a sense of joy and then a panic

New Year's Resolution #1: Get serious about writing.  It's put up or shut up time.  Those novels are not going to write themselves.

You may have been wondering what the hell I've been doing for the past two years (aside from getting a Master's degree and working almost full-time). Well, I've been mulling.  I've been outlining.  I've been making playlists.  I've been reading (not enough).  And now, I am absolutely ready to make a serious go at a novel.  But I'm at a crossroads: where do I start?

Option #1: Novel 1 out of 3 of my "American fascism" trilogy.  Set in a contemporary city in a slightly-alternative, highly-corrupt and "materialistic" America, it's more in the vein of Lewis's It Can't Happen Here than Roth's The Plot Against America.  One of my main characters, in law enforcement, is a "winner" in the current social landscape; the other one, a journalist, is struggling.  A new religious movement, and a new political party, sweeps the nation with the promise of transformative, transcendental change.  Now I love this story.  I love the messy, desperate, self-deceiving characters.  I kind of live and breathe them, actually - I stay up late tinkering with the outline, writing random scenes.  I've spent so much time planning this story, and am so excited about this story, that I could probably write it fairly quickly.  This is, hands-down, the option with the most momentum and passion behind it.  But: it's pretty political, obviously.  No John Galt speeches, and hopefully it's not a polemic - it's way more focused on characters' inner lives than the grit of political issues - but it's political.  It might piss people off.  And I worry that a potentially "controversial" book isn't the right choice for a debut.

Option #2: A stand-alone story about young Americans studying and working abroad in a fictionalized Indonesia.  The overarching theme is self-discovery: discovering what truly matters to you, what you'd be willing to do to get it, and who you really are.  The other theme is the interaction between the (naturally) self-absorbed post-grads and the politics of the foreign country that's hosting them, which is experiencing Sukarno-style turbulence.  So we've got a few overlapping stories: an ambitious scholar falls in love with the girl of his dreams, but she's heading toward a psychotic break; a rich kid with poor grades finds his calling with the military general who knows his father; one dude turns into a prophet and starts his own (very small) religion.  Now I "know" far less about Option #2 than Option #1.  I know the contours of the plot and the way each character develops, but I haven't spent as much time processing it.  I just came up with the title today.  I don't know the characters as well, and except for the girl on the verge of a psychotic break who becomes convinced she's possessed by the mask she's studying... I'm not as enthusiastic about this story.  On the other hand, I feel like it would make more "sense" to start here - it's a stand-alone, I too just finished grad school, I don't think it would be at all controversial.

Both of these stories are concerned with the way the personal snake wraps around the political axis (or sometimes, vice versa) - it's by far my favorite thing to write about.  Both flirt with horror (psychic powers in Option #1, evil spirits in Option #2), though that's not the main focus of either.  But they otherwise feel very different.

If I had my way, I'd keep going full-speed ahead on Option #1.  But I worry that that's not the strategic choice, right now.

Thoughts?

So, The Dark Knight Rises - the last Nolan Batman movie (God willing).  I really liked Batman Begins, which I think I saw in theaters with Christina when neither of us knew what we were expecting - and we were both like, "I think I really kind of LIKED IT" - and have a special relationship with The Dark Knight, which I saw on my own in a shopping mall/movie theater in Surabaya after I bought a canvas bag that said "Life.  Industry.  Work.  Strength."  I saw The Dark Knight Rises last weekend in another shopping mall/movie theater in Jakarta with mixed company, and I felt frustrated and disappointed with it. 

