Archive for May, 2007

No one will ever read my books again

Posted May 8, 2007 By John C Wright

Once you find out what a lazy writer I am. Or maybe I am inspired by a genius no mere mortal can match! I report; you decide.

I have been “memed” by Mr. Fabio Paolo Barbieri

(see his answers here   Superversive gives his answers here)

But I refuse to pass the chain letter onward, not because I don’t approve of chain letters, but only because I don’t have any friends. Also, my work habits as a professional writer are Simply Abominable, and so I urge you all, for the love of sanity, not to do as I do. Real authors write outlines, three drafts, and revise continually. I got my training as a newspaperman, where you did it right the first time, you have to put the paper to bed by press time, no excuses, and tide and time wait for no man, and baby ready to leave the womb waits for no mother.

1. Do you outline?
No. Would that I did! I wrote a plot synopsis for my most recent novel, though.2. Do you write straight through, or do you sometimes tackle the scenes out of order?
Straight through. I start at page one with my name at the top, pick the title, write the book, come to the end, and quit. I go back only to put the word count at the top.

3. Do you prefer writing with a pen or using a computer?
Computer. I used to write everything out longhand, but it was inconvenient.

4. Do you prefer writing in first person or third?
No preference. If I want to spend time telling the readers a particular reaction, or if the story will be improved by limiting the camera to one point of view, I go first person.

5. Do you listen to music while you write?
Usually. Mostly j-pop from anime.

6. How do you come up with the perfect names for your characters?
I steal them from better writers, usually ancient Greeks.

7. When you’re writing, do you ever imagine your story as a television show or movie?
No. When writing a fight scene, I choreograph the steps, or draw a map on a napkin, so I know where everyone is standing and moving.

8. Have you ever had a character insist on doing something you really didn’t want him/her to do?
I try not to have personal preferences about what my characters do. Everything is driven by the plot logic, and my preferences are not consulted.

(Grammar note: Him/her is an abomination against English. I almost skipped this question out of pique. When the sex of the person is unknown or undecided, use ‘him’. Everyone except feminists knows ‘him’ refers to either sex except in the unambiguous case. See Strunk & White. End of argument.)

9. Do you know how a book is going to end when you start it?
No. I know that comedies end with marriages and tragedies end with multiple murders.

Usually I have a sense, or I make a decision, as to what type of story it is: the type of story dictates its end point. You read the invocation at the beginning “Sing Goddess of the Wrath of Achilles!” and that tells you what the end is—not when the Trojan War is over, but when the wrath of Achilles is passed.

For example:

  • THE GOLDEN AGE—This story is not about Phaethon, it is about the age in which he lives. The story ends when the golden age is over. If the story had been about Phaethon, it would have ended when Phaethon got his reward. If it had been a war story, it would have ended when the war ended.
  • LAST GUARDIAN OF EVERNESS—This story was about Raven loosing the love of his wife Wendy when he committed a murder to save her. The story ends when they are back together.
  • THE ORPHANS OF CHAOS—This is a prison break-out story. The story ends when the prisoners are free. It is not a war story; the larger issues of the Olympians and the Titans and their wars are not resolved in this book. It is not a love story: no one has put a ring on Amelia’s finger yet.
  • NULL-A CONTINUUM—This is a mystery story. Gilbert Gosseyn does not know who he truly is. The story ends when he discovers himself.

 


10. Where do you write?
On earth. The void of space is airless and cannot support life. This question was an easy one!

11. What do you do when you get writer’s block?
I don’t get writer’s block. That is a wrong model for what is happening. Writing is like fishing: you, the author, can control certain things, like the spot you stand, the bait you use, but you do not know what will rise from the unseen deep to take that bait. When you hook a fish, you examine it to see if you can use it. If not, you throw it back, and try again.

The bait is the conceit or point of your story. The place you stand is your world view. The river is the muses, or your subconscious, take your pick. The fish are the work product. If it is too short, you throw it back.

Writer’s block is what you do when the fish are not biting. You stare at the blank piece of paper without fear. Fearlessness in the face of blank paper is the whole of the writer’s craft. Anyone can be a writer who puts that fear aside.

What do you do when the fish are not biting? Me, I talk things over with my wife until she comes up with another good idea.

12. What size increments do you write in (either in terms of wordcount, or as a percentage of the fic as a whole)?

I have no idea. I don’t keep track of such things. If I am on a roll, I can get a lot done in one sitting. I almost have the discipline needed to quit writing at reasonable hour, roll or no roll. Experience teaches that the muse will be waiting for me patiently the next day.

13. How many different drafts did you write for your last project?
Just one. I write straight through. I rarely go back to rewrite, except at an editor’s specific suggestion.

14. Have you ever changed a character’s name midway through a draft?
Never. That would require revision.

15. Do you let anyone read your story while you’re working on it, or do you wait until you’ve completed a draft before letting someone else see it?
I show my wife each chapter as I write it.

16. What do you do to celebrate when you finish a draft?
Start my next project.

Celebrate? I celebrate when the check for the advance comes.

17. One project at a time, or multiple projects at once?
I prefer to work at one thing at a time, only because switching tends to lose my momentum.

18. Do your stories grow or shrink in revision?
I don’t revise. When an editor tells me to rewrite, I always prefer to add rather than subtract.

19. Do you have any writing or critique partners?
My wife.

20. Do you prefer drafting or revising?
I don’t revise.

 

78 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Draw your own conclusions about human psychology

Posted May 7, 2007 By John C Wright

From the Washington Post:

The most effective way to find and destroy a land mine is to step on it.

This has bad results, of course, if you’re a human. But not so much if you’re a robot and have as many legs as a centipede sticking out from your body. That’s why Mark Tilden, a robotics physicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, built something like that. At the Yuma Test Grounds in Arizona, the autonomous robot, 5 feet long and modeled on a stick-insect, strutted out for a live-fire test and worked beautifully, he says. Every time it found a mine, blew it up and lost a limb, it picked itself up and readjusted to move forward on its remaining legs, continuing to clear a path through the minefield.

Finally it was down to one leg. Still, it pulled itself forward. Tilden was ecstatic. The machine was working splendidly.

The human in command of the exercise, however — an Army colonel — blew a fuse.

The colonel ordered the test stopped.

Why? asked Tilden. What’s wrong?

The colonel just could not stand the pathos of watching the burned, scarred and crippled machine drag itself forward on its last leg.

This test, he charged, was inhumane.

My comment: I typed in the search terms “civil rights for robots” into Google. Of the first  on hundred entries, I only saw one of them mentioning a science fiction story: at least twenty of them linked to serious, nonfiction discussions of this concept.

55 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

From MY ELVES ARE DIFFERENT

Posted May 7, 2007 By John C Wright

Bumper stickers for your space ship and other oddments from Steve Wilson for sale at Zazzle. I thought this was darn funny.

7 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Read More …

Posted May 6, 2007 By John C Wright

Mrs. Wright weighs in on the issue on her brand new live journal

Read the whole thing

             WE RULE THE WORLD; WE JUST LEAVE THEM THE DRY PARTS

A Defense of Intelligent Femininity

I must disagree with my illustrious Lord and Master’s opinion on marriage and equality. I believe that equality is extraordinarily important in marriage. However, before one jumps into such a discussion, it is important to define one’s terms.

By equality, I mean the kind of respect that equals give to one another.

I do not mean “sameness.”

Employees in a well-run company treat each other as equals. This does not mean that they assume that they can do each others tasks with equal competence. Just because the carpenter and the chef are equal in the eyes of their co-workers and superiors does not mean that the manager is going to send the carpenter to the kitchen and the chef to make a table.

22 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

I wear the pants in my family; my wife picks them out

Posted May 4, 2007 By John C Wright
Folks, if I were smart, I would not touch this touchy subject with a ten foot pole. Not only is it an explosive topic, a verbal landscape littered with buried mines, it touches on the deepest passions and most firmly held beliefs of the human ego. Furthermore, the vocabulary to discuss is filled with ambiguity: one can hardly write a sentence, no matter how carefully hedged about with qualifications and definitions, without being misunderstood, sometimes deliberately misunderstood.
I think men and women are not equal. I think we cannot be made equal, and attempts to equalize us create more savage inequities. I think feminism is the enemy of femininity, of motherhood, of romance, and of everything that makes a woman’s life worth living.
Now, let me immediately qualify that. I think men and women are equal in so far as they are human. Both are equal in the sight of God, and should be equal in the eyes of the law, except, of course, in the case of family law, where special provision must be taken to protect women from exploitation at the hands of men. I think women should own property. I think any woman who owns a gun should be allowed to vote. Inheritance laws should not favor one sex over the other.
But I do not think men and women are equal insofar as they are both equally masculine and feminine. I do not think man and wife are equal in marriage: the man should lead the household, and the woman should rule it. The man should make the decisions and the woman should domesticate the man so that he makes the right decisions. The woman’s task is to civilize the hairy barbarians of bachelorhood into fine upstanding young breadwinners: this is preliminary to her assuming the role of motherhood, and good practice for it.
I wear the pants in my family. It is just that, in my family, my wife picks them out.
But, OK, I am not smart. I got into a lengthy, lengthy discussion with someone named Annafirtree (maybe a woman, maybe a fir tree, maybe a clever dog with a keyboard—on the Internet, one never knows, do one? But I hope it’s a guy, because no woman should listen to a man talk about male leadership without bursting into giggles.)
I want to present the discussion here, first to use an excuse to praise my wife in public; and second, to hurl defiance in the teeth of the feminists, whom, from the very moment NOW (The National Organization of Women) publicly supported the philandering adultery of Bill Clinton betrayed all womankind, and said (in effect) you gals were merely meat for ruthless men of power to exploit, and they set their banners against romance, femininity, monogamy, and motherhood (but see footnote); and third, to find out if anyone can settle the matter between Annafirtree and me: the two of us have some unspoken assumption we don’t share, and I cannot tell what that assumption is. There is something about human nature I am taking for granted, or he is, which the other one of us does not see, so we are arguing in a circle. It’s like a one person with a sense of humor talking to someone humorless: the second guy just doesn’t get the joke, and the first guy’s comments sound like nonsense, and the first guy thinks the second guy is playing along. Any suggestions?
(FOOTNOTE about NOW: please notice that the Dulles chapter of the National Organization of Women condemned the national branch for the cowards they are in terms of splendid ire. “We are unmoved by the display of moral outrage Democrats profess to feel toward a man they otherwise passionately support, someone we concluded uses and abuses women and then seeks to destroy those who attempt to expose the harm they suffered. American women deserved better then the year of unabashed sexism we just endured, relentlessly fueled by a political party we have long supported.” Dulles Chapter, N.O.W., 2-15-99 Source: MSNBC McLaughlin Special Report: /02.18.99/ My comment: Gals from Virginia, you Yankees. Don’t piss off Southern Girls. We have concealed carry.)
I made this comment on another thread:
In my marriage my wife and I are not “equal”, but I would hardly call myself a tyrant over her. When Romeo adores Juliet, she is not a tyrant over him, even though he might be willing to do anything and everything she asks.
Annafirtree writes in and asks:
*
ANNAFIRTREE
I’m curious what you meant when you said your wife and you are not equal. Presumably you meant nothing in contradiction of the “no male or female in Christ” way of thinking. Perhaps you meant nothing more than what followed in the next sentence: that your love for each other does not make you into tyrants. But, unless one of you loves the other more than that one loves back, that isn’t much of a basis for saying that you are not equal. Perhaps you meant something else?
*
MR. WRIGHT

As you guessed, I mean what follows in the next sentence: “When Romeo adores Juliet, she is not a tyrant over him, even though he might be willing to do anything and everything she asks.”

