Les Pensees Dangereuses: Dangerous thoughts about life, love, pets, friends and depression
Sharon E. Cathcart
Smashwords Edition
Copyright 2009 Sharon E. Cathcart
Jacket design by Sharon E. Cathcart. Image (“Desdemona,” Frederick Leighton) via Wikimedia Commons.
Books by internationally published author Sharon E. Cathcart provide discerning readers of essays, fiction and non-fiction with a powerful, truthful literary experience.
Smashwords Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be resold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
Contents
Thoughts About Marriage Equality
I started this project with something else entirely in mind. I wanted to write about my experience with depression, but it turned out to be, well, depressing. The last chapter contains that unfinished piece, so you’ll see what I wrote. However, I realized that what I really wanted to do was share a number of essays I have written over the past few years. Some of them come from my blog, some of them from writings I did for the Metropolitan Community Church, still others from college papers ... in other words, they come from all over the place.
The title, Les Pensees Dangereuses, came from the idea that ideas can be dangerous or threatening to people who disagree with one’s perspective. It also pays homage to one of my favorite epistolary novels, Les Liaisons Dangereuses. The concept that ideas can be just as dangerous as people intrigues me: I like it. In V for Vendetta, V tells Evie that “ideas are bulletproof.” Indeed, they are. It is my pleasure and delight to share my ideas with you. Perhaps you will agree with my positions, perhaps not. In any event, I hope that you will think about them.
Any author will tell you that no book is truly a solo project. I have so many people to thank; please accept my apologies in advance, for I suspect I’ll forget to include someone along the way. That said, my unfailing gratitude to: my friends at Livejournal, Facebook, GB.Net and GoodReads; the classmates who grew into marvelous adults; Sondra Zentner, MD; Fiona, Heidi and Maisey from the first riding academy; Nic and Sundance (RIP, buddy) from the second riding academy; the fans who read and enjoyed my first novel; Rev. Michael Patrick Ellard and the entire MetropolitanCommunity Church of San Jose; the school teachers who encouraged me (you’ll read about some of them) my mom and dad; my husband, Jeff.
As is always the case with these sorts of books, there will be some names changed to protect the innocent (or guilty).
For as far back as I can remember, I wrote. Stories, essays, poetry ... the words came flowing out of my pen. I will be the first to admit that some of it was not very good at all. However, I kept at it. For a time, I made my living as a journalist and, eventually, a newspaper editor. I co-authored a nonfiction military history book, and published a novel. Now, I share my thoughts about this, and many other matters, with you.
The Work of Being a Writer (Blog, 6/10/09)
I should be drying my hair, but I just need to get this out.
Being a writer is hard work. Sure, there's the actual writing ... but then what?
I was thinking about so many things this morning, and trying not to be overwhelmed.
-- Every submission requirement is different. I'm in the midst of prepping yet another version of In The Eye of The Beholder, this time for a UK publisher who is interested in receiving my manuscript for consideration. After that, yet another submission version to prep for Authonomy.
-- Publicity is hard, and sometimes you make a misstep. I did already. I submitted my book to a reviewer who belatedly (and I mean belatedly ... this had never been stated previously) announced that he expects authors to query him before sending him works. I sent a note of apology; there's nothing more I could do.
-- I am sometimes frustrated by the publicity process, to tell you the truth. We are all taught not to be boastful and self-serving. I used to work in public affairs for the Army, and I wrote press releases and promotional news information all the time. Marketing myself, though, is a challenge. My new marketing postcards have arrived; the next step is getting them out to people.
-- I have the additional burden of dealing with medically resistant depression. That makes getting out of the house to go to my day job (and every author of my acquaintance has a day job) difficult, so adding this additional "shift," if you will, makes things just a little tougher. Thrown in that my house is a disaster ... which just feeds the depression. I'm working on the house, but sometimes it's all I can do to pitch out the recycling. Those who cope with depression will understand; those who have never been through it cannot possibly relate -- it's not something you can just "snap out of."