Many people have talked about the questionable politics of The Dark Knight Rises - I particularly like Abigail Nussbaum's review (but when is that ever not true?).  Others have pointed out that these weird fascistic/Randian trends have been in Nolan's Batman movies the entire time, although I must confess I didn't really see them.  To me Batman Begins wasn't very controversial politically, and The Dark Knight was about the classic dilemmas facing public servants trying to do the right thing (I think the most interesting character in it is Dent's) as well as the personal mental collapse that takes place when you decide you can't take trying anymore (see for instance "that's it, I'm moving to Canada" on a much more mundane level, or "fuck iiiiiit" in meme terms).  In the Order vs. Chaos argument, I think a pretty compelling point was made for Chaos, even if officially Order won out.  The Dark Knight Rises, on the other hand, was really playing up the 1% vs. 99% thing, and the 99% pretty much turn out to be duped by an evil that has no motivation other than to be evil.  It actually kind of reminded me of Michael Crichton's "environmentalists are actually engineering global warming to scare us all into going with the Kyoto Protocol!" as well as of that terrible book by Glenn Beck.  The 1% don't even really commit any sins except their parties are boring.  And then there they are, being thrown out on the streets and executed by exile onto a sea of thin ice!  Even Catwoman, the "Robin Hood" character, is all "Batman, you don't owe these plebes anything, they stole all your money."  So yeah, all that: kind of sucky.

Beyond that, I didn't find the movie as much "fun" as I did its predecessors.  I had heard a lot about the explosion in the football stadium scene beforehand but it did not pack the emotional punch that it truly should have, given me and my inclinations.  I actually felt most emotional in the opening scene, during the nuclear physicist's surprise kidnapping.  I don't really know why - maybe the claustrophobia and imminent death involved for such a small pack of people?  But the police being stuck in the tunnels, then surprise!liberated and being gunned down like Theoden's Riders in The Return of the King - meh.  The random schoolbus of orphaned boys - meh.  The pit?  I did feel a twinge when Bruce Wayne makes it out at last, but it was for the cheering prisoners still in the pit, not Bruce Wayne.  This one just didn't click with me.  It felt cold and distant and unwilling to really give of itself.

On the other hand: Alfred the loyal-unto-death butler and Gordon the beleaguered police commissioner were great.  I think those two and Blake (the scrappy new cop) were really the actual soul of the movie, as far as it had a soul at all - the most human characters, at any rate.  Batman/Bruce Wayne was just kind of annoying/useless (ironically), Catwoman was like What Happens When Men Write Women #5a, or so, and Miranda Tate would have potentially been a competent character if not for the barren face heel turn.  Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow was also fun. 

If anything I sort of wished Batman was erased from this movie, and that it was just the tale of the horribly dysfunctional city that had to fend for itself - that there truly was no ubermensch to save it.  Because I'm fond of Gotham - have been since the beginning - and I was always fiercely of the belief that the League of Shadows was wrong, and Gotham should not be sacrificed as hopelessly corrupt.  Maybe that's because I come from a city that really reminds me of Gotham, sometimes ("criminals in this town used to believe in things - honor, respect!"), and Gotham being assailed by Chaos was like the Jemaah Islamiyah era here, when hotels were being blown up; and the Gotham being assailed by Quasi-Revolution is like what's happening now, with people burning suspected thieves in the street.  And let me tell you: we have no ubermensch.  What we might have, if we're lucky, is a Gordon, a couple Blakes.  We certainly have plenty of Alfreds.

ANYWAY.  Something else I realized while watching The Dark Knight Rises: I think I may be finally shifting my gaze from older men (father substitutes, all) to men my age (the "damaged" ones, but oh well).  I was way, way more attracted to Joseph Gordon-Levitt in this movie than Bruce Wayne (that scene where he's running to the hospital with the rifle!  Rarr!), and that is new.  I was talking about this with my mother, and concluded that regardless of who I actually date, my ideal type seems to be this older, married, brooding political scientist type that is clearly a doppelganger for my father.  And it's also!  A completely safe, riskless outlet for whatever feelings I might develop, because I know in my hardest of hearts that nothing real can actually happen there.  There was no possibility of anything developing.  I couldn't really get involved.  I wasn't going to get heartbroken.  Plus it let me deal with my Daddy Issues.  Sort of, anyway.  I mean, the walls I put up -- both because my father died and everything normal and happy was shattered, and probably just because of me, because I was born nuts -- were miles high.

But I think that's starting to change, and that's a good thing.

Is Superman A Traitor?  "in the short story “The Incident” in Action Comics #900, Superman is renouncing his American citizenship." 

