The Psychology of Narration

janusAbout a year ago I converted a novel-length manuscript from first-person narration to third person. It was almost impossible to do it without error.  I read through the converted manuscript three times and every time I would find multiple instances of “I” and “we” and “me” and “my” that shouldn’t have been there, vestiges of the old first-person voice.

Why was that so difficult to get right?  Consider this error:

He moved around the corner in a crouch, his gun held forward in a triangle, and I squeezed the trigger.

In a third-person narration, it should be “he” squeezed the trigger. The third-person narrator is above the action, outside the character, observing and reporting that “he” squeezed the trigger.

The erroneous “I” suddenly shifts the passage to a first-person storyteller, someone who was there, and who also had a gun, and who described what he saw when the man moved around the corner in a crouch. Two men, two guns.

Delete the word, “I” in the example above, and the storyteller becomes an anonymous third-person narrator, and the guy who moved around the corner is also the one who squeezed the trigger. One man, one gun.

You would think, as the author of the story, I would know how many guys and guns were in the scene. And I do. It was one guy, one gun. But that slippery pronoun, “I” went undetected past my eyes through three careful readings. Why? It’s not because “I” is a slim letter. No, it has something to do with my consciousness and how my brain works.

Currently, I am changing that story from third person back to first-person. I decided the previous rewrite had cost me too much character voice and intimacy. Since my main character was the POV in virtually every scene, I thought it the conversion would be a breeze. It hasn’t been. Consider this example:

The first one went down fast and easy. I asked if there was any more whiskey.

“Ye might as well ask if there are any fish in the sea,” his father said as he brought the bottle to the kitchen table and refilled the glass to three fat fingers.

Spot the error? “his father said…” doesn’t make sense. It should have been “my father said,” or better, “he said.”

A third-person narrator wouldn’t say “he said” because there are two men in the conversation and that would be ambiguous, so he specifies it was the father.

But if it’s a first-person narrator, the character can refer to the other fellow as “he.” It’s not ambiguous because you never refer to yourself as “he.”

But again, my question is, why are errors like this so difficult to catch?

I think it has something to do with the difference between an author and a narrator. In the error above, I lost my character’s POV. I was inside his head as he asked for more whiskey, but I stepped outside when the spotlight shifted to the father.

When the father answered, I was ambushed by a third-person narrator. If I had stayed inside my character’s head, the father’s answer would have been what my character heard. But instead, I thought of it as what the father said. That was my mental mistake.

I made the mistake because as the author, I have to make up the stuff that all the characters say. So I went into the father’s head to create the sentence and when I did that, my narrator got lost.

The narrator is an author’s persona, a kind of mask that separates the author from the voice who is telling the story. I was not drinking any kind of whiskey when I wrote the scene. When my character asks is there any more whiskey, that’s not me talking, that’s my narrator, my storyteller, making the character speak.

Perhaps if I were a trained actor, I wouldn’t have trouble staying “in character.” But the fact is, I’m also the one who exercises the craft of writing, which includes inserting tags that indicate who is speaking. Such elements of craft are of no concern to the narrator, whose job is to tell the story. We divide the labor.

The narrator, whether he takes the voice of the first-person character, or that of a third-person god, tells what happened, and I, as the author, have to manage things like pronouns, commas, and quotations marks to make it come out right. Those structural elements have little meaning of their own and belong to the author, not the narrator.

The problem is that I also control the narrator and I’m supposed to keep him separate, something very hard to do when editing. Converting narration from first- to third- or back the other way makes my mind buzz back and forth between story-telling and craft-managing like a flickering light bulb. Apparently, it’s more than my feeble mind/brain can do without error.

 

Security on the Ground

cop at night

I got up at 3:30 this Thanksgiving morning so I could leave the house by 4:30 to take my wife to the airport. As soon as I entered the arterial from my neighborhood I was passed by a county sheriff’s SUV. He “followed me from ahead,” as cops can do, for about a half mile, then I turned south, leaving the county and crossing the Tucson city line. The sheriff continued on but may have “handed me off” to TPD like an air traffic controller because I immediately saw a TPD black-and-white about a half mile behind me.

Turning west on Broadway, I lost my tail and had all the lanes to myself. There was nobody else out on the road, not surprising for a holiday morning. I spotted one TPD patrol car lurking in a side street, watching as a lion watches gazelles. I felt very watched.

