Name your favorite novel.
Now consider what makes that novel stand out from others.
I’ll wager for many of us the answer will be character. Your particular favorite character may differ from mine. But many will cite Emma. Or David Copperfield. Ahab. Atticus Finch. Holden Caulfield. A dozen others who have achieved immortality in our imagination.
So what is it about our particular favorite character that resonates?
Again I’ll wager the answer is because the author has created a character who is as real to us as any flesh and blood person we’ve ever met. So how the heck did he/she do it and can we mere mortals hope to emulate such talent?
The answer is simple and involves no secret ingredient hidden from the hoi polloi.
Back at the beginning of the 20th century a physiologist named Jakob von Uexkull coined the term umwelt to describe the technique of stepping into another creature’s world. What he described was, in fact, nothing new but a revival of a lost art. Hunters did it from the beginning of time. In order to hunt a creature the successful hunter becomes, in essence, that creature. He enters its world and thinks as it does.
A nifty trick. But can anyone do it today?
Writers also have been doing it for a very long time.
This secret ingredient has another name. Empathy.
Webster describes it as: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this.
Simple.
Not really. But it’s a talent which can be improved upon with practice. Do you think Dickens was capable of creating David Copperfield the first time he picked up pen to write? Of course not. Emma was not the first (or best) of Jane Austen’s creations.
All it takes is imagination and practice.
Showing posts with label imagination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label imagination. Show all posts
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
The Power of Imagination
My second oldest grandson can’t understand how I survived a childhood without television. Ethan thinks I was really deprived because we didn’t have TV until I was in high school.
There were many outdoor pursuits, of course. A major indoor solace at the time was reading and listening to radio, pursuits enjoyed then and now by many of my generation. Those who didn’t experience it can’t imagine how exciting it was to hurry home from school and tune in a favorite show or, at night, gather around the radio with family to listen to a popular program.
One of my favorites at the time was “I Love a Mystery,” which followed three adventurers, Jack, Doc and Reggie, as they went around the world fighting monsters and solving mysteries. I think it was one of the factors leading to my choice of writing genre. I was thrilled when my son found 57 episodes of the show available free on line: http://www.otr.net/?p=ilam They may not be as great as I remembered, but I’m still listening.
We also went to a lot of movies, particularly the Saturday matinees where you got a feature and a serial.
That wasn’t the last time I went without TV, either. While living in Korea I made do again with reading, radio and film when not involved in other activities. And, when my own children were young, there was a long period when we had no TV. I couldn’t afford it at the time. They occasionally remind me and their children of those days. During that same period I also made a practice of reading stories and poetry to them after dinner—both to compensate for the lack of television and in hope it might inspire in them a love for reading. Since they do read when they have time I may have succeeded in the latter goal.
While Ethan might not agree I believe people who’ve grown up with television have been deprived of something we had. Reading and listening to radio requires more use of the imagination. A lack of imagination is a prime reason why there’s so much drivel on present-day TV. Reality shows? Don’t get me started.
As Conrad so aptly put it, “Only in men’s imagination does every truth find an effective and undeniable existence. Imagination, not invention, is the supreme master of art as of life.”
Shakespeare knew it even earlier:
“And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.”
There were many outdoor pursuits, of course. A major indoor solace at the time was reading and listening to radio, pursuits enjoyed then and now by many of my generation. Those who didn’t experience it can’t imagine how exciting it was to hurry home from school and tune in a favorite show or, at night, gather around the radio with family to listen to a popular program.
One of my favorites at the time was “I Love a Mystery,” which followed three adventurers, Jack, Doc and Reggie, as they went around the world fighting monsters and solving mysteries. I think it was one of the factors leading to my choice of writing genre. I was thrilled when my son found 57 episodes of the show available free on line: http://www.otr.net/?p=ilam They may not be as great as I remembered, but I’m still listening.
We also went to a lot of movies, particularly the Saturday matinees where you got a feature and a serial.
That wasn’t the last time I went without TV, either. While living in Korea I made do again with reading, radio and film when not involved in other activities. And, when my own children were young, there was a long period when we had no TV. I couldn’t afford it at the time. They occasionally remind me and their children of those days. During that same period I also made a practice of reading stories and poetry to them after dinner—both to compensate for the lack of television and in hope it might inspire in them a love for reading. Since they do read when they have time I may have succeeded in the latter goal.
While Ethan might not agree I believe people who’ve grown up with television have been deprived of something we had. Reading and listening to radio requires more use of the imagination. A lack of imagination is a prime reason why there’s so much drivel on present-day TV. Reality shows? Don’t get me started.
As Conrad so aptly put it, “Only in men’s imagination does every truth find an effective and undeniable existence. Imagination, not invention, is the supreme master of art as of life.”
Shakespeare knew it even earlier:
“And as imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.”
Thursday, October 29, 2009
It's All in the Imagination
“And as the imagination bodies forth
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.”
That stanza from Shakespeare defines for me the act of literary creation. I would carry it another step forward to define a particular literary form—that of the horror tale. A story in the Oct. 28 edition of the Washington Post had a round up of favorite horror stories of some well known authors. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/27/AR2009102703745.html
What constitutes a horror story is a subjective matter. What chills me might leave you cold and vice versa. I contend a central factor must be an element that is fear-inspiring. To quote Shakespeare again from that same noble work:
“Or in the night, imagining some fear,
How easy is a bush supposed a bear!”
