Beyond Reality discussion

Have a question - on style, technique, research?

What was based on experience, and what was a flight of pure imagination?

This thread was created to explore the roots of the story's content.

It can extend to cover questions on the industry, how a career writer got started, and what's considered right etiquette for authors.

Fire away.

"The right etiquette for authors"? Was there something specific you had in mind, Janny, when you mentioned that?

Actually, I have a question about helping an aspiring writer. What's the best thing I can do? I read material whenever asked, but I'm not a professional writer or editor, so I'm not sure what to look for and comment upon.

To date, I just tell it like I do in my reviews, but that's very subjective and only really relevant to me (an audience of one?).

Thanks,

Jon

Nick wrote: ""The right etiquette for authors"? Was there something specific you had in mind, Janny, when you mentioned that?"

Nick - there are two facets to this question. It would help very much to know which side of the divide piques your interest.

Author etiquette, as the writer of a book, what is considered proper professional behavior, in response to readers, reviewers, public appearances, and unsolicited mail bashers/phone calls/uninvited arrivals.

Then there is reader etiquette - what is proper or polite behavior when approaching an author - in any of the same venues mentioned above.

There is an acceptable code of conduct. More, there are many times when POLITE readers err too much on the side of caution - for fear of seeming gauche, they will stand back and say nothing, or be too shy to test the waters. If they knew when it was OK to make an approach, and what conduct is welcomed, this could enrich any encounter they experience.

Since this is a public forum, and an open discussion, here's the first point: I, or any author, would not BE HERE available to interact if that was not welcomed. Therefore, in this venue, the shy would be encouraged not to be afraid to come forward and participate.

Let me know which bits are of interest - education is good.

Janny wrote: "Nick wrote: ""The right etiquette for authors"? Was there something specific you had in mind, Janny, when you mentioned that?"

Nick - there are two facets to this question. It would help very much..."

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate that there are multifaceted viewpoints on the question, and I am glad to see you thought so too.

I suppose my own interest in professional etiquette does not deal with authors specifically, as I'm not an author myself. But in other venues, music performance for instance, interacting politely with the public can be ...a strain. For instance, I am certain that authors get this from patrons:

"I love what you just did. Now, in the future, would you do this other thing?"

I was wondering if the polite discourse in the face of such "sweet" criticism was what you meant by "professional etiquette"? But as you say, it is a multifaceted topic. Thanks again for all your input to our questions here. Following your discussions is a real education.

Jon wrote: "Actually, I have a question about helping an aspiring writer. What's the best thing I can do? I read material whenever asked, but I'm not a professional writer or editor, so I'm not sure what to ..."

Jon, good for you, helping out. Without GOOD feedback, no writer gets off the ground. This is not a simple trade to learn, and educated primary readers can be a godsend. They can also (without realizing) torpedo hope and kill careers.

Since your question seems to be oriented from a primary READER's standpoint, that is the way I'll answer - although there are many many ways, and things a new writer must know, in addition to creating a well crafted story. We can go into that - how to evaluate the many options and marketing choices - and what the ropes would be to make a successful entry....if that information is wanted, I can answer and post links. Just indicate your interest.

For a primary reader: first thing out, you MUST learn to be encouraging. It is incredibly brave for a new writer to stick their stuff out there - and you want the encounter to be positive, first of all. I have seen writers who cannot fashion sentences LEARN TO WRITE...but they will be crushed, or, get crushed again (from having resurrected a dream killed by a parent, peer or teacher, once already.) So when you pick up their dream understand this: writing is NOT a born talent. It is acquired. One may learn by reading BUT - to actually DO THIS - keep all the balls in the air to write fiction, and juggle them in the correct order for comprehension, one MUST DEVELOP THE NEURONAL CONNECTIONS....the brain does grow. Slowly. Acquiring the ability to discern what a writer must takes ABOUT FIVE YEARS OF DAILY PRACTICE. You may be taking up their efforts at year ONE and whether they have ideas or not may not be apparent.

Earliest stage writing effort usually looks like a sound stage script - dialogue and minimal action sketched in, with NO scene, no backdrop, not much mood and little characterization....they'll put sentences out of order....actions out of order - reaction will occur ahead of the stimulus...so the sequence of event is broken up on the page - the writer has to learn first to sustain suspense THEN add in the other layers.
They cannot do this all at once! So the early critique teaches them to make the action in ORDER, and make each move or spoken line of dialgue count - add to what is at stake, what the story is ABOUT, what the characters stand to lose. When they've mastered that, go into setting scene. THEN adding characterization.
Next you will see dialogue/action with CLUMSY scene setting. They'll show you descriptions BUT they will be indiscriminate...won't build tension, won't tightly characterize, won't add mood...the details will be at random, and not geared into alignment.

Then you'll start to see flaming bad writing, ridiculous prose, words used wrong or syntax that is over the edge.

Then in the last 2 years, you'll see the beginnings of craft and story. THEN you shove them into developing their originality and unique style/voice.

Last up, you'll have the finished writer who knows the idea, and understands how to orchestrate all the details to either characterize, lend mood, paint story, and handle tension, suspense, climax.

Here's what to do: tell them practice makes perfect. ASK a lot about what they meant to say, what idea they have, what story they THINK they are telling. Then show them, patiently, which bits they've left OUT, that you missed....often they'll have a valid idea, but no clue how to tell it - much of the vital info is in their heads, still, and never got on the page. They're used to TV, where actor and backdrop supplied most of that info, and they have no idea it's even missing.

Show them where they've put sequence out of order, that's an easy one to grasp. Let the light go on, let them work without realizing the huge gulf they must cross yet - they will, but not if their enthusiasm is flattened.

Try to teach them or feed back if they've over telegraphed the finish or used too heavy a hand in foreshadowing a plot point. MYSTERY keeps readers going, and curiosity - if stuff's telegraphed to soon, or done in predictable ways, there is no surprise payoff. And a story MUST surprise. Push them to seek that startlement unfolding.

When they reach stage II, tell them to set the stage, create backdrop - and sort their details and begin to let those details FEED THE STORY....note that only 3 little details will create a fully fleshed character. If I tell you a woman keeps 20 year old band-aids, a penny for luck, and seven cigarette lighters in her purse, that makes her UNIQUE and lends you some curiosity and clue as to her character - so a little goes a LONG way, and the more individual those details, the more impact they will have.

Last get them to tailor those details to work with the flow - so each thing shown adds to the story's tension.

What NOT to do: tell them what to write, how to finish their idea. If the story is not working, ask them to TELL you what they meant - then point out where you took a wrong turn.

What NOT to do - expect too much too fast. If they have no life experience, or are derivative, they will gain it if they are encouraged positively. LOOK for what they did that was unique, and if you cannot find it, ask more questions.

They have to learn how to handle suspense - this means KNOWING at every turn of the page, what is at stake: what the characters strive for and what they stand to lose if they don't win. This is PRIMARY. No "at stake" at every point, means, no story. May as well just be poetic. Story is about the relief of suspense, and that cannot be omitted, ever.

Point them to knowledge: there are VERY few writer's forums or workshops for FICTION that are worthy. And even fewer books. I can post links and more info, or, links to blog posts that list info by the pound, if requested.

Tell them to avoid the ripoff - know what scammers look like: the site, Predators and Editors, and also, Writer Beware, posted up on SFWA (science fiction and fantasy writers of America) are MUSTS.

I recommend, too, the following two books.
Techniques of the Selling Writer for STYLE and fiction technique - excellent, there is NONE better. And for plot, story, suspense: Robert McKee's book, Story.

