ROGER'S ANGLE

Sunday, April 3, 2011

THE SEX MACHINE

The other day, a friend e-mailed me some porn, a video of three naked women with a sex machine, a gizmo like a kind of crude chain saw with rubber tongues.

(WARNING: ADULT CONTENT)

One of the women sat on the edge of a chair and spread her legs while another one activated the gizmo between her legs.

Meanwhile, Howard Stern watched and made comments, on the radio, apparently, and a crew of guys video-taped and recorded the event.

Yuck. I thought the whole thing was disgusting.

For one thing, these people treated sex like a public sport, like a pie-eating contest (no pun intended) or a baseball game. I think a person's sexuality should be connected to their emotional life.

To me, this was as disgusting as having gladiators fight in the Roman Coliseum, a sign of a depraved and degenerate society.

Does that sound prudish? I hope not. I love sex as much as the next man. As much as the next normal man.

BALLS IN THE AIR

The hardest problem in writing a novel is to keep everything going at once, to keep all the balls in the air that are vital to the story.

You have to keep the flow going, the constant waking dream, as Ron Sukenick used to call it; to keep the imaginary world consistent; to keep up the tension, through unpredictable conflict; to develop the characters as you go along; to raise the stakes, for each character, page by page and scene by scene; and to make the story build, so it gets better, chapter by chapter.

All this, and you have to write well, too.

James Joyce solved this set of hairy problems partly through vertical or associative writing, so that the reader could dive into a deep river of allusions and associations while swimming forward with the plot. Not an easy task. I think he's the only writer to have ever done it so well.

Popular novelists, like John Grisham, solve this complex problem by simplifying it, by narrowing their focus, mostly to the plot, and having a fairly shallow narrative that is easier to control.

If you are more ambitious, you have to keep all these balls in the air. You have to juggle and sing and dance while riding a bicycle. Often, you feel like you're blindfolded, as well.

Well, if it was easy, anyone could do it.

Anyway, back to work. More later.

-- Roger

WRITING LOG - PRINCE OF NEWPORT - Page 159

I'm going to try something new today--a writing log, about what my writing problem is today and what I do to solve it.

Writing a novel for me is not only trying to write well, line by line, it's also solving a series of problems. Who is the main character? What is his problem? How does he solve it? What is the problem in this scene?

As my old writing teacher Oakley Hall used to say, there are long lines and short lines in a novel. In other words, there are little problems and big problems to solve.

Today, I'm on Page 159 of The Prince of Newport, a mainstream novel with crime elements. This is about the 20th draft of this novel. It's a complete rewrite of a novel my old agent, Eric Simonoff, would not represent. It used to be called The Garden of Bliss. This time, the good guy is more sympathetic, and the bad guy is more despicable, which is something Eric wanted. In a way, it's more fun.

The characters include a scary con-man (like two men I worked for many years ago, only much more dangerous), a young reporter (as I once was), and several interesting women, most of whom the con-man has seduced.

So it's a power struggle, truth vs. lies, good vs. evil, weak vs. strong, a man with little physical strength but with truth on his side against a ruthless, tough man who will do anything to win. So it's a contest. Much like the UFC, I suppose, only with a larger setting and more at stake.

Hmmm. Sounds good to me. Let's see how it goes. More later.

-- Roger

(Below is a link to one of my favorite stories.)

(Link:)
http://www.randomhouse.com/boldtype/contest/0999/sstory1.html

Saturday, April 2, 2011

MY BROTHER'S KEEPER

I think about this a lot: Am I my brother's keeper?

You know that sentence comes from the Bible, right? Here is the quote:

And the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel thy brother?” And Cain said, “I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?” And the Lord said, “… The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.” – The Bible, Genesis 4:8-10

And you know that Cain had killed his brother, right? The implication here, it seems to me, is clear: We are all our brother's keeper. At least up to a point. That's where it gets complicated.

Obviously, I would think twice, or three times, before sacrificing my own life to save that of a total stranger, especially another old man. Or a criminal, if I was sure he was a criminal.

I have had students who have been trained to be life guards, in swimming pools and on the beach. If they see an old person and a child drowning, and they only have time to save one, which are they supposed to save? What is the right thing to do?

Save the child, of course.

But how far do we go? Would you send your only son, or daughter, to risk his or her life in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Libya? I'd have to think twice. Or three times.

Obviously, we can't save the whole world, and when you take life guard training, as I have, too, they tell you, "The last thing we want is two dead people out there."

We don't want to be too selfish here, on the one hand, but on the other hand, we don't want to throw away innocent lives when we could save them, especially at no risk to ourselves.

These can be hard choices, at times, and it's hard to predict what you would do. My own philosophy is to keep an eye out for my neighbors and my fellow man, and to protect my family every time.

I haven't had to run in front of a bus to save a stranger's child yet, but the time may come. You never know.

HAPPY FAMILIES

As the Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy famously wrote, "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

I think a lot about happy families, having come from an unhappy one myself.

A lot of young men have a problem growing up, which means going from being attracted to a woman, to having sex with her, to being involved with her over time, and then having children with her. Sometimes that happens fast, in a few months. A lot of young guys are not ready for it.

Having recently spent five years teaching teenagers and young adults, I see the story over and over: A young guy wants the sex, but he doesn't know how to handle a real relationship, and when the girl gets knocked up, he freaks.

Many of those young guys bail out on their women. Some of them help raise their kids and are proud to be fathers. Many don't. Some go off to find other girls to knock up.

Why is all this? What is the difference between families that develop happily and couples that fail to become a family?

One answer can be found in Toltsoy's novel, "Anna Karenina," the story of two different couples, Anna and her dashing young cavalryman, Count Vronsky, on the one hand, and Levin and Kitty, a farmer and a young beauty, on the other hand.

