![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
laerrigan's journalLog in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more
| You are viewing laerrigan's journal Log in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more | Explore LJ: Life Entertainment Music Culture News & Politics Technology |
 | |
|
Just a side note: I've developed Laerrigan much further in an ongoing game, worlds beyond what I ever envisioned when I made him. It's funny how a character can take on a life of its own. His new pics and info are at www.geocities.com/vermeil_dragon/laerrig |
|
| |||
|
I was contacted recently by Candlekeep's The Hooded One, regarding my LJ post of 10-28-07. Following is our email exchange on the subject, which I found very eye-opening. With regard to "atheistic logic," maybe I should have used a different term (I used the term I intended when I wrote, but a different one might be better in light of what you've said). Reading now what I wrote then, I realize that I skipped a little too far in my mental comparison of the "check religion at the door" logic to the "check any concept of God at the door" pseudo-logic I've encountered all my life in the sciences (I do still believe that every human decision is inherently religious, but that's not the point here). I wholeheartedly agree with any dislike of "religion" as the term is used outside the Bible (meaning dead dogma and even tyrrany in modern usage, whereas the Bible says that religion that's acceptable to God is "to look after widows and orphans in their distress"). But I'm so accustomed to seeing "religion" used in place of "faith" or "relationship with God and the Body of Christ"--as if they were interchangeable in modern usage--when it appears in secular context. It looks like you've uncovered an unexpected knee-jerk in me after all =) Considering the fantasy writing I've done (D&D and otherwise) and what I know of my own relationship with Christ, I should be the last to make any sort of assumptions. I'd be happy to make another LJ entry regarding this exchange with you, for the enlightenment of anyone who might read it (though I don't know that much of anyone does so far). I'll gladly quote what you've said--or not, if you wish. Just let me know =) - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - THO: By all means quote me if you'd like to (this e-mail or my first one). I'm not expecting any LJ mea culpa if you don't want to; I just wanted to set you straight. Ed tends to avoid mentioning his own beliefs precisely because people then assume this or that and proceed (in viewing his postings thereafter) from that assumption. I agree with you that Ed could have stated his position a little more clearly and a lot better. I know that what he really dislikes is the sort of Christian who says to others, "Well, I was talking to God today, and you're wrong." . . . and refuses to consider that another Christian who holds a different view on a matter might be correct. In short, who believes their judgement trumps all others (presumably because their direct pipeline to God is the best one). The TRULY scary ones (we have a few, locally) insist they are talking to God, and all others are being misled by the Devil into merely thinking they're talking to God. Ed finds that trying to leave real-world faith beliefs out of Realms discussions as much as possible makes the discourse more friendly and less prone to misunderstandings (someone at the Keep might be a Zoroastrian or Buddist, posting from halfway around the world, and might mean or say quite different things from a Christian, when using the same words, or when assuming what is "normal" or "decent"). That's why Ed tends to use the term "moral" (he's trying to say "poster or character following their moral code" rather than "following the code of Faith X"). It cuts down a bit on people getting angry (within Christianity or the Muslim faith we have people fighting each other violently on matters of dogma; we don't need that to spill into converse at Candlekeep, which is after all about an imaginary world that exists primarily to give fun to a maximum possible number of people). I know Ed has studied philosophy and taught courses on the clash of differing world-views, so he CAN do the academic heavy-duty debate. The post you commented on was "Ed light," and looking back at it, I think he was trying to sweep aside the possibility of divisive debate before it got started, rather than staking ground for any arguments of his own. Ed's father just died, and believe me, if you'd been at the funeral and heard Ed give the eulogy, you'd not think for a moment that he was anything but a strong Christian. I believe someone at Candlekeep said that there was a good minister, but when Ed started to speak, everyone thought: here's the REAL minister.