My wife and I are not equal for the same reason apples and oranges are not equal, or, to be precise, the way an ogre is not equal to an elf maid or a malodorous ape to a pure angel. When I approach her loveliness, so absolute she seems, and in herself complete, so well to know her own, that what she wills to do or say, seems wisest, virtuousest, discretest, best; all higher knowledge in her presence falls degraded. Wisdom in discourse with her loses, discount’nanc’d, and like folly shows.

Surely you did not think I was hinting ME to be over HER??!!

And yet, despite her obvious superiority to me, she yields to my will in all things, obedient and meek, and calls me the master of the house and lord of the manor (except when I am in the wrong, of course, and then she corrects me while I stand blubbering and dumbfounded).

I cannot explain this to someone who is not in love. There is no place, no place at all, for equality in love. The question never comes up.

Only in the squabbling of politics, which is a type of war by other means, when every faction seeks advantage over each other, and the rich yearn to trample the poor, the poor to loot the rich, or the strong to exploit the weak, only then must we speak of equality. Equality is an armed truce, where each enemy group jealously seeks to secure itself from being ruthlessly used at the hands of others.

Equality is an agreement to keep the Law as an umpire, and keep the mechanisms of the law neutral in our struggles for dominion over each other, so that there are certain minimum spheres of privacy where the law-wars cannot reach, such as freedom of speech or religion. Love is not politics. Love is the opposite.

My wife is my heart: I would die for her, because her life means more than mine. She is my superior, for I exalt her above me. Yet she looks up to me, and she would say I was in charge, not her, if the matter ever came up at all, which it does not. We live our lives revolving around our children, and make all our schedules and sacrifices for their sake. And yet I am the master of my children, and much train and teach them.

How can any of this symbiotic life even be expressed in terms of equality? No one who is in love, true love and not infatuation, talks about whether one partner loves the other “more” or “less” than the other. Is infinity bigger than eternity? Love blinds oneself to selfishness: and without looking at oneself, how can one hold up a measuring stick to judge who is greater or smaller?

*

ANNAFIRTREE

When I think of equality, particularly equality of people, I think always first of equality evaluated in terms of our humanity. Christianity answers the question “are some more human than others” with the answer “no, we are all in the image of God”, although in a completely different sense it answers that we can expand or diminish our humanity, our being-hood (for lack of a proper term), by moving closer or farther from the source of all Being. In the first case, the claim of inequality between a husband and a wife seems anti-Christian, because women are imago Dei as are men. In the second case, the evaluation of the relative saintliness of the couple seems… risky at best. If an objective evaluation determines that the other is more saintly than the self, perhaps there will be no conflict; perhaps more love will be inspired; perhaps the self will decide to abandon the love so that the loved can be with someone better. If, on the other hand, an objective evaluation determines that the self is more saintly than the other, then how can they be sure they are loving fully enough? Will they be tempted to abandon their reason, their objective evaluation, in favor of always considering the other as better? Better not to make the comparison in the first place. Yet surely God knows that he is better than us, and this does not diminish his love for us. How does he do that? The Bible says to consider others as more important than ourselves (Phil 2:3). How do we do this without abdicating reason? Is there some reason why God is capable of considering himself objectively greater than us, and not loving us less for it, but we are not capable of considering another objectively less than us without also loving them the less for it? Or is there a way to distinguish between two sorts of self-other comparison, one that we may make without loving less and one that we may not?

Most of this was not what was on my mind in the original question, though. If all are equally imago Dei in their personhood, there is the lesser issues of equality in particular aspects of our lives. Equality before the law might be considered one of them. I thought it possible, but not terribly likely, that you might refer to an inequality of authority within the home. Christians for centuries have maintained the duty of a wife to submit to her husband, not necessarily because he is greater than she, but because God meant him to be in charge. This is usually either disagreed with or at least played down in Christianity in Western cultures; depending on one’s view, this can be viewed either as an abandonment of scriptural principles or as enlightened progress. It sounds like you think that for a husband to insist on his wife’s submission would be a violation of his love for her, although a woman might voluntarily choose to submit of her own love.

*

MR. WRIGHT

Ah–Forgive me, I thought you were talking about legal equality. Usually equality refers to quantities, not qualities. A cup can be more or less full of water; you can add water or subtract it; but a man cannot be more or less stamped with the image of God; it cannot be added or subtracted.

To answer your question, I am the opposite of a feminist. A masculinist, I suppose, you could call me: I do not think the sexes are the same, and I think attempts to treat women by the male rules of the mating dance have led to disaster, and destroyed the romance and mystery of love in our modern world. You cannot waltz with both partners leading.

I have heard that most divorces these days are petitions by women who are dissatisfied: that women leave their men more often than men leave their women. I have also heard that couples who hang on through the first three to five years, even when on the brink of divorce, find themselves after that in loving, satisfactory relationships. These two facts taken together would seem to indicate that a little bit of submissiveness and meekness on the part of wives will tend to reward them with long-term happiness.

However, the Christian idea of women submitting to their husbands expressed by St. Paul (if I have understood this concept) is that the husband is the head of the household as Christ is the head of the church: in other words, that the husband’s love is such that he would gladly sacrifice himself for her good as Christ sacrificed himself for us. Far from a call for men to be domineering, it sounds like a call for men to be loving to the point of self-abnegation.

My own amateur observation of human psychology has led me to the conclusion that girls (unselfish ones) often have a sort of maternal instinct that makes them want to serve their lovers and husbands, and that boys have a learned habit of chivalry that makes them want to protect and adore their women.

Even in this age of equality between the sexes and despite it, most women naturally fall into submissive and nurturing roles. Whether this is good or bad, there is no arguing with the fact that it happens. But the men do not naturally fall into the role of being chivalrous, gentle, protective, devoted: so all the sexual revolution has done is ameliorated the protective learned habit which once restrained the young male barbarians among us, and eroded their devotional attitude into a selfish and domineering attitude.

Naturally, this is not true of all women nor of all men: but enough women have low self esteem issues, or a natural saintly meekness of character, that they can be happy with the man “in charge” provided the man in charge is devoted to being in charge of making her happy.

A gentle, submissive woman with a gentle, chivalrous man can make a happy couple: neither one will notice or care who is actually in charge.

A gentle, submissive woman with a selfish, sexually aggressive predator type man will be used and exploited and abused, and the cruel rules of psychology will send her from one domineering cruel partner to another. She will find herself attracted to and trapped by a series of one-way dead-end relationships.

The sexual revolution, promising freedom and equality to these women has not changed human nature or female psychology: all that has happened is that chivalry, the sense of honor and gentlemanliness which once checked the ruthless male predation has been removed: and so was have Marylin Monroe, on the one hand, a mostly helpless sexual object exploited and neglected by powerful men, so that she died alone; and on the other hand we have the miserable wretched satyr known as Hugh Hefner. The new rules of equality allow men and women both to be exposed to date-rape and unwanted pregnancy, but, of course, only one sex of the two can perform a rape, and only one sex of the two can get pregnant.

*

ANNAFIRTREE

You analyze only the cases where the woman is gentle and submissive. Many women may naturally fall into submissive and nurturing roles, but not all of them do, and the feminist movement encourages them to do otherwise.

What happens in the scenario where a nonsubmissive woman is with a selfish, unchivalrous man? Does her lack of submissiveness protect her from his abuses? What happens when a nonsubmissive woman is with a gentle, chivalrous man? Ought he to gently encourage her to be submissive? Will he be unhappy with her? Or ought he, as modern culture tells us, accept her as she is and allow her to be as “in charge” as she wants to be?

Is the only truly happy possibility for a couple that of a submissive woman and a chivalrous man, or are other combinations equally workable, equally likely to result in happiness and objective growth towards God?

And I will say that, on the whole, women are just as likely to be selfish as men, so that if submissiveness is the natural state for women, and chivalry for men, then women are just as likely to be unsubmissive as men are to be unchivalrous. Or so I would expect, at least. (If this weren’t true, I would think that the injunction in the Bible and elsewhere for women to be submissive would not have been necessary; and I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any married woman I know who wouldn’t bristle in anger if her husband tried to give her an order, even an otherwise kind and sensible one).

