Shakespeare had a thing or two to say about tyrants

What Shakespeare revealed about the chaotic reign of Richard III – and why the play still resonates in the age of Donald Trump

In this circa 1754 illustration, two women scold Richard III in Shakespeare’s play.
Universal History Archive/Getty Images)

by David Sterling Brown, Trinity College

Written around 1592, William Shakespeare’s play “Richard III” follows the reign of England’s infamous monarch and charts the path of a charismatic, cunning figure.

As Shakespeare depicts the king’s reign from June 1483 to August 1485, Richard III’s kingdom was wrought with chaos, confusion and corruption that fueled civil conflict in England.

As a scholar of Shakespeare, I first thought about Richard III and his similarities with Donald Trump after the latter’s debate with President Joe Biden in June 2024. Those similarities – and Shakespeare’s depictions – became even clearer after Trump’s election in November 2024.

Shakespeare’s play highlights the flawed character of a man who wanted to be, in modern terms, a dictator, someone who could do whatever he pleased without any consequences.

In his 1964 essay, “Why I Stopped Hating Shakespeare,” writer James Baldwin concluded that Shakespeare found poetry “in the lives of people” by knowing “that whatever was happening to anyone was happening to him.”

“It is said that Shakespeare’s time was easier than ours, but I doubt it,” Baldwin wrote. “No time can be easy if one is living through it.”

A black and white drawing of Richard III.
An undated portrait of Richard III.
Universal History Archive/Getty Images

A villain?

In Act 2, Scene 3 of Shakespeare’s play, a common citizen says Richard is “full of danger.”

“Woe to the land that’s govern’d by a child,” the citizen further warned.

Beyond hiring murderers to kill his own brother, Shakespeare’s Richard was keen on belittling and distancing himself from people whom he viewed as being not loyal or being in his way – including his wife, Anne.

To clear the way for him to marry his brother’s daughter – his niece Elizabeth – Richard spread what now would be called fake news. In the play, he tells his loyalists “to rumor it abroad that Anne, my wife, is very grievously sick” and “likely to die.”

Richard then poetically reveals her death: “Anne my wife hath bid this world goodnight.”

Yet, before her death, Anne has a sad realization: “Never yet one hour in Richard’s bed / Did I enjoy the golden dew of sleep.”

That sentiment is echoed by Richard’s mother, the Duchess of York, who regrets not strangling “damned” Richard while he was in her “accursed womb.”

As Shakespeare depicts him, Richard III was a self-centered political figure who first appears alone on stage, determined to prove himself a villain.

In Richard’s opening speech, he even says that in order to become king, he will manipulate his own brothers George, the Duke of Clarence, and King Edward IV, “in deadly hate, the one against the other.”

But as his villainous crimes mount up, Richard shares a rare moment of self-awareness: “But I am in / So far in blood that sin will pluck on sin.”

Shakespeare’s Richard III and Trump

While the details of Trump’s and Richard’s lives differ in many ways, there are some similarities.

Much like Trump during his first term, Shakespeare’s Richard did not lead with morals, ethics or integrity.

Richard lied compulsively to everyone, as his soliloquys that contain his innermost thoughts make clear.

A black and white illustration of William Shakespeare.
An illustration of English writer William Shakespeare (circa 1600).
Rischgitz/Getty Images

Like Trump, Richard used empty rhetoric to persuade people with “sugared words” – he was not interested in speaking or promoting truth.

Moreover, Shakespeare’s Richard was a sexist and misogynist who verbally and physically disrespected women, including his wife and mother.

In the play, for example, Richard calls Queen Margaret, widow of King Henry VI, a “foul wrinkled witch” and a “hateful withered hag,” thus disparaging her older age.

He refers to Queen Elizabeth, wife of Edward IV, as a “damned strumpet” or prostitute, which she wasn’t.

Additionally, in order to cast doubts on his nephews’ legitimate claims to the throne, Richard spread false rumors about his mother, claiming that she was unfaithful.

