posted
I have a storyplot I want to develop, but for the life of me I can't figure out how to start the story. I can't even figure out the voice I want to use for this, or the point of view. (1st person limited? 3rd person omniscient?)
If anyone who has written stories with which you are satisfied (regardless of whether they sold or not; this story is for my pleasure in writing and for a few friends and family members to read) could please give some advice as to what methods you've used and why, I'd appreciate it.
A little background if it'll help: In studying the history of God and Judeo-Christian-Islamic relgion, I've come to the conclusion (which my Rabbi confirmed) that the first monotheists were not what we would call monotheists today at all. They definitely believed that Adonai was the most powerful god, but it would have come as a shock to them to hear him(she? it?) described as the ONLY god. What I'd like to do is tell the story, in a fictional manner (so that I can take liberties where needed), of how the God we understand today usurped the powers and responsibilities of the other Canaanite gods. I've considered telling it from God's point of view and discarded that idea because it would be too easy for me to fall into the trap of having God show self-pity or self-justification. I'm still left with 3rd person POV, but I feel that I'd have a harder time showing the passions of the various characters involved if I did it that way. I also have the option of 1st person POV (say, for instance, the POV of the last Canaanite god to be subsumed into Adonai).
Again, any advice would be appreciated. -Mike Forbes
posted
Mike, i am very satisfied with the use of 3rd person -- the omniscient narrator. I think story tellers have always used this. the narrator can get inside the mind and soul of the character and show his findings to the reader.
I've had people ask why i switch POV, butI seldom move away from the omniscient narrator. When I concentrate on one character _and_ his thoughts, i use italics. Jan
posted
Geez, Mike, I'm interested already, and you haven't even written anything yet. I think you're onto something here.
As I understand it, your story would cover some major time periods. Couldn't you voice each time period differently, as the mood takes you? Pick the "major" character of the time period and use her voice. Maybe it's "God," maybe it's a lesser god, maybe it's a priest, or a sacrifical lamb.
I'd suggest you try it that way, at least at first. Get your story started. You can always go back and "re-voice" it later.
I have an idea based on the comments so far, tell me if this makes sense to you:
1) Have an overall narrator's voice (in 1st person pov), which would be the voice of a surviving (but dormant) god.
2) For each time period in the story, look both at the human and deistic aspects of the story. The human pov would be 3rd person omniscient, simply because there are too many people involved in any one era to concentrate on any one or few of them w/out turning this thing into an epic (which I'm not prepared to write). The deistic pov would be in 1st person pov, and at each time period up until about 1000 ce would be the voice of god as it's going through its death throws... so to speak.
posted
This is only a 1st draft of an opening for the story we've been discussing, but any constructive criticism would be appreciated. Please bear in mind that I do hope to make the tone of the voice more upbeat later; Not only would a reader not care to read something that's depressing as hell, but I wouldn't care to write it!
We could have done more. There were many of us when we came to be, now only He and I are left. It started simply enough: the humans in our midst believed us to be supernatural, and worshipped us that we might provide them security, sustenance, life. We each had our areas in which we were powerful. I concentrated on agriculture. Some of my friends worked in fire, and storms. Others were responsible for mountain building, or the creatures of the sea. He was the war god. When we came into being we were all of us powerful, some more than others, but none terribly greater in the balance. A weather god could tilt the balance of our relationships by providing a gentle snowfall at the right time of year for instance, and help me bring about a bountiful harvest. Or if I had been intransigent to that god and a sea god had been friendly, the weather god might keep the truly replenishing rains off the coast, where only the fishes and the other oceangoing creatures would receive the bounty. The humans eventually undid us. When rains would fail to fall in an area for too long a time, the mortals would stop waiting on fair weather for their crops, and instead turn to pillaging from their neighbors. When the waters closed around a ship and destroyed a day’s worth of catch, it became easier to blame surrounding villages than to continue to offer sacrifice to the sea. War became more powerful. Eventually War made a pact with a single human. In exchange for fierce personal devotion, and a refusal to worship any other god, War would provide this human’s tribe a personal covenant of cultural security. None of the rest of us yet knew War was planning against us. We had no reason to think of it; none of us were warmongers.