|
|||
| |||
|
The Candlekeep Inn forums rock. Maybe just because it's my first taste of online RPing. Almost makes me wish I could collaborate with someone on my D&D novel ideas, for the character give-and-take and also to get another perspective and well of ideas. I just ordered a copy of the NaNoWriMo book, No Plot? No Problem! (Chris Baty) from Amazon. Maybe it will help get me power-writing, instead of taking years to develop an ongoing history of characters' lives. Plot really is my weakness; I could write an endless variety of character scenarios from hilarious to soul-touching, but I start floundering when I try to push those characters through an actual (hopefully gripping) plot from start to finish.
|
|||
| |||||||
|
It's now been more than six weeks since I emailed Candlekeep.com to make sure it would be all right for me to post to my LiveJournal an excerpt from their "So Saith Ed" column (March 14, 2006) in order to display my response to it. I have never received a reply, so I'm going to post as intended; if any official person later expresses a desire for me to remove the SSE excerpt, I will do so immediately. For anyone who doesn't know, Candlekeep.com is a marvelous repository of information and fan-generated articles and images relating to Faerun. The ongoing column "So Saith Ed" is where Ed Greenwood (creator of Faerun) personally answers questions posed to him by forum members. I can't say how delightful I've found the website, or how much rich information on medieval life and Faerun in particular I've found in the SSE column. This post is in NO way intended as anything resembling a personal attack--I bow before Ed's creative genius and vast amounts of researched knowledge, and I've thoroughly enjoyed my experiences in Faerun (as one might tell by the fact that I'm writing stories in it now, and would love to one day have them published) :-) I'm simply responding in logical fashion to ideas presented in one of his answers. The following is an excerpt from my writing journal, which includes the SSE excerpt and my response to it: When it comes to religious arguments (as opposed to moral debates in which everyone involved is trying to leave emotion and religion out of it, and just explore the finer points, definitions, and boundaries of relevant moral concepts), I rarely see any need to argue with someone, because it won't change their mind and may well upset them. (And to me, personally, unnecessarily upsetting anyone is itself a sin.) However, when (and only when) someone tries to force their religious judgements on me, my life, or the Realms, I will fight and refuse to back down, because on those three battlegrounds *I* am God, and bow to no one. (And to all who respond to that statement with cries of "Blasphemy!" I respond: Anyone who labels that 'blasphemy' either needs to go look up the word 'blasphemy' in a good dictionary, or to simmer down and go seek a healthy dose of sanity.)
Calling something or someone a "god" is simply saying that that one is the ultimate source of rightful authority and standards in a particular domain or setting (or for a particular person or group); our deliberate thoughts and our very lives show what god we worship. Using "God" with a capital letter to identify the word as a name (in English, anyway, since German capitalizes all nouns whether or not they're names and Hebrew has no capitalization) implies that the one thus named is THE god, the only one with rightful authority over everything, the only one worthy to be worshiped. A moral debate that attempts to leave emotion out of it is entirely possible, however. I'm quite willing to discuss and compare the moral definitions of various cultures and religions in a clinical, factual manner. I enjoy learning about the differences and speculating on/researching where they come from, and considering what they say about human nature and origins and ultimate destiny. The fact that I understand it all from a Christian perspective--and see how it fits into creation science and biblical prophecy--doesn't keep me from discussing the "finer points, definitions, and boundaries" of other moral codes within their own paradigms, even if I believe those paradigms to be clouded. I'm a sucker for true-to-history-and-setting details, however unlearned I may yet be in comparison to folks who've made a lifelong study of other cultures/religions. People who might some day read my original-fantasy (non-D&D-related) writing and encounter certain character perspectives might be greatly surprised to find where my own beliefs lie. I love the idea of being able to argue knowledgably and sensitively from widely differing religious perspectives (as if I were of that religion) and, through juxtapositioning, show