Work In Progress

If my memory serves, that happens to be the name of a TV show which is currently running, but that's not what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is the concept of the "bored housewife".

Perhaps the funniest thing about modern life is its speed; everything keeps changing faster than people can really adapt their opinions of life (people adapt quickly enough, but opinion always lag reality). Sometimes this manifests itself as a hearkening back to a time which never existed; people get partially caught up in the present but haven't come to like it yet, so they imagine that the past was different from the parts of the present that they haven't figured out, and want that. There is, of course, the obvious manifestation of simply not noticing that the world has changed. It's not just generals who are always fighting the last battle, not the current one.

And then there's a special way in which it manifests itself related to another odd human tendency. Specifically, many very bad ideas which have come along were really just ideas in advance of their time, which is to say, ideas which weren't workable when they were introduced but for whatever reason (probably technological), they are workable now. And as is not uncommon, people eventually found out that the ideas were bad ones, and now don't notice that the ideas aren't so bad any more.

In particular, throughout most of human life, not counting certain very rich people, most human beings were either a husband or a wife, and as either was very dependent on the other. There is an awful lot of work involved in keeping up human beings, especially when it comes to growing/getting food ingredients, cooking food, making clothing, etc. Less if you're a hunter/gatherer, more if you're a farmer, but there was still an awful lot to do and men and women tended to become partners (to say nothing of families sticking together to help each other out too). Then some time around the 1930s/1940s the lot traditionally falling to women dropped off drastically, and women (being human) began looking for other things to do. That there no longer were traditional gender roles wasn't much noticed, and so this revolution spawned a counter-revolution, which was the house-wife of the 1950s. That in turn spawned another revolution, which was called the "women's lib movement". This revolution was people finally noticing the present, though largely at the expense of the past — far too many feminists acted as if gender roles never had any sense behind them.

Now, one of the biggest issues that feminists had was one of the biggest problems with the 1950s idealized gender roles — there was nothing to do. Trying to be a traditional wife with new technology resulted in a lot of depressed women. It wasn't just that they had nothing to do, it was that they also were extremely isolated from other adults (in large part due to housing situations making socializing difficult). (It should probably be noted, at this point, that these problems were by no means universal, as people who couldn't afford the new technology didn't face them, and plenty of women also adapted to being quite social during the time technology freed them from the drudgery of work.)

Anyhow, it's recently occurred to me that The Internet will probably spawn another such revolution, as spending all day at home can actually be quite stimulating and enjoyable. The Internet puts a wealth of people, information, and activities at one's fingertips. Not to be overly blog-centric, but blogs are perhaps the best expression yet of what IRC and usenet started. People can be producers and consumers all day long without spending money in activities which can be time-shifted (with scheduled posting and reading at your own convenience) and interrupted at will. With child-raising being a time intensive task, it would not surprise me much if some reasonable number of men and women chose to stay at home and do it while their partner goes off to work. Providing that people will be able to con their partners into it, of course. I suspect that many will, though. Raising children is rather difficult and time-consuming work, at least for the first few years.

A not very uncommon complaint among those who like fiction is that such-and-such a main character is "too perfect". I've never understood this complaint, even on a fairly basic level. It sounds a bit like complaining that a joke is too funny.

However, it's usually explained that when a character is perfect he's flat — he has no inner conflict. While I'll grant the second part, I cannot grant that the first part flows from it. Moreover, inner conflict isn't even very interesting; it makes for good suspense, but little else.

Now, the most popular people in the world are those who are confident; those who know what they're doing. (Interestingly, they're also often the most hated people in the world, but it shouldn't be much of a surprise that extremes often go together.) They're popular for this reason — they seem substantial. When C.S. Lewis, in The Great Divorce, portrayed people as insubstantial ghosts when viewed against the intense reality of heaven, he used a very good metaphore. People with deep internal conflict, i.e. confused people, are more substantial than evil people, but less so than good people. A man who doesn't know which was is up might be interesting to watch gain his feet, but until then he doesn't make for very pleasant company.

And perfect characters offer an additional benefit: they provide a real vision of what perfection is. In this confused world we live in, we all seek direction. We all want to know what our purpose is. That is, we want to know what should be, so that we can try to make it happen. In a sense, we're all on a voyage to somewhere and looking for the map. Perfect characters are a suggestion for the map. Characters with inner conflict suggest several maps.

