5.6 The limits of my language are the limits of my world.
Pinker refers to a Mexican man born deaf. Desperately poor, he never learned a language, not even a sign language. As an adult he finally became lingual. He is reported to have stated that he was able to clearly without words, suggesting that language is more a tool than a defining framework of reality.
Extreme deconstructionists have carried Wittgenstein's concept to the level in insisting that technologically primitive people could not even see things which were beyond their language limits. Thus, I suppose, the conquistadors were first seen as floating in the air, since the concept of a rideable draft animal was unknown to the locals. Said locals actually referred to the horses as god dogs. Horses may have been outside their language, but they adapted what they knew to a new concept. Large sailing ships were referred to as floating islands or clouds [due to the billowing sails]. I expect things like guns and steel swords were also invisible...
5.61 Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits
Only for those dedicated to logic. Most people find logic uncomfortable and alien to their thought processes.
What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think.
So, since such things have not existed since, or even before, the evolution of humanity, there can be no internet, computers, cars, space stations, sculpture, etc.
5.62
Actually, I think you just said what you said you could not say.
5.621 The world and life are one.
Not sure what he means by this. In the light of the solipsism remark, I assume he means that to each of us the world exists only as long as we live to perceive it. Fair enough, but unless we are all horribly insane and impose suffering upon ourselves, the world nevertheless imposes a reality upon us which is independent of our perceptions. We may not be aware of it until it enters out perception, but it is there.
5.63 I am my world. (the microcosm).”
Maybe, but you don’t control your world. The world which apparently doesn’t exist except in your perception of it imposes perceptions upon all of us, you included.
6.4312 The temporal immortality of the soul of man...
Clearly outside of the area of scientific inquiry. Therefore not amenable to proof. One believes or does not. I am convinced that we believe based upon emotional reactions and then rationalize that belief after it is confirmed and established in our thoughts.
6.432 How the world is, is completely indifferent for what is higher. God does not reveal himself in the world.
“If you do things right, no one is sure you have done anything at all.” God’s ending soliloquy to the audience in a Futurama episode in which Bender is God, well a god, for a while.
6.4321 The facts all belong only to the task and not to its performance.
I have no idea of what this means. I can guess, I suppose, that this is related to Kant’s thing in itself (German: Ding an sich). That is, the facts are real and are what they are regardless of our perception or interpretation. But is that what he means by “performance”? You're the one who started all this, explain it to me, please.
6.44 Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.
Fair enough. The very fact that something exists has puzzled the human race for at least millennia. Before the invention of writing who knows if it bothered our ancestors? It seems likely, but how could we know?
6.45 The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its contemplation as a limited whole. The feeling of the world as a limited whole is the mystical feeling.
Had to look up “limited whole” and found too much info to absorb in time for this response. Still, it seems that Wittgenstein’s point is that since we are a part of the limited whole, we cannot logically explore those limits. Only thorough the mystical can we perceive, even conceive of our reality as a complete reality. From my point of view, this fits within my acceptance of an understanding of a reality which is not directly subject to logical or experimental testing.
6.5 For an answer which cannot be expressed the too cannot be expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered
Reminds me of my take on so called paradoxes. Actual paradoxes do not exist. There are only false paradoxes which are created by poor use of language and postulations of impossible events. For example, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” A silly question. If you believe in special creation then you believe, Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.Genesis/2-19. Clearly the chicken came first.
If you believe in evolution and science, then eggs predate chickens by many millions of years.
Either way, the question, this great paradox, is silly and nothing more than a poorly worded statement of mental confusion. It is so with all paradoxes, great and small.
6.51 Skepticism is not irrefutable...
I am not so certain that every question has an answer. This smack to my ear of the special pleading used by St. Anselm. Since God is perfect, He must exist, since not existing would not be perfect. Again, like the paradox, this is more about careless thinking and mistaking language for the reality which it is attempting to describe.
