In Comes Romeo, he’s moaning…

(Bonus points if you get the reference in the title.  If not, click here).

I think by now we all know I’m a Shakespeare fan – I’m not a true Shakespeare nerd, because I haven’t read and seen them all, but I am a fan.  And one of my favorite Shakespeare plays is Romeo & Juliet … at least in theory.

I say “at least in theory” because I have so rarely seen a performance of the play that even came close to doing it justice.  Romeo & Juliet isn’t a Harlequin Romance Novel or Disney Princess Movie that incongruously ends with everyone dead.  It’s a tragedy, and a far more brutal tragedy than MacBeth or Hamlet, because the violence doesn’t just kill people, it kills love and hope.  It ends, not with a sword fight, but with a suicide.  It consumes the city of Verona with a hatred so deep it becomes unconscious and dehumanizing.

The opening conversation between (Act I, Scene i) two Capulet servants is often omitted or cut to little more than an issued challenge, but it is by far the most telling and important conversation in the play.  I’ve quoted the most relevant part below.  You can find the whole script here.

SAMPSON A dog of the house of Montague moves me.

GREGORY To move is to stir; and to be valiant is to stand: therefore, if thou art moved, thou runn’st away.

SAMPSON A dog of that house shall move me to stand: I will take the wall of any man or maid of Montague’s.

GREGORY That shows thee a weak slave; for the weakest goes to the wall.

SAMPSON True; and therefore women, being the weaker vessels, are ever thrust to the wall: therefore I will push Montague’s men from the wall, and thrust his maids
to the wall.

GREGORY The quarrel is between our masters and us their men.

SAMPSON ‘Tis all one, I will show myself a tyrant: when I have fought with the men, I will be cruel with the maids, and cut off their heads.

GREGORY The heads of the maids?

SAMPSON Ay, the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads; take it in what sense thou wilt.

GREGORY They must take it in sense that feel it.

SAMPSON Me they shall feel while I am able to stand: and ’tis known I am a pretty piece of flesh.

So they’re standing around talking smack about the Montagues, Gregory’s egging Sampson on by questioning his courage.  Sampson is bragging about how he will kill the Montague men and then rape and/or kill the Montague women.  “Maidenhead,” as you know, is Elizabethan-era slang for the hymen in particular and virginity in general.  This is basically two guys out on the street talking smack … glorifying the rape and murder of the Montagues.  Gregory and Sampson aren’t actually Capulets; they’re servants of the Capulets.  They barely even have any stake in this feud, but the generational feud has generated such an atmosphere of hatred that this is what they talk about when they’re not working: rape and murder.

The premise of Romeo & Juliet isn’t that love conquers all: it most assuredly does not.  The moral is that an unwillingness to forgive will destroy everything that you love, leaving nothing but guilt and grief behind, and that the cycle of hate and destruction will not end until both sides have suffered enough to learn to forgive.  Considering the 20th century’s history of ethnic cleansing and genocide, Shakespeare’s ending may have actually been overly optimistic.

It drives me straight up the wall to see this play watered down, presented like a love story, stripped of all the violence and ugliness of the vendetta.  I’ve seen the Royal Shakespearean company do this (I almost thought they’d just misprinted the programs, and I was really watching Much Ado About Nothing until the end, when everyone died), I’ve seen Hollywood do this (more than once, though I’ll admit that Gnomeo and Juliet won me over, despite it all).

The only version I’ve ever seen that captured the violence and ugliness was Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 Romeo + Juliet, which kept the Shakespearean script but used modern-day settings, clothes, etc.  The Sampson and Gregory dialogue was replaced by a fairly brutal, extended fight that conveyed the same information to audiences who might not know what “maidenhead” meant or get the significance of pushing people “to the wall” or “off the walls.”

A lot of people criticize this film for using modern sets and costumes, but ironically, it’s the only production of the play I have ever seen that is actually faithful to the script.

Luhrmann’s film to emphasize the feud’s engrained violence, the privilege of nobility, and the crushing atmosphere this provided, creating an atmosphere so full of hate and vengeance that love may well have been the ultimate rebellion.

