Tennessee Waltz - Colm Wilkinson

I finally used my ITunes gift card and bought Colm Wilkinson's Broadway and Beyond the Concert Songs.

Unfortunately I'm still a noob (in a big way) with my MP3 player and can't figure out how to get new music on it...but I have been able to listen to the album on my computer.

It is an extremely interesting variety and one of the songs included is this one....

I'm afraid he doesn't realize all we require him to do is to hold still and sing... Too many awesome musicals performances I guess. :-)

Even if his animation and stage presence annoys you stay until the end of the video. It's the best. ;-)

If you think this is a weird song for Colm Wilkinson track down his Whiskey in the Jar. LOL. :-)

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

P.S. Unless you get the wrong impression... I am not in general a musical fan...but I do love Colm Wilkinson's voice and I am a Les Miserables fan. In a big way. :-)

In Which I Experience Steinbeck...

I finished John Steinbeck's The Wayward Bus recently. It's my first book of his...

I've heard that The Wayward Bus is considerably different then some of this other work. The whole book takes place in less than 24 hrs and is really more of a series of detailed, compelling character sketches.

It also deserves a rating beyond PG 13... Steinbeck has no notion of what is generally considered appropriate.

I loved the way he drew characters. Everybody was imperfect (actually most of them were pretty nasty) but you couldn't help liking everyone in someway or another (even if you really didn't want to). They were probably the most thoroughly old sin natured but likable characters I've read.

I also loved his description and the way he didn't seem to care about things. He just told the story as he saw it.

So...yeah...he's style and characters were the sort I really like, but that's kind of were it ended.

The god of the book is lust. And it takes everybody further into depression in sin by the last page of the novel.

With possibly the exception of Juan and Alice, everyone is much worse off by the end. After planning to run back to Mexico, Juan makes the decision to come back and help the people on the bus and return home to his wife...but on the way back commits adultery. Not sure if this is supposed to be redeeming of him or not. It doesn't seem like a very good turn around. :-P Alice didn't need much help going lower. She's drunk most of the book anyways.

Norma is probably the saddest case. She starts out as someone relatively innocent but ends up leaving for Hollywood (originally stocking Clark Gable..lol) and ends up coming under the wing of a disreputable woman that she attempts to emulate.

So...either Steinbeck was showing us how depressing life is if our god is ourselves or he just thinks that's all there is.

Don't get me wrong...I actually like dark stories (probably more than I should...especially if a lot of people die ;-). But you don't need this much blunt inappropriateness to get old sin nature across. I'm also hoping some of it is pretty twisted. It certainly doesn't give you any confidence in the race of men.

Either way, I loved the style, but wouldn't read it again or recommend it. The guy has some serious issues...

Have you had experience with Steinbeck? What was your impression?

Thanks for reading,

Miss Pickwickian

King Lear - William Shakespeare :-)

King Lear Admonishing Cordelia by Henri Fuseli

We were all set up to study King Lear in highschool, but something happened and we didn't. After reading Deep Comedy I knew I simply had to make it a priority. :-)

So I read it.

I tried to read it straight through without looking at any notes or criticism the first time round. Then I watched the latest movie version, reread the play, reread the portion in Deep Comedy that talks about King Lear, and then investigated some other interpretations. It was extremely interesting.

I'm really glad I worked through it on my own to start with.
I've never really done that with a Shakespeare play, and it was very good. And I didn't get too confused. :-) And I was able to figure who was bad and who was good all on my own! Yeah!

So, anyways...I really liked it. Even more than I thought I would.

Here's a few lines from the play

Edmund 1.2.118-128

"This is the excellent foppery of the world, that when we are sick in fortune-- often the surfeits of our own behavior-- we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, the stars, as if we were villains on necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion, knaves, thieves, and teachers by spherical predominance, drunkards, liars, and adulterers by an enforced obedience of planetary influence; and all that we are evil in by a divine thrusting-on. An admirable evasion of whore-master man, to lay his goatish disposition to the charge of the star."