6.52 We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all.
Again, this is comfortable to me, with my insistence that there are two epistemological realities. One dealing with the real as studied and known by science and the other open to the spiritual and the mystic. I am not cetain what he means by the final phrase, Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer. The “just” seems out of place. Take it away and I am again comfortable with the statement.
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem
Yes. Again, there is a path to another reality, one which is not testable or measurable, but which is, nonetheless, knowable and accessible via meditation and transcendence.
6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.
In the words of my youth, “Right on!”
6.53 The right method of philosophy would be this.
This seems in direct contradiction to what has already been said. It is deliberately self contradictory even with in the statements, so I assume this is deliberate, but I fail to see the point. Demystify, please.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way:
If we must throw away the ladder and rise above the limits of what was taught, why teach it in the first place? Is Wittgenstein saying that this is the
only route to transcendence? That we must tread the path of plodding realism to reach a point from which we can then metamorphose into a higher and better perception of reality?
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
So what is that of which Wittgenstein cannot speak? Does he see it as real or more profound than real [realer than real?] Is there value in attempting to speak about things which are beyond words? I cannot give anyone the feeling I have of oneness and completion and love that I feel at the best of my meditations, but I can refer to the numinous and give others a sense of what I fell. Is there not value in that?
Last time we spoke of Wittgenstein, I was sitting at the desk in my youngest daughter’s home and my grandson was tugging impatiently at me as I was not paying attention to him. There is irony in that as I am now not allowed to see him or his siblings until and unless I disown my other children and grandchildren. How strange life is.
I have never had the patience to deal with Wittgenstein. His ideas are interesting, but I find his writing of inferior quality. He does not explain what he means effectively. It is good that you bring these things up, because it exposes me to that which I would otherwise ignore.
That last time I wrote to you about W, I quoted Monty Python, “Wittgenstein was a terrible swine.” I must correct myself, the actual quote is, “Wittgenstein was a drunken swine.” Wouldn't now about that, but he was a lousy writer.
Almost 5 am. Feeling very nauseated and confused. Time to post and sleep. I miss you, Bobby.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Bobby's post
Wittgenstein's Monster
by "http://www.facebook.com/LostWinter" on Sunday, August 19, 2007 at 12:55pm
So, I finished Wittgenstein's Tractatus this summer. Much of it not written for a general audience, I had to reference a lot of stuff from Russell and Frege (and Whitehead) to make sense of the analytic philosophical arguments of the era. But, alas, I got through.
The ending takes this surprisingly mystical turn (and certainly why Russell disagrees with it). It's without a doubt, my favorite part (sorry Russell old chum), and worthy to chew on for awhile. So, I thought I'd transcribe the last 2 pages and let anyone else munch with me. Enjoy.
“5.6 The limits of my language are the limits of my world.
5.61 Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits. We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this there is in the world, that, there is not.
For that would apparently presuppose that we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case since otherwise logic must get outside the limits of the world: that is, if it could consider these limits from the other side also. What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think.
5.62 This remark provides a key to the question, to what extent solipsism is a truth. In fact what solipsism means, is quite correct, only it cannot be said, but shows itself. That the world is my world, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language (the language which only I understand) mean the limits of my world.
5.621 The world and life are one.
5.63 I am my world. (the microcosm).”
6.4312 The temporal immortality of the soul of man, that is to say, its eternal survival also after death, is not only in no way guaranteed, but this assumption in the first place will not do for us what we always tried to make it do. Is a riddle solved by the fact that I survive forever? Is this eternal life not as enigmatic as our present one? The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time. (It is not the problems of natural science which have to be solved.)
6.432 How the world is, is completely indifferent for what is higher. God does not reveal himself in the world.
6.4321 The facts all belong only to the task and not to its performance.
6.44 Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.
6.45 The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its contemplation as a limited whole. The feeling of the world as a limited whole is the mystical feeling.
