What's the Best Balance in Conveying a Foreign Setting?

With Sarah still traipsing around Portugal, we've got another guest blogger today. Sean Kinsell thinks of himself as a newbie in fiction writing, not realizing just how good he really is. Sarah, Kate and I are currently aiming our steel-toed boots at him as a means of encouragement for him to finish his first novel. This blog stems, I think, from one of the questions he's asking himself right now as he writes. -- Amanda

##

One of the first things you're hit over the head with when you study Japanese literature is how hard it is to translate. That's partially for easily explicable reasons: Japanese and English are structured very differently, and ambiguities and associations are possible in each that are not possible in the other.

But of course with Japanese it goes much further than that. Even more than the rest of East Asia, Japan has a reputation for mystery and paradox that, one is frequently given to understand, the Western mind doesn't have the tools to grasp. That the Japanese have equal difficulty understanding us, despite our reputed forthrightness and literal-mindedness, somehow gets less play. Users of any language (such as writers) rely on shared cultural assumptions that may not obtain for the audience of a translation, and there are times when that barrier is impossible to get around. The problem with a lot of authors who deal with Japanese is that they tend to assume that that barrier is a feature, not a bug. Lots of translations of Japanese literature have a resolutely flat quality; it's supposed, I think, to suggest a placid surface with a lot actually stirring underneath, but it often just comes off affectless.

And the problem doesn't just come up with translations; literature written in English about Japan often has the same kind of flaws--sing-song prose and would-be profound paradoxes on every page. An example that really stuck in my craw was Arthur Golden's Memoirs of a Geisha, which opened like this:

Suppose that you and I were sitting in a quiet room overlooking a garden, chatting and sipping at our cups of green tea while we talked about something that had happened a long while ago, and I said to you, “That afternoon when I met so-and-so…was the very best afternoon of my life, and also the very worst afternoon.” I expect you might put down your teacup and say, “Well, now, which was it? Was it the best or the worst? Because it can’t possibly have been both!”

Well, of course it can have been both, dear lady. What are you going on about? The conflict between opposing but equally strong forces--moral duties, affections, predilections, desires--animates much of the world's greatest literature. For a novelist to put into the mouth of a narrator the idea that it's only natural not to believe one could hold two opposite feelings simultaneously is a shocking display of bad faith. (And Golden's novel gets far, far worse from there.) But he was writing about Japan, don't you know, so Sayuri's patronizingly patient explanation of why such a thing is possible was considered charming, if not profound. Objecting would be spoiling the Zen.

So my question is…what's the best balance when trying to convey a foreign setting? What authors are good at realizing an exotic setting without being smug about how esoteric it all is? When is it good to sprinkle in foreign words, and when does it become show-offy and jar the reader out of the world of the story?

Brand Names and World Building

I write book length fantasy and near future SF in short story length, so I build worlds. It will sound nerdy but I love it. I love reading about history and sociology. The study of linguistics for instance and how language can not only define your place in the world, but how you see the world fascinates me.

Because I write science fiction and fantasy, I don't write much that is set in our contemporary world. But recently I've been reading books from the incredibly popular Dark Urban Fantasy genre (DUF). These have been fun and easy to read, with good pacing and likable characters.

Coming fresh to the DUF genre, one of the things I noticed was the use of brand names in the narrative. In theory it is like writing in short hand. The author doesn't need to explain what the car/watch looks like, they just give the brand. This brand name will tell the reader the character's social status and wealth or lack of it.

As long as the reader knows the brands. I don't.

I found some of the books so heavy on brand name usage that it was like reading an SF book, where the author introduces a lot of invented nouns. At least in an SF book the author will plant clues in the narrative to explain the meaning of the invented nouns. With brand names the author assumes you know all the associations.

Brand names in contemporary narratives. What do you think of this?

A fighter by his trade...

