Conformance, Group Dynamics, and Writing

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)

Written by Frank R | 23 November 2008
Posted in SOMM Blogs - Ranting

This is a very unusual posting, since this is the converse between a guy named Charley and I. The reason why I'm posting is simple enough, a good insight to the inner workings of people on the web and their actions. This post is also great if you're an inspiring writer. It's a long read, but very informative, I hope you enjoy it!

I think it is fair to say, we agree to disagree. I do not feel that I need to adjust or form to the norm in order to get an opinion or a point across. Yes, I did come off with confidence and usually in the online world; it is dealt swiftly with anger. The reactions that I get push me forward to one day be a great writer and with my last breath, know that I leave behind a legacy.

It is the nature of the world that I seek to fully understand and possibly change one day. One must conform in order to change; but through conformance, you lose your initial truth and eccentricity. I am the first to say I have a lot to learn about the ways of the world and the people, writing and simply relating to others. It is through exchanges like this one with you, that I continue to learn and grow.

I thank you for your advice and words,

Frank

Dear Frank,

First, I apologize for such a long note, but a shorter one would take much longer, and I wanted to address your last note before going off to bed. Depending on MySpace, I may have to break it into parts.

You have misunderstood me. I have never been one to conform, nor do I advocate it for others. However, I do advocate understanding human nature and using it for leverage rather than trying to fight it. If you really think fighting human nature and its application to group dynamics is a good idea, please, don't stop with MySpace fora. Instead, try a real world example. Find a biker bar in a tough neighborhood and strut right in. Better yet. Strut in stark naked and yell, "Only pussies ride bikes." Considering most folks are wary of crazy people, you might even live through the experience.

More seriously, though, understanding human nature is the key to success in getting things done. And that doesn't matter whether your goal is a best-selling novel or winning a war. The greatest writer in the English language understood human nature. (In fact, if you're a reading man, I highly recommend A. D. Nuttall's Shakespeare the Thinker.) That's why his plays and works are still read and performed more than 400 years after many of them were written. Shakespeare was hardly a conformist. One of Nuttall's theories is that Shakespeare was probably a Roman Catholic in a country and at a time where that profession of faith could get one tortured to death in a rather grisly fashion.

On the other hand, Shakespeare's plays work on many levels and for many audiences, from the bawdy to the reserved. (Did you know that one of Shakespeare's plays refers to analingus? Do they mention that in high school English class?)

So, the question of conformance vs. nonconformance is how far is one willing to go? Is one willing to flaunt one's non-conformance to the point where one is disemboweled while living and then drawn and quartered? Is one willing to stand up to a bashing on an Internet forum? Both very nice and terribly brave shows. But seldom very effective. And for those wishing to leave a real and lasting legacy, effectiveness is the key.

There was another author whom you probably haven't heard of. His name was James Branch Cabell, and he was on the other end of the spectrum of non-conformance. Outwardly, he appeared relatively normal and living a normal life. But in his writings, he skewered every convention, and did it with what a politician would call plausible deniability. Cabell wrote very metaphorically. He was actually writing about Virginia and Virginia politics, but like Shakespeare, he wrote in such a way as to make the stories accessible to any human audience at any time. He was writing in the first half of the twentieth century, and when some prude and his organization tried to get one of Cabell's books banned (Jurgen), Cabell managed to win the trial with a phrase on the order of, "Sometimes a sword is just a sword, a lance is just a lance, and a spear is just a spear."

Now, because Cabell was both metaphorical and extremely lyrical in his writing, he expected his audience to work a bit to get it. And let's face it, most people would rather watch TV than actually think. So, his audience has been much less since the advent of TV, but some of his books are still in print even today. So, while remembered by some 80 years later, he probably won't last the 400 Shakespeare has managed. You might want to consider a more centrist approach to your own non-conformance. You don't have to hit people over the head with it and get beaten in return, but you also might want to be a bit bolder than Cabell's approach, especially given your current age.

So, for learning a little more to work with human nature instead of against it, I can recommend two other books. The first might be dated in some of the specifics, but the principles hold true. Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince. The second is a more universally distilled elaboration of the more famous elder work. The newer work is Robert Greene's The 48 Laws of Power.

