Join Tom's newsletter for news on upcoming books and stories.

Archive for April, 2012

The Correct Point Of View

My post today concerns writing, but applies to life in general as well.

Recently, an online question came up in one of the writing groups I’m involved with regarding what point of view (POV) was correct for a work of fiction.  I won’t go into an explanation of POV other than to say that the basic choices are first person (I wrote that), second person (you wrote that) and third person (she wrote that).  There are numerous variations of these basic choices and there are great websites that go into more detail on this than most people want to know.  In any case, the discussion revolved around some of those variations.

I made the point that rather than worrying about the popular trend, for me it’s more a matter of being true to yourself as a writer, and being honest with yourself as an artist.

There are very explicit rules for what a writer can and can’t do within certain genre, such as in romance and they do need to be followed. That said, you could follow a formulaic approach and write something that fits very comfortably within the herd, and you can probably manage to be successful (witness Eragon) even with mediocre writing.

However, I think it’s really important to be true to yourself and to the story. The POV is only one factor (albeit a very significant one) that makes up the complete personality of the work, so listen to the heartbeat of your story, how it wants to tell itself, and if you are really connecting with it you will know how to tell it…because that’s what we really are, are storytellers.

And if you try to tell your story in some way that isn’t “real” it’s going to come across as flat as a B-grade actor on the big screen. Because to really imbue your work with life, it has to flow from the deepest, most honest part of inside of you…and believe me, you can’t fake that effortless flow of genuinely honest writing. That’s something I’ve struggled with for a long time myself, my own personal Moby Dick.  And I am still hunting that great white whale but I’m seeing it come within harpoon range now.

My point with all this was that (and this is just my opinion)…worry about the quality of the prose, worry about the honesty and emotion of the writing, but don’t worry about the POV…if you are REALLY out in left field, you’ll know it if you’re honest with yourself and the story.

So how does this apply to life in general?  Whether it is work, our family life or the pursuits we fill our lives with outside of those things, we all have passions that we pursue.  And I think it’s important to be true and honest to those passions within yourself.  Some of the most miserable times of my life were when I was less than honest about what was inside myself.

So be true to what is inside yourself, and above all else, don’t stop pursuing your great white whale.

What Science Can Teach Religion About Faith

Today I came across this Scientific American article on a Tennessee law that just passed, allowing teachers in public schools to challenge scientific findings and theories. The article specifically addressed climate science, but the bill also covers evolution and cloning, topics which are a ‘third rail’ in public discussion these days. The implication of a teacher challenging a scientific subject is that one could refuse to teach it, or possibly even teach an alternative viewpoint, i.e. creationism. It wasn’t clear from the article just how far a teacher could go, and it may be that those boundaries have yet to be tested.

I have to question whether a teacher whose notion of challenging science is to discard it, is qualified to teach science. Because science is inherently based on the process of challenging anything and everything. Even the most basic foundation of a science is always open to challenge, if one dares to joust with it. That is why Einstein was able to put forward a theory that didn’t fit with a Newtonian theory that had stood for hundreds of years. If one wishes to challenge any scientific study or finding, the arena (of academic journals) is always open, provided your game is good enough to get you into that arena (kind of like trying to break into publishing). And like any game, there are rules, which science calls the scientific method.

Which leads to what science can teach religion about faith. Many religious adherents that I know view science as weak because with few exceptions, even the most solid constructs are called theories and open to challenge. But what they don’t understand is that scientists have a faith of their own, every bit as strong as the most passionate believer, in the scientific method. That is why even the most fundamental scientific truths are less than absolute, and that is also why science continues to advance by leaps and bounds. Because scientists are willing to examine their beliefs and modify them when confronted with inconsistencies.

As a Christian, I have spent a lot of time and effort examining my belief system, and I won’t pretend to have all the answers but the one thing I’m confident of is that no one else does either. That doesn’t mean I abandon my belief system or that I doubt God exists. It just means our understanding isn’t quite right yet. To me, faith is having the courage to acknowledge that you are probably wrong in some of your conclusions, and that you might need to revise some of those conclusions.

And that is what I think science can teach religion about faith: that it’s okay to be wrong.  Because reality doesn’t change, but our understanding of it certainly can.

 

NorWesCon Session – “The Importance Of Abby”

This last weekend I went to the NorWesCon Sci Fi convention in the Seattle area, and attended a great workshop entitled The Importance Of Abby.  The session included Bridget Landry who addressed the stereotypes of women in the media, particularly strong, intelligent scientific women, i.e. geeky women.  Her point is that when women are (rarely) portrayed in the media in scientific roles, they are typically unfeminine, very serious and often unapproachable.  I haven’t done a research paper on this but I suspect there is a lot of truth to her assertion.

Then, along comes a character like Abby Sciuto from NCIS who breaks that mold. The panel discussion suggested that we as writers need to show more female characters who are top-notch scientists that are totally professional, and yet not constrained in their femininity. And while guys are often intimidated by such women, not all are and so we need to show that men can find such women damn attractive. Finally, to make it real and personal it’s also important to show the struggles that a character like this goes through, and how they overcome.

Ms. Landry gave me a lot to think about here, both in the characters that I’ve written in the past and the ones still gestating in that creative soup somewhere inside. I’ve certainly created some strong female protagonists but none that are scientific. Maybe because that story just hadn’t come to me yet, but also maybe because I wore the same blinders as everyone else. But as I think about it, I do have a WIP (work in progress) that I want to come back to, which NEEDS just such a character…I knew Hana was lacking something vital, and this is just what she needed.

On another level though, I think The Importance Of Abby goes beyond just female stereotypes. On a very deep level our society wears countless stereotype straitjackets. Can a Christian be a scientist (the subject of another post)?  Can someone support liberal causes and still be patriotic?  Every day I encounter people who are so locked into their own mindsets, that they lock others into being their enemies when they really aren’t.

So the real importance of Abby is in helping us remember that we are infinitely complex beings who can’t be mashed into any mold, even though it comforts many to try and do so.