So… you may be asking, what has this got to do with anything?

Well, the message of Romeo & Juliet is a powerfully moral one, one that we can all learn from: if we cannot learn to forgive, we will destroy everything we love.  But that message cannot shine out if  someone, for whatever reason, blunts the darkness and ugliness.  Without that darkness and ugliness, Romeo and Juliet’s love becomes just another love story, not a singular point of light in a violent, hateful, ugly city of darkness.  Without that darkness and ugliness, the destruction of their love seems just like a bummer, and ending that doesn’t make sense, something Shakespeare should have revised.  Or worse, their deaths seem romantic, like the end of Wuthering Heights, and the entire point is lost.

You all know I’ve been wrestling with my writing – harsh language, the darkness of the subject matter, the violence itself (especially in my Blood Oath trilogy).  And thinking about Romeo & Juliet has made me reconsider another angle.  I can’t self-censor to the point that the most important part of the story gets lost, muddled in a respectable, slightly dim haze.  If I have any light to share, I must show it as truthfully as possible, even if that means going into a dark, violent, ugly place.  And I won’t feel ashamed about it, either.

Advertisements

On Symbolism (Part 1 of 2)

I’ve been thinking a lot about symbolism lately, and the different forms it can take, specifically, how to do it well or poorly as a writer.  Of course, I’m writing this with myself in mind: your mileage may vary, I am not a lifecoach, etc… but this is what I like to read and how I like to write.

People sometimes like to read a complex symbolism into every possible detail of a story.  That’s fine, if they get more out of the story that way, but I don’t think writers should necessarily write with this in mind.  For example, Flannery O’Connor was once interviewed by a reporter who seemed fixated on the color of Misfit’s hat (in the short story A Good Man is Hard to Find).  He kept asking, rephrasing, and re-asking why the murderous man wore a black hat, until O’Connor famously replied, “To cover his head!”  Sometimes a black hat is just a black hat, to paraphrase Sigmund Freud.

That said, symbolism can be a good thing, since it can add complexity and emotional depth to a story, if it’s done well.  Basically, there are two ways to do symbolism: internal and external symbolism (I believe these are my terms, but I may be borrowing them without remembering where I heard them).

External symbolism involves the use of common symbols, colors, visuals, etc. that will hopefully convey meaning to the readers.  This would include such things as the color of a character’s hat or eyes, meaningful character names, etc.  Generally, this kind of symbolism is the only kind available to artists, poets, songwriters, and others who work in direct media.

External symbolism can be powerful, if it is used well.  Sometimes it works perfectly within the setting: Benedict wears a long, black coat to conceal the weapons he carries, a completely practical reason.  But anyone who’s ever heard Nick Cave’s “Red Right Hand” (which itself references John Milton’s Paradise Lost) or Bob Dylan’s “Man in the Long Black Coat” will recognize the similarity.  Everyone else will see the resemblance to the black cloak worn by the grim reaper, the black coats worn by gunslingers in old western movies, black as the color of mourning and grief, etc.  Long black (coat/cloak/dress/veil) represents death, but from Benedict’s perspective, he just needs a place to hide his guns and machete.

Naming children after saints was a common practice in the Middle Ages, and so we have Benedict, Augustine, and Juliana.  I almost backed away from this, because ‘meaningful’ names are just about the most hokey and overused piece of external symbolism out there.  The truth is, I couldn’t imagine any other names for them.  These were their names, and everything else seemed terribly false.  Still, I tried to stay away from anything symbolic in other characters’ names.

I believe that authors need to keep external symbolism on a short leash, because it has the tendency to get very hokey and pretentious very quickly.  However, as fiction writers, we have the power to use internal symbolism.

Internal symbolism involves things that are symbolic to the characters:  A pair of ravens follow, haunt, and help direct Benedict, so he nicknames them Memory and Thought, after the two ravens that attended Odin … and because memories of what he has lost haunt him, and thoughts of revenge drive him onward.  He buys a pair of high-powered pistols, and has them engraved with silver raven’s heads and wings, naming one Memory and the other Thought.

