Honoring the Dead

 

Most people in Southeast Asia are Buddhist, and the Buddhists cremate their dead. So what do they do with the ashes? It may depend on how much money they have.

Those who can afford an elaborate burial place build mausoleums, which they call stupa. Most are built to hold a family’s ashes, although some are simply built as memorials. Regardless, they are all beautiful. The photo at the top of this page and the one that follows were taken at a stupa cemetery just outside Oknha Tay, Cambodia.

People who can’t afford to build a stupa place the ashes in a spirit house in front of their home or place of business. The next three photos show spirit houses located outside a home and a business and a place where they are for sale, respectively.

If you can’t even afford a spirit house, it is apparently acceptable to spread the ashes in the river. Our Cambodian guide said that some people even make their own spirit houses, which look something like a rural American mailbox.

As mentioned above, however, some stupas are built as memorials not to specific individuals but to a group of people, much like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery. Cambodia went through a particularly violent period in the 1970s when the Khmer Rouge controlled the country. The Khmer Rouge decided to get rid of the upper classes and the educated citizens and slaughtered several million men, women, and children. These days, many of the former “killing fields” have become memorials, or at least have memorials built next to them. The next photo shows what our Cambodian guide call the Stupa of Regret, an empty stupa erected at Phnom Pros, the site of a former Buddhist temple where people were held and executed. The stupa was built by a member of the Khmer Rouge who was later remorseful about his role.

The final two photos show the temple used as a jail and a centuries-old stone lion with a missing hip from being used as a sharpening block for the weapons the Khmer Rouge sliced people’s heads off with.

Memorials help us remember people and historical events, but in the end it doesn’t matter where our ashes or bones are kept or how elaborate or simple the burial place. What does matter is whether the final destination is heaven or hell.

Still, I love looking at those elaborate stupas.

Temples Now and Then

 

When we were in Southeast Asia, we saw a number of temples, both new and old. Actually, all of them are old. The real distinction is between those that are still in active use and those that are ruins.

Our first visits were to Buddhist temples that are still in use, starting in Bangkok, Thailand. The first, and largest, of those was the Temple of the Dawn, shown in the photo at the head of this post. It had been built centuries ago but underwent a recent restoration.

The next day we saw two Buddhist temples, still in Bangkok. The Temple of the Emerald Buddha is within the grounds of the Grand Palace. The Emerald Buddha is actually jade, and we weren’t allowed to enter the building that housed it. We could view it through a window, but I wasn’t able to get a good photo. I did get good pictures of some of the details of the temple buildings, however. Demons were a frequent decoration, and the next photo shows three of them. Our guide made a point of telling us that demons didn’t equal bad—some are and some aren’t, much like people.

The last temple we saw in Bangkok was the Temple of the Reclining Buddha. Its main feature is a very long golden statue of Buddha reclining. We could get close up and personal with that statue, but that had its own disadvantages. I couldn’t get far enough away to take the entire figure or even most of it at once. The next photo shows Buddha reclining on his right elbow.

From Thailand we flew to Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, where our cruise director took us to a Chinese temple. This one didn’t celebrate any particular person or god but was meant to be a place where people could come to honor their own particular household gods. At least I think that’s the gist of what she said.

The other active temple we visited was Udon Monastery north of Phnom Penh, Cambodia, where two of the monks on duty at the prayer building gave us a group blessing before one of them was chased away by a possibly rabid monkey. This photo shows the steps leading up to the prayer building.

One of the main reasons we took this trip was to see the ruins of Angkor Wat near Siem Reap, Cambodia. That temple was built almost a thousand years ago. Cambodia was Hindu at the time, but the king married a woman who wanted him to transition the country to Buddhism, so there are elements of both in the temple. It was well built and is remarkably well preserved for such an old building. The first photo shows the main building reflected in the water of a pool within the grounds, and the second shows the steep steps to the third floor. It was worth the climb for the views, but the stairs were a little scary, and the woman coming down in front of Roland was terrified.

We saw two other ruined temples before leaving Siem Reap. The first was Phrom Temple, which had several gigantic trees growing over the stonework. Our guide said that type of tree lives for only about two hundred years so they won’t be there forever, but they are pretty impressive now. The next photo shows the roots growing over the entrance within the temple.

The last temple ruin we went to near Siem Reap was Bayon Temple, which is a place of many faces. It’s common to find towers with a face of a different god on each side, but Bayon Temple had 54 towers of different sizes and each one had the four faces. Apparently there were 54 provinces in Cambodia when the temple was built, and each tower represents the size and location of one of the provinces. The next photo shows Bayon Temple, and the last shows three of the stone faces (one in front and one on each side) above a living one.

We actually saw one more temple that is no longer in use, but it has a different history and will be covered in next week’s post on how Buddhists honor their dead.

Beware of the Monkeys

 

Roland and I just returned from a trip to Southeast Asia, and we saw plenty of cute monkeys in Cambodia. We were told not to get close to them, however, since a scratch or a bite could result in getting rabies. As one of our guides put it, “That’s why you have zoom on your camera.”

