RDF/RSS Feed
Atom Feed
I picked up one of my older books last night and read it a bit before going to sleep. Gross Ego Inflation, you may be thinking, though the internal editor pointed out every single place where–years later–maybe another word would have been better? Huh? Are you listening? It’s not one of the really-old ones–it was written post Hurricane Katrina*, for instance. But it ties in with something that affects all writers in all eras, even if they’re trying not to be tied to a particular time and place.
We all are, of course, a product of our experience as well as of our genetics. We are born into a circumstance–in a family or as an orphan, in this country or that, in a race that is acceptable or despised, in an economic level that is sufficient, or more than ample, or barely life-giving. From the moment of our birth, we are shaped by history local and regional and global, and by current events, ditto. Even if we are deliberately trying to conceal some of that–to avoid writing about things that impinge on us–we cannot eliminate every influence because we have to write in words that people understand (OK, there are exceptions–but you’re not finding them easily on bookshelves, or understanding them when you find and try to read them.) We inherit values that we accept, or struggle against, or have mixed feelings about. We challenge (or do not challenge) what’s around us. And those of us who are not trying to conceal what shaped us, but also trying to write into an unknown future (SF) or parallel universe different from our own (classic fantasy) leave a lot of bread crumbs on the trails of our imagination.
It’s easy to think–media would like us to think–that we’re all in a box with others born at the same time in roughly the same place. Hence the “generation-this” and “generation-that” commentary. Born between X and Y, in Country A, this is who you are. Only…that’s a very blunt dissection of the population and it cuts right across the finer levels of difference. Every detail of your experience–of my experience–impinged, not just the big broad strokes of history’s brush. My experience was different from that of a friend who is only 5 years younger, but who grew up in a 2-parent family in a part of the country considered “heartland”…not a scruffy little corner of the south border, hundreds of miles from the nearest real city.
Between my re-reading own book and an argument I’m having with an older SF writer on a venue very far away from here (closed venue), I’m seeing more clearly some things that I sortakinda knew about my past and myself, and that show up in my books without the backstory (my backstory) being on the page directly. OtherWriter (OW, henceforth) is adamant that progress makes some people useless because they can’t become smart enough, educated enough, fast enough. I have just argued (taking time that could have been spent on a story, yes…a waste of time, no doubt, since OW isn’t likely to change his mind) that “usefulness” cannot be measured by money–by whether or not someone has a paid job (and especially not by whether it’s a well-paying job.) I was explicitly taught that by my mother (and some school-teachers of my childhood also insisted that low-paid workers were not useless at all–they themselves, at the time, were low-paid.) But I also saw that in everyday life.
The daily work that directly sustained life–growing and harvesting food, feeding people, making cloth, making clothing, transporting food and people and clothing and other goods, maintaining community infrastructure (streets, sewers, parks, buildings), caring for clothing and bedding, keeping places clean, caring for the sick and injured, and so on and so on–was done by both unpaid (housewives) and lower paid workers–our area had few jobs for skilled workers because skilled workers could make more somewhere else. Real people built the houses, fixed the potholes, planted the crops, harvested the crops, made the clothes we wore (some in factories, some at home with their own sewing machine), cleaned the toilets, washed the dishes, on and on. Some families had members who could not work outside the home (too old, infirm, whatever) but were not considered “useless” (any more than housewives were considered useless) because they had skills and knowledge that were still useful.
As a young reader, the fiction books I read were more about “ordinary” people than the rich, the powerful, the gorgeous, the supertalented. Other than in fairy tales and mythology (loaded with kings, princes, etc.) the fiction I liked best (horse stories, dog stories) focused on people much like those I knew, in the same of being competent-but-fallible. In fact, it wasn’t until I was reading both science fiction and political novels for the first time (at about 14-15 years old) that I ran across writers whose focus was on those types of people–in the case of SF, there was a strong strain of “high IQ is what you need and low-IQ is the worst possible thing to be.”
And so, without really thinking about it consciously, my stories have been, all the way back to the very bad, very Mary-Sueish stories I wrote in elementary and junior high school, about people other than Superman/Superhero. And yet…there I am, writing about spaceship commanders, some rich people, generals, paladins, kings, etc. And yet…I conceive of them as human. With warts that make them not contemptible, but really human. People who eat (and the food comes from human labor in growing, harvesting, storing, cooking) and excrete, who need clothes to wear and shelter from bad weather. People who may be scorned by their society as useless, but only because no one has bothered to find out what their use is. They are too young, or too old, or too weak, or too arrogant, or some other faults and lacks…but in the right circumstance, it’s they who do what needs doing. And I think it always is, if they and their society figure out what they can do. If not…their uselessness is not innate, but acquired–forced on them by the ignorance and laziness of the society they’re stuck in, which dismisses them as useless because it’s easier than figuring out how to help that person find a way to contribute.