Result: A Little Bit of Cosmic Rage.  Aside from the "I will never buy DC comics again!" declarations, there's actually a decent amount of soul-searching in those comments.  I have zero investment in Superman, and I'm sure this will be (a) contradicted by some previous incident, and/or (b) retconned, so I'm not sure if it's that big of a deal.  But commenter Daniella thinks it's a very big deal: "The reason he stands for truth justice and the American way is because those are God given morals. He wouldn't be Superman if he hadnt been raised by God fearing farmers from Kansas."

BUT, on a more serious note back at the first link, Bryan Reesman says: "Is Superman only considered so by us if he is an American? Is a hero only someone who allies himself with one side or one country? Isn’t a hero someone who commits selfless acts to save people, prevent catastrophe, stand up for important values or to improve people’s lives? And is a hero allowed to speak their mind and express their beliefs beyond their actions?"

That last sentence might actually be the most interesting (the other questions, and their answers, are a little too obvious for me).  That there's the kind of thing that fits mighty fine in my novel, the whole hero/puppet/golem thing.  And I love that it's being posed in the context of one of the most quintessentially heroic heroes instead of the antiheroes, who usually get this kind of introspection.  I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I've always found heroic heroes to be much more interesting than antiheroes, which is actually why I'll probably never get into GrimDark fantasy...

One of Reesman's commenters adds: "I must say that, as an Australian, I haven’t ever thought of Superman as a purely American hero. He has been a role model for people all around the globe. I don’t know if I would feel differently about this if I was American or not, but considering Superman came from ANOTHER PLANET entirely, I don’t see why people would complain."

Can I just say how much this reminds of various arguments in the DBZ fandom (which seems almost without exception to be extremely hawkish, often socially conservative - gee, I can't imagine why - as well as oddly religious)?  Rather delicious, really.

The first commentary on the whole Bankrupt Nihilism brouhaha that I really agree with (and surprisingly, it comes from Black Gate): The Decline and Fall of Bankrupt Nihilism.  One points Matthew Surridge brings up that I consider pretty important concerns the supposedly "heroic and inspiring" morality of old-fashioned fantasy, and particularly, states that there's a big difference between Tolkien's and Howard's morality: "[Howard's heroes] were concerned with doing right, but doing right by a moral code based around virtues like honour and strength. I think that’s a far cry from Tolkien’s Christian sense of morality." 

The "virtues like honor and strength" part really got to me, because it reminds me of the kind of "morality" that infuses militaristic societies (you can see this in U.S. armed forces ads too).  Hilariously, I recently used the exact phrase "honor and strength" in a short-story-in-progress as the straight-faced slogan of a genocidal army (this is a Suharto-inspired story, but it's obviously got wider implications). 

Anyway, Surridge's main point is that this old-fashioned fantasy was not, as a rule, any more morally-upright than what's being written today.  He also says that although "a certain stylistic approach has become broadly more common in fantasy, specifically because it’s an approach that’s perceived as more realistic" (this approach being dark-and-gritty), it's not "about the morality of the writers... so much as a greater focus on world-building, plot detail, and the amount of cruelty that one can expect to find in the world."  Which I think is also pretty fair.

This whole ridiculous bankrupt nihilism conversation has made me realize that I think I'm a "moralist" writer, at least if that means my writing is concerned with discussing right behavior.  I never really thought of it that way, but after reading this essay and thinking about the novel... yeah, it's all about right behavior (there are other things, too, but that's the backbone).  I usually think of my writing as being "political," but I think that's just my poli sci background speaking.  I've written things that weren't so driven by morality, and they never feel as whole or sincere or "worth it" after I get a bit of distance from them (in contrast to say, my ChiZine stories).  The best writing compliment I've ever gotten is six years old, and came from one of my high school English teachers - that I "wield the pen like a sword."  And I really need to remember that that sort of writing is my real mission.

