Japan

It's late, and Friday. End of the first week of school and all. Reading a good book nd happily not attending the first football game at my high school.

(On a slightly irrelevant note, anybody care to tell me what people see in football? It's all anyone can ever talk about, teachers and students alike. Why can't we all get so hyped up about Divergent or Harry Potter? You know, have shout outs about it over the intercom during morning announcements and stuff.)

But that's not what I mean to post. Today, I simply mean to post a few notes I wrote about Ancient Japan while watching a documentary.

• Any deviation on a mirror will make the light bounce off it in a different angle; "magic mirror" is a world standard, created by (16th c. Japan). You have the white sunlight that reflects off it, and if it is completely white, it is free of deviations. In 16th c., a copper plate was made and fashioned to the backside of it, seemingly decorative, but was used to manipulate the deviation on the mirror's surface to reflect an image of, say Christ when you use the white-light trick. During the persecution*, a false back concealed a picture of Christ, to let secret Christians know they were Christian, too -- the mirror surface is scraped and polished, creating the deviations, and then coated with nickel to make it look like an ordinary mirror. But it will reflect the backside.
• Clocks --  They were searching for the underlying rule of nature. When an outsider (Westerner) brought a clock to Japan as a gift in the 17th c., they took it apart to see how it worked. Based on the clock, they began all sorts of "magical" clockwork, including clockwork robots. (A tea-carrying robot for the tea ceremony.)
• It takes real skill to unravel silk worm material. It's pulled and twisted into thread, with spit making it smooth. But the traditional silk is getting more precious today.
• Architecture --Built around a central support tree, with lots of horizontal beams. Pagodas -- earthquake resistance, the central tree is not connected to the walls; the walls sway, but do not fall, because the tree absorbs the movements. 
• Samurai sword is tested for balance and flexibility. Each sword maker has their own formula. Carbon is on outside of the steel during the forging stage, until folding and heat force it inside the blade, giving it its flexibility. 
• "Floor that sings like a nightingale" -- to prevent sneak attacks on the shogun, the floor amplified sound and made it "sing." (This is a building where the shogun, or leader, lived or worked?)

This is literally copy and pasted from my notes in workflowy. (Workflowy is a website where you can organize your thoughts into lists. I highly recommend it for writers, or anyone, really.) For reference, this is from a documentary called What the Ancients Knew: Japan. You can watch it on the history channel occasionally.

How about you? What do you know about The Ancients?

Have a blessed Friday and weekend!

*Yes, there was a time in Japanese history where Christians were persecuted. In fact, all Western stuff was persecuted -- this was centuries ago, during the "spheres of influence" thing in China, and they held onto their Buddhist culture tightly. And effectively, since they are islands who can restrict Western access to their ports.    

Photography

Second day of school. I'm left with a rather strange feeling: a content, almost blissful peace, not what you'd expect after eight hours of slouching in uncomfortable chairs until your neck hurts and your brain wishes to wash away the excess of words and instructions that you've semi-listened to all day.

Does that sentence make you think this is about a boy? Some nice guy who makes the slouching, invisible girl feel like the world? Well, it isn't. (And thank goodness for that. I'm such a fussy, perfectionist person that no one could live up to my standards. Sometimes I don't live up to them.)

No, what that sentence is about is photography, designing, literature, and creativity in general. Because, you see, last period on even days is Photo 1, or Photography for Beginners.

Photo 1, I figured out, sounds like the coolest class I could've signed up for. Because, this isn't digital-camera photography, where you can photoshop it; this is a class where I need an actual film camera. My teacher recommended one built in the '80s or '90s, because fun fact: cameras from that time were built of all metal components, making them more durable.

There is a dark room, with those big sinks and shallow containers for the chemicals to help develop the film, and where, when you're working, you keep all the lights off except for a single amber-colored light that barely illuminates. Even a special door, a cylinder with two openings -- one to go in, one to go out -- with an inner cylinder that allows you to switch between the two rooms without letting in any of the harmful flourescent light. (Flourescent light can ruin the film.)

Perhaps you might already know this "dark room." But I am a sheltered teenager, and this is an entirely new concept. The only thing I really know is the typical crowded classroom, my home and church and library; we rarely went on trips, back in elementary and middle schools, and I don't go out on my own. This dark room is an unexpected and curious break from my life.