"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade
And he carries the reminders of every glove that laid him down or cut him
til he cried out in his anger and his shame
I am leaving, I am leaving, but the fighter still remains"
Simon and Garfunkel - the boxer

The different strands of the Anglophone world have slightly different takes on what they see in society’s mirror -- you know, the thing Adam Smith wrote about shaping our behaviour and society in THE THEORY OF MORAL SENTIMENTS. No, he didn’t say ‘greed is good’ (pretty stupid), actually, more like ‘enlightened self-interest works’ (very wise) and that was in a different book. In this one was saying more or less that it is the desire to be perceived in a certain way by our society that shapes our morals - in other words the desire to look good in the mirror of your society. I half agree with him, because I like to imagine I am more concerned about looking good in the mirror of myself as seen by myself, which is a lot harder to fool than society... but he has a point particularly when it comes to writing. If your hero doesn’t look good in the relative mirror of your society -- the book won’t be popular. Fortunately, it’s a big broad mirror with lots of distortions. But A MANKIND WITCH is never going to be too popular, for example, in a society that holds dogs to be unclean. And I think it goes deeper than that. The US is a country that loves winners. Places them at the apogee of a society. Australians, and South Africans are pretty hot on winning too... But, least for some of us -- and, I think, unfashionable though it may be, some Americans too (particularly those who are closer to a frontier life), there is a slightly higher pinnacle.

The battler.

I think it’s a virtue which civilized parts or stratified societies don’t like much because it doesn’t put the heir to the family fortune or the golden boy to whom it came easy at the top (which is where the trust fund would like them to be, naturally). Maybe because SA and Australia are very cyclically drought prone (3-7 years here, so you couldn’t even second-guess it, just knew it would come), not to mention pests, raiders, fires and whatever else the world could toss your way randomly, and more of us are still very close to our pioneer-frontier farming roots, we’re a bit more geared to the fact that even the fellow who has ‘winner’ written all over him is going to see his butt every now and again. It’s not whether he can win that counts. It’s whether he can get up, with his life in tatters, and start all over again. And do it again. And again. And again and again, until you bury the dumb bastard... with great respect, because he was a battler. Maybe he’ll die a winner, or not, but he cannot avoid dying a battler. A battler who wins really is the happy ending... and we like that. But we’ll still enjoy the tale of someone who just wouldn’t let it stop him, even if he never did win in the end.

And so, how does this tie into writing? Well, Dick Francis made himself a best-seller with books that, even if you liked nothing else, always had a battler at their center. It makes for a better story than the golden-boy banker or soldier who simply could do no wrong and wins. But the way it really ties in is that wannabe authors need to take cognizance of one over-riding thing: unless you’re a lottery winner (if you are lucky you do get a free/cheap ride to success) you probably HAVE to be a battler in this game. There are going to be times, many of them, when the droughts, plagues, pestilences, raiders and straight bad luck of the world of publishing will knock the cr*p out of you, for no fault of your own. If you’re not one of the lucky few, you’ll have to either quit or get up again and try again... and again. If you keep doing it you may -- like yrs. monkily -- merely be proving that you’re bloody stupid and bloody obstinate. But for what it’s worth, you’ve proved your worth in mirror of a section of society. Stand tall.
And at the end of the day they may say of us that we couldn’t write, but not that we didn’t.

Now you can disagree violently.

Or not.

10 Things a Writer . . . .

For those of you new to the blog, I'm the resident Internet crawler. It's my job to trawl through cyberspace, looking for links related to all things writing related. One way I do this is by inputting various phrases into a Google search and seeing what happens. This week, the search phrase was "ten things a writer". Okay, I know it's not a complete sentence. Grammar was never my strong suit. However, it did result in a few interesting links.

The first two deal with things a writer needs. Tabitha Easley at Associated Content writes about the top 10 desk accessories every writer needs. Some of the items on her list are self-evident: computer, paper, writing utensils. Others are items we ought to think about but don't always because, gee, our computers have spellcheck and grammarcheck. These items include a dictionary or reference books. There's the daily planner, organizing tray, fax, printer, white out or erasers. Then, of course, the ever present cup of hot coffee to help us through those long nights and early mornings as we rush to meet our deadlines.