-- At the same time, I theorize that my depression may be a gift. Many artists and authors throughout history have been prone to bouts of melancholia. I even gave my main character, Claire, a tendency toward melancholia in an attempt to get across what it's like to live in that state. I don't know how well I succeeded in that regard: only a reader could tell me.
I really needed to get this off of my chest. I am trying not to get frustrated or depressed this early in the game ... some minutes are better than others.
Thoughts on Being a Writer (Blog, 5/24/09)
I did a little more editing work on In The Eye of the Beholder today, both before I went to church and a little bit this afternoon after I re-watched PS I Love You. After services, Rev. Mike gave me my chocolate bar (a prize for correctly identifying the language into which one of MCC's weekly reflections had been translated -- Polish) and the reprint of my first entry in the Weekly Reflection series. My article was picked up by another MCC for their newsletter.
So, I'm watching PS I Love You this afternoon, and one of the letters Gerry sends to Holly talks about how he remembers her talking about creating something. Holly talks about how creating things shows the world something about you -- something that you didn't even perhaps know about yourself.
It seemed like all of these experiences today conspired to make me realize something: I had stopped thinking about myself as a writer. I guess I felt as though I no longer had that right after getting that rejection letter last year from the publisher. I thought I was deluding myself, you know? I had a novel -- 55K plus words, with a plot and everything -- but I had stopped thinking of myself as a writer.
I don't know quite why. I started the book four years ago, during an especially dark time in my life. It took me three years to finish it. I am so proud of it -- even as I go through this final batch of edits and tighten things up once and for all so that it can go up on the eBook site. But other than this blog, I had pretty much stopped writing until Rev. Mike asked me to write a weekly reflection. I used to write for a living, folks. But I stopped thinking about myself as an artist of words -- I wasn't kind enough to myself to think I had any business doing so.
The overarching theme of In The Eye of the Beholder is the importance of compassion. I also realize that it's the overarching theme of my two favorite books of all time (The Man Who Fell to Earth, by Walter Tevis, and Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux). Yet, I did not have enough compassion toward myself to recognize that I was shutting down the most creative part of me -- the part of me that has, more times than I care to admit, shown me something that I didn't know about myself.
So, here it is: I am a writer. I am an artist of words. My greatest gift is my pen (or, in this case, my keyboard) and what I make come from it. I am so very proud of myself for what I have written already, and I am grateful for finding my way back to that place.
On Being "A Writer" (Blog, 5/11/06)
I have been thinking about this in light of my most recent competition ... and the disappointing results thereof.
What does it mean to "be a writer"?
First of all, I'm figuring out that it had best be a very spiritual thing, because not everyone will like what you do. Objectively, you can know that your work is better than thus-and-so's, but ultimately you need to remember that judges (i.e., your readers) are subjective.
I know when my writing misses the mark; likewise, I know when I've done something that is pretty remarkable. The failure of those more remarkable pieces to inferior ones, where contest accolades are concerned, most likely says more about the judges than the overall quality of the material.
Another thing that, to me, is part and parcel of being a writer is being a reader. Get to know what you like about a particular work. Why does it strike a chord with you?
A very recent example, for me, was when I read a well-known romance author's latest release for one of my book clubs. I found the plot tired and formulaic, and her writing to be a little ... dull. I thought that part of my problem was that I've become a little long in the tooth to relate to 20-something, beautiful bluestocking virgins. (Did I mention that this book was rather formulaic?)
But then, I started a book that showed me that my assumption was false.
I never read Dodie Smith's I Capture the Castle as a kid. I loved her other books, The Hundred and One Dalmatians and The Starlight Bark, and blame those books for the Dalmatian hair on my dark clothes today.
However, I digress.
The heroine of I Capture the Castle is a 17-year-old bluestocking, living with her impoverished family in an English castle during the war years. I am completely hooked by this book because of Smith's gorgeous prose.
What I just came to understand last night is that my enjoyment of a given book is not so much about my age as it is about my intellect.
A comment in this blog a few days ago came rushing back as soon as I realized that. Basically, some writers just rise above the dreck -- but there is, nevertheless, a huge audience for dreck.