And now another hour has disappeared into writing something on the computer. May it amuse you, in some way.
*There’s a strong clue in the book about something that happened in that emergency and what I thought about it and the people responsible. Another case in which anger almost overtook storytelling, but since no one’s commented on it that I know of, the storytelling wasn’t entirely swamped.
Comment by Larry Lennhoff — May 8, 2014 @ 2:34 pm
I think the question of human value is going to be a big issue in the upcoming century (assuming no collapse from global warming.) We’re actually in sight of the possibility that automation will result in there being far too few jobs compared to the general population. If we continue to hold values such as ‘he who does not work will not eat’ while at the same time allowing the holders of capital to invest in as much automation as they want, to offshore jobs, and in many other ways maximize profit without regard to social impacts there is going to be Trouble.
We need to migrate towards a system of valuing people primarily for things other their economic potential.
Comment by GinnyW — May 8, 2014 @ 6:43 pm
We live with a great number of social “givens” that were not “given” in other times and places. Like the idea that being the same age generates common experience, more than being of the same family, or coming from the same place.
Another “given” is that “skills” are learned in school, and that “work” is something someone pays you to do, preferably not at home. Labor is a commodity, not an expression of skill and love and community. That certainly was not always the case, for women it used to be the exception not the rule.
But the low status jobs are at least as essential as high status jobs. As becomes crystal clear when the garbage men go on strike. And the delivery man, or the janitor has just as many challenges, and stories, as the king or the president.
Comment by Annabel — May 9, 2014 @ 5:37 am
But, you see, this is just what I love about your writing – your characters are real people! Too many sf/fantasy authors aren’t able to create characters one cares about.
I stayed up all one night recently reading “Sporting Chance” – even though I knew roughly what was going to happen, having read some of the later novels in that series, I still couldn’t put it down until I was sure…..
Comment by Jonathan Schor — May 9, 2014 @ 7:09 am
Remember the talk that Master Oakhollow gave to Paks concerning courage – the courage of the ordinary person to go about his daily tasks. The same applies to worth – books may be written about the great and famous, but in many ways this is just escape. Some of the best scenes in your books are about people other than the main protagonists, the scenes about everyday life.
Comment by elizabeth — May 9, 2014 @ 8:54 am
Larry: “We need to migrate towards a system of valuing people primarily for things other their economic potential.” Yes. I think there’s definitely Trouble on the horizon…or closer. Not that any individual should ever be dismissed as useless, worthless, etc.–but when too many people feel they are not valued, and have no work to do, those people are not going to tolerate it forever. The lack of responsibility and accountability in the upper income ranges makes the problem worse. When a CEO who has led a company into failure can still be paid millions in a golden parachute deal, while those whose work made the company valuable in the first place get their pink slips and are told the pension plan was raided to fund the golden parachutes of those above them…Trouble is a mild name for what’s coming.
GinnyW: I agree with you. There are still a lot of things that need doing and are not being done because there’s (supposedly) no money to pay someone to do them…infrastructure maintenance isn’t automated…but maintenance work is poorly paid now, relative to its importance. And it is important, especially as resources shrink relative to population and needs. When people who can get a job are having to work two and even three jobs just to keep food on the table and a roof over them and their kids–true of a lot of people in low-paying jobs that nonetheless are vital–the system’s set up wrong. That’s damaging to the people working multiple jobs at low pay with no job security, to their families, and also to others who need one of those jobs.
Comment by Cricket — May 9, 2014 @ 9:33 am
That’s one of the strengths of your books. Even your heroes are ordinary people, and those who forget that are reminded forcefully. They accept the responsibility that comes with their unusual gifts and talents, but still value the common gifts and talents. (I remember Paks admiring the skill of the tailor and his wife, and her mild surprise that she enjoyed the beauty of the shirt, not just the functionality.)
Art is always influenced by its time, and often stronger because of it.
James Herriot was strongly influenced by being between the wars, and the state of medicine and farming at the time. He wrote about the hay-day of medicine when antibiotics worked miracles, and the difficulties of convincing farmers to update their practices. He also wrote about hard-working, real people, who carried on despite losing many of the workforce, and the unpredictability of their jobs. By writing about the specifics of his time, he dealt with universal, timeless themes. If he had ignored those themes because they were current, his books would not be timeless.
I have difficulty with the menial labour in my own life. As a stay-home-mom I can’t complain about 6 hours of work a week compared to my husband’s 40, but it’s boring and repetitive, and invisible to the rest of the family. It’s not the interesting job I went to school for (and discovered I wasn’t suited to). I admire those who quietly and reliably get it done.