Neither couple should get together, but both do. Kitty is too young and too popular for the middle-aged Levin, but they fall in love and marry and have children. They become a healthy, happy family. They live on a farm and grow crops and hold dinner parties and support employees and animals and have a rich, full life. This, I think, is Tolstoy's ideal.

On the other hand, Anna Karenina, a married woman, is restless and unhappy in her loveless but financially comfortable marriage to a well-to-do government official. When she meets the dashing Vronsky, Anna follows her heart. Anna and Vronsky have a hot romance.

But she and Vronsky are social outcasts. No one accepts them, because they live outside society's norms. They just don't fit in.

Anna and her dashing young officer can't live comfortably in Russia, along with her peers, so they go off to Italy. But they are outcasts there, too, since they are foreigners, speak Russian, and have no real ties to the culture or the economy or the land. They are the opposite of Kitty and Levin, who have ties to everything in Russia.

Anna and Vronsky return to Russia. But they are still isolated, and their relationship fails. Nothing is working out, so Anna throws herself under a train and commits suicide. Tragic, since she was beautiful and intelligent and could have had a wonderful life.

(Tolstoy wrote the novel after seeing the body of a woman who committed a similar suicide and tried to imagine why.)

There is a real message here about what it takes to create a happy family. Love alone is not enough. Here it takes not just a village but a whole society to create a happy marriage. Many young men become Vronsky rather than Levin. It's too bad. They should read Tolstoy.

-- Roger

Friday, April 1, 2011

A LADY'S MAN, REMEMBERED

Years ago, in Kansas, there was a guy I used to envy, a big tall, loose-limbed guy named Bruce who was a basketball player in high school and who became an artist.

I heard years later that he started a bagpipe band that used to march in the desert. I have a painting by him, hanging in my living room. I've loved it for years.

All in all, Bruce was a hell of a guy. Or so I thought.

Bruce was a lady's man, extraordinaire. He married the most beautiful girl in school. We used to call her The Fox, because she was so lovely.

A few years ago, Bruce died, and one of our mutual friends went to the funeral. Bruce taught at a major university, and several of his female students were there. They said they liked him, and he was a good teacher, but the girls had to sleep with him to get an "A." It was disgusting, they said.

When I first heard that, I said, reflexively, I hope that isn't true. But thinking about it some more, I imagine it was true. Why would they lie, at a time like that?

And, years ago, Bruce had told me he had affairs with other women. Apparently, he couldn't resist them. Sounded like he didn't try.

Here are my questions: How should I remember Bruce, as a good guy, or a disgusting lech? Should we forgive Bruce? Or not? Was he the man I thought he was, or a user of women, a man who degraded his own students?

One of my beliefs that I used to tell my own students is this: If you want to be a man, part of your job is to protect women, even from your own worst impulses. And all the time, not just when it is convenient.

Yes, we men are attracted to women. We love the way they look and smell and feel. We love their voices and their touch. And yes, we love sex. And yes, there is even a part of us that would like to ride through enemy villages like Genghis Khan, and kill the men, and capture the women and use them for our pleasure.

But it is one thing to have affairs and another to get sex through power. The use of power isn't civilized, and it doesn't treat women as equals, and it doesn't protect them, like I believe we should.

So, no, I'm sorry to say, my memory of Bruce is tarnished. If these stories are true, and I think they are, Bruce didn't do what I believe every man should do.

It wasn't so much the cheating that was wrong. Of course, he must have cheated on his wife, The Fox. It was abuse of his power as a teacher. What he did amounted to coercion, which is a kind of rape, I believe.

He gave in to his own worst instincts. I have to say, as a teacher, I have never done that. It is a line I would not cross: Here's how you get an "A," baby. No, it's too disgusting.

I still admire that painting, but sometimes when I look at it, I think about his students, and I feel sorry for them, and for him.

Bruce didn't live up to my image of him, but I don't know how much of that is his fault and how much is my own. Perhaps I formed my image too quickly. Lots of us do that.

ULTIMATE FIGHTING? WHY?

I've been trying to figure out why I watch so much fighting on TV.

In these mixed martial arts contests -- the ones I watch are usually on the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) -- two men in shorts go at each other hammer and tongs, with fists of fury, with knees and feet and padded knuckles. They try to knock each other out or "submit" each other with various choke holds and arm twisting and leg torquing.

They kick and punch and elbow each other silly. It's a cross between school-yard tussle and bar-room brawl, and all in all, it's sort of disgusting. So why do I watch it?

It's hard to figure out. But here's what I think. One, there's almost nothing else on. CATV is a vast wasteland that is mostly slow and boring and pointless. Two, there is something basic and primeval about it, a perverse fascination in who can throw the harder punch, in who can take the most pain, in who can almost twist the other guy's arm or leg out of its socket.

Often, it isn't the biggest, strongest, most muscular guy who wins. Some of the skinny guys who look like wimps are the toughest. I would not say it's fun to watch, but it is oddly compelling.

Hell, I'm a guy, and I enjoy a good fight. I identify with the fighters and imagine myself in the octagon. After all, I trained in a bunch of fighting forms, from boxing, with a professional fighter -- Craig Rosenberg -- to shotokan karate, tong soo do, judo and finally Krav Maga, which I thought was the best, although boxing is good, too.

Maybe watching other men fight is a way of getting out my aggressions, of blowing off some steam. Or maybe it's just the ultimate way of farting around.

But who cares? Think I'll quit worrying about it and just enjoy it. Wonder who is fighting tonight.

-- Roger

http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/UFC_Best_of_2009/70132363?trkid=2361637#height1431