If you could sit down in a chair next to the editor of work by James Baldwin, Elia Kazan, Jack Higgins, Jacques Barzun, David Frost, Budd Schulberg, Dylan Thomas and Lionel Trilling, what could that editor say that would be immediately helpful to you in your work? If you're a film writer or a novelist, would there be a benefit in sitting down with the man whom Kazan in his autobiography called his producer and director.
(Kazan may have been the only American to hit home runs in all three fields, film, theater and fiction. He directed five Pulitzer-prize-winning plays, received two Academy Awards® for directing plus a Lifetime Achievement Award, and capped his career with a novel that was #1 on the New York Times bestseller list for 37 consecutive weeks.)
If you think Kazan's and Baldwin's editor could have a few words you might find useful, take heed because you're listening to him.
1. The job of the editor is to help the writer realize the writer's intentions. The problem is that the intentions of many writers are wrong. The job of the writer is not to express himself or get something off his chest; his job is to provide the reader with an experience that is superior to what the reader experiences in everyday life. His job is to give the reader (or viewer) pleasure; only then will his insight mean something. As a writer, you are, in one sense, a troublemaker. A psychotherapist tries to relieve a person's stress, strain and tension. You are not a psychotherapist. Your job is to give readers and viewers stress, strain and tension. They love it because it is not in their life; it is in a book or on screen.
2. There's a book called 'Characters Make Your Story.' You don't have to read it. The title says it all. If you start with characters and put a protagonist and antagonist in opposition to each other and let the plot grow from that, you can build a contender. If you start with plot and sprinkle characters in it, the likely result is hackwork.
In my novel 'The Best Revenge,’ a successful Broadway producer and a gangster seem to come from opposite sides of the human spectrum. They start out as the worst of enemies and ,in the course of a Broadway production financed by ill-gotten money, become the best of friends. How that happens is the plot, but the success of the plot is entirely dependent on the credibility of the characters. If you're going for an Academy Award, base your so-called 'high concept' on the character of your characters. And here's a hint. If you look at the fiction that survived the 20th century, you'll find that almost all the main characters are eccentric. The creation of characters is an arrogant and highly skilled function because what you're doing is competing with God.
3. You are in a long line of storytellers whose job was to keep the listeners attention. The storyteller around the fire droned on. If his audience guessed what happened next, they either fell asleep or killed him. You are lucky. Your job is to arouse the reader's curiosity and not satisfy it. That's how suspense is created. Make sure your story has uncertainty about something, a prospective danger to the leading character, confrontations, set up something that cries for a resolution and then don't resolve it -- for a time. Remember that suspense occurs when the reader or viewer wants something to happen desperately and it isn't happening yet.
Suspense works best in a closed locale, like an elevator, or a weekend getaway where an unexpected person appears. You build suspense throughout a novel by remembering this: Never take the reader where the reader wants to go.
4. When I was invited to teach a course on 'Dialogue for Writers' at UCI (the University of California at Irvine to you non- Californians), I was told by the dean who invited me that, to his knowledge, there hadn't been a course on that subject before. I still find that hard to believe, but in the early 90s, I ended up giving that course in a medical amphitheater because of the demand of writers in every genre for instruction in a language that is not English or Spanish.
Dialogue is a foreign language, different from whatever language a writer has grown up using. It can make people unknown to the writer cry, laugh and believe lies in seconds. It is succinct, can carry a great weight of meaning in few words, and, above all, it is adversarial. That doesn't mean shouting. Adversarial dialogue can be subtle. It also has modes that are akin to pitches in baseball, fastballs, curve balls, sinkers, which are dealt with fully in my books and software because there isn't room in an article for this delicate and hugely important process. But let me give you a couple of examples.
Here's an Elmore Leonard character propositioning a woman with a curve ball: 'Let's get a drink and talk for a few days.' A sinker is useful for comedy: 'Are you going to let go of me, or shall I scream and let the neighbors see you in your undershirt?'
Characters reveal themselves in dialogue best when they are under stress and blurt out things they never meant to say.
What counts in dialogue is not what is said, but what is meant.
Dialogue is not at all like recorded speech. Evidence: Court transcripts are recorded speech, and awfully boring.
5. I sometimes run into writers who bristle at the idea that conflict is necessary. They say, 'Why should I have conflict? Why can't I deal with human relations without conflict?' The answer is simple. Conflict is the essence of dramatic action and has been involved in theater and fiction since the beginning of time. What is easy to lose sight of in an era of slam-bang conflict is that conflict needn't be violent action. Even subtle conflict is interesting to readers and viewers. Here's an example from a story by Richard Bausch, a short story writer and novelist whose work has merited a Modern Library edition of his selected stories. The exchange is between a wife waking a husband who has to wake his children.
'Casey,' she said. 'I'm up,' he told her. 'Don't just say 'I'm up.' 'I am up,' Casey said, 'I've been up since five forty-five.' 'Well, good. Get up up.'
Dialogue is permeated with an adversarial spirit that comes out as confrontation, suspicion, opposition and refusal. Readers love dialogue when it throws sparks.
6. A distinction used to be made between commercial fiction and literary fiction. That distinction doesn't make sense at a time when some well-crafted literary fiction makes a lot of money. 'Popular fiction' doesn't make sense either because literary fiction is also popular if measured by the number of copies sold. The distinction I draw is between what I call transient fiction and literary fiction. Novels that are transient are like one-night stands, sex as entertainment. The novel with higher aspirations involves a union with the reader that lasts beyond the last page. It's the kind of book we say we love. It deserves the durability of hardcover binding and acid-free pages and a long afterlife beyond the year of its publication.
'Do read this, it's a wonderful book,' is word-of-mouth that is responsible for books worth not only reading but also keeping. Fiction that has a chance of lasting is usually characterized by the writer's close attention to the choice of words, and with what I call particularity, a subject I have written a great deal about and show how to use in 'FictionMaster'®. Fiction thrives on precisely observed detail, not generalizations.
I was recently editing a novel by a lawyer that has moments of precisely observed particularity. His main character is someone I'd like to meet and know. If we're invited to spend 12 hours with a story, we want to fall in love with that principal character, and I feel that way about this novelist's protagonist. But when the writer deals with the antagonists (there are several), we get generalities that tarnish their credibility. Remember one word on your way to literary success: Particularity. I wish I had more time with you. There are two more things I'd like you to remember. A writer writes what other people only think. The best writers I have worked with try to do that and often succeed. They also focus on detail, especially unconventional detail. I have barely touched on the complex craft of writing in this short article. The good news is that I have cloned myself in two books, 'Stein on Writing' and 'How to Grow a Novel,' and I now instruct more than 100,000 writers interactively in three computer programs to which I invite your attention.
Sol Stein is a prize-winning playwright produced on Broadway, an anthologized poet, the author of nine novels, including the million-copy-seller, 'The Magician,' plus nonfiction books, screenplays and TV dramas. He has edited and published some of the most successful writers of our century.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
SEXUALITY, GENDER ROLES, AND THE ENNEAGRAM by Judith Searle
SEXUALITY, GENDER ROLES, AND THE ENNEAGRAM
© 1996 by Judith Searle
The first question we ask when a baby is born is: "Is it a boy or a girl?" Gender identity is the most basic of all human identities. Though most people accept most of the socially prescribed roles for the gender they were born with, some struggle against what they see as rigid and arbitrary social norms. All of us wonder: Exactly what is this mysterious sexual urge that drives us? Is our sexuality simply the particular cravings we express in our most private moments with a lover? How does our sexuality relate to our need for novelty? Is there some universal motor that runs sexual arousal for all of us?
We wouldn't expect a fish to have much insight into the nature of water. Men and women immersed in a hair-raising ride through the whitewater rapids of sexual conflicts and attractions look like equally poor bets for insights into the nature of sexuality and its relation to gender roles. However, I believe those of us who are familiar with the Enneagram have at our disposal an extraordinary tool for transcending our individual identities to gain a broader perspective on some important aspects of human sexuality and its relation to gender roles in our society.
Before I get into my thoughts about that, it might be well to begin with a couple of definitions. By "sexuality" I mean the personal experience of arousal and the drive toward orgasm. By "gender roles" I mean our society's conventions about which behaviors are appropriate for males and which for females. Gender roles are, in a sense, the context in which our sexuality exists in society.
On the issue of the root of human sexuality, I know of no better theory than Colin Wilson's. In his provocative book Origins of the Sexual Impulse he suggests that the underlying motor of sexuality is: "the need for 'alien-ness'--the illusion of the inviolability of the other person, upon which all sexual desire depends." (p. 42). His book is basically an expansion of this idea:
Satisfactory sex is the invasion of the other's "alien-ness." This is why we call the sexual parts our "private parts." All depends upon the idea of violating strangeness....When the intensity of sexual response depends on the alien-ness that has been invaded, it follows that men will try to intensify the response still further by going further afield in alien-ness. Since their enjoyment of "normal" sex depends on the sense of violating a taboo, it follows that they will try to increase their satisfaction by including as many taboos as possible in the sexual object....All sexual perversions, from mere adultery to necrophily, can be seen as attempts to increase the alien-ness of the act by increasing the number of taboos involved. Sex can never, on any level, be "healthy" or "normal." It always depends on the violating of taboos--or, as Baudelaire would have said, on the sense of sin. (pp. 246-47)
Many writers on sexuality have observed that most of us choose as sexual partners people who are distinct in temperament from ourselves. In her book The Sexual Self (an examination of sexual types in which readers familiar with the Enneagram will see clear correspondences to the nine Enneagram fixations) sex therapist Avodah K. Offit writes:
Passive people are most frequently married to dominant ones. By dominant, I do not necessarily mean aggressive or commanding. Dominance can also be related to mood, degree of verbosity, exhibitionism, paranoia, intellect, or indeed any other prevailing characteristic. (p. 206)
This pattern, Offit points out, has deep roots in the animal world:
In mating, mammals with a cortex are always concerned with some form of dominance, submission, or protection. Without Psyche, Cupid does not function. (p. 235)
To most sophisticated students of the Enneagram, it is axiomatic that each of us, while identifying a "home base" point we call our "fixation," participates in all points to some degree. A major strength of the Enneagram as a system is its compassionate acceptance of the full range of human types and its refusal to judge one as inherently "better" than any other. Nowhere is this concept more rigorously tested than in our consideration of gender roles and their relation to the diagram. There are certain points most of us associate with the "feminine"--notably Two and Four--and a certain point most of us associate with the "masculine"--notably Eight. For each of us, the tensions that drive our fixation shape our particular sexual style as well, but I believe each of us is also powerfully influenced by the opposition between Four and Eight (in which Two participates in ways I'll discuss later).
My basic thesis in this article is this: that the Four and Eight Enneagram points form a kind of universal template for gender roles in our society, and that the opposition between them is the source of the essential "alien-ness" that serves as the motor for our sexuality.
Four and Eight is a common combination in couples, and this pairing shows an obvious complementarity. As I observed in my article "The 'Latitude and Longitude' of Enneagram Fixations," Four's gift is for authenticity: depth of feeling, aesthetic perfect pitch, a romantic and passionate orientation to life. The price of this gift is self-absorption, and its pitfall is a tendency toward self-dramatization. Fours often view themselves as passionate people doomed to chronic pain because of the insensitivity of others. The "rubber band" effect in relationships (which Helen Palmer has astutely observed is characteristic of the Four) suggests that Fours may have a problem with too much pleasure--may in fact require a certain amount of pain to keep their feelings always at fever pitch and thus reinforce their view of themselves as more sensitive and authentically alive than most people.
Eight's gift is for action: a readiness to do whatever is necessary to seize and maintain power in a situation, a thick hide, a relish for confrontation, and a strong sexual appetite. The price of this gift is impulsiveness (an inability to forego confrontation, even when restraint might be more advantageous), and its pitfall is a tendency to hold grudges--to inflict massive punishments on those who would impede Eights' pursuit of their desires. Not surprisingly, Eights often cause quite a bit of pain to those around them. And this tendency makes them the perfect partner for Fours.
Though Offit's book makes no reference to the Enneagram, she observes a similar complementarity:
On the negative side, pain dependence--the craving to receive hurt, either physical or emotional--seems to be one of the most powerful aphrodisiacs of all time. This is often related to the sadism with which many parents expressed their concern. Children accustomed to having their bodies or sensibilities abused tend to preserve their punishments in later life by forming relationships which imitate early models. Security has become associated with pain.
Both receiving gratification of dependent needs and giving it can be immensely arousing. Those who derive satisfaction from supporting, parenting, or inflicting pain on people who would be better off without these attentions generally demonstrate that form of dependency which underlies aggressive character traits. (p. 40)
The intense one-pointed focus of pain in the body has an obvious relationship to the intense one-pointed focus of sexual pleasure. In a sense, pleasure is inseparable from pain in the human nervous system the same way light is inseparable from shadow in chiaroscuro painting. Pain is actually essential to human survival. Diseases such as leprosy that interfere with people's capacity to feel pain are extremely dangerous because their victims lack the early-warning system that keeps most of us from seriously damaging our bodies.
I've emphasized the sadistic-masochistic split between Eight and Four in order to make my point, but it's important to remember that all sexuality--not just its pathological manifestations--requires a basic "alien-ness" as a motor for desire. I have found Don Richard Riso's model (which describes the range of healthy to unhealthy behaviors for each Enneagram type) enormously useful in many ways, and it has obvious applications here. The relationship between Eight and Four partners might range all the way from a passionate, fulfilling adventure to a downward cycle of battering, terror, and murder. We see vivid depictions of the pathology of eroticized pain in such literary works as The Story of O and Susanna Moore's recent novel In the Cut.
Helen Palmer has pointed out that Mexico is basically an Eight/Four culture, with the men predominantly Eights and the women predominantly Fours. (I suspect this pattern may be true of Hispanic cultures generally.) I think most students of the Enneagram would acknowledge that the Four and Eight points on the diagram have strong gender associations. But let's consider for a moment the opposites of those stereotypes. Though we all know female Eights and male Fours, we recognize that these people frequently find themselves at odds with society's expectations--the Eight females often being seen as "unwomanly," the Four males as "unmanly."
The great value of the Enneagram in this instance is that it allows us to see these types (indeed, all types) as basic human types, not restricted in their gender incidence at all. I have yet to see any reliable studies of the numbers of males and females in the Eight and Four categories (or in any of the points, for that matter), but my gut-level sense is that there are probably in the general population about the same proportion of males and females in each point. However, I do observe a tendency among certain types in certain gender categories to be homosexual in their orientation.
Among gay males there seems to be a larger proportion of Fours than in the heterosexual male population, while among lesbians there seems to be a skewed proportion of Eights. (This is of course not to suggest that all Eight females are lesbian or all Four males gay, or that examples of all nine Enneagram types are not found among gay men and lesbians.) It is interesting to note that even within same-sex relationships there are usually distinct Eight/Four assignments of roles: "rough trade" and "queen" for males, "butch" and "femme" for females.
A close look at the Two point offers another perspective on the notion that Eight and Four represent a kind of universal template for sexuality. The world's great lovers--from Casanova to Madonna--have often been Twos. Twos' gift is for empathy: a powerful ability to connect with the feelings of others. Through their extraordinary sexual empathy Twos are able to scope out the erotic longings of others, and their ability to play a variety of roles has led some psychologists to characterize them as "histrionic." The price of their gift is a lack of connectedness to their own feelings, and their pitfall is a tendency to manipulate people.
When we examine the Enneagram "anatomy" of the Two point, we see that Twos have as their "longitude" (security-stress continuum) a direct line between Four and Eight. So Two is essentially an embodiment of the Eight/Four opposition, a paradoxical combination of aggressiveness and passivity, yang and yin.
Having no compelling erotic agenda of their own, seductive Twos are skilled at adapting to their partner's sexual scenario, playing whatever role seems likely to prove most arousing. The hidden agenda for all Twos is power, which Twos often achieve through their sexual prowess. We need to remember, of course, that Twos come in many different versions--running the gamut from radiant, altruistic health to hysterical, power-driven pathology.
Of all points on the Enneagram, Twos have the most potential for "polymorphous perversity"--swinging both ways. If a reliable tool for assessing sexual orientation in relation to the Enneagram were ever developed, I suspect it would show that a large proportion of bi-sexuals (of both sexes) are Twos.
In its embodiment of the Four/Eight opposition, Two exemplifies the possibilities for maintaining variety and sexual excitement through the trading off of gender roles in relationships. Having myself been in a relationship with a Two man for nearly thirty years, I can attest to the power of this kind of sexual play in keeping sexuality alive. I suspect that most long-term couples with strong sexual relationships, both heterosexual and homosexual, experiment with this kind of alternation of gender roles.
A look at the Enneagram Three offers yet another interesting perspective on the Eight/Four opposition as a template for sexuality and gender roles. Characteristically, the Three is concerned with presenting an appropriate image to the world, with Three women appearing conventionally "feminine" and Three men conventionally "masculine." Essential to the Three persona is an ability to gauge how one is perceived by others and a skill in fine-tuning the picture to elicit the desired response. (We all, of course, share this ability to some degree, but Threes are exceptionally adept in this area.)
I suspect that when gay men and lesbians who are Threes choose to keep their sexual orientation private they probably have more success than homosexuals of other Enneagram points in maintaining the appearance of heterosexuality.
The Three's focus on role playing makes me think of the way children play "house": "I'll be the daddy, you be the mommy." Or "doctor" (the great euphemism for childhood sexual explorations): "I'll be the doctor, you be the patient." Both these games are, in effect, practice sessions with Eight/Four polarities. Through trying on gender roles we learn to define ourselves in terms of the world's expectations.
Looking at the Three's ability to "put on the mask" of whatever gender image seems appropriate, I find myself wondering how firmly our sexuality is actually entrenched in immutable gender roles. Is it possible that all gender roles, for every Enneagram type, may ultimately be a part of our consensual social/sexual trance--a "let's pretend" that we subscribe to in the interest of generating sexual arousal? Are our "approved" lists of behaviors for each gender more arbitrary than we like to acknowledge? Does our view of distinct (and mutually exclusive) gender role categories really qualify as any more than a sort of masturbatory fantasy that allows us to maintain the "alien-ness" we need to get off?