6.5 For an answer which cannot be expressed the too cannot be expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered.
6.51 Skepticism is not irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked. For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something, can be said.
6.52 We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer (!!!! I like that part).
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem. (Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting the sense of life became clear, could not then say wherein this sense consisted?) (I like that part too: )
6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.
6.53 The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, ie something that has nothing to do with philosophy; and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other – he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy – but it would be the only strictly correct method.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) (!!!) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Damn.
If anyone wants to talk about this or other Wittgenstein, I'd love to.
by "http://www.facebook.com/LostWinter" on Sunday, August 19, 2007 at 12:55pm
So, I finished Wittgenstein's Tractatus this summer. Much of it not written for a general audience, I had to reference a lot of stuff from Russell and Frege (and Whitehead) to make sense of the analytic philosophical arguments of the era. But, alas, I got through.
The ending takes this surprisingly mystical turn (and certainly why Russell disagrees with it). It's without a doubt, my favorite part (sorry Russell old chum), and worthy to chew on for awhile. So, I thought I'd transcribe the last 2 pages and let anyone else munch with me. Enjoy.
“5.6 The limits of my language are the limits of my world.
5.61 Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits. We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this there is in the world, that, there is not.
For that would apparently presuppose that we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case since otherwise logic must get outside the limits of the world: that is, if it could consider these limits from the other side also. What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think.
5.62 This remark provides a key to the question, to what extent solipsism is a truth. In fact what solipsism means, is quite correct, only it cannot be said, but shows itself. That the world is my world, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language (the language which only I understand) mean the limits of my world.
5.621 The world and life are one.
5.63 I am my world. (the microcosm).”
6.4312 The temporal immortality of the soul of man, that is to say, its eternal survival also after death, is not only in no way guaranteed, but this assumption in the first place will not do for us what we always tried to make it do. Is a riddle solved by the fact that I survive forever? Is this eternal life not as enigmatic as our present one? The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time. (It is not the problems of natural science which have to be solved.)
6.432 How the world is, is completely indifferent for what is higher. God does not reveal himself in the world.
6.4321 The facts all belong only to the task and not to its performance.
6.44 Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.
6.45 The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its contemplation as a limited whole. The feeling of the world as a limited whole is the mystical feeling.
6.5 For an answer which cannot be expressed the too cannot be expressed. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered.
6.51 Skepticism is not irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked. For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something, can be said.
6.52 We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be answered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer (!!!! I like that part).
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem. (Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting the sense of life became clear, could not then say wherein this sense consisted?) (I like that part too: )
6.522 There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.
6.53 The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, ie something that has nothing to do with philosophy; and then always, when someone else wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other – he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy – but it would be the only strictly correct method.
6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) (!!!) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Damn.
If anyone wants to talk about this or other Wittgenstein, I'd love to.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
As many Americans know, Oklahoma banned Sharia law from being considered by state courts. Why was this important? It wasn’t, not as a real issue. There is no likelihood of Sharia being a part of the state court system. The action was taken by demagogues in the state legislature who wanted to distract tier constituency from their failures and to benefit form the fears and confusion of the electorate.
Doing good work and passing good laws is hard. Playing on fears and baseless panics is easy. I’m surprised the legislators didn’t also attempt to ban Kilingon law. It’s so much harsher that Sharia and as likely to ever be a part of the state court system.
The founding fathers attempted to create a balance between the outrages of Athenian democracy [see Alcibiades and the Syracuse expedition] and the suppression of the people under the Roman Republic. That’s why junior high school civics students learn that the US is a democratic republic. Its supposed to be a careful construction of the benefits of both systems without the inherent failures of each. Actually, it works pretty well, considering that its a wholly human effort. We do surprising well when compared to the rest of history.
Right now everyone is confused and frightened. Therefore we tend strongly to seek someone to blame. Someone who is not us. That’s important. Obviously we can’t be responsible for our own troubles. It must be a plot.
