220 Sleeps until Rome

As prep for our holiday trip, I have just read and loved Basilica: The Splendor and the Scandal: Building St. Peter’s, by R.A. Scott. It’s got almost everything I love in a book: History! Popes! Architecture! More History!

Okay, there wasn’t a lot of girl in the thing (as The Spike might say: “What a cockfest!”) but it was a dramatic and thoroughly entertaining read about a building process so immense and protracted that parts of it are incredibly hard to credit.

I have always been a one book at a time type of reader but in recent weeks I’ve been trying to have both a novel and something non-fictional on the go. As a result, Basilica has been sharing time and head-space with Josh Lanyon’s The Dark Farewell, a post-war gay romance serial killer novel (see previous comment by Spike) which one of you recommended. Was it you?

Characterization: getting versus wanting

There is a catchy phrase that comes up in various types of motivational speaking:

“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”

I’ve known this one for awhile, and as far as fortune-cookie delivered Life Lessons go, I agree with the underlying philosophy. But K and I were walking in the West End last weekend, and we came upon a commercial sandwich board with this taped on it:

“If you want something you’ve never had, you have to do something you’ve never done.”

Also catchy, and in some ways the exact same message, but I’m fascinated by the difference in nuance that comes with the altered wording. The first has such a freight of passivity: the ‘you’ is getting something–presumably something they no longer want, or maybe never did. My imagination is offering up a steaming bucket of something from a stable-mucking, delivered weekly to your door.

The second, meanwhile is about wanting something new. It’s about running to, rather than running away.

Both get the general idea across quite succinctly–but the latter phrasing is more positive, more of a call to action. In comparison, the first is a bit of a finger wag, a lecture from a judgmental imaginary parent figure. “If you’re just gonna insist on playing your electric guitar in the hot tub, young fella, don’t come crying to me when you do the electric boogaloo.”

It is easy to imagine the one phrase as a draft and the other as revision, the one as good enough wording and the second as a perfected version, as final copy. It’s especially easy because, as writers, we frown on certain types of linguistic passiveness. In reality, they are two different takes on the same idea, gleaned from different sources.

Still. It may be useful to think of them that way, perhaps especially when we talk about making our characters more active. Are they getting what they always got when they’re meant to be pulling a novel forward? Do they want something they never had? Do they want anything at all?

Finally, how do you shift them to chasing their desires, if what they’ve really been doing is just opening up the door every morning to see what life has handed them?

***
On another topic, word metrics on the current wip: Saturday, 450 words. Sunday, 822.

Stanley Park

Stanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley Park
Stanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley Park
Stanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley Park
Stanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley ParkStanley Park

I’m still getting to know Stanley Park a bit better; saw my first duckling of the season yesterday on a walk around Lost Lagoon, and checked to see if there were any heron babies. The swans are nesting and the thing I find most remarkable about this is how incredibly huge the nests are. There were scaups galore (lesser, I think) and a billion red-winged blackbirds, too.

Medici Money

Before I read Deathless, I read Medici Money: Banking, Metaphysics, and Art in Fifteenth-Century Florence

The raw info in this book was excellent. The intricacies of how bankers managed to profit from the exchange of money without charging interest (Christians were forbidden to practice usury at the time, on pain of excommunication) and the description of the backstabbing Florentine politics was great. I do love a little backstabbing political intrigue.

Something about Tim Parks’s style didn’t quite do it for me, though. He would slip into a dreamy narrative tone, meant to evoke the time and place, the mindset of the players. Usually I love that kind of thing, but somehow with this particular book I found it jarring and ineffective. I’m reading Basilica: The Splendor and the Scandal: Building St. Peter’s, by R.A. Scotti, and in terms of writing style I’m enjoying that a lot more.

My complaint about Parks is a matter of taste, though, not so much failure of execution. And it seems almost ungrateful to say so, because reading this book definitely enriched the story I was working on at the time.

On another note: the word count for Wednesday-Thursday’s writing session is: 2603, bringing the total to 23,328.