sam’s colleagues, her daughter, and a friend:

  • Should Sam resurrect a dead relationship with her husband, or go for the juicy colleague at work?
  • Is Sam going to be fired, and if so, who’s going to hire her?
  • How can Nisha get her shoes, her clothes from the hotel, some money, a decent settlement from her husband and a new love interest?

The women answer these questions with great skill and ingenuity. They also manage to extract revenge from the uncaring husband and boss.

The theme ‘Someone Else’s Shoes’ is played out very well in the circumstances and characters of Sam and Misha, different as they are. The conclusion, where Sam and Misha work together, and respect each other fits nicely. But Jojo isn’t a moralizer, she’s in it for the tension, the dilemmas, and the high-tension emotion, where she really excels. Her particular skill is creating characters who are unique, credible and very real bundles of emotion. OK, some of the props (the shoes, for example) and the settings stretch reality a little bit, but who cares. We’re in this with Jojo for the fun, and there’s plenty of it!

Book Fair Disaster

Posted by

0

In last Monday’s Daily Telegraph, there is an article by David Millward about a rather unpleasant book fair in the States.

“A four-day event that was supposed to be a bookworm’s dream has been dubbed the ‘Fyre Festival of Books’ after it descended into chaos and left one person with a black eye.

Led by Rebecca Yarros, a best-selling author, the Readers Take Denver festival at the Gaylord Rockies Resort and Convention Centre was billed as the ultimate event for book lovers.

However, as the day unfolded, the event fell apart, leading one disillusioned visitor to compare it to Fyre, the fraudulent 2017 music festival held on the Bahamian island of Great Exuma.

Attendees paid $300 to $375 (£239 to £299) for a ticket to an event where they were promised they could have books signed by best-selling authors who turned up in force to promote their writing. Many paid hundreds of dollars to travel to the event.

A timed ticketing system was supposed to ensure that readers had plenty of time to go from one booth to another to meet authors.

Instead, they spent hours queuing to have time with the writers, food ran out and pre-ordered books never arrived.

‘All we did was stand in line. It was worse than Disney, and there wasn’t even a ride at the end.’ Kelli Meyer, a self-described ‘RTD survivor’, told the Denver Post.

Security staff who were supposed to marshal the crowd failed to do so. One woman took to TikTok to describe how she sustained a black eye after being knocked over in a melee.

Another complained of being verbally abused by staff after she suffered a medical emergency. She claimed: ‘I was having a hypoglycaemic moment and was screamed at by staff to; ‘get the f—- up off the floor!’ She added: ‘there were so many horrific experiences between readers, vendors, authors, Pas, and volunteers alike. This was not just a breakdown in communication, it was a systematic issue with this program.’

Yarros, author of the best-sellers Fourth Wing and Iron Flame, vented her anger in a 2,436 word Facebook post apologising to guests who felt ‘frazzled’ and ‘overwhelmed’ by their experiences at the event. She wrote: ‘Readers, on behalf of every author at the event, I’m sorry. Sorry it was disorganised, sorry you did not get to bask in the overwhelming joy that spending three days in the book world should give you.’

Renee Jones, and event organiser, admitted the event suffered ‘bumpy bumps’. She said there had been ‘concerns’ about lack of security and unprofessional behaviour by volunteers.”

Review: Purpose

Posted by

0

This is a non-fiction book by Samuel T Wilkinson with the sub-title: What Evolution and Human Nature Imply About the Meaning of Our Existence. The leading blurb on the back cover says, “If you struggle to reconcile faith and reason, Sam Wilkinson’s profound book Purpose was written for you. You will be left with and understanding of the guiding forces behind human evolution and behaviour,” Arthur C Brooks, professor Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Business School and #1 New York Times bestselling author.

Samuel T Wilkinson

Sam Wilkinson is an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, where he also as associate director of the Yale Depression Research Program. He received his MD from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. His articles have been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal. He has been the recipient of many awards.

The book begins with a discussion of the ‘Scopes Monkey Trial’ in Tennessee in 1925. John Scopes, a twenty-four year old substitute teacher and football coach was charged with violation of the recently passed Butler Act, which made it a crime to teach any theory which contradicted the Bible. Scopes had taught evolution which claimed that human beings had evolved from apes (in contradiction of the Bible). Scopes, himself, had very little role in the trial. The key players were William Jennings Bryan, a three-time presidential candidate and outspoken apologist for religious fundamentalism, for the prosecution, and Clarence Darrow, the most prominent defense attorney in the US at the time, for the defense. During the trial, Darrow called Bryan as a witness, and that interrogation resulted in a painful and cruel renunciation of biblical literalism. The jury, however, accepted that Scopes was guilty and fined him $100. The Scopes Monkey Trial, says the author, epitomises the science vs religion debate.

Wilkinson next attacks the doctrine of randomness associated with the concept of evolution: that every change in the struggle for survival was accidental and random, without any guidance or control. If one believes that human beings are a random construction, what are we here for? If we are here for no reason, it suggests that there is no God. But the author shows that evolution was far from a random process. That, for example, very different species have developed the same eye technology in entirely different environments at different times. The same point can be made about wings and lungs. The evolution of bacteria can be predicted.

Wilkinson then turns to the various selection processes that determine which variant is the one most likely to survive: is it done on an individual basis, amongst kin, or groups or at multiple levels. Selection can take place at different levels depending on the context, with very different results. Based on theses observations, it is not difficult to see that given the same starting point and the same inputs, living things would evolve exactly as they did if the process were to start over.

Wilkinson points out that human beings have two different sets of behaviours: kind, gentile, thoughtful, cooperative and forgiving vs. selfish, aggressive, emotive, combative and irrational. These two sets of behaviour have evolved consistently with us and are present in each of us to some extent. It is noted that even the ‘negative set’ have survival benefits in some circumstances. Wilkinson presents evidence that as human beings we are happiest when we have good relationships with others. On this basis, the author argues that life is meant as a test for us: how can we use our skills to maximise our good relations with others? He says there is certainly space to believe in a God who has given us free will and the opportunity to use our lives to benefit others.

Wilkinson presents well thought out arguments very clearly with a host of factual data. One cannot say he is wrong. He admits to a belief in God, but his belief is not part of his argument. He leaves it to the reader to draw her own conclusions, but don’t miss this read!