Politics

Politics, according to Webster's, is the art or science of government. To denigrate art and science to that level is despicable. So that should give you a clue of how I feel about politics. Now politic means, "characterized by shrewdness in managing, contriving, or dealing." Okey-dokey, this gives us a big clue. Politics is very closely connected with groups and trade.

Once upon a time, I read Ayn Rand. I continued to read Rand every year for a long time. I'm a "verse and chapter" fan of her work, or someone who knows her books very well. I must have read her work maybe 20 times each. That is where I started. I read "Capitalism" in 8th grade study hall. I owned most of Von Mises's works. And then I met the Objectivists. Then I met the Libertarians. I was so completely turned off of what I saw among some of these people that I never did walk this road. Why? Because I am female. Now, I'm not a libber, by far. But I saw that neither Objectivists nor Libertarians extended their POLITICAL ideals into their homes. Many of them felt that women were to be bought and sold and were to be managed. Most of them denied acting one way toward their fellow men and another to their fellow women and children, but heck, for many of them, economics and politics ended at their doors. The chattel was still chattel, only they had paid for it and not stolen it.

I was too disgusted by most of them to even argue with them. But I did notice one thing right off. On the fringes of the far, far right, and on the fringes of the far, far left, you have the Anarchists. The black flags make the far right and the far left meet. And these people extended humanity to women and children when confronted with them. In my encounters with the far left, many of them pushed the "rights" of women, but still let them do all the work and earn the money. Often the far left women were the ones practical enough to know that the commune was all well and good but someone had to work in a bookstore to go buy the groceries.

I was "converted" by Dave Tyson, in about two seconds. Dave wanted to be a librarian and manage the historical records of the Kansas activists and Utopians who tried to set up house in the 19th Century. He turned me on to Robert LeFevre. Some claim that Heinlein was influenced by him when they both lived in Colorado Springs. For any of you who are Libertarians or Objectivists and have not read LeFevre, for shame, for shame. If any of you call yourselves liberals and have not read LeFevre, for shame. Dave Tyson's irritation was that everyone was re-inventing the arguments that had already been hashed out, time and again, and few were as eloquent as LeFevre.

But the argument is pretty easy. A man rules himself. Period. If he cannot rule himself, then he is not a man. (Substitute woman here if you want.) Children should be treated as humans as soon as you can do so. It was clear that my son was his own person from the moment he came into this world. People told me not to ask my son if he wanted to do things, but to tell him, and I looked at them and thought: "this is the root of all politics." As Laurie Anderson says: "when justice fails, there is always force, when force fails, there is always mom. Hello, mom." And it was clear that any Libertarian or Liberal who did not see that managing and contriving starts in the cradle was an idiot. The only reason men become men is because they have the strength to defy mom. And we all learn that strength or we don't grow up. So few of us had moms that treated us like human beings that it's a wonder any man can rule himself. We have government because our mothers treated us like dogs, well worse, for she often asks the dog if it wants to go outside.

If you put a coat on a child who doesn't want a coat on, you are denying that child the most basic humanity there is. I don't care if you are in a hurry. I don't care if you think it's cold out. I don't care if junior has to wear something. That's in your head and you are acting as if that child is a thing, an animal, a slave or chattel. If you stick a spoon of peas into that child when the child doesn't want it, you are putting that child in prison. There is no middle way here. You treat that child with the respect due to every human and you will get a human; you treat that child like a slave and you will get a slave. Even masters are slaves. Even presidents and kings are slaves. If you can't argue or reason with a two year old, if you resort to force without owning up to using force because you're out of options, then you are evil. I'm sorry, but you have to take responsibility for your actions, your words and your thoughts.

Sure I spanked my child, threw him into time out. But I told him that I was angry and that was why I did it. I did not tell him it was because he was bad. That's bullshit. A child cannot be bad, no matter how much he irritates you. My son and I used to get into some terrible fights, but it was never because he was bad or wrong. We fought because he was in a bad mood and wanted to fight. Sometimes kids want to fight. As a parent, you must try not to fight with them, for you are much bigger than they are and that's just bullying them, but they may want to fight you. So what? You fight. They grow out of it, if you let them. If you don't listen to what it is that is bothering them and deal with it, then they will keep fighting, and good for them! I believe in kids who fight. They might grow up into something human if they are fighting for their humanity, for not eating those peas or wearing that coat or going to bed when you want them to. You are a tyrant and if they fight you, then they have a chance in hell of growing up into someone who will defy oppression.

People learn slave tactics as children. Women learn to manipulate people around them, men learn to ignore people or to use passive-aggressive behavior to get around doing what they're told. Women learn to cry or to whine to get what they want. Men learn to pout and to sulk. The endless behavior of couples toward one another is disgusting and tragic. I've heard people say that couples can only relate to each other if one is master and one is servant, if one wins and one loses. What kind of relationship is that? One is the parent and one is the child. Maybe both are the children. The state of humanity in this county--in the world--is appalling. The fact that people cannot ask things of each other without appearing to be manipulative is appalling. That people use language to manage and manipulate is appalling. That people expect to have their needs met by another is appalling. None of this is human. Much of it isn't even like animal behavior.