There's a lot more - just ask.

Janny wrote: "Jon, good for you, helping out. Without GOOD feedback, no writer gets off the ground. "

Wow, Janny, that's a lot to digest. Thanks for taking the time to give me so much food for thought. It makes me want to go read the latest story from my unknown author again with a whole new approach.

Thanks very much! That's plenty for now.

Jon

You're most welcome, Jon. It troubles me that there is so much myth and inaccuracy circulating, much of it out of the mouths of pretentious 'authorities' who know nothing, but think nothing of preaching their ridiculous glass-ceilings to would-be authors.

Whatever I can do to help correct the record...
:-)

Hi Janny, I have a couple of simple questions. But first I'll tell you that Jim from KY recommended _To Ride Hell's Chasm_ to me. I'm new to the fantasy genre. I'm currently on page 212, the end of Chapter 12. I'm gradually adjusting to your elevated style of writing (and am wondering how you do it!) (More about that later.) Anyway, I'd say I'm hooked on this story and the characters, but wish I could read more of the book faster. Alas!

Now for my question. Am I correct in understanding that the "High Prince of Duvall" and "Duvall's heir apparent" are the same person?

If so, I notice that you also refer to him as "Duvall's high prince" and "the heir apparent of Duvall, "the high prince" and "the foreign prince".

Granted that the terms are almost self-explanatory, but the shifting back and forth from one to the other seems to make the writing harder to digest than is necessary. The mind has to keep switching to keep up with the reading.

So I have found that those different ways of referring to the same person have been a bit confusing for me, especially when you were at the same time referring to Kailen as "the crown prince". (See pp.154-158 for examples of all of the terms.)

May I ask why you keep shifting terms when referring to the same person? Do you realize that some minds like mine might be puzzled, especially when your overall style of writing takes more than the usual concentration? I don't mean this as a criticism. I'm just wondering why you do it. Is it just to add variety? It has taken me so much time to adjust to those terms that for me the variety isn't worth it. I've finally figured them out, but it's been an ongoing frustration.

I'm also wondering if anyone else has been bothered by these name shifts.

My other question is: How did you acquire your unusual writing ability, i.e., your ability to write such dense and elevated prose? Would you attribute it to your past reading background? If so, what does that background consist of? I always regret that my own reading background is as limited as it is and wonder how things might have been different for me (as a reader, a writer, and a speaker) if I had a broader reading background and had started doing more reading earlier in life.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Hi Janny, I have a couple of simple questions. But first I'll tell you that Jim from KY recommended _To Ride Hell's Chasm_ to me. I'm new to the fantasy genre. I'm currently on page 212, the end of..."

A pleasure to have you here, Joy H. and to be privileged to have this book become your introduction to fantasy. I truly hope you have a wonderful experience, and will go on to test the waters further, as there are many superb authors in this field, and tons of stunning stories awaiting discovery by, I think, an increasing majority of readers who are boldly crossing or picking up books that blur the genre lines.

Now, to answer your questions: I looked up the pages in question, and yes, I can easily see how you became confused. Wish you'd been at the right hand of my editor! Because, honestly, it never occurred to me until you pointed it out that a reader could hit such a pitfall. Two characters on scene became three, and I "saw" the cinematic picture of the conversation. As writer, there was an awkwardness with the Prince of Devall not being given a name, only a title...so I was probably trying not to endlessly whip the same phrase to death. To my chagrin, now that you mention it, it does seem to make a bit of a convolute pattern.

How DID this slip through the cracks? I work with editors in London - and they deal with "titles" all the time. Possibly for them, this scene was obvious.

I will say an old dog can become wise to new tricks - while I have never had a reader point this bit up before, I will bet you are not the only one - so thanks to your post, I can keep a weather eye out for such problems in any future book I produce.

Therefore, thank you for the feedback.

Your second question: How did I evolve my ability?

Firstly, I read and read and read - not just popular paperbacks, but extensively, in the fiction section of the library - which held a lot of older books by very erudite writers. They used a wider vocabulary than the news media, TV, or popular fiction does, on the average, today. In fact, decisions were made, for national magazines and printed news - several decades ago - to "dumb down" the language to about 3rd grade comprehension level. Very sad. Don't use the word that precisely fits, but put in a smaller one that approximates. We lost gold, with that unilateral choice. And I've seen the prose depth of books fall, likewise, gradually.

If you ever looked up letters by soldiers in the Civil War, writing home to family and sweethearts, the language would stun you for its precision, depth and beauty. It may be becoming a lost art?

Please note: I do not strain to write, or seek to dig up words, or use reference books. ALL of the words are in my head. I use the one that precisely fits. If I was whipped to degrade the language to "3rd grade standard" I'd not know where to begin. The words are there, and I couldn't sort them. I do know I've tried to "simplify" at times, and it only made me furious, due to the level of accuracy that was lost. More detail arises through using the exact word - so yes, it makes the prose "denser" - you are processing far more information per word.

I think, too, the richness arises from my other pursuits. I am a painter (yes, I do my own covers) and the depth of visual perception I have trained myself to interpret "colors" the view. When you read a passage, you are getting, very carefully sorted, those visual details that add to the tension or mood of the characters. So, in effect, I think your brain is getting the same input an artist would see - and as you read, this richness is going to shift how you think and experience. You will grow more connections.

The fun side of this is some of the mail I've gotten from readers - after finishing a longer work - they've reported to me that they have seen the world, literally, through different eyes, afterwards. that little things took on a whole new dimension. So imagine, perhaps, that you are getting the distilled essence of what a painter sees - and enjoy the added facet.

Additionally, I spend a lot of time doing music. They rhythm of the syntax on the page has a "beat" to it. You may notice this most clearly if you read a passage aloud. So I've added a layer of interpretation to the sound and phrasing of the words that puts another finish on the experience. And, probably, the sound detail that filters through, a bit, will be affected by a trained ear.

May not be everybody's cup of tea, but that's OK - for those bold enough to take the plunge and stay with it, the fun unfolds as you finish the book, more and more of this information will become intuitive. The style will appear to "speed up" - not because it has changed, but because your brain learns to process the information unilaterally.

More, the impact of the ending will strike with more graphic force. You will be more involved with the experience. I feel the effort on my part is worth that, though admittedly, it does take me longer to "finish" the drafts to this degree of effectiveness.

You are new to fantasy - this could be a lot to take on. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions. If I can make your journey easier or more fun, that is the purpose of having an interactive discussion available.

Thank you, Janny, for your thorough and clear response. Your reply has jogged so many different ideas in my head. I'll take them one by one.

About the issue of using multiple names/terms for the same character, I'm sure that most of your readers did not have the problem I had. The meanings were probably obvious to them. Perhaps my mind demands too much clarity. :)

BTW, I had a similar complaint about the book, _One Hundred Years of Solitude_, written by Gabriel García Márquez who won the Nobel Prize! So many of his characters' names were so similar to one another that it was difficult to keep them straight. Not only that, but he kept repeating the same long names over and over.(Other readers in our book group also complained about this.) So, as an author, you are in good company!

To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, the different characters' names were as follows (i.e., each of these was a different character!):
José Arcadio Buendía
José Arcadio
Colonel Aureliano Buendía
Arcadio
Aureliano José
17 Aurelianos
José Arcadio Segundo
Aureliano Segundo
José Arcadio (II)
Aureliano Babilonia (Aureliano II)
Aureliano (III)
SEE DETAILS AT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_hund...

There were confusing time shifts as well, i.e., jumping around, back and forth. This contributed to the ambiguity.

