Or: "geophf, why do you write this way?"
My most recent chapter of MSR has had rather a galvanizing effect on my reviewers. Was it a dream?
This, of course, has set me off. What is the nature of reality?
May I tell you something personal? I'm (kinda) Jewish.
Let me explain.
There's been this big 'debate' for more than a few years now about the Torah in Christendom about 'Creationism' particularly on the point of Genesis: did all those things literally happen?
I'm not going to argue that point, because ... nope, I'm not going to argue that point, but I am going to stand by my Jewish brethren here. They do not ask "did this really happen?" as if they are trying to score points with G-d as to who is more righteous in His eyes. No, they take the Creation Story and ask, instead, the following question: "What can we learn from this?"
The point, or a point, of the Creation Story is not whether it happened (you can argue until you are blue in the face, if that so pleases you), but what does it mean for us.
Did our heroine experience those things in reality or was it all just a dream?
Is it a dream? When you dream, do you know that you are dreaming? Are you awake right now, reading a diatribe from geophf, or are you dreaming?
"I'm awake, geophf, because I know I'm awake."
Study the epistemology of that statement and get back to me on that.
If the Hindus say that this is all Maya ... and they've been around four thousand years or more ... maybe there's something in that? If the aborigines in the outback say that this is the dreamtime, what proof does the measurement of technology have to naysay that?
Who are you; what are you; why are you.
Are you real? And what is reality?
It's so easy to compartmentalise everything into its nice little box: "Oh, Bella's dreaming" "Oh, Rosalie's calling Bella a weird name" Ever notice that every box we put reality into, there's always something that bursts the boundaries of the box? I sure do, and I'm a mathematical philosopher, so the boxes I make are air- and water-tight, but still, messy, confusing, unboxable reality has a way of making me rethink my neat little boxes I try to put reality into.
Rosalie has this problem, big-time. She has everything all planned out. Her life, her marriage, her capture of this girl, everything. What worked out exactly the way she planned it?
You know the saying: "One sure way to make G-d laugh: tell Him your plans."
So this is a dream? Why? Because you want it to be? What happens when our girl doesn't wake up from this 'dream'?
Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't: but it's not up to anybody to dictate what is reality, because it is, regardless of what we want it to be or what we think it is. That's why philosophy is so important, because when we begin to peel back the layers of what we believe to see what is really there (layer after layer), we can start to live more in harmony with the Tao: no fight-no blame.
Is this a dream?
That question doesn't matter and isn't important. What matters is this: what to do from here?
Our girl, sometimes, isn't very good at doing that. And sometimes she is.
And that's not important, really, either. What's important is this:
You've experienced something, ... reading this, or dreaming a terribly sad dream, or losing a loved one, or being diagnosed with cancer, or something small or great.
What will you learn from that? What are you going to do about it?
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Wait. Who am I now?
My dear author(esse)s, you, particularly, are most likely doing something that you need to stop right now. You are engaging in a habit that is much worse than smoking or (depending on your views, more than social) drinking.
You are writing chapters from multiple first person perspectives ("Multiple POVs").
Why is multiple first person perspectives worse than smoking or drinking? Smoking rots your lungs; drinking rots your gut ... multiple POV story-writing rots your brain cells, and (perhaps worse) rots your readers' brains.
You have to stop doing this, and you must stop doing this right now.
My story RLT is told exclusively from Rosalie's point of view ("POV"). My story MSR is told exclusively from our girl's POV. It has since chapter 1, and it will until its conclusion. I do not ever switch POVs inside a story. To do so is deus ex machina, and it would take an author(ess) with much more skill than what I have to be able to pull it off.
Most stories on FFN and Twilighted have POV switching all over the place. Within chapters, between chapters ... everywhere. Ever notice anything about those stories? I'm not going to pull any punches here, ladies and (at least one) gentlemen (and do I ever?). They are, to the very last one, utter crap.