As soon as I turned south again onto the main road to the airport, my mirror showed a TPD patrol car behind me. He came up close behind at the next stoplight, no doubt getting the license plate number, then as we continued, he dropped back into my blind spot behind the C pillar. It was very skillful driving on his part. How did he know exactly where my blind spot was? Every car is different. He would have had to be monitoring my side mirror. Needless to say, I observed all rules of the road but I felt vulnerable and surrounded, being the only car on the road, southbound.

Tucson has few cross-town or through-town freeways, so if you’re on Alvernon southbound at 4:45 in the morning, you’re probably going to the airport, even though it’s five miles away. I figured that’s why I was being followed. Inevitably, the roof rack lit up and I had to pull over. I took out my wallet and put my hands on top of the steering wheel where he could see them, and thanked heaven I am white.

An extraordinarily young (it seemed to me) officer said the light on my license plate was burned out. I’m not even sure that’s a legitimate moving violation but it was his excuse for making the stop. I handed over license and registration, and he wanted to see proof of insurance too. He disappeared but left his powerful spotlight pointed at my side mirror so I couldn’t see him, but he could see my face. I turned my mirror out to get the light out of my eyes and, truthfully, to express my annoyance at that heavy-handed tactic.

The guy was very polite, and I am very clean, so he had nothing further to do. He returned my paperwork and engaged me in a little conversation about how hard “they” make it to change the bulbs on a car yourself these days.  This small talk was obviously part of psychological profiling, and I played along, and at the end, I actually thanked him for heads-up security when everyone is so tense these days about public safety.

Driving carefully, I noticed two more TPD patrol cars lurking on side streets as I completed the remaining five miles on deserted roads to the airport. They probably knew (by radio) I was coming and that I had already been vetted. It was a little creepy.

At the airport departure area, instead of the usual Airport Police sedan, there was a large TPD armored truck, part of the SWAT fleet. I recognized it because as a member of Arizona Mystery Writers, I had studied the city’s SWAT vehicles before.

I said goodbye but my wife and I could see that TSA security was everywhere and the lines stretched almost back into ticketing. Mind you, this is 5:30 in the morning, in Nowheresville, Arizona.  Good thing we were early.

I should note that police and sheriffs are normally very scarce on the ground around Tucson. You can go a whole week without seeing one. That’s because Arizona is extremely Republican so we hardly pay any taxes, and consequently, there are hardly any services. My experience this morning stands out against a background of rarely seeing police presence, so obviously, the word is out on travel security today.

The implication is that security on the ground must be extremely tight all over the country. It’s easy to get paranoid when you see ten times the number of cops you usually see in a day, especially in the context of international tensions lately. I only hope it’s mostly “security theater” rather than a response to actual threats.

Why People Distrust Science

Junk Science1

The main reason I left teaching psychology is that I  couldn’t go on teaching lies.

When I analyzed the source of my discontent, I came up with a dim view of my chosen field, a criticism of widely held pre-theoretic assumptions that could not be challenged or changed. (I documented these in my book, Scientific Introspection. See bit.ly/scientific-introspection).

Since turning my attention to a more honest profession, writing fiction, I have left my frustration with psychology behind, but it still flares up when I see articles in the popular press featuring “scientific” psychology and its findings.

One such was an article in The Economist, November 7, 2015 edition, in the ironically named “Science and Technology” section. (Religion and Altruism: Matthew 22:39).

This article reported a study that claimed to prove that people brought up in a religious household are less generous than those who are not. Interesting finding, if true. But, even acknowledging that this is secondary reporting and I haven’t read the original study, it looks pretty bad.

The psychologists recruited 1170 families to study, in several countries, including Canada, China, Jordan, South Africa, and Turkey. They picked out one child in each family to study.

Okay, right away I have multiple problems. First the sample size is so large that the statistical “power” of any test is going to be biased to detect extremely small but meaningless distinctions. A properly done study must report an index of statistical power to help a reader interpret the results, but such subtlety is far beyond the depth of popular reporting, so based on the information given we simply cannot interpret any results based on this report and we should stop reading immediately. But let’s go on.