Each of the Enneagram points tells itself a different "story" about the nature of reality. In this sense the nine points are like nine blind people trying to describe an elephant. Each of the nine stories about the elephant is true, but each is limited because it is not the whole story. I believe this situation applies also to our personal concepts of the nature of sexuality, each of us being equally blinkered by being either male or female--categories as mutually exclusive (and as connected) as the nine Enneagram types.
One of the great virtues of the Enneagram is that it allows us to grasp the possibility of an essential truth beyond our individual fixated views. In my own One fixation, for example, I am obsessed with imperfection (both in the world and in myself) and feel compelled to "fix" it. Yet beyond what I see through the flawed lens of my fixation is an essential truth: that the world is perfect, just as it is; that its very life depends on its constant changing and the growth of people within it in an organic way.
In similar fashion, each of us tells ourselves stories about the nature of sexuality from the skewed perspective of our personal sexual fantasies. But there is a kernel of truth underlying all the stories, and I believe the Enneagram can help us see the universal template we all subscribe to: that alien-ness, the motor that runs our desire, depends on our telling ourselves some version of a story about an Eight/Four opposition between ourselves and our lovers. Out of this awareness we can gain compassion for ourselves and others caught in society's fixation that there are appropriate behaviors for males that are distinct and opposite from appropriate behaviors for females.
Nothing brings us closer to our deepest human essence than the experience of a fulfilling and generous sexuality, and looking at our sexuality and gender roles through the correcting and magnifying lens of the Enneagram can offer a valuable perspective on our lives.
Bibliography:
Offit, Avodah K., The Sexual Self, revised edition. (New York: Congdon & Weed, Inc., 1983).
Palmer, Helen, The Enneagram. (New York: HarperCollins, 1988).
Riso, Don Richard, Personality Types. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1987).
Searle, Judith, "The 'Latitude and Longitude' of Enneagram Fixations," Enneagram Monthly Vol. 2, nos. 2-4 (February-April 1996).
Wilson, Colin, Origins of the Sexual Impulse. (London: Panther Books, 1966).
The above article was published in the May 1996 issue of Enneagram Monthly.
© 1996 by Judith Searle
The first question we ask when a baby is born is: "Is it a boy or a girl?" Gender identity is the most basic of all human identities. Though most people accept most of the socially prescribed roles for the gender they were born with, some struggle against what they see as rigid and arbitrary social norms. All of us wonder: Exactly what is this mysterious sexual urge that drives us? Is our sexuality simply the particular cravings we express in our most private moments with a lover? How does our sexuality relate to our need for novelty? Is there some universal motor that runs sexual arousal for all of us?
We wouldn't expect a fish to have much insight into the nature of water. Men and women immersed in a hair-raising ride through the whitewater rapids of sexual conflicts and attractions look like equally poor bets for insights into the nature of sexuality and its relation to gender roles. However, I believe those of us who are familiar with the Enneagram have at our disposal an extraordinary tool for transcending our individual identities to gain a broader perspective on some important aspects of human sexuality and its relation to gender roles in our society.
Before I get into my thoughts about that, it might be well to begin with a couple of definitions. By "sexuality" I mean the personal experience of arousal and the drive toward orgasm. By "gender roles" I mean our society's conventions about which behaviors are appropriate for males and which for females. Gender roles are, in a sense, the context in which our sexuality exists in society.
On the issue of the root of human sexuality, I know of no better theory than Colin Wilson's. In his provocative book Origins of the Sexual Impulse he suggests that the underlying motor of sexuality is: "the need for 'alien-ness'--the illusion of the inviolability of the other person, upon which all sexual desire depends." (p. 42). His book is basically an expansion of this idea:
Satisfactory sex is the invasion of the other's "alien-ness." This is why we call the sexual parts our "private parts." All depends upon the idea of violating strangeness....When the intensity of sexual response depends on the alien-ness that has been invaded, it follows that men will try to intensify the response still further by going further afield in alien-ness. Since their enjoyment of "normal" sex depends on the sense of violating a taboo, it follows that they will try to increase their satisfaction by including as many taboos as possible in the sexual object....All sexual perversions, from mere adultery to necrophily, can be seen as attempts to increase the alien-ness of the act by increasing the number of taboos involved. Sex can never, on any level, be "healthy" or "normal." It always depends on the violating of taboos--or, as Baudelaire would have said, on the sense of sin. (pp. 246-47)
Many writers on sexuality have observed that most of us choose as sexual partners people who are distinct in temperament from ourselves. In her book The Sexual Self (an examination of sexual types in which readers familiar with the Enneagram will see clear correspondences to the nine Enneagram fixations) sex therapist Avodah K. Offit writes:
Passive people are most frequently married to dominant ones. By dominant, I do not necessarily mean aggressive or commanding. Dominance can also be related to mood, degree of verbosity, exhibitionism, paranoia, intellect, or indeed any other prevailing characteristic. (p. 206)
This pattern, Offit points out, has deep roots in the animal world:
In mating, mammals with a cortex are always concerned with some form of dominance, submission, or protection. Without Psyche, Cupid does not function. (p. 235)
To most sophisticated students of the Enneagram, it is axiomatic that each of us, while identifying a "home base" point we call our "fixation," participates in all points to some degree. A major strength of the Enneagram as a system is its compassionate acceptance of the full range of human types and its refusal to judge one as inherently "better" than any other. Nowhere is this concept more rigorously tested than in our consideration of gender roles and their relation to the diagram. There are certain points most of us associate with the "feminine"--notably Two and Four--and a certain point most of us associate with the "masculine"--notably Eight. For each of us, the tensions that drive our fixation shape our particular sexual style as well, but I believe each of us is also powerfully influenced by the opposition between Four and Eight (in which Two participates in ways I'll discuss later).
My basic thesis in this article is this: that the Four and Eight Enneagram points form a kind of universal template for gender roles in our society, and that the opposition between them is the source of the essential "alien-ness" that serves as the motor for our sexuality.
Four and Eight is a common combination in couples, and this pairing shows an obvious complementarity. As I observed in my article "The 'Latitude and Longitude' of Enneagram Fixations," Four's gift is for authenticity: depth of feeling, aesthetic perfect pitch, a romantic and passionate orientation to life. The price of this gift is self-absorption, and its pitfall is a tendency toward self-dramatization. Fours often view themselves as passionate people doomed to chronic pain because of the insensitivity of others. The "rubber band" effect in relationships (which Helen Palmer has astutely observed is characteristic of the Four) suggests that Fours may have a problem with too much pleasure--may in fact require a certain amount of pain to keep their feelings always at fever pitch and thus reinforce their view of themselves as more sensitive and authentically alive than most people.
Eight's gift is for action: a readiness to do whatever is necessary to seize and maintain power in a situation, a thick hide, a relish for confrontation, and a strong sexual appetite. The price of this gift is impulsiveness (an inability to forego confrontation, even when restraint might be more advantageous), and its pitfall is a tendency to hold grudges--to inflict massive punishments on those who would impede Eights' pursuit of their desires. Not surprisingly, Eights often cause quite a bit of pain to those around them. And this tendency makes them the perfect partner for Fours.
Though Offit's book makes no reference to the Enneagram, she observes a similar complementarity:
On the negative side, pain dependence--the craving to receive hurt, either physical or emotional--seems to be one of the most powerful aphrodisiacs of all time. This is often related to the sadism with which many parents expressed their concern. Children accustomed to having their bodies or sensibilities abused tend to preserve their punishments in later life by forming relationships which imitate early models. Security has become associated with pain.
Both receiving gratification of dependent needs and giving it can be immensely arousing. Those who derive satisfaction from supporting, parenting, or inflicting pain on people who would be better off without these attentions generally demonstrate that form of dependency which underlies aggressive character traits. (p. 40)
The intense one-pointed focus of pain in the body has an obvious relationship to the intense one-pointed focus of sexual pleasure. In a sense, pleasure is inseparable from pain in the human nervous system the same way light is inseparable from shadow in chiaroscuro painting. Pain is actually essential to human survival. Diseases such as leprosy that interfere with people's capacity to feel pain are extremely dangerous because their victims lack the early-warning system that keeps most of us from seriously damaging our bodies.
I've emphasized the sadistic-masochistic split between Eight and Four in order to make my point, but it's important to remember that all sexuality--not just its pathological manifestations--requires a basic "alien-ness" as a motor for desire. I have found Don Richard Riso's model (which describes the range of healthy to unhealthy behaviors for each Enneagram type) enormously useful in many ways, and it has obvious applications here. The relationship between Eight and Four partners might range all the way from a passionate, fulfilling adventure to a downward cycle of battering, terror, and murder. We see vivid depictions of the pathology of eroticized pain in such literary works as The Story of O and Susanna Moore's recent novel In the Cut.
Helen Palmer has pointed out that Mexico is basically an Eight/Four culture, with the men predominantly Eights and the women predominantly Fours. (I suspect this pattern may be true of Hispanic cultures generally.) I think most students of the Enneagram would acknowledge that the Four and Eight points on the diagram have strong gender associations. But let's consider for a moment the opposites of those stereotypes. Though we all know female Eights and male Fours, we recognize that these people frequently find themselves at odds with society's expectations--the Eight females often being seen as "unwomanly," the Four males as "unmanly."
The great value of the Enneagram in this instance is that it allows us to see these types (indeed, all types) as basic human types, not restricted in their gender incidence at all. I have yet to see any reliable studies of the numbers of males and females in the Eight and Four categories (or in any of the points, for that matter), but my gut-level sense is that there are probably in the general population about the same proportion of males and females in each point. However, I do observe a tendency among certain types in certain gender categories to be homosexual in their orientation.
Among gay males there seems to be a larger proportion of Fours than in the heterosexual male population, while among lesbians there seems to be a skewed proportion of Eights. (This is of course not to suggest that all Eight females are lesbian or all Four males gay, or that examples of all nine Enneagram types are not found among gay men and lesbians.) It is interesting to note that even within same-sex relationships there are usually distinct Eight/Four assignments of roles: "rough trade" and "queen" for males, "butch" and "femme" for females.
A close look at the Two point offers another perspective on the notion that Eight and Four represent a kind of universal template for sexuality. The world's great lovers--from Casanova to Madonna--have often been Twos. Twos' gift is for empathy: a powerful ability to connect with the feelings of others. Through their extraordinary sexual empathy Twos are able to scope out the erotic longings of others, and their ability to play a variety of roles has led some psychologists to characterize them as "histrionic." The price of their gift is a lack of connectedness to their own feelings, and their pitfall is a tendency to manipulate people.
When we examine the Enneagram "anatomy" of the Two point, we see that Twos have as their "longitude" (security-stress continuum) a direct line between Four and Eight. So Two is essentially an embodiment of the Eight/Four opposition, a paradoxical combination of aggressiveness and passivity, yang and yin.
Having no compelling erotic agenda of their own, seductive Twos are skilled at adapting to their partner's sexual scenario, playing whatever role seems likely to prove most arousing. The hidden agenda for all Twos is power, which Twos often achieve through their sexual prowess. We need to remember, of course, that Twos come in many different versions--running the gamut from radiant, altruistic health to hysterical, power-driven pathology.
Of all points on the Enneagram, Twos have the most potential for "polymorphous perversity"--swinging both ways. If a reliable tool for assessing sexual orientation in relation to the Enneagram were ever developed, I suspect it would show that a large proportion of bi-sexuals (of both sexes) are Twos.
In its embodiment of the Four/Eight opposition, Two exemplifies the possibilities for maintaining variety and sexual excitement through the trading off of gender roles in relationships. Having myself been in a relationship with a Two man for nearly thirty years, I can attest to the power of this kind of sexual play in keeping sexuality alive. I suspect that most long-term couples with strong sexual relationships, both heterosexual and homosexual, experiment with this kind of alternation of gender roles.
A look at the Enneagram Three offers yet another interesting perspective on the Eight/Four opposition as a template for sexuality and gender roles. Characteristically, the Three is concerned with presenting an appropriate image to the world, with Three women appearing conventionally "feminine" and Three men conventionally "masculine." Essential to the Three persona is an ability to gauge how one is perceived by others and a skill in fine-tuning the picture to elicit the desired response. (We all, of course, share this ability to some degree, but Threes are exceptionally adept in this area.)
I suspect that when gay men and lesbians who are Threes choose to keep their sexual orientation private they probably have more success than homosexuals of other Enneagram points in maintaining the appearance of heterosexuality.
The Three's focus on role playing makes me think of the way children play "house": "I'll be the daddy, you be the mommy." Or "doctor" (the great euphemism for childhood sexual explorations): "I'll be the doctor, you be the patient." Both these games are, in effect, practice sessions with Eight/Four polarities. Through trying on gender roles we learn to define ourselves in terms of the world's expectations.
Looking at the Three's ability to "put on the mask" of whatever gender image seems appropriate, I find myself wondering how firmly our sexuality is actually entrenched in immutable gender roles. Is it possible that all gender roles, for every Enneagram type, may ultimately be a part of our consensual social/sexual trance--a "let's pretend" that we subscribe to in the interest of generating sexual arousal? Are our "approved" lists of behaviors for each gender more arbitrary than we like to acknowledge? Does our view of distinct (and mutually exclusive) gender role categories really qualify as any more than a sort of masturbatory fantasy that allows us to maintain the "alien-ness" we need to get off?
Each of the Enneagram points tells itself a different "story" about the nature of reality. In this sense the nine points are like nine blind people trying to describe an elephant. Each of the nine stories about the elephant is true, but each is limited because it is not the whole story. I believe this situation applies also to our personal concepts of the nature of sexuality, each of us being equally blinkered by being either male or female--categories as mutually exclusive (and as connected) as the nine Enneagram types.
One of the great virtues of the Enneagram is that it allows us to grasp the possibility of an essential truth beyond our individual fixated views. In my own One fixation, for example, I am obsessed with imperfection (both in the world and in myself) and feel compelled to "fix" it. Yet beyond what I see through the flawed lens of my fixation is an essential truth: that the world is perfect, just as it is; that its very life depends on its constant changing and the growth of people within it in an organic way.
In similar fashion, each of us tells ourselves stories about the nature of sexuality from the skewed perspective of our personal sexual fantasies. But there is a kernel of truth underlying all the stories, and I believe the Enneagram can help us see the universal template we all subscribe to: that alien-ness, the motor that runs our desire, depends on our telling ourselves some version of a story about an Eight/Four opposition between ourselves and our lovers. Out of this awareness we can gain compassion for ourselves and others caught in society's fixation that there are appropriate behaviors for males that are distinct and opposite from appropriate behaviors for females.
Nothing brings us closer to our deepest human essence than the experience of a fulfilling and generous sexuality, and looking at our sexuality and gender roles through the correcting and magnifying lens of the Enneagram can offer a valuable perspective on our lives.
Bibliography:
Offit, Avodah K., The Sexual Self, revised edition. (New York: Congdon & Weed, Inc., 1983).
Palmer, Helen, The Enneagram. (New York: HarperCollins, 1988).
Riso, Don Richard, Personality Types. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1987).
Searle, Judith, "The 'Latitude and Longitude' of Enneagram Fixations," Enneagram Monthly Vol. 2, nos. 2-4 (February-April 1996).
Wilson, Colin, Origins of the Sexual Impulse. (London: Panther Books, 1966).
The above article was published in the May 1996 issue of Enneagram Monthly.
SEMINARS FOR MALES (prepared and presented by females)
1. Combating Stupidity
2. You, Too, Can Do Housework
3. PMS: Learn When to Keep Your Mouth Shut
4. How to Fill an Ice Tray
5. We Do Not Want Sleazy Under things for Christmas: Give us Money
6. Understanding the Female Response to Your Coming in Drunk at 4:00am
7. Wonderful Laundry Techniques (formerly titled "Don't Wash my Silks")
8. Parenting: No, It Doesn't End With Conception
9. Get a Life: Learn to Cook
10. How Not to Act Like an Asshole When You're Obviously Wrong
11. Spelling: Even You Can Get it Right
12. Understanding Your Financial Incompetence
13. You: The Weaker Sex
14. Reasons to Give Flowers
15. How to Stay Awake After Sex-Afterglow, Hold Me, Talk to Me
16. Why it is Unacceptable to Relieve Yourself Anywhere but the Bathroom
17. Garbage: Getting it to the Curb
18. You Can Fall Asleep Without IT If You Really Try
19. The Morning Dilemma-If It's awake: Take A Cold Shower
20. I'll Wear It If I Damn Well Please
21. How to Put the Toilet Lid Down (formerly titled "No, It's Not a Bidet")
22. "The Weekend" and "Sports" are Not Synonyms
23. Give Me a Break: Why We Know Your Excuses are Bullshit
24. How to Go Shopping with Your Mate and Not Get Lost
25. The Remote Control: Overcoming Your Dependency
26. Romanticism: Ideas Other Than Sex
27. Helpful Postural Hints for Couch Potatoes
28. Mothers-in-Law: They are People Too
29. Male Bonding: Leaving Your Friends at Home
30. You, Too, Can Be a Designated Driver
31. Seeing the True You (formerly titled "No, You Don't Look Like Mel Gibson When Naked")
32. Changing Your Underwear: It Really Works
33. The Attainable Goal: Omitting TITS From Your Vocabulary
34. Fluffing the Blankets After Flatulating is Not Necessary
35. Techniques of Calling Home
36. Introductory Foreplay: The Drive Home Does Not Count.
2. You, Too, Can Do Housework
3. PMS: Learn When to Keep Your Mouth Shut
4. How to Fill an Ice Tray
5. We Do Not Want Sleazy Under things for Christmas: Give us Money
6. Understanding the Female Response to Your Coming in Drunk at 4:00am
7. Wonderful Laundry Techniques (formerly titled "Don't Wash my Silks")
8. Parenting: No, It Doesn't End With Conception
9. Get a Life: Learn to Cook
10. How Not to Act Like an Asshole When You're Obviously Wrong
11. Spelling: Even You Can Get it Right
12. Understanding Your Financial Incompetence
13. You: The Weaker Sex
14. Reasons to Give Flowers
15. How to Stay Awake After Sex-Afterglow, Hold Me, Talk to Me
16. Why it is Unacceptable to Relieve Yourself Anywhere but the Bathroom
17. Garbage: Getting it to the Curb
18. You Can Fall Asleep Without IT If You Really Try
19. The Morning Dilemma-If It's awake: Take A Cold Shower
20. I'll Wear It If I Damn Well Please
21. How to Put the Toilet Lid Down (formerly titled "No, It's Not a Bidet")
22. "The Weekend" and "Sports" are Not Synonyms
23. Give Me a Break: Why We Know Your Excuses are Bullshit
24. How to Go Shopping with Your Mate and Not Get Lost
25. The Remote Control: Overcoming Your Dependency
26. Romanticism: Ideas Other Than Sex
27. Helpful Postural Hints for Couch Potatoes
28. Mothers-in-Law: They are People Too
29. Male Bonding: Leaving Your Friends at Home
30. You, Too, Can Be a Designated Driver
31. Seeing the True You (formerly titled "No, You Don't Look Like Mel Gibson When Naked")
32. Changing Your Underwear: It Really Works
33. The Attainable Goal: Omitting TITS From Your Vocabulary
34. Fluffing the Blankets After Flatulating is Not Necessary
35. Techniques of Calling Home
36. Introductory Foreplay: The Drive Home Does Not Count.
Redheaded Women Have a Unique Ability
Redheads are special! Women who have red hair have an innate ability to tolerate more pain than other people. While testing the painkilling drug pentazocine, researchers from McGill University in Montreal discovered that the same gene that gives women red hair and fair skin also plays a role in the body's natural pain suppression system. However, it doesn't work for male carrot-tops. Redheaded women can tolerate more pain than anyone else, including men with red hair and men and women who do not have red hair. The others all had a similar and much lower tolerance to pain than flame-haired females.