I will not ever do that to you in MSR. I did not do that in RLT. I will never do that. Ever
If you are reading MSR, then you are reading from the girl's POV. That is the one sure thing you can take away from my story. And, as you can see, the reader does need that anchor, because MSR is a confusing, messy ride for our protagonist. To switch POVs? What's the point?
There is no point, there never is any point to switching POVs other than the author(ess)'s complete lack of skill or laziness or both.
If you are switching POVs inside a chapter of your stories, I have one thing I beg of you: DON'T! You will instantly become a much better writer simply by eliminating that prop that so many amateurs lean on.
"But, geophf, I need to get into the heads of more than just the main character in my story and there's no getting around it," you cry. "How can I do that without Multiple POVs?"
Let me tell you about a particularly interesting device: it's called the third person perspective. It allows you, the author(ess), to do that, insofar as you don't use it to dip into the first person trope, skipping along from character to character. It's only been around for as long as the first novel has ever been published, centuries ago. You may wish to give that a try.
Think about it.
And that's the thing, isn't it? Most stories are not well-thought out. Most stories have no plan, other than the 'plan' of the author(ess) saying excitedly to h(er/im)self: "Ooh! I wonder what happens next?"
Yes, yes, I know: you are writing for the love of it. Yes, you are writing for fun. "Get a life, geophf! It's just fan-fiction."
So, if you are doing those things, then write something that people love, and write something that people "have fun" reading ("have fun" meaning "enjoy" ... meaning laugh or cry or learn or whatever).
"Oh," you rebut, "I can write from multiple POVs because Steph wrote from multiple POVs in BD!"
No, she didn't. BD is three books: the first book is from human Bella's POV, the second book is from Jacob's POV, and the third book is from vamp Bella's POV. Sorry, even Steph obeys this rule.
"Oh," you try again, "your own story 13ways is told from multiple POVs! Hypocrite!"
No. 13ways is a collection of character studies. Each chapter is its own story; each chapter is told exclusively from one and only one character's perspective. Yes, taken together, they weave a story of the Denali coven, but each story has its own, oftentimes conflicting, perspective of what's going on in that family and why. This is intentional and spelled out in its apologia. This "multiply POVs" story, as you call it, uses this prop intentionally to make you think, to make you walk away from the story and say "Aha! That's why Irina is like that in BD!" Other stories that use multiple POVs? Read them (or save yourself the rotting braincells, and don't read them), what have you learned when you walk away from them?
You walk away from them wondering: "Ooh! I wonder if Edward and Bella will 'kiss'?" [or whoever and whoever]
And given this is Twilight fan-fiction, is there any wonderment at all in your wondering?
Yes, it's fun to wonder 'what happens next?' But Twilight, itself, goes deeper than just that or only that. Twilight builds a universe of believable, credible, deeply-researched characters in a realistic setting, and that edifice is entirely constructed, in the first four books, through the simple, sweet, insightful eyes of a seventeen year old plain old ordinary brown-brown girl.
Remember the wonder you experience as you read those books?
You can create that sense of wonder in the readers of your own stories.
So do that.
You are writing chapters from multiple first person perspectives ("Multiple POVs").
Why is multiple first person perspectives worse than smoking or drinking? Smoking rots your lungs; drinking rots your gut ... multiple POV story-writing rots your brain cells, and (perhaps worse) rots your readers' brains.
You have to stop doing this, and you must stop doing this right now.
My story RLT is told exclusively from Rosalie's point of view ("POV"). My story MSR is told exclusively from our girl's POV. It has since chapter 1, and it will until its conclusion. I do not ever switch POVs inside a story. To do so is deus ex machina, and it would take an author(ess) with much more skill than what I have to be able to pull it off.
Most stories on FFN and Twilighted have POV switching all over the place. Within chapters, between chapters ... everywhere. Ever notice anything about those stories? I'm not going to pull any punches here, ladies and (at least one) gentlemen (and do I ever?). They are, to the very last one, utter crap.
I will not ever do that to you in MSR. I did not do that in RLT. I will never do that. Ever
If you are reading MSR, then you are reading from the girl's POV. That is the one sure thing you can take away from my story. And, as you can see, the reader does need that anchor, because MSR is a confusing, messy ride for our protagonist. To switch POVs? What's the point?
