Small stories (instead of big ones)

 I was pulled into a discussion of "why not write a whole book, if you write so much anyway" a few days ago. With the whole of the internet brimming with guides on how to write your own 80 000 word epic and self publication on the rise, it does seem rather simple to write a novel.

I used to write something every day (I wrote about that here), although that's boiled down to writing something about twice a week. While I write less, the things I write have become more refined: I usually mull something over for a few minutes, jot the big picture down so I won't forget it, let it simmer for some hours and then write it down. With this, I'm still amounting something between five hundred and a thousand words a week.

The argument I was presented was that if I write that much anyway, wouldn't it be just as easy to write a full novel? Yes, I guess it would, was my answer. Except I don't want to. I like writing short stories specifically because of the way they work.

When I get an image in my head - maybe a phrase someone speaks or a short scene, or sometimes something bigger - it immediately spans to both temporal directions. I know the immediate reasons that have led to the situation and I see the brief causality of it. I know enough from around it to weave it to a story, and I know a lot more than I will ever tell. But I do not, at that moment, know nearly enough for a novel.

Short stories give multiple freedoms that are denied from a novel: it is hard to make a good novel where the style of telling changes every five pages. You can't (well, can, but I wouldn't) do too many literary hijinks with a novel: you can't test out ten different methods of contemporary storytelling. Short stories lay out possibilities to give brief glimpses into people and places that might otherwise be unaccessible. They're a different form of prose, compared to the novel.

Perhaps I could write a whole novel. Perhaps, one day, I will. But that's a completely different story.

Rooleja

Milloin olet viimeksi toivonut olevasi joku muu, tai muunlainen? Olevasi jossain muualla, tekeväsi jotain toista työtä, opiskelevasi jotain toista alaa, puhuvasi toista kieltä? Oletko joskus toivonut eläväsi toisessa, erilaisessa ajassa tai kulttuurissa? Oletko koskaan ajatellut, että elämäsi on harmaata ja ankeaa ja toivonut siihen nopeaa, radikaalia muutosta?

Äskeisestä sarjasta kysymyksiä löytyy luultavasti lähes jokaiselle ainakin yksi kohta, johon voi vastata kyllä: suurin osa mesitä on kuitenkin elänyt teini-iän tiimellyksessä, jolloin mikään ei oikein kelpaa. Koska on kuitenkin mahdollista, että joku vastaa jokaiseen kysymykseen "ei", tässä on toinen sarja kysymyksiä.

Oletko koskaan lukenut fiktiivistä kirjaa, novellia, kertomusta, tai sarjakuvaa? Oletko koskaan kuunnellut tai kertonut tarinoita tai juttuja? Oletko koskaan pelannut peliä tai leikkinyt leikkiä, jossa olet ottanut jonkun toisen roolin?

Kaikki äsken kysymäni kysymykset mahtuvat yhden kattotermin alle. Kyseessä on eskapismi. Aikuisia, jotka pelaavat tietokonepelejä, pilkataan usein, koska hei eivät "osaa kasvaa irti lapsuuden leikeistään". Samalla "tavallisten" aikuisten keskuudessa burnoutit, downshiftaaminen, masennus ja kaikki muut loppuunpalamisen ongelmat rehottavat voimakkaampina kuin koskaan.

Vaihtoehdot laskevat ihmisen onnellisuutta. Jos kaupassa on tarjolla vain yhtä virvoitusjuomaa, juo sitä onnellisempana, kuin jos valitsee kymmenestä tai viidestäkymmenestä vaihtoehdosta yhden. Nykyaika tarjoaa jatkuvasti enemmän vaihtoehtoja, joka aiheuttaa ihmisille ahdistusta: entä jos valitsen väärin?

Pelaaminen, lukeminen, leikkiminen, tarinankerronta, oman roolin asettaminen syrjään hetkiseksi, jonkun toisen saappaisiin astuminen vähentää todistettavasti tätä stressiä ja ahdistusta. Jonkin toisen roolin omaksuminen antaa perspektiiviä, mahdollisuuden asettua itsensä ulkopuolelle, aivan uudenlaisen reflektion keinon. Tehkää siis jotain, joka heittää teidät pois tutusta ympäristöstänne. Lukekaa fiktiota, astukaa Paul Atreidesin (Dyyni), Aylan (Maan lapset), Elizabeth Bennetin (Ylpeys ja ennakkoluulo), Adam Jensenin (Deus Ex: the Human Revolution) tai the Kidin (Bastion) kenkiin ja käykää jossain aivan muualla. Jos mikään ennalta luotu maailma ei tunnu hyvältä, tehkää omanne. Larpatkaa, cossatkaa, ropettakaa, tehkää teatteriharjoituksia tai käykää tulkitsevan nykytanssin kurssi. Tehkää jotain, jossa olette joku muu. Se on kaiken päälle vielä hauskaakin!

Untargeted Prayers

What I think of as the inherently western way of prayer that is practiced especially by monoteistic religions has always seemed somewhat backwards to me. Most "western" religions, especially the three big ones (Christianity, Muslim and Judaism) have for a very long time had a system of targeted, specific prayers: even more specifically, asking prayers. Most prayers have been targeted at something that the person praying wants to gain or wishes to give thanks for.

The three religions that I mentioned are not the only ones that do or have done this: old mediterranean religions had an even more specific system of doing these kind of prayers: each specific aspect of day-to-day life and affairs had a specific deity that the prayers (and offerings) were targeted at. Simply by calling upon a given deity you had targeted a specific aspect of life. Every prayer was a plea of sorts: if one asked for something, one was asking for enbetterment of the situation at hand, and if one was giving thanks for something "given", it was at the same time an unvocalized plea of stasis or further gain.

What I have now taken to calling the western faith system works rather backwards to me: you ask for right about everything, and when something good happens, you give thanks. If something bad happens, you do penance to make sure you won't be prosecuted by a celestial punitive force further. The three big religions of today all underline free will and personal choice, and yet everything that happens is immediately related to the system of faith and belief. Nothing happens without a celestial hand taking part in the proceedings.

As something of an agnostic myself, I find the system of targeted pleas to an unseen entity in hope of forgiveness or gain odd. It struck me as odd even when I was a kid, when the evening prayers were specific pleas of something, even if it was only "pray my soul to keep". This brings me to the namesake of today's rambling: untargeted prayers.

In some eastern belief systems, especially in Buddhism, there is no celestial entity from whom to ask much anything. Instead, the prayer system is untargeted: the prayers are targeted more at the inner self and maybe the universe: a meditative way of giving form and focus to the self that might have been previously missing. Here one could argue that there is such a prayer in Christianity as well: the ever-classic plea for world please, or for grace and goodness for others. This isn't the same, however, because the prayer is still targeted. While the plea is universal, it is asked from a single, specific entity.

The point I think I'm trying to make is that a system where all the thoughts and collective prayers focus on asking something from an entity gives the need for action away from the individual. When you pray for something better from a god, you can stop trying to enbetter the situtation yourself. If you hope and believe that someone else might do something instead of you if you just ask hard enough, you don't need to try to do anything personally. This is the only real problem I have with religious piety: if you simply believe that god will do something instead of you, you don't need to do it yourself.