Oooh la la! Click for a gorgeous photo gallery of one of Hollywood's leading flame-haired actresses.
"While we believe pain is the same in all women of all hair colors, our study shows women with red hair respond better to the painkilling drug we tested than anyone else--including men," lead researcher Jeffrey S. Mogil, a professor of pain studies at McGill, said in a news release. Why would the gene that gives red hair and fair skin--identified as Mc1r--work differently in redheaded men and women? Mogil told Reuters that men and women are using different pain pathways. "If they were using the same pathways, then the redhead gene would have the same impact for both sexes," he added.
What over-the-counter pain medicines work best? Here's a handy guide.
When we experience pain, our bodies attempt to dull the discomfort by releasing natural substances that are similar to medications like morphine. The gene Mc1r influences the pathway through which the body doles out those naturally occurring painkillers in women. The research could affect how doctors prescribe pain medication, since it's clear that genetic differences impact how well a drug will work for individual people. The study findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Oooh la la! Click for a gorgeous photo gallery of one of Hollywood's leading flame-haired actresses.
"While we believe pain is the same in all women of all hair colors, our study shows women with red hair respond better to the painkilling drug we tested than anyone else--including men," lead researcher Jeffrey S. Mogil, a professor of pain studies at McGill, said in a news release. Why would the gene that gives red hair and fair skin--identified as Mc1r--work differently in redheaded men and women? Mogil told Reuters that men and women are using different pain pathways. "If they were using the same pathways, then the redhead gene would have the same impact for both sexes," he added.
What over-the-counter pain medicines work best? Here's a handy guide.
When we experience pain, our bodies attempt to dull the discomfort by releasing natural substances that are similar to medications like morphine. The gene Mc1r influences the pathway through which the body doles out those naturally occurring painkillers in women. The research could affect how doctors prescribe pain medication, since it's clear that genetic differences impact how well a drug will work for individual people. The study findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Quick Character Motivation Exercise by Alicia Rasley
Quick Character Motivation Exercise
copyright 2001 by Alicia Rasley
Here's a quick exercise to help you explore your protagonist's needs and values and strengths and issues.
Mixing External with Internal and Turning Up the Heat
1. Fill in the blanks: (Protagonist name) ____________ wants (goal) _________________ by (time, date, occasion) _______________, because (motivation) ______________. If (name) _____________ doesn't get this, (he/she) _____ thinks that (something bad) _______________ will happen. If (name) ______________ does get this, (he/she) ______ thinks that (something good)
________________ will happen.
Example: Theresa wants to find her birthparents while Adam is still in town to help her with the search (two weeks), because she thinks they will tell her why they gave her up. If Theresa doesn't find them, she thinks that once her adoptive mother dies, she will be all alone. If Theresa does find them, she thinks that she will finally belong to a real family.
2. Fill in the blanks:
(Name) _______________ is on a journey from (one state of being) ________________ to (another state of being) ________________, and to get there, (he/she) ___________ must (learn, grow, overcome something) ___________________________. The external plot powers (name) _________ on this journey because it challenges (him/her) _______ to (do, become, change)
________________.
Theresa is on a journey from isolation to alliance, and to get there, she must learn to give up the dreams of the ideal family and embrace the one she has. The external plot powers Theresa on this journey becaue it challenges her to search for the truth and to take her adoptive sisters into her confidence.
3. Jot down what your protagonist does in your external plot in the:
Beginning--
Middle--
End--
B-- Theresa comes home to search for her birthmother, hiding her plan from her adoptive sisters and mother.
M-- With help from the mysterious Adam, Theresa tracks her original family to a nearby town.
E-- Theresa learns that Adam isn't who she thought he was, and that her original family is not the ideal she'd hoped for. When Adam threatens her sisters, she realizes that she must accept them as her family and let go of her dream of restoring the past.
4. (Name's) _____________________ central strength is __________________. This is brought out in the external plot because ________________________________. Some problems that come along with this strength are: ___________________________________________.
Theresa's central strength is her scrupulous determination not to sin, to be virtuous. This is brought out in the external plot because she must rejoin the real world (after a long religious retreat) and deal with its moral ambiguities. She once thought if she were good enough, her birthmother would come back for her. Some problems that come with this strength are: self-righteousness, alienation from her "sinful" sister, over-strictness, self-absorption, fear that a mistake will lead to ostracism and
condemnation, others' perception that she's cold and unforgiving.
5. More than anything, (protagonist name) is afraid of __________________. The last thing he/she wants to do is ___________________. More than anything, Theresa is afraid of loving too much and being abandoned. The last thing she wants to do is trust in the love of the sisters who have never really accepted her.
copyright 2001 by Alicia Rasley
Here's a quick exercise to help you explore your protagonist's needs and values and strengths and issues.
Mixing External with Internal and Turning Up the Heat
1. Fill in the blanks: (Protagonist name) ____________ wants (goal) _________________ by (time, date, occasion) _______________, because (motivation) ______________. If (name) _____________ doesn't get this, (he/she) _____ thinks that (something bad) _______________ will happen. If (name) ______________ does get this, (he/she) ______ thinks that (something good)
________________ will happen.
Example: Theresa wants to find her birthparents while Adam is still in town to help her with the search (two weeks), because she thinks they will tell her why they gave her up. If Theresa doesn't find them, she thinks that once her adoptive mother dies, she will be all alone. If Theresa does find them, she thinks that she will finally belong to a real family.
2. Fill in the blanks:
(Name) _______________ is on a journey from (one state of being) ________________ to (another state of being) ________________, and to get there, (he/she) ___________ must (learn, grow, overcome something) ___________________________. The external plot powers (name) _________ on this journey because it challenges (him/her) _______ to (do, become, change)
________________.
Theresa is on a journey from isolation to alliance, and to get there, she must learn to give up the dreams of the ideal family and embrace the one she has. The external plot powers Theresa on this journey becaue it challenges her to search for the truth and to take her adoptive sisters into her confidence.
3. Jot down what your protagonist does in your external plot in the:
Beginning--
Middle--
End--
B-- Theresa comes home to search for her birthmother, hiding her plan from her adoptive sisters and mother.
M-- With help from the mysterious Adam, Theresa tracks her original family to a nearby town.
E-- Theresa learns that Adam isn't who she thought he was, and that her original family is not the ideal she'd hoped for. When Adam threatens her sisters, she realizes that she must accept them as her family and let go of her dream of restoring the past.
4. (Name's) _____________________ central strength is __________________. This is brought out in the external plot because ________________________________. Some problems that come along with this strength are: ___________________________________________.
Theresa's central strength is her scrupulous determination not to sin, to be virtuous. This is brought out in the external plot because she must rejoin the real world (after a long religious retreat) and deal with its moral ambiguities. She once thought if she were good enough, her birthmother would come back for her. Some problems that come with this strength are: self-righteousness, alienation from her "sinful" sister, over-strictness, self-absorption, fear that a mistake will lead to ostracism and
condemnation, others' perception that she's cold and unforgiving.
5. More than anything, (protagonist name) is afraid of __________________. The last thing he/she wants to do is ___________________. More than anything, Theresa is afraid of loving too much and being abandoned. The last thing she wants to do is trust in the love of the sisters who have never really accepted her.
Interesting story idea starters
How many times during the day do you look at yourself in the mirror?
Do you consider yourself well organized?? Do you often have to look for your keys?
While arguing with a close friend on the telephone, they get angry and hang up. Assuming they were at fault and make no attempt to contact you, how long would you wait to get in touch with them?
If your friends and acquaintances were willing to bluntly and honestly tell you what they really thought of you - would you want them to??
Before making a telephone call do you rehearse what you are going to say?
When did you last cry in front of another person?? by yourself??
Would you accept $10,000 to shave your head and continue your normal activities without a hat or wig and without explaining the reason for your haircut?
If you could have free, unlimited service for five years from either an extremely good cook, chauffeur, housekeeper, masseuse, or personal secretary, which would you choose?
If you went to a movie with a friend and it was lousy would you leave?
If you could script the basic plot for the dream you will have tonight - what would the story be??
Do you consider yourself well organized?? Do you often have to look for your keys?
While arguing with a close friend on the telephone, they get angry and hang up. Assuming they were at fault and make no attempt to contact you, how long would you wait to get in touch with them?
If your friends and acquaintances were willing to bluntly and honestly tell you what they really thought of you - would you want them to??
Before making a telephone call do you rehearse what you are going to say?
When did you last cry in front of another person?? by yourself??
Would you accept $10,000 to shave your head and continue your normal activities without a hat or wig and without explaining the reason for your haircut?
If you could have free, unlimited service for five years from either an extremely good cook, chauffeur, housekeeper, masseuse, or personal secretary, which would you choose?
If you went to a movie with a friend and it was lousy would you leave?
If you could script the basic plot for the dream you will have tonight - what would the story be??
Psychology of Men, By Doug McKee, Psy.D.
Psychology of Men
By Doug McKee, Psy.D.
Men have often been reluctant to admit to the need for help. For example, I often hear from women that their partners won't stop and ask for directions when lost on the highway.
Why is it that men are not conditioned to seek support from others? As little boys, they are often told to be independent and made to compete with other boys. Competition over cooperation is a value that is taught. It is no wonder, as adults, that males want to continue to "do it on their own." Getting help from others, especially a therapist, is seen as a sign of weakness, or even worse, failure.
Some of the rules are changing, though. Many men are seeking support and, more than ever, today's male can say phrases such as: "I'm hurt," "I don't know," and the very vulnerable admission "I'm scared." Typically men are given permission to express anger and sexual feelings while most other feelings have been taboo. To express love or sadness was too feminine, too ladylike, and therefore in the domain of being a "sissy." In a reaction against these values, the men's movement started by Robert Bly and Sam Keen became a fad in the early nineties. Drumming at men's groups was common and the self-help section of the bookstore filled up with books about men.
One of the pioneers of the men's movement is Warren Farrell. His work in the field of psychology started with NOW, the National Organization for Women. Farrell soon realized that men needed understanding also. I have learned a great deal from the books about men and the workshops that their authors presented. The next level of growth for me came from a commitment to personal therapy - specifically group therapy. I now believe that it is through a connection to others that men heal most fully.
The moral development of children was studied by Kohlberg. He originated the idea of a six stage model of how children acquire a concept of morality. Unfortunately, it was a study that only included boys as subjects. Years later, Carol Gilligan suggested that girls didn't share the same development. Her conclusion suggested that women gain their identity through connection while men attain theirs through separateness. This seemed to be very apparent to me after I read Gilligan's article, yet I had never heard it put so simply.
What do men talk about in therapy? It is not uncommon for men to deny their emotional pain at first. Sometimes sent by their partner, or other times reluctantly dragged by a significant other, men starting therapy enter into a domain that feels foreign to them. Therapy consists of looking at many gray areas that are uncomfortable. Men may bring up issues with the wife or children, the boss or a coworker. After several sessions, their isolation, lack of support, and need to feel in control often surfaces. Problems common among men in therapy are alcoholism, depression, anxiety, sleeping disorders, eating disorders and sexual disorders. These problems have often been painful, yet men have been trained to keep the pain hidden.
My approach in working with men is to allow them to express their emotional pain, validate it, and then learn new ways of relating to their environment. Some techniques I have used are: "I messages," empathy skill building, and practicing feeling expressions.
The use of "I messages" allows the client to speak for himself only. Men often use the pronoun "we" when in couples therapy. In group therapy, the word "you" is often inappropriately used when "I" would be a more powerful pronoun. Having clients, especially men, use "I messages" gives personal accountability to the statement.
Another technique that I use in therapy with men is an empathy skill building model. This approach involves having the male client repeat back the feelings he has heard from the group member or his family member. I have the client also state that he has heard the other's concern before he offers a solution. Too often men want to give helpful advice to a loved one before the problem has been fully understood. Having men understand others' emotions is one way of giving men the opportunity to acknowledge their own emotions.
One other technique that seems beneficial to my male clients is that of practicing the expression of feelings. I model for men what sobbing looks and sounds like. I make a grimace and begin to wail loud audible sounds to show men that crying is a wonderful emotion. Men are usually surprised that their therapist is play acting. I simply tell them that learning to cry deeply can be practiced by pretending to cry. I have no empirical research to back up this technique, yet I have had success at helping men reawaken their emotions using this demonstration. I have also gotten better at expressing my own sadness as I continue to practice.
By Doug McKee, Psy.D.
Men have often been reluctant to admit to the need for help. For example, I often hear from women that their partners won't stop and ask for directions when lost on the highway.
Why is it that men are not conditioned to seek support from others? As little boys, they are often told to be independent and made to compete with other boys. Competition over cooperation is a value that is taught. It is no wonder, as adults, that males want to continue to "do it on their own." Getting help from others, especially a therapist, is seen as a sign of weakness, or even worse, failure.
Some of the rules are changing, though. Many men are seeking support and, more than ever, today's male can say phrases such as: "I'm hurt," "I don't know," and the very vulnerable admission "I'm scared." Typically men are given permission to express anger and sexual feelings while most other feelings have been taboo. To express love or sadness was too feminine, too ladylike, and therefore in the domain of being a "sissy." In a reaction against these values, the men's movement started by Robert Bly and Sam Keen became a fad in the early nineties. Drumming at men's groups was common and the self-help section of the bookstore filled up with books about men.
One of the pioneers of the men's movement is Warren Farrell. His work in the field of psychology started with NOW, the National Organization for Women. Farrell soon realized that men needed understanding also. I have learned a great deal from the books about men and the workshops that their authors presented. The next level of growth for me came from a commitment to personal therapy - specifically group therapy. I now believe that it is through a connection to others that men heal most fully.
The moral development of children was studied by Kohlberg. He originated the idea of a six stage model of how children acquire a concept of morality. Unfortunately, it was a study that only included boys as subjects. Years later, Carol Gilligan suggested that girls didn't share the same development. Her conclusion suggested that women gain their identity through connection while men attain theirs through separateness. This seemed to be very apparent to me after I read Gilligan's article, yet I had never heard it put so simply.
What do men talk about in therapy? It is not uncommon for men to deny their emotional pain at first. Sometimes sent by their partner, or other times reluctantly dragged by a significant other, men starting therapy enter into a domain that feels foreign to them. Therapy consists of looking at many gray areas that are uncomfortable. Men may bring up issues with the wife or children, the boss or a coworker. After several sessions, their isolation, lack of support, and need to feel in control often surfaces. Problems common among men in therapy are alcoholism, depression, anxiety, sleeping disorders, eating disorders and sexual disorders. These problems have often been painful, yet men have been trained to keep the pain hidden.
My approach in working with men is to allow them to express their emotional pain, validate it, and then learn new ways of relating to their environment. Some techniques I have used are: "I messages," empathy skill building, and practicing feeling expressions.
The use of "I messages" allows the client to speak for himself only. Men often use the pronoun "we" when in couples therapy. In group therapy, the word "you" is often inappropriately used when "I" would be a more powerful pronoun. Having clients, especially men, use "I messages" gives personal accountability to the statement.
Another technique that I use in therapy with men is an empathy skill building model. This approach involves having the male client repeat back the feelings he has heard from the group member or his family member. I have the client also state that he has heard the other's concern before he offers a solution. Too often men want to give helpful advice to a loved one before the problem has been fully understood. Having men understand others' emotions is one way of giving men the opportunity to acknowledge their own emotions.
One other technique that seems beneficial to my male clients is that of practicing the expression of feelings. I model for men what sobbing looks and sounds like. I make a grimace and begin to wail loud audible sounds to show men that crying is a wonderful emotion. Men are usually surprised that their therapist is play acting. I simply tell them that learning to cry deeply can be practiced by pretending to cry. I have no empirical research to back up this technique, yet I have had success at helping men reawaken their emotions using this demonstration. I have also gotten better at expressing my own sadness as I continue to practice.
Point of View by Alicia Rasley
Point of View by Alicia Rasley
This got cut for space from my upcoming POV book, so I thought I'd share
it with you instead!
--------
Point of View and Your Story by Alicia Rasley
Coming March 2008 from Writer's Digest Books
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON POINT OF VIEW
In some form, point of view has always been present in most kinds of
fiction, at least in the Western tradition. (I'm not widely
enough read in other traditions, alas, to generalize about them.) I
suspect POV is something of a cognitive necessity because
of what we fiction writers are asking readers to do�to pretend; to forget
that this story is not true; to overcome the boundary of self to
become, if only momentarily, another person in another world. There's a
natural skepticism that resists surrendering to fiction, a form of
self-defense that has been with us since humans first started lying to
each other. But storytellers learned early to overcome this skepticism by
seducing the imagination through POV.