There is no point, there never is any point to switching POVs other than the author(ess)'s complete lack of skill or laziness or both.
If you are switching POVs inside a chapter of your stories, I have one thing I beg of you: DON'T! You will instantly become a much better writer simply by eliminating that prop that so many amateurs lean on.
"But, geophf, I need to get into the heads of more than just the main character in my story and there's no getting around it," you cry. "How can I do that without Multiple POVs?"
Let me tell you about a particularly interesting device: it's called the third person perspective. It allows you, the author(ess), to do that, insofar as you don't use it to dip into the first person trope, skipping along from character to character. It's only been around for as long as the first novel has ever been published, centuries ago. You may wish to give that a try.
Think about it.
And that's the thing, isn't it? Most stories are not well-thought out. Most stories have no plan, other than the 'plan' of the author(ess) saying excitedly to h(er/im)self: "Ooh! I wonder what happens next?"
Yes, yes, I know: you are writing for the love of it. Yes, you are writing for fun. "Get a life, geophf! It's just fan-fiction."
So, if you are doing those things, then write something that people love, and write something that people "have fun" reading ("have fun" meaning "enjoy" ... meaning laugh or cry or learn or whatever).
"Oh," you rebut, "I can write from multiple POVs because Steph wrote from multiple POVs in BD!"
No, she didn't. BD is three books: the first book is from human Bella's POV, the second book is from Jacob's POV, and the third book is from vamp Bella's POV. Sorry, even Steph obeys this rule.
"Oh," you try again, "your own story 13ways is told from multiple POVs! Hypocrite!"
No. 13ways is a collection of character studies. Each chapter is its own story; each chapter is told exclusively from one and only one character's perspective. Yes, taken together, they weave a story of the Denali coven, but each story has its own, oftentimes conflicting, perspective of what's going on in that family and why. This is intentional and spelled out in its apologia. This "multiply POVs" story, as you call it, uses this prop intentionally to make you think, to make you walk away from the story and say "Aha! That's why Irina is like that in BD!" Other stories that use multiple POVs? Read them (or save yourself the rotting braincells, and don't read them), what have you learned when you walk away from them?
You walk away from them wondering: "Ooh! I wonder if Edward and Bella will 'kiss'?" [or whoever and whoever]
And given this is Twilight fan-fiction, is there any wonderment at all in your wondering?
Yes, it's fun to wonder 'what happens next?' But Twilight, itself, goes deeper than just that or only that. Twilight builds a universe of believable, credible, deeply-researched characters in a realistic setting, and that edifice is entirely constructed, in the first four books, through the simple, sweet, insightful eyes of a seventeen year old plain old ordinary brown-brown girl.
Remember the wonder you experience as you read those books?
You can create that sense of wonder in the readers of your own stories.
So do that.
Friday, November 13, 2009
So why did Rosalie want to kill Bella?
In the canon there is this piece of 'fan-fiction' called "Midnight Sun," and it takes Twilight and tells it from Edward's perspective.
It is a treasure-trove of Twiverse information. I would call it essential reading for all fan-fiction author(esse)s, and you can take my word on that to the bank because I nevah! descend to hyperbole!
Evah!
*ahem* Hanywey.
Anyway, in the outfall from "Phenomenon" chapter (when Edward impossibly (for a human) saves Bella from the van) when the Cullens have the family meeting to determine what to do now, Jasper is bound and determined to murder Bella, and ...
And Rosalie not only "supports" Jasper, but if he welches on his promise, then she more than willing to murder Bella in her sleep. And what is the reasons she gives for her cold-blooded plan?
Now, I'm all for accepting statements at face value, but I think there's something (much) deeper going on with Rosalie's sudden and poorly explained hatred of this newcomer and threat to the happy vampire family that Rosalie so happens to be co-located with.
Why?