Then there are the 10 things a writer should never leave home without. No, not a spare pair of clean underwear. Although, my mother would disagree. After all, she comes from the school that you always wear clean underwear that has absolutely no holes in it in case you get hit by a bus and have to go to the hospital. After all, you might just meet Dr. Right if you do and you don't want him to see you wearing tattered underwear. Oops, sorry for that divergence into my subconscious.

Back to the 10 things a writer should never leave home without. This is one list I suggest every writer pay attention to. No matter where you are, you might run into someone who is interested in your work. So be sure to carry these with you -- or at least in your car so you can run out and get it. So, what are these magical items? A business card, copies of your book, promotional material, a pen -- as the author of the article says: "repeat after me, I will never leave home without a pen" -- paper/note pad, cell phone, mini-recorder, PDA or datebook, address book, and most important of all, bring a good attitude with you.

Another list to keep in mind are the 10 things authors should never blog about. We've touched on this before, but it bears repeating because it is easy to forget that once something is on the Internet, it is out there forever. It doesn't matter if you delete your post. Someone has already read it. It's on some server's cache and being propagated even as you congratulate yourself on taking it down before it was read. It's a common sense list that includes: don't rant about your publisher, don't diss your editor, don't moan about how you deserved that award or how much you make. Don't discuss and identify your family and friends without their approval. Take a look at the list, and remember, the Internet can be your friend, but it is also the town gossip. Don't put anything up that you don't want everyone knowing.

Finally, the most important top ten list of all -- 10 Things a Writer's Cat MUST Know. This is more than simply being the cutest cat of all, or the baddest. A writer's cat must get the writer's attention first thing each day, before the human makes it to the computer. Otherwise, all is lost. Once the cat has the writer's attention -- no, wait! Why is my cat looking at me like that? What? I'm not supposed to reveal the secrets....ARGH!!!!

So tell me, what are those items you don't dare leave the house without? For me, it's my EEE, pen, paper, and my cell phone. The items I have to have on my desk are my computer, pen, paper, dictionary, Strunk & White and whatever research books I need for the current project. As for my cat, well, she'll have to tell you what her top 10 things are and, at the moment, she's too busy tormenting the dog.

From "The Lab Rat's Guide to the Brain"

(Thanks to Dr. Rob for once more giving us a chance to hear from his rats -- Amanda)

##

Tedd ("Dr. Rob") Roberts

Since our last appearance, and thanks in no small part to invited guest appearances on talk shows and other discussion groups, the LabRats and I have received some emails with questions folks might like answered about science, writing, and the brain. Without further ado - a few samples from our mailbag.

"Dear Lab Monkey: Why don't you let the Rats talk more? -A. Nony Mouse"

My reply: "Dear Nony: I think you have me mistaken for Dr. Freer. Still, just for you, I will let the LabRats have their say. Do read on... - Dr. Rob."

... another...

"Hey Ratley, Do you LabRats really talk? Signed Thomas."

Ratley replies: "Doubting Thomas: You wrote to me. Are you really expecting an answer? - Ratley"

... and another letter...

"Dearest Ratface: I understand you are the kinder, gentler lab rat. Tell me, what did he mean 'too much LDS in the 60's'? - Yours, Gillian"

Ratface responds: "Squeak." Ratley steps in and translates: "Sorry Gillian, it was a lame joke, based on the Star Trek movie (#4) in which Kirk and Spock were back in the 1980's, and Kirk excused Spock's eccentricities by saying 'He was part of the free speech movement at Berkeley in the 60's. I think he did too much LDS.' Oh, and the Doc wants me to add: no offense intended to the LDS church! - (whew!) Ratley."

Okay, back to the Mail.

"Dear Dr. Rob: If humans were to develop telepathic or psychokinetic abilities, what parts of the brain would be responsible? - J.R."

Whoo-boy. Okay, that's a long one, let's table that and look at another. It'll take another whole blog post to answer that one.

"Dear LabRats: How is it possible that we can hear our own name spoken in the midst of a crowded, noisy room? - S.H."