A white man and a Black woman shake hands.
Kamala Harris shakes hands with Donald Trump before their debate.
AP Photo/Alex Brandon

For his part, Trump has no shortage of disparaging remarks about women. He once called his Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton “the devil” and characterized former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “crazy.”

Trump repeatedly peppered Vice President Kamala Harris during the presidential campaign with sexist and racists attacks.

He initially refused to pronounce her name correctly and openly mocked her racial identity as a Black woman, even questioning her “Blackness.”

A new day?

Like Trump, Richard III used religion to manipulate and confuse public perception of his amoral image.

In the play, Richard stages the equivalent of a modern-day photo op, standing between two “churchmen” with a “prayer-book” in his hands.

Much like Richard, Trump has courted evangelicals and used organized religion to his political advantage, most publicly by selling a “God Bless the USA Bible.”

Trump’s 2020 photo op in front of St. John’s Church in Washington is another example. It occurred during protests over the murder of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man killed by a white police officer. Police in riot gear used tear gas to force protesters away from the White House; then Trump was escorted to the nearby church along with several administration officials.

As a political leader, Richard III left a legacy in English history as one of England’s worst monarchs.

That legacy includes his decisive defeat in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 that led to his death and to a new era for England under King Henry VII.

After winning the throne, the new king offered a message of hope that suggested England would one day emerge from its time of civil discord:

Let them not live to taste this land’s increase
That would with treason wound this fair land’s peace!
Now civil wounds are stopped, peace lives again.
That she may long live here, God say amen.The Conversation

David Sterling Brown, Associate Professor of English, Trinity College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue reading “Shakespeare had a thing or two to say about tyrants”

Quiet moments

Today is a good day for reflecting. I was going to write a wildly sympathetic post to everyone in the US because you’re in such a difficult position. Bushfires and a new president and… so many things. But then I read the Australian news and we have turned into bigot-central and I belong to one of the groups that the bigots enjoy attacking.

I sometimes get angry. I sometimes rant. I often analyse what’s going on. But today… today I think we all deserve a break.

I’m going to find you a couples of poems to give us all that moment of peace in a difficult world.

The first is one of my favourites. I am Australian. No number of people telling me that Jews cannot be Australian can convince me otherwise. Modern Australian, but Australian. This is our iconic poem expressing this, read by the author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86TKK81EwJ4 Dorothea MacKellar lived from 1885 to 1968 . Her accent is very close to that of my father’s first cousin, who was born in the late nineteenth century and died in the twenty-first. This is one of the reasons it’s one of my heart-poems. I loved Linda very much, and still miss her, twenty years on.

If you read the last paragraph without due thought, you might think that I myself am nearing one hundred years of age. I am not. However, Australia has a particular sense of humour and… I am Australian. I am sorely tempted to give you a link to our latest lamb ad to justify everything I’ve written in this paragraph. This is not the moment of quiet contemplation I had intended, nor a statement of national identity… but it is the annual lamb ad, which is of significant cultural importance. Each and every year I say this to someone. Here is the new advertisement, so that you can decide for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75BAUXZyWw0

Clearly I am not going in the direction of quiet contemplation. It appears that what I really meant, was that we should take a break from bleakness in whatever way we need. I would love anyone reading this to share your favourite poems and your favourite advertisements (the funny ones). If you don’t, I might have to find lamb ads from other years. I need more poetry and I need more silly ads. I’d rather learn the ones you love than revisit ones I already know.

PS The lamb ads are an annual thing. And they’re always, always funny and just a little thoughtful.

PPS Normally I share Paul Verlaine poems, because I love his work so very much. The thing is that Jewish Australians are being told that we don’t belong here, so another type of beloved poem was appropriate. I am facing hate with poetry this week.

Appropriate Reading for January 20

Alternative Liberties book coverIf you’re in the United States and looking for something to do besides watch the political shenanigans going on right now, check out Alternative Liberties from B Cubed Press. Both the Kindle edition  and the print version are now available.