But I digress. Let's talk about how your ability evolved. Yes, I could tell that you had a background of reading books by the more erudite authors. Your point about the current "dumbing down" trend is well-taken. Many readers aren't accustomed to reading dense prose these days. (In another topic here I plan to talk about your dense prose and how one might describe it.)

It's like a miracle to me that you don't have to strain to write as you do. From what you've said above, the words are there in your head and they almost flow out. I so often have trouble finding the exact word to use; so I'm in awe of someone to whom the words arise naturally and spontaneously. I've tried, with practice, to address my weakness with words and I must say I do feel myself improving as I do more writing and reading.

I can see how the fact that you are a painter has contributed to your writing. Since you are more aware of visual details, you can transfer that awareness to your writing. Your attention to detail is amazing. I am detail-oriented, but not in a visual sense as a painter would be. As you say, perhaps by reading your detailed descriptions, your readers will find that they will develop more brain paths and their ability to visualize scenes in their heads will improve. As I read your descriptions, I can almost FEEL the wheels and cogs in my brain grinding along. Perhaps your prose will loosen up that machinery in my brain and give it practice. The fact that the descriptions are so pertinent to the story makes the reader highly motivated to digest those descriptions. You've pointed out the fact that actual visualization of scenes as one reads is a skill that needs practice.

I understand your reference to rhythm in writing. Prose must scan well in order to be enjoyed. I too have a musical background and I like to think I have an ear for rhythm in words. In fact, all my life I've written poetry (mostly light). In fifth grade we read a lot of poetry. I think that helped because it was done at a young age when brains are so malleable.

I guess your creative imagination for plots comes from a number of sources. That's one thing I feel I lack. I cannot make up a good story for the life of me. Perhaps the fantasy genre will help me improve on that score.

Thanks, Janny, for a most interesting and informative conversation! I'll close now and go back and edit later, before I lose this post to a technical snafu. :)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Thank you, Janny, for your thorough and clear response. Your reply has jogged so many different ideas in my head. I'll take them one by one.

About the issue of using multiple names/terms for the s..."

You know, Joy, I am well accustomed to being thrown in over my head - but that list of names from One Hundred Years of Solitude would have had me pulling my hair out, too. AND the plot time jumps? Did the author give you a glossary? (I did. I can hope it helped)

One thing I don't like doing, and avoid like crazy, is a time-jump backwards. (not to be confused with a character flashback, where they recall something in their past). You know the scenario - we've followed characters A, B, and C for six months/cut jump, now we are BACK six months, and picking up characters D, E and F.

Hell's Chasm's action is all simultaneous, or forward. Set in a tiny kingdom, with a five and a half day plot window, that was pretty easy to do.

But when I tackled my mult-book epic series? Wow. NO TIME JUMPS BACKWARD. And that made for a heckuva brain burn, to get it all working. All the action is simultaneous, or forward, and all the logistics of movement on a larger scale world had to mesh. It became a Chinese puzzle game, at times, to pick which character viewpoint to use to encompass the next stage of action. The little book was the simpler sweep. But when it is made to work - the satisfaction is huge. I think my neighbors would hear the crow, a feat, since I live and work on a country property.

To your next: practice DOES make perfect. I have watched people learn to draw who had NO aptitude when they started. They had to train their eye what to see, what NOT to see, and train their brain to interpret. I've seen people who stumbled and stumbled to learn to sail, and all of a sudden, CLICK - it became intuitive. And writing, I will tell you, NOBODY can predict where a person's talent will flower, based on their first attempts.

No one is hopeless at anything. It is really a matter of whether the desire is there, or not.

And I'll bet, Joy, you tell stories all the time. Everyone has their anecdotes, their kid stories, their jokes. A story is only a premise with a punch line that surprises. If you really want to understand story, read the book by Robert McKee, Story. That explains plot better than anything I've ever found.

Story is about a problem that finishes with an inspirational surprise. If you frame the problem, let it stew, dig the hole a bit deeper around the characters, then don't use LOGIC, but the inspirational jump - in a few days, or a week, or a month, you'll "see" an alternate route than the obvious. That is story. That is also how Creativity works - focus on where you want to be and let the spark happen. People get confused and think it is done by logic. Far from it. The logic ONLY works in hindsight. You throw the balls in the air, and plan where you want them to fall, and let the rest fill in out of nowhere.

Something from nothing, yes. And you have to trust absolutely that what you asked for (the goal) will be given. You cannot "make" it - it's a matter of letting the creative mechanism of the human mind take over and unveil it for you. It's always an Ah Ha! moment. The best part of being the author - you get to be first, and if you're very very lucky - you get to watch readers get it too. The joy ripple spreads and spreads.

If you do music and write poetry - you know how valuable it is to live in the creative moment. Well, story is a bit more synergistic - you aren't linear, when you go about it. You work dimensionally (see past, present, future, in a story, posit what might be) until bam! you see the linear progression emerge. Then you use word as symbol to string the pearls on the line.

I am one of those people who would love to see "creative talent" demystified, and let people understand that, with practice, they can mine any desire and make it flower into a gift to be shared. The day to day work of the artisan - to practice to perfect and build a skill - is too lightly taken in a TV world, where so much of our entertainment tells us any problem can be solved in a sitcom hour, without any sweat and application.

Imagination is Associational....you think of a bit, and what else is like that bit, and push yourself to see further - what is ALMOST like that bit, or what is the spirit of that bit - and if you work to train associational strings, you will enhance your ability to imagine.

Go from a flower, to a pansy, to a rose, to the smell of a rose, to what would the smell of a rose be LIKE on another world, in another atmosphere - posit the unusual around anything ordinary and your brain will play games with it. Finding similies happens the same way. It's no big secret, it's play on association.

When I write short stories, often, I'll use the technique of putting 3 totally unrelated strange objects in a "box" and see what comes out. The stories are already unusual.

Example and case in point: I was asked to do an Arthurian legend based story surrounding the concept of the holy grail. I though, man, to do anything touching Arthurian legend, it better be good and surprising. And racked my brains empty, till I used the odd box method.

I threw in: the Percival legend.
A crazy stray dog.
A terminally ill child.

What popped out was leprechauns - !!! - and dimensional travel - !!! - and a tribute to an aunt who lost her son at age 4 to leukemia...the story became the title for my collection That Way Lies Camelot. She wrote me, after, and said, how did I know? I told her, I didn't. The situation created the story and the ending put the copy-editor in tears.

People take themselves too seriously and forget that creativity is PLAY and free association popping up stuff in connection that stuns you with delight, for surprises.

Janny wrote: "You know, Joy, ... that list of names from One Hundred Years of Solitude would have had me pulling my hair out, too. AND the plot time jumps? Did the author give you a glossary? ... "

Janny, to answer your question, the author of _One Hundred Years of Solitude_ provided a diagram of the family tree containing all the similar names, but no description (at least not in the large print edition which I borrowed from our public library.) Even a list of character descriptions wouldn't have helped me with that book.

About plot jumps, an even worse example of confusing plot jumps is _The Plague of Doves A Novel_, another highly acclaimed book which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2009. A-a-rgh! It not only had too many plot jumps, but it had a large cast of characters, many of them related to each other over the generations. Even worse, sometimes the chapters didn't seem to be connected to each other in any way. To make the story even more difficult to understand, there was no exposition. No setting. No time. Just jump in... sink or swim. The supposed "surprise" ending was sudden and vague. Very unsatisfying. I've asked smart readers what it meant. They were very vague in their answers as well. Unbelievable!

