Showing posts with label Oscar Wilde. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oscar Wilde. Show all posts
Friday, May 6, 2011
IF I Could Be One Of My Characters...!
Wow! This is a toughie. I write about supernatural creatures mainly! Oh yeah and insane and evil human ones too!
However, in the spirit of this extremely thought provoking topic I shall endeavor to discuss it!
I'm going to shock everyone by selecting the one character in my novel, The House on Blackstone Moor who is an evil supernatural being--Eco.
Why you may ask would I want to be him?
Well, I think because (in the spirit that this is asked) I would like to live forever, I could if I chose not do any evil.
BUT YOU'RE CHANGING THE CHARACTER, CAROLE! THAT IS SOOOO UNFAIR!
Okay! I give up! I won't change him one iota.
I love Eco, I adore this evil, thoroughly deranged demon spawn because he is mad as a hatter, he is also campy and outrageous!
Put Caligula and Oscar Wilde together with a sprinkling of Johnny Depp in Alice in Wonderland and you get Eco's essence.
Campy is fun to write! Here's an example! In the scene where Eco appears first he is met by a gypsy housekeeper. He has arrived with his monsterous vampiric 'children' (winged little beasts that he calls his children). The gypsy is horrified and is cowering while Eco, in the best tradition of high camp, is grinning at her!
He then says to two characters who enter the room:
"I don't think she likes me!"
I ask you, how could I not want to be this character?
I'll tell you something he has become so popular he is featured in the sequel, Unholy Testament that I am writing now!
I have a great time as I recount in his own words, his experiences with such characters as diverse as Caligula, Richard the Lionheart, Gille de Rais, Vlad and Elizabeth Bathory to name a few.
It is his story I am telling in a journal, a confession really.
So yes, my choice would be the great character, Eco!
His charm is his mad, unpredictability and that's even to me and I'm writing him!
Goodness!
Labels:
caligula,
Carole Gill,
eco,
johnny depp,
Oscar Wilde
Thursday, March 10, 2011
An open letter to Stieg...

Dear Stieg,
I hope you do not mind my lack of formality. Having read your writing I feel I have come to know something of you, or at least a little of how you think about certain things. Starting a letter “Dear Mr Larsson” sounds a little to prim for my liking.
I have just finished reading your Millennium Trilogy. I must say, you had me going there… in the past years, since I took to writing myself, I have hardly read three books, let alone a trilogy of three full books! And full they are too. Eighteen hundred and fifty pages altogether – at least in the edition I have read. It is probably just as well you had a publisher – I’d hate to have posted out self-published versions to all my friends and family. Just think of all that postage! If I wasn’t a Luddite, the physical weight of your masterpieces would be enough to tempt me into a acquiring a Kindle! But enough of technology.
I must say, in Lisbeth Salander, you have created one hell of a character – an enigma indeed! If only I had a photographic memory like hers, I could at least remember how to spell the words I use in my own writing without the need for a spell checker on my computer, or an over-large version of the Concise Oxford Dictionary taking up valuable space on my over-full desk. Still… Oh! for the life of a published author… But it must have been a pain for you with drafts of the three manuscripts, presumably on A4 paper, spread all over your desk as you kept track of the various and complex threads of the Millennium story. (Do they have A4 in Sweden?)
Looking back, I think it was your plot that got me hooked. It was not the writing. I am sorry, but it may be a feature of the translation from Swedish to English – I’m not familiar with Reg’s work – but I do find the writing somewhat stilted. However, I do accept that it could, of course, be a function of my northern heritage. Or the fact that it appears to have been a UK edited American translation of your original Swedish… Now, there is potential for mixed messages, if ever there was! But, dear-o-dear, Stieg, did you really have to put a complete page-worth of shopping items from Ikea into the “The Girl Who Played with Fire”? For me – and I know this is wholly subjective – it was painful to read. It is bad enough that the interiors of many UK middle-class homes suffer from identikit Swedish-look decors, fuelled by the propensity of UK TV broadcasters to schedule make-over programmes that lack any sense of creativity and play on the lack of taste and mediocrity that are characteristic of the proletariat. But to have to read the names of items I have purposely avoided purchasing in the past, just did not do it for me.
I do like the idea of rogue departments of the security services being left out in the cold, forgotten and clearly up to no good. The clarity of this idea in the "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest" is superb. Globally, there must be a whole darn mess of them, particularly in both the UK and the US. Your trilogy raises some interesting political and social questions which you clearly had in mind when writing it. Yet I think the conflation of the social and political elements across the series lends a somewhat schizophrenic air to the plot – particularly in the first novel – that I feel is compounded by the titles. I do think that some might wonder if the "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" had an earlier and less feminine title at its first draft. (Quickly Googles for info: Men who hate Women; my question is answered.)
Was the first novel always a part of a trilogy? Or did you find by the end of the manuscript that the girl you had merely introduced to help the hero – Blomkvist – in the first novel, took on a role bigger than initially envisaged and, like a juggernaut, the plot started to take on a significant momentum as it careered down the slope of your narrative arc? Knowing something of the penchant of publishers and editors to change the work of the “artist” writer (and that fact that you were clearly unable, for obvious and wholly unfortunate reasons, to argue any differently), are you happy that the choice of titles for the English language edition do justice to the concept you held for the series? For my part, the first novel would have made more sense to me if the title had been more reflective of your original choice.