The monkey at the head of this post is a good example of the problem. We first saw him outside the prayer building at Udon Monastery (a Buddhist temple) north of Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Then we saw him again inside, in the back of the building. That’s the next photo.

We had left the prayer building and were standing outside waiting for the rest of our group when we heard a screech. Apparently the monkey had advanced all the way to the front where two monks were on duty giving blessings and had walked right up to one of them. The monk jumped up, ran away, and didn’t return until the monkey was gone. But if a peaceful Buddhist monk was afraid of monkeys, we certainly should have been.

Monkeys seem to like temples. We saw the next one at Phnom Pros, which was used as a prison by the Khmer Rouge. The area has been turned into a Buddha garden as a memorial for all the people killed there, and I first saw this monkey on top of a statue of an elephant. Unfortunately, he moved around too much and I couldn’t get a good photo of him there. I did get this one, though.

These last two photos were taken at the ruined Bayon Temple near Siem Reap. I’m pretty sure they are not the same animal.

So much for the monkeys. I’ll write about the temples next week.

Thinking Outside the Stage

 

This reprint is from May 18, 2015. At the time I was actively involved with the Indiana Writers’ Consortium, which has since disbanded.

Thinking Outside the Stage

I spent three hours on Saturday at a playwriting workshop. No, I’m not thinking about writing plays, but learning about one genre can provide insights into another. And venturing out of my comfort zone stretches my creative muscles for what I do write.

Besides, Saturday’s workshop was excellent. Hosted by the Indiana Writers’ Consortium, it featured playwright Evan Guilford-Blake and focused on adapting prose for the stage and adapting plays to prose form.

One thing I learned, or at least was reminded of, is that writers shouldn’t assume a story has to be told a certain way. After describing some initial principles, Evan had us do two exercises. In the first, we were given either the play or the prose version of a short piece he wrote and had already adapted. Then he asked us to rewrite it as the other type. I had the play version and turned it into a prose story, mostly by adding descriptions of the setting and changing the first character’s onstage monologue into thoughts. But some of the other participants were much more creative.

Before I continue, you need a little of the plot. The two-character play opens with a man nervously waiting for a woman he “met” through a dating service, but this is their first in-person meeting. When our working time was up, Evan started with those of us who turned the play into prose and asked which character’s point of view we had used. My first thought was, “his, of course, because she wasn’t in the scene at the beginning.” But one of the other participants did use the woman’s. He got around the POV problem by placing her in the scene from the beginning, but with a twist. She was hiding where she could check out the man before deciding whether she wanted to meet him. It was an inspired approach that had never entered my mind.

One of the people who turned the story into a play had backed up and added a new scene at the beginning. It still showed how nervous the man was but started at his apartment as he was getting ready for the date. This participant had also thought outside the box (or the stage) rather than just making the most obvious changes.

The main lesson I learned from Saturday’s workshop was to try something new. Experiment. If it doesn’t work, I don’t have to keep it. But if it does, it can take a good story and make it a great one.

And that should be every writer’s goal.

A Test of Creativity

 

This is a reprint of my February 27, 2017 blog post. Inferno is no longer a work-in-progress but is a published book. It can be purchased from Amazon at this link: Inferno: Page, Kaye, Camp, Kathryn Page: 9780989250481: Amazon.com: Books

A Test of Creativity

What do a picket fence, a work boot, and a petticoat have in common? They can all be used as emergency medical supplies for characters fleeing from the Great Chicago Fire in 1871.

I’ve always been a big fan of The Borrowers books by Mary Norton. The borrowers are a family (and a species) of people about as tall as pencils. They live in normal people’s homes, “borrow” household items, and transform them. Sheets of blotting paper become carpets, razor blades become chopping knives, cigar boxes become beds, and stamps become wall art.

It isn’t just The Borrowers books, either. I enjoy any author who takes ordinary objects and has his or her characters adapt them to a different purpose—like castaways who use turtle shells for bowls. So I’m excited that I finally have a chance to join the club, even if I only qualify for associate membership.

My current work-in-progress has two girls fleeing from the 1871 Chicago Fire. After they get separated, Julia wants something to wrap her sore wrists and rips a row of lace from her petticoat. So a petticoat becomes a bandage.

But Fannie has bigger problems. A cart runs over her foot, so she needs both a crutch and something to protect the foot from bumps and blows. In my story—as in real life—many people tried to save too much and ended up abandoning their possessions as they ran.* There are many types of debris littering Fannie’s escape route, but finding an actual crutch would be too much of a coincidence for my readers (and for me). It also deprives me of an opportunity to be creative, which is at least half the fun of writing. So here’s my solution: when Fannie passes a fence and spots a loose picket, she wrenches it off and turns it so that the point is down. Now a picket becomes a crutch. She also finds a man’s work boot and stuffs it with cloth, so a boot becomes a splint.

Those ideas don’t put me in the same league as Mary Norton (hence only associate membership), but at least they take some imagination.

And creativity is what feeds my writer’s soul.

Mixing Creativity and Formula

 

This week I’m reprinting a blog post from July 15, 2019. I originally wrote it for the Indiana Writers’ Consortium blog, where it appeared on February 21, 2018.