According to the book description, “Alternative Liberties gathers together some of the finest minds in speculative fiction to address the implications of politics in 2025 and beyond.” You can see a complete list of authors in this blog post introducing the book.

Treehouse resident Nancy Jane Moore has a poem in this anthology called “Not Civilized Yet.”

B Cubed is doing an online event featuring readings by a number of the authors on Facebook beginning at 3 PM Pacific Time (4 PM Mountain, 5 PM Central, 6 PM Eastern).

 

Visions: Housing

Every time I walk past an encampment of unhoused people, I see something that tells me the person living in a particular tent or broken down vehicle is trying to make that space on a sidewalk or in a city park into a home.

It might be a little fence around the tent entrance. Or a couple of plants in pots. One year I saw a Christmas tree, decorated. It broke my heart.

This week I’m reading the news about the Los Angeles fires, in which many people have lost their homes. Last fall it was the people in western North Carolina, who shouldn’t have been at risk from a hurricane, and yet lost so much.

Loss from disaster also breaks my heart.

Then there are all the people living in refugee camps, people who had to flee their homes or whose homes have been destroyed by war.

All of these losses provide a reminder that everyone – everyone – needs a home. Yet we live in a world that has turned that basic need into an investment.

If you own your home – or rather, at least in today’s United States, you and a bank own your home – it’s an investment, the largest one you’ve got in most cases.

If you get in a jam and can’t pay your mortgage, you’re at the mercy of your lender.

If you rent, it’s the landlord who gets the return on investment. If you can’t pay your rent, you’re out on the street.

Your situation is always a bit precarious.

There’s a saying that goes back to the activism of the 1960s and 70s:

Housing for People, Not for Profit.

That’s not what we have, but that is what we should have. And could have.

In the spirit of coming up with audacious visions, here’s mine on housing: Continue reading “Visions: Housing”

The Pretty Past

I am working on spiffing up and making small revisions to my first three Sarah Tolerance mysteries, preparatory to reissuing them before I bring out #4 (title still in discussion watch the skies, etc.) One of the things I want to do is add a brief essay to each book about some aspect of the setting (and how, since these are books set in an alternate version of the English Regency, I might have changed it). This had led me to a whole lot of distracting but fun rumination, as well as an examination of why I wanted to write these books in the first place.

One of my favorite bits in the 1995 film of Sense and Sensibility is a throwaway line: as the Misses Dashwood and their hostess, Mrs. Jenkins, leave a carriage to attend an evening party in London, Mrs. Jenkins says “Mind your slippers, ladies! The horses have been here.”

Why do I love this? The line doesn’t appear in Austen; it’s there to remind the modern audience that this is a different world. It’s not just that social mores have changed. The day-to-day process of life has changed. We don’t get around using horses and carriages, so you don’t have to worry about horseshit soiling your nice dancing slippers. I love it because it’s a very mild antidote to the sorts of romances I grew up reading, which zipped right over the physical difficulties of life in the Olden Days. When I was writing Regency romances I would occasionally be asked (breathlessly) “don’t you wish you lived then?” To which my answer was always “Hell, no.” No painless dentistry, no antibiotics, no central heating, no reliable refrigeration, heating with wood or coal fire… Add to that my certainty that I would not have been the daughter of a wealthy peer, but more likely a maid or factory girl, dying early from a disfiguring disease (although in fact, dying early, particularly in childbirth, could happen to any woman up or down the social scale). The sanitized past of the Regency romances I gobbled by the ton began to annoy me.

One thing I knew when I started writing Point of Honour, the first of the Sarah Tolerance books, was that I wanted it to be largely set in London, and I wanted to at least nod to the physical rigors of life in the Olden Days. T0 the smells, particularly of the Thames, which was breathtakingly polluted, and particularly in the summer had a stench that penetrated to the city, even in the nice neighborhoods. To the waste and the necessity for crossing sweeps (hordes of little boys who haunted street corners and would swee the mud, dust, fecal matter and urine out of the path of a pedestrian willing to pay). To the darkness: gas lamps were installed in Pall Mall in 1807, and there was an ordinance that every house must have a lamp or torch outside the front door, to dispel a little of the darkness. In poorer neighborhoods this law was largely ignored, and the streets could be pitch dark.