If I could have some of the power War held then, knowing what I know now, would I have taken it in an effort to stop him then? It would have meant so much to the human race, over thousands of years, if I had done so. If any of us had done so. Millions, if not billions, of lives would have been kept from that terrible forge. Minds that became shattered trying to live a life of peace while serving a god of war would have been kept whole. And yet, if I had taken that power, would I Myself have stayed whole? For as I said, I am a peaceful spirit. I cannot see how I could take that… evil… into myself and not become what War was. I regret what came to pass. I could only wish we could have done more.
posted
Actually, if you are going to go with a conception of God different enough to justify defining him as War, going with his point of view is not problematical as far as displaying negative traits or even blindnesses is concerned. The real problem is that it then fails to relate to the reader (aside from gods, who are generally just as interested in humans anyway, for whatever reason). I would emphasize the impact on a human scale by having the narrator be the descendent of an annihilated polytheistic culture. That way, you can develop the readers connection to a single, accessible character througout and also be able to use the link of personal ancestry to give interest to the earlier humans who lived through the death of their gods. It would be too easy to fall into a trap of thinking that the point of view of the gods will be more interesting. Certainly if you could pull it off, it would be a fabulous achivement. But consider that most of the worlds religious scripture is written from the point of view of the humans involved. There is a reason for that. Put simply, when humans pretend to be gods, they rarely fool anyone. Even other humans. On the other hand, I really mean what I say about the acheivment of pulling it off. So try it, but then go back and write about the lives of a people that lost their gods, not because they no longer believed, but because the heavens fell silent. Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Um, I forgot to mention that the main Character should have some means of accessing his ancestors past. If you use an exotic device like time travel or revelation (or another favorite of mine, temporal transposition, where the character actually switches places with various people in the past), that is fine, but you should also consider less exotic means such as Archeology and finding ancient journals. The most important thing is to get a sense of compassion in the reader such that they will be able to understand what may otherwise be inexplicable to them. Without a personal connection to the story, it is in danger of becoming an undisguised allegory. That sort of thing has its place, but I think you are trying for a more intense work.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Survivor- Just as an idea that I've seen work well for other author's (OSC used it in the Worthing Chronicles, Anne Rice uses it almost all her books), how about a human who is made immortal, but not godly, as a narrator? Do you think this would work as well? For instance, I could have a human who is the last surviving worshipper of Ashurbanipal, and has been dormant except for short periods, for 5000 years...
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jul 1999
|
posted
It works as long as there is enough commonality between the narrator and us to allow us to care about him. One thing that is a major component in the appeal of some(not all) of Anne Rice's characters is that they struggle with questions of guilt and remorse, because even though they do what we might consider evil, they also consider it evil. Some of her works I didn't care for. There is a wonderful book that treats the subject of relative immortality in a novel and poignent manner without getting sentimental, 'The Laughing Sutra' by Mark Salzman. Basically, it takes a favorite character of Chinese fabulist literature, and brings him into the twentieth century. His character has to deal with the loss of the old china, and a world in which all the qualities of honor that are part of his basic nature are dead or dying. No, he is not the worshiper of a dead god, but I think that he could make an excellent modal for your main character. Of course, this will only work if you are able to make the reader feel that the death of your gods was really a loss. That means illuminating them as being something that the readers had always longed for, without being able to find in this world.\ That is a difficult task, I'm afraid. I don't know if this is related at all, but I was very deeply touched on a recent visit to the southwest area, where I saw the Anasazi ruins for myself. They built more and more elaborate defenses over the space of three centuries, until finally they resorted to the cliff dwellings. Fifty years later they were gone. A people fighting a lonely, desperate battle against a relentless foe, they showed ingenuity and tenacity, and in the end it made no difference at all. There is something touching in that. I guess what I'm saying is, make the reader feel the loss of wonder and hope that your lone worshiper must feel. Let them see why these gods should not have died.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