So, part of being a writer is also understanding your audience. While my novel-in-progress is a love story, I have deliberately avoided the formula whenever possible. My heroine is in her 30s and has definitely been around the block. The folks who love their 20-something virginal bluestockings won't like her at all, and that's not the audience I really want, anyway.
This was a huge revelation to me.
I love authors who challenge me by presuming that I know things. If I don't know them, I can go find out. I love authors who make me think ... who show me a different perspective on an issue.
That's the kind of writer I want to be, and I'll be taking my writing more in that direction now that I understand it.
I may lose some of my potential audience ... but there are lots of books about bluestocking virgins available.
Some Thoughts on "Mary Sue" Fan Fiction (Blog, 3/24/05)
For those unfamiliar with the term "Mary Sue," it is, essentially, form of fanfic in which the author, almost always a teenage girl, inserts herself either into a fictional universe or into a real-life situation involving characters from a movie, book, TV show, etc. -- or the actors who play them. The author is always portrayed as gorgeous, popular and uber-capable ... and always "gets her man" in the end.
It is almost always unbearable to read.
I know this, because I have reread some of mine as an adult. How embarrassing it was to me, from the perspective of a published author and former newspaper editor, to see what my literary efforts were like then. I had no idea what I was talking about most of the time, and it showed.
Mind you, there is some outstanding fanfic out there. What makes it good is reasonably believable plot devices and an understanding of the source canon, if you ask me. I agree with something one of my fellow posters said about using real people in your fanfic; it smacks of turning them into nothing but (to steal her phrase) dancing meat puppets, and I am embarrassed that I ever did so.
I'm also embarrassed at how lousy my so-called love scenes were at the time. Argh. There are few things more embarrassing than love scenes written by virgins.
But, I digress.
The thing is, I understand the motivation for these "works." It sucks to be (as was my case) the way too skinny "brainiac" who was more at home in the theatrical community than going to football games and homecoming dances. I assume the same is true for the overweight, the socially unskilled, etc. ... and "Mary Sue" stories are a way to "show 'em all" ... after all, if David Bowie turns up to take you to the prom, they'll all be "sorry for how mean they were" (yes, that was one of my "plots"). No one, I suspect, would be sorrier than David Bowie, really, at being arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, but that's an entirely different story ... because, my friends, in the real world, normal adult males do not have romantic or, heaven forfend, sexual relationships with young teens.
I also applaud anyone's efforts to be a writer. Really, I do. But honestly, folks, please stick to writing about stuff you know or can research. If you are suddenly going to create yourself as a swashbuckling hero, people who actually know something about swordplay will be embarrassed beyond words for you if you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm also not some sort of a canon-nazi when it comes to this kind of thing ... you may sense some different motivation in the character's behavior, and that's okay if you can get it across. But be original, for crying out loud. Phantom of the Opera fic that features Mary Sue parroting Christine Daae's lines from the play or film is not original: it's plagiarism.
I know this sounds hypercritical, and I'm donning flameproof bloomers just in case. That said, please, please don't stop writing. Hone your craft. Work at it. If you really want to insert yourself in first-person form into a fictional universe, though, you need to accept that some people are going to snicker at your expense. Sad, but true.
I was talking about this with my best friend on the phone the other night. She and I were, as I stated earlier, guilty of writing some of the most abominable Mary Sue fiction in the history of "literature." We found some of these stories as adults, and were alternately horrified and laughing hysterically. The result of this rereading was a hilarious tongue-in-cheek Mary Sue tale that made use of every stereotyped plot device we had ever employed ... and there were a bunch of 'em.
Now, this doubtless sounds like a peculiar post coming from someone who is working on Part 12 of the first fiction I've written in nearly 20 years ... and am baring it to the world via one of the LJ communities. I know that I am opening myself to criticisms both positive and negative as a result of so doing; that is the risk I assume.
So, in conclusion, if you receive criticism of your writing, take it for what it is. Not all will like what you have done. Some will find your work unbelievable for whatever reason (lack of experience, evident lack of knowledge, what-have-you). Don't stop writing, but use the criticism to improve your work. I promise that you'll be grateful later.