Comment by Daniel Glover — May 9, 2014 @ 2:48 pm
Heinlein (among others) wrote about the situation being discussed here. I keep wondering how close he’s going to be in his Future Earth series.
Comment by Chad Merkley — May 9, 2014 @ 4:49 pm
It seems to me that the situation you describe can be described by the word “pridefulness”. I suspect that the sheer pridefulness of our modern society might be related to the decline of religious values and morality–defining man’s relation to God and the universe is one of the best ways I can think of to promote humility.
Comment by John McDonald — May 9, 2014 @ 10:09 pm
IIRC Heinlein called the period “the Crazy Years”, which certainly seems to fit the last 15-25 year period quite well.
What I enjoy most about reading our esteemed hostess’ works is that her characters act as I have observed in the real world. No absolute black/white lines are drawn, only endless shades of grey.
Comment by Linda — May 10, 2014 @ 7:26 am
I agree with what I am reading here and this feeling of there being a reality in which I live versus “a fact free zone” inhabited by those who are enmeshed in the anti-human reality of TV, materialism, movies, popular culture, politics (versus governing), finance, etc.
I am grateful on a daily basis that I read a host of books for young people set in that different word, and then Thoreau and even Eric Sloane’s books on old technology before I was over whelmed by a world where “ordinary humans” don’t seem to count. Best thing I did was abandoning TV, choosing to listen to only NPR (and not too much of that, leavened by the BBC), and basically deciding that I would choose what I would let into my head.
I am appalled at decisions made daily by those with power which leave the rest of us with yet another struggle as we try to lead lives
of integrity. Paks’ struggles when she leaves Fin Panir may be key to what opens the way for her to be a Paladin.
Enough, there’s a garden to tend to.
Comment by Nadine Barter Bowlus — May 10, 2014 @ 6:09 pm
“Back of the bread is the flour.
Back of the flour the mill.
And back of the mill is the seed and the flower, the Sun, and the Father’s will.”
May your garden grow well, Linda.
Comment by Susan Malcolm — May 10, 2014 @ 7:29 pm
Wonderful food for thought here. Nadine, I learned that as a Girl Scout grace; is that where you got it, or another source?
Comment by Nadine Barter Bowlus — May 10, 2014 @ 11:47 pm
Susan M. It is on a wooden plaque I bought somewhere long ago and has hung in my kitchens ( serial, not parallel) since.
Comment by Ed Bunyan — May 11, 2014 @ 6:26 am
Happy Mothers Day!
Comment by Fuzzy — May 12, 2014 @ 7:19 am
When I talk to younger people at work, I’m often surprised by the common (to me) skills that they lack. Sewing, cooking, balancing children and housekeeping, how to grow at least basic food–tomatoes maybe? They are completely unfamiliar with animal care in many cases and almost as unlearned concerning childcare—they have read books, but have no real experience. And this is a group of RNs and other medical people who usually have some “fringe” skills.
More disturbing to me is—hmm, I’m not trying to sound superior here—disinclinination to figure something out. They tend to wait to be taught, or find an “expert” to do it for them. The skill of learning by trial and error seems to be much less common anymore.
And a wish: why are there no loyal dogs in the Paks books? I’m such a dog person, I miss them!
Comment by Iphinome — May 12, 2014 @ 6:15 pm
In an earlier comment section the City of London Corporation was mentioned, for those interested in that city’s history there is a video depicting the city’s growth (as roads and buildings) from roman times to present day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB5Oz9b84jM
Comment by Nancy — May 13, 2014 @ 7:09 am
One of the things I love most about your books is the reality of them; the work that most gloss over, you turn into essential parts of the story, and clearly demonstrate you understand the nuts and bolts of and importance of such hands-on use.
Which reminds me–I heard a Kitchen Sisters segment on NPR this morning that made me think of you–a segment on turnspit roasting, kitchen help and turnspit dogs!
Comment by Sully — May 13, 2014 @ 9:55 pm
I think your perspective and vision of writing from the bottom of society, vs the top leads to a much more thoroughly and believably constructed world. I enjoy it a lot.
Comment by Catmadknitter — May 14, 2014 @ 6:16 am
Your superheros are more Batman than Superman, yes. I think we need this.
And for money being the only form of valuation ARGH!! But then my background isn’t too dissimilar to yours- raised by school teachers. Not to mention the disturbing idea that if the only value is money, how many of us therefore become whores? While I think it would be wonderful to pay teachers the same as engineers (after all, who is creating *more* engineers?) all the money in the world will not change the fact that teaching is a craft and is bloody hard to do most of the time (before you add all the Other Stuff that goes with the job). I use teaching because being one I know about it, but I’m sure you can put other professions in here as well.