*

MR. WRIGHT
I analyze this case because it is the only one I have seen. Your experience must be different.
These are good questions. Let me manfully try answer:
Q: What happens in the scenario where a nonsubmissive woman is with a selfish, unchivalrous man?
A: If it turns into a contest of wills, the man will tend to be more ruthless and more selfish, and he will win. This is not true in all cases, but it is the majority case.
I have often heard of cases where after a one night stand the guy never wants to see the girl again: one friend of mine said he wanted to push the girl out of bed the moment his lusts were sated. I have never heard of a girl express this level of contempt even for a casual lover. There is a Bible story (in Samuel, I think) about the rape of Tamar by Amnon, and this story, written in the Bronze Age, mentions that Amnon hates her once he has deflowered her, just as much as he lusted for her before.
Q: Does her lack of submissiveness protect her from his abuses?
A: No. I am not suggesting that women be trained to be submissive for the sake of protecting themselves from predatory males. I am suggesting the rules of society be set up to protect women from predatory males. I am suggesting a certain degree of submissiveness will allow the woman to ride out the storms of marriage until it turns into smooth sailing.
Q: What happens when a nonsubmissive woman is with a gentle, chivalrous man?
A: She is exposed to a powerful temptation to be selfish and domineering: if she does not resist, it ruins the relationship. If he becomes hen-pecked then she becomes a shrew. This is common enough for it to be a stereotype.
Q: Ought he to gently encourage her to be submissive?
A: Him? No. That would tempt him to be selfish. Nothing could kill love quicker. His best bet is to be totally devoted, totally loving.
Q: Will he be unhappy with her?
A: It depends on whether she resists the temptation toward selfishness. It depends on how much they love each other. It depends on whether he is chivalrous or merely fawning.
Q: Or ought he, as modern culture tells us, accept her as she is and allow her to be as “in charge” as she wants to be?
A: No one should accept anyone “as is” because “as is” means selfish, stubborn and cruel. That is human nature.
But let me not glance aside from the point: odd as this sounds, submissiveness and “being in charge” are not mutually exclusive. My wife is gentle and meek, and I defer every decision in our lives to her, because she is wiser and more well organized than I am.
Does the woman in question have children? A woman who is not capable of devotion will have a tough time being a mother. Mothers do not have themselves at the center of their own lives, although they are certainly in charge of the house. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
Q: Is the only truly happy possibility for a couple that of a submissive woman and a chivalrous man, or are other combinations equally workable, equally likely to result in happiness and objective growth towards God?
A: I went to dinner with my wife the other night, and she ordered for me and paid, and we both thought the experiment was quaint and odd–“against the order of nature” as she jokingly put it.
My wife feels small and pretty when I hold the door for her, or do other small gestures of affection: I would not feel small and pretty no matter what she did (I am a bloated 290 pound ape). Furthermore I cannot imagine that a man possessing normal and healthy male passions and tastes wants to be the princess rather than be the White Knight, badass enough to kill a dragon, courtly enough to compose a sonnet.
I have never heard of any man who wanted to be swept off his feet and carried over the threshold to his petal-strewn bridal bed: but some women, even most women, like men who are bold, confident, and masterful. Look at the lurid cover of any romance novel. The pirate prince or Red Indian with his shirt off is always dipping the swooning beauty over his well-thewed arm, never the other way around.
Men do not daydream about sweet surrender to the pillaging kisses of their strong lovers. Men daydream in images of conquest and possession: a Solomon with a thousand concubines; a Superman rescuing a grateful, hitherto-unapproachable Big City Gal Lois Lane; or an Odysseus slaying the suitors bothering his beautiful, faithful Penelope. Look at how many covers of trashy pulp magazines have pictures of Doc Savage or someone carrying the frail out of danger, or Tarzan with his mate over his shoulder. We men want to sweep the woman off her feet, not to be swept.
As far as I know, every boy has reason to daydream about Linda Carter, but no boy wants to be Steve Trevor, the weaker partner rescued by the Wonder Woman.
As for “other options” my imagination fails me. I suppose that if the man were feminine and the woman were masculine they could get along just fine, merely with the roles reversed. This might prove an odd role model for the children, though. But, no matter: love is alchemy. If a submissive man and a chivalrous woman can find happiness together, godspeed and good luck to them.
God is wise and I am not: who knows in what strange and splendid ways He might not find fit partners for men and woman who break the mold?
Really, questions about who is in charge simply don’t come up when the relationship is healthy: you both are devoted to the household as a whole, not to yourself.
Q: I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any married woman I know who wouldn’t bristle in anger if her husband tried to give her an order, even an otherwise kind and sensible one.
A: And I cannot off the top of my head think of a single time when I have given my wife an order. Nonetheless, I am the master of my household and the head of the family. Leadership is not domination; leading is not overawing. St. Paul says we husbands are to be the head our houses as Christ is the head of the Church.
Think of how Jesus gave orders to his Disciples: did He say a single thing that would make them bristle with anger? Did He order the woman with the jar of perfume to anoint Him, or the harlot to clean His feet with her tears and dry them with her hair? Only an oriental potentate of Xerxes-like pusillanimity would give an order like that. And yet my wife was waiting on me hand and foot last night, doing every little thing I asked, because I had sprained my back and could not get up.
And in return, all I have to do is give her every penny I make, be on call to entertain and amuse her 24/7, worship her in thought and deed with all my heart, and praise her in public whenever the least opportunity presents itself, slay her enemies, father her children, and hold doors for her. A bargain!
How can one woman be, at once, as servile as a little French maid or harem girl, and at the same time as adorable as a queen, as worshipful as a pagan goddess? If you are not in love, no one can explain it. Like all the normal, ordinary things of everyday life, it is a mystery and a paradox.
Equality is drab compared to the extravagant extremes of romance: away with it! I have no use for women merely equal to a goblin like me: I deserve better. Give me a Queen!

*

ANNAFIRTREE
“No. I am not suggesting that women be trained to be submissive for the sake of protecting themselves from predatory males.”

Indeed, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that women be submissive to protect themselves from predatory males. I *have* heard people suggest that women ought to be unsubmissive to protect themselves from predatory males – that within a relationship, women need to stand up for themselves, defend their rights, however you want to say it, so that they do not get trampled over. I’m not sure if there’s a clear line between “not being trampled on” and “having it all my way”. Either way, that way of thinking seems to me to be at odds with the injunction to be submissive; I’m not sure if there’s a way to reconcile it or not. IF the man is being selfish (in the wife’s view), does that null her obligation to submit? If so, what’s the point of the obligation in the first place (after all, won’t a woman always think that the man is being selfish, if he wants her to do something that she is contemplating submission for?) If she still has an obligation to submit when she thinks he is being selfish, then doesn’t that put her at risk for abuse?

In the case of the nonsubmissive woman and the chivalrous man, you seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand, you say that he ought not to try to encourage her to be submissive (i.e. to change her), yet you say that he ought not to accept her “as is” (being an imperfect human). How do you reconcile those two? In general when dealing with someone else’ imperfections, what options are there besides doing something about it (encouraging them to improve) and not doing anything about it (accepting them “as is”)?

Also, why would it have to be selfish of him to encourage her to be submissive, if her lack of submission is causing her to be a domineering shrew? Granted, it would be a temptation for him to insist too much on his own way; but isn’t it (at least theoretically) possible that he could gently encourage her to be less domineering without actually crossing the line into selfishness?

Really, questions about who is in charge simply don’t come up when the relationship is healthy: you both are devoted to the household as a whole, not to yourself”.
If this were all there was to it, then an unhealthy relationship would only have to focus on decreasing each person’s selfishness, yes? The Biblical command for a wife to submit would then be… wrong? superfluous?

*

MR. WRIGHT

“On the one hand, you say that he ought not to try to encourage her to be submissive (i.e. to change her), yet you say that he ought not to accept her “as is” (being an imperfect human). How do you reconcile those two?”

Perhaps I misunderstood the question. It is not the husband’s place to try to teach his wife to be submissive, for the reason I gave. Likewise, I do not think the husband cannot, with love, or by example, urge the woman to be a better person than she is–that is one of the prime benefits of marriage. The distinction is between urging her in general to be virtuous, and urging her specifically to be meek toward his authority.

Remember again, the injunction in St. Paul is for the man to be the head of the household like Christ is the head of the Church. There is not a word in the Gospel where Christ orders his disciples to straighten up and toe the line. He tells them the last shall be first and the servant shall be the leader; he tells them his yoke is mild; he says he is meek.

When talking about the whole mystery of the war between the sexes, nothing is ever going to be “all there is to it.”

Like anything else, the injunction on women to submit to their husbands is limited to the context in which it is spoken: I don’t think the Christians who want women to put up with wifebeaters have read the passage correctly.

Would you understand me if I said unselfishness in women is submission, and unselfishness in men is chivalry? A man is not being selfish when he leads in a waltz, or when he doffs his hat, or when he holds the door for a woman, but these are all signs of masculine dominance. They are specific gestures of manliness in our culture, little outward symbols of a difference between male and female nature.

*

ANNAFIRTREE

Can a woman whose husband is prone to laziness verbally encourage him to be industrious? Can a man whose wife is prone to greediness explicitly encourage her to be more generous? If so, and if domineeringness is a fault in a woman, then why may a man not explicitly encourage her to be more submissive? If not, if he may only urge her to virtue in general and not to specific virtues, why not?

Christ has a gentle side, but he has an unyielding side, too. He upsets the tables at the Temple, he chastises the woman at the well for her relationships with men, he corrects Simon for not understanding when the sinful woman annointed his feet, he warns people against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees, he warns people that the consequences for wickedness is eternal hellfire. He seeks, not to force, but to draw people away from sin. Theoretically, I don’t see why a Christlike man might not also try to draw his wife away from any any sin that he thought she was committing (so long as he is not trying to force her, but only encourage or persuade her).

I don’t think the Christians who want women to put up with wifebeaters have read the passage correctly”.

I agree, but the follow-up question to that is where, then, do you draw the line? Ought a woman to submit to verbal abuse? Simple inconsiderateness? I think it was Flannery O’Connor that wrote a story of a woman who was mostly submissive to her husband. He had promised when they married to build a better house than the one they had, up on the hill. For 20 or so years, he neglected that promise, then, when their daughter was soon to be married and still living with them, he started building a barn in that place. While he was away on a trip, when the barn was almost but not quite done, the wife took the initiative to move all the household belongings into the barn, thus making it their new house. Was she overstepping her bounds? If, on the one hand, there are some things which a woman ought to submit in, and other things (like wifebeating) that she ought not to submit to, is there a qualitative difference to tell the two apart, or only a quantitative difference, with every instance being a judgment call?

Would you understand me if I said unselfishness in women is submission, and unselfishness in men is chivalry?”

Sure. It amounts to a restatement, or endorsement, of the Biblical view that submission in a woman is virtue, something I was not previously sure you agreed with. Most Christians I know view the whole idea as an anachronism, to be ignored or interpreted away, rather than a part of the Bible to be taken seriously.

I wonder if there is any word besides chivalry that would capture manly virtue. “Chivalry” carries connotations in my mind (and probably others) of specific cultural-dependent expressions of manly virtue, so that a wifebeater might be called chivalrous if he also opens the door for his wife. (It also carries images in my mind of men riding horses and jousting, for some reason). But that is neither here nor there, as the saying goes.

*

MR. WRIGHT

Whoever told you that chivalry permitted or allowed raising a hand against a woman is a damn liar.

As evidence, let me quote the dictionary: “CHIVALRY: The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.” No one can possibly twist the meaning of the word “gallantry toward women” to include striking a woman. No one can call that brave, courteous, or honorable.

As more evidence let me direct your attention to ORLANDO FURIOSO, written centuries ago, and set in the days of Charlemagne: about as good a source for what constitutes true chivalry is you will find. This book is all about brave knights doing brave deeds and pitting their life and sacred honor on the line during jousts and wars.