For many years, I yearned for a career in theatre. Sadly, I did not have the necessary support at home to make it happen. I still love attending plays whenever I get a chance, although I have not acted (with the exception of environmental theatre like Dickens Fair) for many years. Here are some papers I wrote for a Theatre Appreciation course.
The Actor/Audience Relationship (Foothill College, 1/16/07)
The Circle
By W. Somerset Maugham
Director: Mark Lamos
American Conservatory Theatre
January 14, 2007
This drawing-room comedy had minimal actor/audience interaction. Allison Jean White, as “Elizabeth Champion-Cheney,” faces and addresses the audience whenever she is describing something she either remembers or has imagined. Otherwise, the fourth wall is left very much intact as the characters interact with one another. However, actors did appropriately adjust their pacing to allow for laughter to subside before proceeding with the next line.
I think that, while this play might work well as a BBC or Masterpiece Theatre presentation, some people might find it claustrophobic. All of the action takes place in the same room, with a static set; a few days pass between the first and second acts, and a few hours between the second and third acts. I also think that, because the film or video does not adjust itself to the viewer, those inclined to laugh aloud at Maugham’s clever dialogue would miss at least some part of the show. This would be truly unfortunate, as the subtleties of many of the characters might be lost as a result.
The metaphor in this play comes from the title itself. The Circle is primarily focused on love triangles from two different generations. “Arnold Champion-Cheney, MP,” played by James Waterston, is still feeling the pain from his mother’s (“Lady Catherine Champion-Cheney, played by Kathleen Widdoes) departure some 30 years previously with her lover (“Lord Hugh Porteous,” played by Ken Ruta). At the time the play’s action occurs, Arnold’s wife (the aforementioned Elizabeth) is contemplating whether or not she will succumb to the advances of “Edward Luton,” a planter from the Federated Malay States, played by Craig Marker. Maugham’s goal of demonstrating that the past cannot be ignored is ably demonstrated through the circle metaphor as history repeats itself in the Champion-Cheney drawing room.
The play asked that the audience suspend disbelief via numerous means. While three members of the cast are English actors, the Americans employed appropriate dialect to give the illusion of all being members of the English aristocracy. Period-looking furnishings and props gave the set the appearance of an English country drawing room. An additional touch was the stage surface being painted to look like an Aubusson carpet, right down to the fringes. Three doors, one upstage and two stage left and stage right respectively, give the impression that there is more house beyond the drawing room where all of the action occurs. Finally, the tapestry bell pull on the wall is used many times to summon the butler (played by Tony Blair) so that the audience is asked to believe a bell is ringing “below stairs.”
Arnold’s father, Clive Champion-Cheney (played by Philip Kerr), opted not to live in the family home after his wife’s scandal-ridden departure. He visits frequently, but lives in an unseen cottage elsewhere on the grounds. He refers to the cottage often, many times in terms of what is not to be found there (food, adequate serving staff, etc.). This causes the audience to initially create a picture of an older, somewhat lonely man living by himself. Later in the play, Clive discusses his numerous exploits with younger women, which somehow leaves the same lonely impression as we envision the aging roué dismissing his young paramours so that he can return to his solitary existence.
Theatre Design (Foothill College, 2/20/07)
A Few Good Men
Written by Aaron Sorkin
Directed by James Dunn
Ross Valley Players, February 18, 2007
The design of this production was rather austere. The backdrop of the stage was a length of chain-link fence; there were also two sliding panels of chain-link fence which were used to indicate scenes taking place in the military prison, or “brig,” when Lt. j.g. Daniel Kaffee (Michael Abts) visits his clients, Lance Cpl. Harold Dawson (Wendell H. Wilson) and PFC Loudon Downey (Pierre Littee). All of the action takes place during the summer of 1986, but there is nothing other than a program note to indicate the time period.
