Memories of the 28th Century

The Editor's thread that asks"Who is your favorite literary character?" brought this blog back to mind, especially since I mentioned some of the same characters.

I was thinking about people and how they describe themselves. Most people can't be counted on to accurately characterize themselves, although there are exceptions. I was rereading the Flashman chronicles because I got so annoyed at bad writing when I read Dan Simmons' Empyrion. Fraser had Flashman characterize himself, and Flashman was brutally honest, but, like most people, Flashman's view of himself wasn't completely accurate.

Most people will mention that they are something that they aspire to be, something that they lack but wish to have. And that characteristic is truer for businesses than for individuals. When I hear someone say, "I'm very creative." I expect to see a good deal of imitative behavior from that person. While if I hear someone say that he or she tries to create something, that person may actually be creative. When I see an ad that says that company X stands for high quality, I expect to see low quality work from that company, and I am seldom disappointed.

This sort of view toward self-characterization makes me a very bad consumer based on reaction to advertisements. I usually see that something is said to be delicious and assume that it doesn't taste good. I suppose that there are people who are very greatly influenced by the opinions who would think that because someone says it's delicious, it must be delicious. I don't know how such people think, but there are products that have no reason to exist, but people buy them anyway.

Writing in the first person allows the author to put the reader inside the point-of-view character, and it forces the reader to judge the thoughts and actions of the character in a way that is similar to how a person does that in real life. I like works of fiction that are ambiguous. I frequently mention "William Wilson" by E. A. Poe in critiques as an example of a well written, ambiguous work of fiction, and that story is a first person monologue. As with Flashman, there is a good question as to the accuracy of the narrator's description of himself and events. Everyone sees and acts based on their judgments of what is going on.

It is impossible to know what another person thinks, but the best way to understand people is to watch what they do, rather than listening to what they say about themselves. What people say about themselves online is often a lie, but, whether online or off, it is better to watch what people do than to heed their self-characterizations. People who claim that such-and-such is true in loud voices are telling me that they wish that such-and-such were true, and that they hope by making enough noise, that people will come to believe that that thing is true. Demagogues commonly use that ploy to push across their agenda, and many people, perhaps a majority, come to believe things that are said loudly and often.

Alas, I am a skeptic; I believe little of what I hear or read. When I want to find something out, I observe it, and I try to test it. When testing isn't an option, I try to reason it out from known facts. When it comes to people, I have learned that most people operate on a rather basic, primal, level. Their motivation is survival, both personal and for their DNA. I am also motivated by such factors, but I try to be aware of their operation. When someone makes some claim, I try to figure out how that would lead a better chance for that person's DNA to survive. The answer varies in each situation, but there usually is a simple answer. I am not yet certain as to how some spiritualists expect their claims to be of some advantage, but I'll figure that out someday.

Regarding Flashman, having read the entire series, I have come to the conclusion that Flashman's observations of the world were quite accurate, but his reflections on himself were exaggerated. He was regarded as a hero, but he considered himself a coward. He had regard for self-preservation, but he found himself in many dangerous positions. He reacted wisely, he tried to get away from the danger, and he succeeded. He survived innumerable brushes with death. His survival and the proximity to danger were, and still are, regarded as signs of bravery. That he ran whenever possible was a sign of intelligence and good instincts. Only a complete fool doesn't try to avoid deadly situations, and those sorts don't usually survive.

In my judgment, Flashman was an excellent example of people in general, and Fraser should be admired for creating such a character. Having read the whole series, I tried to find truly vile things that he had done, and the only one that I could think of was the sexual act with Nareeman in the first volume. She had been given to him for the night, and he took her although she wasn't willing. In the time and place that wasn't a criminal act, although it would be today. Certainly he engaged in sexual intercourse as often as possible, but that is a very human act. Certainly he avoided danger whenever possible, but that is simply intelligent behavior. If I met the man, I would be able to criticize him only for his act with Nareeman, and he would hang his head and admit his fault. Then we could have a few drinks and he could lie to me about his near scrapes with death, or maybe tell me what he did in the Civil War.

I wonder what a cyber-stalker would think of me from the tracks that I have left online. I have tried to avoid making statements about myself except where required. In those cases I have been as absurdly false as possible or completely honest, at least as I see things.

*****

The reason why I starting rereading the Flashman series was that Simmons' Empyrion was incomplete. There was a huge amount of development, but there was no resolution. Although the Flashman series is a series, each volume is complete; there is conflict resolution. The ending of each suggested that there would be further activity, but that was an extra; the conflict in the novel was resolved. The development in each novel points toward the ending and toward resolution, but in "Empyrion" the development points toward something that is beyond the book itself; the conflict was developed but completely unresolved. I will give Simmons credit for being a pretty good writer, but he left in too many purple patches; he failed to murder his darlings. His story was overdeveloped. If he had resolved the conflict, and the resolution was as dramatic as some of the development, I could forgive some of the purple patches; but he didn't, so I can't. Fraser also has some bits of truly beautiful writing, but he cast them as Flashman's thoughts, so any criticism of those is a criticism of Flashman's personality, and that is deserving of a great deal of criticism.