I'm happy to hear that you prefer to have your stories move forward in a linear progression. I prefer that too. Sometimes it's so frustrating to go backward when you want to move foreward. I once started reading _A Prayer for Owen Meany_ and when the author started a long flashback, I immediately lost interest, even though I had been very interested up to that point. I wanted to hear what would happen NEXT, not what happened before! I stopped reading that book immediately. People rave about how good that book is!

I can imagine how much effort must go into planning the plot sequence for an epic when you want all the action to keep moving forward. From what you've said, I now realize that it's probably much harder to keep moving forward in the right sequence than to jump around at whim as you write.

Thank you for your inspiring talk about creativity and imagination. Your encouragement makes it sound so easy. Yes, I know the excitement of being in a creative moment when ideas are buzzing in your head. At times trying to whip a poem into shape was like arranging a puzzle... and it was fun!

You spoke about the necessity of practice. In the non-fiction book, _Outliers_, the author proves that every successful person has had at least 10,000 hours of practice in his chosen profession! Even Mozart! (When the Beatles of Liverpool went to perform in Hamburg, Germany, what they got was PRACTICE performing... 8 hours a gig, not just performing for an hour each time as they did in England!) The book is mind-boggling as it reveals all the factors which go into becoming a success in one's field. The book gives convincing examples and statistics. It's is a revelation. Ability helps, but so do many other factors, factors which sometimes are beyond our control.

Thanks for the hint about using association to expand one's imagination. That takes practice too.

I like your suggestion about imagining the start and imagining the ending, and THEN filling-in the in-between parts afterwards. That sounds like it might be a fun way to create a story. So many times in writing a poem, I would have the last line in my head before I even wrote the poem. I knew where I wanted to end up. Yes, that does work. The end of the poem was almost like a punch line. If you'd like to see an example of this, see my light verse here:
http://www.goodreads.com/story/show/3...

You are a very inspiring person, Janny, especially because one can see your love of writing with every word you write. With your writing, your painting, and all your other interests, I'll bet you're never bored. That's a gift.

P.S. I want to tell you that our library in Glens Falls has lots of your books! That's a gift too.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "You know, Joy, ... that list of names from One Hundred Years of Solitude would have had me pulling my hair out, too. AND the plot time jumps? Did the author give you a glossary? ... "..."

Joy: first of all, you are (grin) quite a liar. I read your poem - and it is STORY! You pitched me a character with a problem, built on that, increased the frustration and tension, and slammed it all home with a delightful twist and punch line. (Why, bigger grin, do I always distrust people who say they lack a gift?)
Nice job. I loved your delivery of a great little quandary - and having boat owners in the family (wish I could be one myself, one measly wind surfer just does not cut bait) I had the double laugh of the insider view, too.

McKee's book, Story, does go into "art" scripts - which insider ivory tower academics may tout until they drop - the general public just doesn't get them. I am not, and probably will not ever be, a minimalist artist. I can handle direct action story like anybody else. I can also handle the first level of abstraction, the internal conflict story - where many drop out. The richest stories for ME, have both - the internal conflict and the external action, done in balance. That is also why my books may seem more dense - they carry tension on both tracks.

I just hate the sort of "scenario" book that strings lots of stuff together, with no driving thread of meaning, and the ending seems to tell us "life is pointless." Even stories with endings that declare life's meaninglessness just hammer my fury button.

I do not believe life is meaningless. I have no interest in endorsing people who want us all to join them in the same vacuous state of Nothing Matters.

So I don't read many Pulitzer winners, or put much stock in academic accolades...if you look into how such things are declared, it borders on the ridiculous. That's an opinion. If somebody disagrees, attack it, please! I'd love to learn something I didn't know. If there is a reason for literate academia to be on such a high horse, by all means, knock me off mine.

People rave about a LOT of good books that were written for them, not for me. I've even read a few and wished I hadn't. I will not tell you the titles, because I value individual choice above all. Once, I visited behind the iron curtain - Russia, just as it was opening up to US relationship again (1974). Let me tell you, the most horrid thing imaginable is Political Correctness determined by the State. It's numbing. Like having all your senses injected with novocane. Give me all the loud, shrill variety of commercial competition - give me every tasteless book and movie and even advertisement, ever done! And let me have the free choice to choose my own preferences. That is a gift so under-appreciated by those who attack western culture for its brassy flaws - the creative richness of the full tapestry is available to us. You would just literally die of the alternative, if taste was unilaterally dictated.

To have the full range available is priceless.

This said, personally I just hate the fiction device of reading a first chapter of the old or dying protagonist writing up their memoires, then, you go flashback and read about their life. Yawn. You know they survive, you know who they've become. I'd rather encounter the journey without the preface.

I am delighted to hear you have found inspiration in what's been shared - creativity is simple, but it takes hard work. I will have to look into Outliers - it could go on my lecture list when I am asked to talk to aspiring authors.

I love my work, and enjoy the written word, and if I sometimes get bored, it always spurs me to look wider and deeper. That is the message boredom offers: search for deeper meaning.

How very cool that Glens Falls library has my books! That's the neat thing about a hardback - it has potential to reach so many. Delightful to know you can pursue them, or, that they'd be readily available if you should wish to share the ideas with a friend.

Janny wrote: "Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "You know, Joy, ... that list of names from One Hundred Years of Solitude would have had me pulling my hair out, too. AND the plot time jumps? Did the a..."

You know, Janny, Jim from KY raves about you and now I know why! What a wonderful attitude you have... about everything! And the added marvel is that you express it so well.

Thank you for your kind words. As Mark Twain said:
"I can live for two months on a good compliment." :)

Run, do not walk, to your nearest library or book store and get _Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. When I first heard about the book, my hackles when up. How dare they say that ability isn't important! But that WAS NOT what the book was saying; I had been misled by people who misrepresented the book. Oh, we all know that there are many reasons for people's success besides talent and ability; it seems so obvious; why write a book about it? Well, Gladwell backs up that generality with mind-boggling statistics, perfect examples, and new perspectives that I'll bet not even you have ever even imagined. I plan to give the book to all four of our sons for Christmas. The book explains success, but also helps us accept ourselves and, in its own way, encourages us to plod on.

Thank you for encouraging me to plod on too.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "You know, Joy, ... that list of names from One Hundred Years of Solitude would have had me pulling my hair out, too. AND the plot time ju..."

Thank you, Joy, I will look into Outliers, definitely.

Compliments rock - the opposite of a compliment is a detriment...people focus on those, probably a remnant of survival - you know, heed this warning, and you won't get yourself stone dead.

But it made perfect sense, to me, when somebody (I forget who, darn it) mentioned that the impact of a detriment is that it takes away from somebody else's free will. That was an interesting moment of insight.

I like the stance that people are given their own, innate preferences for a reason, and that they are intelligent enough to frame their own opinions, without any help from me.

I've got opinions like anybody else, and if I'm asked, I'll deliver honestly - but since I don't know a single writer who's a "hack" (a term coined and used by non-hacks, you'll notice, Them R Not US) I prefer not to slam my contemporary peers.

Creativity always grows richer with appreciation - your discussion here is most wonderful for the fact you are willing to draw in so much of your wealth of experience. Which has to be lots, I've read your profile, you've been around the block a few times, and still show the willingness to try something new!

May your plunge into fantasy be a good one.

Janny wrote: "... Creativity always grows richer with appreciation - your discussion here is most wonderful for the fact you are willing to draw in so much of your wealth of experience. Which has to be lots, I've read your profile, you've been around the block a few times, and still show the willingness to try something new!
May your plunge into fantasy be a good one."