Ah, another. Do be patient. Ratley and I will make a list and get back to these one by one.

... ah, here's a good one!

"LabRats: We sometimes hear that humans use only 10% of their brain. Is this true? - Dave F."

Ratfink says: "I'll take that one!"

Hey, 'Fink, don't startle me like that, I didn't know you were there. Okay, it's just the right size for this blog. You go ahead and answer it.

"Dear Dave:

"We hear that little bit of trivia all the time. It is, as you may have guessed, a misconception. Now, we LabRats always use 100% of our brains - well, except for maybe Ratface. Oh, and Ratso, he uses 100% of his stomach to do his thinking.

"Anyway, not to get off target, it is true that one could say that at any given time, only 10% of a humans brain is active - 5% if they are watching daytime talk shows. What it really refers to is the incredible redundancy of the human brain, plus the fact that there are specialized brain areas that are only used for particular tasks.

"Let's start with vision. There are millions of cells responsible for detecting light and sending the information to the brain. If you think of the light-sensitive retina cells (photoreceptors) like pixels in a camera or TV, you can understand why you need so many - to get the maximum fine detail in anything you look at. In fact, though, there are multiple types of photoreceptors for each "patch" of our visual field. There are 'rods' which detect black vs. white, and there are 'cones' which detect color. Further, unlike us LabRats, you humans have different color sensitivities of cones: red vs. green and blue vs. yellow. Thus for each 'pixel' of image we see, there are at least three types of retinal cells.

"Redundancy - and different functions.

"Now, take that same visual information into the brain. Before it gets there, there are 'ganglion cells' in retina that combine inputs from photoreceptors. Each ganglion cell has a donut-shaped field that represents the part of a visual scene covered by the ganglion cell. For some cells, light shining in the 'donut hole' more electrical and chemical activity in the cell, while light shining on the 'donut ring' causes less activity. Again there is redundancy and different functions. There are millions of ganglion cells covering all possible combinations of photoreceptors covering our entire visual field, and there are ganglion cells with 'on-center, off-surround' fields as described above, as well as cells with 'off-center, on-surround' functions.

"But what is it all for, and why the redundancy? Well, moving to the 'visual cortex' of the brain, combinations of inputs from retinal cells result in cells that are activated by short lines of light, and by edges. Multiple redundant copies means that there are cells for every conceivable angle of line or edge, every possible location in the visual field that our eyes can detect, as well as combining two eyes, and all those colors. Working forward into the parts of the brain called 'visual association' areas, we start to find brain cells that respond to circles, shapes, even faces!

"Then we move into combining other senses, and other parts of the brain: sound, smell, touch, movement, memory, and decision making. We LabRats get to continually hear the Neuroscience student's favorite story about Grandmother Cells. That's the brain cell that is active only when it sees "Grandma's face, hears her voice, and smells her fresh-baked apple pie (with a slice of Cheddar for well-behaving LabRats). Believe it. While there may not be specific 'Grandmother Cells' in any given human's brain, there *are* brain cells tuned to respond to such high specific combinations of inputs!

So, if the Grandmother Cell is active, does that mean that we have used only one *trillionth* of our possible brain capacity?

"No.

"In the first place, the signals that activate Grandma have traveled through five widely separated brain areas for vision alone, and an equivalent number of sections for sound, smell, touch, movement (don't forget, Grandma wants a hug and a kiss before you go!). Then we had to search through memory. Is that Grandma H. or Grandma D.?

"That's another contributor to the 10% myth. The human brain has an incredible capacity for memory. With the possible exception of Ratface, the typical LabRat has billions of brain cells available for storing memory, and that's sufficient to remember where to find the cheese, the peanut butter, fruity cereal, water, electrical cords that are fun to chew... In fact, Dr. Rob has experiments that show that no matter *how* complex an environment, the rat brain can map it and remember it.

"Now in comparison, the human brain has *trillions* of brain cells in each brain area. How much more information than a mere LabRat (except for me, of course) can it store and process? As far as we can detect, no human has ever run out of storage space in the brain. Hence, humans must use only a small portion of brain resources. However, the rest of the brain is there, active, and ready to contribute at a moment's notice.