how the Bible is supreme as an account of universe/man/God and biblical morality is the best for all humanity. And I respect the right of others to attempt to do the same for their religions. I believe truth is best shown to adults by shining the light everywhere and letting things be seen for what they are, not by drawing the curtain across certain dark corners. As for the concept of blasphemy.....Strong's Hebrew Dictionary shows the OT word translated as "blasphemy" to be n'atsah, which basically means "scorn." Strong's Greek Dictionary shows the NT word blasphemia to mean "vilification (especially against God)." Easton's Bible Dictionary gives the following entry (excerpted) for "blasphemy:" "In the sense of speaking evil of God this word is found in Ps. 74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24; Rev. 13:1, 6; 16:9, 11, 12. It denotes also any kind of calumny, or evil-speaking, or abuse (1 Kings 21:10; Acts 13:45; 18:6, etc.). Our Lord was accused of blasphemy when he claimed to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:65; comp. Matt. 9:3; Mark 2:7). They who deny his Messiahship blaspheme Jesus (Luke 22:65; John 10:36)." Based on that information, Ed claiming to be God over anything is indeed blasphemy, because God Himself is God and has all rights and authority over Ed and everyone/everything else. If some miserable creature that wasn't even worthy of looking Ed in the eye were to claim to be Ed Greenwood--with all rights to Ed's wife, children, material assets, and creative works--then that hypothetical creature would be blaspheming Ed. Scorning him, speaking evil of him by saying that Ed is something so lowly and wretched. Misrepresenting him, stealing his name, his rights, and his property. That is why people thought Jesus was blaspheming God by claiming to be His Son, equal with Him. And that is what anyone else who claims to be God is doing. The LORD is God over all of us sub-creators, and therefore over anything we sub-create. If that sub-creation wanders off into fantastical mythologies that titillate the human desire to break away from God, it doesn't change the reality that lies behind the elaborate art of storytelling. All the suspension-of-disbelief in the world--and all the set-design and costuming and special effects--doesn't change the fact that a movie about medieval times is being viewed (and was created) through modern technology. As Tolkien wrote, "God is the Lord, of angels, and of men--and of elves." And to the notion that I'm "forcing my religious judgments" on anyone by making such statements, all I can say is, "Quit forcing your religious judgments on me by saying that it's wrong for me to force anything on anyone." Where does one get the idea that force is wrong? By Darwinian standards, it's right; it shows I'm strong, that I'm capable of eliminating competition for survival and propagation. I hate the religion of Darwinism with a passion, by the way. And in my writing, here, I'm not forcing anything, least of all my own judgments; I'm stating the clinical facts of how "blasphemy" is used and defined in the Bible, and the details of what this means from a Christian perspective. Whether or not I personally believe anything that's said in my source of information/frame of reference for this definition should be entirely beside the point (after all, let's leave religion at the door and argue pure facts). And, of course, my solid belief that my beliefs are correct is no less valid than Ed's (or anyone else's) belief that his beliefs are correct. "Unnecessarily upsetting anyone is itself a sin"? I have to smile and shake my head as I read that. How does one go about defining "necessary" when it relates to classifying an upset? How can so limited a creature as a human begin to see all the possible outcomes of a single wordless glance, much less an entire conversation? Who can say what is or isn't "necessary" to achieve a certain end, and what painful remedies might turn deadly illness into vibrant health after a while (or what pleasant drugs might bring about illness and death from the inside out)? To quote Carol Berg in Song of the Beast (a book I adore), "People could cause the most dreadful horrors with the best of intentions." We are so painfully frail, and so apt to cause pain when it's the last thing we want to do. Isn't that why we need guidance from one higher than ourselves, one who's looking down from above on the tangled maze we're muddling through? One who does know all ends and can tell us how to get to places we can't see or even visualize, who loves with a fiercely wild and heart-wrenching love, and who values each and every one of us (including blasphemers, which we all are) above all the rest of Creation?
