I Am My Books (well, maybe)

John M Scalzi's weekend assignment is to post about what book would give the reader some idea of the blogger's personality. Four books come to mind for me, two of which most people can't read yet, and two more that millions of people have read.

What you haven't read (apologies to Sarah, Sara and Linda):
Of course I'm referring to my two unpublished novels, Heirs of Mavarin and Mages of Mavarin. It's not just because of a desire to promote them that I mention them here, although it's fair to say I'm obsessed with getting them edited and accepted for publication by a major publisher. The salient point is that they dramatize many of my core values - gentleness, compassion, idealism, honesty, a questing sort of faith, empathy, and earnestness - as well as my frailties - selfishness, obsession, impulsiveness, messiness, insecurity, alienation, and naivitee. Very few of my characters are malicious, and even those guys are somewhat likeable, and have reasons for what they do. In short, the Mavarin books have a sensibility that is the antithesis of Lord of the Flies.

What would these books tell you about me? Not much, in terms of biographical details. None of these characters are me, particularly, or people I know. I suppose there are reflected bits of me, split by a prism into a fragmented rainbow. Still, the biggest fragments reflect my attitudes with fair accuracy. I don't like war, revenge, or most of the nastier human emotions and actions. They exist, though, and must be dealt with, preferably by loving, peaceful means wherever possible--not that that always works.

What you've read, or should read:
Not surprisingly for someone who maintains a Madeleine L'Engle website, the single most seminal book for me among books by other people is
A Wrinkle in Time. The award-winning story, about a smart, alienated non-beauty adolescent misfit, promotes compassion, critical thought, faith, reading, truth, mathematics (okay, I'm a little weak on that part) and individuality. Its depiction of logic without love, imposed conformity without compassion is especially memorable. One message in the book, examined more bluntly in one of the sequels, is that even the alienated misfit needs to learn to adapt, not for the sake of conformity but to be more effective at survival. That's a lesson I was unable to learn as a teenager. I hope I'm better at it now.

What I would "unread":
In ninth grade we not only read William Golding's Lord of the Flies but were made to watch the film. I hated it and was haunted by it. The premise of this novel is that people are no damn good, and that only the veneer of society - the social contract codified by laws and enforced by police - keeps people from murder and depravity. As the former victim of elementary school bullies (ten kids surrounding me to put ice down my back for the crimes of social ineptness and the last name Funk), I know perfectly well that people sometimes do malicious things to each other. One has only to look at the Middle East and Africa (just for starters) to see malice at work. I prefer to believe, however, that that is not the dominant thread of human behavior. People hurt each other mostly because they've developed a dehumanizing "us and them" mentality, in which "they" aren't really human and therefore don't have any rights. The most extreme form of this is found in the psychopath, who cannot believe in anyone other than himself (or herself). I suppose the Lord of the Flies defines me about as well as the other books mentioned here, as an example of everything I'm against.

Karen