"To finish up, some of the most fascinating examples come from the field of brain imaging. MRI scanners can be set to track the flow of water or oxygen in the brain, resulting in a map of the most active brain regions. If your everyday average human lies in a scanner and listens to music, the primary and associative auditory regions light up. Sounds with an emotional or memory content may activate brain regions involved in memory. Sort of like Ratface and Heavy Metal.

"Ask them to read written music, and the visual and reading centers light up, but very little activation occurs in auditory areas. However, if you ask a professional symphony conductor to read a musical score, the brain scan lights up with brain areas involved in reading, listening, singing, memory, even the areas responsible for moving the hands and arms in conducting motions!

"Now *that* is using your brain!

"So, final answer. At any given time, sure humans only use a portion of what the brain is capable of. The rest of it gets used at other times and for other purposes. We *still* don't know the total information capacity of the LabRat brain, let alone the human one, but it is certain that it does *not* go unused!"

Thanks, Ratface. Not a bad explanation. Now I'll add one more piece of information before we let these good folks go back to their regularly scheduled blog reading...

How can we use all of our brain and *still* have room for more information? The most astounding thing is that information is both spread out among a lot of different brain cells (that redundancy again) yet still specific enough that activating only a few brain cells will get the whole bit of information back. SF writers like to call this "holographic." That's not a bad term, but not really accurate. The scientific terms are "sparse, distributed" and "associative." That last one is the key: "associative;" that means that the reason that the brain can keep holding more information is that it keeps making *associations* between new and old memory. Apart from diseases and injury, the reason why we forget is not a loss of the actual information, but a failure to come up with the appropriate associations.

So folks, keep those questions coming. Nestor is currently making a mess out of the discarded envelopes and YDR is now covered in paper link and ink. We'll try to answer some more of your questions in future guest blogs.

Oh, and thanks to the Mad Genius Club regulars for the opportunity to share my ramblings with you.

Rorschach inkblot tests

The Rorschach inkblot tests have been put up on Wikipedia to the fury of the British psychiatric establishment.

The idea is that the psychiatrist puts the shapes in front of the subject one at a time and evalutaes the response by various criteria ranging from time to reply to whether the subect sees shapes, what shape (an animal, something human, an abstract etc), colour and so on as a measure of serious personality disorders such as bipolarism, schizophrenia, and milder disorders.

There is a correlation between 'intelligence' (which I suspect they mean academic ability) and personality disorder as indicated by the test, possibly because creative people give more, and more varied, responses, or possibly because creative people really are barmy.

I suspect that severe problems may well show up, just as they would in a conversation of any length, but am deeply sceptical about the detectionminor personality disorders. Papers are accepted in medical journals that would never get past the peer-review system used in science journals.

As an aside, my employer put me though a personality assessment test and announced I was a shaper - with the same personality as Margaret Thatcher.

Anyway, the pic at the top is a Rorschach inkblot test.

I looked at it and immediately thought: bioengineered aerospace fighter.

I am not sure what that says about me (but see John's Toy Soldiers for a possible explanation).


What do you see?

Your Favorite Bad Guy

OK, I've been well and truly out of the picture over the last week or so. I could say that I have been kept prisoner in a deep, dark dungeon by an evil overlord - and it might be true if the evil overlord is visible by electron microscope and is portrayed in the press with a pair of pig-wings. Yes, you guessed it - swine flu. The most voracious little pest. I've never seen anything hit so quick. Luckily my family and I were all reasonably healthy to start with. Make's you glad to live in a western country with access to medicine.

All it took was one irresponsible parent in the lower grades of our school sending their swine flued kids back to school while they were infectious and bang - half the school was down.

But talking about evil overlords, have you seen the evil overlord list? More specifically, the Top 100 Things I Would Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord? There are a few version of this, this one is Peter Anspach's. This is the link: http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

Its a nice bit of fun.

Having tooled up on the Evil Overlord list. Who is your favorite villain?