1.  Marc Thiessen on Jon Stewart - extended, unedited interview, in three parts.  One of those cases where Jon Stewart looks genuinely disturbed.  Part 3 is like arrgh.  This is Marc Thiessen - he has an endorsement from Dick Cheney: "Marc Thiessen knows, in ways that few others do, just how effective, heroic, and morally justified were the interrogators who kept this nation safe after 9/11. If you want to know what really happened behind the scenes at the CIA interrogation sites or at Guantanamo Bay, you simply must read this book." 

2.  Christopher Hitchens on waterboarding: Believe Me, It's Torture - "I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."

3.  Whatever It Takes: The influence of 24 on the US military and US torture culture in general - "The third expert at the meeting was Tony Lagouranis, a former Army interrogator in the war in Iraq. He told the show’s staff that DVDs of shows such as “24” circulate widely among soldiers stationed in Iraq. Lagouranis said to me, “People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they’ve just seen.”  He recalled that some men he had worked with in Iraq watched a television program in which a suspect was forced to hear tortured screams from a neighboring cell; the men later tried to persuade their Iraqi translator to act the part of a torture “victim,” in a similar intimidation ploy."

4.  A Foreigner Carrying in the Crook of His Arm a Tiny Bomb, by Amitava Kuvar.  "He quotes the Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, who asked us to understand “why millions of people in poor countries that have been pushed to one side, and deprived of the right to decide their own histories, feel such anger at America.”"

Everybody knows Westboro Baptist Church, right?  They're in Kansas.  They're famous for "picketing" soldiers' funerals (some family is now suing them for emotional damage or something) as well as the funerals of people who died of AIDS (and Matthew Shepard) because they think 9/11 and American deaths in Iraq are retribution for homosexuality, and apparently drug use (?) (Miss Megan Phelps thinks Heath Ledger was struck down by God, so...).  One family is basically in charge of the whole thing, the Phelpses.  Granddaddy founded the church, Mommy the Minister (one of thirteen children) got arrested in Nebraska* for letting her 8-year-old stomp on the American flag (see?  those flag desecration rules are enforced!!), and Megan Phelps is one of her eleven children.** 

So anyway little Megan made a "parody" of Lady Gaga's Poker Face.  It's called, uh, No Poker Face (surprising it's not Poke Her Face).  I could not stop laughing while watching this thing.


* I have to say, I held it against SVU that their version of the Westboro Church was Nebraskan.  We wouldn't have a church like that.  Neo-Nazis, yes.  Westboro Church, no.

** Look, my grandfather was one of thirteen too.  In the 1900s.

April Gaede, mother of little Aryan pop duo Lynx and Lamb of Prussian Blue, is taking up matchmaking for white nationalists:

Eager to see white folks reproduce, Gaede is touting her services on Stormfront.org, the leading white supremacist Web forum. “I am willing to act as a go between, researcher, matchmaker, older sister and guide for any WNs [white nationalists] who are looking for a WN spouse,” she wrote earlier this month. “Only email me if you are serious about finding a spouse or long term partner.”

At 20, Gaede married Kris Lingelser, whom she described as a pot-smoking Icelandic pole vaulter. Although he made for good “Aryan” breeding stock, she claims that their relationship turned violent; they were divorced in the mid-‘90s. Gaede has said her one regret is “the many years that I lost in which I could have produced four to six more children with that ideal eugenic quality that [Lynx and Lamb] possess.”

By 2005, the then-12-year-old twins were wowing white supremacist audience with their sieg heiling and shrill odes to white survival.

Oh, Prussian Blue.  They sure "realize that their main duty is to raise lots of White children."  I saw a guy wearing a Stormfront shirt once in the Black Hills, SD, in the Cosmos Mystery Area.  I'll never know whether that was the Stormfront or not.  I'm guessing probably yes.

Nazi officers and female auxiliaries (Helferinnen) run down a wooden bridge in Solahutte. Karl Hoecker is pictured in the center. The original caption reads: "Rain coming from a bright sky." Figuratively "something unexpected".

I find some of the discussion there (at vintagephoto) kind of interesting too.  I'm starting to think I should have a "Nazi" tag.  Ok, done.