Well, let's examine her given reasons:
Offing a girl for either or both reasons Rosalie gives? Possible, plausible, even, I suppose, but not the reasons Rosalie wants to off this girl.
What is the real reason Rosalie wants to kill this stupid little doe-eyed human who's seen too much for her own good? Yes, Bella is a threat to the Cullens, and therefor Rosalie's comfort (you DO NOT mess with what is Rosalie's), and both are good enough for most people to accept that Rosalie would be more than happy to off Bella. After all, it was good enough for Jasper. She's broken the Rule, she dies. End of story.
But for Rosalie, it goes much, much deeper than that.
Why?
She's built up this little castle around herself. She has her Cullen family and her Emmett, even, lulled into this sense of security about her: "Oh, that's just Rosalie, the dumb, bitchy blond, so we can ignore her."
If Edward gets too inquisitive with her mind, she can think about brushing her hair, and he tunes her right out. She is, after all, his oldest sister, and knows how to play Edward like a fiddle. Just because he can read minds does not mean he sees into the soul. He 'knows' Rosalie, so he probes no further. Edward is no threat to Rosalie.
If Emmett gets too "Hey, babe, what's happening? Is something bothering you?" She knows exactly what to do. Emmett is all surface (c.f.: Midnight Sun), what he believes, he says, and he sees everything simply. Rosalie's unhappy? What's up with that?
Nothing, after she takes him on a little ride, because now he's floating on bliss, and Rosalie looks happy, so she must be happy.
The other family members are less of an issue that either Edward or Emmett. There are just too many people in that family with too many issues for her to become the focus of attention.
Rosalie may have wanted, and got, the admiration of every man at the ball when she was human, but here, as a vampire, she's ignored, and that exactly how she wants it. If she's left alone, she can't get hurt again.
But then along comes that little meddling human, and she sees right through Edward. In fact, Rosalie was sure Edward was so asexual, he wasn't even interested in men ... I mean, he and Carlisle had plenty of chances for something to happen, but zilch came out of that. And if Edward wasn't interested in Rosalie, then Edward wasn't interested in anybody.
But Bella just blinks her big brown eyes at Edward and he turns into playdough in her fragile little human hands, and, Edward, being Edward, has never shared anything with anybody. WHICH IS FINE WITH ROSALIE, because Edward's a big jerk anyway, rejecting Rosalie like he did.
Jerk.
But he told that human everything and I mean everything! I mean, not even Mommy Esmé has dragged so many words out of him in the last 50 years! And the little human did it just by looking at him.
And he can't read her mind. She's a complete void to him. Inscrutable.
So what if her power is something more than her blandness and blankness.
What if she can see into the soul, like that foolish boy Edward cannot?
And if she looks at me? And what if she sees what she sees of my soul.
I know what she'll see, because I recoil from it every second that I have a quiet moment, alone and to myself. That's why I'm always with Emmett or somebody, even if its that cad Edward.
I've never had to directly confront myself, but if that little human looks at me, and blinks her big doe eyes, and says: "Rosalie ..." with her chin quivering like that and with tears leaking out of her eyes, as they do not leak out of mine?
If she sees me for what I really am, she'll ... she'll ...
She'll know. And she'll pity me. And she'll tell the Cullens. And then they'll know.
She must die. Right now. She knows too much already. But she can't know me, because that'll mean that I'll have to know me, and that cannot ever happen.
I've got this comfortable existence with family members I can push around and manage, I can't have this whole façade threatened.
Bella Swan must die.
And if Jasper doesn't man up and do it because he's wrapped around Alice's ... fingers, then I'll do the job myself.
It is a treasure-trove of Twiverse information. I would call it essential reading for all fan-fiction author(esse)s, and you can take my word on that to the bank because I nevah! descend to hyperbole!
Evah!
*ahem* Hanywey.
Anyway, in the outfall from "Phenomenon" chapter (when Edward impossibly (for a human) saves Bella from the van) when the Cullens have the family meeting to determine what to do now, Jasper is bound and determined to murder Bella, and ...