American voters hate politics and largely ignore it. Then they are surprised when politicians use their power to do bad things. It shouldn’t be a surprise, but somehow, it always is.
Doing good work and passing good laws is hard. Playing on fears and baseless panics is easy. I’m surprised the legislators didn’t also attempt to ban Kilingon law. It’s so much harsher that Sharia and as likely to ever be a part of the state court system.
The founding fathers attempted to create a balance between the outrages of Athenian democracy [see Alcibiades and the Syracuse expedition] and the suppression of the people under the Roman Republic. That’s why junior high school civics students learn that the US is a democratic republic. Its supposed to be a careful construction of the benefits of both systems without the inherent failures of each. Actually, it works pretty well, considering that its a wholly human effort. We do surprising well when compared to the rest of history.
Right now everyone is confused and frightened. Therefore we tend strongly to seek someone to blame. Someone who is not us. That’s important. Obviously we can’t be responsible for our own troubles. It must be a plot.
American voters hate politics and largely ignore it. Then they are surprised when politicians use their power to do bad things. It shouldn’t be a surprise, but somehow, it always is.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Some thoughts on Glenn Beck. Let’s begin with Glenn Beck on Glen Beck:
“I’m a rodeo clown,” he said in an interview, adding with a coy smile, “It takes great skill.”
And:
He added later: “I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’ ”
[Source: New York Times]
Yet his declarations are taken as absolutely true by millions. That means, according to him, those who believe absolutely in him, are idiots. Ummm...how gullible are these people?
Well, they believe that when he picked the date for his holy crusade to restore honor to a long list of stuff [and to sell gold and get richer], it was a miracle that it just happened to be the anniversary of Dr. King’s I have a Dream speech. Yes, and if Beck chose to hold a special service on December 25 using a pine tree decorated with colored lights and a star on top, it would shock him to discover that these are symbols of Christmas and that the 25th is Christmas. Who would have thought it?
What is disturbing about all this is that so many blindly follow this self declared rodeo clown. He is now proclaiming that the Holy Spirit will speak though him at the rally. Having been so successful in scamming so many, he is now entering into the highly lucrative cult con. David Koresh and Jim Jones both went this way, Jones clearly was a con man at the beginning and there is good cause for believing that Koresh was doing the same. But both came to believe they really were Prophets. It is a dangerous route. All the more dangerous because Beck already has the devotion and blind obedience of far more Americans than Koresh and Jones put together.
Am I afraid of Beck? Only for the sake of the fools who believe in him. He can’t hurt me or America much, but he can destroy their lives. They may be fools, but it is their fear that drives away their rationality. They don’t deserve whatever Beck will do to them.
“I’m a rodeo clown,” he said in an interview, adding with a coy smile, “It takes great skill.”
And:
He added later: “I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’ ”
[Source: New York Times]
Yet his declarations are taken as absolutely true by millions. That means, according to him, those who believe absolutely in him, are idiots. Ummm...how gullible are these people?
Well, they believe that when he picked the date for his holy crusade to restore honor to a long list of stuff [and to sell gold and get richer], it was a miracle that it just happened to be the anniversary of Dr. King’s I have a Dream speech. Yes, and if Beck chose to hold a special service on December 25 using a pine tree decorated with colored lights and a star on top, it would shock him to discover that these are symbols of Christmas and that the 25th is Christmas. Who would have thought it?
What is disturbing about all this is that so many blindly follow this self declared rodeo clown. He is now proclaiming that the Holy Spirit will speak though him at the rally. Having been so successful in scamming so many, he is now entering into the highly lucrative cult con. David Koresh and Jim Jones both went this way, Jones clearly was a con man at the beginning and there is good cause for believing that Koresh was doing the same. But both came to believe they really were Prophets. It is a dangerous route. All the more dangerous because Beck already has the devotion and blind obedience of far more Americans than Koresh and Jones put together.