People ask me what my politics are. There is only one response to politics: to say NO. I am a human being. I am reasonable, rational, intelligent, and cooperative. But my response to anyone telling me what to do is the response of myself at two: HELL NO! I was really defiant at two, but it got beat out of me until I was a sulky teenager. I'm one of those people who is cooperative until a point and then I'm throwing you across the yard. I don't follow the rules. But I'm one of the easiest people on this planet to get along with.

My son once asked me why I didn't yell at him. I asked: "why do people yell at you?" "Because they are angry." "Don't you know when I get angry?" "Oh, yeah." "Then why yell?" That started him thinking. Communication is about the exchange of information. When the flow breaks down, then people have to get emotional. A child never starts out by screaming for something. Over and over, if you watch toddlers, you can see them trying and trying and trying to communicate their needs and feelings and getting ignored. It is only after trying everything else that they every start screaming. OF COURSE they do it to get attention. Sheesh. What do you think we are, slugs? The only reason a mammal screeches is to get attention. All these words and we have to resort to screeches or tears or sulks or growls or--well, you get the point. What are words for, if not to communicate? Take responsibility for what you need to communicate and try to do so.

I find that all the talk of what governments should do is ludicrous when we can't even make a family work in peace. If a husband and wife find that they cannot treat each other as humans, what do we expect from someone who lives thousands of miles away and will never know who we are or care?

No, I am not political. I'm human. I can talk to you; I don't have to manage, contrive or deal to get my way.

I feel like telling Libertarians and Objectivists, "grow up." But what I mean is "grow human." Be a human, be a man, be a woman. But to do that, you have to own all that you do and know that what you do will have consequence. You bet it will. So be there, be aware, and own yourself.

For God hath Wrought no Greater Beauty than Man

When I was thirteen, my best friend gave me a copy of Ayn Rand's Anthem. Boy, did that change my life. I quickly read everything Rand had published at that time. What is ironic is that I read into Rand what was not there, well some of what was not there. At this time in my life, I was also heavily influenced by Spock on Star Trek and Quai Chang Kane from Kung Fu. I did not understand some of Rand's characters and I disagreed with much of what she wrote, but I found Howard Roark to be a kindred spirit. I went on to read authors who had influenced Rand, looking for what she called "a sense of life."

At the age of nine, having read The Lord of Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, I had decided to write epic fantasy. At the age of twelve, I knew that I had to learn to draw my own characters. Rand taught me not to be ashamed of being talented or smart and to love the heroic in man. From Spock, I learned to honor discipline and from Quai Chang Kane to honor the quiet spirit. Later, I added to my mental collection all art that I found that honored the "angelic" in man or that which makes him a man and not an ape. Mathematics, music, art, poetry, science--all these things I loved and desired in my life. I lived a life close to that of Rand's characters and I had no problems common to Objectivists where they felt that they did not measure up to the paragons that Rand created. I found this totally appalling, for I felt that my little finger was infinitely greater than Dagny Taggart, for was I not real? I later found out that my mother had read and admired Rand and probably married my father as a result, for he was also the paragon, similar to Roark or Galt. He was an aerospace engineer who was tall, handsome, brilliant and vastly dissatisfied with anyone who told him what to do or what to think.

Later, I discovered that the way I had grown up was the way that people tried to be when they went to college. I had lived this life as if I were the brilliant daughter of Roark and it was odd to me that people did not see this as a totally logical and sane way to live. When I began mixing with Objectivists I was astounded at the people that I met, for the paragon did not sit naturally on them, but was something forced, desired, but not natural.

I later called this code of ethics that I learned from my father and recognized in fiction: the Cult of Toughness, after my father's family who tended toward stoicism. They were Welsh immigrants, thirteen generations American, staunch Baptists, engineers, teachers, poets and farmers. It is hard for me to describe the meme set that I learned from my father that was reinforced by writers that I loved. I later learned that this meme set was ancient, probably a combination of the Celtic warrior caste and the eola caste, or professional caste of poets, doctors and engineers. My father's people were the eolas of the warrior class, so to speak. The adopted the ethics of honor and stoicism and the mind set of the intellectual.

The one thing lacking in some of Rand is the wicked sense of humor and the backwards emotional set of this kind of Celt who would laugh when dying and cry when happy. These people had a sense of humor that was subtle and malicious at times. You had to be very fast with your brain to engage any of them for they would take you down with sarcasm and wit unless you took it on the chin and kept fighting.

I knew when I started writing that I could not write stories with a certain kind of character that is very popular, the character like Luke Skywalker. One of the reasons for this is that my entire family is kind of devoid of fear. If they are not counter-phobic, doing wild things for an adrenaline rush, they are like me where fear just does not enter the picture, well the anxious kind of fear. Fear is a momentary reaction to a physical situation and not a mind set. The popular character has at his heart (or hers) fear. Having not really known fear, I found it difficult to write about characters motivated by fear. Fear of failure was even more remote from my own life. There was no fail. People did what they did motivated by the act of it, not some goal of achieving something such as a prize or recognition. My family is extremely competitive, but not because they want to win, but because they like to battle. Winning is just not nearly as fun as playing.