|
|||||||
| |||
|
I scroll through the latest entries in (author) Elaine Cunningham's LiveJournal, and I'm struck anew by the tremendous difference in my reading habits since my school years. EC is continually grabbing and reading new books, finishing them in a short time and commenting on them. When I first read Anne McCaffrey's original Dragonriders trilogy in fourth grade, my idea of heaven on earth was lying on the floor in a quiet room and reading nonstop ALL DAY. I spent numerous summer days at the public library instead of at daycare; I browsed shelves and card catalogs like a starving kid at a buffet. The rest of the world and everyone in it could simply disappear, for all I cared, so long as I had these silent gateways to other and better-seeming worlds. Now, I thoroughly enjoy reading aloud to my husband (and discussing novels with him), but it takes us a long time to get through most books due to limitations on our available time together and the intrusion of those annoying real-world tasks that have to be done. And I find it nearly impossible to read anything consistently on my own. Reading to myself stimulates my imagination, and I end up wanting to pour out rather than drink in; ideas for my own writing distract from and eventually crowd out the ideas so carefully put together by the author I'm attempting to read. What happened? I dearly miss those day-long reading stints, where I hardly even thought about food. I have moments like that in my writing, but it's harder to lose myself so completely in something I'm consciously assembling as I read/write it. Even with housework taking up part of a day, I'd still have at least a few hours of totally free time in which to plunge into a book. But I can't do it. I feel like I've lost something terribly important, even as I've gained an ability to tell stories of my own.
|
|||
| |||
|
I've stumbled upon a truly delightful blog, though I've yet to explore it fully: Wonders for Oyarsa (this link connects to the explanation of the name and purpose of the blog, not the latest entry). Blogging the Bible, book by book, giving summaries and replying to comments with some sharp and concise insights in what I've read so far. I do so love encountering those rare islands of sanity that are people who truly love C.S. Lewis' fantasy/sci-fi books and the theology/philosophy contained therein.
|
|||
| |
|
Our area saw a total lunar eclipse on the night of the 27th, and there was a meteor shower at the same time. My husband and I stood outside to watch the show. We clearly saw six shooting stars, and the barely-seen flickers at the edges of our field of vision were surely more. Mars was also exceptionally bright, Sirius (ever my favorite) was stunningly fiery and colorful when it rose, and the Milky Way looked like a band of glowing fog across the clear sky. We'd had a big thunderstorm during the day (which can have a dramatic effect on temperature in a semi-desert), so the night was chilly and damp enough to require pants and a light sweater despite still smelling of the jasmine and hay of summer. I've watched a couple of lunar eclipses before, but this was the first time I noticed the shape formed by the sooty orange glow around the edges of the darkened moon--it looked like a rising phoenix with wings circling the moon, complete with barely-discernible head down near the bottom. And during the time the moon was completely in shadow, all of the roosters in this rural neighborhood suddenly started calling out madly, crowing and crowing and crowing, their voices--each one unique and distinguishable from the others--echoing through the night....Absolutely delightful, just like the wild lightning and almost wintry rain and wind earlier in the day :-) - "Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion's belt? Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs? Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God's dominion over the earth? ...Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, 'Here we are'? Who gives the ibis wisdom about the flooding of the Nile, or gives the rooster undertsanding of when to crow? Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens when the dust becomes hard and the clods of earth stick together?" (Job 38:31-33, 35-38) - |
|
| |
|
LOL!! Just heard/read "Always the First to Die" for the first time and got great laughs out of it (if a bit of bad language bothers you, you may not want to follow the link). How painfully apt. Thankfully the DM of the ongoing game in which I play Laerrigan isn't a killer, because doggonnit, I like my character. I put way too much work into building him. |
|
| |
|