Janny, I think we could exchange ideas forever. Free will is one of the most interesting topics. I don't dare start talking about it here or I may never stop. :)

I wish I could be as non-judgmental as you are. But I'm stuck with my darn opinions. :)

Yes, I've been around the block a few times and sometimes feel as if I've come to the "bitter end". :) So perhaps I've found the fantasy genre just in time. As Anne of Green Gables expressed (in the Netflix movie I recently watched (with wonderful Colleen Dewhurst as the adoptive aunt), how can anyone live without imagination! My imagination can bring me to so many lovely places via the life of the mind.

"Whatever is lovely, think on these things."
-Phil. 4:8

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "... Creativity always grows richer with appreciation - your discussion here is most wonderful for the fact you are willing to draw in so much of your wealth of experience. Which has t..."

I saw that movie - no wonder the book was such a classic. Never read that one as a kid, and wish I had, the story is charming. I was too into horses and horse stories at the right age for it.

There is quite a proper differentiation between being "judgmental" - telling somebody else what to do, and "assessment" which is the measure by which you decide what to do for yourself. Nothing wrong with the latter - but sometimes I think people cross wires and mix one with the other. So bring on the darn opinions, they make life colorful.

I do not know how you keep so many quotes in your head, but that's a wonderful trait.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "... Creativity always grows richer with appreciation - your discussion here is most wonderful for the fact you are willing to draw in so much of your wealth of experience. Which has t..."

Joy - go ahead and dig in, on the subject of free will. It just happens to be one of the major themes that threads through my Wars of Light and Shadow series. I'd be curious what you have to say.

Janny wrote: "Joy - go ahead and dig in, on the subject of free will. It just happens to be one of the major themes that threads through my Wars of Light and Shadow series. I'd be curious what you have to say."

Oh gee. I doubt if anyone would agree with what I have to say about free will. And I hate to stir up controversy because it leads to arguments about religion itself.

But in a nutshell, as I see it, what we call "choices", are determined by our past experiences and environment. We are not as free in our choices as we think.

Below are some quotes which relate to how I feel about what they call "free choice":
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My dad wonders why I choose to be like this, but the truth is, you have no choice... Telling me I can do anything I want is like pulling the plug out of the bath and then telling the water it can go anywhere it wants. Try it, and see what happens." (said by the female character named "Jess" in _A Long Way Down_, p. 209, by Nick Hornby (2005)

From Wiki:
Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.
FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

necessitarian - necessitarian - somebody denying free will: somebody who believes that all events are determined by previous causes
SEE: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/feature...

"There is no mind absolute or free will, but the mind is determined for willing this or that by a cause which is determined in its turn by another cause, and this one again by another, and so on to infinity."
-Benedictus de Spinoza, 1673 [From: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philoso...

Below is from John Huston's Autobiography, _An Open Book_(1980). He is speaking about the movie he directed called "Freud", starring Montgomery Clift:
"I had hoped that the picture would send the audiences out of the theater in a state of doubt as to their own powers of conscious choice or free will, an understanding that their conscious minds played only a minor role in many of their decisions."
FROM: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/nnh/hus...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In many cases, given the chance, we would do the same thing over again, given the same set of circumstances and conditions. In other words, the circumstances and conditions are analagous to chemical substances, which, when combined, always produce the same result.

Said another way: We have about as much control over our behavior as chemicals have on their reactions to mixture with other chemicals. Everything that happens to us, environmentally and genetically, determines how we will behave next or in the future. Given the same circumstances, all other things being equal, if we have it to do all over again, we would do the same thing."

Also, what is often referred to as "free will" can simply be the result of previous indoctrination to a certain code of behavior which is followed in an almost zombie-like manner.

BTW, the quotations which I post are from my personal collection which I have saved on my computer. I've categorized them. (It's an ongoing hobby.) I copy and paste the quotes; I don't quote them from memory, although I wish I could!

EDIT: PLEASE NOTE THAT DETERMINISM IS NOT PREDESTINATION. Thanks. -Joy

Well, Joy, that is fascinating, I'd never have guessed you'd make a stand that free choice doesn't exist, in favor of predestination. Interesting.

I don't see that it encroaches on religion ;O at least, not yet. By preference I'd rather not entangle myself into having a spat over belief systems.

I would agree that choices are based on belief systems, which are based on conditioning or - buying what somebody else told you. We know the mind is associational - so if you mention an "incident" where a belief created a conditioned response, your mind will be the trained dog that it is, and fetch for you every like correlation.

but if you challenge that with an exception, the mind will also fetch exceptions. Many people don't bother to sit down and understand the associational chains that create their attitude - or dig for the beliefs, or the conditioned incident that created the belief...so they don't think they have any power to change.

I've always enjoyed the concept that if you eliminate DOUBT - then, you become the tool of whatever faction or belief system, or pack mindset, endorses the absolute choice made - but if you always have doubt, or, "shelf space" held for "maybe this SEEMS true, but perhaps it may be more than I've experienced" - then watch what pops through the crack!

The mind will quite happily tag and notice the discrepancies.

Closed minds create predestined responses. Open minds keep learning and can accept change.

We would only do the same under like circumstances thing IF we didn't shift or change or mature or even, discard outworn beliefs...

There have been some very interesting experiments done on conditioning (ugly ones) - but - scientists raised cats in a cage with only vertical bars, that they had to make their way around to move about. When put in another cage (after full growth) with only horizontal bars, the cats crashed into the bars - they literally could not PERCEIVE horizontal barriers....their minds were totally conditioned not to believe in a reality that had such things.

Admittedly it does take effort and stretch to see more than what we were conditioned to learn - and the conditioning of children is very strong...that is where a strong imagination can literally open gateways and work wonders.

We are certainly not zombies - but lazy thinkers? I'd buy that. I run into walls all the TIME with people who say "I just can't." What they mean is, "I've bought the lie and I believe absolutely that I can't."

People today, I think, put too much absolute stock in "genetics" - when genes alter all the time, when more than one pair has to "turn on" to create a certain outcome, and viruses, literally, alter genetic material constantly...we look on such things as "disease" and don't even bother to consider that living interaction between organisms has been happening for gajillions of years, and most of it is evolution in action, and utterly benign.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Well, Joy, that is fascinating, I'd never have guessed you'd make a stand that free choice doesn't exist, in favor of predestination. Interesting."

Janny, what I described above is NOT predestination. It's Determinism. They are two different things.

I'll be back to continue soon. I just wanted to make that point clear.
(Confusing the two concepts is a common misunderstanding.)

Hi Joy - I'll cheerfully accept the correction - tell me how the argument differs - it seemed pretty close to the same outcome - I must have missed something to have fallen into an assumption.

Janny wrote: "... but if you challenge that with an exception, the mind will also fetch exceptions..."

Janny, yes, but first the mind has to be prepared to make those exceptions. The prepared mind is influenced by what has happened in the past.

For example, let's say the weather outside is extremely cold and a person is preparing to go outdoors. He has the choice of whether to put on a warm coat or not. His choice is influenced by whether he has experienced being very uncomfortable out in the cold. With that experience in his background, he puts the warm coat on. If he had never experienced the discomfort of very cold weather, he might not realize the importance of wearing a warm coat. So he might choose not to wear a coat. So you see, all our choices are limited by our experiences.

The "association" comes into the picture when the person associates cold weather with discomfort. So yes, imagination needs associations in order to think of new ideas. The associations have to come from somewhere.