It’s all to do with the imagination, baby. Webster defines fear as apprehension of evil or danger; dread; anxiety. All conditions deriving from our imagination.
As I said, what gives me goose-bumps may bother you not a whit. I’m not afraid of snakes, but spiders give me the willies. I know others who are psyched out by clowns, monkeys and other critters most find innocuous.
It’s all in the imagination.
Frankly, I’ve had enough with the vampires. They’re too familiar to be scary anymore and few have come up to Stoker’s Dracula. And the slash and gore stuff so popular in film is (sorry fans) not horror.
Some tales that have frightened (and delighted me) would include Poe’s The Premature Burial, Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery, Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and his Thrawn Janet (despite the dialect), and W. W. Jacobs’ The Monkey’s Paw.
I’m sure you have your own list.
The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen
Turns them to shapes, and gives to airy nothing
A local habitation and a name.”
That stanza from Shakespeare defines for me the act of literary creation. I would carry it another step forward to define a particular literary form—that of the horror tale. A story in the Oct. 28 edition of the Washington Post had a round up of favorite horror stories of some well known authors. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/27/AR2009102703745.html
What constitutes a horror story is a subjective matter. What chills me might leave you cold and vice versa. I contend a central factor must be an element that is fear-inspiring. To quote Shakespeare again from that same noble work:
“Or in the night, imagining some fear,
How easy is a bush supposed a bear!”
It’s all to do with the imagination, baby. Webster defines fear as apprehension of evil or danger; dread; anxiety. All conditions deriving from our imagination.
As I said, what gives me goose-bumps may bother you not a whit. I’m not afraid of snakes, but spiders give me the willies. I know others who are psyched out by clowns, monkeys and other critters most find innocuous.
It’s all in the imagination.
Frankly, I’ve had enough with the vampires. They’re too familiar to be scary anymore and few have come up to Stoker’s Dracula. And the slash and gore stuff so popular in film is (sorry fans) not horror.
Some tales that have frightened (and delighted me) would include Poe’s The Premature Burial, Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery, Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and his Thrawn Janet (despite the dialect), and W. W. Jacobs’ The Monkey’s Paw.
I’m sure you have your own list.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Don't 'Vook' Now
For many of us who grew up before the days of television a book was an opportunity to step into another world. Books were entertainment, education, friends that never let one down.
Of course not everyone in that time shared my enthusiasm for reading. There were probably more readers then than now. But it would be wrong to infer everyone read just because there was no TV or other distraction. And those of us who like to read continued to do so even as opportunity for visual entertainment expanded.
As Ruskin so aptly phrased it, “No book is worth anything which is not worth much; nor is it serviceable, until it has been read, and re-read, and loved, and loved again; and marked, so that you can refer to the passages you want in it.” I’ve known books like that.
Film (which I love) and television have their value. But they’re a different style of entertainment/education and can’t replace reading for the true aficionado.
Unfortunately the visual trend and a faster lifestyle inevitably led to drastic changes in reading. People lost patience with lengthy books. They wanted everything in a hurry. We saw the adoption of speed-reading and condensed novels—a true travesty to my mind. If an author wanted us to skip words and passages wouldn’t he have written a shorter book?
Novels especially are not for speed-reading. They require attention, devotion to the beauty of words, even rare and unusual words, a willingness to accept the author’s eccentricities as a different way of looking at things. They were not meant to be fast food for the brain but a meal to be savored.
I don’t have a problem with electronic novels. I’ve even published some. They’re still books, even though they can never replace an actual tome held in the hand for the true believer.
But now I read this morning Simon & Schuster is teaming up with a multi-media partner to produce something called a “vook,” which intersperses videos with text—a nod to those incapable of visualizing. Has imagination truly been stifled to that extent?
I share the disdain of Walter Mosley, who said he would never allow videos to substitute for prose. “Reading is one of the few experiences we have outside of relationships in which our cognitive abilities grow,” Mosley said.
Of course not everyone in that time shared my enthusiasm for reading. There were probably more readers then than now. But it would be wrong to infer everyone read just because there was no TV or other distraction. And those of us who like to read continued to do so even as opportunity for visual entertainment expanded.
As Ruskin so aptly phrased it, “No book is worth anything which is not worth much; nor is it serviceable, until it has been read, and re-read, and loved, and loved again; and marked, so that you can refer to the passages you want in it.” I’ve known books like that.
Film (which I love) and television have their value. But they’re a different style of entertainment/education and can’t replace reading for the true aficionado.
Unfortunately the visual trend and a faster lifestyle inevitably led to drastic changes in reading. People lost patience with lengthy books. They wanted everything in a hurry. We saw the adoption of speed-reading and condensed novels—a true travesty to my mind. If an author wanted us to skip words and passages wouldn’t he have written a shorter book?
Novels especially are not for speed-reading. They require attention, devotion to the beauty of words, even rare and unusual words, a willingness to accept the author’s eccentricities as a different way of looking at things. They were not meant to be fast food for the brain but a meal to be savored.
I don’t have a problem with electronic novels. I’ve even published some. They’re still books, even though they can never replace an actual tome held in the hand for the true believer.
But now I read this morning Simon & Schuster is teaming up with a multi-media partner to produce something called a “vook,” which intersperses videos with text—a nod to those incapable of visualizing. Has imagination truly been stifled to that extent?
I share the disdain of Walter Mosley, who said he would never allow videos to substitute for prose. “Reading is one of the few experiences we have outside of relationships in which our cognitive abilities grow,” Mosley said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
