It's only three weeks since The Mystery of Healing was let loose on the world and I'm awaiting feedback from readers. Last Thursday (28th Jan) there were almost five thousand downloads when the novel was offered for free. I spent about three hundred dollars on advertising it. It got to the number one spot in Historical Mysteries and Mystery Romance categories and #28 in the Free in Kindle Store categories. My experience with A Burning in The Darkness (published April 2017) is that most of the downloads won't be read. People like freebies and like to hoard. I can't say I blame them. I do too. If the give-away generates five reviews, I'll be happy. Ten would be great. Zero reviews might be confidence-shattering. Though five bad reviews would be worse.
I enjoyed writing the Mystery of Healing and enjoyed writing Solon's character. He's a likeable and interesting person with a good heart. Over the past months I've been sketching out the next installment of his adventures. I must admit that, some days, I'm finding it hard to stay motivated. I submitted both novels to possibly every agent in London. One agent asked to read The Mystery of Healing. I sent it, but never heard back and they never replied to any follow-up emails, which is unfair. Another asked me to re-write the opening chapter without having read the rest of the novel, but then rejected the re-write and didn't read the rest of the novel. However, I must also admit that the disappointment is very short lived. I'm not the only writer in this predicament
Obviously I don't want to give away any spoilers, so I daren't mention any plot and action. But, along with character and action, a good story must be about something that is not immediately apparent in the plot. There must be substance to it. The events in the novel should be rooted in foundations that are hidden beneath the ground. These are not immediately apparent to the reader nor are they always obvious to the author. But what is unsaid is necessary for a good story. It is part of the essential 'feel' of the novel.
I am interested in the philosophy of Solon's period, not because I think it was right, but because it is a way of attempting to understand how people at that time thought about the world. I have a degree in philosophy but I am not an expert and a lot of my conjecturing will be wrong. This is especially true of the more technical aspects. But it is also true that, despite our sceptical age, we are interested metaphysics - what powers are driving everything forward? There are many ways to define this first science.
Firstly we must begin with truthful observations of the world. More often than not, this involves a rejection of religious revelation. For the Greek philosophers this would be a rejection of the cosmologies of Homer and Hesiod and their chaotic, all-too-human gods. Later Neoplatonists believed Christianity to be an irrational personality cult. But a constant theme of the Greek philosophers is that careful observations of the natural world present us with a contradiction. Everything changes and everything stays the same.
Change is the most salient characteristic of the natural world. Birth, death, seasons, rotating planets, tides, winds. Yet all of these things have identities. They stay static and unchanging just about long enough for us to grasp them and name them and converse about them. There are also things that are pushing the change. Love is an obvious example. It causes birth and death. It causes things to be done - and not always for the best. But love is not an object in the way that a rock or a tree is an object. We cannot point to it directly. It is thoughtful agency.
The central questions for ancient metaphysics therefore are: what subsists through change and what causes change? The answer is eternal ideas. These drive the atoms and elements into shape and then destroy them again, whilst remaining unchanged in themselves. Essentially, the ancient philosophers have axiomatised the gods.
There is a glorious wreckage here. Two delicious contradictions. Firstly, having rejected revelation, the gods are re-embraced, though in a more 'logical' form. Secondly, having emphasised careful observations of the natural world, the philosophers came to believe that the unseen eternal ideas represent the truth. Observed objects are a kind of illusion. You begin with careful observations of the world only to find that the objects that constitute that world are illusory. How can you possibly justify beginning with observations of things that are a falsity and then affirm the truth? How can the false reveal the true? The ancient Greeks were all too aware of the mash up.
It's a marvellously human dog's-dinner, but I don't believe any of us escape these contradictions. Most writers agree that character is rooted in contradiction. These should be celebrated. This is what attracted me to write about Solon's world. We may think that their science is naive, but many in the ancient world lived an intelligent response to life and came to believe that kindness took precedence over all contradictions. Love's eternal nature is found in the pieces of our lives.
*
There is a triangular dance between desire, love and free-will. All of us want the freedom to love the person we desire. It is a negation of free-will if two people who love each other are denied their love. We are born with the need to give and receive love. We have no choice in this. Most of us would consider this a precious gift. Love lifts us up when it finds expression and fulfillment. Nor do we generally consider love to be something that takes from our choices. It is part and parcel of the 'I' that makes choices, and only a burden if it can't find expression or is supressed.
So, having the capacity for love is not a question for free-will, instead the denial of its expression is a matter of free-will. Something must already exist - a 'me' with desires - in order for free-will to come into existence. Without the 'me' there is no free-will. It is accidental to the 'me' in the world.
But this is a modern way of thinking. The ancient person believed the idea comes before the material reality. Someone has a thought, devises a plan and then builds. I have free-will and I have love in me. My parents were the same. And their parents and all the generations before them. There must be some being who is the first to have these thoughts and capacities. Such beings must be identical to the eternal nature of love and free-will, therefore they too are eternal. These beings had the first thoughts from which the world is shaped. Who are they? For most ancient Greeks it is the gods.
Accordingly, free-will is a thought that exists before the material world was brought into existence. If there is free-will there must be a god of free-will. But this presents a contradiction. (Another one!) If free-will is the thought of something other than ourselves, then how can it be our free-will? We have no real autonomy.
This is further complicated when we factor in the eternal nature of the gods. It's not that, once-upon-a-time, the god of free-will had the thought and let it fly. If this were the case, free-will would be our inheritance to use as we wanted. (The modern idea.) Instead, because first thoughts are eternal, they are everpresent and their agency is everpresent. If the god of free-will stopped thinking then free-will would disappear. So, if there were no gods there would be no free-will and no love. But if the gods dictate everything then there is no free-will either. Maybe the rational thing would be to deny the existence of free-will. In other words we choose to deny the existence of free-will; itself an act of free-will. This is a prison because we cannot un-choose free-will.