And Rosalie not only "supports" Jasper, but if he welches on his promise, then she more than willing to murder Bella in her sleep. And what is the reasons she gives for her cold-blooded plan?
- She wants to finish high school.
- And they've only just moved (back) to Forks, and doesn't want to be inconvenienced with another move so soon.
Now, I'm all for accepting statements at face value, but I think there's something (much) deeper going on with Rosalie's sudden and poorly explained hatred of this newcomer and threat to the happy vampire family that Rosalie so happens to be co-located with.
Why?
Well, let's examine her given reasons:
- She wants to finish high school?
Rosalie has existed for more than 80 years, and she has been in and out of high school AND college probably more than 8 times (she starts high school by transferring in to at the very lowest 10th grade). So she's upset that Bella is going to break up her already broken record (*ahem* Emmett, remember those students you killed by accident 35 years ago?)?
Um, no. - She's only just moved into Forks, WA and she wants to stay?
Okay. Forks, WA? Been there? I've lived there. Not there, specifically, but smalltown USA (Moodus, CT, if you must know). A town of comparable size and industry. Do you know what people say when you ask where they come from? If they come from smalltown USA, they either say nothing, or they say "you haven't heard of it, but it's near [some city that it's nowhere near to because it's so far in the styx]," or they say "I come from smalltown, USA." The emphasis is on the come from because they left that life behind.
Okay. You're from smalltown. You love smalltown. You've been to Town once and hated it. You are going to rip off my face for my insults.
But one things you aren't ... is Rosalie. She came from Town: Rochester, NY. You know, where they have cars, right? And stores that aren't run by your neighbor and aren't the only stores in town? And they have more people than either cows or trees or both?
Rosalie in Forks, WA? Sure, out of necessity. Rosalie LIKING Forks, WA? Maybe if you replace the town "Forks, WA" with "NYC" we could have a conversation where we both weren't laughing at the sheer lunacy of it, but Forks, WA?
Um, no.
Offing a girl for either or both reasons Rosalie gives? Possible, plausible, even, I suppose, but not the reasons Rosalie wants to off this girl.
What is the real reason Rosalie wants to kill this stupid little doe-eyed human who's seen too much for her own good? Yes, Bella is a threat to the Cullens, and therefor Rosalie's comfort (you DO NOT mess with what is Rosalie's), and both are good enough for most people to accept that Rosalie would be more than happy to off Bella. After all, it was good enough for Jasper. She's broken the Rule, she dies. End of story.
But for Rosalie, it goes much, much deeper than that.
Why?
She's built up this little castle around herself. She has her Cullen family and her Emmett, even, lulled into this sense of security about her: "Oh, that's just Rosalie, the dumb, bitchy blond, so we can ignore her."
If Edward gets too inquisitive with her mind, she can think about brushing her hair, and he tunes her right out. She is, after all, his oldest sister, and knows how to play Edward like a fiddle. Just because he can read minds does not mean he sees into the soul. He 'knows' Rosalie, so he probes no further. Edward is no threat to Rosalie.
If Emmett gets too "Hey, babe, what's happening? Is something bothering you?" She knows exactly what to do. Emmett is all surface (c.f.: Midnight Sun), what he believes, he says, and he sees everything simply. Rosalie's unhappy? What's up with that?
Nothing, after she takes him on a little ride, because now he's floating on bliss, and Rosalie looks happy, so she must be happy.
The other family members are less of an issue that either Edward or Emmett. There are just too many people in that family with too many issues for her to become the focus of attention.
Rosalie may have wanted, and got, the admiration of every man at the ball when she was human, but here, as a vampire, she's ignored, and that exactly how she wants it. If she's left alone, she can't get hurt again.
But then along comes that little meddling human, and she sees right through Edward. In fact, Rosalie was sure Edward was so asexual, he wasn't even interested in men ... I mean, he and Carlisle had plenty of chances for something to happen, but zilch came out of that. And if Edward wasn't interested in Rosalie, then Edward wasn't interested in anybody.