Regency romances don’t mention the outhouses, but I wanted to. I wanted to get dentistry (and its lack) and medicine (and its well intentioned and often wrong-headed notions) and to at least reflect the difficulty of daily life for the people who are not in the top tier of society. See, I knew, given the premise of the book, that I would be playing with the social conventions of Regency London. If I–or my Fallen Woman protagonist–was going to spit in the eye of social norms, the least I could do was give her a milieu that was equally brave. And un-sanitized.

And I admit that I have a small frisson of delight in detailing the dental shortcomings and smallpox scars of my characters, and in writing a scene where a “gold finder” (a slang term for the guy who cleaned out your privy when such was needful) disrupts the orderly working of a household. It’s not that the past wasn’t pretty: it’s just that that’s not all it was.

 

 

 

 

 

Your Questions Answered: candles and music

I used to answer questions on Livejournal. Most of the time, people wanted to know about matters historical, especially concerning the Middle Ages. When I moved to a blog on my own website, that interaction lessened somewhat and I stopped asking if anyone had questions they wanted me to answer.

I discovered this summer (for yes, it’s still summer in Australia) that I missed that interaction with readers. I asked on Facebook if anyone had any questions they’d like me to answer here. The people of Facebook answered. There were several simple questions (or questions with simple answers) and I’ll reply to them today, but there were two questions that demand more complex answers, so they’ll be posts of their own.

Before I answer those two questions, I would be delighted if anyone reading this have questions of your own. Ask them in the comments.

I’m happy to take questions about Australia and our history, my family history, Australian Jews, Judaism in general, the Middle Ages in Western Europe, medieval magic, food history, my favourite anime, Doctor Who, my writing, my current projects, dealing with many illnesses at once, any of the subjects linked to any of my doctorates, and… to be honest… anything else I have an interest in except certain current issues.

I don’t answer questions about Israel partly because there are others who know a lot more but mostly because I don’t like bullies and there are a lot of people demanding right now “Deny any links to Israel in your family and your Jewish heritage and religion and then we might speak to you.” This is bullying. Also, the fact that I spell out the demand in this particular way says a bunch about my views, so now you don’t need to ask those questions!

Also, I am not going to answer questions at this time (maybe other places and times) about family physically hurt and even killed due to antisemitism and related hate. I don’t have the spoons. I do have such family and the pain I feel for them never stops. And no, this does not mean I don’t care about anyone outside my family. I’m capable of caring for family and for a whole bunch of other people also, oddly. I don’t want to answer questions about them because most of the people who ask such questions have particular platforms and… I do not want the questions to play with emotions and safety. Besides, aren’t my regular subjects sufficiently interesting?

Today I’ll be answering two questions, and they’re quite different from each other. Even if the readers are also friends, I won’t use their names. Privacy matters. If you want to identify yourself, feel free to in the comments.

A reader said, “Oh, I do have a question! It just occurred to me when I was looking at pictures of beautiful menorahs on Bluesky last week. If someone can’t physically light their menorah because of illness or disability, can they use one with battery operated candles. And more generally, how do the rules around not working or using modern technology on the Sabbath work for disabled Jews who want to observe that but need technology to be independent, and don’t have outside support?”

The answer is both simple and complex. Judaism is not a one-size-fits-all religion. We’re taught a bunch of questions we can ask ourselves and make our own decisions about such things, and we can also ask rabbis. Health and well-being matter to us, so if we need a mechanical help then we are not encouraged to forgo it during Shabbat. The decision comes down to the person whose body it is, or, in the case of lighting candles for Chanukah, whose chanukiya it is.

