In
summer, I have time to write novels. Maybe someday I will actually publish one.
Writing
a novel is one of the closest experiences a human can have to being a Creator.
The writer creates a world that must make internal sense, and in which
something meaningful happens to characters about whom a reader can care. There
has to be what one agent called a “redemptive arc,” in which the character’s
struggles are resolved, even if the character dies. There has to be a balance;
if I introduce some important force into the story, I have to have it as part
of the resolution, and not leave it dangling. Perhaps most important, every
scene must advance the plot in some way. Especially in today’s fiction market,
there is no room for casual “asides.” (One famous example of an “aside” occurs in All the King’s Men, the novel about a corrupt governor in the early
twentieth century, in which Robert Penn Warren inserted a totally unrelated
story about adultery in the Civil War era.)
In
three of my novels, I have imbedded a short story. In Edd’s Land, I imbedded Plantation
Odyssey; in Nancy’s War, I
imbedded Strangers in Green Hollow;
and in Q’s the Name, I imbedded Seaside Alders. Each of the imbedded
stories is a piece that was conceived as an independent novel but had no chance
of surviving to term on its own. But I couldn’t just stick them in; I had to
make them advance the main plot of the novel. In all three cases, I figured a
way to do so.
In
one of my novels, I realized that I needed to introduce the two main characters
on page one. I had introduced one of them on page one, the other on page three;
I realized this was a defective structure.
I
also have a tendency to put in intellectual speeches, usually about religion
and botany. But when I do so, I make sure they, too, advance the plot.
To
have a careful structure that carries the reader along on a journey of
understanding without confusing them or tripping them up or making them have to
work hard to figure things out; most readers are tired, even the ones who seek
understanding rather than cheap thrills. This is what it means to be a Creator.
But
when you look at the universe, this is not what you see. I will give just one
example. Genes of DNA (the genome) encodes the proteins that do the work of the
cell. But in every case, the gene is broken up into fragments by introns, and
separated by non-genetic DNA. As a matter of fact, the non-genetic DNA
comprises at least 98 percent of the DNA in the cell! In some cases, as with
the photosynthetic enzyme ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase, part of the enzyme
is encoded in the nucleus, and another part in the chloroplast, before being
assembled. It is a jumble of confusion. Nobody understands it. Nobody can look
at the structure of genes and say, “Behold! Now I understand the mind of God.”
Francis Collins tried, bless his heart, but it didn’t work. It looks like a
Rube Goldberg apparatus. The
only reason that gene expression works at all is that natural selection gets
rid of any that do not work, and there must have been, over billions of years,
a lot of failures. In addition, the genome contains lots and lots and lots of
dead viruses.
In
other words, God is either a Rube Goldberg, or is not a Creator in the
fundamentalist sense.
Whoever
“wrote” the genome of a typical human (or flatworm or tree) was not doing what
a human creator does, giving it a logical or even comprehensible structure. The
genome is more like a computer drive in which not only is the final document
saved but also all of the fragments and editorial comments appear in the form
of blockout print. Who would ever think of sending “John walked down the road This
part is confusing. Why was he walking down the road toward isn’t it
supposed to be towards? his destination Well where else would he be
walking but his destination? Insert the scene from the beginning of chapter 3
here” to an editor?
The
creation is not like a movie, even a bad one. It is like a movie in which all
of the outtakes from the cutting-room floor are inserted at random places in
the movie. No competent author would look to the genome for inspiration about
how to write.
You're right. In a novel, the bits of information that seem random oftentimes prove to be very important later on in the plot. In life, things are seem much more random.
ReplyDeleteI don't write novels, but I do write academic arguments. Even in non-fiction, though, I would be hard pressed to say exactly how I get my ideas. (I know that is not what you are talking about, but the creative process is a fascination of mine.) I wrote the introduction to the latest book I am editing right after the election. I would say that the situation inspired/galvanized me to write.
ReplyDelete