It becomes even more fun. They selected one child per family?  How?  Randomly?  Coin toss?  I doubt that very much. Imagine how it would work, getting permission from the families. So we have admitted sample bias before we start. Were the selected children controlled for age, gender, health, and education? I doubt that also. At this point we should toss the article away because no matter what it finds, the results will be uninterpretable.

But wait, it gets better. The samples were selected from several different countries with wildly differing cultures, histories, literatures, and religions. Does “altruism” even have the same meaning across such cultures?  Not a hint of caution is breathed. Again, any result will be meaningless.

Undeterred, the psychologists assessed by questionnaire how religious each family was. Imagine if a team of psychologists administered a questionnaire to your family to determine how religious it was. Do you think the results would be accurate?  Me neither.

Moving on though, the psychologists offered each child a collection of 30 prizes (“attractive stickers”), and invited the child to select 10.  I won’t spend any time wondering how the psychologists knew that a “sticker” is an equally attractive prize for all these children in such diverse cultures.

The children were then asked if they’d like to give away some of their 10 stickers to classmates who were excluded from the study. That was the measure of altruism. Yes, you read that right. “Altruism” is operationally defined by number of “stickers” a child is willing to give away. That is such a poor definition that it immediately casts doubt upon the “external validity” of the whole study. Low external validity means results cannot be generalized beyond the samples studied.

After some highly questionable manipulation of the data, throwing out responses  from Jews, Buddhists and Hindus because of “small sample size” (!) the results were: Muslim children gave away 3.2 stickers on average, while Christian children gave away 3.3. Draw your own conclusion from that stunning finding.

Moreover, the study noted, generosity (formerly called altruism) was inversely related to the degree of the family’s (self-reported) religiosity. In other words, the more religious the family believes it is, the less generous its children are (or not – depending on how much of this execrable “study” you take seriously!).

I should blame The Economist for failure to properly report this study’s methodology, flaws and findings, but I understand that the state of scientific knowledge in this country (and in the world) is extremely low and ability to evaluate research is virtually zero. So wouldn’t it be better to publish an article that helps people evaluate research instead of blithely reporting without comment, meaningless studies like this? But they’re a magazine and their job is to sell advertising, not to educate.

It’s no wonder that so many people distrust scientific research findings. I once heard a politician dismiss an objection to his propositions by saying, “You can prove anything with facts.” Considering what passes for facts these days, he was not entirely wrong.

If I cared enough, I would search out the original research report and see if it was as useless as this article suggests it was, but doing that would just make me more upset, and anyway, I have already done such detailed research analyses in my book, Scientific Introspection, and that didn’t change the world by much, did it?

At least nowadays, I write fiction that is clearly labeled as such.

Four Literary Movies

Wise Blood

I recently saw, on DVD, Wise Blood, the movie based on a novel by Flannery O’Connor. Criterion has reissued this 1979 gem, all cleaned up, and with annotations and interviews for context.

The movie increased my respect for O’Connor. I haven’t read any of her novels, a few stories in high school is all, but as a rule, I am allergic to “Southern Gothic.” I’ve never found it interesting to watch stupid people behaving stupidly. However this story was exceptional.

I loved the idea of a young man who wants to cynically start the Church of Jesus Christ, to make a living as a preacher, but his church will be without the Jesus Christ, who was a fraud, he says.

In his own angry desperation to find meaning, he finds it necessary to become something beyond what he is. It’s the old hound of heaven. The ideas track Moby Dick and the imagery tracks Oedipus Rex. Loved it.

UnderVolcanoJohn Huston directed Wise Blood and also directed a movie adaptation of Malcolm Lawrie’s Under the Volcano. I was perplexed by that novel, of a drunken regional governor Mexico around the time of the Spanish Civil War in Europe. The novel is known for the narrator’s  relentless adherence to the governor’s mind, even during his drunken delusions. It is an “experience.” In the movie, Albert Finney does a good drunk, but overall the movie seemed flat, compared to the rich interiority of the novel. You have to give Huston points for even attempting to make that movie however.

Gemma BoveryI can also recommend Gemma Bovery (2014). It’s set in contemporary rural France and the plot points follow Flaubert’s novel, Madam Bovary, and the characters are vaguely aware of that, as is the viewer, of course. But what’s amazing is that the movie also manages to capture Flaubert’s innovations in narration, including the moves between omniscient and close third and even demonstrating Free Indirect Discourse (which he invented). The director (Ann Fontaine; also co-wrote) understood the novel well.