Mixing Creativity and Formula

I’m tired of hearing people run down so-called genre fiction because it follows a formula, as if that means it lacks creativity.  Yes, some genre fiction is only minimally creative, but that’s the fault of the author, not the genre.

Take romance, which is often cited as the archetype of formula fiction. I don’t write romance and rarely read it because I have limited time and generally prefer other types of novels. But I do read it occasionally, and one of my favorite authors fits perfectly into the romance “formula.” More about her later.

Here is the definition of the “Romance Genre” found on the Romance Writers of America’s website at www.rwa.org/the-romance-genre.

Two basic elements comprise every romance novel: a central love story and an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending.

A Central Love Story: The main plot centers around individuals falling in love and struggling to make the relationship work. A writer can include as many subplots as they want as long as the love story is the main focus of the novel.

An Emotionally Satisfying and Optimistic Ending: In a romance, the lovers who risk and struggle for each other and their relationship are rewarded with emotional justice and unconditional love.

This “formula” leaves a lot of room for creativity. As the RWA website goes on to say, “Romance novels may have any tone or style, be set in any place or time, and have varying levels of sensuality—ranging from sweet to extremely hot.” Setting, characterization, plot twists, word choice, and many other elements of romance writing provide as much opportunity for creativity as literary and experimental fiction do.

For illustration, here are summaries of three stories written by my favorite romance novelist. All three books have (1) a central love story developed through a main plot that centers around individuals falling in love and struggling to make the relationship work and (2) an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending where the lovers’ struggles result in emotional justice and unconditional love. See if you can identify the books and/or the author.

1. The two protagonists love each other even before the novel begins, but a well-meaning friend causes her to reject his marriage proposal. When they meet again years later, events, misunderstandings, and the romantic intentions of other parties conspire to keep them from renewing their relationship. Eventually, however, the protagonists realize that they are meant for each other and find happiness together.
2. The female protagonist is brought up by her aunt and uncle but is treated as a poor relation. When she falls in love with one of her cousins, she keeps her attraction secret because she knows his family would never consent to a marriage between them. But when the consequences of the family’s shaky values threaten to ruin their social position, the protagonist’s inner worth shines through and the lovers are united at last.
3. When the protagonists first meet, neither likes the other. They are continually thrown together, and the male protagonist falls in love in spite of himself. He grudgingly proposes, is rejected, and leaves. Soon after, the female protagonist’s sister elopes and threatens to bring disgrace to her family. After the male protagonist spends time and money to secure the marriage, the female protagonist realizes that she loves him after all. But it is too late! No, it isn’t. This is formula romance, and the two lovers end up together after all.

By now, you will have guessed that I’m talking about Jane Austin. Here are the titles that go with the summaries: (1) Persuasion, (2) Mansfield Park, and (3) Pride and Prejudice. I could have used many more examples, since Emma, Sense and Sensibility, and Northanger Abbey all follow the same formula.

I’m not saying that everyone should write to a formula. On the contrary, the world would be a barren place without any love stories that end in tragedy or authors who dare to try something new.

But I am saying this: don’t condemn genre novels that write to a formula, because creativity and formula CAN mix.

Fueled by Creativity

 

As a writer, creativity is my adrenaline. But it isn’t limited to writing. Lately, I’ve been spending much of my creative energy on thinking up ideas for my camera club.

As acting president, I have taken on the responsibility of finding speakers or, failing that, coming up with my own program ideas. For this month, I asked someone to put together a presentation on creating creative photos using the entries in the club’s recent Mylinda Cane Creative Photo Competition as the examples. My responsibility also means coming up with activities for the annual meeting to fill in the extra time. For that, I’ve created everything from a crossword puzzle with the names of famous photographers to a word seek puzzle of photography vocabulary and a game where participants guess the subject of a photograph from a small detail.

The photo at the top of this post is one of my poorer attempts to be creative for my camera club. We have a competition every month with regular categories for color and monochrome photos and a special that changes monthly. I know how hard it is to come up with a different idea every month because I do the same for the member photo section of the club’s newsletter. Our club is a member of a group of clubs, however, and fortunately the competition special is chosen by someone from the umbrella club so I don’t have to worry about it.

Our local club does the same topic one month earlier so that our members can decide whether their photos will do well enough to enter them into the larger competition at the umbrella club. Usually, that isn’t a problem. But the January special is “Happy New Year,” and the new year hadn’t happened yet when our local club had its competition. That meant finding something in the archives or staging a new photo. We can enter up to three photos in each category, and I found one in the archives that would work in a pinch, but I had nothing else that even implied “Happy New Year.” My motive for entering was not to win but because I was afraid that if only one person entered, he or she would be competing against him-or-herself, and that’s no fun. So I looked around at the props I had on hand and created the photo at the top of this post. In the end, I didn’t enter it or the one from the archives because nobody else from my competition class entered, either.

Still, it got me thinking about the importance of creativity in the arts. For me, of course, that’s primarily writing. Over the years, I have done a number of blog posts about writing creatively, and I decided this was a good month to reprint them.

So stay tuned.