You could even call Benedict, Augustine, and Juliana’s names examples of internal symbolism: their parents named them after saints, hoping to encourage righteousness and (perhaps superstitiously) to ensure good fortune, borrowing a bit of the saints’ surplus grace and favor with God by attaching their names to their children.

At first this seemed to be going well: Benedict was a womanizer, but he was a strong man, a warrior, and possessed enough tactical and logistical sense to take over the knightly estate when his father passed.  Augustine was studying to go into the priesthood, since rules of primogeniture meant the elder son (Benedict) inherited the entire estate, and Augustine just got the family name.  Juliana wanted to join a convent, but had submitted to her father’s will that she marry another nobleman’s son, to help unite their fiefdoms and build their fortunes together.

Then it all fell apart.  Juliana was murdered, Augustine became a vampire lord, immortal and incredibly powerful for a millennium, and Benedict swore revenge, if it took a thousand years.  Now, Juliana is dead, Augustine is a creature of darkness, and Benedict is a vengeful, wandering killer.  That they carry the names of the saints is a bitter irony, especially to Benedict, who once believed in the church with superstitious fervor (clearly, that belief didn’t extend to sober living or chastity, but that is so often the case), and now finds himself as alienated from church and God as his brother.

Well, this has turned into an unusually long post.  I’ll leave it here, and perhaps return to it soon.  I haven’t touched on the symbolism in The Red Lands yet, and I haven’t given any advice on where the line is between too much and just right (in part because I’ve hardly “proven in” enough to be giving advice, and in part because that line is pretty subjective).  I’ll try to tackle that in my next post.

Reference:

I’ve heard about this from a number of places, but the source that really taught me the most is James Frey’s How to Write a Damn Good Novel.  I ordinarily don’t recommend books on writing by people who aren’t currently making a living as fiction writers (Frey is making bank from writing books about writing now, and to the best of my knowledge hasn’t published any novels in over a decade), but this is a good book by a novelist who did quite well for himself for many years, written when that fiction success was still quite fresh.  In some ways, it’s a bit dated, and in others, I just outright disagree (Rewriting is not writing.  Period.  It’s editing, and not all writers are good editors.  Dean Wesley Smith is 100% right on this one).

No Innocent Use of Violence

“Peace?  I hate the word, as I hate hell, all Montagues, and thee!”

– Tybalt, Romeo & Juliet, by William Shakespeare.

I’ve spent the last couple of months trying to find something to believe in, so to speak, writing-wise.  It struck me so hard that not only was there a problem with the ultimately nihilistic take-away message of Blood for Blood but with its casual acceptance of violence.

One thing I took (and still take) pride in was Blood for Blood’s very human portrayal of vampires, their complex society, the steps they’ve taken to tame their violent urges, and the costs they’ve paid for that.  The flip side of this is that killing them is morally no different than killing a human; they’re not the monsters of Stephen King’s Salem’s Lot, not subhuman or demonic.

Something I learned from reading Laurel K. Hamilton’s Anita Blake stories was that you can always write a character into a situation where brutality, even torture (or whatever else you feel like writing), is the “only way out” or “the right thing to do.”  Inside a book or story, the writer is, effectively, a god, and holds a god’s responsibility for the situations his or her characters find themselves in.

So, no, I won’t fall back on the tired excuse that Benedict’s use of violence was necessary in the situations I put him in.  From his perspective it was … but I wrote him into those situations, and so the word “necessary” hardly applies to me.

Miroslav Volf said, “One could sketch scenarios where I very clearly wouldn’t think that it would be morally responsible not to deploy violence. Nonetheless, repentance for violence would be in order even in those situations; in my view there is no innocent use of violence.

My friend Sally said much the same thing some time earlier (we were talking about World War II and personal self-defense), but I wasn’t ready to hear it then.  Sorry, Sally.  You were right.

To clarify, I’m not a pacifist, and I even worry about parents who are totally nonviolent.  Adults can consent to a friend or lover or spouse who won’t lift a hand to defend them, but children can’t.  I mean, I respect their conviction, but I do worry about the unintended consequences.