Yet when we remind ourselves of the question of love and free-will, we again feel the powerful desire for freedom in love. It is our core. Without such freedoms we are barely shadows of ourselves. It is a square circle.
I enjoyed writing the Mystery of Healing and enjoyed writing Solon's character. He's a likeable and interesting person with a good heart. Over the past months I've been sketching out the next installment of his adventures. I must admit that, some days, I'm finding it hard to stay motivated. I submitted both novels to possibly every agent in London. One agent asked to read The Mystery of Healing. I sent it, but never heard back and they never replied to any follow-up emails, which is unfair. Another asked me to re-write the opening chapter without having read the rest of the novel, but then rejected the re-write and didn't read the rest of the novel. However, I must also admit that the disappointment is very short lived. I'm not the only writer in this predicament
Obviously I don't want to give away any spoilers, so I daren't mention any plot and action. But, along with character and action, a good story must be about something that is not immediately apparent in the plot. There must be substance to it. The events in the novel should be rooted in foundations that are hidden beneath the ground. These are not immediately apparent to the reader nor are they always obvious to the author. But what is unsaid is necessary for a good story. It is part of the essential 'feel' of the novel.
I am interested in the philosophy of Solon's period, not because I think it was right, but because it is a way of attempting to understand how people at that time thought about the world. I have a degree in philosophy but I am not an expert and a lot of my conjecturing will be wrong. This is especially true of the more technical aspects. But it is also true that, despite our sceptical age, we are interested metaphysics - what powers are driving everything forward? There are many ways to define this first science.
Firstly we must begin with truthful observations of the world. More often than not, this involves a rejection of religious revelation. For the Greek philosophers this would be a rejection of the cosmologies of Homer and Hesiod and their chaotic, all-too-human gods. Later Neoplatonists believed Christianity to be an irrational personality cult. But a constant theme of the Greek philosophers is that careful observations of the natural world present us with a contradiction. Everything changes and everything stays the same.
Change is the most salient characteristic of the natural world. Birth, death, seasons, rotating planets, tides, winds. Yet all of these things have identities. They stay static and unchanging just about long enough for us to grasp them and name them and converse about them. There are also things that are pushing the change. Love is an obvious example. It causes birth and death. It causes things to be done - and not always for the best. But love is not an object in the way that a rock or a tree is an object. We cannot point to it directly. It is thoughtful agency.
The central questions for ancient metaphysics therefore are: what subsists through change and what causes change? The answer is eternal ideas. These drive the atoms and elements into shape and then destroy them again, whilst remaining unchanged in themselves. Essentially, the ancient philosophers have axiomatised the gods.
There is a glorious wreckage here. Two delicious contradictions. Firstly, having rejected revelation, the gods are re-embraced, though in a more 'logical' form. Secondly, having emphasised careful observations of the natural world, the philosophers came to believe that the unseen eternal ideas represent the truth. Observed objects are a kind of illusion. You begin with careful observations of the world only to find that the objects that constitute that world are illusory. How can you possibly justify beginning with observations of things that are a falsity and then affirm the truth? How can the false reveal the true? The ancient Greeks were all too aware of the mash up.
It's a marvellously human dog's-dinner, but I don't believe any of us escape these contradictions. Most writers agree that character is rooted in contradiction. These should be celebrated. This is what attracted me to write about Solon's world. We may think that their science is naive, but many in the ancient world lived an intelligent response to life and came to believe that kindness took precedence over all contradictions. Love's eternal nature is found in the pieces of our lives.
*
There is a triangular dance between desire, love and free-will. All of us want the freedom to love the person we desire. It is a negation of free-will if two people who love each other are denied their love. We are born with the need to give and receive love. We have no choice in this. Most of us would consider this a precious gift. Love lifts us up when it finds expression and fulfillment. Nor do we generally consider love to be something that takes from our choices. It is part and parcel of the 'I' that makes choices, and only a burden if it can't find expression or is supressed.
So, having the capacity for love is not a question for free-will, instead the denial of its expression is a matter of free-will. Something must already exist - a 'me' with desires - in order for free-will to come into existence. Without the 'me' there is no free-will. It is accidental to the 'me' in the world.
But this is a modern way of thinking. The ancient person believed the idea comes before the material reality. Someone has a thought, devises a plan and then builds. I have free-will and I have love in me. My parents were the same. And their parents and all the generations before them. There must be some being who is the first to have these thoughts and capacities. Such beings must be identical to the eternal nature of love and free-will, therefore they too are eternal. These beings had the first thoughts from which the world is shaped. Who are they? For most ancient Greeks it is the gods.
Accordingly, free-will is a thought that exists before the material world was brought into existence. If there is free-will there must be a god of free-will. But this presents a contradiction. (Another one!) If free-will is the thought of something other than ourselves, then how can it be our free-will? We have no real autonomy.
This is further complicated when we factor in the eternal nature of the gods. It's not that, once-upon-a-time, the god of free-will had the thought and let it fly. If this were the case, free-will would be our inheritance to use as we wanted. (The modern idea.) Instead, because first thoughts are eternal, they are everpresent and their agency is everpresent. If the god of free-will stopped thinking then free-will would disappear. So, if there were no gods there would be no free-will and no love. But if the gods dictate everything then there is no free-will either. Maybe the rational thing would be to deny the existence of free-will. In other words we choose to deny the existence of free-will; itself an act of free-will. This is a prison because we cannot un-choose free-will.
Yet when we remind ourselves of the question of love and free-will, we again feel the powerful desire for freedom in love. It is our core. Without such freedoms we are barely shadows of ourselves. It is a square circle.
RSS Feed