There is also a famous passage where the poet says that a man who beats his wife is more of a savage beast than a wolf or a lion. Even these so called savage beasts are kind to their mates: in mankind alone is this horrid sin found, that a man would raise his fist against she whom he should most love in all the world.

Whoever told you this damned slander should not be trusted in other things. I call him a liar and a slanderer, whoever he is: and I will be happy to meet that fellow on the field of honor if he disputes that he earned the name I hang on him. If he does not understand the meaning of my challenge, if he does not understand what it means to be a man who is willing to stand by his words, I doubt he has the first glimmer of understanding of chivalry.

On the other hand, I am a Virginian, and we have always been a gallant race.

*

ANNAFIRTREE

My other questions were serious; the comment on chivalry less so. It was mere curiousity about whether or not there are any other words around to describe the concept, a question inspired by the vaguest of correlations in my head between “chivalry” and external, culturally-dependent signs. No one has told me that a wifebeater can be chivalrous; I was merely taking a distinction to its extreme. If the dictionary defines chivalry as the internal qualities rather than the external actions, I’ll accept that.

Did you have any thoughts on the other questions I posed?

*
MR. WRIGHT
Sorry, I meant to answer, but ran out of time. Let us see:
Q: Where, then, do you draw the line (between being meek in the Christian sense and being the victim of a wifebeater)? Ought a woman to submit to verbal abuse? Simple inconsiderateness?
A: I cannot understand the question. It would be as if you were asking when a child should honor his father and mother, and when the children of Medea should submit to infanticide at her bloody hands. One is a normal and natural behavior to which our ordinary passions incline us: the other is a monstrous crime. You are talking as if there is some sort of sliding scale leading from being unselfish to being a battered wife. I can only assume we are talking about two different topics without noticing it.
Women are naturally maternal and feminine, so much so that the whole apparatus of modern feminism is attempting to get them out of the one-way relationships that are endemic among modern women.
I have sympathy for the feminists in this one respect: I think they are attempting something noble. They want women to receive the simple justice women do not get in this life. Life treats women badly, and men are the Number One perpetrators of a woman’s woes. A bad boyfriend or selfish husband usually causes a woman more hell than a bad relation with her mother or a sour relation with her father or in-laws or children or friends.
My observation is that these rescuers dismantled the very thing that protected women the most: the institution and customs surrounding marriage.
Nowadays, live-in boyfriends treat women like dirt just as callously as Oriental potentates ever treated their harem-slaves, and the rate of child-murder is increasing, as is the rate of violence against women: in both cases the likely cause is the lack of social or legal restraint on cohabitation. A man who moves in with his girlfriend is making no commitment, and he has no natural biological urge to care for her children by a previous boyfriend. If anything, Mother Nature whispers to him to kill these rivals for his genetic heritage. A man with no commitment is making a deal for the satisfaction of his personal passions: a live-in girlfriend is there to serve him: he has made no oath, and he is not obligated by custom or in the eyes of the law to be faithful to her. He did not swear eternal love. What makes her think he means to give her eternal love? So, in a live-in relationship, everything pressures the male toward selfishness. Why not slap her, if she gets uppity? If there was a serious love between them, he would have avowed it. If he does not avow it, she knows he takes his freedom more seriously than he takes her. And if she has not avowed her love, he knows he is here merely as a convenience for her, or because of her infatuation, or her loneliness. But she has left herself an escape hatch, and so, deep down, he knows she is not loyal to the marriage—because, obviously, there is no marriage.
(continued)
My second observation is that those feminists who want to dismantle and re-engineer the passions of love and marriage and romance, have selected exactly the wrong grounds on which to make their stand. To crusade for the vote, for the right to own property in her own name, and for other legal equalities in the eyes of the law is a laudable aim for a crusade; equal pay for equal work, while based on a simple economic error, is an understandable aim for a crusade; to expect women will be happier if they are self-centered in their love affairs betrays a misunderstanding of human psychology that is risible, of it were not so appalling. It is like unto the naivety of Communists expecting all men to prosper under a system where all economic incentives encourage sloth and waste while discouraging inventiveness and energy.
Women are naturally nobler and more self-sacrificing than men. They give more than the get in a relationship. I suspect this is Mother Natures way of preparing them for motherhood, which is an endless series of giving without anything, not even thanks, in return. I can think of only one exception to this among the women I know, and this was a woman who, by no coincidence, wanted never to have children. This one girl was quite aggressive, manly and forthright in her demeanor: but even so, she was girlish and sweet and concerned with harmless womanish vanities.
Let me just say I am a very happily married man. My wife, in theory at least, is under my authority as head of the household: albeit the question never comes us, because I cannot recall a single time she and I were not of one mind on all the major issues in our house. My authority consists of an obligation to sacrifice my personal desires for the good of the group: I make the money and turn it over to her. She handles all the house finances. She never spends money on herself: I have to crowbar any funds out of the house coffers to buy her a present.
In case an argument ever did come up, she would urge me to do things my way, out of her native meekness, and I would urge her to do things her way, out of my native chivalry.
I have never had occasion to slay a dragon for her, but I protect her from overeager fans as SF conventions, or pushy salesmen, or rude dungeon masters at RPG games, or arrogant sales agents or publishers. I am her man. It is my part to play the part of a man.
Honestly, I am not even sure what this equality is that we are talking about. If anything, my beloved wife, whom I love more than life itself, is my superior. She is certainly a kinder and more joyful person than I am.
You are asking what a woman should stomach from a man in a marriage, but you are asking all the wrong questions. Here is what my wife puts up with: not verbal abuse, but absent-mindedness. Not wifebeating, but sloth. Not cruelty, but lack of discipline and order.
Does that make sense? The sins you are asking about are not ones I manifest. My wife does not put up with them because she does not need to. The sins she puts up with in me are of a very different kind. And, honestly, I don’t see what any of it has to do with equality or inequality.
What a woman would have to be like to put up with the sins of cruelty and abusiveness in her husband, I cannot imagine: and yet I have seen it, and the woman involved was saintly in her forbearance. If anything, she is too meek, and has erred by taking the virtue so far that it is a vice.
(continued)
Q: If, on the one hand, there are some things which a woman ought to submit in, and other things (like wifebeating) that she ought not to submit to, is there a qualitative difference to tell the two apart, or only a quantitative difference, with every instance being a judgment call?
A: Are we talking about a couple in love, or a couple who hates each other? If they hate each other, they should regard the marriage as an armed truce, and jealously guard against every possible trespass or inroad against their defenses, and seek at every moment to humiliate, discourage and wound and weaken their spouse, for the same reason and in the same way that armed nations sharing a militarized border dare not suspend their suspicions and war-readiness for an instant. If they love each other, each should make the utmost provisions for the good of the other without given himself a moment’s thought.
In a healthy relationship undistorted by modern utopian biases, women will naturally gravitate to the supportive role, and the man to the leadership and protective role. It is what women seem to want, it is what men seem to want; it is what in general makes them comfortable.
If there are exceptions, if there is a couple where a manly and assertive woman is mated with a feminine and delicate man possessed of a self-sacrificing maternal instinct, I suppose the roles could be reversed with no great harm: but it would be like playing the violin by holding the bow still and moving the instrument back and forth beneath it. It might be odd, but there is nothing so wrong with it.
The modern feminist does not want this: as best I can tell, she wants femininity altogether to be eliminated, so that every marriage is as if between two men, both equally shallow, proud, and macho, but one has a dick and the other does not. Of the two “men” one is a real man and the other is fighting against her nature in order to act, at best, like a sissified or effete man.
I was just listening the other day to a soccer mom. The soccer mom is a sweet-faced and shapely petite figure of a woman, gentle and kindly in demeanor, cheery and bright: she is like a flower on a spring day. Any man who calls himself a man would fall on a grenade to save her, or, if some Clinton-like filth tried to molest her, any man who calls himself a man would cane the bounder. That is the kind of women she is. So this sweet feminine female was lamenting that her daughter could not hold her own in the coed soccer team where she has to compete with the little boys. Now, if these little boys are anything like my little boys, they are probably selfish monsters. The pretty soccer mom said with a confused smile that her little girl would have to be “toughened up”. This, from the lips of the least tough of all the girls in the office.
I thought this was exactly the wrong solution to her problem. The solution was to put her on a team with other little girls so she did not end up with a wrong attitude toward little boys—the attitude being that she should compete with them at their own game, and that she was a failure if she could not prevail in the areas where the boys have natural advantages.
*
ANNAFIRTREE

Feminism argues that equality is the basis for a woman’s rejection of an abusive husband. If Christianity argues instead that real love does not even consider self, but gives anything for what is best for the other, then there must be an objective basis for saying that what is best for an abusive man is for his wife to leave him – or else she shouldn’t do it. But we don’t encourage women to stop and consider that when we tell her to get out of an abusive marriage.

There is a whole variety of sins a man might commit that affect a relationship; admitting that a woman ought to leave an abusive husband means that there is at least one sin he can commit that she ought to leave him for. The next obvious question is what, if any, other sins can he commit that would justify or even make it her duty to leave.