And I don’t believe it’s right to call yourself a pacifist and then dial 911 so the police will protect you.  That’s just passing the buck to someone else.  If you’re unwilling to fight to defend yourself, then fine, but don’t ask someone else to do it for you, and then call yourself non-violent.

No, I’m not saying you shouldn’t call 911 in a violent situation; you should.  But if you do, you should own up to the fact that you’ve just responded to violence (the assailant) with violence (the police and their guns).  A bullet wound bleeds just the same if it was a cop or a civilian’s finger that pulled the trigger.

And if you do have to defend yourself, I believe in using the most effective means available to you.  For me, in the US, that means firearms … but I pray that I never have to so much as point one at another human being, much less pull the trigger.

I don’t believe in letting violent aggressors have their way, to let Genghis Khan kill his 40 million, in the name of nonviolence.  Are we really to be so Kantian that the consequences of our action and inaction don’t matter, so long as our means are pure?  Surely not.  Just as the ends don’t justify the means, neither do the means justify the ends.  We are responsible for our actions and inactions and their consequences.

But I don’t believe in looking for trouble, either.

I don’t believe in using verbal violence and expecting the situation not to escalate to physical violence.  If you want to have peace, you must speak peacefully.

I also don’t believe in going into dangerous situations unnecessarily.  I keep away from places where I’m likely to fall into violence – you can call this personal security, cowardice, or peacefulness if you like: perhaps it’s a bit of all three.

Oh, yeah, I don’t believe in shooting someone over property, either, whether you’re a homeowner or a government.  My TV is not worth killing over.  Nobody’s is, even if it’s 52 inches.

So why was I so fast to write, and effectively, glorify a character who hunts and kills people (vampires, but people-vampires, not rabid beast-vampires) as a vocation?  Looking back, I can think of   reasons:

  • I accepted the cultural acceptance and glorification of “good guy” violence.  It’s there in American, Japanese, Hong Kong/Chinese, and at least some European media (media being the main cultural transmission means), and I pretty much grew up surrounded by it.  Kurt Willems has a great series on nonviolence.  Part 7 addresses “The Myth of Redemptive Violence.”
  •  When my Granddaddy, a World War II veteran, was still alive, I didn’t read the subtext in his conversations about the war.  I knew he only told stories about supply runs and flight-testing repaired airplanes, and virtually none about his combat sorties (and those only in the vaguest terms, as compared to the vivid detail of his other stories).  It never penetrated my soul that the reason he didn’t talk about the combat missions were because they were the worst thing that he’d ever experienced, even though he’d volunteered for the Army Air Corps and volunteered for the combat missions after he’d been in the Air Corps for over two years.  I completely missed the point.
  • As I’ve mentioned before, I really wasn’t paying much attention when I wrote Blood for Blood.  I was just so glad to be writing that I planned a basic Algis Budrys-style 7-point story outline for each section and bulldozed ahead.  There is a lot of good stuff in there, but I was pretty much driving blind.  “Without a vision, the people perish,” as King Solomon said … or, as my friend Nathan says, you have to have intentionality if you want to make something good.

Don’t get me wrong: I like adventure stories.  I like action.  But as my friend Nathan said, “there’s a difference between action and violence.”  It’s always easier to put them both together, but easy isn’t necessarily good.

Hello, Hello…

That’s not the title of a Britcom about the French Resistance, a line from a Shakespeare’s Sister song, nor a line from Melissa Etheridge’s “No Souvenirs;” it’s me (or rather, it is I) saying hello to my reading public.

And who am I, you might ask?  Brent Dedeaux, and I write what might best be called “Immortal Fiction.”  You might also call it urban-historical fantasy, because it involves horror elements, like vampires, in an urban fantasy style (ie, they’re not monsters, they’re people.  Some of them are horrible people, but they’re people), and most of the work is set in the past.

I’m not stuck in the past, though. In fact, I’m writing my way toward the present.  My first series of novellas, Blood for Blood, of which book one, No Beast So Fierce is available here at the Kindle Store, starts in 1900 and moves through New Year’s Day 2000.

I’ll be posting here pretty regularly, talking about new material, my writing process, and any interesting links I happen to find.

Enjoy!