The other props consisted of three tables and a few leather-upholstered straight-back chairs placed around the stage. The table upstage represented both the base commander’s desk and the bench of the judge at the court-martial. Tables positioned stage left and stage right represented any number of offices, depending on the items placed on each one. For example, the desk at stage left is Lt. Col. Nathan Jessep’s (Eric Burke) when it has a jar of gum balls on it, but is also the prosecutor’s table when Lt. Jack Ross (Christopher Ginesi) puts his briefcase down. The table at stage right was the defense’s table in court, as well as the work table for when Kaffee, Lt. Cmdr. Joanne Galloway (Jennifer Reimer) and Lt. j.g. Sam Weinberg (Stephen Dietz) were doing research and preparing their case.
The lighting design helped a great deal in overcoming the rather stark staging. Backlighting of blue or green indicated the location (Washington DC or Cuba, respectively), and red backlighting was used for some of the more violent scenes, such as when Capt. Matthew Markinson (Ben Colteaux) commits suicide. Scenes showing PFC William Santiago (Gregg Davis) writing letters to his congressman find the rest of the stage in darkness, even when other actors are present, and a small spot on the actor seated downstage on a set of stairs.
Costumes consisted of military uniforms from the US Navy and US Marine Corps, and ranged from the battle dress uniform (camouflage) to Class A (Navy whites or tans) and even a dress uniform complete with saber. The costumes were appropriately used in accordance with military protocol, but were missing the name tags or name tapes (depending on the uniform) that are required by regulation. This is a small oversight that the average person would probably not notice. Makeup and hair design were also appropriate and within military regulation. For instance, actors playing Marines all had the traditional USMC “high and tight” haircut, which helped lend an air of authenticity to the production.
I do not know how many of the design decisions were solely budgetary, given the sparseness of the set and the small size of the theatre company. However, the set, lighting and costumes all worked together to help “get the message across” for Sorkin’s work.
The Play: (Foothill College, 2/12/07)
Camelot
Book and Lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner
Music by Frederick Loewe
Directed by Glenn Casale
American Musical Theatre of San Jose, February 10, 2007
Camelot is, first and foremost, musical theatre. The songs are used to advance the plot. For example, Guenevere’s (Rachel York) “Simple Joys of Maidenhood” lets us know that she expects men to demonstrate their affections by waging war over her. She reiterates that premise with “Take Me To The Fair,” when she asks various knights to challenge Lancelot (Jason Barbour) because she is jealous of his friendship with Arthur (Michael York).
Another example is Lancelot’s “C’est Moi,” where he sings about how he derives his strength from his purity. This is an important point of the plot, because the eventual love triangle between Arthur, Guenevere and Lancelot results in not only the downfall of Camelot but also Lancelot’s fall from grace.
Camelot deals with serious issues (war, love, chivalry), but does have elements of comic relief. There are several very amusing lines throughout, such as when Guenevere implies that Lancelot believes himself to have a direct line to the deity (“When you have finished arranging things with God, milord ...”). I think that, because of the subject matter, this play could also be considered a “tragicomedy.”
The dramatic structure of Camelot is episodic. There are numerous locations (Joyeuse Garde, in France; a hill overlooked by Camelot; the jousting fields; the interior of Camelot; the castle gardens). There are many characters, ranging from lords and ladies of the court to pages, squires and even another king (Pellinore, played by Time Winters). Some scenes are long (when Arthur meets Guenevere) and others are short (when Guenevere is tried for treason and sentenced to death). Scenes alternate between public activities like the joust and private time with Arthur and Guenevere or some other character.
It could also be argued that Camelot is a tight and compact play, since it deals with a specific piece of evidence (Guenevere being caught in Lancelot’s arms) that threatens to destroy the social order of Camelot. Arthur believes in trial by jury, and when the jury finds Guenevere guilty of treason he must either deny his law or deny his love for her.
The play opens with King Arthur seated outside Joyeuse Garde, in France, on the eve of battle. He is reminiscing about how he became king and the events that lead him to France to do battle against Lancelot, whom he has considered to be his best friend. The stage swirls with mist and Arthur is wrapped in a cloak with a small firepot near him as he recalls how he pulled the sword from the stone (this action takes place in the background as Arthur discusses the event), and how he met Guenevere. Arthur’s reminiscings are the main action of the play and the first scene segues into a flashback to the day that Guenevere first came to Camelot.
