Opposites Attract, or Likes Polarize?

Trying to find an updated nickname for a US marine for a book revision, I stumbled across, first a Wikipedia page on US Marines terminology, and then by two steps, this short description of the origin of the term "gung ho."

I grew up with the term, using it as a synonym of "enthusiastic," and was eventually aware that it probably had a Chinese derivation, but not until now specifically what that was.

During the 15-year Japanese invasion and occupation of parts of China (a timespan I repeatedly emphasized when teaching high schoolers about WWII), the US maintained formal, diplomatic relations with the nationalist and communist partisans resisting the invaders. One such diplomat, Marine Lt. Col. Evans Carlson, reported on the industrial cooperatives the Chinese government set up to replace the output captured by the Japanese Imperial Army in the coastal regions.

The Chinese government agency that coordinated this industrial effort was called Gongye Hezhoushe, which might mean something as simple as "industrial cooperative." (Maybe that's what the cooperatives were called, and the agency was called something else. It doesn't matter for this story, though of course it matters in the larger picture.)

Lt. Col. Carlson was very impressed with these efforts, and took the philosophy "Gong He" (work together, i.e. for a common goal) as the motto of an elite group of Marines he later commanded. The spelling "he" in the current pinyin phoneticization of Chinese is better represented to English speakers as "HUH," an accented syllable with a vowel not unlike the "oo" in "hoof" (NOT like the "oo" in "roof" for most of us.)

At the time of Lt. Col. Carlson's exposure to the industrial cooperative spirit, the dominant romanization of Chinese words was the Wade-Giles system, in which that sound was represented by the letter combination "ho." This is the source of our pronunciation - I'm assuming you pronounce "gung ho" the way I do, rhyming with the garden tool or the female deer.


We can bring this full circle (or would this be half a circle?) to today, when the interests of the US Military have for decades been associated in the public's mind more with the Republican than the Democratic Party, and the interests of capital as well. (Don't believe the hype.) Currently, Republicans voting in primaries and attending candidate debates seem to favor the aggressive military and industrial posture of the United States of a century ago (in the midst of conquering around the Caribbean and the Pacific) - a kind of remanifest destiny. They want the US military to defend US economic interests abroad.

Our greatest economic competitor, and one of our biggest collaborators (are you reading this on an iPad?) is China, a country beset by industrial cooperation in some pretty nasty forms. (Again, reading this on an iPad?) Our hawkish citizens tend to fear this competition and favor militarism, at least, on our country's part. (The trick will be getting all the other countries to unilaterally concede our superiority.)

Therefore, an unofficial motto of our US Marine Corps, "Gung Ho!" may come to stand in part for the military adventurism favored by whoever the Republican nominee will be (note to Ron Paul supporters: ...oh, never mind, you won't believe me anyway), including the aggressive military stance his supporters will want him to take against [drum roll, please] industrial cooperation in China!

---

Now, can someone please give the justification for calling a 1980s movie about a Japanese company opening a plant in the US "Gung Ho"?

hollow writing about a hollow achievement

I can't figure out what the source of the success of Huaxi village is.

Clifford Cloonan's Jan. 17, 2012 article in The Independent, "Huaxi: The socialist village where everyone is wealthy," doesn't explain how Huaxi got wealthy.


Well, not beyond founding village chairman Wu Renbao allowing farmers to grow the crops of their choice. The only way that would get them the level of riches described is if they were growing poppies or coca. 


Am I missing something? The town emits socialist songs over a PA system. I think there has to be more to this story in which solid gold statues and a skyscraper in a tiny village are the product of "socialism with Chinese characteristics."

AJ Barnett - Tell Me a Story: More on characters

I just read this list, and find it very helpful, if not completely surprising.

In it, Barnett compiles the elements of effective character development. What I liked in the post was how true it rang. I'm starting the fifth Song of Ice and Fire novel, before finishing a post-apocalyptic zombie thriller that just doesn't excite me as much, and alongside James Patterson (Maximum Ride series - we just fiinished #2) and Mike Lupica (Hero) for the boys.