Janny wrote: "Hi Joy - I'll cheerfully accept the correction - tell me how the argument differs - it seemed pretty close to the same outcome - I must have missed something to have fallen into an assumption."

Good question, Janny. The answer will clarify things.

As for the difference between Determinism and Predestination, as I see it, Predestination assumes that someone has PLANNED things ahead of time. Determinism maintains that things happen at random and have certain effects which influence our behavior.

(BTW, pardon the bold text. It was for emphasis, not to shout. (g) I didn't want my point to go unnoticed by readers who might merely be skimming our posts and not reading them thoroughly, as I know you and I are. I already realize you're a good thinker and it's a pleasure to discuss things with a good thinker.)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "Hi Joy - I'll cheerfully accept the correction - tell me how the argument differs - it seemed pretty close to the same outcome - I must have missed something to have fallen into an as..."

Joy - well I'm glad you weren't shouting. grin.

You've clarified the difference very cleanly.

We would diverge in that, I do not think events happen at random. But that is another deeper subject.

Your argument in favor of determinism perhaps works in hindsight - but it counts without creativity and inspiration - recall that I said creativity is INSPIRED by picturing a goal, repeatedly, and waiting for the inspiration to leap the gap. It has been pointed out that health is INSPIRED also...

If you look one-sidedly at conditioning being a determinant factor, you are always going to be looking BACK at the cause - not forward TO the effect as goal - in your case, the coat or not to wear the coat - survival is the front loaded outcome.

Creativity and projection - posited "what if" is a future oriented leap.

Show me HOW "determinism" could EVER come up with DaVinci's drawings of submarines, balloons, flying machines and so many other contraptions that were invented for real Centuries in the future - I think his folios flatten that argument, since in no way was his posited imaginary visioning pulled up from conditioned response.

Janny wrote: "... Show me HOW "determinism" could EVER come up with DaVinci's drawings of submarines, balloons, flying machines and so many other contraptions that were invented for real Centuries in the future - I think his folios flatten that argument, since in no way was his posited imaginary visioning pulled up from conditioned response."

Janny, thank you for the thought-provoking reply. I'll have to let it stew around in my brain for a while.

As for your DaVinci question, it's true that his visionary ideas had nothing to do with conditioned response. Instead, I would think that they had a lot to do with association, which is a factor you have mentioned relative to creativity. For example, the ideas for his flying machines probably began with his observations of birds.

An important point: There is no reason why creativity can't arise within the boundaries of Determinism.

As for keeping a goal in mind, yes, that's something to think about relative to imagination and creativity. But it doesn't flatten my argument about Determinism.

Could it be that we're mixing two different ideas here. One is free will and the other is creativity. I think we should be talking about them separately.

I think you've zeroed in on our one big difference of opinion. You say that things don't happen randomly. I say that they do.

Gee, this is fun. :)

If you entirely believe that everything is random, all that you see and think will correlate and make that belief appear solid.

Yes, some things appear to happen "by chance"
Also, it is said, Necessity is the mother of invention.

There is another way to see.

But to open that, you have to change the contours of belief. If you began a day and had the strong repeated thought, that there are other answers beyond your conditioning, (Inspire yourself with a new goal, and crack an old belief) you would start to see a different pattern.

Some old patterns are VERY stuck (conditioned in) so as to appear unbreakable, and here is why:

The brain filters data, constantly. This has been proven by experimentation, by more than one scientist. Somewhere I posted in another (?) group on an experiment on "lucky people" with a link to the outcomes...basically, the researcher embedded words on a page of a paper. The test subjects (who considered themselves lucky or unlucky) were told to count how many photos were on the page to "succeed." The "unlucky" people rigidly counted. The ones who thought themselves lucky saw embedded in shadow type, "Don't bother counting, there are 42 (or somesuch number) pictures on this page." The REALLY lucky ones saw an even fainter shadow type. "Never mind counting anything, just collect a 200 dollar prize"

Belief contours what we actually SEE.

This is fact: the brain MISSES 50 percent of the available data....simply, belief filters it off BEFORE it even enters the eye. Of that 50 percent, the frontal cortex filters off 50 percent MORE. What's left is decision made on 25 percent of the available data. Literally, your mind CHANGES what you perceive.

More experiments: a researcher took a family and sent them to the mall. The youngest kid was with the parents and siblings the entire time. But in the car, going home, the child was "told" to remember when they got lost. The kid denied ever getting lost, but all the family members supported the lie. Within a short time, the kid started to invent the "memory" of the event - and soon knitted in details of how he got lost, what he did, when he was found - the memory became indistinguishable from a "real" event.

We tend to view our past as "unchangeable" when in fact, as a memory it is malleable as heck...as malleable as the "future" if we stopped believing what we recall is solid evidence.

If you persist with belief that all life is random, you will never ever go past that - or empower yourself with the choice to hold a focus, and allow inspiration and creativity to open doors that you could NOT have imagined. That is what inspiration is, and why it numbers among the greatest of human gifts.

I cannot change your belief, Joy. But in no way will I ever go back to the stance where I seal the box and disempower the FACT that we do choose our thoughts, Have one thought you don't like, exert your will, and change it. Have a different thought. Listen to the "objections" to that different thought - they are your conditioning. Keep ON having a better thought - you eventually change the "habit" and your brain chemistry changes, too, it follows suit. You can change your thought habits. If you try this, you will soon experience that feelings follow thoughts. I will take a thought that doesn't make me helpless, every time.

Events can seem random only if you refuse to move your consciousness into a different perspective - and that takes practice, discipline, artistry. See wide enough, and more and more things open up into wonder.

A random world may have variety, but it does not untilize the power of determined free will choice.

Janny wrote: "If you entirely believe that everything is random, all that you see and think will correlate and make that belief appear solid.
Yes, some things appear to happen "by chance"
Also, it is said, Nece..."

Janny, randomness doesn't limit our creativity. In fact it can increase it because a random thought or event can spark an idea.

Not everything we think and do comes from our conditioning. There are other factors which influence our thoughts, ideas, and actions. Our minds are built so that they can make associations and analogies, over and above our conditioning. So my theory doesn't prevent the opening up of new ideas and new patterns.

Malcolm Gladwell, in his book _Outliers_ says (on page 381): "We formulate new ideas by analogy, working from what we know toward what we don't know."

Joy, that implies a rigidly linear progression.

Inspiration is not linear - it moves across a gap by leaps. The linearity is only visible in hindsight.

I suppose I say this with such complete confidence because of so many years of plunging into story with NO idea, in advance, and the recognition that stuff just leaps in with no spark at all - the connection slams home from nowhere - it is literally spinning a thread out into the void and seeing it filled by what you never could have accomplished. Logic does not fit, here.

There are ways to work by analogy and move slowly toward a new idea.

There are also ways to leap the gap and fill in the bridge by hindsight.

One plods along - the other explodes, and is not in the least bit predictable. I'd also venture that the need to "control" prevents many people from experiencing that zap from nowhere that brings something in that was not there, before. This is probably why it seems so impossibly elusive to some...and the rarity is because it is not controlled or predictable - it is not random, but there is a rush to it that you cannot replicate using the other methodology.

Janny wrote: "Joy, that implies a rigidly linear progression. Inspiration is not linear - it moves across a gap by leaps. The linearity is only visible in hindsight. I suppose I say this with such complete con..."

Janny, a leap may appear not to have a linear path even if there is one. The path may not be obvious. Our mind makes connections all the time which we aren't aware of. They just appear as leaps.