The earliest storytellers were bards who sang or recited the
old legends and myths of their culture, and they were much more in
tune with their audiences than any of us are. They had to be�their
audiences were right there, ready to throw tomatoes at them if they made
a character boring and didactic, or told an exciting battle scene from
too distant a perspective.
In those days, POV meant "spending time� with a character
more than "getting into his head." This was an easy choice, since the
early stories were full of action and violence and supernatural
activities, and too much introspection might lose the listener. These
great early stories, as far as we know, usually followed the heroic
characters who were doing most of the action; that is, it showed the plot
through the point of view of the "protagonist" or "prime actor", and
that's still a conventional POV approach today.
The Odyssey, for example, is told primarily from the
third-person POV of Odysseus (the title makes it clear that it is his
story), with long stretches in first person while he tells his tale of
woe to an audience. Scenes out of Odysseus's presence are generally
narrated omnisciently (from above), so necessary action such as his son's
search for news about him can be shown without detracting from the
intense focus on the main character. Even so early, we have the three
most common POV types: Single-third person, first person, and omniscient.
In the Western tradition, the first great novelistic
endeavor�or at least the first still available to us�was Homer's work The
Iliad and The Odyssey (eighth century BC). (These are in verse, not
prose, but otherwise might as well be novels�with central protagonist,
compressed time frame, and cohesive major plot line.) The dual epic about
the Trojan War and its aftermath was so important that centuries later
the puritanical Plato used Homer as the prime example of the addictive
evil of fiction�the bard spread a "mental poison," using drama to insert
the reader into history's "murder, incest, cruelty, treachery,
uncontrolled passions, weakness, cowardice, and malice." Two millennia
later, Keats read a translation of Homer and, consumed with joy, dashed
off in a couple hours what is perhaps England's greatest sonnet: "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer." And Homer is a hit even now; a new
translation of The Odyssey [CU1] recently[CU1] hit the best-seller list.
Why did Homer's epic last when so many other stories from
that period were lost forever? First, it's because he chose his material
well: The Trojan War was such a seminal event in Hellenic history that
its fascination survived during the mini-Dark Ages that followed the war.
So when Homer arrived in time to write it down, the legends had only
gathered power through centuries of bardic recitation.
Homer's version also incurred Plato's censure and survived
the next three millennia because he made it personal. The Iliad is not
just a chronicle of the culminating events of that war; it's the story of
two rival warriors, Hector and Achilles, who stake their lives and their
honor on a last gamble for victory. The Odyssey is not just a chronicle
of the consequences of that war; it's the deeply emotional journey of
Odysseus, a man weary of war who can't find his way back home.
Homer knew what we all need to remember�that readers
experience story best when they identify with one or two central
characters. That doesn't mean limiting the story to those characters; The
Iliad is rife with other great warriors (Odysseus is a secondary
character, in fact, in that earlier story), and gods make frequent
visitations whenever the action starts to flag. The Odyssey sometimes
deserts Odysseus to revisit his old Iliad buddies (and Helen of Troy has
a great cameo where she proclaims that she just doesn't know what came
over her when she started the war!) or to track his teenaged son
Telemachus on a voyage of discovery. But Homer's listeners knew that
Achilles was their Iliad guy (even if us modern types prefer the tragic
Hector) and that The Odyssey was, obviously, Odysseus's story.
But Homer didn't give over control of his narrative entirely
to his central character Odysseus. Instead he (or the bards before him)
created the omniscient narrator, who knows everything in the story and
tells the events he deems worthy with his own particular "spin." Why?
Partly, no doubt, because omniscient is an efficient way of corralling a
large group of characters (including Zeus and Athena) and several
settings (including Mt. Olympus and Hades).
But also perhaps the omniscient narrator was a subtle way of
reminding the audience the importance of keeping bards fed and housed.
Homer cleverly inserts some "bardic moments" by transforming Odysseus
into a storyteller for long stretches of The Odyssey. He even has
Odysseus whine a bit about how difficult it is to tell a story well, just
in case the ladies think only warriors have to fight battles. This
technique of a narrator proclaiming his own story to a crowd is obviously
derived from the oral tradition, but still very common today, especially
in first-person narrations.
AFTER HOMER
Drama.
That's what came after Homer, the rise of the theatrically
performed play. The extant literature of the fifth century BC era in
Greece is dominated by the great classical playwrights: Sophocles,
Euripedes, Aristophanes, and Aeschylus.
These guys retained the focus on a central character that had
become an important feature of Greek literature. In fact, Aristotle, in
his great work On Tragedy, said that a plot should follow one man on his
journey from fortune to misfortune or vice versa, such as Odysseus's
journey from exile to home. Aristotle's contemporary example was
Sophocles's play Oedipus the King, which chronicles a long day during
which the curious Oedipus seeks out the truth about himself and finds it
destroys his life.
Notice how performance changed radically in a few hundred
years: The Homeric-style bard recited the entire story of Odysseus,
narrating not just the dialogue but the action of the story. Though Homer
wrote in verse, he was writing fiction narrative much as we now write a
novel. But by the time of Sophocles, the recitation of bards had become
dramatic performances, the narrative having fallen away and the actors
instead acting out the action and addressing each other in dialogue. By
the fifth century BC, both major forms of fictional entertainment were
established�the Homer-like narrative, which takes in both epic poetry
(like that of Virgil and Milton) and much later the novel and short
story; and the performed drama, which took form in theater plays (like
those of Shakespeare) that would give rise to, in our own time, film and
television.
PERFORMANCE AND POV
It might seem odd to speak of a performed play as having POV. After all,
in a drama, the action is shown in actor movement and dialogue, without
the "introspection" that we usually think of as a hallmark of POV. But as
Aristotle pointed out, Sophocles's play is the story of Oedipus, and we
are confined primarily to his perspective of events�with a bit of
"voice-over analysis" from the omniscient chorus. He is on stage almost
the entire play, and we know no more than he does; we don't get a glimpse
into the blind soothsayer Tiresias's mind to learn ahead of time what
he's warning Oedipus about. We learn the truth only when Oedipus learns
it. (In case you haven't read the play, Oedipus finds out that he killed
his father and married his mother. And some people think the classics are
stuffy and dull!)
So performances can have POV in the sense of tracking a
character's journey and perspective. Shakespeare expanded this
capability, using soliloquies where a character actually addressed the
audience, speaking his thoughts aloud. ("To be or not to be," etc.)
Shakespeare's characters also use "asides" to convey their internal
thoughts�the actor playing Hamlet will turn away from the actor playing
Evil Uncle Claudius to mutter to the audience, "A little more than kin,
and less than kind." Milton and other epic poets used a similar technique
of the characters speaking out their thoughts when they were alone in a
scene (often at the end of a scene, when the other characters have
departed).
But true POV "introspection" or "internalization" had to wait
for the invention of the novel, which came (in England) in the latter
part of the seventeenth century, with Aphra Behn, and then a half-century
later with Daniel Defoe[LM2] and Samuel Richardson.
The Novel and POV
A novel is a long fictional work of prose narrative. You can see "the
novel" is defined in the negative of earlier literary forms: long, so
it's not a short story; fictional, so it's not a biography or history;
prose, so it's not in verse like a poem; and narrative, so it's not acted
out like a play.
The most important precursor to the British novel was
Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, which is something like today's
short-story anthology. There is a "frame" story�a group of pilgrims on a
pilgrimage to Canterbury�and within the frame, a bunch of stories they
supposedly tell to entertain each other. This is still in verse, but not
only are the collected stories clearly fictional, so is the frame story
about the pilgrimage. The Canterbury Tales lacks the coherence of plot
required in a novel, but makes good use of narrators, each with an
attitude of some kind (antisemitism, bawdiness) which affects the
narration of the stories�just as POV does in actual novels.
It was another three hundred years before the novel developed
in England (there was that little digression into Shakespearian drama
first), but by the seventeenth century, the tale-telling narrator emerged
in a new way. Many of the earliest novels (including those of Behn,
Richardson, Defoe) were epistolary, that is, based around a series of
fictional "epistles"�letters or journal entries. Readers at that time
were used to reading actual letters and diaries, and so the epistolary
format was familiar and natural.
Early novelists could also draw on the non-personal narrative
format found in epic poems, so a novel like Behn's Love Letters of a
Nobleman to His Sister had both a long exchange of letters between the
nobleman and his wife's sister, and extended passages of narrative which
related action not confined to that described in the letters. Already POV
was used fluidly: The letters are in first-person POV, while the
narrative is in a third-person omniscient POV. Behn made good use of the
contrast, letting her two lovers indict themselves as vain, shallow, and
in love with love, in a satire of sexual politics that rings with
authenticity even today.
What distinguishes the epistolary novel from more
conventional first-person narration is the fictional notion that the
narrative is aimed at a particular reader. The letters, supposedly, are
meant to be read by their recipients, and the diary entries are
presumably meant to be read over by the narrator/journal-writer and no
one else. So there's a specific purpose for the narrator in narrating
these events�either to explain them to the letter recipient or to record
them for her own later review. In standard first-person narration,
there's seldom a clear purpose or a specific reader for the narrator's
narration� for some reason, he's just telling his story out loud. (Read
more about this in chapter four.)
In fact, some authors insisted their fiction was fact; Aphra
Behn claimed to have witnessed many of the events of her story Oroonoko.
This increased the credibility of the story among readers still
suspicious of this new fiction format, by making the author/narrator seem
more like a journalist�even if she was actually making it all up.
Just after the dawn of the novel came the Age of
Enlightenment, a philosophical and political movement emphasizing
individuality and rationality. As literacy became more widespread
throughout Europe, readers became more comfortable with the fictional
narrative form, and the device of letters and journals gave way to a more
direct perspective, in many cases, an in-your-face first-person
narration, especially in Britain.
Laurence Sterne was the master of that first-person style in
his picaresque novels, his narrators speaking to the reader rather like a
raconteur facing a theater audience, with sharp, humorous voices and an
irreverent attitude. Even so early, first-person narration was
characterized by attitude, by a certain persona-projection that was too
outrageous to be that of the author.
Here's a selection from Sterne's The Life and Opinions of
Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. Look past the archaic sentence constructions
and think about what sort of person this narrator is, one who modestly
proclaims himself to be telling the whole sordid tale because he so hates
to disappoint his readers and then boasts that soon his book will be as
famous as Pilgrim's Progress (a previous bestseller), who then drops the
classic name of Horace while admitting he can't quite remember what "Mr.
Horace" was talking about:
I know there are readers in the world, as well as many other good people
in it, who are not readers at all,�who find themselves ill at ease,
unless they are let into the whole secret from first to last, of every
thing which concerns you. It is in pure compliance with this humour of
theirs, and from a backwardness in my nature to disappoint any one soul
living, that I have been so very particular already.
As my life and opinions are likely to make some noise in the
world, and, if I conjecture right, will take in all ranks, professions,
and denominations of men whatever,�be no less read than the Pilgrim's
Progress itself�and in the end, prove the very thing which Montaigne
dreaded his Essays should turn out, that is, a book for a
parlour-window;�I find it necessary to consult every one a little in his
turn; and therefore must beg pardon for going on a little farther in the
same way: For which cause, right glad I am, that I have begun the history
of myself in the way I have done; and that I am able to go on, tracing
every thing in it, as Horace says, ab Ovo.
Horace, I know, does not recommend this fashion altogether:
But that gentleman is speaking only of an epic poem or a tragedy;�(I
forget which) besides, if it was not so, I should beg Mr. Horace's
pardon;�for in writing what I have set about, I shall confine myself
neither to his rules, nor to any man's rules that ever lived. To such
however as do not choose to go so far back into these things, I can give
no better advice than that they skip over the remaining part of this
chapter; for I declare before-hand, 'tis wrote only for the curious and
inquisitive.
This is a voice full of energy and wit�but it's not the author's voice.
Sterne was well aware that his "I" (Tristram Shandy) was a bit of a
blowhard, longwinded and conceited�that's what he wanted. He wanted a
true character narrating the book.
Eighteenth-century novels were often eponymous (titled for
their narrator/characters)� Moll Flanders, Robinson Crusoe, Tristram
Shandy�evidence of the new focus on the individual and the individual
perspective. "I am Tristram Shandy, and this is my story, and I alone
have the right to tell it!" the narrator is exclaiming, but of course,
these authors were not their narrators at all, and part of the fun of
such direct narration is imagining the naive new readers who thought
Tristram Shandy really existed.
But the dominance of first person couldn't last. The
first-person POV is perfect for picaresque comic novels, but not so
effective for more serious works or those with a larger cast and scope.
By the middle of the eighteenth century, Henry Fielding found that the
omniscient narrator allowed the plot to roam around in time and space,
unfettered by the physical existence of his major character, Tom Jones,
and created greater opportunities for a satirical view of his large cast.
While first-person narratives remained common in the
nineteenth century (especially in the United States), a comprehensive
third-person approach gradually became more popular. The early part of
the century saw an explosion in the novel form, with the development of
all sorts of genres�the Gothic, the romance, the mystery, the
adventure�which required multiple settings and larger casts of
characters. Another development was the rise of the social novel, a story
that attempted to give a comprehensive view of an entire culture or
subculture, whether a small village (George Eliot[LM3] ) or an inner-city
London neighborhood (Charles Dickens). No single perspective[CU4] could
convey the complicated mix of personality in a society, so the
first-person narration often gave way to one that allowed for multiple
viewpoints and settings.
In fact, some authors went to considerable trouble to have
multiple viewpoint within the first-person narration. The plots of both
Wuthering Heights and Frankenstein are framed in cumbersome narrative
contraptions, where minor characters repeat the first-person accounts of
major characters, thereby getting some of the distance offered by an
omniscient narrator with the intimacy of a first-person narration.
Authors also became more clearly designers of the readers'
experience, using ironic commentary to express a skeptical view of the
values and motives of their own characters, as in the famous opening
paragraph of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession
of a large fortune must be in want of a wife. However little known the
feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a
neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the
surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some
one or other of their daughters.
This is a classic example of the omniscient narrator, the persona that is
not a character in the book but rather a godlike presence, often an
authorial presence. (Most omniscient narrators are not mere author
stand-ins, but quite a few seem to share their creators' values,
prejudices, and voice.)
So why did the intimate, outrageous first-person voices of
the eighteenth century give way to the austere, ironic omniscient
narrators of the ninteenth?
Perhaps the large number of readers actually believing Lemuel
Gulliver wrote down his own adventures alerted authors to the dangers of
being too anonymous. ("Yes, I know it says Gulliver's Travels, but I made
him up. I swear it! Look, see my name here on the cover?") And certainly
the greater scope and intent of the social novels, requiring a panoply of
character viewpoints, benefited from a controlling presence imposed from
above.
Most authors were content to keep themselves in the
background, emerging for the occasional wry comment like Austen's above,
or a direct address to "Gentle Reader." Some would give the reader a
heavy-handed preview of what was to come: "Little did she know that the
future would bring sorrow where there had once been joy...."
These author-intrusions were almost like instructions on how
to read the story. The reader was supposed to believe the omniscient
narrator, to trust that overhead godlike perspective. This served to
distance the reader from the characters, first because so little time was
spent in their minds, but also because the narrator's view on their
activities was usually so ironic.
In the mid-nineteenth century, the great Victorians�Charles
Dickens, George Eliot, and Thomas Hardy�were creating what later became
known as the "realistic novel." These weren't necessarily all that
realistic (think of Dickens and his many coincidences). The authors did,
however, try to portray the world as they knew it at the dawn of the
Industrial Revolution: More complicated than ever before, but still
subject to what Victorians saw as the natural rule that humanity will
organize disorder into order, and that harmony is the primary goal of
society. Often the Victorian novel opens with some great injustice or
cataclysm�a murder, a dispossession, a betrayal�and the action of the
book is the movement from that chaos to a resumption of order through the
choices of the main characters. (You can probably tell that most popular
fiction even today, not to mention most films and TV shows, are
"realistic" in this specialized sense, where the world of the story is
interrupted by a profound change, and the characters are charged with
re-establishing harmony.)
Understandably, most of these novels of chaos-to-control used
the "control-from-above" omniscient point of view (Dickens also employed
first person), but now with a deeper immersion into the minds of the
major characters. These books often had large casts, and several
characters got the "deep-immersion treatment." Sometimes entire scenes
would be told from the perspective of a single character, with only a bit
of explanatory material in omniscient (usually at the beginning and end
of the scene). While the benevolent dictatorship of the omniscient
narrative still controlled, the individual character's perspective was
beginning to acquire greater importance in framing the story events.
MEANWHILE, ACROSS THE POND �
First-person narration remained a force in U.S. literature well into the
nineteenth century. In fact, Edgar Allan Poe and Herman Melville were
experimenting with fascinating variations of first-person. Poe explored
the phenomenon of the unreliable narrator, where the reader was expected
to come to doubt what the first-person narrator said. And Melville was
working on telling an epic story through a single focused viewpoint
("Call me Ishmael" in Moby Dick).
As in England, omniscient also became a dominant voice in
American fiction. Popular American novels, like those written by Louisa
May Alcott, often made use of the omniscient technique of narrative
foreshadowing. Here�s a passage from The Obsession:
The carriage next to the one Rosamund [Tempest] selected held an equally
heavy load of misery. Could she have known that the other Mrs. Tempest
occupied the car directly in front of her own, it would have added a
little sting to Rosamund's suffering. She was spared that knowledge,
however, and thus it was that side by side, these two heavy-hearted women
were borne away into the night. But not to safety.
class=Section2>
In this way, the author is training the reader in how to read a book, how
to interpret foreshadowing, how to respond to dramatic irony, how to
experience suspense.