But Bella just blinks her big brown eyes at Edward and he turns into playdough in her fragile little human hands, and, Edward, being Edward, has never shared anything with anybody. WHICH IS FINE WITH ROSALIE, because Edward's a big jerk anyway, rejecting Rosalie like he did.
Jerk.
But he told that human everything and I mean everything! I mean, not even Mommy Esmé has dragged so many words out of him in the last 50 years! And the little human did it just by looking at him.
And he can't read her mind. She's a complete void to him. Inscrutable.
So what if her power is something more than her blandness and blankness.
What if she can see into the soul, like that foolish boy Edward cannot?
And if she looks at me? And what if she sees what she sees of my soul.
I know what she'll see, because I recoil from it every second that I have a quiet moment, alone and to myself. That's why I'm always with Emmett or somebody, even if its that cad Edward.
I've never had to directly confront myself, but if that little human looks at me, and blinks her big doe eyes, and says: "Rosalie ..." with her chin quivering like that and with tears leaking out of her eyes, as they do not leak out of mine?
If she sees me for what I really am, she'll ... she'll ...
She'll know. And she'll pity me. And she'll tell the Cullens. And then they'll know.
She must die. Right now. She knows too much already. But she can't know me, because that'll mean that I'll have to know me, and that cannot ever happen.
I've got this comfortable existence with family members I can push around and manage, I can't have this whole façade threatened.
Bella Swan must die.
And if Jasper doesn't man up and do it because he's wrapped around Alice's ... fingers, then I'll do the job myself.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Royce got what's comin' to him
I get this occasionally from reviewers.
"Oh, Rosalie is this real [something], she deserved to be raped."
"Oh, Bella is so annoying, I hope Rosalie just up and kills her."
"Oh, Royce was a real [something else], he got what he deserved."
Um. May I respectfully disagree?
Let's just take Royce as an example, for, after all: he's pure evil, so there's nothing more to say.
Right?
As to Royce deserving what he got, or deserving more than what he got, well ...
I would never wish to have my daughters raped nor murdered, although some reviewers do wish this on my surrogate daughters Rosalie and Bella, but ...
Did he deserve what he got? Sure, and then some.
But, if we got what we deserved ... instead of mercy or kindness or clemency ... which we don't deserve ...?
And who was truly punished? Who was truly twisted by the meting out of justice upon Royce? Is a vindictive action a cleansing one or a damning one? Are revenge and jealousy and hatred admirable traits?
If a friend of yours had a child and she was hurt deeply by someone, would you feel that, when she tortured the boy for eight hours and then murdered him, that now it's all good? Justice served, Oklahoma!-style? (That musical had to be one of the most twisted things I have ever seen ... "Jud falls on his knife," indeed! Maybe he received more than a little help as he fell, perhaps?)
And the girl? With blood on her hands? She's happy now?
I don't know. I do hope there isn't a big-old score card, because I'd be in serious trouble.
It's easy ... too easy ... to say these things should be visited on other people, but before you wish ill on another, look in the mirror first, and then, second, check the score card ... not the tally by Royce's name, but the one by your own name.
Still casting that stone?
"Oh, Rosalie is this real [something], she deserved to be raped."
"Oh, Bella is so annoying, I hope Rosalie just up and kills her."
"Oh, Royce was a real [something else], he got what he deserved."
Um. May I respectfully disagree?
Let's just take Royce as an example, for, after all: he's pure evil, so there's nothing more to say.
Right?
As to Royce deserving what he got, or deserving more than what he got, well ...
I would never wish to have my daughters raped nor murdered, although some reviewers do wish this on my surrogate daughters Rosalie and Bella, but ...
Did he deserve what he got? Sure, and then some.
But, if we got what we deserved ... instead of mercy or kindness or clemency ... which we don't deserve ...?
And who was truly punished? Who was truly twisted by the meting out of justice upon Royce? Is a vindictive action a cleansing one or a damning one? Are revenge and jealousy and hatred admirable traits?