It’s a great-looking picture besides, with the warm glow of Southern France that recalled the look and feel of “My Mother’s Glory” and “My Father’s Mansion” a couple of 1990 films by Yves Robert that I have always admired. And I love to hear French – such a beautiful language.

inherent-viceFinally, I recently viewed the movie of Thomas Pynchon’s Inherent Vice. The movie tracks the novel very closely, though leaving out great chunks of subplot and backstory, as is necessary. Joaquin Phoenix does a good job as the stoned out detective, Doc Sportello, who is supposed to be a 1970’s parody of Chandler’s Philip Marlowe. Josh Brolin is perfect as Bigfoot, the cop known for kicking in doors. The cast includes some surprises, from Owen Wilson to Maya Rudolph, Reese Witherspoon, Benicio del Toro and Martin Short.  Despite all that talent, the movie is just not as funny as the book and ends up being more slapstick than ironic. Pynchon’s humor seeps out of his exaggerated sentences, which are often too fast and complicated to sink in from the screen. Still, the movie is wacky and over-the-top, as is the novel, so a success for that.

Backspace Online

Backspace LogoI recently participated in an online writing conference offered by Backspace Writers Conference (http://www.backspacewritersconference.com/). Their conferences run four days and include six attendees from all parts of the country. This particular one focused on manuscript submission materials: a query letter and a two-page sample. Two literary agents critiqued the query letters and two different ones the samples.

For the critiques, you call into a conference number and the session takes place on the phone. That’s not an ideal setup, since people live and work in noisy places and for some reason decline to use their mute button, so the background can overwhelm the conversation. Also, since many people use cell phones, dropouts are common, making conversation more difficult. There is no fixed protocol for the conversation (e.g., like GotoMeeting.com or some of those), and people do not introduce themselves each time they speak so you often don’t know who is talking. So it’s not an ideal situation, but it more or less gets the job done.

I received a useful critique of my query letter, although I don’t know how much to trust it. One agent said I should reverse the order of my first two paragraphs, but didn’t give a reason other than personal preference. They said the letter was too brief, something I have never heard any agent say about any query letter before. Both agents were obsessed with the plotline, not interested in character, although this was a conference focused on mysteries and thrillers, so that’s perhaps understandable. They also wanted more author bio information, the relevance of which escapes me.

I also learned by listening to the agents’ critiques of the other five queries, but again, the feedback seemed a little odd so I don’t know how seriously to take it. For example one query, way too long and convoluted, in my opinion (I could hardly understand it), was weirdly formatted and surrounded by a black border tombstone. Both agents found a lot to like with that query. Eventually they did get around to cautioning against the non-standard typography. But only at the very end, as an afterthought, did one of them draw attention to the fact that the novel being pitched was 185,000 words. Maybe these agents were instructed to be more kind than critical. These conferences are operated as a business, after all, so there is a built-in conflict of interest.

Critique of the two-page writing sample was more informative because there was more material to work with, and because of more critical and articulate agents. My sample was criticized for expositional dialog, a fair comment. Ironically, the incident the characters discussed was just a routine case so they could reveal their conflict and how they speak and act. Apparently that is a poor strategy and I need to engage the characters in the actual story right away. Valuable feedback.

Each conference calls last about an hour, one on Tuesday, one on Wednesday. For the last two days of the conference, attendees are supposed to use the discussion board to talk among themselves on any topic. Most didn’t. The agents were invited to participate in these discussions also, and some did.

So basically, you pay $225 for two one-hour conference calls. Each submission gets five to ten minutes of focus, so I ended up paying about $10 per minute for personalized agent advice. Of course I didn’t have any travel expenses, so maybe that’s comparable to going to a live conference for advice. But $600 an hour seems a little steep for any kind of advice.

One thing for sure, I would never want to be a literary agent.

 

Terrorism and Dialog

terrorist1Terrorism used to be a strategy of violence against a civilian population for political or religious expression. A terrorist act was a “statement” by people who otherwise had no voice.

It’s hard to imagine groups that literally have no voice in today’s interlinked world. That we don’t agree or comply with someone does not mean we have not listened. Dialog is an exchange of ideas.