Am I afraid of Beck? Only for the sake of the fools who believe in him. He can’t hurt me or America much, but he can destroy their lives. They may be fools, but it is their fear that drives away their rationality. They don’t deserve whatever Beck will do to them.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Obviously, I did not reconnect two days ago to continue my side of the artistic discussion with Bobby on the book we’re working on. I had a crash and lost a day to vertigo. Still not good today, and I must rest so that I can get out tomorrow to get some dental care and pay the rent. But I want to get my ideas out for Bobby’s response.
So, the original was a play which had a number of implications for the book, if the projects are to remain connected and not be completely different. For a variety of reasons, I wish the two to remain facets of the one project. Now a play has little description beyond general suggestions for staging and sets. Yet it is a profoundly visual experience when performed. The details are left the director and the stage manager [once these were one position], in the case of school plays, the functions remain one and are filled by the teacher. Moving the play to a book means both description and art create the setting. In effect the physical artifact of the book becomes the stage.
Now, if I keep the original age target of the play, the book becomes a children's novel-- I don't actually want to go that route. Remembering that the play was intended to be performed by fifth graders, but would be seen by groups as young as third graders, I can lower the intended age to roughly 9. This allows a format I feel is suitable to the material. After all, the stories are collected from many sources. The isolation imposed on slaves both by the nature of the system of exploitation and for defensive purposes [slaveholders wanted their “property” as ignorant as possible, therefore isolation was an active technique of suppression]. The effect of all this was to make the stories of TJ [Trickster John] to be local and very personalized.
To reflect this, I intended that the play use different characters for each story, rather than one actor being John throughout. Transferring the same idea to the book, makes for an odd hybrid. Imagine a picture book, but with much more text aimed at an older audience than usual for this format. In effect, I am still staging the play, you are then bringing it to life on the stage which is the pictures floating above the text. I don’t know any book like this. It’s a rather radical proposal as far as I know -- what do you think? Can do? Or am I way off on what is reasonable to ask of an artist?
Of course, an alternative is to use the format of a graphic novel. This has the advantage of making each story its own small volume. I find this alternative quite attractive too. I would be happy to tackle either challenge, both being new to me.
I wish you lived close by. We could wrangle these issues out more collaboratively. Think about it and let me know. Early planning and intent are so important as I proceed. As many authors have commented, the characters often take a story over and it goes where you did not intend, but that comes later. I still need a clear vision of what I want to accomplish and where I am going with a story to get it started. It may morph into something completely different, but that comes with the process. I still need a focus to begin the work.
Just think about the difference between a graphic novel and the picture book I suggested first. In the picture book, I write a book which stands entirely on its own, even without illustration. I feel the illustrations are vital, but theoretically, the written work could stand alone. In a graphic novel, I would write very differently, more like a play. Description fades and the “staging” becomes the illustrations. For me as author description fades out and dialogue dominates -- you know, this may be the better format after all. A graphic novel is, in effect, a play performed by the illustrated actors. I’m inclining in this direction.
Back to the painful issues of dealing with the problems of race and resentment. As I noted before, I see no real way to avoid the straight black vs. white aspect of this in a book. As a play it was easy. Whatever class was yours for that year was your pool from which the cast was to be drawn. Had I actually staged this particular play, every child would have tried out for whatever part he or she wished. When doing a play on the origins of Santa Claus [a curricular unit, of course, with historical trends and facts beginning with Saint Nicholas in Asia Minor], a role for God was included. No, I wasn’t preaching, God was needed to work the miracle to bring “”Santa” into reality. The point is that each child who wanted that God part tried out and the best actor won. Over the years I did the play I had at least one blue eyed, one black, and one female God.