*

MR. WRIGHT
If feminism argues that equality is the basis for a woman’s rejection of an abusive husband, then feminism is an ass. This is an argument entirely without merit, because it supposes it is right when a grown-up abuses child; a king abuses a commoner; or a sane man abuses a madman.
Obviously these things cruel injustices: and the injustice is made worse because it is a case of the strong abusing the weak.
Even without no-fault divorce, cruelty and abuse are grounds for divorce.
This whole conversation confuses me: I keep talking about love, and you keep talking about wifebeating, as if love lead to wifebeating.
Wifebeating is a black crime, perhaps the worst crime in the world, and nothing in Christianity, or in any civilized philosophy, justifies it. The pagan Romans had the right to beat and kill their wives, and Christianity took that right away from them.
Recognizing that women are proper objects of chivalrous devotion is not the same as saying men should beat them; it is the opposite. I am not sure how to continue a conversation were you react to every thought as if I am saying the opposite of what I said.
Your assumption seems to be that obedience means abuse, whereas in reality the two concepts are unrelated. A man can take a baseball bat his grayhaired father (whom he by rights should obey) as easily as he take a baseball bat to his son in shortpants (who by rights should obey him). Obedience has nothing to do with it, one way or the other. One does not stop son-beating by pretending that sons should not obey their fathers. Indeed, if we all pretended that sons were equal to fathers, all that would happen is that yobs would rough up their sons and be held blameless: a little scrum between friends is no big deal. Most schoolyard friendships start with schoolyard fights.
One of the side effects of modern feminism is a loss of the protective feeling that prevents men from roughing up women. If you notice, the modern military, where women are deployed into danger zones because they are equal with soldier-boys, the women have to go escorted wherever they go on post, to save them from being molested by their own brothers-in-arms. The ideal of equality in this case exposes women to more abuse.
Modern television shows and movies have begun to show warrior-women just as tough and machismo as men: and on these shows men hit them in the face. You show these images to impressionable kids, and they get the impression that this behavior is normal.
Christianity preaches forgiveness, not masochism. If a woman wants to forgive an abusive husband, that is above and beyond the call of duty: she can forgive him from the visitor’s room of the hoosegow, because wifebeaters should be behind bars. Better yet, she can forgive him when he is on the gallows.
Someone seems to have convinced you that if a woman vows to love honor and obey her husband, he has license to no longer act like a man; but like a brute beast. But he makes a vow equally as deep: to love, honor, and cherish. St. Paul talks about leadership in the fashion as Christ leads the Church, which means, being ready to be tortured to death for the sake of your loved ones, and submitting to such a fate without protest, in perfect love; being willing to take punishments meant for her, forgiving her, praying for her continually.
Here is the passage we are talking about:
Eph 5:21: For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.
*
ANNAFIRTREE

Perhaps a better way to say that is this. Our culture right now, steeped in feminism, claims that equality is the *reason* a woman ought to leave a husband if he abuses her, and extends that line of thinking to much milder trespasses on his part. Christianity (and you) wipe out concern for equality as a consideration in a relationship. If you still maintain that a woman ought not to stay in an abusive relationship (especially in an abusive marriage), then there has to be some other *basis* for that claim: a line of reasoning that could then be applied to other situations.

Still wondering about this part, too:
Can a woman whose husband is prone to laziness verbally encourage him to be industrious? Can a man whose wife is prone to greediness explicitly encourage her to be more generous? If so, and if domineeringness is a fault in a woman, then why may a man not explicitly encourage her to be more submissive? If not, if he may only urge her to virtue in general and not to specific virtues, why not?

*

MR. WRIGHT
There are some things I do not understand so profoundly that it is not a question of disagreement, but of bewilderment. Pretend I am from the antimatter universe: everything from your universe is backward to me. There is some basic unspoken assumption behind your comments I cannot address: I don’t know what it is.
Equality is not a *reason* to do anything but to maintain an armed truce with parties you mistrust. Marriage is a situation of love and trust where the concept of equality has no meaning. An abusive husband is someone who betrays that trust and blasphemes that love. You keep talking as if abuse is a gradual step on the spectrum of love and trust, but it is the opposite, the enemy, the antithesis. It is as if I were talking about children honoring their mother and father, and you keep talking about parents burning their children alive on the altar of Moloch. I not only do not understand you, I am bewildered.
I say a woman ought not to stay with a man who beats her out of a charitable and Christian concern for the man’s well-being: because, in a normal society, the woman’s father and brothers will come by the house and kill the man, either with shotguns, or by kicking him slowly to death with hobnail boots. But I am a Christian, if he begs for mercy, he should be spared: he can divorce her and join a monastery, and never touch or see a woman again.
If you ask a woman to leave an abusive husband out of her own high self-regard, this will backfire. Her natural loving instinct will be thwarted: she will walk into the marriage expecting it to be a partnership of mutual benefit rather than a sacrament of mutual service, and she will walk out when she is no longer infatuated with her Romeo. You will end up with the opposite of your desired result: unselfish women will stay with their tormentors because a high self-regard is an insufficient motive to break a house. Meanwhile, selfish women will seek divorce merely out of lack of grit.
All this talk of trying to talk women out of masochism is slightly creepy to me. Some of this is caused by the woman being trapped by circumstance: she cannot leave her children and cannot support them if she flees with them. Some of this is caused by low self esteem: the woman actually thinks she does not deserve better. But surely some of it is that we are trying to reign in an natural self-sacrificing nobility of character: asking a saint not to be a martyr, asking a hero not to be reckless. The feminists seem to think the cure for masculine aggression is feminine selfishness: her own high opinion of herself will not allow her to stay and be beaten. This seems not a very insightful observation about human psychology.
The solution (to the degree that there is a solution in this life to radical evil) is to tell men to act like gentlemen, and humiliate, or maim or kill the men who don’t.
The way human psychology works is humans are inspired by being asked to live up to a high standard: they are not made safe by being asked to lower their standards to the lowest common denominator. Notice the utter failure of sex education programs that pass out condoms in schools, on the theory that kids mate like satyrs, and so all we can do is urge them for reasons of self-interest to hinder the spread of venereal disease. Compare that to the relative success of programs in schools preaching abstinence, where the young men are called on to act like men, self-sacrificing rather than self-interested.
(continued)
Meant to answer your questions:
Q: Can a woman whose husband is prone to laziness verbally encourage him to be industrious?
A: Verbally? Sure. Why not hit him on the head with frying pan or shove a rolling pin up his trouser seat to get him moving. A woman’s job is to motivate her husband to make money to support the children. Any man who cannot take a little scolding shouldn’t get married.
Q: Can a man whose wife is prone to greediness explicitly encourage her to be more generous?
A: He can certainly pray for her. I think a husband should be forgiving of his wife’s foibles, because if he turns into a nag or a critic, his homelife and hers can become a living hell. There are married couples who have arguments that last for YEARS, until every word is a weapon calculated to wound, and every raw spot is a boil swelled to bursting with the pus of accumulated resentment. A husband who tries to set himself up to be his wife’s conscience runs a terrific risk.
The reverse is not the case: Nature clearly intended wives to nag husbands. Husbands, your job is to straighten up.
There is a natural balance of forces here. Nature also clearly intended the man to be in charge of the relationship. If he controls the money, he can check her overspending habits with a firm but gentle hand.
But, far be it from me to say how others should run their lives! I have an absurdly happy marriage: I have no idea of the dangers or the benefits of husbands and wives meddling in each other’s lives. All I can say is that in theory, their lives should be one. When instead they organism of marriage competes with itself, and the house is divided, the same things that might be wise in a healthy marriage will shatter a marriage whose health is more delicate.
And the answer will differ from person to person. If you ask me whether a man should eat a hearty meal, I will say yes, but not to excess. A thin man who hears me will take my word to mean he should eat less, and he starves himself: a fat man who hears me will take my word to mean he should eat more, and he swells in gluttony.
Don’t ask a healthy man how to care for his health. He never thinks a moment about his health, because health is natural. Don’t ask a happily married man how to run a marriage: happiness is natural to him as water to a fish, a part of his environment. Fish do not know they are wet.
Q: If so, and if domineeringness is a fault in a woman, then why may a man not explicitly encourage her to be more submissive?
A: I thought I answered this. The man cannot urge the woman to submission because it is directly in his self-interest. A parent should be generous to his child, but if a child asks a parent to be generous to his child, the child is not instructing the parent in virtue, the child is trying to rook the parent out of cash.
One cannot ask other people to be self-sacrificing when one is oneself the beneficiary of their sacrifice: the idea is grotesque.
Q: If not, if he may only urge her to virtue in general and not to specific virtues, why not?
A: Again, you and I approach the question from very different contexts. There is some unspoken assumption you are making I don’t see.
A husband is neither a teacher nor a priest nor the keeper of his wife’s conscience. His mission in life is to love her, not to improve her. Her mission is to improve him, perhaps; but only if she is not his equal. If she is an equal partner, she loses the right to be his domesticator.
Love will improve her where attempts to improve her will make her worse. This is not true in all cases, but it is true often enough to be a commonplace idea.

*

Finally, here is my wife’s stance on the issue:
MRS. WRIGHT

Lest any of you girls be misled by the illustrious Mr. Wright’s masculine bluster, (cute as it is,) the Wright household runs like this:

John: Dear, where’s my (name of any object here)? Dear, what are we doing
this weekend? Dear, can I buy a movie this week? Dear, how many children
do we have?

Jagi: Answers question, provides object, information on plans — all made
by her — answers finacial questions, and keeps track of the number of
children (very difficult.)

John: But, I am in charge of the family, right?

Jagi, nodding: Yes, of course, dear.

*
MR. WRIGHT
Woman, I have thrown salesmen out of the house for you, and I made 470 pounds Sterling writing a NIGHT LANDS tale just yesterday! Show some respect. I am sure we can get along with our five children…
Robin (interrupting): Three, sir…

… three children just fine. I remember one of them was born on Groundhog Day (Imbolc for you pagans, Candlemas for us Christians), one was born sixteen days before Michaelmas (on St. John Chrysostom’s Day, the patron of orators), one born of the feast of St. Justyn the Martyr, patron saint of philosophers.

 

In any case, the little woman does all the brain-work in the house, and I just show up to eat meals and cough up cash. So everything is run in the Wright household as it should be, and all is right with the world.

If St. Paul was talking about ME making the plans for the weekend as the husband’s duty, well, by the rump of Baphomet, that’s too difficult a yoke for me: if that’s what St. Paul demands, unroll for me a prayer-rug and throw away my whisky jug, I’m converting to Mohammedanism!
91 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Play the Casting Couch game

Posted May 3, 2007 By John C Wright
This is a question for anyone out there who read my book, ORPHANS OF CHAOS. If they made it into a movie, whom would you pick for the various roles? 

You are allowed to pick actors and actresses from when they are younger than they are, so that “Harrison Ford When He Was Young” is a perfectly legit choice. 

I am not very good at this game, since no one seems quite to be what I imagined, but here below are some suggestions. 

These are not necessarily canon, and so if you want to cast Peter Wingfield or Adrian Paul, go right ahead. 


I could not find anyone who looks like Victor Triumph, who is cool, blond, and stoical. This is the closest I could get. 


Alison Doody as Amelia Windrose. Picture her in flight helmet, goggles, and jodhpurs


Lindsay Lohan as Vanity Fair.


Vanity is supposed to be somewhat well-endowed and cheerful. I am not sure if Lohan is the best choice.


Kate Winslet when she is a redhead could also play Vanity. Note large green eyes.

Mario Lopez (Slater) as Colin Mc FirBolg. Shown here with his shirt off.

This one was hard to cast, because he is described as “built like a wrestler”– most actors these days are slim and boyish. 
Lopez fits the bill because he has that devil-may-care grin that is pure Colin.

Hugh Grant as Quentin Nemo. 

He would have to be cgi’s to be short and young, but he has that earnest look we want in a Quentin. 
Of course, this overlooks the more obvious choice:


Oh, come on. You were thinking it.