With D&D's 4th edition coming out next year, I'm wondering how much writing I should continue to do before I get hold of the new rules. Traveling blind. I'd rather not have to spend as much time re-writing as I did writing it in the first place, and then there's the lovely possibility of basing an entire story (even just a major point of a story) on something that will be obsolete before an editor ever sees the manuscript. At least the official info disclosed so far says that wizards won't be so painfully limited in how they respond spell-wise to things that crop up unexpectedly in a given day. - DM: As you walk down the street, ten lizardmen and seventeen ogres jump out and attack. Behind them you see twelve beholders waiting for their turn, and the shadow that flickers across the ground suggests a red dragon above. Wizard: I...thought we were going to spend the next week...you know...digging that information we need out of the city's libraries and scholars. I have multiple charges of read magic, comprehend languages, detect secret doors, and charm person prepped. DM: You can understand what the lizardmen are saying when they insult you. And you detect a secret door to your left opening to reveal a seven-headed hydra. It doesn't find you at all charming. Wizard: Well, um...I pull out my wand of-- DM: :::rolls d20::: Attack of opportunity. How many hit points do you have? Wizard: Nine. Barbarian: I have two hundred and thirty! Hit me! DM: You're not the one who tried to retrieve an item. :::to wizard::: ...Heh. Want to roll up a barbarian this time? - |
|
| |
|
Almost....almost........Nope, gone. Ideas swirl and clamor for attention while I read or watch movies, but when I try to write them down, they laugh in delight at having successfully baited me and simply disappear. Staring at a computer screen used to spur my creativity. Now, many times, computer screen or paper seems almost to blank my brain. Reading/watching stirs up echoes in me, resonance--other people's characters help me define my own through comparison and contrast, through imagining my characters in similar situations and determining how they would react (however unlikely such a situation might be for a given individual, I like to know his potential response anyway). I long to write about a locale in as detailed and familiar a fashion as the author whose work I'm reading (though not necessarily the same locale as I'm reading about). But as soon as I sit down for some much-desired outpouring of ideas, the well too often abruptly runs dry. Sure, there are exercises and formulae for helping writers get past a block. I love them. REALLY love them. My husband and I have an understanding about that relationship ;-P Unfortunately, I latch onto them a little too much. I'll dive right into a fifty-question "survey" to help define a character, including backstory, major/minor motivations, favorite color and why, and how he'll change (or not) throughout the tale. I'll draw maps of the house he grew up in, the boarding school he attended, the small city where he now resides. I'll make a photorealistic portrait of his face on computer, and design his wardrobe with a mind for culture, local materials, social status, personal preference, and weather. But story-writing is considerably more than formulae, and my mind too easily grabs hold of rigid, angular structures and tries to build graceful living bodies out of them. When it's all done, I still have no more new story than when I first sat down at the computer and encountered a block. Writing exercises can certainly be a help, but I think I too often use them as a drug to feel like I'm accomplishing something. I can only hope it will turn out to be like exercycling--going absolutely nowhere with lots of sweat, but slowly getting into shape through the process. The goal is well worth the frustration. So long as I honestly feel that way, I suppose I'm going the right direction. Three challenges to get into the Good Magician's castle, but there's always a way through, however difficult to perceive. - |
|
| |||
|
Currently picking apart the problem of how much of my story should be told through Laerrigan's journal rather than narrative. I certainly intend for the journal excerpts to be a small portion of the overall body of work; I'd get bored, myself, reading a book that was mostly journal, though somehow Brahm Stoker managed to pull it off. But what to drag the reader through in detail, and what to merely summarize from the main character's POV after the fact? I consider it a weakness that I can so easily stay right beside a character through his daily life and just enjoy who and what and where he is, without making much progress in any sweeping epic plot for whole chapters at a time. Just developing character and setting, until I know the characters/settings so well I feel like I should bump into them at the supermarket or see them around that bend in the mountain road ahead. I see that as a weakness because I'm 110% sure that the vast majority of potential readers wouldn't be as thrilled with these people's daily lives and environments as I am. So, I'm trying to avoid that in Laerrigan's story, and keep the plot moving smoothly and surely. It's all about control. Restraint. Throwing out the jewels. Crap, I'm in the wrong business... :-] "Firefly" is an interesting TV series. Borrowed the DVD collection from a friend some time back, and we've been watching episodes now and then. 90% of it we absolutely love (some wonderful character stuff in there, though we've found it amusing that all terraformed worlds apparently were designed to look like the Four Corners region), but that