This applies to TJ. I envisioned identifying slaves and slave owners, not by the color of their skin, but by sashes, black or white. This would allow each child to try out for whatever part appealed to them and also emphasize my intent to make the story a human, rather than a racial story Humans, Black and White, have been the oppressors and the resistors throughout history. Not nice, but factual. For example, coastal tribes of Africans happily enslaved and sold their interior neighbors. Even the American slave trade, when viewed globally, was exploited for profit by both Whites and Blacks. A truth which we might work into the story, but which would be a minor point, as I know of no stories of TJ which relate to the African end of the slave trade and I want to be true to the slaves who told his stories by not inventing tales, only repeating and retelling those which they actually shared in the antebellum South.
Silly ideas like drawing in the sashes on kids drawn as actors in a play occur to me, but I feel they would simply not work. I toss it out in the spirit of the brainstorming technique in which even bad ideas can stimulate good ones in response. I can’t see injecting some nice Whites into the story. Slaves on a plantation did not experience nice whites and even many abolitionists believed that Blacks were inferior [read Frederick Douglas on Lincoln for insight into this problem]. I can’t imagine original TJ stories including nice Whites [except for the plantation children. It is an odd, but very real phenomenon which is reflected in American literature that slaves and the children of the masters sometimes formed a mutual bond. Both were harshly disciplined -- harsh for the kids, horrible for the slaves -- and were subject to the whims of the adult masters. Of course, this faded as the white children grew into slave masters themselves. Some of this is reflected in the Uncle Remus tales.] I fear the only sympathetic White characters we can allow would be the children. I know of at least one original tale in which Ol Massa’s son is kind and friendly to TJ.
Then there is the problem of writing this as a comic story for kids. The humor was original to the slave folklore, but every slave knew the horrors of slavery. That didn’t need to be detailed. It was as natural as assuming that the character breathed air and lived on land. We, however, must make it clear that slavery was horrible, yet not give our young readers nightmares. Some ideas to this end might be in the background of illustrations. A Black mother who looks at Ol Massa, Ol Miss, or another authority figure with an instinctive fear for her small child. Clutching the child in an unthinking attempt to hide it from the threat? Something you don’t notice the first time you read the story, but which becomes obvious when you look for it?
Of course, the rich, fancy clothes worn by the masters against the rags worn by the slaves tells much of the reality too.
As I have been writing it occurs to me that the graphic novel format would also allow us to keep the target age are 10-12. A real advantage in many ways. Have you discovered the Mushishi series? Both in the graphic novel and the animated versions, a great set of stories, beautifully illustrated. I loved it as animation as it makes real the thinking and culture of a people who believe in spirits. Reading the novels, I found that the author was exploring exactly that. He was reflecting and examining the world as seen by an elderly relative of his. Wonderful!
I need some input from you on how you think the illustrations should be applied. Should they be a character essential to the story as in Mushsisi, Thomas Hardy’s novels, and John Ford’s westerns? The South certainly could add to the story -- Magnolia’s and huge oaks draped with Spanish moss... you can see it in your mind. Or is it better to go to the opposite extreme and make the background fade into minor detail? Not being the one responsible for the labor of doing the drawing, I am inclined to a rich, detailed, vigorous role for the settings. However, I am also picturing a sort of Mushishi style drawing. More pencil sketch, but detailed, than painting or watercolor. Or like the animated Mushishsi, lots of color with the same feel...
And should TJ be one character as normal story telling requires? Or should he change form story to story as happened since this was real folklore. He didn’t even have one name, being crated fresh within every group of slaves who told his tales.