My idea of Determism doesn't speak to the idea of control. The only "control" is the fact that each time we make a choice, there is only one choice possible at that point in time and that choice is the result of everything that has happened to us up to that moment and also everything we are genetically. At that point in time, we would always make that same decision, everything else being equal, depending on the situation and our status at that time. See a simple example below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXAMPLE: A woman has to choose whether or not to eat a piece of candy. If at that particular moment in time she can't resist eating the candy, she will eat it. However, if just before she makes the decision, someone reminds her that she must fit into a certain dress for a certain upcoming occasion, her vanity will give her the strength to resist. So then she will make a different choice and will not eat the candy. In other words, from moment to moment our choice may change, depending on the exact circumstances at that time. But at the exact moment of the decision, there is only one choice possible. Our choices are influenced by countless factors which may change anytime, but the choice at the final moment would always be the same.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above example is oversimplified in order to put the idea across. The bottom line is that if we had to do something all over again, and all situations and statuses were exactly the same, we would always make that same decision, it being the only decision possible for us at that time.

Joy, I can see the premise behind the point you are making, clearly enough.

We have, however, hit the wall of belief.

I don't discount what you are saying, in fact, I respect it, thoroughly, because from a linear based standpoint, the premise may appear true.

From another angle - that truth can be part of a larger one, viewed from a different angle, and definitely, from a different point of belief.

I do not believe we live in a linear universe - we have designed our thoughts to THINK we do - but there is more to be perceived. To do that, one must step out of the box, a bit further.

Let me ask some experiential questions (and there are case histories to back these):

Have you ever had a lucid dream? (One where, while dreaming, you "woke up" and began to actively interact and direct what happened?)

Have you ever had an experience where you became aware that you "existed" simultaneously in two locales?

Have you ever, on waking up in the morning, surfaced through layers of awareness, where you REALIZED you were thinking, simultaneously, along one, two, THREE, or more tracks - all separate, all contiguous, but all happening AT ONCE?

Seen from one vantage, your case appears watertight.
Unless that vantage is shifted for another one, the landscape would appear static.

How do you explain to a bottom dwelling fish about the existence of air above the surface? There would be no reference point, to the fish.

I do not feel the need to convince anyone to alter a fixed frame of belief. But I see that preferences can take many paths - up until a choice is made, there are many choices. We choose according to our current focus, which appears totally linear. I don't think it is, not anymore.

Janny wrote: "Joy, I can see the premise behind the point you are making, clearly enough.
We have, however, hit the wall of belief.
I don't discount what you are saying, in fact, I respect it, thoroughly, because from a linear based standpoint, the premise may appear true.
From another angle - that truth can be part of a larger one, viewed from a different angle, and definitely, from a different point of belief.

I do not believe we live in a linear universe - we have designed our thoughts to THINK we do - but there is more to be perceived. To do that, one must step out of the box, a bit further.
[...:]
How do you explain to a bottom dwelling fish about the existence of air above the surface? There would be no reference point, to the fish.

I do not feel the need to convince anyone to alter a fixed frame of belief. But I see that preferences can take many paths - up until a choice is made, there are many choices. We choose according to our current focus, which appears totally linear. I don't think it is, not anymore."
=========================================================
Janny, I'm not sure the word "linear" describes all of my premise (there must be another word), but I'm glad you understand my premise.

I too understand your premise. I think you are referring to the fact that there are other dimensions in the Universe besides the one we live in.

As for dreams, I think they are purely a function of the brain firing off random bits of data and then our brain trying connect it all into a logical meaning. Our brains are always trying to make things logical (I read this in an article somewhere.) That's what a dream is. We come out of a dream in stages and are liable to go through any number of stages like the ones you described. I don't put any worth in dreams above what I just described.

I think that now (in this discussion) we have both come down to speculating on whether there is another dimension besides the one we live in. Perhaps there may be. How it affects us is totally unknown. How we are related to another possible Universe is totally unknown. For us to try to speculate is difficult, like trying to imagine infinity and eternity. We have no experience here on Earth of time, space, or matter which has no beginning or no end. It's impossible to imagine it. What is outside of space? Impossible to answer. Space goes on and on, but to where? :)

I'm always flummoxed by the scientific theory that time slows down as we travel in space (or something like that). Our minds can't imagine exactly how that can be.

So it's true that our minds are limited as to what we can know about the Universe. Until we know more, we are stuck with our beliefs. :) You can imagine all you want... and of course you are excellent at doing that! (I so admire that and the way you express it!) Meanwhile, because we don't really know, no one is right and no one is wrong in his/her beliefs concerning how the Universe operates. We're all just guessing.

Thanks for a great discussion. I have found it stimulating and satisfying. Now I will go on with my pondering about the Universe.

Don't get me started with my opinions about the "Food Chain". LOL I'll be back with a link to some of my meanderings about THAT! LOL

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "... Don't get me started with my opinions about the "Food Chain". LOL I'll be back with a link to some of my meanderings about THAT! LOL"

The link is:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
See "PONDER THIS" in Message #2. If you're interested, you might like to read the messages which follow that message.

Among the comments at the above webpage, I mention the idea of creating a fantasy novel setting up a world which doesn't depend on a food chain. Hmmm, Janny, with your fertile imagination, perhaps you could write such a novel.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "Joy, I can see the premise behind the point you are making, clearly enough.
We have, however, hit the wall of belief.
I don't discount what you are saying, in fact, I respect it, thor..."

There have been some fascinating and exciting physics experiments done that have proven reality IS in the eye of the beholder - that outcomes are impacted by the observer.

Basically this: they put ONE light photon through a slit, and let it strike a plate of photographic film - you'd expect a particle to strike and leave one exposed dot. It didn't. The Particle behaved as a wave, for the camaera, and left a gray ARC of dots - multiple impressions from one photon....

No observer - the one event yielded a range of probabilities. Which is truth?

So you and I can hold two beliefs - you that events are totally random, and me, that events may not be. We'd see different data, literally.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "... Don't get me started with my opinions about the "Food Chain". LOL I'll be back with a link to some of my meanderings about THAT! LOL"

The link is:
http://www.go..."

You really like (grin) to bust your brains thinking! Perhaps this is your book, Joy! Your interest says you would do it better than anyone.

The whole idea of a planet without a food chain - there'd be creation, but no destruction???

I did encounter a very odd book that had beings that were pure spirit in it - the author described that concept as being very difficult to write! It's titled Speakers and Kings by M. Keaton.

Janny wrote: "There have been some fascinating and exciting physics experiments done that have proven reality IS in the eye of the beholder - that outcomes are impacted by the observer.
Basically this: they put ONE light photon through a slit, and let it strike a plate of photographic film - you'd expect a particle to strike and leave one exposed dot. It didn't. The Particle behaved as a wave, for the camaera, and left a gray ARC of dots - multiple impressions from one photon....
No observer - the one event yielded a range of probabilities. Which is truth?
So you and I can hold two beliefs - you that events are totally random, and me, that events may not be. We'd see different data, literally."
______________________________________________________

Strange indeed, Janny. But how does that relate to "randomness"?

About strange things happening, the following is really strange. See below... it's an excerpt from my notes about something which I found fascinating:
=========================================================
FROM: _A Short History of Nearly Everything_ by Bill Bryson. (p. 241, large type)
“[...:] The most arresting of quantum improbabilities is the idea, [...:] that the subatomic particles in certain pairs, even when separated by the most considerable distances, can each instantly “know” what the other is doing.
“[…:] the phenomenon was proved in 1997 when physicists at the University of Geneva sent photons seven miles in opposite directions, and demonstrated that interfering with one provoked an instantaneous response in the other.
“[…:] No one, incidentally, has ever explained how the particles achieve this feat. Scientists have dealt with this problem, according to the physicist Yakir Aharanov, “by not thinking about it.”