As readers became more experienced and the study of humanity
approached the era of Sigmund Freud and psychology, some authors started
tunneling into their characters, spending much more time in their
thoughts and feelings than omniscient would allow. Often they'd start a
scene in an omniscient mode, but then, as the scene progressed, slide
deeper into the character perspective. Henry James used a deeper, focused
POV to explore the psychological mysteries of his characters. Edith
Wharton, who wrote about how individuals interacted with each other and
with society, used the interior voice to contrast what a person thought
with what she did or said, as in this selection from House of Mirth where
Lily extricates herself from a dangerous and compromising position with a
married man:
The sharp release from her fears restored Lily to immediate lucidity. The
collapse of Trenor's will left her in control, and she heard herself, in
a voice that was her own yet outside herself, bidding him to ring for the
servant, bidding him to give the order for a hansom, directing him to put
her in it when it came. Whence the strength came to her, she knew not;
but an insistent voice warned her that she must leave the house openly,
and nerved her, in the hall before the hovering caretaker, to exchange
light words with Trenor, and charge him with the usual messages for Judy,
while all the while she shook with inward loathing.
MODERN POV
By the end of the nineteenth century, most of the major POV approaches
were in place. But in the early twentieth century, there came three other
variations, all of which pretty much did away with the omniscient
narrator�stream of consciousness, deep-third-person POV, and multiple
POV.
The first and most radical, stream of consciousness, was a
product of the modernism movement. Modernist novelists like James Joyce
and Thomas Wolfe[LM5] [CU6] , who were writing mostly after the futile
devastation of World War I, rejected the expansive sense of order and
control of the Victorian era, and with it the external control imposed by
the omniscient narrative.
Instead they experimented with a variety of narrative forms,
especially those that reflected what they saw as the fragmented nature of
modern life and the subjectivity of "reality." Stream of consciousness
�the seemingly verbatim reporting of the interior mental processes of a
character�took the internal tunneling used by James and Wharton and
turned it inside out, making it the major action of the scene.
The most famous example of stream of consciousness was James
Joyce's Ulysses, a retelling of The Odyssey set in Dublin in the early
twentieth century. Here's a sample of Leopold Bloom's mental workings as
he walks on a Dublin street and sees the brother of the great Irish
liberator Parnell:
... John Howard Parnell passed, unseeing. There he is: the brother. Image
of him. Haunting face. Now that's a coincidence. Course hundreds of times
you think of a person and don't meet him. Like a man walking in his
sleep. No one knows him. Must be a corporation meeting today. They say he
never put on the city marshal's uniform since he got the job.... Look at
the woebegone walk of him. Eaten a bad egg. Poached eyes on ghost. I have
a pain. Great man's brother: his brother's brother.
This is obviously pretty radical stuff (and let me tell you, it took me
almost all semester of English 315: The Modern Novel to get through 783
pages of that), but stunningly influential. The "interior monologue,"
complete with grammatical errors and sentence fragments and enigmatic
allusions, became a common feature in literary fiction throughout the
twentieth century. In fact, it's worked its way into popular fiction too,
in less radical form�still the stream of thoughts, but with a bit more
context and sentence structure�as in David Means�s "Carnie":
Strangely enough, the paths of John and Ned Alger had crossed before, on
a beach in Northern Michigan, near the encampment in which Ned grew up.
(No one was really sure how he got the name Ned, or even Alger, his
mother going by Alger but also the Indian name of Walk Moon; and there
was the man who was supposed to be standing in as his father,
Jack-something, who came in at night with his belt already undone.)
The first sentence is pretty typical single-third person, but as soon as
we get into the parentheses, we're following Ned's thought process quite
faithfully�the long, involved sentence sounds like the associative way we
think, each thought segueing into some associated memory or notion.
"Jack-something" comes right out of Ned's faulty memory, and is capped by
the vague but personally meaningful description "supposed to be standing
in as his father." But this is more controlled, more reader-friendly,
than the Joyce selection above. It sounds like thought without being too
discursive.
Single-Third POV
Deep-third person (also called single-focused and deep-immersion POV) was
the dominant POV approach of the second half of the twentieth century,
and doesn't look to be losing ground in the twenty-first. It provides a
tight focus on the perspective of one character throughout an entire
scene, chapter, or even book.
Deep third has the immediacy and intimacy of
stream-of-consciousness, with the advantage of being much more readable
and compatible with other POV choices; that is, you can start a scene in
omniscient and descend into the deeper single-focused POV, or you can
alternate different characters' POV passages (as long as you stay in each
POV for the whole passage). Deep-third POV has been used mostly in books
with one or two major characters.
Multiple POV
Another twentieth-century trend was towards the multiple POV, which
evolved from the omniscient. Like omniscient, multiple POV regards more
than one character as having something to "say" about the scene, so POV
within a scene might be shared among them. But unlike omniscient,
multiple POV has no narrator or narrative presence. The narrative can
shift frequently from character to character, but no one is commenting
from above on the characters or providing information they don't know.
The reader gets the juxtaposed experience of several characters without
the commentary and distance an omniscient narrator provides.
Multiple POV has been common since before World War II,
especially in popular fiction, and reflects a more cinematic approach to
the fictional world. You'll find it primarily in books with larger casts
of characters or dual protagonists.
These approaches haven't killed omniscient POV, but that's no
longer very common as the controlling POV approach for an entire book.
Especially since World War II, omniscient has become more of an
informational device within the narrative rather than a narrative
approach on its own. You'll still frequently see omniscient passages at
the beginnings and ends of scenes, setting the stage and establishing the
situation, and also sometimes as a bridge when the POV shifts from one
character to another.
First-Person POV Today
First-person POV is still popular, but tends to be confined to certain
genres (like the private-eye novel) or styles of fiction (the
coming-of-age novel). You'll sometimes see it alternating with
third-person POV. For example, in Simon Brett's A Nice Class of Corpse,
the villain's POV is told in first-person diary entries, while the rest
of the book is told in third person (mostly single-focused).
POV ECLECTICISM
Now, with all these POV options available, authors have more freedom to
choose among the approaches and even to mix them. This, however, doesn't
mean that anarchy rules, rather that the author now has the ability to
customize POV to suit a particular story. This ability, and the power it
gives you the author, has been the point of this book.
A FINAL EXERCISE:
1. Choose a favorite novel written before World War II, or a novel you
would consider a "classic". Read the first chapter, paying particular
attention to point of view. Can you define the major POV approach?
Identify the words or phrases that make the POV approach clear (such as
"Let the account begin, then, on the evening of the 15th..." as a marker
of omniscient).
2. Notice in the opening how the author establishes the setting, the
situation, and the identity of the main characters. How close do you get
to any one character?
3. How does the POV style reflect the time period? What benefits and
disadvantages do you see in this choice?
This got cut for space from my upcoming POV book, so I thought I'd share
it with you instead!
--------
Point of View and Your Story by Alicia Rasley
Coming March 2008 from Writer's Digest Books
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON POINT OF VIEW
In some form, point of view has always been present in most kinds of
fiction, at least in the Western tradition. (I'm not widely
enough read in other traditions, alas, to generalize about them.) I
suspect POV is something of a cognitive necessity because
of what we fiction writers are asking readers to do�to pretend; to forget
that this story is not true; to overcome the boundary of self to
become, if only momentarily, another person in another world. There's a
natural skepticism that resists surrendering to fiction, a form of
self-defense that has been with us since humans first started lying to
each other. But storytellers learned early to overcome this skepticism by
seducing the imagination through POV.
The earliest storytellers were bards who sang or recited the
old legends and myths of their culture, and they were much more in
tune with their audiences than any of us are. They had to be�their
audiences were right there, ready to throw tomatoes at them if they made
a character boring and didactic, or told an exciting battle scene from
too distant a perspective.
In those days, POV meant "spending time� with a character
more than "getting into his head." This was an easy choice, since the
early stories were full of action and violence and supernatural
activities, and too much introspection might lose the listener. These
great early stories, as far as we know, usually followed the heroic
characters who were doing most of the action; that is, it showed the plot
through the point of view of the "protagonist" or "prime actor", and
that's still a conventional POV approach today.
The Odyssey, for example, is told primarily from the
third-person POV of Odysseus (the title makes it clear that it is his
story), with long stretches in first person while he tells his tale of
woe to an audience. Scenes out of Odysseus's presence are generally
narrated omnisciently (from above), so necessary action such as his son's
search for news about him can be shown without detracting from the
intense focus on the main character. Even so early, we have the three
most common POV types: Single-third person, first person, and omniscient.
In the Western tradition, the first great novelistic
endeavor�or at least the first still available to us�was Homer's work The
Iliad and The Odyssey (eighth century BC). (These are in verse, not
prose, but otherwise might as well be novels�with central protagonist,
compressed time frame, and cohesive major plot line.) The dual epic about
the Trojan War and its aftermath was so important that centuries later
the puritanical Plato used Homer as the prime example of the addictive
evil of fiction�the bard spread a "mental poison," using drama to insert
the reader into history's "murder, incest, cruelty, treachery,
uncontrolled passions, weakness, cowardice, and malice." Two millennia
later, Keats read a translation of Homer and, consumed with joy, dashed
off in a couple hours what is perhaps England's greatest sonnet: "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer." And Homer is a hit even now; a new
translation of The Odyssey [CU1] recently[CU1] hit the best-seller list.
Why did Homer's epic last when so many other stories from
that period were lost forever? First, it's because he chose his material
well: The Trojan War was such a seminal event in Hellenic history that
its fascination survived during the mini-Dark Ages that followed the war.
So when Homer arrived in time to write it down, the legends had only
gathered power through centuries of bardic recitation.
Homer's version also incurred Plato's censure and survived
the next three millennia because he made it personal. The Iliad is not
just a chronicle of the culminating events of that war; it's the story of
two rival warriors, Hector and Achilles, who stake their lives and their
honor on a last gamble for victory. The Odyssey is not just a chronicle
of the consequences of that war; it's the deeply emotional journey of
Odysseus, a man weary of war who can't find his way back home.
Homer knew what we all need to remember�that readers
experience story best when they identify with one or two central
characters. That doesn't mean limiting the story to those characters; The
Iliad is rife with other great warriors (Odysseus is a secondary
character, in fact, in that earlier story), and gods make frequent
visitations whenever the action starts to flag. The Odyssey sometimes
deserts Odysseus to revisit his old Iliad buddies (and Helen of Troy has
a great cameo where she proclaims that she just doesn't know what came
over her when she started the war!) or to track his teenaged son
Telemachus on a voyage of discovery. But Homer's listeners knew that
Achilles was their Iliad guy (even if us modern types prefer the tragic
Hector) and that The Odyssey was, obviously, Odysseus's story.
But Homer didn't give over control of his narrative entirely
to his central character Odysseus. Instead he (or the bards before him)
created the omniscient narrator, who knows everything in the story and
tells the events he deems worthy with his own particular "spin." Why?
Partly, no doubt, because omniscient is an efficient way of corralling a
large group of characters (including Zeus and Athena) and several
settings (including Mt. Olympus and Hades).
But also perhaps the omniscient narrator was a subtle way of
reminding the audience the importance of keeping bards fed and housed.
Homer cleverly inserts some "bardic moments" by transforming Odysseus
into a storyteller for long stretches of The Odyssey. He even has
Odysseus whine a bit about how difficult it is to tell a story well, just
in case the ladies think only warriors have to fight battles. This
technique of a narrator proclaiming his own story to a crowd is obviously
derived from the oral tradition, but still very common today, especially
in first-person narrations.
AFTER HOMER
Drama.
That's what came after Homer, the rise of the theatrically
performed play. The extant literature of the fifth century BC era in
Greece is dominated by the great classical playwrights: Sophocles,
Euripedes, Aristophanes, and Aeschylus.
These guys retained the focus on a central character that had
become an important feature of Greek literature. In fact, Aristotle, in
his great work On Tragedy, said that a plot should follow one man on his
journey from fortune to misfortune or vice versa, such as Odysseus's
journey from exile to home. Aristotle's contemporary example was
Sophocles's play Oedipus the King, which chronicles a long day during
which the curious Oedipus seeks out the truth about himself and finds it
destroys his life.
Notice how performance changed radically in a few hundred
years: The Homeric-style bard recited the entire story of Odysseus,
narrating not just the dialogue but the action of the story. Though Homer
wrote in verse, he was writing fiction narrative much as we now write a
novel. But by the time of Sophocles, the recitation of bards had become
dramatic performances, the narrative having fallen away and the actors
instead acting out the action and addressing each other in dialogue. By
the fifth century BC, both major forms of fictional entertainment were
established�the Homer-like narrative, which takes in both epic poetry
(like that of Virgil and Milton) and much later the novel and short
story; and the performed drama, which took form in theater plays (like
those of Shakespeare) that would give rise to, in our own time, film and
television.
PERFORMANCE AND POV
It might seem odd to speak of a performed play as having POV. After all,
in a drama, the action is shown in actor movement and dialogue, without
the "introspection" that we usually think of as a hallmark of POV. But as
Aristotle pointed out, Sophocles's play is the story of Oedipus, and we
are confined primarily to his perspective of events�with a bit of
"voice-over analysis" from the omniscient chorus. He is on stage almost
the entire play, and we know no more than he does; we don't get a glimpse
into the blind soothsayer Tiresias's mind to learn ahead of time what
he's warning Oedipus about. We learn the truth only when Oedipus learns
it. (In case you haven't read the play, Oedipus finds out that he killed
his father and married his mother. And some people think the classics are
stuffy and dull!)
So performances can have POV in the sense of tracking a
character's journey and perspective. Shakespeare expanded this
capability, using soliloquies where a character actually addressed the
audience, speaking his thoughts aloud. ("To be or not to be," etc.)
Shakespeare's characters also use "asides" to convey their internal
thoughts�the actor playing Hamlet will turn away from the actor playing
Evil Uncle Claudius to mutter to the audience, "A little more than kin,
and less than kind." Milton and other epic poets used a similar technique
of the characters speaking out their thoughts when they were alone in a
scene (often at the end of a scene, when the other characters have
departed).
But true POV "introspection" or "internalization" had to wait
for the invention of the novel, which came (in England) in the latter
part of the seventeenth century, with Aphra Behn, and then a half-century
later with Daniel Defoe[LM2] and Samuel Richardson.
The Novel and POV
A novel is a long fictional work of prose narrative. You can see "the
novel" is defined in the negative of earlier literary forms: long, so
it's not a short story; fictional, so it's not a biography or history;
prose, so it's not in verse like a poem; and narrative, so it's not acted
out like a play.
The most important precursor to the British novel was
Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, which is something like today's
short-story anthology. There is a "frame" story�a group of pilgrims on a
pilgrimage to Canterbury�and within the frame, a bunch of stories they
supposedly tell to entertain each other. This is still in verse, but not
only are the collected stories clearly fictional, so is the frame story
about the pilgrimage. The Canterbury Tales lacks the coherence of plot
required in a novel, but makes good use of narrators, each with an
attitude of some kind (antisemitism, bawdiness) which affects the
narration of the stories�just as POV does in actual novels.
It was another three hundred years before the novel developed
in England (there was that little digression into Shakespearian drama
first), but by the seventeenth century, the tale-telling narrator emerged
in a new way. Many of the earliest novels (including those of Behn,
Richardson, Defoe) were epistolary, that is, based around a series of
fictional "epistles"�letters or journal entries. Readers at that time
were used to reading actual letters and diaries, and so the epistolary
format was familiar and natural.
Early novelists could also draw on the non-personal narrative
format found in epic poems, so a novel like Behn's Love Letters of a
Nobleman to His Sister had both a long exchange of letters between the
nobleman and his wife's sister, and extended passages of narrative which
related action not confined to that described in the letters. Already POV
was used fluidly: The letters are in first-person POV, while the
narrative is in a third-person omniscient POV. Behn made good use of the
contrast, letting her two lovers indict themselves as vain, shallow, and
in love with love, in a satire of sexual politics that rings with
authenticity even today.
What distinguishes the epistolary novel from more
conventional first-person narration is the fictional notion that the
narrative is aimed at a particular reader. The letters, supposedly, are
meant to be read by their recipients, and the diary entries are
presumably meant to be read over by the narrator/journal-writer and no
one else. So there's a specific purpose for the narrator in narrating
these events�either to explain them to the letter recipient or to record
them for her own later review. In standard first-person narration,
there's seldom a clear purpose or a specific reader for the narrator's
narration� for some reason, he's just telling his story out loud. (Read
more about this in chapter four.)
In fact, some authors insisted their fiction was fact; Aphra
Behn claimed to have witnessed many of the events of her story Oroonoko.
This increased the credibility of the story among readers still
suspicious of this new fiction format, by making the author/narrator seem
more like a journalist�even if she was actually making it all up.
Just after the dawn of the novel came the Age of
Enlightenment, a philosophical and political movement emphasizing
individuality and rationality. As literacy became more widespread
throughout Europe, readers became more comfortable with the fictional
narrative form, and the device of letters and journals gave way to a more
direct perspective, in many cases, an in-your-face first-person
narration, especially in Britain.
Laurence Sterne was the master of that first-person style in
his picaresque novels, his narrators speaking to the reader rather like a
raconteur facing a theater audience, with sharp, humorous voices and an
irreverent attitude. Even so early, first-person narration was
characterized by attitude, by a certain persona-projection that was too
outrageous to be that of the author.
Here's a selection from Sterne's The Life and Opinions of
Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. Look past the archaic sentence constructions
and think about what sort of person this narrator is, one who modestly
proclaims himself to be telling the whole sordid tale because he so hates
to disappoint his readers and then boasts that soon his book will be as
famous as Pilgrim's Progress (a previous bestseller), who then drops the
classic name of Horace while admitting he can't quite remember what "Mr.
Horace" was talking about:
I know there are readers in the world, as well as many other good people
in it, who are not readers at all,�who find themselves ill at ease,
unless they are let into the whole secret from first to last, of every
thing which concerns you. It is in pure compliance with this humour of
theirs, and from a backwardness in my nature to disappoint any one soul
living, that I have been so very particular already.
As my life and opinions are likely to make some noise in the
world, and, if I conjecture right, will take in all ranks, professions,
and denominations of men whatever,�be no less read than the Pilgrim's
Progress itself�and in the end, prove the very thing which Montaigne
dreaded his Essays should turn out, that is, a book for a
parlour-window;�I find it necessary to consult every one a little in his
turn; and therefore must beg pardon for going on a little farther in the
same way: For which cause, right glad I am, that I have begun the history
of myself in the way I have done; and that I am able to go on, tracing
every thing in it, as Horace says, ab Ovo.