If a friend of yours had a child and she was hurt deeply by someone, would you feel that, when she tortured the boy for eight hours and then murdered him, that now it's all good? Justice served, Oklahoma!-style? (That musical had to be one of the most twisted things I have ever seen ... "Jud falls on his knife," indeed! Maybe he received more than a little help as he fell, perhaps?)
And the girl? With blood on her hands? She's happy now?
I don't know. I do hope there isn't a big-old score card, because I'd be in serious trouble.
It's easy ... too easy ... to say these things should be visited on other people, but before you wish ill on another, look in the mirror first, and then, second, check the score card ... not the tally by Royce's name, but the one by your own name.
Still casting that stone?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Hate Edward much, geophf?
So you've read my tirade about Hateful Edward.
So, geophf, do you hate Edward?
No. If you see all the invective I heap on Edward, you see that it is prefaced with "let me play the devil's advocate."
I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth: I stand by and believe my position. I do not hate Edward, but I do think the "Edward" image does damage to girls and boys both. And not because he's some impossible ideal ... quite the opposite, in fact.
But I also acknowledge that he does behave (as best as he can, given his disabilities) "in a [more] gentleman-like manner" to Bella.
No. I don't hate Edward. But I'm Charlie, cleaning my shot gun, and Bella is my daughter, and I expect him to respect her, and I think he is quite capable of doing that very simple thing by stopping and listening to her. And I think he needs to work (a lot) on that.
So, geophf, do you hate Edward?
No. If you see all the invective I heap on Edward, you see that it is prefaced with "let me play the devil's advocate."
I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth: I stand by and believe my position. I do not hate Edward, but I do think the "Edward" image does damage to girls and boys both. And not because he's some impossible ideal ... quite the opposite, in fact.
But I also acknowledge that he does behave (as best as he can, given his disabilities) "in a [more] gentleman-like manner" to Bella.
No. I don't hate Edward. But I'm Charlie, cleaning my shot gun, and Bella is my daughter, and I expect him to respect her, and I think he is quite capable of doing that very simple thing by stopping and listening to her. And I think he needs to work (a lot) on that.
Fixated much, geophf?
So, what's your problem, geophf? Why are you championing Rosalie? Like, where did you get this whole MSR idea, anyway? I mean, really!
Okay. You asked.
We lost our Rose Marie. She was one month in the womb, and then she was gone.
And I wonder.
Can she hope? Her fate is now in her unformed hands, and in God's hands.
And that is so hard for me. Can she hope? Can she hope to choose for happiness, when she didn't have a life on which to base a choice? When she may not know what happiness is to choose it?
Can Rosalie hope? No, she can't, according to her in "Heaven and Hell": she's been judged, so she cannot enter Heaven. And what is Hope if Heaven appears lost to one?
Rosalie believes she cannot hope to hope ... not any more ... not for herself. But can't she?
Rose Marie is not Rosalie, and Rosalie is not Rose Marie, but both are faced with the same question, and I ask it for both of them: is it possible for those beyond the reach of hope to reach for that unreachable hope and actually obtain it ... and actually hope?
And then there's Bella. A girl that has everything Rosalie/Rose Marie doesn't: life, tears, sleep, hope. But Bella doesn't have it, either ... she, too, is so lost. She, too, needs love, needs it so desperately. Do those who live ... can they hope in this hopeless world, even though it's not a hopeless world, and all you have to do is look for hope, see it, to then find it?
MSR is a story about Hope. It is a very sad story, for me, because the characters don't even know why they are groaning: but they are ... and they hope ... they hope that they can hope. Can they?
I guess we'll need to find out.
Okay. You asked.
We lost our Rose Marie. She was one month in the womb, and then she was gone.
And I wonder.
Can she hope? Her fate is now in her unformed hands, and in God's hands.
And that is so hard for me. Can she hope? Can she hope to choose for happiness, when she didn't have a life on which to base a choice? When she may not know what happiness is to choose it?
Can Rosalie hope? No, she can't, according to her in "Heaven and Hell": she's been judged, so she cannot enter Heaven. And what is Hope if Heaven appears lost to one?