Albany 4.2.

"This shows you are above,

You justicers, that these our nether crimes

So speedily can venge! But, O poor Gloucester!

Lost he is other eye?"

Edgar 5.3

"The weight of this sad time we must obey;

Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.

The oldest hath borne most: we that are young

Shall never see so much, nor live so long."

Squibbing

Deep Comedy has some really interesting, concise stuff on this play, and even if there weren't a hundred other reasons to read it, you should for Leithart's interpretation of King Lear.

Here's a chunk...

"In an important sense, this pattern of frustrated optimism is a sign of the effect of deep comedy on tragic drama. The play is filled with the unrealized possibility of restoration, redemption, resurrection, in a way that an ancient tragedy could never be. Ancient tragedy took place in a world where resurrection was unknown, where death was the end, but the world of King Lear is potentially a far happier place. The fact that this potential is not realized enhances the feeling of waste."

I wish I could quote all he has to say, but instead here's a paragraph from the conclusion.

"If ancient comedy is haunted by the fear of death, Christian tragedy is haunted by the hope of resurrection. A tragic vision of life makes ancient comedy sad; real hope of a new life in the Christian comic view of things makes Christian tragedy all the more poignant."

Christian tragedy is haunted by the hope of resurrection. I love that.

So I guess I don't have anything very profound to say about King Lear...Not surprising, I'm afraid. But I certainly recommend reading it and thinking about it. :-)

I'd love to hear your thoughts and any good film recommendations. I've watched the 2009 Trevor Nunn/Ian McKellen version (review to come).

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

Les Miserables 25th Anniversary

So...where do I begin?

I am relatively new to Les Miserables as a musical. The actual story I have known and loved as long as I can remember. I have no idea why I didn't discover the musical earlier, but I'm glad I've now been thoroughly immersed.

Up until this year all I'd ever seen was some strange black and white video clips where Javert was practically dancing, something that really bothered me. (Note: All the clips I saw were not from professional performances.)

And as I am not a big musical fan in general (think Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, West Side Story, etc.) I didn't really look into it.

When I saw Philip Quast as Javert I changed my mind.

Last night we went and saw the broadcast of the 25th Anniversary performance.

First off, it was amazing. Not to say it was better than the 10th Anniversary Dream Cast, but it was really wonderful!

If I had to rate them, I'd have to say this new one is more visually pleasing, but on the whole I'd have to go with the Dream Cast's voices. Especially Marius, Fantine, and Jean Val Jean. I did like Enjolras, Gavroche, and the young Cosette a lot better in the new one. Gavroche was awesome. If vibrato bothers you, you'd probably like the 2010 performance better.

The 25th Anniversary performance is also longer and fills in a lot of what was taken out of the 1995 performance. This makes the story make more sense if you are not familiar with it. It also gives Gavroche another cool section. :-) But I can see why most of it wasn't in the 1995 performance. (It's also more severely PG-13 rated, I'm afraid.)

So, be forewarned. I am no connoisseur. I'll have to say is on personal taste. Don't take it too seriously or harshly. All Les Miserables is awesome, it can't help it. :-)

Alfie Boe as Jean Val Jean.
I felt like he depended more on acting than some other Valjeans and he just lost some of the depth and general awesomeness and drama of his songs. But this could just be me.
I did like him. But he wasn't Colm Wilkinson for sure. It was an interesting to see a different interpretation.

My biggest and weighing disappointment was Alfie Boe at Fantine's death scene. He totally ruined "run", which is like my favorite part! :-)

I thought I just didn't like the Cosettes I'd seen, but I guess it's just her part...

I thought this Eponine was really good.

(Lea Salonga, who played Eponine in the 1995 performance played Fantine in the 2010. It was a little weird, but I liked her voice much better then I did as Eponine. Still, she didn't sing "I Dreamed a Dream" like Ruthie Henshall. :-)

I had very mixed feelings about Nick Jonas being Marius. Even more so after Suzy told me he was one of the Jonas Brothers. LOL.