Now, imperfect characters are easier to identify with — because we're imperfect — but at the same time there's no benefit to identifying with them. It's easy to identify with the lazy idiot main character of Shaun of the Dead, but there's no compelling reason to; there's no benefit to identifying with him. He doesn't offer anything more than we can find lying about in real life (ourselves as we are now). Stories let us dream of what life could be like, and what we could be like.

Anyhow, there's undoubtedly something I'm missing about conflicted characters, but what really got this post going was a thought that I had a few minutes ago. The best example which comes to mind of a perfect main character is Jesus in the gospels. In the gospels (and of course I believe in real life, but this post isn't about apologetics), Jesus is genuinely perfect. Jesus isn't just a god among men, he's actually God among men. He's "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. Through him all things came to be, and not one thing had its being but through him... and the word became flesh, and dwelt amongst us." Even if you take it as fiction, I can only pity someone who could read the gospels and come away thinking that Jesus was a flat, boring character...

I was thinking about irreducible complexity and the mouse trap recently, and I realized how you can reduce the complexity of the system. The key to this (as it is to a lot of biology) is that there are going to be a LOT of intermediate stages; you've really got to imagine the previous stage and work forwards, not try to work backwards.

In particular, make the hammer heavier and heaver. Then also keep the set position higher and higher. Eventually, have the hammer very slightly forward of vertical, and pretty heavy. Now the spring only functions to make the hammer, which otherwise would fall on its own, go faster. Now keep making the spring lighter until it ceases to exist. Now you've removed the spring keeping plausible intermediate stages. You can't do it in 1 step, but you can do it in 1000 steps. (Going in the correct order, the spring would first serve as an augmentation, then when it was powerful enough bringing the hammer backwords would serve as an augmentation, then eventually the weight isn't needed so the hammer and spring get lighter.)

This is the rough idea of how biological systems evolve, as well. Lots of little changes that don't look like they're actually accomplishing anything, but eventually do.

Now, I don't think that this means anything; it doesn't signify to Christianity one way or the other how everything was made. As Chesterton once observed, A God might as well choose to make things slowly as to make them quickly, especially if is, like the Christian God, outside of time. The main proof of Christianity is not science, but Christ. I think that we need to go into a little background:

Originally, no one thought that the world was made in steps*; atheists in particular figured that it always existed just like it was now, and theists generally seemed to think that it was made (in steps) just like it is now. Eventually came along the big bang, which sounded ridiculous, but eventually was accepted, which more or less held that whatever of the living stuff, the inanimate stuff was made a long time ago, and pretty slowly. Then Darwin postulated his famous idea that the living stuff came about slowly, too, by gradual changes directed by the environment.

Now, what's so radical about this notion is that all of the things which looked awfully like they had been custom built from scratch weren't — they were assembled very slowly not by tools but by pressures. While tools can only be applied by an intelligence, pressures can be applied by anything, and often are. It became possible that there was no intelligence behind the origin of species. That's not to say that it was any less likely, only less necessary; those not inclined to believe in God finally found a way not to, but that's not the same as saying that they finally found a reason not to. It should be remembered that human tools are just things which apply specific pressures quickly; tools in general are just things which apply pressures. That is, evolutionary pressure can be just as much a tool as a scalpel can be a tool. Braces on teeth do nothing but apply pressure slowly, but they're always applied by an intelligence.

Anyhow, the point is that a belief in God was no longer (essentially) required, and so some people stopped. It became a heated topic of debate whether God really existed, and so the topic of proving his existence arose.

Now, human beings really hate doubt. Some might tell you that they embrace doubt, but 99 times out of 100 they just mean that they embrace doubts of the things which they don't believe. Anyhow, one of the ways that this manifests itself is that people rarely accuse each other of being mistaken. No, everyone who disagrees is not just wrong about the facts. They're illogical. Their argument is full of fallacies. It's simply not even possible to believe it. And of course, conversely, it's impossible to believe anyone else's argument.

In discussions of the existence of God, this generally means one of

1. the universe inherently proves the existence of God

2. human intuition proves the existence of God (and the only reason that people doubt it is lust, greed, or pride)

3. the universe inherently disproves the existence of God

4. the non-existence of God is the default position, and it will take some really extraordinary evidence to prove otherwise, where extraordinary mostly means "impossible"

Now, the problem with all of these is that they're wrong. The universe neither proves nor disproves the existence of an intelligent creator; it neither makes it likely nor unlikely. We can only determine what's likely or unlikely from our experience and reason, and none of us knows the first thing about how to create universes.