NOTE: After reading about the above in Bill Bryson's book, I found it online at: http://www.brentonklik.com/?m=200508
=========================================================

Interesting, n'est-ce pas?

Janny wrote: "You really like (grin) to bust your brains thinking! Perhaps this is your book, Joy! Your interest says you would do it better than anyone.
The whole idea of a planet without a food chain - there'd be creation, but no destruction???"

Janny, the problem of "no destruction" could be solved in a spiritual way. After all, it would be fantasy.

In a way, the author of fantasy is "all-powerful". A creator is all powerful and can do anything he wants. He just has to think of better ways of doing things and then do them. And if he's all-knowing, he should certainly be able to come up with good ideas.

Nick wrote: "Janny wrote: "Nick wrote: ""The right etiquette for authors"? Was there something specific you had in mind, Janny, when you mentioned that?"

Nick - there are two facets to this question. It woul..."

Nick, so sorry, I just realized I didn't respond to this!

What is polite etiquette when a creative person is told by a complimentary admirerer, "I like what you did here, now why not do that?"

My stock response (to the stock question, without the individual, particular slant) goes like this: "What an interesting idea my work has inspired in you. Why not pursue that spark of direction for yourself, since your enthusiasm has already lead you in that direction?"

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "You really like (grin) to bust your brains thinking! Perhaps this is your book, Joy! Your interest says you would do it better than anyone.
The whole idea of a planet without a food c..."

Ah, Joy - the problem with the very concept of "all powerful" - is - what happens after you break that box and imagine something else more powerful still?

Premises exist to become outmatched.

Absolutes get busted by expanded ideas.

However far we imagine, there is always another something beyond what we can project?

So the reach of any creator is always a limitation. Stories exist to bust limitation and find or arrive at a changed outlook.

Destruction - is actually re-creation, each time the outlook of the past stance gets busted. Not circular. More like a spiral.

The question becomes how you bust your boxes: do you wait for, or anticipate, or use pain to grow? Or do you seek to grow and bust boxes through the conscious application of seeking joy?

Janny wrote: "Ah, Joy - the problem with the very concept of "all powerful" - is - what happens after you break that box and imagine something else more powerful still? ...
... Destruction - is actually re-creation ...
... The question becomes how you bust your boxes: do you wait for, or anticipate, or use pain to grow? Or do you seek to grow and bust boxes through the conscious application of seeking joy?"

Janny, I'm not sure I understood all of that. So it's hard for me to reply. Can you elaborate with examples?

Joy - I've had a whirlwind week (houseguest friend, and husband off to a huge art show) so I'm a bit trying to get back on track.

I think what I was driving at was that each of us has a point of view - from that point of view - what is truth? anything we believe absolutely, today, becomes outgrown with time and experience. I was debating the point that what we think we know, we are only discovering.

If the universe is constantly expansive (we outgrow all our viewpoints, eventually) How does one seek to grow? Some wait for necessity or crisis to be the mother of invention. Some sit about and hope for chance. Others use the compass we are all given: does it make you happy? If so - why - pursue that. If not, why, refine that and consciously phase it out.

New creation cannot happen without demolishing an old idea. An epiphany is that moment where we discard the old and see a new angle.

By that definition "what is spiritual" changes.

What is NOT spiritual?

All of this boundary making is point of view, in the moment, based on beliefs.

What if we consciously shift belief - not waiting for the head on with life, but looking to what we WANT to believe, and experimenting with how the angle shifts.

Spiritual by one individual's definition can be anathema to another...the only certain thing is what the myth creates or exposes.

Change myths - a whole other truth emerges.

Which facet of the prism are you splintering your logic from?

Janny, I try to see things from a scientific point of view. I believe that there is a scientific explanation for most things. Where there is no scientific explanation, there's only guesswork.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny, I try to see things from a scientific point of view. I believe that there is a scientific explanation for most things. Where there is no scientific explanation, there's only guesswork."

Joy - that is why I listed the experiment with the photon - it showed a range of events, when taken by a camera, and only one event, when an observer was present. Effectively, there, quantum physicists have already proven that the reality of an outcome is affected by the observer - which upends the idea that scientific results are "inviolate" and always exactly repeatable.

The brain further quantifies what is "important" to that observer, and disregards 75 percent of the available range of data.

Belief dictates what the brain considers relevant.

There are as many realities as there are observers, which makes for endless fascination. To observe different views, one has to change stance - not guesswork at all, but an adjustment of how free choice governs exactly what is perceived.

Janny wrote: "There are as many realities as there are observers, which makes for endless fascination. To observe different views, one has to change stance - not guesswork at all, but an adjustment of how free choice governs exactly what is perceived."

I wonder how the scientists would reply to that statement. It seems to put into question all scientific discoveries. It's true that Einstein changed our concept of gravity*, but there must be some incontrovertible truths out there. Are we to doubt every truth we've ever learned?

*See article re Einstein's 1916 paper on "General Relativity" at:
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cybe...
It says: [Einstein's theory was:]: "A far cry from Newton's view of gravity as a force acting at a distance!"

Interesting stuff. However, I tend to leave all this speculation to the true scientists. I have enough to worry about just getting ready for Thanksgiving. :)

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "I wonder how the scientists would reply to that statement. It seems to put into question all scientific discoveries..."

Back in the 1930's, Einstein & some buddies got together & had lots of fun with quantum physics. It's is more like philosophy and precisely to the point that Janny makes. Reality is up for grabs. Read up on Schrödinger's cat some time. It's the perfect example of reality versus observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%...

Jim wrote: "Back in the 1930's, Einstein & some buddies got together & had lots of fun with quantum physics. It's is more like philosophy and precisely to the point that Janny makes. Reality is up for grabs. Read up on Schrödinger's cat some time. It's the perfect example of reality versus observation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%...

Thanks for the link, Jim. Looks very interesting. Will read it and comment when I return from our shopping trip today.

Joy H. (of Glens Falls) wrote: "Janny wrote: "There are as many realities as there are observers, which makes for endless fascination. To observe different views, one has to change stance - not guesswork at all, but an adjustment..."

How have scientists responded to the science done by those physicists? They've largely ignored it - grin. Put them out of a job, to admit reality is affected by the individual observer.

Put all the cattle in one pen, they will violently disagree with the one who's standing free, outside the fence.

I thinks the purpose of truth is to continuously evolve and find a better truth - it doesn't stop (except a mother preparing for Thanksgiving, I admit that force stops the world in any sincere family oriented household.)

Well, there is the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. I suppose it's point is to observe the unobservable, to "see" the "cat" inside of the impenetrable box, to "see" the subatomic particles that result from the collison of two atoms without the observation having any effect.

I remember when the US was going to build the supercollider around Waxahachie, TX. I'm sure it's cancellation was due to political reasons, but there was certainly a lot of angst about its practicality. Figures that it would eventually be done in a country that didn't have to stop for Thanksgiving.

Wikipedia says that the actual collison of two particles shot at each other around the entirety of the Swiss collider is scheduled for 2010. (Forgive me if my science or my facts are a little rusty. I only "look" at these things as a layman, my observations being quite incidental.)

Wow, we went from To Ride Hell's Chasm to the Large Hadron Collider. That must be a record for the most spectacularly off-topic discussion we've had since moving to GoodReads. :)