Now, it's only the second day, of course. The teacher is going to have us begin at the beginning of photography -- making cameras out of oatmeal containers and tape -- and working up to the actual film camera, which we don't need to obtain until October. (This, by the way, is an AWESOME teaching technique, one that sadly is almost never used. To build the camera, to see how it works, BEFORE picking it up and applying it. If only they did that for say, math. Or government. To see where and how and why it works, and the history behind it? Providing context makes the concept pop.)

Educational rant aside, this class already seems epic. We even have field trips, come November. I haven't been on a field trip since... what, eighth grade? 2009-2010? Years of school where there are no break except for the occasional pep rally. *shudders* When I'm an adult, I should try and fix that. If I can. If I'm not some homeless, saddened, sick shell of a person.

I do apologize. I keep getting off topic. What I mean to say is, creativity comes in many forms, and I've discovered one today: photography. It's a lot more complicated than I thought it would be, but like writing, I find that I don't dread it; I look forward to learning and growing in the study.

Now, if only every other academic and creative study were posed in a way that makes me look forward to the next class.

Have a blessed day!

Happy September!

It's the first of September! You know what that means?

1. I start school in two days, right after Labor Day. My senior year, as it happens.  College planning, here I come. :(
2. It's a month of black and gold. Queenly colors. (And don't ask where this came from. I have a color associated with each month, paired with black. Because black is good any month. Just the word September conjures up a metallic gold to go along with that black.)
3. It's Artemis Fowl's birthday! Ahem. Yea, I know I'm an absolute nerd, knowing a fictional character's birthday, but in my defense, the 7th AF book takes place on his birthday. September 1st.
4. The Legend of Korra, season two -- Sept. 13th!

It's going to be a busy month for me. Not only does school start up, but I have a TBR pile literally twenty books long, and I'm finishing up the latest draft of my story. Wow, it must be, what, my third or fourth rewrite? Plot is very difficult to iron out, ladies and gentlemen.

And, yes, two of those four good points are fandom-ish. AF and TLoK, goodness gracious! (I have a T-shirt with a Doctor Who quote on it and a Pinterest board dedicated to all the fictional goodness of everything. Just to keep myself from painting my room TARDIS blue and dressing up like a Kyoshi warrior. Yes, I am a supreme fangirl.)

How about you? What does September bring about -- new TV shows, school, or novels? Have a blessed day, and a blessed Labor Day for those who pay attention to that particular day!

A Song

A song that tells a story, albeit a rather tragic one: "The Wicked Sister" by Meav. It's Celtic, and sort of upbeat despite being about a wicked woman who drowns her younger sister in order to steal her bridegroom.

Have a blessed weekend!

Letters to Life: For the Sake of Diversity!

Dear People of Everywhere:

There's a thing in psychology. A big question. It circles pretty much everything people-related: is it nature or nurture?

I like this question. It's a good question to ask about things. Are you doing this because you are born with it in your veins, or are you doing it because you were raised with it? I don't really see other ways to the why behind any question. After all, nurture is there every time in your life; it's not a question of childhood, it's a question of environment.

For example: I'm a Baptist Christian. Happy to be one, actually. And I would guess that it might have something to do with the fact that the preschool I attended once upon a time also happens to double as my church today. Some of my earliest memories took place there: laughing and running around the playground outside, the stained glass windows of the sanctuary, the Sunday school/preschool classroom on the ground floor with its rug with the alphabet on it... happy times.

As I believe it, God gave us free will, which is why religion can be a nurture question, and not a nature question.

What does this have to do with anything? I assume that you don't visit this blog to listen to my religious views. (Really, though, it's about all my views. Including my religious views.) This example is just a lead-up to my main point.

Which, I suppose, goes along the lines of: why judge people on a matter of nature, when there are things to disagree with about nurture?

Not that I'm advocating prejudice of any kind. But I realize that wariness over differences can almost be counted as nature nowadays. We are nurtured from such a young age over trivial things, that it really can seem like nature. (See toy advertising words and gendered culture.)