Terrorism seems now to have devolved from the most primitive form of dialog, into simply brute punishment of those who disagree. Rather than trying to make a political statement, terrorist attacks have become simply a “fuck you.”

Such attacks are more horrifying than terrifying. What’s really terrifying is not the bombs, but the fact that when you look into the face of the bombers, you see that nobody’s home and that dialog is not possible. That is a terrifying prospect.

Not only do we disagree with the terrorists on matters of religion, philosophy, politics and culture, but we can hardly recognize them as sentient beings of our own species. There is nothing to say and no language to say it in. We feel helpless.

Unfortunately, we are well beyond the “lone wolf” crazy-ass bomber  who can be contained.  We confront a relatively coherent culture with an ideology, inarticulate and delusional though it is, accepted by thousands of fanatical followers. We can’t kill them all.

Can we possibly accommodate the ideas? Not likely. We don’t easily comprehend a culture that decapitates others for being different. What is the joy anyway in having everyone be identical? That’s not how humans are.

Today’s terrorists are men with the minds of children. They live in an untrammelled egocentricism that imagines them delusional “servants” of a self-projected god. That’s their substitute for confrontation and understanding the human unconscious, the id, the shadow, the instincts, whatever you call the uncivilized part of ourselves that must be managed for the sake of civilization. Their solution to that problem doesn’t work for the rest of us.

I’m afraid many established governments are going to respond by hunkering down at home,  becoming ever-more authoritarian, xenophobic and tribal. You think airport security is a pain in the neck? Imagine the same on all forms of public transportation, at concerts, sports events, libraries, office buildings, shopping malls, and even cafes and bars. People are always willing to sacrifice freedom in exchange for temporary security. Over the next two decades, life as we know it in the West will change significantly.

How can we respond to terrorism without strangling ourselves?  I propose a three-fold strategy. First, manage international travel better. This would have the immediate effect of isolating the problem geographically. If you’ve traveled to an identified “risk zone,” you can’t come back without extensive security clearance. It’s not about being “monitored” after you get back. You can’t get in the door until you’ve been scrubbed, and that could take months or years, given resources available.

Inconvenient and illiberal? Yes. It’s an immediate and practical response.  Mass migrations would be treated the same way. Extensive security clearance on migrants. Time-consuming and less than compassionate? Yes. The short-term goal is geographical isolation of the problem. There may be statistical ways to deal with the issue humanely.

Unfortunately, you know that politicians will confound “some” migrants are terrorists with “all” migrants are terroists, to purposely obfuscate the issue, to turn an anti-terrorism issue into an immigration issue. There’s nothing we can do about ignorant and/or evil politicians (other than vote in better people!).

The second strategy is to educate women in poor, developing, and war-torn areas. The mother is the first educator of every bomb-throwing man. A mother who reads and writes, who is at least marginally aware of history, literature, science, philosophy, mathematics, and other cultures, will produce a different kind of youth, and eventually a change in the entire culture.

The goal is not to create scholars, merely human beings whose world extends beyond the walls that surround them. Women are the best hope for that.

Finally, in the near term, isolate and neutralize the most violent extremists with whom no dialog is possible. Ideally, we could contain them. Let them stew in their own virulent juices. In practice, we probably have to kill them.

It’s the most primitive form of communication imaginable, to kill someone, not out of rage or revenge, but simply because you can’t talk to them. You don’t want to do it, but there are no more practical options. It’s a helluva thing that we’ve come to that.

A Craft to be Practiced

broken-mirrorI started my fiction-writing career with mystery, which I chose precisely because it is formulaic. As a beginner, I wanted to be guided by a lot of structure. I never held the delusion that I possessed some towering talent burning to be free, or any special voice that had to be be expressed. I always approached writing as a craft to be practiced. I still see it that way.

I ended up writing thrillers, not mysteries. In a thriller, the threat to the status quo is recognized but not understood. Someone is trying to kill me but I don’t know who, or why. That appeals to me. It’s how I live.

In a mystery, the crime is well-described from the beginning and the only question is whodunit, or possibly whydunit. You leave clues and red herrings along a trail of rational problem-solving, leading to a conclusion that is not, hopefully, foregone.