AJ Barnett - Tell Me a Story: More on characters

I've skipped over the first two for my own writing, but at work, I edited a few series and found the pictures (#1 on Barnett's list) pretty helpful. I didn't list all the attributes, though.

I keep reflecting on the habits of the authors of my favorite books, and without access to the authors directly, I have only logic to go on. George Martin (Song of Ice and Fire) has so many characters, I can't imagine he wrote down all their characteristics. However, each one comes alive so distinctly that I am sure he has a critical list for each. You can hear it in their speech, as well as see it in the staging of scenes. In that way, Martin is very much like Jeanne Penderwick, whose books are parodied as "The Penderwicks don't do anything," but which include such deft detail and dialogue that the characters come alive off the page and do memorable nothings, rather than forgettable big things.

Anyway, worth a read. Thanks to AJ Barnett.

"Edgy" books for teens - an apologia

I read and appreciated Gail Giles' defense of the darkness in YA literature.

I often think of edginess as an inducement to read, because I'm writing and editing for non-habitual readers. I imagine the 12-year-old reading at a second-grade level feeling frustrated and bored at the same time by the puppies-and-teddy-bears book she can't quite decipher, when her classmates are reading The Hunger Games. 

Giles' approach and reasoning are different. She argues that teens are ill-equipped to understand the consequences to the antisocial impulses they have, and that literature offers them a safe way to explore those impulses, and those consequences. This is the antithesis of the parental clench reaction to anything adult-y, and I find it refreshing.

Please read it (follow the link above or here), and let me know where you stand.

"splat?"

Susanne Lakin writes in her blog Live Write Thrive about the demise of the publishing industry, long live the publishing industry.

I like her take, that words will survive the transition to digital platforms, and moreover that writers will get more direct benefits. 

And this from someone in the publishing industry!

I even think there's good news in there for publishers, however hard the short run adaptation will be.

Because my segment of the industry is school publishing, I have to think of school budgets when I think of changes in our industry. All of the parents at work bemoan the impoverishment of our local schools. We frankly don't see the iPads and smart-screens taking over just yet. Our customers are scraping together change from the couch cushions to buy our products. (Great business model, right? Sell to special ed and resource teachers...)

So, where are all these digital readers? When to publishers need to make the leap?

I think it will a be slow and halting leap, with lots of school publishers falling short of the target, but all market shake-ups are like that. How many "for sale" signs have you seen on real estate offices in the past three years?

Lakin's argument that we need to embrace the change is well taken. My arms (and eyes) are open. Now who's voting to raise their property taxes to buy tablet computers for the LD classes?

Don't all jump at once...

Why there's a James Patterson section at the bookstore

I recently finished reading the first Maximum Ride novel, The Angel Experiment, to my kids. It had annoying stylistic issues, uneven plot structure, and way too many chapters. One hundred forty something? Seriously?

Still, I can see why, when I was shopping for the sequel (at some awful chain store - sorry, Mike!), I found among sections titled "Mystery" and "Young Adult Fiction," one called "James Patterson."

I was wondering about this from a writer's perspective, as well as a reader's. Please excuse the pomposity of what follows. I am opining, and asking for you to read. It is a pompous exercise by nature, and unlike Newt Gingrich, I will own up to my pomposity.

How does a story attract readers and hold them? One attraction is familiarity, which allows for empathy. We like Huck Finn's impish disdain for authority not because it is good, but because we feel the same sometimes, even into adulthood, yearning to kick off our shoes and run away to the river.

Another attraction is exoticism. The strange world of Gethen Ursula LeGuin reveals in The Left Hand of Darkness, beginning with the celebration of the completion of a public works project in the Karhide capital, not only introduces us to the cautious, patient protagonist Genly Ai, but also to the cold, damp, and fusty civilization that evolved there.