What we do have, however, is records of the Creator of Everything actually telling us about it. I don't believe for a moment that the bible is literally true because it (1) never claims to be and (2) obviously isn't meant to be. However, there are parts in it that just as obvious are meant to be real records. The parts where God talks out of burning bushes, and the part where God became man and dwelt among people, come to mind. The Jesus parts especially.

Now, if you're a creature, it's very hard to know anything about your creator. Certainly your creator is no less than you are (unless you believe that nothing can create something), but that's about it. The only way to find out more about your creator than you can tell from knowing his creations is for him to tell you. And that's one of the aspects of Christianity. Now, the whole sin and redemption and living a perfect life aspects of Christianity are far more important than the parts which satisfy intellectual curiosity, but I've always been struck by this line (John 15:15):

I shall not call you servants any more, because a servant does not know his master's business; I call you friends, because I have made known to you everything I have learnt from my Father.

Now, people can still disbelieve the records we have of God coming and telling us that he created the world, but the main reason to believe that God created the world is not the particulars of a few objects in it, but that he told us so himself.

*Yeah, yeah, except for all of the people with creation myths. Atheists generally didn't have creation myths.

Set over the course of several centuries (at least), The Miracle Men is about two unimaginably good fighters. Very strong, very fast, good with any weapon, and seemingly impossible to kill, dodging before their opponent strikes, etc. In the middle ages they would fight (smaller) armies and win. They were called the miracle men because they would pull off what could only be described as miracles, enabling certain losers to be victorious. They weren't mercenaries, but were independent and unattached; they sometimes answered requests, etc. They were also enemies, equally matched. And here's the kicker: they were once the same person.

Backstory: our main character, call hime Mane, was the son of a knight, in training himself. His father was a very minor noble, but he was nobility. Mane heard stories of a magical thing (probably a chalice) which would grant people who found it power. Some investigation later, Mane set off to find it, and succeeded. He asked the thing for power, and it granted his wish on a condition: that Mane would get his power, but he would not get it unchecked (being no more specific than about that). Mane agreed, and the chalice gave him power in some manner that blinded and disoriented him during the process. When he came to again, he saw another man there which he didn't recognize but who also called himself Mane and who had all of the same memories. Using some water, they caught site of themselves and realized that they too had changed; neither looked like Mane, yet they both were.

They travelled home together, but before they could make it home their help was requested in some battle which they found easy and which started to get them fame (for their incredible skill, etc). As they tried to make their way home, they kept getting side-tracked, until on one job it was ambiguous which side was right. For some reason, Mane and Mane (who took to using different names, each giving up Mane for something else, say Peter and John) couldn't agree. Eventually when the battle was fought they were off on the sidelines fighting each other. Since they were evenly matched, neither won, and neither was really injured (they weren't big on the idea of killing each other), though they were quite impressive to watch. They tried to reconcile, once the battle was over, but they couldn't. It's quite difficult to be with someone who's exactly the same as you — it really undermines your sense of your own necessity in the grand scheme of creation — and this was the wedge which split the fissure. They split up, and sometimes fought apart, often they fought each other. To their mutual amazement, neither grew old or died.

(It turns out that the condition of checked power meant that neither could die of old age or get infirm while the other lived; and that when one was killed the other would die as well. (they could die in battle or of disease, but they wouldn't degenerate over time.) They eventually theorized something like this, during one of their truce periods, and so were especially careful not to kill each other when fighting, but limit it to wounding.)

Over the many years, they generally stayed away from each other, but occasionally during calm times would make truces with each other and talk. When you're (sort of) immortal, few people can relate, but time doesn't diminish the human need to talk to a sympathetic listiner. While they started out the same person, they grew apart from each other and changed with their different circumstances.

The main action should take place in the modern day, where their great physical ability isn't as useful any more as their vast experience and cunning (not that minor super powers aren't worth anything, but the ability to dodge arrows and kill 10 men in 10 seconds with a sword is of comparably less value when there are guns and explosives in the world; useful, but not what it once was).

As for what the modern day plot should be, good question. I'll let you know when I find out. :)

All my life I've had stories floating around my head that I want to tell, and soon I'm going to begin to write them in earnest. This category is a place where I'm going to put partially finished story ideas which occur to me so that they don't get lost. If they inspire anybody to write a good story, then I wish you God's Blessings in the task, and ask only that you:

1. Let me know (not to ask permission, just make me aware)

2. If you're published, it turns into a movie, or whatever, give me credit for the idea in some publically accessible way I can reference so that if I ever write about it, I won't be accused of plagiarism.

Anyhow, what follows will be anything from brief ideas to brief outlines. I hope that some people other than me find it interesting, and everyone else finds it forgiveable.