A little pitchy

(For those former American Idol fans out there, just imagine the title of this post spoken in Randy Jackson's voice.)

I was once a fan. (Ah, puns...)

Now that we're done with that, I took a small break from editing this weekend to formally write a pitch for Chronicle of Angels and Men:


Thirteen-year old Shigeru Kouna had never wondered why. “Why did good people die?” “Why was conviction so lacking?” “And just why did good intentions pave the road to hell?...” To him, “Why?” was a question that plagued so many. Too many. But it was a question essential to Human existence. 

Certainly it would seem implausible that a boy such as Shigeru, especially one so young, could have life so figured. And yet, he did. Being the son of such a father, a father who had plotted to alter the very nature of Man – to change the “why” – Shigeru had always known his purpose. His father had been a rigid man, strong in his convictions and strong in his beliefs, and as a young boy, Shigeru had so longed to tread in the footsteps of his father.

They were concepts drilled day in and day out into his skull, now brimming with existential theorems and religious query. And though it was his father who had keyed him in to such quandaries of life and death and God and Man, it was not his father who would solve them. No, in three days, his father would be dead. But only in this death would Shigeru find true insight into the crisis of Man.

Chronicle of Angels and Men is a 55,000-word novel and follows the stories of five men on expeditions of morality, understanding, and the Human condition. From the hunter, for whom Law was his god, to the reprobate creatures living in the shadows of Man and craving the redemption  of Heaven, their journeys explore the tenets of faith and law and the Human potential - what is life, what defines it, and what is the next step in Man's quest for evolutionary perfection. 


I can't say much on how good a pitch it is or not. (I suppose an agent will tell me that.) But as mentioned above, COAAM focuses on five specific characters and their stories. I'd so wanted to cram more on the remaining four into the pitch -- in early drafts of the above, I did. But then I supposed, well, that's probably what a novel is for anyways. Besides, how much more could I say on it in 300 words or less? 


So in the end, I allowed myself to zero in only on Shigeru's tale, at least for this first tease. I feel it at least captures the spirit of the first volume's journey. Don't you? ~Tet

A debate on two words

A reader recently recounted a debate he and a roommate had while reading Chronicle of Angels and Men. 

You know -- this thing.

As the story went, he had just taken a break from reading, setting the book down on the coffee table. Some time later his roommate picked up the novel and flipped through it. He began reading when he came across a certain phrase which gave him pause. He turned to his roommate and asked what the phrase meant, but upon hearing his roommate's attempted explanation, he immediately rejected it. The two-word phrase (which I'll reveal momentarily) then sparked an hour-long debate between the two as to just what the phrase meant and frankly, if it made any sense at all. And after going back and forth multiple times and even awaying to the internets for research, the two finally resolved the argument by agreeing to disagree.


So just what was it that triggered this hour-long back and forth rough and tumble? Well, it was two words: proofless existence.


When the reader revealed to me the words which had brought him and his roommate to such debate, my eyes lit up. I knew exactly the excerpt he was talking about (But I suppose I should have -- It is my book, after all. And I have read it now going on no-doubt 30+ times from the editing period.) But to give you the full context of phrase, here's the excerpt where it appears: 


"And so naturally I knew of no better way to enrage him than to reject his teachings, vigorously and beginning with the concept of God.  In truth, my rejection of his belief system was not just my repayment for his lack of parenting.  Though it may have begun that way, very soon I had actually come to believe his credence to be little more than baseless theorem and superstitious conjecture.  To me, God did not exist.  Moreover, the more we butted heads over my refusal to accept his proofless existence, the more I lost respect not only for him but for anyone pledged to his same methods of thought."

          Chapter One - Godless, Chronicle of Angels and Men (COAAM)

To me the phrase made perfect sense, as it did to the reader recounting the tale. (I might be just ever so biased...) Perhaps it makes perfect sense to you too. But then, if there's anything creating work for public consumption has taught me, it's that there are certain aspects of writing I take for granted. That seemed to be the case with the above passage anyways. And to be honest, I never really stopped to specifically deconstruct the meaning of just what "proofless existence" might mean to someone else.


To supply the counterpoint the reader's roommate was advocating, proofless existence as a phrase was an oxymoron. You know, one of those figures of speech which seem contradictory in nature, like cruel kindness or military intelligence...

...Or this guy.

For something to exist, there had to be proof of its existence. And if there was proof of something -- not just evidence, but actual proof -- then it had to exist, right? It didn't mean anything, he said.

Hmm. I hadn't thought about it that way. I mean, the phrase certainly meant something to me, but then anything we do is colored either consciously or subconsciously by our own experiences, our own perspectives, and our own biases, particularly when it comes to writing. In writing COAAM I in part sought to explore the meaning of what is God and how our definitions of religion and spirituality vary by culture, ethics, morality, etc. But in this phrase alone perhaps was built in an assumed baseline definition of God -- that any who would believe in a supernatural being such as God would not need proof, that is, that faith alone would be a sufficient substitute for proof.


Well, that was my thought behind it, but maybe the phrase does mean different things to different people. Or maybe just nothing at all! But I like to think there's room for debate. ~Tet