OKAY! Bad Guys:


Brian Blessed as Headmaster Boggin. 

I realize that Boggin is supposed to be redheaded and cleanshaven, but Brian Blessed has the right attitude, and hey, its a movie, so we will be lucky if they don’t change the Greek pantheon into a White Separatist Terrorist group, so don’t gripe. 
For the movie version, we can add a scene where Boggin discovers that Colin Mac FirBolg is still alive, so that Brian Blessed can belt out with roaring wonder: “Colin Mac Firbolg ALIVE!! And approaching on a Hawkman rocket-cycle?!!”

Ben Kingsley as Ananias Fell. 

Maybe him. Or Michael Ansara (The guy who does the voice of Dr. Freeze on Batman.)

(Fanboys will recognize him as Kang the Klingon on Star Trek) 

Margaret Hamilton as Mrs. Wren. The obvious choice.

Freddie Jones as Grendel Glum. You should have seen him in COLDCOMFORT FARM.

Grace Kelly as Miss Daw. No one else has the perfect icy beauty. 

Aishwarya Rai as the Hindu Princess Draupadi. 
Okay, this character is not in my book, but its my blog, and so there is a completely gratuitous picture of Aishwarya Rai. 

UPDATE

I just thought of a better choice for Amelia.

Helen Slater as Amelia Windrose. 

Now there is a girl who looks like she runs track and can do 4-D geometry in her head.
What a cutie pie. If Grendel touches her again, he dies. 
Speaking of which, I thought of a better choice for Grendel Glum.
 

The great Robert Newton. That’s more like it. Here is what he looks like underwater:

He can also play Mannanen the Seal King if they make LAST GUARDIAN OF EVERNESS into a talkie. Ha Har, maties!

20 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Poetry Corner

Posted May 3, 2007 By John C Wright
 
Lament for the Makers
  William Dunbar 1465–1520?
 
 
I THAT in heill was and gladnèss
Am trublit now with great sickness
And feblit with infirmitie:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
Our plesance here is all vain glory,
This fals world is but transitory,
The flesh is bruckle, the Feynd is slee:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
The state of man does change and vary,
Now sound, now sick, now blyth, now sary,
Now dansand mirry, now like to die:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
No state in Erd here standis sicker;
As with the wynd wavis the wicker
So wannis this world’s vanitie:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
Unto the Death gois all Estatis,
Princis, Prelatis, and Potestatis,
Baith rich and poor of all degree:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
He takis the knichtis in to the field
Enarmit under helm and scheild;
Victor he is at all mellie:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
That strong unmerciful tyrand
Takis, on the motheris breast sowkand,
The babe full of benignitie:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
He takis the campion in the stour,
The captain closit in the tour,
The lady in bour full of bewtie:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
He spairis no lord for his piscence,
Na clerk for his intelligence;
His awful straik may no man flee:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
Art-magicianis and astrologgis,
Rethoris, logicianis, and theologgis,
Them helpis no conclusionis slee:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
In medecine the most practicianis,
Leechis, surrigianis, and physicianis,
Themself from Death may not supplee:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
I see that makaris amang the lave
Playis here their padyanis, syne gois to grave;
Sparit is nocht their facultie:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
He has done petuously devour
The noble Chaucer, of makaris flour,
The Monk of Bury, and Gower, all three:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
The good Sir Hew of Eglintoun,
Ettrick, Heriot, and Wintoun,
He has tane out of this cuntrie:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
That scorpion fell has done infeck
Maister John Clerk, and James Afflek,
Fra ballat-making and tragedie:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
Holland and Barbour he has berevit;
Alas! that he not with us levit
Sir Mungo Lockart of the Lee:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
Clerk of Tranent eke he has tane,
That made the anteris of Gawaine;
Sir Gilbert Hay endit has he:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
He has Blind Harry and Sandy Traill
Slain with his schour of mortal hail,
Quhilk Patrick Johnstoun might nought flee:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
He has reft Merseir his endite,
That did in luve so lively write,
So short, so quick, of sentence hie:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
He has tane Rowll of Aberdene,
And gentill Rowll of Corstorphine;
Two better fallowis did no man see:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
In Dunfermline he has tane Broun
With Maister Robert Henrysoun;
Sir John the Ross enbrast has he:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
And he has now tane, last of a,
Good gentil Stobo and Quintin Shaw,
Of quhom all wichtis hes pitie:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
Good Maister Walter Kennedy
In point of Death lies verily;
Great ruth it were that so suld be:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.

 

Sen he has all my brether tane,
He will naught let me live alane;
Of force I man his next prey be:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
Since for the Death remeid is none,
Best is that we for Death dispone,
After our death that live may we:—
    Timor Mortis conturbat me.
 
 
GLOSSARY:  heill] health.  bruckle] brittle, feeble.  slee] sly.  dansand] dancing.  sicker] sure.  wicker] willow.  wannis] wanes.  mellie] mellay.  sowkand] sucking.  campion] champion.  stour] fight.  piscence] puissance.  straik] stroke.  supplee] save.  makaris] poets.  the lave] the leave, the rest.  padyanis] pageants.  anteris] adventures.  schour] shower.  endite] inditing.  fallowis] fellows.  wichtis] wights, persons.  man] must.  dispone] make disposition.
  
I first came across this poem in THE WORM OUROBOROS by E.R. Eddison, in the scene where, having wrastled the mighty Gouldry Blasco for the lordship of the planet Mercury, the King of Witchland, Gorice XI is fallen and lies in state in the presense chamber of the Red Foliot, who reads Dunbar’s Lament. He is interrupt at about line 45 when Corinius and the sons of Corsus are dicing during the funeral, and Corinius accuses Gallandus son of Corsus of cheating, and smites him on the jaw with the dice box. 

This poem also shows up in my wife’s novel CHILDREN OF PROSPERO, in the mouth of the morbid and sinister son of the magican, Erasmus Prospero, whose black wand contains nothing but the magic of withering and decaying. He recites it when he slays armies, turning them instantly to dust.

Who says science fiction does not introduce readers to high culture?

I always did feel sort of sorry for the babe full of benignity; and Sir Mungo Lockart of the Lee. Alas, Poor Mungo!

7 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Reviewed at SCI-FI weekly!

Posted May 2, 2007 By John C Wright

That fine man Paul di Filippo at SCI FI WEEKLY reviews Titans of Chaos and gives it good marks. Thank you, sir.

The money quote:

Science Fantasy is a blend that requires enormous skill to bring off. The author must mix the improbable with the probable, the fanciful with the hard-nosed, the rational with the supernatural. Luckily, John Wright is just the man for the job. In his first trilogy, The Golden Age, he proved he could write hard-core post-singularity SF. His next duology, War of the Dreaming, saw him crafting Hodgson/MacDonald-style fantasy. In this new series, he effortlessly blends the two.

Astute readers will detect flavors here of Philip K. Dick (the games with the nature of reality); A.E. van Vogt (the recomplicated shifting alliances); Roger Zelazny (the mythology mixed with contemporary slang); James Branch Cabell (the droll speech patterns of Boreas, the school’s headmaster); Clark Ashton Smith (the descriptions of otherworldly realms); A.A. Attanasio (the gnostic interplay between gods and humans); C.S. Lewis (the Narnia-style trope of teens with noble secret identities); and so forth and so forth, with more allusions that I’ve probably even overlooked.

This kind of homage-laden, deep-lineage fiction can get over-intellectual and stultifying in the wrong hands. But Wright keeps it fresh and sprightly, mainly thanks to never losing sight of the teenage high spirits of his protagonists, especially his perfect narrator, Amelia.

He has one or two minor criticisms:

Wright favors numinous Doctor Strange dimensions for much of the action. The arcane and necessarily incompletely adumbrated nature of these imaginary realms comes off second best to the scenes where the quintet mingle with humans amid concrete settings.  A little more Thorne Smith and a bit less Steve Ditko would have gone a long way.

My Comment: 

Authors should never, ever, ever argue with reviewers. Ever. Not ever. Especially a kind review like this, which failed to mention any of the obvious flaws of the book. Nope. Zipper the lip. Don’t say a thing. Nossir.

But, well, if you insist on me giving an opinion:  

Is making something too much like the great Steve Ditko supposed to be a drawback in anyone’s mind? Ditko is my idol. In my eyes, this is tantamount to saying: “Well, Elizabeth Taylor is an attractive woman, but she looks a bit too much like Helen of Troy.”

Did I mention that the first ever comic book I read was DOCTOR STRANGE? 

(Who is Thorne Smith?)

22 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

We Look Back on Highlander Two as a High Point!

Posted May 2, 2007 By John C Wright
Entertainment Weekly http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1169126,00.html lists their list of the 25 worst sequels ever made.
  1. Staying Alive (1983)
  2. CaddyShack II (1988)
  3. Leprechaun: Back 2 Tha’ Hood (2003)
  4. Blues Brothers 2000 (1998)
  5. Batman & Robin (1997)
  6. Weekend At Bernie’s II (1993)
  7. The Fly II (1989)
  8. Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)
  9. Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997)
  10. Jaws: The Revenge (1987)
  11. Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights (2004)
  12. Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999)
  13. The Sting II (1983)
  14. Conan the Destroyer (1984)
  15. Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003)
  16. Ocean’s Twelve (2004)
  17. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
  18. Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973)
  19. Revenge of the Nerds II: nerds in paradise (1987)
  20. The Godfather Part III (1990)
  21. Legally Blonde 2: red, white & blonde (2003)
  22. Teen Wolf Too (1987)
  23. Porky’s II: The Next Day (1983)
  24. The Next Karate Kid (1994)
  25. The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
This list is woefully incomplete.
Highlander II.
Any list of bad sequels that does not list Highlander II as the all-time el-supremo undisputed champ of a stinking stinkeroo of a stinker is not the pixels used to post it.

 

Let us compare, shall we?
Highlights of Highlander I: swordfights, totally original idea, cool SFX, good editing and direction, memorable dialog (“what does ‘baffled’ mean?” “That was the year Mozart wrote his great mass”), tons of swordfighting, Sean Connery, swordfights.
Highlights of Highlander II: Planet Zeist. The old, mortal guy gets young, immortal again because he is attacked by two goons on flying skateboards. A forcefield to darken the world is erected in order to save the ecology from ozone depletion–but the ecological ramifications of cutting off all sunlight are never mentioned. Why and how Conner McLeod of Clan McLeod has the force field technology is never mentioned: maybe he picked it up on Planet Zeist. The penalty for treason on Planet Zeist is to be sent to Earth and granted immortality. Oh, and Sean Connery, after being resurrected from the dead for no reason, sacrifices his life and dies for no reason, fighting an evil ceiling fan. The bad guy is a megacorp: curse those evil capitalists! And there were only two, totally lame, and I mean Captain Ahab’s left leg level of lameness, badly-choreographed fight-scenes.
The sheer super-colossal, gut-crunching, brain-burning, drool-inducing stupidity of this deranged clone of a fine film is beyond incredible and well on its way to awe-inspiring. It is like staring at a neutron star: the sheer mass of the suckiness is so immense that not even one photon of light can escape. There is no parallel in all Hollywooddom for a first film so good and a sequel so bad.