I thought Norm Lewis aced this. I was disappointed with his suicide scene, though.

Philip Quast remains Javert for me to the end. Norm Lewis was totally awesome at some points, but I thought he changed too quickly and his last couple songs were not Javert to me. The way Philip Quast sings "Javert" is amazing!

I was pretty scared about what was going to happen to this song...
Michael Ball is so awesome, but I thought at least Nick Jonas made up for something visually.

I'm sure he's going to get a lot of flak, but I seriously thought he did a pretty good job. As a young noob type Marius he was great.

But how could it possibly compare to this...

He's got to have one of my favorite voices ever.

This was the highlight for me! Colm Wilkinson is really outstanding. I have to say he's my favorite Jean Val Jean just because he puts so much emotion into his singing, while still keeping it completely beautiful. Also, he can hold a note for all eternity. :-) Something Alfie Boe barely tried.

This video is not from the actual performance we saw in the movie theater. A couple of the singers are different but the important thing is Colm Wilkinson, Ramin Karimloo, and Michael Ball are there. Sorry about the bad video quality.

You can find more videos on Youtube, if you'd like to see more of the performance.

So, there is really so much I can say, but I'm going to quit there. Someday I'll just have to have have a week for Les Miserables book, movies, dramatized tapes, and musical. ;-)

I've listened to a London and Broadway cast and still like the Dream Cast best. Does anyone have favorites for the parts or recommendations for other recordings?

How amazing is it that a musical this strongly Christian and with these themes has effected so many?

We need to produce more stuff this quality. You can't help but love it.

My conclusion...

I had an absolutely amazing night. I am so thankful I was introduced to this musical.
And we should own both the 2010 and 1995 DVDs and CD sets. ;-)

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

Les Miserables

Just came home from seeing the 25th Anniversary London broadcast of Les Miserables. What can I possibly say?

It was simply perfect, although so was the 10th Anniversary (some things even perfecter) and other renditions.

More to come

...much more than you want to hear, I assure you. :-)

A very happy,
Miss Pickwickian

Deep Comedy - Peter J. Leithart

Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, & Hope in Western Literature by Peter J. Leithart

Canon Press

This is another book I am totally unqualified to review. I'm going to try anyways because I want you to be inspired to read it. (If you haven't...I know I'm always shamefully behind.:-)

It's quite simply amazing.

We had a wonderful Sunday school class talking through David Bentley Hart's book on beauty. Deep Comedy was mentioned and I knew I wanted to read it. :-) I have an awesome mama and a brother who works at a book store, so it was diligently acquired. Thanks Mama! I know your going to like it as soon as you get done with Notes from the Tilt-A-Whirl...already. ;-)

This book was both easier and harder than I anticipated.
Easier because Leithart is a gifted and hard working genius and can make the difficult clear and direct so people like me can understand.

Harder because I'm not very sharp and don't know very much about many of the people and stories he mentions.

Still, I could understand the concepts he was writing, even if I didn't always understand the people he was quoting or arguing against. I never felt completely lost, just vaguely stupid.

I loved the book. It wasn't a hard read. I read all but the last 10 pages in two sittings and I'll want to read it again.

It's direct and eye opening. It is laced with good humor (I literally LOLed in several parts). It is a book about story and about hope. By the end I was feeling disgustingly cheerful. :-) It was amazing.

Since I know I'll fail at trying to paraphrase I strongly suggest you pick the book up yourself. It's only 157 pages. Anyone can manage that.

Leithart crams a lot in. I really can't begin to summarize. He gave me a whole new dimension to understanding the way our faith in the Trinity shapes our world view. He gave me a clearer understanding of story and all that goes along with it. It was simply thrilling. :-)

I know I'm raving now, so I'm going to move on.

Here are two of my favorite quotes...

"If the Gospel is true, if new life was unleashed in the world on Easter morning, then we would expect there to be some signs that this is the case."

Unleashed. I love that. How often do we think of new life as unleashed?

"Satan digs a pit for the merry, but Satan falls into the very pit of merriment. And it tortures him forever."