There is also the appeal of coming to know someone new, to make a new friend (or a new self) through reading fiction. For me, one of the best was the self-righteous and lethally impulsive Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. He is nettled and worried, alone and betrayed, wronged and reckless.


And here's why (aside from diligence, volume, and effective marketing) James Patterson's Maximum Ride succeeds: Patterson takes readers from ignorance of the world and people he created, through knowledge of Max, her family, and their world, into empathy. (Pompous enough yet?)

• at the stage of ignorance, readers have familiarity and empathy with their own stories
• at the stage of knowledge, readers acquire familiarity with the protagonist, and are developing empathy
• at the stage of empathy, readers begin to feel what the protagonist will do next, and to care about the outcome

I've been thinking about making readers care about protagonists a lot. Patterson, to me, clearly has this down. Not only is Max almost instantly empathetic (there's a quick step in Angel Experiment from a tiny bit of knowledge to strong empathy), but the supporting characters are all deeply likeable, though my favorite is Nudge.

I'm a lot like Nudge in some respects, so I think the difference between my identification with her and with the other characters is based on that, whereas with Max, it's more about the convincing empathy of the situation. It's Max's situation in the world Patterson creates, more than Nudge's or even Angel's, that generates empathy.

How does someone like George R. R. Martin do this with a dozen (I've honestly lost count) characters? I'm on the third (have I lost count of that, too?) book of the Song of Ice and Fire septology (wouldn't that be appropriate?), and I am absolutely stunned at how much I yearn for the next bit of news about each of the characters. I'm even hungry for news from Theon Greyjoy!

The reason, or a good chunk of it, for this eagerness, is that each lead character has strengths I wish I had, and weaknesses I feel a need to avoid. Jon Snow is resourceful, but impulsive; Jaime Lannister is a champion, but unfettered by ethics or sympathy; Catelyn Tully Stark is proud and kind, but badly governed by those good emotions; Daenerys Targaryen is resilient and a strategic thinker, but in well over her head, and my favorite, Arya Stark, has the heart of a hero, but the body of a not-quite-ten-year-old girl. (Okay, that's not my problem exactly, but physical weakness is kind of a universal fear.)

And with each character-centered chapter, a part of the story is told, and knowledge is gained, but the characters' strengths and weaknesses make them more empathetic. And then Martin cuts us off from the newsfeed, the supply of knowledge. And we're stuck, waiting for more.

So why is there a Patterson section at B&N, and not a Martin section? Patterson tells single-narrative stories in great proliferation, allowing less polish, and inventing less of the world. He has less knowledge to convey (though he has plenty in his world), and fewer characters to bring to life, than Martin does.

I wonder if any of this will be useful in writing.

List or satire: who can tell?

I used to love reading the Harper's Index. I actually read the whole magazine, cover to cover, when I subscribed. (Come to think of it, I might subscribe again. That was pretty good reading.)

The reasons I liked the Index were the latent humor of juxtaposition, the generally progressive message the list of data conveyed, and the heady feeling that there was humor out there, just waiting to be dug up, in newspaper clippings and economic statistics and other modern political detritus.

It's that sort of confusion and humorous serendipity, the feeling that we may be looking at information, or natural events, or something intended to be serious, or we may be looking at a satire of it, and we can't tell at first. 

That's why I wanted to share this list of Republican actions - as Speaker Boehner promised leading up to the 2010 legislative election - to focus on job creation.

My favorite:

(110) 11-18-2011: The House is once again considering the "Balanced Budget Amendment", which sounds almost reasonable until you learn it could cost millions of jobs. Oy vey.

Actually, I just picked that one quickly. I couldn't really decide on a favorite. However, I like having a list of Congress' GOP majority's actions resolutely failing to create, and mostly even failing to address, jobs.

This isn't totally subtle, but it is a list, and it is satire. I think.