Rosalie believes she cannot hope to hope ... not any more ... not for herself. But can't she?
Rose Marie is not Rosalie, and Rosalie is not Rose Marie, but both are faced with the same question, and I ask it for both of them: is it possible for those beyond the reach of hope to reach for that unreachable hope and actually obtain it ... and actually hope?
And then there's Bella. A girl that has everything Rosalie/Rose Marie doesn't: life, tears, sleep, hope. But Bella doesn't have it, either ... she, too, is so lost. She, too, needs love, needs it so desperately. Do those who live ... can they hope in this hopeless world, even though it's not a hopeless world, and all you have to do is look for hope, see it, to then find it?
MSR is a story about Hope. It is a very sad story, for me, because the characters don't even know why they are groaning: but they are ... and they hope ... they hope that they can hope. Can they?
I guess we'll need to find out.
The Emmett Comment
I get this on occasion, and I believe it's a topic worth discussing.
Did Rosalie really say that? Did she really say that she would gladly sacrifice anything to regain her humanity ... even Emmett?
Yes.
Did she mean that?
Yes, of course.
Because why? Because she will never be able to make that trade. But if you said: "Okay Rosalie, kill these 100 children and burn Emmett and you get your humanity back," then will she do that?
Nope. In actuality, she would sacrifice her humanity for her Emmett. But she said the opposite ... why? People say things.
We all say things that are wrong, stupid, and, upon reflection, things we shouldn't have said and things we wish we didn't. Rosalie made this mistake. Have I ever made this mistake?
Oh, yes.
Have you?
Everybody casts this "She'd sacrifice Emmett" stone at Rosalie. But nobody ever analyzes her statement. Not only at face value, but at Venice value. One pound of flesh, please, Rosalie.
And nobody ever looks in the mirror when they cast that stone. Rosalie lives in a glass house. Well, well, well: looky there! Rosalie has feet of clay. Huh! Record every word you ever said, have every newspaper publish it ... read the newspapers 50 years from now. Oops! Did I really say that?!?
Are you still Holier than Rosalie?
I think Rosalie, in fact, is a whole Hale of a lot Holier than most people in the whole world, and, yes, she does have a mote in her eye, but the people casting stones? They have the frikken redwood forest-sized beams blinding them to their own fault.
"Oh, Rosalie's not perfect."
She sure isn't. My story portrays her sympathetically, but definitely (and defiantly) very much not perfect, but ...
A Rosalie's a Rosalie, for a' that.
Did Rosalie really say that? Did she really say that she would gladly sacrifice anything to regain her humanity ... even Emmett?
Yes.
Did she mean that?
Yes, of course.
Because why? Because she will never be able to make that trade. But if you said: "Okay Rosalie, kill these 100 children and burn Emmett and you get your humanity back," then will she do that?
Nope. In actuality, she would sacrifice her humanity for her Emmett. But she said the opposite ... why? People say things.
We all say things that are wrong, stupid, and, upon reflection, things we shouldn't have said and things we wish we didn't. Rosalie made this mistake. Have I ever made this mistake?
Oh, yes.
Have you?
Everybody casts this "She'd sacrifice Emmett" stone at Rosalie. But nobody ever analyzes her statement. Not only at face value, but at Venice value. One pound of flesh, please, Rosalie.
And nobody ever looks in the mirror when they cast that stone. Rosalie lives in a glass house. Well, well, well: looky there! Rosalie has feet of clay. Huh! Record every word you ever said, have every newspaper publish it ... read the newspapers 50 years from now. Oops! Did I really say that?!?
Are you still Holier than Rosalie?
I think Rosalie, in fact, is a whole Hale of a lot Holier than most people in the whole world, and, yes, she does have a mote in her eye, but the people casting stones? They have the frikken redwood forest-sized beams blinding them to their own fault.
"Oh, Rosalie's not perfect."
She sure isn't. My story portrays her sympathetically, but definitely (and defiantly) very much not perfect, but ...
A Rosalie's a Rosalie, for a' that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
