LNH/REVIEW: Kid Review's Roundup - February 2014

[Tom Russell]

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 10:35:50 AM UTC-5, Andrew Perron wrote:

> "Another HCC42 entry, this one deals with a man suffering from (I think)
> 
> severe anxiety problems who gets suddenly pulled from the main Eightfold
> 
> universe into another, seemingly identical to our own, with no superhumans
> 
> and no alien invasions."

The blogger is intended to be female, but I can see that I never really specified one way or the other.

> "It was interesting and reasonably painful reading through this. Though I
> 
> don't suffer from anxiety problems myself, I know some people who do, and
> 
> from a second-hand perspective, this seems gut-wrenchingly accurate. In
> 
> other words, I JUST WANT TO GIVE HIM A HUG."

Thank you for the kind words. It drew from experience, both personal and borrowed.
 
 
> "That said, I can't agree with his assertion that his characters wouldn't
> 
> work if moved into another genre. Are we simply collections of reactions to
> 
> the world around us? I think not; we have our own identities, and although
> 
> they are shaped and informed by the things that happen to us, we are, at
> 
> core, ourselves."

Yes, but that's where it gets knotty. Who can say how much is nature and how much nurture, and what aspects of a person come from what? Someone who goes to war, who loves, who becomes a parent, who fails, who succeeds can be markedly different from the "same" person who never had those experiences.

Sam Shepherd once said, and I was once fond of quoting him on this, that personality is everything that's false about a human being. I think he meant in a different way of course-- that we contain multitudes that we should not pin down and define. My way of approaching it is a bit more concrete. Let me go off on a slight tangent to better illustrate my point.

One of my pet peeves about stories that take place in the past is when they take place generically in the past. Stories, for example, about medieval times that mention the King or Queen-- but not which King or Queen. Because for me, that matters: the culture, the events, the laws, the goings-on for one reign (or even year) will not necessarily be the same for another. History is specific and particular, and in some ways I strongly feel that fiction should be the same way.

The current run of Jolt City stories takes place very specifically, and very deliberately, in the year 2008. I think, even at a distance of a paltry five or six years, that we can see 2008 is something of a watershed year, at least in American history. In many ways, Martin is firmly a creature of the world before 2008. A little damaged, tired, cynical, bitter, depressive. And Derek is a creature of the world after-- mostly optimistic, forward-thinking, problem-solving, tech-savvy. But also discouraged at times, disappointed at times, angry at times.

Now, part of this is due to their essential natures. Maybe Martin would always be more than a little mopey, sure. But part of it is due to their personal histories, the times they live in, the country they live in: environmental factors.

And to me, at least as regards my writing, the genre itself is something of a hugely important environmental factor. Heck, this even shows with regards to the actual fiction part of NONFICTION # 2: part of the anxiety she suffers from might come from a natural tendency within herself, but a big part of it is the world she was living in, which would be absolutely terrifying. Once it's removed (or rather, she's removed from it), things start to calm down for her.

I also think that while no one is a typical person, or a typical representative of a nationality, ethnic group, religion, or even gender, that there are certain zeitgeist-y traits that are entirely environmental/historical in nature. Not every American distrusted the government and protested the war during the sixties and seventies, nor did they all get high and give their babies names like Sagittarius, but there were people like that; those are some of the ways you would describe those people and their natures; those specific personalities could not exist a hundred years before, and likely will not exist a hundred years after.

I think one of the most interesting questions is that of who we are and why we are, and I don't think one can say, it's all this thing or all that thing. If it was all essential nature, then no one would ever really change. And I know enough of people, and of myself, to know that isn't true. If it was all environmental, then people have no agency; I don't buy that, either. It's a strange and ill-defined alchemy, and I sometimes have different answers to the question at different times. :-D

All that being said-- I think people are always in motion, always changing, reacting, reinventing themselves. Maybe the reason I had a hard time imagining Martin and Derek outside their genre is that I'm writing presently, and know fairly well, the Martin and Derek of August and September 2008. And they are different people than the Martin and Derek of July 2008, and the Martin and Derek of October 2008. If I were to describe them, a lot of the words would overlap from one set to the next, and I guess part of that is their essential nature, but another part is all the things that have happened to them and, more importantly, all the things they have done.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that (and this might be one of my failings as a writer) I am capable only of describing/showing/chronicling specific people at a specific point in time in specific situations. And it proved quite difficult for me to imagine them in another situation/place/time that didn't draw on and build from this.

And, all *that* being said, as I noted in the essay, I think this is an important truth as least in regards to my own approach to fiction and the genre. An incredibly important thing that I'm very glad to have learned. Once again, Andrew, you have my thanks.

==Tom