Horace, I know, does not recommend this fashion altogether:
But that gentleman is speaking only of an epic poem or a tragedy;�(I
forget which) besides, if it was not so, I should beg Mr. Horace's
pardon;�for in writing what I have set about, I shall confine myself
neither to his rules, nor to any man's rules that ever lived. To such
however as do not choose to go so far back into these things, I can give
no better advice than that they skip over the remaining part of this
chapter; for I declare before-hand, 'tis wrote only for the curious and
inquisitive.
This is a voice full of energy and wit�but it's not the author's voice.
Sterne was well aware that his "I" (Tristram Shandy) was a bit of a
blowhard, longwinded and conceited�that's what he wanted. He wanted a
true character narrating the book.
Eighteenth-century novels were often eponymous (titled for
their narrator/characters)� Moll Flanders, Robinson Crusoe, Tristram
Shandy�evidence of the new focus on the individual and the individual
perspective. "I am Tristram Shandy, and this is my story, and I alone
have the right to tell it!" the narrator is exclaiming, but of course,
these authors were not their narrators at all, and part of the fun of
such direct narration is imagining the naive new readers who thought
Tristram Shandy really existed.
But the dominance of first person couldn't last. The
first-person POV is perfect for picaresque comic novels, but not so
effective for more serious works or those with a larger cast and scope.
By the middle of the eighteenth century, Henry Fielding found that the
omniscient narrator allowed the plot to roam around in time and space,
unfettered by the physical existence of his major character, Tom Jones,
and created greater opportunities for a satirical view of his large cast.
While first-person narratives remained common in the
nineteenth century (especially in the United States), a comprehensive
third-person approach gradually became more popular. The early part of
the century saw an explosion in the novel form, with the development of
all sorts of genres�the Gothic, the romance, the mystery, the
adventure�which required multiple settings and larger casts of
characters. Another development was the rise of the social novel, a story
that attempted to give a comprehensive view of an entire culture or
subculture, whether a small village (George Eliot[LM3] ) or an inner-city
London neighborhood (Charles Dickens). No single perspective[CU4] could
convey the complicated mix of personality in a society, so the
first-person narration often gave way to one that allowed for multiple
viewpoints and settings.
In fact, some authors went to considerable trouble to have
multiple viewpoint within the first-person narration. The plots of both
Wuthering Heights and Frankenstein are framed in cumbersome narrative
contraptions, where minor characters repeat the first-person accounts of
major characters, thereby getting some of the distance offered by an
omniscient narrator with the intimacy of a first-person narration.
Authors also became more clearly designers of the readers'
experience, using ironic commentary to express a skeptical view of the
values and motives of their own characters, as in the famous opening
paragraph of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice:
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession
of a large fortune must be in want of a wife. However little known the
feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a
neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the
surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some
one or other of their daughters.
This is a classic example of the omniscient narrator, the persona that is
not a character in the book but rather a godlike presence, often an
authorial presence. (Most omniscient narrators are not mere author
stand-ins, but quite a few seem to share their creators' values,
prejudices, and voice.)
So why did the intimate, outrageous first-person voices of
the eighteenth century give way to the austere, ironic omniscient
narrators of the ninteenth?
Perhaps the large number of readers actually believing Lemuel
Gulliver wrote down his own adventures alerted authors to the dangers of
being too anonymous. ("Yes, I know it says Gulliver's Travels, but I made
him up. I swear it! Look, see my name here on the cover?") And certainly
the greater scope and intent of the social novels, requiring a panoply of
character viewpoints, benefited from a controlling presence imposed from
above.
Most authors were content to keep themselves in the
background, emerging for the occasional wry comment like Austen's above,
or a direct address to "Gentle Reader." Some would give the reader a
heavy-handed preview of what was to come: "Little did she know that the
future would bring sorrow where there had once been joy...."
These author-intrusions were almost like instructions on how
to read the story. The reader was supposed to believe the omniscient
narrator, to trust that overhead godlike perspective. This served to
distance the reader from the characters, first because so little time was
spent in their minds, but also because the narrator's view on their
activities was usually so ironic.
In the mid-nineteenth century, the great Victorians�Charles
Dickens, George Eliot, and Thomas Hardy�were creating what later became
known as the "realistic novel." These weren't necessarily all that
realistic (think of Dickens and his many coincidences). The authors did,
however, try to portray the world as they knew it at the dawn of the
Industrial Revolution: More complicated than ever before, but still
subject to what Victorians saw as the natural rule that humanity will
organize disorder into order, and that harmony is the primary goal of
society. Often the Victorian novel opens with some great injustice or
cataclysm�a murder, a dispossession, a betrayal�and the action of the
book is the movement from that chaos to a resumption of order through the
choices of the main characters. (You can probably tell that most popular
fiction even today, not to mention most films and TV shows, are
"realistic" in this specialized sense, where the world of the story is
interrupted by a profound change, and the characters are charged with
re-establishing harmony.)
Understandably, most of these novels of chaos-to-control used
the "control-from-above" omniscient point of view (Dickens also employed
first person), but now with a deeper immersion into the minds of the
major characters. These books often had large casts, and several
characters got the "deep-immersion treatment." Sometimes entire scenes
would be told from the perspective of a single character, with only a bit
of explanatory material in omniscient (usually at the beginning and end
of the scene). While the benevolent dictatorship of the omniscient
narrative still controlled, the individual character's perspective was
beginning to acquire greater importance in framing the story events.
MEANWHILE, ACROSS THE POND �
First-person narration remained a force in U.S. literature well into the
nineteenth century. In fact, Edgar Allan Poe and Herman Melville were
experimenting with fascinating variations of first-person. Poe explored
the phenomenon of the unreliable narrator, where the reader was expected
to come to doubt what the first-person narrator said. And Melville was
working on telling an epic story through a single focused viewpoint
("Call me Ishmael" in Moby Dick).
As in England, omniscient also became a dominant voice in
American fiction. Popular American novels, like those written by Louisa
May Alcott, often made use of the omniscient technique of narrative
foreshadowing. Here�s a passage from The Obsession:
The carriage next to the one Rosamund [Tempest] selected held an equally
heavy load of misery. Could she have known that the other Mrs. Tempest
occupied the car directly in front of her own, it would have added a
little sting to Rosamund's suffering. She was spared that knowledge,
however, and thus it was that side by side, these two heavy-hearted women
were borne away into the night. But not to safety.
class=Section2>
In this way, the author is training the reader in how to read a book, how
to interpret foreshadowing, how to respond to dramatic irony, how to
experience suspense.
As readers became more experienced and the study of humanity
approached the era of Sigmund Freud and psychology, some authors started
tunneling into their characters, spending much more time in their
thoughts and feelings than omniscient would allow. Often they'd start a
scene in an omniscient mode, but then, as the scene progressed, slide
deeper into the character perspective. Henry James used a deeper, focused
POV to explore the psychological mysteries of his characters. Edith
Wharton, who wrote about how individuals interacted with each other and
with society, used the interior voice to contrast what a person thought
with what she did or said, as in this selection from House of Mirth where
Lily extricates herself from a dangerous and compromising position with a
married man:
The sharp release from her fears restored Lily to immediate lucidity. The
collapse of Trenor's will left her in control, and she heard herself, in
a voice that was her own yet outside herself, bidding him to ring for the
servant, bidding him to give the order for a hansom, directing him to put
her in it when it came. Whence the strength came to her, she knew not;
but an insistent voice warned her that she must leave the house openly,
and nerved her, in the hall before the hovering caretaker, to exchange
light words with Trenor, and charge him with the usual messages for Judy,
while all the while she shook with inward loathing.
MODERN POV
By the end of the nineteenth century, most of the major POV approaches
were in place. But in the early twentieth century, there came three other
variations, all of which pretty much did away with the omniscient
narrator�stream of consciousness, deep-third-person POV, and multiple
POV.
The first and most radical, stream of consciousness, was a
product of the modernism movement. Modernist novelists like James Joyce
and Thomas Wolfe[LM5] [CU6] , who were writing mostly after the futile
devastation of World War I, rejected the expansive sense of order and
control of the Victorian era, and with it the external control imposed by
the omniscient narrative.
Instead they experimented with a variety of narrative forms,
especially those that reflected what they saw as the fragmented nature of
modern life and the subjectivity of "reality." Stream of consciousness
�the seemingly verbatim reporting of the interior mental processes of a
character�took the internal tunneling used by James and Wharton and
turned it inside out, making it the major action of the scene.
The most famous example of stream of consciousness was James
Joyce's Ulysses, a retelling of The Odyssey set in Dublin in the early
twentieth century. Here's a sample of Leopold Bloom's mental workings as
he walks on a Dublin street and sees the brother of the great Irish
liberator Parnell:
... John Howard Parnell passed, unseeing. There he is: the brother. Image
of him. Haunting face. Now that's a coincidence. Course hundreds of times
you think of a person and don't meet him. Like a man walking in his
sleep. No one knows him. Must be a corporation meeting today. They say he
never put on the city marshal's uniform since he got the job.... Look at
the woebegone walk of him. Eaten a bad egg. Poached eyes on ghost. I have
a pain. Great man's brother: his brother's brother.
This is obviously pretty radical stuff (and let me tell you, it took me
almost all semester of English 315: The Modern Novel to get through 783
pages of that), but stunningly influential. The "interior monologue,"
complete with grammatical errors and sentence fragments and enigmatic
allusions, became a common feature in literary fiction throughout the
twentieth century. In fact, it's worked its way into popular fiction too,
in less radical form�still the stream of thoughts, but with a bit more
context and sentence structure�as in David Means�s "Carnie":
Strangely enough, the paths of John and Ned Alger had crossed before, on
a beach in Northern Michigan, near the encampment in which Ned grew up.
(No one was really sure how he got the name Ned, or even Alger, his
mother going by Alger but also the Indian name of Walk Moon; and there
was the man who was supposed to be standing in as his father,
Jack-something, who came in at night with his belt already undone.)
The first sentence is pretty typical single-third person, but as soon as
we get into the parentheses, we're following Ned's thought process quite
faithfully�the long, involved sentence sounds like the associative way we
think, each thought segueing into some associated memory or notion.
"Jack-something" comes right out of Ned's faulty memory, and is capped by
the vague but personally meaningful description "supposed to be standing
in as his father." But this is more controlled, more reader-friendly,
than the Joyce selection above. It sounds like thought without being too
discursive.
Single-Third POV
Deep-third person (also called single-focused and deep-immersion POV) was
the dominant POV approach of the second half of the twentieth century,
and doesn't look to be losing ground in the twenty-first. It provides a
tight focus on the perspective of one character throughout an entire
scene, chapter, or even book.
Deep third has the immediacy and intimacy of
stream-of-consciousness, with the advantage of being much more readable
and compatible with other POV choices; that is, you can start a scene in
omniscient and descend into the deeper single-focused POV, or you can
alternate different characters' POV passages (as long as you stay in each
POV for the whole passage). Deep-third POV has been used mostly in books
with one or two major characters.
Multiple POV
Another twentieth-century trend was towards the multiple POV, which
evolved from the omniscient. Like omniscient, multiple POV regards more
than one character as having something to "say" about the scene, so POV
within a scene might be shared among them. But unlike omniscient,
multiple POV has no narrator or narrative presence. The narrative can
shift frequently from character to character, but no one is commenting
from above on the characters or providing information they don't know.
The reader gets the juxtaposed experience of several characters without
the commentary and distance an omniscient narrator provides.
Multiple POV has been common since before World War II,
especially in popular fiction, and reflects a more cinematic approach to
the fictional world. You'll find it primarily in books with larger casts
of characters or dual protagonists.
These approaches haven't killed omniscient POV, but that's no
longer very common as the controlling POV approach for an entire book.
Especially since World War II, omniscient has become more of an
informational device within the narrative rather than a narrative
approach on its own. You'll still frequently see omniscient passages at
the beginnings and ends of scenes, setting the stage and establishing the
situation, and also sometimes as a bridge when the POV shifts from one
character to another.
First-Person POV Today
First-person POV is still popular, but tends to be confined to certain
genres (like the private-eye novel) or styles of fiction (the
coming-of-age novel). You'll sometimes see it alternating with
third-person POV. For example, in Simon Brett's A Nice Class of Corpse,
the villain's POV is told in first-person diary entries, while the rest
of the book is told in third person (mostly single-focused).
POV ECLECTICISM
Now, with all these POV options available, authors have more freedom to
choose among the approaches and even to mix them. This, however, doesn't
mean that anarchy rules, rather that the author now has the ability to
customize POV to suit a particular story. This ability, and the power it
gives you the author, has been the point of this book.
A FINAL EXERCISE:
1. Choose a favorite novel written before World War II, or a novel you
would consider a "classic". Read the first chapter, paying particular
attention to point of view. Can you define the major POV approach?
Identify the words or phrases that make the POV approach clear (such as
"Let the account begin, then, on the evening of the 15th..." as a marker
of omniscient).
2. Notice in the opening how the author establishes the setting, the
situation, and the identity of the main characters. How close do you get
to any one character?
3. How does the POV style reflect the time period? What benefits and
disadvantages do you see in this choice?
Is Your Home a Danger Zone for Your Marriage? by Nancy C. Anderson
Is Your Home a Danger Zone for Your Marriage?
Nancy C. Anderson
If there are lust lures in your home, go on a search and destroy mission.
Cyber Secrets
Donna would often sneak out of bed to "chat" with a man she met through a singles' web site. The fact that she wasn't single didn't seem to be relevant. When her husband, Larry, caught her typing in the dark at 3:00 A.M., he confronted her. But she quickly logged-off and denied any wrongdoing.
After Donna left for work the next morning, he accessed the messages that she and her cyber-hunk had been sending. He read page after page of sexually explicit suggestions. Larry had no idea his wife even knew such words! When he confronted her with the evidence, she came "clean" and said she'd stop -- but she didn't. She just became more secretive and better at hiding the evidence. Donna risked her marriage for a man she never met, and when Larry caught her again, he divorced her.
Internet pornography is one of the fastest growing web-industries in the world, and it's been the cause of countless affairs and divorces. If Internet access is a problem for anyone in your family, apply the verse in Matthew 5:29: "If your . . . eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." And if your Internet access causes you to sin, plug it out! Keep the computer, but get a filter that blocks all questionable sites and unwanted pop-up ads.
TV Temptations
Cable television and movie chanels are another problem area in many homes. Men are visual creatures, and they are naturally attracted to beautiful women wearing . . . nothing. If a man has easy access to adult movies, he'll be tempted to watch them. Even strong Christian men can get caught in the "just one more" trap that ends in divorce. If a husband is comparing his wife to eighteen-year-old hotties in porno movies she will not, literally, measure up. Their marriage will suffer.
X-rated movie channels called out to Jerry, a married Christian man, who watched them in the middle of the night. The more he saw, the more he wanted to see. Eventually, the thoughts of his late-night "dates" with these beautiful willing-to-do-anything women consumed his life.
He lost interest in his middle-aged wife, and when she caught him in his secret sin, he convinced her that it was her fault. She was ashamed to tell any of her friends or talk to their pastor, so she suffered in silence. He persuaded her to watch the movies with him, but it didn't solve their problems because she felt used, unloved, and dirty. He gave her his lust, but not his love.
The fatal venom of pornography poisoned their marriage.
Babysitter Blues
Jayne and Dennis hired a lovely sixteen-year-old babysitter named Linda. But because they didn't have clearly defined boundaries in place, the babysitter is now married to Dennis!
Jayne didn't see the signs because it never occurred to her that her husband could ever be more than a fatherly mentor to "little Linda." After all, he was almost forty and she was just a child; so it must be completely innocent. Wrong
When I invited Jayne, Dennis, and their kids over for dinner, I thought it was odd that they brought their babysitter. Then, when Linda sat next to Dennis, I was a little more concerned. But when I saw him take several bites of food off the babysitter's plate, my "Home-Invasion-Alarm-System" signaled a code red.
I told Jayne about my suspicions, and she said, " Dennis is just being extra nice to Linda because she's depressed about her parents' divorce. We both love her. We think of her as our daughter."
A few months later, Dennis moved out. He married Linda when she turned eighteen, and they now have two children of their own. I bet Linda won't let him drive their babysitter home.
Even if he's innocent, it's his word against hers. My friend Renee always makes sure that she picks up and drops off the babysitter. When she is unable to go, she'll send one of the kids along. Having a third-party ride along is protection for the babysitter and for the husband, because he could be accused of something inappropriate and just the accusations are very damaging.
If you're in a financial position to have a nanny, I recommend an older Mrs. Doubtfire type. But even the actor who played her, Robin Williams, didn't follow that suggestion. He was married to Valerie for ten years, then he divorced his wife and married Marsha, his son's nanny
A foreign exchange student came to live with a woman I met at Bible study The underprivileged girl came with nothing and left with the woman's husband. When you let other people into your home, be very aware that problems like these are distinct possibilities.
We've considered the idea of renting a room to a student, because we have an extra bedroom and we live within walking distance of a college. But we can never agree on a renter. Ron would like a twenty-something/ female/Swedish blonde/massage-therapy student, however I envision a male sun-kissed surfer/weightlifter/police academy cadet who'd help me vacuum. Since we can't agree, I guess we'll keep our safeguards in place.
Just as we are on guard to protect our home from robberies, we want protect our homes from dangerous mental, sexual, and spiritual intrusion too. Your home can be a refuge and a safe haven if you are willing to make this verse your "Power Statement": "But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (Josh. 24:15).
Adapted from Avoiding The Greener Grass Syndrome: How to Grow Affair Proof Hedges Around Your Marriage (Kregel 12/1/04) by Nancy C. Anderson.
Nancy C Anderson is an author and speaker who lives in the O.C. with her husband of 26 years and their teenage son. Nancy and her husband love to teach at couples' retreats and seminars. They recently told the story of their Marriage Makeover on the Montel Williams Show. For more information, or to order her book, go to: www.NancyCAnderson.com.
Nancy C. Anderson
If there are lust lures in your home, go on a search and destroy mission.