And here was a quote that really got me thinking...

"Christian literature not only produces deep comedy but also, and for precisely that reason, deep tragedy. Christian tragedy can no longer mean what ancient tragedy meant. There are still sad stories, but Christians cannot believe the world is a sad story without abandoning their fundamental convictions about the triune God and the incarnation of the Son. So I should add to this book a companion book on deep tragedy."

I hope he does.

I particularly liked what he said about Christian tragedies. It seems like too much modern Christian thinking tries to ignore sad stories because it spooks them. We know that life isn't a tragedy but sometimes we can't understand why tragedies happen. We try to ignore them so we write fuzzy feel good fiction or try to shelter ourselves from reality.

He also mentions in passing that many "Christian" tragedy's are even sadder because there was an unrealized hope of redemption.

This helped me understand myself in relations to The Mayor of Casterbridge. I'm not sure where Thomas Hardy was when he wrote it. I know he was bi-polar when it came to his "faith" but I think the movie gives an interesting interpretation. It is so extremely sad because there was hope of redemption. He could have turned around.

Like Saul, which he resembles, Henchard is given a good life (numerous times) and good friends, but because of his sin and pride he will not repent and be reconciled. And it's absolutely, terribly heart rending!

The story is not meaningless. It is not a story meant to depress you. It shows the stupidness of sin. The depravity of man. But also the mercy of God. Henchard is blessed over and over again, he just never gets it.

And in the end the long-suffering daughter gets a good life with a righteous man (whatever is ultra-weird, irrational behavior towards woman comes in).

My conclusion seemed to be this-- Christian stories can be sad (even sadder then non-Christian) but they can not be ultimately depressing.

I know I'm not explaining this very well, but it helped things line up in my mind...

Okay, one last quote (sorry about the longness, but it's worth it).

"The conclusion of the matter is this: for the ancients, for the moderns, and for postmoderns, human existence is fundamentally tragic. The world is built for tragedy. As a matter of sheer observation, we all die, and this is one of the few things that can be guaranteed about life. Time marches toward death and in the end we all die. Change can perhaps be good, but change is ultimately decay, because in the end we all die. Desire is either fulfilled in the motionless statis that might as well be death, or is never fulfilled leaving us frustereated, and in the end we all die. Law gives a semblance of order to the process of decay and the forces of chaos, but law is uncertain, and in the end we all die.
With their tragic narratives of human history, Hesiod and Ovid give mythical expressions to the story of the world that ancient, modern, and postmodern all tell.

Apart from the Gospel, what other story is there?"

I consider this book invaluable to readers, writers, and Christians.

Now, if you haven't, go read it. :-)

Thanks for reading.
Miss Pickwickian

A Character - Inspector Javert

I've been talking about things that greatly influenced me and my writing, so I felt the urge to give Inspector Javert and Victor Hugo their due.
In fact, I think Les Miserables as a whole has greatly effected me. Let's focus on Javert. How long do you want this post to be, anyways. ;-)

Javert is an amazing three dimensional character, which I think, must have been especially difficult giving his particular traits. He is dutiful, stoic, uncommunicative, unmovable, legalistic-- all things that few authors seem to portray without getting flat stereotypes. And he changes realistically.

Unfortunately I think I have tried to imitate Victor Hugo too many times and have not achieved his success. I can see poor attempts at Javert in many of my characters scattered through several projects.

Going back and picking apart why I like Javert so much has been a recent study of mine. I think there is a lot to learn.

I'm not saying, of course, that we should try to copy him. I can just see his profound influence in a lot of my own characters of the years. I didn't even realize he was influencing them! Now I want to study why mine are so bad and Hugo's is so good.

As irritating as he can be, I think he'll remain one of my favorite characters forever.

Here is an excerpt from the end of Javert's life. Some is cut out, with no offense to the genius of the author, simply for spaces sake. ;-)

(Oh Beka! I feel like quoting it with you at this moment. Thanks for being my Les Mis quoting pal!;-)

Javert made his way with slow steps from the Rue de l'Homme Arme. He walked with his head down, for the first time in his life, and, for the first time in his life as well, with his hands behind his back...His whole person, slow and gloomy, bore the impress of anxiety...