I was taught from my childhood that we’re responsible for our own decisions and that it’s always better if those decisions are informed. For any Jew brought up as I was, there are choices on how to become informed. Some people rely heavily on the views of rabbis. Some read up a lot. Some simply make up their mind what to do and when.

Most of the time, for something like lighting candles, pragmatism rules, I suspect. I can’t speak on behalf of others and tell you what choices they make. Because our understanding of the world and of Judaism matters, decisions on these matters can be hugely varied. Some Jews are so enormously religious that every choice in life requires immense thought and respect paid to both the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Some are casual about the religious side and may not light the candles at all, because they have other things to do with limited capacity. Most of us are somewhere in between.

Even for those of us who fall into the in-between land, the can be huge differences. One of the wonderful things about Judaism is these differences. When I talk to other Jews I find out their traditions and we chat about the reasons behind this choice or that. Learning is part of the Jewish soul and so learning about choices, whether they be choices for how to remain a good human being or choices about the lighting of candlesticks will always throw up interesting insights.

Let me leave you with one of my favourite candle-lighting insights from my childhood. There is a perpetual light inside synagogues. This light reminds us of the holy light that was always kept lit in the Temple. That original light is the reason for the miracle needed on the original days of Chanukah, when that light had to be kept going even when there was no clean oil to keep it going with because so much had been defiled by the worship of a different religion entirely within our holiest of holies. Lo, the oil lasted eights days. Celebrating that light from the Temple before its destruction led eventually to the candles we light for Chanukah. The original light was in an oil lamp, and for a very long time oil and wicks gave us our Chanukah lights. Now, most of us use candles for Chanukah (as you know) and electricity for the memory of the Ner Tamid.

 

The other question I’ll answer this week is quite, quite different. “So, I know you have some extremely talented, butit’s fair to sayvastly different, musicians in your family history. What is your favourite musical memory from one of your family members?”

Normally I’d give a story about my father’s first cousin, Linda Phillips. Not only was she the per-eminent musician in the family, but she had great stories. Or I’d tell you about my own first cousin, Jon Snyder, who played in Captain Matchbox. My most favourite of all the music stories in my family is all about my father.

My father was a dentist. He claimed he loved going to orchestral concerts because the music gave him a good nap. He was also tone deaf. The first and third sentences are the critical ones in this story.

My sisters and I helped out at the dental practice when we were old enough. We were called “Assistant Dental Nurses.” I was the one responsible for patients who found going to the dentist difficult. I was that person long before I was old enough to be an Assistant Dental Nurse. I was expected to go into the waiting room and chat with people. I was, when I did this, the first stage of my father’s very distinctive version of an anesthetic system. Also, when a patient hurt too much and panicked in the dental chair, I was sent to the waiting room to explain what was happening. A few lucky indivuals react, for instance, to nitrous oxide by making noises that sound as if aliens were burrowing into their skull. Dad always took these patients out from under the nitrous oxide and checked to see if they were fine.

With one patient in particular, she was perfectly fine, both times he checked. She had been telling Dad how fine she was, the first time, and the second, she was singing. She simply had no vocal chord control and she wasn’t listening to what she sounded like and… everyone in the waiting room was freaked out.

I was a teenager and very literal. I still am very literal. My explanation of what was happening, including the warning that this filling might take a little longer than we expected, didn’t just calm people down, they chuckled.

When each of those patients reached the dental chair, they were perfectly relaxed. Then Dad gave his list of choices for anesthesia.

1. No anesthetic at all. Quite a few people opted for this. I did, myself, when I could. These days I am weak as a kitten and need help.

2. Nitrous oxide, or laughing gas. It relaxes me, and no undue and unexpected screaming has ever resulted from me taking it. It’s what I accepted on bad days or if the filling was deep and my teeth sensitive.

3. An injection.

4. A series of jokes by Dad. No-one ever chose this option, because everyone knew my father’s sense of humour. His favourite photocopy jokes were all on display in the waiting room.