Cyber Secrets
Donna would often sneak out of bed to "chat" with a man she met through a singles' web site. The fact that she wasn't single didn't seem to be relevant. When her husband, Larry, caught her typing in the dark at 3:00 A.M., he confronted her. But she quickly logged-off and denied any wrongdoing.
After Donna left for work the next morning, he accessed the messages that she and her cyber-hunk had been sending. He read page after page of sexually explicit suggestions. Larry had no idea his wife even knew such words! When he confronted her with the evidence, she came "clean" and said she'd stop -- but she didn't. She just became more secretive and better at hiding the evidence. Donna risked her marriage for a man she never met, and when Larry caught her again, he divorced her.
Internet pornography is one of the fastest growing web-industries in the world, and it's been the cause of countless affairs and divorces. If Internet access is a problem for anyone in your family, apply the verse in Matthew 5:29: "If your . . . eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." And if your Internet access causes you to sin, plug it out! Keep the computer, but get a filter that blocks all questionable sites and unwanted pop-up ads.
TV Temptations
Cable television and movie chanels are another problem area in many homes. Men are visual creatures, and they are naturally attracted to beautiful women wearing . . . nothing. If a man has easy access to adult movies, he'll be tempted to watch them. Even strong Christian men can get caught in the "just one more" trap that ends in divorce. If a husband is comparing his wife to eighteen-year-old hotties in porno movies she will not, literally, measure up. Their marriage will suffer.
X-rated movie channels called out to Jerry, a married Christian man, who watched them in the middle of the night. The more he saw, the more he wanted to see. Eventually, the thoughts of his late-night "dates" with these beautiful willing-to-do-anything women consumed his life.
He lost interest in his middle-aged wife, and when she caught him in his secret sin, he convinced her that it was her fault. She was ashamed to tell any of her friends or talk to their pastor, so she suffered in silence. He persuaded her to watch the movies with him, but it didn't solve their problems because she felt used, unloved, and dirty. He gave her his lust, but not his love.
The fatal venom of pornography poisoned their marriage.
Babysitter Blues
Jayne and Dennis hired a lovely sixteen-year-old babysitter named Linda. But because they didn't have clearly defined boundaries in place, the babysitter is now married to Dennis!
Jayne didn't see the signs because it never occurred to her that her husband could ever be more than a fatherly mentor to "little Linda." After all, he was almost forty and she was just a child; so it must be completely innocent. Wrong
When I invited Jayne, Dennis, and their kids over for dinner, I thought it was odd that they brought their babysitter. Then, when Linda sat next to Dennis, I was a little more concerned. But when I saw him take several bites of food off the babysitter's plate, my "Home-Invasion-Alarm-System" signaled a code red.
I told Jayne about my suspicions, and she said, " Dennis is just being extra nice to Linda because she's depressed about her parents' divorce. We both love her. We think of her as our daughter."
A few months later, Dennis moved out. He married Linda when she turned eighteen, and they now have two children of their own. I bet Linda won't let him drive their babysitter home.
Even if he's innocent, it's his word against hers. My friend Renee always makes sure that she picks up and drops off the babysitter. When she is unable to go, she'll send one of the kids along. Having a third-party ride along is protection for the babysitter and for the husband, because he could be accused of something inappropriate and just the accusations are very damaging.
If you're in a financial position to have a nanny, I recommend an older Mrs. Doubtfire type. But even the actor who played her, Robin Williams, didn't follow that suggestion. He was married to Valerie for ten years, then he divorced his wife and married Marsha, his son's nanny
A foreign exchange student came to live with a woman I met at Bible study The underprivileged girl came with nothing and left with the woman's husband. When you let other people into your home, be very aware that problems like these are distinct possibilities.
We've considered the idea of renting a room to a student, because we have an extra bedroom and we live within walking distance of a college. But we can never agree on a renter. Ron would like a twenty-something/ female/Swedish blonde/massage-therapy student, however I envision a male sun-kissed surfer/weightlifter/police academy cadet who'd help me vacuum. Since we can't agree, I guess we'll keep our safeguards in place.
Just as we are on guard to protect our home from robberies, we want protect our homes from dangerous mental, sexual, and spiritual intrusion too. Your home can be a refuge and a safe haven if you are willing to make this verse your "Power Statement": "But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (Josh. 24:15).
Adapted from Avoiding The Greener Grass Syndrome: How to Grow Affair Proof Hedges Around Your Marriage (Kregel 12/1/04) by Nancy C. Anderson.
Nancy C Anderson is an author and speaker who lives in the O.C. with her husband of 26 years and their teenage son. Nancy and her husband love to teach at couples' retreats and seminars. They recently told the story of their Marriage Makeover on the Montel Williams Show. For more information, or to order her book, go to: www.NancyCAnderson.com.
Can't afford gas? Try this!
A man was driving down the road and ran out of gas. Just at that moment, a bee flew in his window. The bee said, "What seems to be the problem?" "I'm out of gas." The bee told the man to wait right there and flew away. M inutes later, the man watched as an entire swarm of bees flew to his car and into his gas tank. After a few minutes, the bees flew out.
"Try it now," said one bee. The man turned the ignition key and the car started right up. "Wow!" the man exclaimed. "What did you put in my gas tank"?
The bee answered, "BP."
"Try it now," said one bee. The man turned the ignition key and the car started right up. "Wow!" the man exclaimed. "What did you put in my gas tank"?
The bee answered, "BP."
Cutesyl sayings perpetuate chain emails
Life happens.
Distance separates.
Children grow up.
Jobs come and go.
Love waxes and wanes.
Men don't do what they're supposed to do.
Hearts break.
Parents die.
Colleagues forget favors.
Careers end.
BUT - Sisters are there,
no matter how much time and how many miles are between you.
A girlfriend is never farther away than needing her.
When you have to walk that lonesome
valley and you have to walk it by yourself,
the women in your life will be on the valley's rim,
cheering you on, praying for you, pulling for you,
intervening on your behalf, and waiting with open arms at the valley's end.
Sometimes, they will even break the rules and walk beside you,
or come in and carry you out.
Girlfriends, daughters, granddaughters, daughters-in-law,
sisters, sisters-in-law, mothers, grandmothers,
aunties, nieces, cousins and extended family all bless our life.
When we began this adventure called womanhood,
we had no idea of the incredible joys or sorrows that lay ahead,
nor did we know how much we would need each other.
Every day, we need each other still.
Pass this on to all the women who help make your life meaningful.
I just did. There are many angels in this world;
some are peacefully sleeping on clouds, some are playing,
and one is reading her email at this moment!
Distance separates.
Children grow up.
Jobs come and go.
Love waxes and wanes.
Men don't do what they're supposed to do.
Hearts break.
Parents die.
Colleagues forget favors.
Careers end.
BUT - Sisters are there,
no matter how much time and how many miles are between you.
A girlfriend is never farther away than needing her.
When you have to walk that lonesome
valley and you have to walk it by yourself,
the women in your life will be on the valley's rim,
cheering you on, praying for you, pulling for you,
intervening on your behalf, and waiting with open arms at the valley's end.
Sometimes, they will even break the rules and walk beside you,
or come in and carry you out.
Girlfriends, daughters, granddaughters, daughters-in-law,
sisters, sisters-in-law, mothers, grandmothers,
aunties, nieces, cousins and extended family all bless our life.
When we began this adventure called womanhood,
we had no idea of the incredible joys or sorrows that lay ahead,
nor did we know how much we would need each other.
Every day, we need each other still.
Pass this on to all the women who help make your life meaningful.
I just did. There are many angels in this world;
some are peacefully sleeping on clouds, some are playing,
and one is reading her email at this moment!
Story idea
There is an old ghost story about a woman who purportedly visited her mother after her death as a ghost to let her know she'd been murdered by her husband. Based on the ghost's appearance and the details she gave her mother, the local prosecutor was persuaded to exhume the body and reopen the case. Her husband was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Prior to her marriage, in November 1895, the woman had given birth to an illegitimate son. What happened to him is unknown because he is not listed with her family in any subsequent censuses.
Are we including hearsay in our genealogies that has not been verified and presenting it as a fact? While we will sometimes have family stories that we just can't verify, we need to remember to clearly distinguish them as such. Otherwise they can be perpetuated and steer us and other researchers down the wrong path.
Are we including hearsay in our genealogies that has not been verified and presenting it as a fact? While we will sometimes have family stories that we just can't verify, we need to remember to clearly distinguish them as such. Otherwise they can be perpetuated and steer us and other researchers down the wrong path.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Soldier of Fortune by Dinah Eng
Soldier of Fortune
Left for dead, Charles D. Holland survived
to become a football star, Green Beret,
Harvard lawyer, studio V.P., and JAG showrunner
Written by Dinah Eng
(From the September 2002 issue of "Written By")
Like most people on the West Coast, Holland was asleep on the morning of September 11. A friend in the military called and woke Holland, who is a former U.S. Army Military Intelligence Officer. He turned on the television just before the second plane hit the towers. Holland, who was writing for Soul Food: The Series at that time, then had a phone conversation with executive producer Felicia Henderson about the need to shut down production in the wake of the tragedy.
"The shock was off enough for me to realize that I knew people in the Pentagon who might have died, and that was a sinking feeling," says Holland. "My ex-wife is a reservist, and I was able to find out within the hour that she was not there during the time. But there were other people who did not make it. I lost someone I went to jump school with."
He wanted to fight. Somebody. Some place. "With 9/11, one thing that went through my mind is that I'm missing it all. I was trained to really defend my country, and I'm missing that."
Holland paces as he talks on the phone in his Sunset-Gower Studios lot office, juggling questions from writers, technical advisors, production assistants. Although he's the new showrunner of CBS' long-running drama JAG, a gold earring dangles from his left ear lobe. Shaped like a Samurai sword, it glints with defiance against any corporate style. But the former Harvard lawyer is also quick to laugh, blunt yet tactful, and clearly relishes being in command. Having left the Army as a First Lieutenant, he knows what it means to manage up and supervise down.
JAG had struggled until its initial cancellation by NBC in the 1995-96 season. After moving to CBS, the only military drama on air climbed from 68th in the Nielsen ratings to a 17th-place tie with Frasier last season, a rise that some media watchers attribute to patriotic fervor in the aftermath of September 11.
Holland joined JAG last October as a consulting producer, after two years on Showtime's Soul Food: The Series. His initial script assignment on the Navy drama was to write "Tribunal," an episode about a military trial of a suspected al Qaeda terrorist. Holland, who remains a member of the California Bar, says, "When I came on the show, Stephen Zito, the head writer at the time, thought I would be ideal to write the script. I couldn't wait to do it. The story was [JAG creator and executive producer] Don Bellisario's idea. The research staff gave me a huge notebook of information on tribunals, and I read the Manual for Court Martials and Geneva Convention, things I hadn't thought about for a while."
PREPARING THE DEFENSE
In the episode Adm. A.J. Chegwidden (played by John M. Jackson) and Cmdr. Sturgis Turner (Scott Lawrence) defend a suspected leader of the al Qaeda, while Cmdr. Harmon Rabb Jr. (David James Elliott) and Lt. Col. Sarah MacKenzie (Catherine Bell) prosecute the case.
To formulate the defense strategy, Holland called on a mentor he'd apprenticed for in Harvard Law School: famed attorney Alan Dershowitz. "Alan takes cases on appeal dealing with civil liberties," says Holland, who worked for Dershowitz for two years, "and we used to get hundreds of letters a week from prisoners, asking him to take their case. I asked him what his dream defense strategy for an al Qaeda prisoner would be. He said he'd work to get any confession [made under excessive duress] thrown out."
For example, while intelligence officials might use truth serum on a suspected terrorist in wartime to learn where nuclear weapons are hidden, it would violate the spirit of the Fifth Amendment to routinely use truth serum or torture to gain a confession from a suspected murderer. The Fifth Amendment deals with the rights of accused criminals, with due process of law, and states that no one may be forced to testify as a witness against himself.
In the "Tribunal" script, defense attorney Adm. Chegwidden argues that the confession of the suspected terrorist on trial should be excluded from consideration because "13 days of torture to obtain an involuntary confession shocks the conscience, violating both the spirit and the letter of the Fifth Amendment." Then prosecuting attorney Cmdr. Rabb responds, ". . . we are at war. The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to our enemies. The very idea is ridiculous."
The judges on the tribunal rule that "the government is correct that the Fifth Amendment does not apply here," says Holland. "However, we're excluding Mister Atef's involuntary confession as lacking probative value to a reasonable person under the circumstances."
In addition to consulting Dershowitz, Holland sought advice on military law and the context of the case from one of the show's technical advisors, who used to be the assistant JAG (Judge Advocate General). "Then the Pentagon had a group of lawyers read through an early draft," remembers Holland. "We have a public affairs official there who always gets copies of our scripts. The military doesn't have veto power, but they will tell us if they think something is incorrect. The first two years of the show, they didn't want to cooperate with us, but then they had a sea change. A technical advisor may think something's embarrassing or incorrect, but we may keep it in the script anyway because it's good drama. It's helpful to have the Pentagon's input. There are so many technical things with the Navy and the law. At least when you have technical advice, you can make decisions from knowledge and not from ignorance."
After reading "Tribunal," the only feedback Pentagon lawyers were specific about was the description of what an actual tribunal would look like, according to Holland. The military attorneys said the trial wouldn't be held like a normal court martial and would probably take place in Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. base on Cuba, or an aircraft carrier. Holland chose the aircraft carrier for the setting of his tribunal and spun a tale that wove both fact and fiction in ways that surprised many.
"The revised rules for military tribunals were published during the second day of shooting [March 21], and our guesses were right," says Holland. "What was spooky was the guy I made up as a terrorist then got caught. He had the same background and even looked like the guy we cast [Marc Casabani]." (Abu Zubaydah, thought to be al Qaeda's chief of operations, is the highest ranking terrorist in Osama bin Laden's network now known to be in U.S. custody. Zubaydah was captured March 28 in a Pakistani raid and continues to be interrogated by U.S. officials.)
When "Tribunal" aired April 30, Holland says the show was "deluged by the media, starting with the New York Times, which had a significant ax to grind," according to the showrunner. "There was some sensitivity that I was getting an inside track to serious things that journalists weren't. We didn't have any information that the media didn't have, but reporters always cut out the part of my interview that said, 'Then I made it up!'"
Along with the media critics, military contacts complained as well.
"I made the strongest argument [in the script] I could that the fighters in al Qaeda were freedom fighters and not terrorists, and the military thought I did too good a job [in the defense strategy dialogue]," Holland says, shrugging and smiling at the same time. "Part of being a lawyer is arguing things you don't believe in order to win a case. It's so important to have both sides told. My belief is that suspected terrorists would get a fair trial here. We have so many differences in this country, but we have great tolerance. We have checks and balances, and the system works."
After writing "Tribunal," Holland was asked to script the season finale, "Enemy Below," which continues the story of what happens after the terrorist in "Tribunal" is convicted and sentenced to death. In "Enemy Below" the convicted terrorist's brother is involved in an effort to attack a U.S. aircraft carrier.
SOUL SURVIVOR
Holland's experiences in the military changed his view of the world and of himself. Born in Chicago, Holland grew up in a tough housing project with his younger brother and mother, who worked as a legal secretary. He also has a half-sister from his mother's second marriage.
"I never knew my father," says Holland. "My mother worked three jobs because I liked books. I had three sets of encyclopedias, which was a lot for poor children. Back then law firms would hire people to work in shifts to type things and prepare cases, and my mother would work those extra shifts."
Holland, as book smart as he was street savvy, played football and ran track in high school. Although he never belonged to a gang, there was little separation between those who signed up for trouble and those who didn't. Everyone knew everyone, and one day, when Holland was 14, trouble found him.
"My best friend was doing something with the wrong girl, a gangbanger's girl," remembers Holland. "I defended my friend and humiliated the gangbanger, and when I wasn't ready, he came back with his gang. I was attacked and left for dead." All but two of Holland's ribs were broken, his nose was broken and he suffered stab wounds that, left untreated, could have resulted in his bleeding to death.
Holland's family, fearful that the gang would return to kill the injured boy, spirited him off to Danville, Illinois, to recuperate with his grandparents. He grimaces, saying the stay with his relatives is not a happy memory, but it was the catalyst that awakened the writer within. "While I was laid up, I had to stay still for long periods of time, and writing was an emotional outlet. It became a thing I did for myself. I'd always make up stories about other people and being in other places. Back home, the savagery of the attack had touched off a war, and the guys who did it were killed or left town. People thought I had died, so when I came back [from Danville], people thought I was cool. I got all this respect and deference, and all I'd done was survive."
He achieved far more than basic survival skills--Holland rebuilt his body into an athlete's, earning a football scholarship to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. There he encountered another setback: His dreams of turning pro turned to ash after suffering a severe shoulder injury during a game in his sophomore year. He lost the football scholarship and paid for his remaining undergraduate education by signing on with Army ROTC.
"ROTC seemed like a snap to me--I already knew how to fight," says Holland, laughing. "The silly, but conscious, reason I joined the military was to be a hero. I was assigned to military intelligence and got a chance to find out what a lot of guys wonder about: How would I do in combat? I found out what the real essence of being a hero in combat is. It's really just about showing up."
He abruptly stops talking, reins in his turbulent emotions, and explains: "You show up when there's a chance people may die. You show up and watch other people die."
Holland declines to share what he did as a military intelligence officer in the Seventh Special Forces Group but says, "I can tell you I was based in Fort Bragg. When I served, I went other places. It gave me an appreciation for other ways of life. I was in places where people feared a knock on the door, and you couldn't walk outside without fearing snipers.
"I never went to Afghanistan, but when the attacks happened, I sure wanted to. I oftentimes hope the things I do on this show contribute. Now, somebody else has to show up for me, and there's a degree of guilt about that."
Although he no longer wears the uniform, an unabashed love of country is clear.
"The military has become a subculture in this country that people don't know much about," says Holland. "What's good is that the military is not as isolated. At least there's respect now. When I hear the national anthem, I don't think I hear it the way other people do. When I go to ball games, I always stand at attention when it's played. A lot of my friends used to tease me about that. Not anymore."