When I say "trivial things," I mean by my perspective. The broad things, like gender and sexual orientation and skin color. That prejudice is taught from a very early age indeed. (I mean, have you ever walked down a children's toys aisle? All pink down one side, all blue down the other. It's disturbing. I preferred the gender-neutral libraries as a kid.) Not to say they are trivial to everyone, just that they are not the small, everyday things like how someone's voice is pitched at just that most annoying pitch, and that song that you hate is that person's favorite song. I pay attention to those smaller things. (I don't talk to people often, so really, by "trivial", I mean the things I don't keep an opinion on when I meet you. I keep an opinion only on whether you've annoyed me by interrupting my reading for a reason I don't care about.)

In books, you see things pretty clearly. How many times do we rip on Bella for being a weak, clingy, obsessive girl? And then think that perhaps the story would've been better if it was Edward's. (Or at least, that's what I do. I'm ashamed to say, sexist culture sneaks into my brain sometimes, too.)

I can think of many instances. One time, I was at B&N with my mom (who pays for the books I buy), and she refused to let me buy one about a boy who was gay-bashed. The MC wasn't even the gay boy; it was a female friend of the gay boy. (Of course, that was awhile ago and I can't remember its title or price; but my mother is of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" camp. I do imagine that sexual orientation was a factor.)

Now, gender, sexual orientation, skin color -- these are nature things. Not nurture. The only "nurture" thing about it is the way you look at it. I would hope I am such a tolerant, open-minded person because I have read all sorts of books since kindergarten. I would suspect people who are misogynistic are that way because either: a.) they have been actively taught that; or b.) because they honestly think society is already equal, and therefore misogyny can't exist. 

These things should not matter. It's just the way we're born. It's us who have made this matter.

Keep in mind I'm a teenager and not exactly an expert, but do I have to be? Even toddlers can tell the difference between nature and nurture. How ridiculous would it sound if someone told you that you chose the wrong skin color? (Don't get me started on tanning booths, whitewashing on YA covers, or any other such hogwash.)

So, why is so hard to find these natural things in books? It's not so bad, I gather, here in 2013. I will actively seek out books with a different culture, a woman protagonist, or a LGBTQ protag (I'm pretty sure there are more letters in there somewhere...), so I couldn't tell you about a dearth of them. But I know that the quality of them can be gosh-awful, a lot more than books about straight white guys might be. Particularly when it comes to sex.

Or perhaps it's not bad writing, per se, just harsher judgement from the reader. I don't know. But, as the title of this post implies, I would imagine it's the former, there being some need nowadays to toss in diversity, but seemingly no reason to write it well. Any subtle sexism or racism can be blamed on the character in question -- "It's not that she's a girl, it's her character." Which is a terrible argument, considering that an author (while character's character seems like an imaginary friend who chooses their own personality) does have a small ounce of control over how s/he expresses that character.

Well, so... readers' harsher judgment might be part of that. We will point out anything perceived as weak. Not all of us, not with every character. But it's there.

If the world were up to me, there would be an easy solution: focus on and develop such diverse characters as you do the straight white guy characters. Readers would then love them, because they are good characters. Unfortunately, the world is not up to me, and people will believe whatever they want to about a certain character -- or not believe at all, as the case may be.

Thankfully, there are diverse characters we can all love and hope for a better literary future because of: Hermione Granger, Holly Short (who does happen to be a POC, even if she's whitewashed in the graphic novels), Eona... (I'm having trouble coming up with LGBTQ characters. I avoid romance on principle, and I somehow think that LGBTQ ended a rather small niche in mainstream genre fiction, anyways, thanks to culture.)

I am one author. Not even published yet. But I know, quite deeply, that I will never consciously add a character in just for the sake of diversity. And, considering the fact I write epic YA fantasy, I have a feeling that most of my main characters will be diverse, and complex because of their diversity. I strongly believe that differences unite us all the more.

This one author here, will do her best to help diverse characters become real. I can only hope others will follow suit; and that maybe, just maybe -- in some distant future -- my words and worlds will help a change for the better for diversity,without making diversity seem like a cheap character trick that needs to tossed in due to social movements.

Sincerely,
JDM -- daydreamer, fantasy writer, avid reader.
      