Comment by GinnyW — May 14, 2014 @ 4:44 pm
When I studied sociology and geography, we studied modern (post-modern) society as mass society, that is, mass production, mass communication, mass movements. We studied it statistically, which of course makes the mass appear more homogenous. Such studies are informative, but ultimately I felt that they were destructive as a basis for social action. It makes all the parts interchangeable, and people are not interchangeable without seriously weakening the social ties that bind us together.
(Apologies for riding a hobby horse)
Comment by Ed Schoenfeld — May 16, 2014 @ 1:32 pm
Elizabeth,
please don’t ever think your advocating for common sense and common folk is ‘useless’ in any venue. It doesn’t matter that you (and all of us together) won’t change OW’s mind.
What matters is that we stand up to any way of thinking that devalues people because they do not fit one particular standard of ‘value.’ That is especially important when the ‘standard of value’, as in this case, is so narrow that it doesn’t adequately measure even a person’s entire *economic* (as opposed tpo merely monetary) contribution to society.
Thank you for opposing that, and for building your worlds and characters from the foundation up, and for providing a forum where we sometimes discuss why these things matter.
Comment by Fred — May 16, 2014 @ 2:10 pm
Catmadknitter,
In my work career I have alternated between working in industry as an engineer, and teaching engineering – so I’ve seen both sides. I love teaching, but every time I’ve moved in that direction my income has dropped quite literally in half. I “know whereof you speak”.
That experience means that I’ve had to look at the problem of the difference between monetary rewards and type of work seriously and intimately.
Part of the problem (and it’s a current-events, not-yet-solved part!) is the question of evaluation. For an engineer, if your product works, is efficient, and is reliable, everyone who cares to know, knows. “Good MPG on that car”, “I don’t have to worry about that furnace, it just works”, and so on.
Conversely, if your computer overheats or crashes often, your car stalls, or your TV fails, it’s obvious to the casual observer, and doesn’t require any kind of expert. If that bridge falls down, anyone can tell, and can tell who’s responsible.
On the other hand, you don’t get much agreement about what good teaching is, or how to measure it. The results may not be visible until literally decades later, if at all.
There is also the matter that some people do not communicate well with certain other people about some subjects. There are engineers who should never, ever be let into a classroom as a teacher. There are teachers who should never, ever teach math, even though they are outstanding at teaching reading.
Without being able to agree on evaluation, we as a society are not able to agree on valuation. Where we don’t agree on value, the willingness to pay drops.
Unfortunately, sometimes we don’t figure it out in time. That leads to shortages of teachers of specific subjects at different times.
I’ll climb down gently off the soapbox now. I thought you might be interested in the background reasons I agree with you.
Comment by GinnyW — May 17, 2014 @ 6:18 am
My experience with teaching chemistry made me acutely aware that the classroom (even laboratory classrooms) are not necessarily the best places to teach a majority of students. The simplest explanation that I could come up with is that the classroom situation is designed so that the students rarely, if ever, perceive that they “need to know” before they are ordered to learn.
Comment by elizabeth — May 17, 2014 @ 4:35 pm
Ginny: That’s an excellent point. In writing fiction, writers learn (if someone doesn’t tell them) that giving readers information before they need it leads to a perception of “infodump”…and the information feels dull (usually) and then doesn’t stick long enough–to be there when they do need it.
Comment by Cecelia — May 29, 2014 @ 8:39 pm
I remember emailing what I thought was your website some years ago, and expressing a thought that Paksenarrion seemed to hold a special meaning for you that your other excellent books did not. I wondered if that was true and if so, what that meant for you as a person and a writer both at the time and for the future. I am delighted that you have carried it through to the end, tho the first novel seemed to be very special. Thank you.
Comment by Trix — July 24, 2014 @ 4:38 am
I also agree that I really appreciate the real people in your books. I went through a really snotty period about intelligence – typical for geeks – but eventually grew up. Also, I’ve never completed a university degree, which has somehow become almost mandatory for any non-labouring job. I’ve certainly had the experience of being considered “less” because of not having that degree (it amuses me when one of the snobs learns about my professional experience and does a virtual double-take).
My family are working class, and if it wasn’t for what they do (and what I did when I was younger), then many things would not be as well-run or “nice” for anyone.
Not everyone lives in their head, and thank goodness they don’t. Not everyone is suited for working long days in the fields. Some people would be driven insane organising paperwork; others revel in it.
We need all these interlocking parts in society, and I’m glad for a writer in fantasy (and SF) who isn’t all about individual aristocrats and wizards … and amorphous “peasants”. Most epic fantasy bores me to tears. Yours, I keep reading, because of the people, all of them, and your keen observations of politics and cultural clashes (well beyond “evil orcs and good elves”).