As a writer/artist, I can recommend two books also. One is Ben Bova's The Craft of Writing Science Fiction that Sells. Second is The Poetry Home Repair Manual by Ted Kooser. Mr. Kooser was a recent Poet Laureate of the US. I have a review of this latter book here: http://www.poetrybase.info/reviews/000/001.shtml.

Now, perhaps you might object to these book titles in a number of ways. For instance, you may not be writing science fiction or poetry. 99% of the rules that are mentioned in these two books are universal for all writing. Good writing is good writing. The genre doesn't matter. Shakespeare worked in plays and poetry. Within the plays, he worked with comedies, tragedies, and histories. He applied the same rules and ideas to plays and poetry both. And those rules also apply to science fiction and philosophy. In fact writing philosophy well has more in common with writing poetry well than any other genre. "Why?" you might ask. Because in order to convey philosophy to the common man, one uses analogies. In the Bible, these analogies are often called parables. In poetry, we use terms like metaphor and simile. Those analogies help lead to telling a good story that helps share an understanding. I once taught a man about the actions of dominant and recessive genes through comparing it to a baseball and baseball mitt. The ball can be hidden by the mitt, but you can't hide the mitt with a ball.

A second objection to the first title might be the famous objection of the artiste. Why would you want to write for the masses and write books that sell? You're looking for a more rarified and intelligent audience. You don't have to have books selling like J. K. Rowling's to make your mark. No, you're so brilliant that your ideas will sell themselves. (Despite the second person, don't construe this as an attack. This is an attitude I've often encountered and may have nothing to do with you.)

The problem with the artiste attitude is that it is, again, working against human nature. People are not willing to wade through something that is poorly written and uninteresting to find some juicy nugget. The partial exception is if they know upfront that the nuggets are there. But most people aren't willing to wade through even if they know something good is buried deep and they have to sift through it. Again. It's human nature. You saw it in your MySpace thread. Your first sentence was not one to really capture attention and draw the reader in. One of Ted Kooser's lines is to "think of your writing as if it were a guest in the reader's home." Even better, a guest which is trying to wangle an invite to dinner at the reader's home. One doesn't get invited to dinner by yelling, "I'm great, bow before my ideas!" (Again, this is a characterization of the artiste attitude and does not necessarily reflect your own behavior, attitudes, or post on MySpace.) Or, if it helps, think of it as trying to get into a girl's knickers. You do things to catch the girl's interest, even if the particular strategy is to ignore her. Readers are the same way. You have to catch their interest. You have to sell your writing and ideas.

How does one sell ideas? Usually, by understanding human nature and by telling a good story. Present the idea in a palatable way. How do you make it palatable? Know your audience first. (Which is what I was advocating in my last note.) Understand their attitudes and conceptions regarding the idea or paradigm they have. Analyze what it will take to shift them to the new idea. Another bit of human nature: if something is truly new, it will take the average person seven-plus-or-minus-two times (five to nine times) to get the concept and learn it. That means you have to take a campaign approach to present the idea in different ways that won't bore the reader.

A good writer does not have to write at the lowest common denominator. J. K. Rowling laced her books with all sorts of abstruse references to real people, to old myths. She used Latin for many of her spells. She had puzzles built into people's names, such as Remus Lupin, who is a werewolf. Remus comes from one of the twin brothers who founded Rome: Romulus and Remus. The myth is that they were raised and suckled by a she-wolf as babies. Lupin also means wolf. And here this fellow is revealed near the end of the book to be a werewolf? I had a good idea of it from his name. Another werewolf in her stories is Fenrir Grayback. The mythological Fenrir was also sometimes known as the Fenris Wolf. So, here she is writing for an intelligent audience, but also writing for the less intelligent and knowledgeable. If you don't know where the names come from, does it make the story less understandable? No. "Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear!" That is what a good writer does. He works in layers and is well-rewarded for it. Especially in this day and age.

I have a lot more information about writing in the "Tips" section of my site that I linked above.

Also feel free to continue the dialogue. I've written some of these things so many times to young writers that I've become a bit anticipatory to their objections, whether they have them or not.

Charley

(Editor's Note: This blog post was originally posted on March 17, 2008)

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

| More...

Tags: , Conformance, English, Group Dynamics, Thought-Provoking, Writing