Letters to Life: On Female Characters

Dear SFF readers, writers, publishing peoples, and all-around decent folk --

I've recently been reading internet articles, as is my wont, on the representation of females in fiction.

Now, I'm a teenager who reads mostly YA. Don't kid yourselves, if you think this is an expert opinion. In fact, I hope you point out any flaws in my arguments in the comments section, or tell me what you think are the strong points. That is how people learn and grow.

But there is lots of talk about "strong female characters." (From my vantage point, which isn't exactly temporal. Namely, these articles could've been written anytime from last week to years ago.)

Now, why would I take part in such a discussion? Why should I? I am no expert, not even in logic or argument-making. In fact, I am the sort of person who doesn't even think logic rules the world -- I tend to think logic and argument are only one aspect of life, just as music and emotion and image and language are all just another part. And it's your choice to think which is more important. But I need to say something, and have a conversation about it, instead of letting it fester in my soul.

That being said, logic and argument do amount to something. It has weight behind it, like every other human force. And there is a certain logic that defines literature, just as there is emotion in music and structure in art and language in argument. Do you know what that logic is?

That there is no one personality type; there are as many types of people in fiction (and nonfiction) as there is in real life. And that means that yes, there are your typical Strong Female Characters in real life, and yes, there are some in literature. But that doesn't mean your definition should make up the majority.

It's the age-old trope that makes these female characters just that - a trope. You can bring them to life all you want, and people will complain that you're just submitting to a trope. That they are nothing but a stock character. (Remember that term from English class?) And I'm sick of seeing and reading it. But I want them in here, just the same.

Let's examine the typical traits of a Strong Female Character, shall we? Silent, strong, usually career-oriented and usually one of the few women in their field (and, of course, usually a military, scientific, or otherwise male-dominated field). Not weepy, or emotional, or terribly simple-minded. And of course, complex, internally-struggling, angry and happy and world-weary at the same time...

What was that? That last sentence doesn't ring true? Well, it should. Because that's my main point here: the "Strong Female Character" should be more than her typical definition. She should be as real-life as, well, real life.

I mean, what other type of female is there? Everyone is strong in their own way, pardoning my abrupt train of thought. (And jump in argument; bear with me, please.) What I mean is, what is the definition of weakness, when you think of a Strong Female Character? Emotional? Because everyone has emotion. Guys, especially, are prone to anger in fiction. That's an emotion, right? Anger? That hasn't suddenly morphed into a separate category, some extension of thought? Guys can be prone to theatrical heroism. Being melodramatic is a mix of thought and emotion, true, but it's how we exaggerate and how we show emotion. I mean, the typical guy trope -- the hero who has to save the world, and he does it his own way.

Emotion isn't a weakness. Guys, real life and in fiction, can have it. It's not a weakness, for them; in fact, it's usually portrayed in media as an abusive man controlling his wife or family; it's portrayed as the lust and "love" for the forces of good and for, again, their family. Batman is allowed to become a hero after his parents die, out of grief and a want for revenge. All of those crime shows, following childhood trauma to abusive present. (Or to a present of seeking out such dangerous relationships, but that's usually portrayed a "woman" thing.)

So why can't Strong Females have it? Emotions are not exclusively female or "weak." So... what else? Do you mean physical weakness? That's a characteristic of Strong Females and males alike. The whole "Look at me, I can shoot a gun, I can kick your sorry butt to kingdom come, I catch you doing something misogynistic and I will show you how manlike my reflexes are?" No one I know of can manage it, but in Sci-fi/fantasy, go ahead! (Really. No sarcasm. I come from a place where people have inane conversations and do chores, not kick butt.)

Um... do you mean the whole being-the-only-one-of-my-gender-in-this-field? Because... well, that doesn't look strong. Actually, that doesn't even reflect on the character in my opinion -- it just makes a whole system look weak. I mean, no one wants a field where both genders aren't at play. It takes two to make a family, and it takes two to make bombs. Ingenuity comes to both genders, and it's stupid to refuse an entire gender's ingenuity based solely on their gender. I'm all for subjectivity, but that's not a good subjectivity to go by. Go by something like, "They don't like biology, so they can't work in our medical facilities." That's a much more decent subjective measure than "Oh, she's a girl."