He pauses once again, almost overcome with emotion, then takes a breath and continues: "Let patriotism be a fad, if that's what it takes to let people be patriotic. You can be a liberal or progressive or a conservative and also be a patriot. It's not inconsistent with ideological beliefs. Today, anybody can have a flag on their car without feeling odd about it."
But while he maintains strong friendships and good memories from those years, he also left military life a bit disillusioned. "At the time [he left the military], I didn't think there was enough accountability for covert operations. Now, technology allows real-time oversight. You can micromanage operations by satellite. But back then, you could make decisions, and what happened was what you said happened. I learned the world was far more complicated than I had thought it was. Many times, I really wanted to be a super hero. Yet I felt like I was on the bad guys' side when I looked at the regimes we were supporting. You'd see some people living like kings, while other people lived in squalor."
So Holland decided to get a masters in public administration, thinking he'd pursue a government career to create social change. Along the way he also decided to become a lawyer. At age 22, he was accepted into Harvard Law School. While studying, he served a year and a half on active duty and later eight years as a Military Police Officer in the Massachusetts National Guard and Army Reserve.
"I learned that I didn't know anything," says Holland of his Harvard years. "It occurred to me I'd have to be willing to give up my life just to move the pile a centimeter in government. When you're in the projects as a kid, and it's 20 below, you watch TV and see [California scenes with] sunshine and beautiful women. It was a fantasy to live and work in L.A., so after law school I came here. I'm unconventional, so I was drawn to the entertainment business."
HARVARD WARRIOR
After landing a job as a studio lawyer at Twentieth Century Fox, Holland rose rapidly through the ranks. When the urge to try screenwriting hit, he couldn't convince anyone that he could write and practice law at the same time. So he gave up his position as vice president of business affairs at Fox and started writing feature scripts. After three unproduced screenplays for three different studios, he turned to television.
"My first credit was for an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger," says Holland. "My first staff job was on New York Undercover, which was the beginning of a very good run." He quickly knocks on the wood of his office desk. The run has included writing and producing such series as Murder One, Profiler, Vengeance Unlimited, and The Strip.
Holland's legal expertise was also tapped by the WGAw for last year's contract negotiations. Holland, vice president of the Guild, served as cochair (with then Secretary-Treasurer Michael Mahern) of the negotiating committee. "I had a legal background for talking with the Guild lawyers, and I had a context for what the other side was saying from my days at Fox. Writers are exceedingly opinionated, and it taxed one's leadership skills to come up with unanimous decisions and pull people together who don't always agree. But we were able to act with a great deal of discipline, and I had some small part in that."
Victoria Riskin, WGAw Guild president, calls Holland "a remarkable combination of street kid, Green Beret, and Harvard Law School graduate, which means whenever he tackles any problem, it's done with fearlessness, modified with his analytical, legal expertise." Riskin, who has worked with Holland on Guild matters for two years, adds, "He doesn't suffer fools gladly. Yet when he smiles, there's this warm, boyish look that's such a delight. It cracks the seriousness of the moment."
His achievements should make it obvious why Holland, a co-executive producer, filled the showrunner's slot on JAG when Stephen Zito resigned. However, some refer to his skin color as a reason, causing the Harvard Warrior to rise in his own defense.
"I've pushed hard for diversity in this business, but I wasn't hired because of that," says Holland, passionately. "Don [Bellisario] is a conservative, and people tend to equate conservativism with bigotry, and that's not true either. There are two main reasons I was hired. We both have a military background. Don's an ex-Marine. He understands what I'm saying, and I get what he's saying. On paper I'm the most qualified person. I've been a number two for four years. I'm a former military person and a lawyer. It doesn't have anything to do with being African-American, and that's the way it should be. To me, this is what it means to be working to get people the opportunity to do things like this, regardless of race or religion. We have to get to the point where it's not that odd [to have a showrunner of color].
"I've always counseled lower-ranking minorities that there's a perception people have of what people in certain positions are supposed to look like, and rarely is it a minority person," Holland continues. "I tell them, 'You have to create an image for yourself of that competent person.' I remember [Supreme Court Justice] Thurgood Marshall visiting us in law school and talking about how he'd earned his place in legal circles but was always reminded when he tried to get a taxi that he was a black guy. I certainly want to do what I can to move diversity forward in Hollywood."
Conflicts are never easy to resolve, but if Holland has anything to say about it, solutions will be found. And Holland's changes won't just be on paper.
Left for dead, Charles D. Holland survived
to become a football star, Green Beret,
Harvard lawyer, studio V.P., and JAG showrunner
Written by Dinah Eng
(From the September 2002 issue of "Written By")
Like most people on the West Coast, Holland was asleep on the morning of September 11. A friend in the military called and woke Holland, who is a former U.S. Army Military Intelligence Officer. He turned on the television just before the second plane hit the towers. Holland, who was writing for Soul Food: The Series at that time, then had a phone conversation with executive producer Felicia Henderson about the need to shut down production in the wake of the tragedy.
"The shock was off enough for me to realize that I knew people in the Pentagon who might have died, and that was a sinking feeling," says Holland. "My ex-wife is a reservist, and I was able to find out within the hour that she was not there during the time. But there were other people who did not make it. I lost someone I went to jump school with."
He wanted to fight. Somebody. Some place. "With 9/11, one thing that went through my mind is that I'm missing it all. I was trained to really defend my country, and I'm missing that."
Holland paces as he talks on the phone in his Sunset-Gower Studios lot office, juggling questions from writers, technical advisors, production assistants. Although he's the new showrunner of CBS' long-running drama JAG, a gold earring dangles from his left ear lobe. Shaped like a Samurai sword, it glints with defiance against any corporate style. But the former Harvard lawyer is also quick to laugh, blunt yet tactful, and clearly relishes being in command. Having left the Army as a First Lieutenant, he knows what it means to manage up and supervise down.
JAG had struggled until its initial cancellation by NBC in the 1995-96 season. After moving to CBS, the only military drama on air climbed from 68th in the Nielsen ratings to a 17th-place tie with Frasier last season, a rise that some media watchers attribute to patriotic fervor in the aftermath of September 11.
Holland joined JAG last October as a consulting producer, after two years on Showtime's Soul Food: The Series. His initial script assignment on the Navy drama was to write "Tribunal," an episode about a military trial of a suspected al Qaeda terrorist. Holland, who remains a member of the California Bar, says, "When I came on the show, Stephen Zito, the head writer at the time, thought I would be ideal to write the script. I couldn't wait to do it. The story was [JAG creator and executive producer] Don Bellisario's idea. The research staff gave me a huge notebook of information on tribunals, and I read the Manual for Court Martials and Geneva Convention, things I hadn't thought about for a while."
PREPARING THE DEFENSE
In the episode Adm. A.J. Chegwidden (played by John M. Jackson) and Cmdr. Sturgis Turner (Scott Lawrence) defend a suspected leader of the al Qaeda, while Cmdr. Harmon Rabb Jr. (David James Elliott) and Lt. Col. Sarah MacKenzie (Catherine Bell) prosecute the case.
To formulate the defense strategy, Holland called on a mentor he'd apprenticed for in Harvard Law School: famed attorney Alan Dershowitz. "Alan takes cases on appeal dealing with civil liberties," says Holland, who worked for Dershowitz for two years, "and we used to get hundreds of letters a week from prisoners, asking him to take their case. I asked him what his dream defense strategy for an al Qaeda prisoner would be. He said he'd work to get any confession [made under excessive duress] thrown out."
For example, while intelligence officials might use truth serum on a suspected terrorist in wartime to learn where nuclear weapons are hidden, it would violate the spirit of the Fifth Amendment to routinely use truth serum or torture to gain a confession from a suspected murderer. The Fifth Amendment deals with the rights of accused criminals, with due process of law, and states that no one may be forced to testify as a witness against himself.
In the "Tribunal" script, defense attorney Adm. Chegwidden argues that the confession of the suspected terrorist on trial should be excluded from consideration because "13 days of torture to obtain an involuntary confession shocks the conscience, violating both the spirit and the letter of the Fifth Amendment." Then prosecuting attorney Cmdr. Rabb responds, ". . . we are at war. The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to our enemies. The very idea is ridiculous."
The judges on the tribunal rule that "the government is correct that the Fifth Amendment does not apply here," says Holland. "However, we're excluding Mister Atef's involuntary confession as lacking probative value to a reasonable person under the circumstances."
In addition to consulting Dershowitz, Holland sought advice on military law and the context of the case from one of the show's technical advisors, who used to be the assistant JAG (Judge Advocate General). "Then the Pentagon had a group of lawyers read through an early draft," remembers Holland. "We have a public affairs official there who always gets copies of our scripts. The military doesn't have veto power, but they will tell us if they think something is incorrect. The first two years of the show, they didn't want to cooperate with us, but then they had a sea change. A technical advisor may think something's embarrassing or incorrect, but we may keep it in the script anyway because it's good drama. It's helpful to have the Pentagon's input. There are so many technical things with the Navy and the law. At least when you have technical advice, you can make decisions from knowledge and not from ignorance."
After reading "Tribunal," the only feedback Pentagon lawyers were specific about was the description of what an actual tribunal would look like, according to Holland. The military attorneys said the trial wouldn't be held like a normal court martial and would probably take place in Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. base on Cuba, or an aircraft carrier. Holland chose the aircraft carrier for the setting of his tribunal and spun a tale that wove both fact and fiction in ways that surprised many.
"The revised rules for military tribunals were published during the second day of shooting [March 21], and our guesses were right," says Holland. "What was spooky was the guy I made up as a terrorist then got caught. He had the same background and even looked like the guy we cast [Marc Casabani]." (Abu Zubaydah, thought to be al Qaeda's chief of operations, is the highest ranking terrorist in Osama bin Laden's network now known to be in U.S. custody. Zubaydah was captured March 28 in a Pakistani raid and continues to be interrogated by U.S. officials.)
When "Tribunal" aired April 30, Holland says the show was "deluged by the media, starting with the New York Times, which had a significant ax to grind," according to the showrunner. "There was some sensitivity that I was getting an inside track to serious things that journalists weren't. We didn't have any information that the media didn't have, but reporters always cut out the part of my interview that said, 'Then I made it up!'"
Along with the media critics, military contacts complained as well.
"I made the strongest argument [in the script] I could that the fighters in al Qaeda were freedom fighters and not terrorists, and the military thought I did too good a job [in the defense strategy dialogue]," Holland says, shrugging and smiling at the same time. "Part of being a lawyer is arguing things you don't believe in order to win a case. It's so important to have both sides told. My belief is that suspected terrorists would get a fair trial here. We have so many differences in this country, but we have great tolerance. We have checks and balances, and the system works."
After writing "Tribunal," Holland was asked to script the season finale, "Enemy Below," which continues the story of what happens after the terrorist in "Tribunal" is convicted and sentenced to death. In "Enemy Below" the convicted terrorist's brother is involved in an effort to attack a U.S. aircraft carrier.
SOUL SURVIVOR
Holland's experiences in the military changed his view of the world and of himself. Born in Chicago, Holland grew up in a tough housing project with his younger brother and mother, who worked as a legal secretary. He also has a half-sister from his mother's second marriage.
"I never knew my father," says Holland. "My mother worked three jobs because I liked books. I had three sets of encyclopedias, which was a lot for poor children. Back then law firms would hire people to work in shifts to type things and prepare cases, and my mother would work those extra shifts."
Holland, as book smart as he was street savvy, played football and ran track in high school. Although he never belonged to a gang, there was little separation between those who signed up for trouble and those who didn't. Everyone knew everyone, and one day, when Holland was 14, trouble found him.
"My best friend was doing something with the wrong girl, a gangbanger's girl," remembers Holland. "I defended my friend and humiliated the gangbanger, and when I wasn't ready, he came back with his gang. I was attacked and left for dead." All but two of Holland's ribs were broken, his nose was broken and he suffered stab wounds that, left untreated, could have resulted in his bleeding to death.
Holland's family, fearful that the gang would return to kill the injured boy, spirited him off to Danville, Illinois, to recuperate with his grandparents. He grimaces, saying the stay with his relatives is not a happy memory, but it was the catalyst that awakened the writer within. "While I was laid up, I had to stay still for long periods of time, and writing was an emotional outlet. It became a thing I did for myself. I'd always make up stories about other people and being in other places. Back home, the savagery of the attack had touched off a war, and the guys who did it were killed or left town. People thought I had died, so when I came back [from Danville], people thought I was cool. I got all this respect and deference, and all I'd done was survive."
He achieved far more than basic survival skills--Holland rebuilt his body into an athlete's, earning a football scholarship to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. There he encountered another setback: His dreams of turning pro turned to ash after suffering a severe shoulder injury during a game in his sophomore year. He lost the football scholarship and paid for his remaining undergraduate education by signing on with Army ROTC.
"ROTC seemed like a snap to me--I already knew how to fight," says Holland, laughing. "The silly, but conscious, reason I joined the military was to be a hero. I was assigned to military intelligence and got a chance to find out what a lot of guys wonder about: How would I do in combat? I found out what the real essence of being a hero in combat is. It's really just about showing up."
He abruptly stops talking, reins in his turbulent emotions, and explains: "You show up when there's a chance people may die. You show up and watch other people die."
Holland declines to share what he did as a military intelligence officer in the Seventh Special Forces Group but says, "I can tell you I was based in Fort Bragg. When I served, I went other places. It gave me an appreciation for other ways of life. I was in places where people feared a knock on the door, and you couldn't walk outside without fearing snipers.
"I never went to Afghanistan, but when the attacks happened, I sure wanted to. I oftentimes hope the things I do on this show contribute. Now, somebody else has to show up for me, and there's a degree of guilt about that."
Although he no longer wears the uniform, an unabashed love of country is clear.
"The military has become a subculture in this country that people don't know much about," says Holland. "What's good is that the military is not as isolated. At least there's respect now. When I hear the national anthem, I don't think I hear it the way other people do. When I go to ball games, I always stand at attention when it's played. A lot of my friends used to tease me about that. Not anymore."
He pauses once again, almost overcome with emotion, then takes a breath and continues: "Let patriotism be a fad, if that's what it takes to let people be patriotic. You can be a liberal or progressive or a conservative and also be a patriot. It's not inconsistent with ideological beliefs. Today, anybody can have a flag on their car without feeling odd about it."
But while he maintains strong friendships and good memories from those years, he also left military life a bit disillusioned. "At the time [he left the military], I didn't think there was enough accountability for covert operations. Now, technology allows real-time oversight. You can micromanage operations by satellite. But back then, you could make decisions, and what happened was what you said happened. I learned the world was far more complicated than I had thought it was. Many times, I really wanted to be a super hero. Yet I felt like I was on the bad guys' side when I looked at the regimes we were supporting. You'd see some people living like kings, while other people lived in squalor."
So Holland decided to get a masters in public administration, thinking he'd pursue a government career to create social change. Along the way he also decided to become a lawyer. At age 22, he was accepted into Harvard Law School. While studying, he served a year and a half on active duty and later eight years as a Military Police Officer in the Massachusetts National Guard and Army Reserve.
"I learned that I didn't know anything," says Holland of his Harvard years. "It occurred to me I'd have to be willing to give up my life just to move the pile a centimeter in government. When you're in the projects as a kid, and it's 20 below, you watch TV and see [California scenes with] sunshine and beautiful women. It was a fantasy to live and work in L.A., so after law school I came here. I'm unconventional, so I was drawn to the entertainment business."
HARVARD WARRIOR
After landing a job as a studio lawyer at Twentieth Century Fox, Holland rose rapidly through the ranks. When the urge to try screenwriting hit, he couldn't convince anyone that he could write and practice law at the same time. So he gave up his position as vice president of business affairs at Fox and started writing feature scripts. After three unproduced screenplays for three different studios, he turned to television.
"My first credit was for an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger," says Holland. "My first staff job was on New York Undercover, which was the beginning of a very good run." He quickly knocks on the wood of his office desk. The run has included writing and producing such series as Murder One, Profiler, Vengeance Unlimited, and The Strip.
Holland's legal expertise was also tapped by the WGAw for last year's contract negotiations. Holland, vice president of the Guild, served as cochair (with then Secretary-Treasurer Michael Mahern) of the negotiating committee. "I had a legal background for talking with the Guild lawyers, and I had a context for what the other side was saying from my days at Fox. Writers are exceedingly opinionated, and it taxed one's leadership skills to come up with unanimous decisions and pull people together who don't always agree. But we were able to act with a great deal of discipline, and I had some small part in that."
Victoria Riskin, WGAw Guild president, calls Holland "a remarkable combination of street kid, Green Beret, and Harvard Law School graduate, which means whenever he tackles any problem, it's done with fearlessness, modified with his analytical, legal expertise." Riskin, who has worked with Holland on Guild matters for two years, adds, "He doesn't suffer fools gladly. Yet when he smiles, there's this warm, boyish look that's such a delight. It cracks the seriousness of the moment."
His achievements should make it obvious why Holland, a co-executive producer, filled the showrunner's slot on JAG when Stephen Zito resigned. However, some refer to his skin color as a reason, causing the Harvard Warrior to rise in his own defense.
"I've pushed hard for diversity in this business, but I wasn't hired because of that," says Holland, passionately. "Don [Bellisario] is a conservative, and people tend to equate conservativism with bigotry, and that's not true either. There are two main reasons I was hired. We both have a military background. Don's an ex-Marine. He understands what I'm saying, and I get what he's saying. On paper I'm the most qualified person. I've been a number two for four years. I'm a former military person and a lawyer. It doesn't have anything to do with being African-American, and that's the way it should be. To me, this is what it means to be working to get people the opportunity to do things like this, regardless of race or religion. We have to get to the point where it's not that odd [to have a showrunner of color].
"I've always counseled lower-ranking minorities that there's a perception people have of what people in certain positions are supposed to look like, and rarely is it a minority person," Holland continues. "I tell them, 'You have to create an image for yourself of that competent person.' I remember [Supreme Court Justice] Thurgood Marshall visiting us in law school and talking about how he'd earned his place in legal circles but was always reminded when he tried to get a taxi that he was a black guy. I certainly want to do what I can to move diversity forward in Hollywood."
Conflicts are never easy to resolve, but if Holland has anything to say about it, solutions will be found. And Holland's changes won't just be on paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)