Practically every writer, writer wannabe and student writer out there has heard of this person called the Muse. I like Stephen King’s description of his muse best, and I doubt I have to explain what a muse is to anybody who reads this blog because 1) you probably already know about him/her, and 2) if you don’t know what the Muse is, you really don’t need to. I’m going to tell you why by invoking Virginia Woolf, who wrote an essay that included an interesting section on the “Angel in the House” figure. This woman, according to Woolf, kept female writers in line at the time with the expectations of their sex, and back then not too many professions had been open to women yet. Women in the U.S. had only received the right to vote in 1920, and women in England could not vote until 1928. The essay I’m referring to, “Professions for Women,” had been published in 1931.

So what does this have to do with the Muse? When the “Angel in the House” attempted to get Woolf to keep her writing aligned with societal expectations about women, Woolf did her best to kill the Angel, even though she “died hard.” The Muse may not exist for the same reasons the Angel did - she is, after all, a psychological construct that can take either gender - but the Muse must die for reasons similar to why Woolf wanted her Angel dead. What’s the use of hinging a writer’s success at the business of writing anything if he depends on some figment of the imagination?

I’ve been called someone’s Muse once, and I’ll tell you what: I’m glad I offer writing that can inspire someone else to write a work regarding the same subject or theme or genre, but anything I write is mine alone. It may be part of a group effort sometimes, but it’s still mine; where the group’s concerned, I only give what I can to keep the central story idea alive and moving. I might add that inspiration is in no way like the Muse; she may offer a thread of substance to get a writer started, but she isn’t the gatekeeper to the well of Creative Ideas. If she tried to claim this sort of role in my writer’s life, that would be my main motivation for killing her.

I don’t know what the Muse who’s attached herself to me looks like, and I don’t even know what sex it is. (I use “she” and “her” here because I jumped from Woolf’s “Angel in the House,” who was a female figure, to my own muse. May as well keep some continuity going with regards to her sex, eh?) I will only say that if such a persona ever came into my line of vision and tried whispering suggestions in my ear about what I should be writing, I’d kill her on the spot.

So be warned, Muse: flee, seek another more gullible writer to leech onto, do what you must to get out of my life. Because if you don’t and we happen to meet someday, YOU WILL DIE.

NOTE: This is a Revised & Expanded version of one of my posts from another blog.

How do you read a book? The “normal” way is to read a book from beginning to end, but that’s not always possible, especially if 1) parts of the book are boring, 2) you want to know what the ending will be [which is frankly just another way of saying “the rest of the book is boring"], or 3) the entire book is boring, in which case you don’t bother to read beyond the first few paragraphs of the first chapter.

But what about the other ways people read books? An example would be where the person reads a certain number of pages in one book before moving on to another book to do the same, and so on.

I read a book on Friday night in three hours and I’m now eyeing three other books I’ve been trying to get through or want to start; I will probably read them in the same fashion as the above blogger reads, or give that fashion a try. No previous experience with reading exams required, either.

Across the bow is another way to define a certain style of writing - namely, the way an author writes her books. Some authors are very diverse with how they write, although diversity is relative depending on the author. Stephen King, for instance, has a distinctive descriptive style that I like, and he’s written novels about a single theme or setting (Castle Rock comes to mind), all within the realm of horror or fantasy fiction. I won’t address genre much because that doesn’t have much to do with style, at least not in this context.

The book I read Friday night is Christian romance fiction, and I didn’t think about the author’s style much until I finished the book. That’s when I noticed several things about all of her work that I’ve read previously, as well as the current book. Firstly, the reader will immediately recognize the same plot the author’s used in her other books, which usually entails a similar obstacle the main female character must overcome in order to love the main male character. Secondly, there will be the same “sweet personality” traits for the main female character. Thirdly, there will always be the same kind of pastoral figure. Finally, there will the same themes of family and God and church. History is probably the only diversity offered because all of the books take place in different historical periods.

I don’t have a problem with an author using the same kind of style for every book she’ll have published, and I should probably expect any future work to be modeled after this style, too. Still, I’m wondering how I can read essentially the same story without getting tired of it already. Who is better: an author who uses a different style for every book she writes even if she may stay in the same genre, or an author who uses the same style for her published work and the only difference the reader notices is the framework of the story (i.e. setting and time period)? And do readers immediately recognize that recurrent style - if applicable to the author - and if they do, what changes for them?

NOTE: This is a Revised & Expanded version of one of my posts from another blog.

I meant to turn this blog into a storytelling blog, a place where I could freely sketch the stories in my head that were clamoring to come out. As you can see here, that hasn’t exactly happened. Yet. I’m not sure when it will, either.

I don’t talk about this blog much here because it’s not something I do, nor do I want to seem like I’m pitying myself or being self-righteous. (You just came off as pitiful to me with the previous sentence. -Ed. Do us all a favor and shut up.) That will change now because I’m in a bit of a quandary about this website.

I have no idea what to do with it.

When I regularly blogged here, I tried to come off as neutral because I didn’t want to seem overly argumentative or opinionated. Guess what? I may not be overly argumentative - at least, I’d like to think I’m not - but I’m very opinionated. Very. This started coming out at the Livejournal I keep, but I wanted it to stay there and not show up here. Guess what again? I started posting there more than here. This is a blog. That is…well, my “rant space.” But now it’s switched: that’s my blog and this is a personal site with a great design that I don’t feel free enough to post about anything. Will I come off as snobbish? What if I can’t refute an opposing argument that disagrees with one of my opinionated posts?

Know what? I don’t care anymore if I can refute anything.

I’m a pretty open-minded person and I enjoy hearing the opposing point of view, so long as it tackles the subject and doesn’t attack me personally.

So when I do start blogging here again, regularly, you’re going to see the opinionated Rhesa, and often. Whether or not you like her is up to you.

PS: And yes, I’ll post short stories and “flash fiction” here, too, if and when I get my writing mojo back.

PPS: (See, Rhe? You just solved your blogging problem right here. Be glad. Be proud. -Ed. Thanks. I think.)