He took the shortest route towards the Seine, reached the Quai des Ormes, went along the quai...This point of the Seine is dreaded by mariners. Nothing is more dangerous that this rapid...Men who fall in there, one never sees again; the best swimmers are drowned.

Javert leaned both elbows on the parape, with his chin in his hands, and while his fingers were clenched mechanically in the thickest of his whiskers, he reflected.

There had been a new thing, a revolution, a catastrophe in the depths of his being, and there was a matter for self-examination.

Javert was suffering rightfully...[He] felt that duty was growing weaker in his conscience, and he could not hide it from himself...He saw before him two roads, both equally straight; but he saw two; and that terrified him--him, who had never in his life known but one strait line. And, bitter anguish, these two roads were contradictory. One of these two straight lines excluded the other. Which of the two was true?

His condition was inexpressible.

To owe life to a malefactor, to accept that debt and to pay it, to be, in spite of himself, on a level with a fugitive from justice, and to pay him for one service with another service; to allow him to say "go away," and to say to him in turn, "Be free"; to sacrifice duty, that general obligation, to personal motives, and to feel in these personal motives something general also, and perhaps superior; to betray society in order to be true to his own conscience; that all these absurdities should be realized and that they should be accumulated upon himself, this was by which he was prostrated...

Where was he? He sought himself and found himself to longer.

~Les Miserables


Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

Night - Elie Wiesel

Night by Elie Wiesel
Translated by Marion Wiesel
Hill and Wang

Rating: 10
Readability: The style is very readable, but the content is sometimes hard to read.
Impact: 9

Read it Again: Yes
Recommend it: Yes



What to Expect

A heart-rending, poignant memoir of a teenage boy during the holocaust.

This book is brutal in its portrayal of brutality.
It is certainly not for the faint hearted. It gets an R rating for violence, disturbing images, and some other material.
Having said that, it is not an inappropriate book. I highly recommend it. Some of it is disturbing, but it's subject matter is disturbing. To try to make it undisturbing would be unforgivable.

Elie Wiesel is now a best selling author of over 55 books. This is his first. His testimony to the world.

My Squib

I hardly know what to say about this book.

I feel guilty admiring his writing style (even after it has survived translation), but the truth is, its amazing. I was so struck by the elegant prose in the introduction that I read it three times and then immediately felt guilty for admiring it so much when it deals with the subject matter.

The main book text is not as fluid and amazing as the introduction, but his style fits perfectly with his story. It is heart wrenching and honest.

This is not a happy book, but I highly recommend it. There is much to learn from such a slim, 100 page volume.

One thing that did strike me was how far Jews have come from the OT even and how different everything would be without Christ. I would never have the stamina and will to continue living that this sixteen year old boy does if I did not have hope in Jesus.

I quoted a section of the forward by a French Christian who met the author before the book was written.
Wiesel, a reporter at the time, was conducting an interview with him on his reaction and memories from the war. Francois Mauriac, the French Christian, spoke of a memory of the eyes of starving Jewish children staring from a moving train car. Wiesel replied, "I was one of those children." Thus started their relationship.
Mauriac's reaction and wish for the Jews to have known and recognized Christ as Lord, spoke strait to me. You can see the quote below.

Please read the quotes. They say much more then I can.

From the Book

Okay, so I took a lot of quotes from this book. I wanted a piece of the intro because it was so beautifully profound. I took a piece of the forward because it took my emotions and thoughts towards this story from a Christian perspective and put them into better words. I took pieces from the book so you actually see what it was like. And I took pieces from Elie Wiesel's Peace Prize speech because he is so amazingly quotable. I do not necessarily agree with everything Wiesel says, but his views on indifference spoke right to me.

Please read the quotes. They will give you much more then my review can. Or, just pick up the book and read....