If, as I have said, I find the writing a little off for me, why might I agree with the popular voice in congratulating you on the success of your series? Why might I be writing to you, today, to add my voice to the millions of other readers who have enjoyed your work? Well, if I may, I will make an observation drawn on someone you may well have met recently (or if not, you should look him up and have a chat with him!) Oscar Wilde once said that “Anybody can write a three-volumed novel. It merely requires a complete ignorance of both life and literature.” (The Critic as an Artist.) Yet, he also said that “Literature always anticipates life. It does not copy it, but moulds it to its purpose.” (The Decay of Lying.) In the Millennium Trilogy, I feel that you have, indeed, moulded life for a purpose. Not “Anybody” could achieve such purpose and I thank you for demonstrating that. I think it is a shame that that purpose may well be obscured by its popularity – a product not of the artist but of the publishing industry.
My thoughts are with you.
Sincerely,
David Sartof
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Some thoughts on… Criticism… and another bunch of Lemmings!

Some thoughts, you ask? Well, yes… I don’t really do Critique Groups. Oh! I have been on at least one of the sites that Greg usefully, and helpfully, provided links to… but I left very much reminded of Lemming-aid (thanks for the prompt, Greg! Quite apposite!) So I thought I would get together with Oscar W. and rack my brains for some thoughts around the subject of criticism (and Lemmings).
Dreams…
A dreamer is one who can only find his way by moonlight, and his punishment is that he sees the dawn before the rest of the world.
OSCAR WILDE, The Critic as Artist
OK. So, if I stand here in the moonlight of my own existence, and I see what I see before anyone else, then what I write is my view...and there is no one with the authority to be able to critique what it is I see. Who are they that do not see what I see, to say that what I see cannot be seen or described so? What is the purpose of critique to the artist struggling with their dreams? Vision…
All great ideas are dangerous.
OSCAR WILDE, De Profundis
Art is subversive. It will threaten the understanding of some and challenge their views of their reality. Any artist true to their art, and writers are no exception, must expect that not everyone will like their work. Some may even be positively unpleasant in their slating and damnation of our words. The more dangerous you try to be with your ideas, the more negative reaction you can (and should) expect. Indeed if a whole damn mass of lemmings slate your work, you could be on to a winner! (…albeit posthumously)Risk…
Everything is dangerous, my dear fellow. If it wasn't so, life wouldn't be worth living.
OSCAR WILDE, The importance of Being Earnest
If you want to live as an artist, as a writer, then embrace danger… or you run the risk of not living your dream. Walk out in the moonlight and embrace the dawn… so what if you trip up on the way because you cannot see obstacles in front of you… but in seeing the dawn you can appreciate its originality and leave others (those few who are left who can connect with you) in awe of your ideas. Do not, as lemmings and critics (a.k.a. head lemmings) do, walk about in the day light seeing nothing new. Lemmings will walk over a cliff in the daylight – led by the chief critic! Expression…
Art never expresses anything but itself.
OSCAR WILDE, The Decay of Lying
If you live dangerously; if you embrace the dawn of your existence and no one else’s, then your art will never be anything other than your Art. Express what you see, not what others see (or want to see). If your writing calls for adverbs then what the heck? Why have adverbs, if they’re not required? It is your art, take control. As you practice your craft of writing in the process of expressing your art… you do not need a critic! It is not their vision, their idea or their danger. BUT DO USE AN EDITOR (AND PAY FOR A GOOD ONE!)Sincerity…
A little sincerity is a dangerous thing, and a great deal of it is absolutely fatal.
OSCAR WILDE, The Critic as Artist
Ah, Oscar! Sincerity? Sincerity of the artist or of the critic? Here is a paradox. If the artist is totally sincere in following their dream… is living dangerously… then, fatally, they may have no one who can see their dawn and all the artist sees is the bunch of lemmings gathered in another corner of the world following the me-too critics. And if the head lemming is overly sincere and cannot interest other lemmings in the danger of the artist’s vision, then, fatally, the artist who is more comfortable amongst lemmings will be an outcast and feel bad about it. Reality is, surely, where most artists are not totally sincere and neither are the critics… for without a lack of sincerity there would be no Art and no Critics. Arrogance…
The only thing that sustains one through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everybody else, and this is a feeling that I have always cultivated.
OSCAR WILDE, The Remarkable Rocket
The Artist, then, who is one who may have to stand apart from lemmings (and be happy about it), is conscious of the critical voice, but arrogant enough to take no heed, for, ultimately, the critic has little authority to comment on something they cannot truly see. But the critic is necessary… for the critic, as head of a bunch of lemmings, controls the destiny of lemmings and decides what the rest of the critters do. Do artists crave to be a member of the pack? Chose your critics wisely… not all lemmings are sane! Consistency…
Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.
OSCAR WILDE, Aristotle at Afternoon Tea
Consistency is both internal and external… something that good ole Oscar’s comment fails to acknowledge. On his behalf, then (such arrogance!) I feel I must offer a qualification. Consistency with the external environment, with what has gone before, may well gain the approval of the critics and lemmings that surround us, but it really is the last refuge of the unimaginative. Internal consistency, between our work as artists and the vision we are attempting to realise, is important. This is the sort of consistency that we risk sacrificing if we adopt to much critical input at too early a stage in our artistic process.
Conformity…When people agree with me, I always feel that I must be wrong.
OSCAR WILDE, The Critic as Artist
I’m letting Oscar have the last word here…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)