That was too formulaic for me. The thriller offered more degrees of freedom but still was tightly bound by realism and critical thinking. I wrote some sci-fi, which stretches the imagination more, but always within the strict parameters of rationality.

I’d like to write something that doesn’t make sense, at least not all the time. What doesn’t make sense? Just about all of life, when you consider it. Time doesn’t make sense. Time as lived, not as defined mathematically by science. La dureé, in Bergson’s terminology.

Pictures belie the reality of time, but rhythm affirms it. Where is the ten-year-old I once was? Hell, I’m not even sure about last week.

Love doesn’t make sense. Most emotions don’t. Religion doesn’t make sense, really, it doesn’t. It might seem to, for victims of untrammelled egocentricism and superstition. Superstition doesn’t make sense.

Nor does probability really make sense. It’s empirical, not intuitive, a distinction that is the bane of gamblers. I taught the principles of statistics for years and I could not, even today, really explain the behavior of the normal curve. I can demonstrate it, but not account for it.

Birth and death, of course. Total mysteries.

And I have always been attracted to the principle of cosmological transformationalism, a kind of magic practiced by shamans, regardless of culture. I think I’d like to dig into that. I once saw a man turn into a bird, and I almost understood it. That is a promising avenue.

An interesting challenge would be to embed an irrational shamanic phenomenon within a hyper-rational form, such as sci-fi. That would be a  challenge.

Writing the Non-Obvious

Movie ReelThe screenplay adaptation of my detective novel came in at 93 minutes. I learned a ton. One lesson was that I am capable of taking an objective view of my own work. I slashed mercilessly. Several beloved secondary characters were truncated or eliminated. Whole subplots were abandoned. Locations were minimized. Action was simplified.

After it was done, I went back to the novel, because I realized I had started it in the wrong place. The relentless cutting to make the screenplay had made the MC’s character arc stand out like a throbbing vein and the novel had to start with that pulse, not with a secondary character. Obvious in retrospect, but when you’re writing, you don’t know where you’re going.

So I rewrote the first two chapters of the novel, and gained a new appreciation for the novel form, where characters have extensive backstory and interior doubts and complex motivation. In the screenplay all emotions and movements of the soul are gestures to easily-recognized tropes. It has to be that way to get it done in under 100 minutes.

So I began to look critically at my characters’ novelistic interiors. Were they predictable and formulaic? If so, why bother? A screenplay can telegraph that. If I’m going to write psychological interiors, they darn well better be unique and non-obvious.

I haven’t really decided what to work on next. I have a list of ten new ideas bubbling, and I have one first-draft novel I haven’t looked at in a year calling to me in muffled tones from within a drawer. Whatever it’s going to be, I will keep my hard-earned lesson from screen writing in mind.

Allende – Eva Luna

Eva Luna 200

This book falls into in the category of magical realism by most accounts, but I didn’t see a lot of that, especially compared to Marquez or Rushdie, for example. Instead, the stories told are better characterized as fantastic, amazing, improbable, and highly imaginative.

The young woman, Eva Luna, whose life story this is, escapes from a burning whorehouse, where she has been raised by an eccentric madam, and ultimately is rescued by a kindly Turkish merchant with a harelip. All this takes place in an unnamed South American country, probably Venezuela. The reader thinks, okay, that could happen; nothing magical about it, but it doesn’t seem very likely. On the other hand, such episodes are colorful and fun to read.

There are four or five events that could be construed as magical, such as an old man’s invention of a permanent embalming fluid that makes corpses look as alive as they ever were, forever. But given the narrator’s florid and imaginative storytelling style, we could just as well mark that description down to exaggeration as magic.

As Eva Luna grows up, she discovers she is a hypnotic storyteller, a modern-day Scheherazade. Like that archetypal storyteller, she is able to trade her gift for the goods, services, and companions that sustain her. She learns to read and write (in several languages) and eventually becomes a compelling author. Improbable for an uneducated servant girl? Yes. Magical? Not literally.

Allende, like her character Eva, is a master storyteller and this book is like a collection of short stories loosely knit together. There is no strong plot line. Eva just bumps along from one incredible circumstance to another, as with life for anyone, perhaps. She discovers her sexuality and falls deeply in love with almost every man she meets. For a while she gets involved with a band of revolutionary guerillas, but all is well in the end.