-From the introduction to the new edition-

"If in my lifetime I was to write only one book, this would be the one.
Just as our past lingers in the present, all my writings after Night, including those that deal with biblical, Talmudic, or Hasidic themes, profoundly bear its stamp, and cannot be understood if one has not read this very first of my works.
Why did I write it?
Did I write it so as not to go mad, or on the contrary, to go mad in order to understand the nature of madness, the immense, terrifying madness that erupted in history and the conscience of mankind?
Was it to leave behind a legacy of words, of memories, to help prevent history from repeating itself?
Or was it simply to preserve a record of the ordeal I endured as an adolescent, at an age when one's knowledge of death and evil should be limited to what one discovers in literature?
There are those that tell me that I survived in order to write this text. I am not convinced. I do not know how I survived: I was weak, rather shy; I did nothing to save myself. A miracle? Certainly not. If heaven could or would perform a miracle for me, why not for others more deserving than myself. It was nothing more than chance. However, having survived, I needed to give some meaning to my survival. Was it to protect the meaning that I set to paper an experience in which nothing made sense?
In retrospect I must confess that I do not know, or no longer know, what I wanted to achieve with my words. I only know that without this testimony, my life as a writer - or my life, period - would not have become what it is: that of a witness who believes he has a moral obligation to try and prevent the enemy from enjoying one last victory by allowing his crimes to be erased from human memory....

And yet, having lived through this experience, one could not keep silent no matter how difficult, if not impossible, it was to speak.
And so I persevered. And trusted the silence that envelops and transcends words. Knowing all the while that anyone of the fields of ashes in Birkenau carries more weight then all the testimonies about Birkenau. For despite all my attempts to articulate the unspeakable, 'it' is still not right....

Sometimes I am asked if I know 'the response to Auschwitz'; I answer that not only do I know it, but that I don't even know if a tragedy of this magnitude has a response. What I do know is that theres is a 'response' in responsibility. When we speak of this era of evil and darkness so close and yet so distant, 'responsibility' is the key word.
The witness has forced himself to testify. For the youth of today, for the children who will be born tomorrow. He does not want his past to become their future.

~Introduction to the New Translation by Elie Wiesel

-From the forward by Francois Mauriac-

"And I, who believe that God is love, what answer was there to give my young interlocutor whose dark eyes still held the reflection of the angelic sadness that had appeared one day on the face of a hanged child?
What did I say to him?
Did I speak to him of that other Jew, this crucified brother who perhaps resembled him and whose cross conquered the world?
Did I explain to him that what had been a stumbling block for his faith had become a cornerstone for mine.
And that the connection between the cross and human suffering remains, in my view, the key to the unfathomable mystery in which the faith of his childhood was lost? And yet, Zion has risen up again out of the crematoria and the slaughterhouses. The Jewish nation has been resurrected from among its thousands of dead. It is they who have given it new life.
We do not know the worth of one single drop of blood, one single tear. All is grace. If the Almighty is the Almighty, the last word of each of us belongs to Him.
That is what I should have said to the Jewish child. But all I could do was embrace him and weep."
~From the Forward by Francois Mauriac

-From the Book Text-

"The night was gone. The morning star was shining in the sky. I too had become a completely different person. The student of the Talmud, the child that I was, had been consumed in the flames. There remained only a shape that looked like me. A dark flame had entered my soul and devoured. it."

" 'I've got more faith in Hitler than anyone else. He's the only one who's kept his promises, all his promises to the Jewish people.' "

"I shall never forget Juliek. How could I forget that concert given before an audience of the dead and dying? Even today, when I hear that particular piece of Beethoven, my eyes close and out of the darkness emerges the male and melancholy face of my polish comrade bidding farewell to an audience of dying men."

"From the depths of the mirror, a corpse gazed back at me. The look in his eyes, as they stared into mine, has never left me."

-From Elie Wiesel's Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance speech 1986

"But I have faith. Faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and even in His creation. Without it no action would be possible. And action is the only remedy to indifference, the most insidious danger of all...