5. A rap over the head with a hammer. No-one ever chose this, either.

6. Dad singing them to sleep. Some people chose this. When they realised that Dad sang in many keys, but only used two notes, they stopped him and said “How about we try an injection?”

To be honest, Dad’s list changed according to his mood. Once it reached 9 items, but I can’t remember them.

I do remember the time he decided to sing “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer” and the patient asked him if he had an invisible hand, holding the hammer, because he hurt so much from the singing that death might be preferable. From then, when I was Assistant Dental Nurse, I warned people in the waiting room about the list and said, “No matter what you do, don’t let Dad sing.”

The Future We Want

I’ve been putting myself to sleep at night by envisioning the kind of future world I’d like to see. Being a science fiction writer as well as someone who has spent much of my life doing work toward social change, I’m always thinking about better systems.

But the combination of the polycrises we face (I’m deliberately using the plural of crisis here because we not only have multiple crises that affect each other – thus the poly – but each crisis has its own set of multiple components) with the forthcoming grifter/broligarch/religious and right wing extremist government has urged me more in that direction.

Given that the government will not only not be addressing the polycrises but will in fact be doing things that make them much, much worse, I cannot be satisfied by resistance. And given that the status quo was already shaky – very little being done about climate change, inequality, and the cost of housing, not to mention protecting the country from insurrectionists – I’m not feeling pumped up about trying to get back to that.

Yeah, we need the rule of law and the Constitution here in the United States, but both those things have some big flaws that should have been addressed a long time ago. Most of the resistance will be focused on keeping political things from getting too much worse, but it won’t be fixing any of the underlying problems.

So I am trying to envision what we could have. I recently read an essay Donella Meadows wrote in 1994, “Envisioning a Sustainable World,” and it inspired me to do more imagining of what kind of world we could have.

Meadows was one of the authors of the 1972 work Limits to Growth, which provided a guide to the problems we’re facing right now. You can find out more about her work here and download a free copy of Limits to Growth here:

Of course, I’ve been working on envisioning futures all along.  Lately, I’ve been reading some futurist thinking to help expand my ability to do that. You have to be careful with futurists, since many of them are tied in with tech bro thinking, but there are some very useful skills in that area that help you get past the “there’s no way that could happen” point.

You have to get past the “there’s no way that could happen” point before you can open your mind to anything new.

Continue reading “The Future We Want”

From Little England to New York, not forgetting the Wild West

I once wondered what would happen if each time a place was central to a novel what would happen to the place if the mentions carrying charges. If the charges were of fairystuff, then new York and London, more than anywhere else in the English-speaking world, would turn into fairy wonderlands. Japanese anime answered this question for me by making the charges the stuff of detonation and world-changing tragedy. Tokyo has died more times than anywhere else in the Japanese-speaking world.

When I’d explored this notion decades ago, I kept it in mind, and nearly made a map containing all the places that were the heartland of a novel, just to find out more. At that point I entered the public service (this was a long time ago) and there was no time to make maps.

I turned my thoughts to notions that did not need mapping. How much do we centre our narratives around the US and around England? What does this do to our sense of what makes home? How does it affect how we see ourselves? Often it means we see ourselves poorly, because the London and New York publishing industries tend to reinforce the bias from the stories they select for publication. It’s far, far harder for outsiders to get published and have careers without moving to those places and creating networks and being seen. The further one is from a central place, the more difficult it is. In Australia, Sydney, Melbourne (and recently Brisbane) are those central points. People who can travel a lot and create modern networks are less disadvantaged. We know what this does to careers. I’m not sure we have looked deeply enough into what this does for the stories we tell.

