Useful Pain

I am a writer — I don't really have old wounds. I keep them fresh and oozing, as quiet, red fountains of insights and inspirations. But more about that later when I have the time...

Staying neutral

Hey folks, Tehtena here.  Now it's my turn to say something, and what else am I going to talk about but the guy who created me.  After all, except for him there isn't much I can see from the pages of the manuscript where I live.  While he and I are in touch all day long, of course, and oftentimes at night as well, I only get a good look at him when he turns on his computer.  Then I can see his face, bathed in the pale light of the monitor and, I must say, looking rather dissatisfied as of late.  He is clearly unhappy with something, and I think I know what is bothering him.
   I believe it's something he has been wrestling with from the very beginning.  You see, while doing research for his novel, he discovered that a certain incident has been described very differently by the two cultures which are connected to it.  Each of them believes firmly in its own version, and yet, if one of them is true, the other one must necessarily be false.  Which of them is correct, however, cannot be determined by means of any empirical evidence.  It's all a matter of faith.
   What I am talking about are certain contradictory claims regarding the fate of the Ark of the Covenant.  One side claims to have removed it from the temple in Jerusalem during the reign of King Solomon and to have it in its possession to this very day.  The other side denies that such a thing ever happened, suggesting instead that it disappeared centuries later during the Babylonian invasion and that no one today knows where it is.
   This state of affairs presented a problem for my author friend.  He loved both cultures with all his heart, respected both peoples equally, and did therefore not want to take sides.  And to make things even tougher, the Bible, the one historical source he respected the most, did not give any specific information on this particular issue.  So what was he to do, other than ignoring the whole incident altogether, which was out of the question?
   Well, I'll tell you what he did.  From what I have seen so far I can say that he went quite faithfully along with the version that has the Ark removed from the temple.  As a matter of fact, he made me very much part of that undertaking, and everything went exactly the way— Wait! What am I doing! I mustn't spoil the ending!  But let me reveal this much to you: he managed to tell the story in such a way that both sides can continue to stick to their own versions of the event.  It took some clever maneuvering, but he found a way to incorporate many details from the ancient reports without favoring one account over the other.  He wasn't thrilled that he had to go this route, but felt he had no choice.
   It still bugs him mightily, but there's nothing he can do about it.  I, on the other hand, am actually quite happy that he had to stay neutral, and if you ever read the book, you will find out why.  I spend a lot of time pondering this matter in its final chapters, and you know what?  I think you will find yourself agreeing with me.  Or at least I hope so.

Idioms and Story Setting

Just as I was wondering whether I should set aside my novel for a while and work on this blog entry, I read a post by an author friend of mine, Bob Spear ( http://bobspear.wordpress.com/ ), and felt encouraged to go ahead with it. His article emphasized the importance of accuracy in the setting of a story; mine touches on a related subject.
Needless to say, getting all the historical facts and locations right is crucial, especially when it comes to historical or semi-historical novels. This, however, is only one of the challenges. Another one is the avoidance of unsuitable idioms.
As I progressed with my story and created inner monologues for my characters as well as conversations between them, I realized that many of the expressions which are commonplace today could not have been part of their thoughts or speech. And being something of a purist, I felt compelled to stay away from them even in passages which did not describe things from their point of view.
Following are just a few words and idioms which, in my opinion, have no place in a novel that is set in the time of King Solomon (about 3000 years ago):
Solomon, for instance, could not have 'steeled' himself against something, because steel, although found in very small quantities in some archeological sites, was not widespread enough to have given rise to such an expression.
Neither he nor his subjects could have been 'mesmerized' by anything, because Dr. Franz Mesmer, from whose name the word is derived, lived in the eighteenth century.
Two people who agreed on something could not readily be said to be on the 'same page', since books in those days did not consist of bound pages but rather of scrolls.
Could Solomon have 'exploded' with anger? I am not sure. After all, explosives were only invented some 2000 years later.
Could he have complimented a smart person by saying that he or she 'had a good head on his or her shoulders'? Unlikely. The functions of the brain were not known at that time, and thus no one would have made the connection between head and intelligence.
I could continue this list with dozens of other examples, but I think I made my point. Just for fun, though, let me just mention that the expression 'three strikes and you are out' does not occur anywhere in my novel, because I have it on good authority that baseball was not being played at Solomon's court.
There is one instance, however, where I am afraid I won't be able to resist the temptation to use an improper expression. I am referring to an idiom that is most likely linked to the convention of putting 'North' always at the top of a map and 'South' always at the bottom, which eventually gave rise to the term 'go south', meaning 'to go down' and thus 'to go bad'. That kind of standardized layout did of course not exist in the distant past, but here's the thing: Solomon's misery began when he got dumped by the woman he loved, namely Makeda, the Queen of Sheba, who was also known as the 'Queen of the South'. How, then, can I not have him say somewhere that things started to 'go south' for him when that was where Makeda decided to return? I have no choice there, do I?

Another line from 'Queen Makeda's Sister':

"Is not life but a vain effort to secure a lasting state of bliss, and our failure to attain it the fount of all poetry?"

A line from 'Queen Makeda's Sister':

My fateful love for you is what I am and thus it cannot vanish from this earth even when I return to dust. Indeed, the winds will pick me up and scatter me abroad, and those who breathe me in will wonder why their hearts feel suddenly so heavy.