And I tell him that I have tried. That I have tried to keep memory alive, that I have tried to fight those who would forget. Because if we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices.
And then I explain to him how naive we were, that the world di know and remained silent. And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation.
We must take sides.
Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.

~From the Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech by Elie Wiesel 1986

Why do you want to be a writer?

I've been reading David Morrell's Lessons From a Lifetime of Writing: A novelist looks at his craft and recommend it, highly.

David Morrell has a very real life, practical, but inspiring approach. A lot of what he says, really resonates with the sort of writer I want to be.

His first chapter is an especially good one for anyone who is serious about getting published.
"Why do you want to be a writer?"

There are so many answers.
I thought of this cool idea, I need money, I have extra time, being a writer is cool, I want to be famous, etc...etc... These aren't going to push you through all the times of discouragement in a writer's life. Writing for money or fame is an especially bad idea. The average income of a writer in America today is $6,500! And how many hours did that take bent over your computer?

So, when I ask myself why I want to be a writer, I have a lot of answers, but only a couple that stand up in an investigation.
When I write, everything feels better. Its a creative side of me that needs to be used. Its a way to talk about deep, challenging, and confusing things. So much of our own lives and emotions come out in writing.
My most influential motivation is that I believe that the books people read greatly effect the way they think and live.
I know I have been shaped by a lot of the books I've read.
If I could influence one person the way I have been influenced by Sigmund Brouwer's Samuel Keaton series or in some way lik A Tale of Two Cities I would be inexplicably happy!

I believe that people can be influenced by characters in books and by there change. I believe writers of books, lyrics, and movie scripts, have some of the greatest power of all. When this is wielded correctly it can be one of the best life changing tools we have.

There is so much work and discouragement to writing though. What gets us through?

Is it because we have to write?
Because a story simply must be told? Do we have to put our creativity down on paper? Is this part of our image bearing? To create? To tell stories? Are writers really different then other people or is it just a cultivated difference? Is it simply a way we can let out feelings and emotions we don't want to talk about?

Do you want to be a writer?

Why?

The Writer and Reading

"Next to an utter lack of ability, the worst flaw I can think of for a would-be writer is ignorance about literary history.

It's absurd to imagine a brain surgeon who doesn't know the history and principles of brain surgery, yet many aspiring writers assume that because words fall out of their mouths every day, they need no other qualification to write fiction.

Obviously, not everyone has the time and money to get a collage degree in literature. But lists of important literary works are readily available."

Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing: A Novelist Looks at His Craft by David Morrell

The Author You Know as George Elliot

George Elliot (1819-1880) was born Mary Anne Evans, the daughter of a farmer in Arbury.
There are a lot of reasons why we know her as George Elliot...first she preferred her pen name to be that of a man, because she believed she would be taken more seriously, second she wanted her private life screened from the public eye, and perhaps the best for us, it gave her a steady name on all her works instead of her rapid and sometimes arguable name changes.

George Elliot is by no means my favorite author. We can learn little from her personal life, besides what not to do, but she did have some excellent insights. Even if there was bias towards women novelist in her day, the world benefited from her illumination of the female soul. Some complicated ladies of the classics come close to her own characters, but they way she shows the influences, weaknesses, and complex uncertainty of several of her own heroines is genius.

Elliot's novels include Adam Bede, The Mill on the Floss, Silas Mariner, Ramola, Felix Holt- the Radical, Middlemarch, and Daniel Deronda. She also was a gifted translator of several works and wrote some successful poems.
Like many novelists her stories improve the further you go into her life. Middlemarch and Daniel Deronda being by far my favorites, and not just because those movie versions are done so much better. :-)

I am not an Elliot expert. I have read Middlemarch cover to cover twice, but we don't own any of her other works. I think Middlemarch is an interesting book because it follows several courtships and how they begin, how they are controlled, and how they end up. The happiest people are certainly Fred and his gal. His gal is amazing because she stands firm, and because of it makes Fred into a much better man. He becomes a real worker and real gentleman. The doctor gets what he wants when he wants it, has a pretty rotten marriage, and money troubles for the rest of his life.