Well, lots ideas here. I was thinking out loud in this entry, so forgive my chaotic style. I am very anxious to have your response. This project is really exciting me. I believe this can be a great work for both of us. That does not mean it will ever be published. I have no faith in the wisdom of publishers. Remember that Geisell, aka, Dr. Seuss, was rejected by almost 30 publishers before he found someone who thought his work was worth taking the financial risk of publishing it. Publishers also prefer to buy an author’s work, then add the illustrator they like or vice versa. Well, what happens happens. Getting published is a surprising extra for me. I am enjoying this already. The creation is what matters. As for the rest? Que serra, serra.
http://www.animecastle.com/c-23191-mushishi-graphic-novels.aspx
http://www.google.com/search?q=mushishi+episode+1&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en
So, the original was a play which had a number of implications for the book, if the projects are to remain connected and not be completely different. For a variety of reasons, I wish the two to remain facets of the one project. Now a play has little description beyond general suggestions for staging and sets. Yet it is a profoundly visual experience when performed. The details are left the director and the stage manager [once these were one position], in the case of school plays, the functions remain one and are filled by the teacher. Moving the play to a book means both description and art create the setting. In effect the physical artifact of the book becomes the stage.
Now, if I keep the original age target of the play, the book becomes a children's novel-- I don't actually want to go that route. Remembering that the play was intended to be performed by fifth graders, but would be seen by groups as young as third graders, I can lower the intended age to roughly 9. This allows a format I feel is suitable to the material. After all, the stories are collected from many sources. The isolation imposed on slaves both by the nature of the system of exploitation and for defensive purposes [slaveholders wanted their “property” as ignorant as possible, therefore isolation was an active technique of suppression]. The effect of all this was to make the stories of TJ [Trickster John] to be local and very personalized.
To reflect this, I intended that the play use different characters for each story, rather than one actor being John throughout. Transferring the same idea to the book, makes for an odd hybrid. Imagine a picture book, but with much more text aimed at an older audience than usual for this format. In effect, I am still staging the play, you are then bringing it to life on the stage which is the pictures floating above the text. I don’t know any book like this. It’s a rather radical proposal as far as I know -- what do you think? Can do? Or am I way off on what is reasonable to ask of an artist?
Of course, an alternative is to use the format of a graphic novel. This has the advantage of making each story its own small volume. I find this alternative quite attractive too. I would be happy to tackle either challenge, both being new to me.
I wish you lived close by. We could wrangle these issues out more collaboratively. Think about it and let me know. Early planning and intent are so important as I proceed. As many authors have commented, the characters often take a story over and it goes where you did not intend, but that comes later. I still need a clear vision of what I want to accomplish and where I am going with a story to get it started. It may morph into something completely different, but that comes with the process. I still need a focus to begin the work.
Just think about the difference between a graphic novel and the picture book I suggested first. In the picture book, I write a book which stands entirely on its own, even without illustration. I feel the illustrations are vital, but theoretically, the written work could stand alone. In a graphic novel, I would write very differently, more like a play. Description fades and the “staging” becomes the illustrations. For me as author description fades out and dialogue dominates -- you know, this may be the better format after all. A graphic novel is, in effect, a play performed by the illustrated actors. I’m inclining in this direction.
Back to the painful issues of dealing with the problems of race and resentment. As I noted before, I see no real way to avoid the straight black vs. white aspect of this in a book. As a play it was easy. Whatever class was yours for that year was your pool from which the cast was to be drawn. Had I actually staged this particular play, every child would have tried out for whatever part he or she wished. When doing a play on the origins of Santa Claus [a curricular unit, of course, with historical trends and facts beginning with Saint Nicholas in Asia Minor], a role for God was included. No, I wasn’t preaching, God was needed to work the miracle to bring “”Santa” into reality. The point is that each child who wanted that God part tried out and the best actor won. Over the years I did the play I had at least one blue eyed, one black, and one female God.
This applies to TJ. I envisioned identifying slaves and slave owners, not by the color of their skin, but by sashes, black or white. This would allow each child to try out for whatever part appealed to them and also emphasize my intent to make the story a human, rather than a racial story Humans, Black and White, have been the oppressors and the resistors throughout history. Not nice, but factual. For example, coastal tribes of Africans happily enslaved and sold their interior neighbors. Even the American slave trade, when viewed globally, was exploited for profit by both Whites and Blacks. A truth which we might work into the story, but which would be a minor point, as I know of no stories of TJ which relate to the African end of the slave trade and I want to be true to the slaves who told his stories by not inventing tales, only repeating and retelling those which they actually shared in the antebellum South.