other 10% we hate. The makers flaunted an apparent lack of dedication by not bothering to research creation science or biblical archaeology/anthropology OR even the very heart of what it means to be a Christian, instead just parrotting commonly-held misconceptions and insipid, castrated crap like, "It's not about making sense, it's about believing in something" (I imagine a vacant smile and eyes pointing off in opposite directions when I think of that). If that line (and attitude) had come from any other character, we could have shrugged it off, but for crying out loud, shouldn't a Shepherd know his stuff? This cleric has a freaking NEGATIVE modifier to Knowledge (religion)--oh yeah, THAT'S believable. Of course, there are plenty of very nice and well-meaning pastors and priests out there who would likely respond the same as he did, so.......I also notice that the name of Jesus has never once left Book's lips, only vague, pious mouthings about a "higher power" and parent-to-child chastisement of fellow adults involving passing reference to Bible stories (when Book said, "Must I remind you of the story of the good Samaritan?" I was right with Mal in saying, "Please don't."). Maybe that's for the better--I'd probably want to puke at what he'd say about the Lord. And why is everyone constantly so shocked at the notion that Book has life experience other than at a monastery? Do they think he was born there? I LOVE what I once saw on a T-shirt design for a Christian bikers group: "No saint without a past, no sinner without a future." -
|
|||
| |||||
|
Figured I'd kick things off with a suggested question to answer.... "What is one food that you refuse to try? Why?" Dried raw salmon, eaten by far-northern fishermen in the past (probably still today). Parasites. No other reason. For all I know, it's quite tasty; the fresh version is certainly good in sashimi. I'd suppose the dried stuff would be fine if it came from the same source as the sashimi....I've long thought it might be interesting to try the abdomen of a live honeypot ant in Australia. Local flavor and all that. Total immersion, tourist-style. I wonder if I could do it. It took me six years of living in the southwest (US) before I started sort of liking green chile. My husband instantly liked all forms of fresh seafood, including sashimi, when we visited my family in FL, though. Of course, he also thought the uncooked pickled unknown fish in Russia was one of the greatest things he'd ever encountered, while I gagged on it despite my best efforts at culinary-cultural appreciation. He also thought the wind-up backflipping plastic monkey he got for his birthday from his baby niece (and her parents) was yet another of the greatest things he'd ever encountered. He tore open the little package and hollered in utmost delight, "ALL RIGHT! IT'S A WIND-UP MONKEY!!" and proceeded to wind it and watch with wide-eyed intensity and a hovering grin as it did its backflips. I will probably mention frequently in this journal how much I love that man :-) Yes, my avatar is male, but I'm not. Laerrigan is something of an alter-ego for me, or perhaps a distilled version of my normal ego, or perhaps some perplexing manifestation of my confused id. No sexual confusion implied. Just confusion in general. He's the main character in my current (Dungeons & Dragons) writing project, and by far my biggest "identity character." 1/4 human, 1/4 moon elf, 1/4 drow, 1/4 fiend, fleeting desires for petty vengeance balanced by towering absentmindedness and inconvenient flashes of conscience and self-honesty, spitefully passive-aggressive with feints toward sardonically resigned co-dependence. Did I mention confused? His info and pics can be found on his profile page (http://www.geocities.com/vermeil_dragon/l As my bio says, I've been writing fantasy in my own world for seven years now (I also wrote some comic-book fanfiction before that for my own amusement), though I've yet to finish anything to the point of being able to submit it to a publisher. The more I write, the more ideas I get, and the more background I need to assemble for my world, until it's started to feel like a continuous plunge into a fractal that keeps showing more and more detail without ever truly resolving. Sort of the way a coastline doesn't really exist, it's nothing but a generalized zone of constant flux from moment to moment. Maps show solid lines--they're good for reference, but I wouldn't want to live in one. Within the past year, I've temporarily set aside my all-original project to work on stories set in the Forgotten Realms (D&D), despite the fact that Wizards of the Coast is not currently accepting unsolicited submissions for that fantasy line, and indeed might not ever again for all I know. This journal will largely be about the ups and downs of that pursuit. The triumphs and frustrations of one who loves despite the knowledge that it most likely will never be returned :::wipes tear away::: Oh well. The destination is the journey itself. At the very least, this project should sharpen my skills and creativity for my eventual return to my all-original work. - -
|
|||||
cheerful
pensive