The opening scene lets the audience know that all is not well, not only by Arthur’s lines but also the dark and foggy appearance of the stage. Arthur is alone and addressing the absent Merlin, foreshadowing the eventual downfall of his kingdom. We meet Mordred (Shannon Stoeke) for the first time and, presuming that the viewer is familiar with Arthurian legend, we know that he will plot his father’s downfall.
Final Theatre Paper (Foothill College, 3/4/07)
Arcadia
Written by Tom Stoppard
Directed by Rebecca J. Ennals
The Pear Avenue Theatre, February 25, 2007
Tom Stoppard’s Arcadia is one of my favorite plays of all time, so I was delighted to have an opportunity to see another production of this work.
The premise of the play is rather complex, involving questions of whether a 13-year-old girl (Thomasina Coverley, ably portrayed by Elvy Yost) living during the Regency period in England has solved Fermat’s Theorem and whether Lord Byron has committed murder on the property. Action alternates between the Regency period and the modern day, showing both what was done in the past and what researchers are determining to have occurred based on the evidence before them.
Thomasina’s tutor, Septimus Hodge (Michael Barrett Austin, in one of the show’s finest performances) is carrying on an affair with Lady Chater, whose husband Ezra (Richard Miller, who plays the role with a rather peculiar falsetto tone that I’m sure is intended to convey nervousness or fear but is frankly annoying) challenges him to a duel. The letter with the duel challenge is placed into a book belonging to Hodge, but subsequently found amongst Byron’s belongings. It is this letter that causes researchers in the present day (Hannah Jarvis, played by Sylvia Kratins, and Bernard Nightingale, portrayed by Stewart Lyle) to make assumptions about Byron’s involvement in the entire affair. This assumption results in something of a comedy of errors that is apparent to the audience (e.g., eventually learning that Byron and Hodge were contemporaries at university and thus it would not be unusual for Hodge to lend out his book).
The set design is simple, as it involves a single room. Properties that are set down during the Regency scenes are subsequently used in the modern day scenes (e.g., a theodolite [a type of navigational device] is moved from a table top to the interior of a lectern during a Regency scene, and then “unearthed” from the lectern by Hannah Jarvis when she is looking for a sketchbook that has likewise been shown in an earlier scene). Properties consist of a table that generally has books and papers spread on it, a couple of chairs, and a lectern.
The backdrop resembles toile fabrics with their rustic scenery, and is used to indicate the back garden as designed by Richard Noakes (Michael Champlin, who also doubles as Jellaby, the butler) to resemble a wilderness rather than the staid designs of Capability Brown. Frameworks are used to indicate doors and French windows from which the various actors enter or exit the scenes.
Lighting design was quite basic, consisting of only the most simplistic cues to raise or lower the light levels illuminating the entire scene;. Costumes were generally appropriate, particularly the Regency period attire, with the exception of Captain Edward Brice’s (Josh Sigal) uniform, which was entirely too brightly colored for a naval uniform of the period; the line was correct but the fabric was not.
I found Stewart Lyle’s performance to be the strongest in the entire cast. Lyle, an Equity actor, turns in an excellent performance as the somewhat choleric Byron scholar who is determined to present his new “evidence” about Byron’s duel to scholarly societies and make a name for himself. His vexations as the skeptical Hannah Jarvis continues to find new evidence to show his theories to be inaccurate were well portrayed and believable.
Having seen five very different plays this term, it is difficult to choose which ones I might readily choose to share with a friend. It is fairly easy, however, for me to dismiss one of them. Honestly, if this particular friend did not have children, I would not bother to take them to see Peter Pan. Despite Juliane Godfrey’s outstanding performance in the title role, I found the overall production to be overly comedic for my particular taste (e.g., the decision to play Captain Hook as a comedic fop rather than a villain, as well as having him make anachronistic comments outside the script for additional comic relief). While the production values were high (e.g., fly-wires for the actors and rather good sets), I don’t think that most adults would be entertained by this show as much as small children would be.