Daniel Deronda has so many cool character things going on it I won't try to summarize it. The only thing that bugs me much about that one is it ends more pro Jewish then pro Christian. But I think it is an actual satisfying ending in one of those stories when you know it can't all turn out happily ever after for everyone. Everyone obviously is a better person.

George Elliot certainly has original plots. She is gifted in her portrayals of human nature and where it can lead.
One thing that is a common theme through her books is interest outside of an already established marriage or engagement. This never gets out of hand, but can make one uncomfortable. What I think is very interesting is that she always portrays it as bad and that it only leads to more badness...especially since all her own romances were outside of the guy's marriages. (She's certainly no domestic role model.)

She was obviously a confused person. Her own life reads even more improbable then her novels. There not the books or movies that you'd want to pick up for a happy afternoon, but her characters, their choices, and their consequences show what happens when we choose to follow what is right and when we choose to follow our own desires and whims. I've found her novels to bring up wonderful conversations.

George Elliot was not afraid to try and draw complex, unique, yet believable characters, and most of the time she pulled it off. There is certainly a lot of human nature and of writing that can be learned from her less then perfect life.

I'm not sure I got all my ideas across very clearly...or very quickly. Sorry about that.
Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

(Please note: We watch movies on ClearPlay so movies that are recommended may have inappropriate material.)

Characters - Likable, Lovable, or just plain Fascinating

We all know books or movies were we see a character ruin their lives...and often its a miserable character that doesn't really deserve our good opinion...and most of the time we don't give it. A few good authors have pulled off some amazing stories full of practically unlikable characters. Why? Why would we want to see something like this?

Some examples are Gone with the Wind, Mayor of Casterbridge (and other Thomas Hardy novels), Great Expectations to a degree along with some of Dicken's other characters, some George Elliot characters, several Alexander Dumas fellows, and the Bronte sisters' work....but I haven't found to many of their characters likable, lovable, or fascinating...with their irrational behavior. :-)

Here is a great quote by Lajos Egri from his book The Art of Creative Writing
"Living, vibrating human beings are still the secret and magic formula of great and enduring writing. Read, or better, study the immortals and you will be forced to conclude that their unusual penetration into human character is what has kept their work fresh and alive through the centuries..."

Seriously, point me out a cliche character in a work by "the immortals" (the authors of the classics). Yes, Dickens plots are genius, but would you read 800 pages just to see the amazing plot wrap up at the end? No, Dickens characters are what make him a genius.

Would you read Gone with the Wind to find out how terrible the War Between the States was and that the main character learns hardly anything? No. You read it because Scarlet O'Herra and Rhett Butler are fascinating, even if mostly unlikable. Would you read The Hunchback of Notre Dame to find out that the girl never learns anything and that everyone dies at the end except the people who deserve it? No...Alexander Dumas has fascinating, believable, breathing characters.
How about Hamlet? Look at any of Shakespeare's tragedies and you can see almost unlikeable characters planting their own destruction.

Something in common with all classics is their hopelessly flawed, fascinating, and sometimes, but not always, lovable characters. It is a master story teller who can paint an incredible story and make us love the unlovable.

Here is a quote that really nails some of this idea from James Scott Bell's book Plot & Structure (a must have for anyone creating any type of story). He calls the extreme of this type of character predicament "the car wreck dynamic" and refers to An American Tragedy and the life of Clyde Griffiths. This book has been labeled "the worst written great book ever." It certainly did not get off the ground by its writing style and its plot is not extraordinary (not to mention mildly depressing) so...yeah, it was its "unlikable" very not nice main character.

Anyways, the "car wreck dynamic"....
"Just as people slow down to look at wreckage, we can't resist seeing what happens to fully drawn human beings who make an unalterable mess out of their lives. A skilled novelist can make us feel that 'there but for the grace of God go I.' "


Thanks for reading. Feel free to share your thoughts on the subject.
Miss Pickwickian