But I got lost in the suggestions of well-meaning people, lost in the expectations of editors, and lost in the examples so prevalent in our society. I learned after a long, long time that fear is a value/problem of a certain caste that includes farmers and merchants and has to do with money and loss and status that relies upon wealth and connection. For the warrior caste, the driving motivation is pride or arrogance; for the eola caste, the driving motivation is curiosity or hatred; for the performing caste, the driving motivation is fame and security. Only one caste was motivated by fear and greed, it is NOT a universal trait, just an American trait.

I am still trying to free myself from the web of expectation in fiction writing. Part of this disentanglement lies in the creation of characters who are not motivated by fear. This picture is an illustration for a YA novel called, Tales of Anieth - Aveldonacc. This is a picture of one of the most famous kings of the Horse People, Raol Aveldonacc. In all wars and invasions there is a key man, or a key battle. The key man in the invasion that takes place in this series is King Raol Aveldonacc. In one version of the history of Anieth, Raol is the man who betrays his people to the Zelosians, causing a genocide. The books are about a group of teens who try to change this history. In the first book, they try to change King Raol's early life, making him a hero rather than a traitor. Ultimately, Raol is still a tragic character, but along the lines of Turin Turambar or Cuchulainn, not Luke Skywalker. Raol's basic motivation is not fear, but outrage.

Part of the challenge of writing for me is to create pictures of my characters. The pictures HAVE to show the character and not just be pretty or in an interesting style. I am faced not only with personality, but with family genetics, and racial characteristics. Raol here has to be a Celtic type from 2,000 BCE Europe. His family has black hair, blue or greenish eyes, and very fair skin that does not tan. They have deep set, long eyes, straight, heavy brows, the long Celt nose and prominent bones. Their hair is also fine and straight. In the story, Raol is perceived by others as ugly or beautiful, but not "normal" looking with eyes that would burn people, he is so intense and so disgusted with what he sees around him. He is a reformer, stronger that the people around him and a berserk. He is also a brilliant musician and hates being a warrior. He does not have any gentle feelings, but hates or loves with a brutality that is totally repressed. I had to show all this in his face, but make the predominant characteristic of the young Raol to be that of the reformer or the man with vision.

I wanted to make Raol a man of God without a god. He is a MORAL man, or a man who will die rather than violate his code. He is a man of few words who loves women, music, and poetry but also excels at all the sports and is a master of strategy and warfare. He is a highly educated man and a man for whom honor is not a word, but life itself.



Gradually, I am getting close to my goal of being able to write about my own people while ignoring the values that I find so difficult to understand. More than anything else, I want to give this vision to young people (people of all ages) of the beauty of MAN as a man, as an angelic part of God, if you will, the Michael of the Flaming Sword, the man who is both a poet and an engineer and a fighter. The kind of man that is almost dead in our culture or the man who would die before he crawled. A man like Howard Roark, or maybe more like Stephen Mallory or Ellis Wyatt.

Here is a segment of the book, showing something of Nick Stanford, who plays the character of King Raol Aveldonacc.

He had watched the girls' archery contest a moment earlier with great joy. The girls used shorter bows and competed for accuracy and speed rather than distance and power and elegance.
A woman should be accurate and fleet of foot and word, he thought. A man should be precise with power, saying little, but meaning more in his one word than a woman could in a whole conversation. Men were meant for elegance, standing, looking, watching: arrogant and beautiful, while the women ran around them, hens scratching in the dirt, lovely in their movement as men are in their stillness.
He remembered what he had learned of the Holly and their goal of being forever caught in the moment of thrust and the singing release of the spear, poised, silent, yet taut and powerful in the space between movement.
A man is stillness.
Nick did not look at the target, knowing that a true arrow is already in the target of the mind. To shoot, one had to already have shot. The string snapped and vibrated. He watched instead the breath-catching beauty of the arrow flight, feeling himself the arrow, shot by god, set free into the sun and air and blue, blue reach of sky. He stood, silent and still, showing the audience the soul of skill itself: the precision, the singing of the silence. As soon as he moved all would be lost and the audience would clap and cry out as they then evaluated his shot, not by its action, but by its results.
Nick knew that he had hit the eye of the target where the other princes had shot wide or near of the impossible distance. He turned away; the moment was over. It was as if he had died: he felt that silence of ending with a great grief that was still, bowed, broken.
It was over.
Then he resented the rush of time that pulled him out of eternity and made him part of the crying crowd and the other shooter's appraisals and fears of doing not nearly so well.
It is only about the moment, he thought. Then even that feeling was lost in the rush of girls and youths who rushed up to congratulate him. He felt himself swept up by them, moved and moving, lost in the herd of chattering, high voices clamoring for his attention.

It is hard for me to express that I want to give young readers this meme set, this heroism, this beauty of man that is passing away from us. It is my life's work to show through the arts what is the highest in man, that which makes him the most beautiful of God's creations.