Today, I’m thinking about this quite specifically in relation to the US’s story dream of a Wild West and in Australia’s equivalent. In novel terms, my favourite Australian story based in our Wild-West equivalent is Voss. It’s the opposite of anything written by Zane Grey. White won a Nobel Prize and Grey sold more novels than I can count. They are not, to be fair, good comparisons, because they were not simply written at far ends of the world, but they are also at far ends of the literary spectrum. Yet White and Grey are the two writers who always come to mind when I start to think about popular stories that share history. I read them both when I was fifteen and sixteen. I fiercely wanted to understand them. I didn’t want the literary understanding I was being offered at school. I wanted to understand how they tell us who we are and what would happen if we put them in historical perspective.

Both writers demonstrate some of the core stories we associate with European settlement when we’re telling stories that focus on that settlement. Those core stories give me hints on how we shape our own histories to make them distinctive. The publishing tendency to centralise rubs away differences. Publishing tends to limit the range of stories we’re offered and to focus on areas that publishers think will sell. This reinforces a small concept of the past and the reinforces it again and again and again until we think it’s legendary. Those of us who are not in the right region or culture find the legendary passes us by.

When I was twenty-six I accepted that job in Canberra and suddenly the stories of a gunslinging past were staring at me from the roads I walked. Local farmers were descended from famous bushrangers (Australian outlaws). Canberra is on the road from the goldfields to the big smoke. And yet… we didn’t have a big set of Wild West stories. We have some bushranger songs and tales, but they’re not encapsulated in a whole world the way the Wild West stories are. Australia’s writing legacy was through the UK rather than through the US and do, instead of dime novels, we had penny-dreadfuls and their ilk and heirs. We had writers such as Mary Fortune and Fergus Hume and, later, Arthur Upfield. They’re quite different in nature and story style. In many cases, the lives of the writers themselves held elements of that penny-dreadfulness and the books were often set in Melbourne. For Fortune and Hume, the best place to start with with the work of Lucy Sussex. She is also from Melbourne. Melbourne is, these days, a City of Literature, but it still relies on people living there and does not reach out so much to the rest of Australia. Likewise, the earlier Australian popular literature mentions of places do not seem to carry the same charges as novels set in New York or in the Wild West.

For readers, this is a good thing. Each novel can be read by itself and for itself. But from a cultural standpoint, it’s not so good. The pressure remains to write novels set in New York or to tell yet another Wild West science fiction story.

What are we missing with this? I was going to explore this in another post, next week, but I’ve been thinking about it. Would anyone reading this (including Treehouse friends!) like to talk about our histories? We could compare the dates we’re taught as important. We could discuss why the US has the Wild West while Australia has Marvellous Melbourne. We could compare goldrushes and outlaw stories. It could be a great deal of fun. Would anyone like to share a discussion? (Not for next week, for a mutually convenient future time.)

On Gentleness

It strikes me once again how much I need gentleness in these fraught times.

The last time the grifter was allowed to occupy the White House, I ended up writing a gentle adventure novel — gentle despite the fact that it was rooted in The Three Musketeers. It’s called For the Good of the Realm and the adventures are had by swordswomen and witches. You can buy a copy here if you’re in need of gentle adventures.

The sequel I’m working on turns out to have more violence and complexity in it, which might be why I’m having some trouble with the messy middle right now. I need gentleness, though not at the expense of trying to force a story to be something it isn’t. I didn’t realize I was writing a gentle adventure with Realm until it was finished, and the current book is opening some doors I never knew existed when I wrote the first one.

That said, it may be tricky for me to write something that’s a little harsher right now because – like I said at the beginning – the times cry out for gentleness as an antidote to what we’re facing.

Now in a world with numerous wars and cruel treatment of refugees and, for that matter, of anyone without enough money — people make homes in tents and old RVs in my neighborhood — gentleness is a privilege.

Probably it has always been a privilege, though when reading about “gently bred” ladies of the English Regency period, I am inclined to think those women were more imprisoned than protected by the concept. Gentleness needs to be freely given and available.

I do not want to ignore the evils of the world. We cannot stop them unless we acknowledge that they exist and act on that.

But at the same time, looking at the horrors and knowing you can’t stop them is hard. Not as hard as living through them, but still hard.