So... what is weak? What is the opposite, or indeed anything other than, this Strong Female Character? Which brings me back to my first point -- why are you making this a stock character/trope?

I would guess you mean "as opposed to the lack of other female characters in the novel, this one token girl is a Strong Person, because we don't have any others but vague mentions." I've heard of a few novels like that. I don't read many, thankfully. It's not really a good thing, this trope. There are plenty of strong characters who are not this mental image of military-and-rebellious.

Now, did I write this just to be whiny? No, I have an Easy Positive Solution.    

Perhaps we should take a leaf from my favorite age group's notebook: write many, many books from the POV of girls/women. Adult fiction, you heard me. And I don't mean, simple, flat characters written for the Sake of Diversity. (More on that particular rant some other day.) I mean, real-life characters. The sort of characters we always strive to write about, because no one likes flat, simple-minded "weak" characters. The same ones you seem intent to avoid with the trope in the first place.

In fact, here's an Easy Test to administer and pass -- the Bechdel Test. The questions are simple.
1. Are there at least two women in it?
2. Do they talk to each other?
3. Do they talk about something other than men?
Guys, this isn't a hard test to pass. It's not even asking to make them major or main characters, just that you include them. It does wonders for that audience you're actively pushing away. (Namely, me. Though people like me are included, as well.)

In YA, a lot of novels are published by women, for girls. Predominantly. And there's a reason I prefer that age group -- because, while I hate the romance, I can identify with strong characters who happen to be female. Because, they can't be anything but strong.

Sincerely,
JDM -- a dreamer of impossibly diverse dreams, a thinker of more than logic, and a Girl Who Loves Strength (But Knows There's More than One Type)

P.S. This Lorde quote was originally intended for real-life racism. I kind of consider fictional people to be their own human race, only they inhabit a different world. But all the same, I don't mean this quote to look out-of-context and mean. Diversity, as I said, is a whole 'nother blog post, as is For the Sake of Diversity.

Fantasy and the Hobbit

So, I've finished re-reading the Hobbit for a school summer project. (No, I'm not going to underline it. It's practically a common noun by now.)

And I must say, I rather enjoyed it this time around. I mean, it still took me a week to get through it, but... it wasn't detestable, once I started accepting the ending. I mean, he didn't have this epic showdown with the dragon, but in a roundabout way, he DID somewhat cause Smaug's death. Anyways, the writing, rest of the plot, and ploys used were nowhere near as bad the second reading through.

So I figured I would give you a list of my favorite fantasy tropes, as used in The Hobbit.

Favorite Things About Fantasy

1. War! The Battle of Five Armies, people. (Even though, technically, it was more like six or seven armies, when you include the Eagles and Gandalf. Good old Tolkien.) There is no other genre where magic and magical creatures can turn everything into an unpredictable, completely befuddled mess.
2. Magic! You just have to love Gandalf's fires that drive off the Wargs in that scene after getting away from the goblins. And the Ring -- no one could forget that. 
3. Evil Forest! Because, ya know, the Mirkwood just isn't as cool if it's easy to get through.
4. Shape-shifters! We once had a cat named Beorn, and I didn't get the reference until years later.
5. Dragons and hoards of gold! I want to write a book about dragons one day. Not like Smaug-dragon, but a relatively good one. And also, hoard of gold.
6. Evil goblins! Somehow, stories seem a lot better when goblins are evil. I don't know why. I mean: the Hobbit, Artemis Fowl... 
7. Hobbits! How many people don't want to be a hobbit? Second breakfast, nice home under a hill, natural stealth, etc etc etc.
8. Neolithic landscapes! Yea! For some reason, the whole unspoiled-by-indutrialization landscape is easy on me. (Is it neolithic, or medieval? The Hobbit, I mean? Because it has the monarchy... but only deep into LoTR. Mostly, it's a quiet hobbit neighborhood, a vast stretch of wilderness, and then one human town who bows to a King under the Mountain, who is not human.)

As well as plenty of other things, but we'll not make this a super-long post. What about you? What are your favorite fantasy tropes?

Have a blessed Monday (if there's such a thing)!