When call Highlander “totally original” I mean that a whole generation of films, RPG’s and TV shows, everything from MAGIC: THE GATHERING to UNDERWORLD has used the Highlander idea of immortals living in secret among us, but the concept of doomed, fate-haunted swordsmen otherwise invulnerable, hunting each other down the centuries, has at least as much narrative power as the idea of Martians, Robots, Mummies, Vampires, or the Werewolves: it is a worthwhile addition to the pantheon of commonly-understood SF tropes, the kind of thing it is easy to put in a role-playing game: if Anita Blake were to throw away her Elf lover and take on Methos or Duncan McLeod, it would be no step down for her. If Phra the Phoenician or John Carter, Warlord of Mars, turned out to be a Highlander-style immortal, it would surprise no one. It is an original idea that way “Ents” in Tolkien were original: once someone has invented them, one wonders why they had not been invented before?

The only thing good about Highlander II was Virginia Madsen, who is a total cutie-pie.

I danced the waltz with this blythe and bonny starlet once upon a time back in College, when she and the cast and crew of CREATOR came by the campus for the film’s opening. The novelist (and screenwriter), Jeremy Levin, on whose book the film was based was an alumnus of St. John’s College.

 

In my novel TITANS OF CHAOS (see previous journal entry) Colin Mac FirBolg, professional lust-bucket, writes her a fan letter.

I suppose one can assess the age of an author by which women he mentions in his writings as exemplars of pulchritude. Being a Virginia Madsen fan dates one to the late 1980’s (note big 80’s hair). But in this case, Ms. Madsen has aged well, and is still babelicious well into her 40’s (see below) by which I mean, ahem, of course, that the lady could not be over 39.

Yes! Madsen is cute! Although, not as cute, in my opinion, as Jennifer Connolly

Note mesmerically alluring green eyes.

Note alluring green dress. Here she is in one of the Best SF movies ever: DARK CITY by Alex Proyas.

 And here she is from ROCKETEER. Any movie where a man with a jet-pack fights a duel on top of a Zepplin with Rondo Hatton is aces with me, brother.

Here they are together

I know what you’re thinking: but how can you like Virginia Madsen when she starred in a stinker like Highlander II? Surely Jennifer Connolly is superior to her sister actress in this respect? To answer I have but one word: Hulk.

Finally, an explanation of the title of this entry: Once upon a time my girlfriend (later, my wife) moderated a role playing game in which the player characters visited a world where, by magic, all the creativity, art, and beauty was being drained out of the world by something akin to fairy vampirism: all the glamor was being stolen. Books and movies were simply drained of their goodness: the human race lost the ability to do art. To impress upon the players the low state of art in this world, the woebegone old crone explaining the horror to us used the example: “Movies today are so bad, we look back at Highlander II as a high point!”

And all the players cringed.

53 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Excerpt from TITANS OF CHAOS

Posted May 1, 2007 By John C Wright

I am often delighted to read through the slavishly fannish fan-mail of my adoring fans, or, as I like to call them, the little people. For example, this letter, which comes to us from my very own hometown in Maryland!

“Dear Mr. Wrongheaded goon: I like your writing but why not just shuddap about all that other stuff on your blog! You are so annoying! And fat! and you wear a hat! Do you really think we care about anything a fat, annoying guy in a hat thinks??!!—signed, Love, Mom. P.S. I love every bit of your books except the dull parts, which I skimmed. P.S.S. Call me on Mother’s Day.”

Not just my mom, but famous reviewer Harriet Klausner read my book, of which she had this to say:

“John C. Wright, certified animal behaviorist, has spent much of his career making house calls to advise the distraught owners of certifiably crazy felines. He covers a wide range of topics, including multiple-cat households, and stress reactions, with wit and verve. IS YOUR CAT CRAZY is highly recommended.”

So that is at least two people! And there is a Cuban catholic lady out there somewhere who liked it! That’s three!

In response to this suboverwhelming public demand, as a public service I thought I would type one livejournal entry that is entire pomp-free non-pontificating and apolitical, and instead quote the opening of my latest book in a shameless act of self-promotion.

That cannot offend anyone, can it? The book itself is non-opinionated and apolitical, and is entitled: BUSH WAS RIGHT YOU PINKO COWARDS: Nine Reasons Why Wives Should Submit To Their Husbands As God Commands. Just kidding, haha! That is my opinionated politicized screed where I go into paroxysms of Clinton-hatred. No, I have something here much less controversial. I wrote it with my co-author, Ayn Rand, and it is called LET THE BEGGARS STARVE: Why We Genius Supermen Are Better Than You Worthless Hatred-Eaten Mystics, Moochers, and Looters.

With no further ado, the opening few pages of TITANS OF CHAOS:

Chapter One:
Ships of Sable, Dark and Swift
1.
It was our fault.
We fled the old gods; fleeing, we drew our pursuers after us, so that the frail and mortal men we hid among were in the shadow of destruction meant for us, to be whelmed by the fury of heaven, and malice of the deep.
Here was the great luxury liner Queen Elizabeth II, an engineering marvel of seventy thousand tons and nine hundred sixty feet, as wealthy as a palace afloat, more opulent than what antique kings in Nineveh lavished on their splendors. For many idle days we five children lolled among the passengers, giddy with freedom as if with wine, and the equatorial sun hovered, weightless gold, above calm, blue Atlantic waves.
That was then. Now it was night, and the stars hid, and the wind howled, and trumpets sounded, echoing across the black abyss of storm-lashed waters. Clouds like boiling floodwaters fell past overhead, and waves like thunderclouds rose and trembled and collapsed down below.
The gods we fled did not want men to see them. The Queen Elizabeth II was struck with slumber: As if that archangel who had entranced Adam on the day when Eve was born without pain from his side had shaken dark wings above the ship, the mortals were drowned in oblivion. No one, young or old, could stir, but lay where chance tumbled him, in cabins or passageways, or heaped at the bottom of ladders.
No one human. I was alert, gripping the broken rail and staring out into the utter darkness.
2.
“Why did you two come back?” I shouted. “I ordered you to abandon ship! We will all die if we don’t follow orders. My orders! Didn’t you vote for me as leader?”
I have heard that there are grown-ups who do not take seriously the ideas about voting, obeying authority, or acting with purpose and discipline. Lucky them. What soft and comfortable lives they must lead! Lives without foes.
Vanity Fair was shorter than me, a dress size smaller, but with more generous hip and bust measurements. We were closer than sisters, having been raised in the same, well, you can call it a jail cell, since that’s what it was. The freezing rain had plastered her hair to her head, and her thin coat tight to her body. She was shivering. Her real name was Nausicaa, of the mythic land called Phaeacia, beyond Earth’s shore, but our real names had been taken from us in youth and, until recently, we had only the names we chose for ourselves as children.
“You are not going to run away and get killed!” She was a green-eyed redhead, and her eyes seemed to glow like emeralds when she was angry. I could see only her silhouette, but from her tone of voice I knew her eyes blazed.
“If the leader orders a retreat, you retreat!” (I was screaming louder than regulation for a British military officer, but I was still new at this, and was outshouting the storm-wind.)
Colin mac FirBolg was blue-eyed, with unruly hair and ruddy skin, built like a wrestler. He gave me a stiff-armed Roman salute. “Sieg Heil, mein Obergruppenfräulein! But we thought you were dead! Didn’t Echidna kill you?”
Vanity hissed, “Stupid! No matter how far away, she hears whenever her name is spoken! Speaking summons her!”
Colin shrugged. “Is she going to get through that fleet?” To me, he said: “Besides, Leader, we came to report that your dumb order could not be carried out. We are entirely surrounded, cut off, doomed, so we can’t retreat! There may be time for a quickie, though, so if I can suggest, without seeming insubordinate, ma’am—I mean, you don’t want me to die a virgin, do you?”
Thunder drowned out any words I might have spoken back. I slapped him. I could hear the smack of my palm on his not-quite-shaven cheek even above the storm.
“Thank you, ma’am! May I have another!” he barked out, unperturbed, still holding his Nazi salute. His real name was Phobetor, son of Morpheus, and he was a dream-lord of Cimmeria, the sunless world.
Even if he meant it in mockery, his stiff bearing reminded me I had no time for anger. We were within minutes of recapture, and if I was the leader, I had to invent the plan and give the orders.
If we failed, we failed under my leadership. It would be my fault.
3.
Giddy with freedom, we had been! Because all our lives had been spent on the orphanage grounds, behind pitiless walls, under strictest watch, beneath the tutelage of Boreas. He could pass for human, but Headmaster Boggin, as we called him, had been the North Wind himself. My real father, a sovereign of some ulterior dimension, never knew his daughter, did not raise me: Boreas, my enemy, did.
A flash of lightning lit the sea for a frozen moment, dazzling, burning.
I was expecting to see Echidna. Echidna, the mother of all monsters, who had dragged the giant luxury ship into these unearthly waters, had been looming over the rail just a moment ago, her beautiful maiden’s face cold with tearless grief and scaly snake-tail swollen with scorpion poison. She had raised that sting to kill me, but had spared my life because I shed a tear for her dead son. Then, she turned and dove beneath the waves when I whispered the name of the war-god who had slain him.
Perhaps she was somewhere in the deep, brooding on revenge, her huge bulk drowned in fathoms below fathoms, her long snaky body, furlong after furlong, writhing. But my special powers were blind, and I did not see her.
Instead I saw the fleet. There were at least a dozen barges, larger than oil tankers, built like stepped pyramids, with shields on every deck, and cannons, arbalests, catapults, and ballistae behind every shield, and both upper and lower decks had raised gangplanks with iron teeth built along the bottom, like a siege-tower at sea. The barges were made of some black wood or metal that shone darkly in the lightning flash, mountains of iron. Even from here I could hear the drumbeats counting time for the oars. At the apex of each tall barge, strung between two tall poles that jutted up and diverged, was a triangle of storm-beaten cloth. The cloth was black and on its field, in red, was a circle with an arrow coming from it at an angle.
It was the armada that Lord Mavors, whom the Greeks worshipped as Ares and the Romans as Mars, sent for us. Perhaps he was here, and Echidna hunted him; perhaps it was merely his men, and the unearthly flesh-eating Laestrygonians.
Between these barges and the ocean liner, slender as spears in the water, was a flotilla of black ships. They were as light and swift as racing sculls, but each one held fifty men or more, with shields hung along the rail, Viking-style. Each one had a sloping nose ending with an iron-beaked ram, and red eyes painted on the narrow hulls to each side of the ram.
4.
Boreas raised us, I should say, in a second childhood. Either by magic, or by science unknown on Earth, we had been forced out of our original forms and made into children. Having robbed us of our memories and homes, the Olympians held us hostage against uneasy peace with Chaos. The plan would have worked, except that we adapted to human shape too well; the impersonation was so perfect that normal human biology, normal emotions, began to grow in us. The plan would have worked, except that we grew up.
The orphanage had been designed to contain monster cubs from Chaos: five children. It could not hold five adults, raised as human, with the dreams and ideals of humans, but armed with the strange powers of adult chaoticists. We grew up. We wanted our freedom. By stealth and cunning and violent battle, we had won it.
And the first thing we did when we won our freedom was . . . Well, we took a cruise. (Come on. Wouldn’t you?)
We should have just fled to a desert island. All these humans were about to die, and it was our fault.
My friends were about to die, and it was my fault.
5.
I said to them, “Where are Quentin and Victor?”
Colin said, “Ma’am! They took off in a lifeboat, like you said!”
Victor had always been the one in charge, back at the orphanage, back when we were young students together. (How long ago had that been? A week? Less?) He was the logical one, cold-bloodedly brave, dispassionate, determined. Somehow I had won the last show of hands, and the group was now counting on me. So I had to be Victor.
So get a grip. Square your shoulders and start barking out orders. They don’t have to make sense; they just have to get the group moving. Tell the troops the leader is leading. Say something.
So I said, “Vanity! Call your magic silver ship over to the other side of the liner. Once the three of us are on your ship, have her find the lifeboat Victor and Quentin are in. If they haven’t been captured already.”
She could summon her ship by thought alone. The Phaeacian ships had neither pilot nor rudder, but understood the unspoken wishes of their masters, and sped as swift as winged falcons, swift as thought, to their destinations. Vanity had discovered the Argent Nautilus was her very own ship, a Greek trireme with painted eyes port and starboard, and she did not need to be aboard to give commands to her.
Vanity said, “I don’t know. The ship goes where I tell her. But if I say, ‘Find Victor,’ can she find Victor?” Vanity shook her head sadly and, for a moment, looked very sober and grown up. “We should have performed experiments, found out what we can and cannot do, instead of spending New Year’s Eve on a cruise ship, living it up with the money you stole from Taffy ap Cymru!”
Taffy had been one of the staff at the school, a member of one of the several factions of Olympians seeking to take possession of us away from our headmaster, Boreas.
“I didn’t steal it!” I protested. “I blackmailed him fair and square! Her. Whatever.”
Taffy was a shape-changer like us: her real name was Laverna, the Roman goddess of Fraud. She had been the henchman (henchwoman?) of Trismegistus, the trickster god the Greeks worshipped under the name Hermes.
But I hadn’t actually blackmailed the money from her. She had scoffed at my attempt and given it to me. Strange. That had happened just after Lamia, the Queen of Vampires, had attempted to murder Quentin. As if Laverna had wanted to help us escape. Why? And was she really working for Trismegistus or Mavors? Did Mavors want us to escape?
At some point, when I had time to think, I should puzzle that one out.
I turned to Colin. “Are your powers working?”
“Locked and loaded and ready to rumble!” Colin grinned, flexing his big rawboned hands as if eager for mayhem. Who understands boys?
Who, for that matter, understands any of us?
6.
We each came from a different version of Chaos, a different paradigm. Our minds somehow interpreted the supernatural with mutually exclusive explanations. What looked to me like fluctuations of mind-body monads of timespace in the fourth dimension, Colin saw as passions, Quentin saw as magic, Victor saw as matter in motion.
We each could manipulate the Unknown in our own way: Colin’s anger made him strong, his elation made him fly, and his disbelief made him able to unmake deadly wounds and brush them away; Quentin summoned up fell spirits from the night world with words of power, and bound them to his service in circles of chalked sigils and the scents of talismanic candles; Victor could electromagnetically reorganize matter and energy in his environment; I could deflect gravity, walk through walls, or send my many senses ranging through the higher dimensions.
Each one could negate one other. I could reach through the fourth dimension to alter the internal nature of any atoms Victor programmed, and he could neither see nor understand what I did. His Newtonian universe did not even have words for the relativistic principles I used. An azure ray from Victor’s third eye could banish Quentin’s thaumaturgy as quickly as a skeptic’s question quiets a table tipper. With a wave of his charming wand, Quentin’s unseen familiars could banish Colin’s passions. And Colin could simply will my powers to stop.
Vanity was different. She was not a princess of Chaos held hostage, but a princess of allies the Olympians did not trust, an ancient and immortal race called the Phaeacians. She (and, we had reason to believe, her people) could find secret doors through solid walls, and passages beyond leading to distant realms. These secret paths always looked as if they were natural and contemporary, as if they had been built there long ago: And yet I suspected they were made, as suddenly as the details in a dream are made.
And the laws of nature varied from realm to realm, and the Phaeacians could erect barriers to prevent one set of laws from being enforced out of its realm, or part the barrier to permit it. One other power they had, stranger than the others: Phaeacians could tell when someone was watching, no matter what means were used.
Yet even all these superhuman, supernatural powers did not make them supreme of the races of Cosmos. They were a conquered people.
The Olympians could manipulate destiny as adroitly as the Phaeacians manipulated space. A god of Olympos need only decree the outcome he desired from the future, and somehow the step-by-step details, the coincidences needed to bring that chain of events about would be created to suit. With this power, they could dictate the desired outcome of battles and love affairs, the progress of industry, the direction of philosophical and scientific inquiry, the verdict of trials or negotiations . . . anything there was for a god to control, they could control. They conquered lesser races who had powers like ours, cyclopes and sirens, maenads and meliads.
In the same way I could overrule Victor’s paradigm, so could a siren; in the same way Victor could negate Quentin’s powers, so could a cyclopes. We were really safe only when we were together and used all our talents in combination.
Which meant that the first order of business was . . .
Colin. He was the only one whose powers worked here, now. Colin was our best hope.
There was a sobering thought.
40 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

Historian Fabio P. Barbieri condemns the work of comic book artist Frank Miller with a clear-eyed and cutting-tongued detestation.

The money quote:

In both ELEKTRA: ASSASSIN and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, Miller’s moral is: the brutes are right. To cope with the world as it is, you have to be brutal. The way to deal with the Russian bastards (ELEKTRA: ASSASSIN was created when there still was a Soviet Union) is to scare them to death. (And consider the significnce of the fact that this story, which implicitly suggested that America was losing to Russia because democratically elected politicians were either gutless or in league with the Devil, was created and published under Ronald Reagan.) By the same token, the way to deal with social disaster is to organize a vigilante committee led by the Batman. Everybody else loses: psychologists are pap-minded incompetents, big business is corrupt (one characteristic of the genuine Fascist and Nazi is his intense distaste for big business) and elected politicians – well, in Frank Miller’s ELEKTRA: ASSASSIN, elected politicians are the Devil. Quite literally the Devil. The Devil enters the world through the electoral process, and the country and the world are saved by a Strong Man with a military background, who insinuates himself into a position of supreme power without anybody voting for him, and proceeds to strong-arm everybody else into doing what’s good for them under threat of machine-guns. It is impossible to miss the tone of exultation in the last page of the maxi-series – damn straight!

It becomes clear that Miller resents all the slow work of compromise, negotiation, backtracking, law enforcement, discussion, opposition and sheer bloody-mindedness that is a fundamental part of democracy. He has no patience with civilized measures. Behind the work of conviction that any elected politician must carry out to take the masses with him, there is only the smile of the Beast.

Read, as they say, the whole thing: http://fpb.livejournal.com/237337.html 

 My opinion: Mr. Barbieri and I will have to disagree about the ‘300’ movie, which I decided to like, despite its flaws: I honestly did not see any relation to modern politics, and I dismiss thosewho see a pro-Bush message in it as crackpots. It was pro-West, which is rare enough these days. I saw a strong relation to Herodotus, which Victor Hanson also saw, and Mr. Barbieri is being unfair to Mr. Hanson, merely imagining a condescension not present in Hanson’s writing. All the best lines from Herodotus are present in the movie, and it is as visually splendid as a well-done anime
If someone out there wants to argue that any pro-Sparta film might come across as pro-Fascist, well, that is not a hard argument to make. The Nazis were mere greenhorns compared to the Spartans when it came to running a brutal and soulless military dictatorship. The weird admiration that Plato had for these inhuman killers (Plato’s REPUBLIC is basically a love-poem to Sparta) is reflected in later ages: intellectuals tend for some reason to love socialists and mass-murderers, Stalin and Che and Castro, whose first act upon taking power is to kill all the intellectuals.
 
But the Spartans were still a freer people than the Persians, and they saved Western Civilization at Thermopylae, and the act was heroic.  Let us give credit where credit is due: Leonidas sacrificed himself and his men in an awe-inspiring example of personal fortitude. By all means, let us make movies about him.

Nowhere else do I have strong cause to argue against Mr. Barbieri’s position. Like him, I am no great fan of Mr. Miller and his work. Mr. Miller delights in soiling the work of his betters: he takes iconic heroes and makes them grotesque antiheroes. The whole gritty and sinister movement in the eighties comics, the love of darkness, was prompted mostly by Miller. Miller is the one who broke up the Superman-Batman friendship, one of the most longstanding and wholesome friendships in comicdom. A bitter and bloodyminded hatred of normalcy and democracy and the free market breathes from his later work. What he might have accomplished had he only used his powers for good, rather than Evil! 

Yes, I said Evil: the glorification of the brutal, the ugly, the demeaning, the abnormal, the distorted. If you think I am being harsh on Mr. Miller compare the visuals and the world view depicted in, say, RONIN with that in NAUSICAA AND THE VALLEY OF THE WIND by the great Hyao Miyazaki, or the shallowness of  THE DARK KNIGHT compared to the insight of PRINCESS MONONOKO. Miyazaki sees with eyes unclouded by hate. 

27 Comments so far. Join the Conversation