I was brought to this realization by two recent posts on social media. In one, a friend was planning to re-read Kim Stanley Robinson’s The Ministry for the Future, but going to skip Chapter 1 because they can’t face reading it again.

It’s a very hard chapter to read. You must read it when you read the book the first time, but it will likely be so seared in your memory after that that you can skip it and get to the part of the story that shows a better path forward on any re-reads.

Someone else I follow was watching Furiosa, the prequel to Fury Road, and while they love the movie, had to stop because they found it too hard to rewatch knowing what was coming.

I think that’s why I need gentle right now: because looking at what we’ve been through the last few years, I know some of what’s coming. Continue reading “On Gentleness”

The Right Way to Be a Writer

TLDR: There isn’t one.

I once auditioned to teach a writing course on the community level for a place that offered a bewildering array of classes in everything from becoming a real estate tycoon to becoming a high-end chef. It was pretty clear to me that they syllabus the program wanted was based on the 5- or 7-beat plot (which are essentially the same thing, but the 7-beat-plot breaks the stages down a bit more). So I put together a class outline and taught a sample class and lost the gig. Why? As near as I can tell, it’s because at the end of the class I said something like “Of course, this is only one way to write a novel, and it might not be the one for you.”

Apparently that was heresy. True, in my opinion, but heretical in that situation. Oh well.

I think many satisfying books have a glancing relation to the 5- or 7-beat story (there are many different terms for each beat–one man’s “introduction” might be another man’s “exposition,” etc. But the writer may get there without once thinking in those terms.

These days a lot of the writing advice I see is not about writing at all, but about the business of being a writer. And a lot of that advice is such that I, for one, would never have put pen to paper if I had seen it as a young and tender human. If you are the sort of person who likes to write, but writes slowly, or sweats over crafting a sentence, or thinks in a quirky, non-linear fashion, some of the rules could stop you dead. If you’re the kind of introvert for whom having a Social Media presence gives you shudders the rules could stop you dead. And rules really shouldn’t stop you dead, honest.

I was confidently told last month by someone who I assume is living up to her own dicta, that if I couldn’t publish a book a month–more would be better, but a girl’s got to sleep–then I would never make it as a writer.

Um.

It may be fortunate that I don’t make my living by writing, because I flunk many of the Right Way To Be A Writer tests. The fastest I have ever written a book was a little under three months–from turning in the outline to the editor  (I never outline, but it was a media tie-in book and such was required) to dropping the manuscript on said editor’s desk. Approval of the outline, by the way, came in a week after I delivered the book (the book was needed urgently, as the writer whose work had previously been scheduled for that slot had had to drop out–publishing schedules are sometimes inexorable). So: I am not going to be putting out a book a month, under any circumstances. I don’t, as noted, outline (actually, sometimes I outline when I’m about 2/3 of the way through a book to make sure I know where I”m going). The 5 or 7 steps in my plot are observed only when the book is done and I can say “hey, look! Rising action! I did that!” All in all, in terms of the Right Way shibboleths, I’m a pretty bad writer.

And yet I’ve written more than a dozen books, published 11 of them (I’m polishing #12 as we speak). So somehow, despite the rules, I appear to be a writer.

All this is to say: you are a writer if you write. You may not be an author (I tend to think of authors as persons who have written, and perhaps published. Authordom involves past tense). You may structure your work rigorously according to one metric or another, or wander, as I do, over the landscape of your plot until you find yourself at a satisfying destination. The rules are really just there to help you, not to grade you.

Okay: maybe there is one rule I would say is inviolable: Be yourself and have fun. If you’re having fun, even if it’s the stare-off-into-the-middle-distance-and-swear-under-your-breath sort of fun, then you’re doing it right. If you’re having fun, it’s far more likely that someone else–like the audience–will as well (all things being equal, and the book being written in sentences and stuff).

You can tie your own hands by following the rules; that may make you feel safer. But remember that art is by its nature a risky business.