Silly ideas like drawing in the sashes on kids drawn as actors in a play occur to me, but I feel they would simply not work. I toss it out in the spirit of the brainstorming technique in which even bad ideas can stimulate good ones in response. I can’t see injecting some nice Whites into the story. Slaves on a plantation did not experience nice whites and even many abolitionists believed that Blacks were inferior [read Frederick Douglas on Lincoln for insight into this problem]. I can’t imagine original TJ stories including nice Whites [except for the plantation children. It is an odd, but very real phenomenon which is reflected in American literature that slaves and the children of the masters sometimes formed a mutual bond. Both were harshly disciplined -- harsh for the kids, horrible for the slaves -- and were subject to the whims of the adult masters. Of course, this faded as the white children grew into slave masters themselves. Some of this is reflected in the Uncle Remus tales.] I fear the only sympathetic White characters we can allow would be the children. I know of at least one original tale in which Ol Massa’s son is kind and friendly to TJ.
Then there is the problem of writing this as a comic story for kids. The humor was original to the slave folklore, but every slave knew the horrors of slavery. That didn’t need to be detailed. It was as natural as assuming that the character breathed air and lived on land. We, however, must make it clear that slavery was horrible, yet not give our young readers nightmares. Some ideas to this end might be in the background of illustrations. A Black mother who looks at Ol Massa, Ol Miss, or another authority figure with an instinctive fear for her small child. Clutching the child in an unthinking attempt to hide it from the threat? Something you don’t notice the first time you read the story, but which becomes obvious when you look for it?
Of course, the rich, fancy clothes worn by the masters against the rags worn by the slaves tells much of the reality too.
As I have been writing it occurs to me that the graphic novel format would also allow us to keep the target age are 10-12. A real advantage in many ways. Have you discovered the Mushishi series? Both in the graphic novel and the animated versions, a great set of stories, beautifully illustrated. I loved it as animation as it makes real the thinking and culture of a people who believe in spirits. Reading the novels, I found that the author was exploring exactly that. He was reflecting and examining the world as seen by an elderly relative of his. Wonderful!
I need some input from you on how you think the illustrations should be applied. Should they be a character essential to the story as in Mushsisi, Thomas Hardy’s novels, and John Ford’s westerns? The South certainly could add to the story -- Magnolia’s and huge oaks draped with Spanish moss... you can see it in your mind. Or is it better to go to the opposite extreme and make the background fade into minor detail? Not being the one responsible for the labor of doing the drawing, I am inclined to a rich, detailed, vigorous role for the settings. However, I am also picturing a sort of Mushishi style drawing. More pencil sketch, but detailed, than painting or watercolor. Or like the animated Mushishsi, lots of color with the same feel...
And should TJ be one character as normal story telling requires? Or should he change form story to story as happened since this was real folklore. He didn’t even have one name, being crated fresh within every group of slaves who told his tales.
Well, lots ideas here. I was thinking out loud in this entry, so forgive my chaotic style. I am very anxious to have your response. This project is really exciting me. I believe this can be a great work for both of us. That does not mean it will ever be published. I have no faith in the wisdom of publishers. Remember that Geisell, aka, Dr. Seuss, was rejected by almost 30 publishers before he found someone who thought his work was worth taking the financial risk of publishing it. Publishers also prefer to buy an author’s work, then add the illustrator they like or vice versa. Well, what happens happens. Getting published is a surprising extra for me. I am enjoying this already. The creation is what matters. As for the rest? Que serra, serra.
http://www.animecastle.com/c-23191-mushishi-graphic-novels.aspx
http://www.google.com/search?q=mushishi+episode+1&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)