I enjoyed the book for the lush prose, and for the interesting narration. The book is 90% narrative exposition and only 10% dramatic pageantry. There is very little dialog. By definition, that should be boring, and it does create problems. Characters feel distant, cartoony, and unreal, even Eva, because we rarely see them behave and speak. Instead, we are simply told by the narrator what they think, feel, and have been doing lately. The craft of that telling is skilled, but it is still a matter of the narrator declaring things to be true, with no opportunity for the reader to see for him or herself.

Eva is the narrator for about half the book, an anonymous, omniscient narrator for the rest. Even when Eva is narrating, she describes many things that she couldn’t possibly know, such as events that happened in her absence. The net effect of this relentless exposition is literary distance between the readers and the characters, and even distance from the events described. The book as a whole then leaves you with the feeling that you have heard a fabulous fairy tale, one that is a lot of fun, but not a tale you would consider seriously.

Allende, Isabel (1988/2005). Eva Luna. New York: Dial Press (307 pp.).

TusCon-42: What Just Happened?

tusconlogo

I am still dazed from a weekend-long sci-fi / fantasy conference, Tuscon 42. The name of it looks like a misspelling of Tucson, but it isn’t. It’s supposed to mean something like TUS (the airport designation) + CONference, hence Tuscon.  Cute, or what?  The “42” refers to the fact that this was the 42d year of the conference, which has become a major regional event.

I attended mostly out of curiosity, since I recently completed my first sci-fi novel. I found that the conference was heavy on fantasy, light on the –fi, and even lighter on the sci -. There were a few science-focused panel discussions, but the panelists generally took little or no responsibility for introducing material or managing the discussions, leaving me to recall that “opinions are like noses: everybody has one.” While there were many established scientists, mainly from the Mars missions headquartered at U of A, I didn’t learn anything new.

In the fiction-writing panels, the syndrome was the same. Many accomplished writers gave well-worn opinions. So that part of the conference was disappointing.

By contrast, the wacky side of it was amusing and sometimes disturbing. People who enjoy dressing up as their favorite sci-fi / fantasy characters are a sight to behold. And, as the conference took place on Halloween weekend and encompassed the Day of the Dead parade, there was a perhaps understandable conflation of bat-persons, fairies, and space men with pumpkin heads and skeletons.

My favorite part of the conference was the embedded film festival which ran sci-fi films continuously, many of them obscure and hard to find. I was very impressed by  A Message from Mars (1913, UK, 60 min.), beautifully restored, and silent, of course. It really stretched the craft of cinema to maximum effect for that time period. An education in itself.

By the time we got to films from the 1950’s (e.g., The Man Who Turned to Stone (1957, USA, 72 min.), it was clear that the emphasis had shifted to 90% story and only 10% cinema craft. The novelty of movies had disappeared and the craft of moviemaking had become invisible, no longer an art form, perhaps because of the rising ubiquity of television.

However, cinema as art eventually came back.  I enjoyed seeing the original, Russian version of Solaris again (aka Solyaris,1972, Soviet Union, 167 min., written by Stanislaw Lem). That is a work of art. And there were some rare films of interest shown in the middle of the night that I had to skip.

Hotel City CenterThis crazy conference runs all night, though I don’t. There are scheduled events at 3:00 in the morning, for example. People get rooms in the hotel so they can enjoy events around the clock, presumably between naps.

I picked up an armload of classic sci-fi books for less than $20 from a local trader in the vendors’ hall. I got used novels by Philip K. Dick, Ursula K. LeGuinn, Larry Niven, Robert J. Sawyer, and others. I was surprised to see so many classic novels from the “golden age” of sci-fi are still around. Collectors have vacuumed them up and now offer them for sale, packed individually in baggies as rare literary artifacts. I also got some free back-issues of the famous Fantasy & Science Fiction periodical.

I confess I did not attend the gala concert and burlesque show on Saturday night. Besides it being past my bedtime, I experienced a kind of “conference fatigue.” As others have observed, it’s a fine line between eccentric hobby and mental deficiency. I’m glad there’s a place for all kinds of self-expression, but I don’t necessarily want to be part of it.

All in all then, it was the kind of conference one attends as a “romp,” quite unlike the other writing and publishing conferences I go to, which tend to the serious, very serious. For that difference, Tuscon-42 was worthwhile.