Looking Into Dan Harmon’s Storytelling Methodology: The STORY CIRCLE – from StudioBinder

How the Dan Harmon Story Circle Can Make Your Story Better


The act of storytelling has always been with us. Anthropologist Joseph Campbell took stories from around the world and found they all shared the same basic structure. Campbell’s Hero’s Journey laid out each of the fundamental steps in this story structure. A few decades later, Dan Harmon took this same idea and created the Story Circle. In Dan Harmon’s Story Circle, there are 8 essential steps that can guide almost any story from Fade In to Fade Out. Let’s walk through each step with examples so you can apply this foolproof structure to your next great idea.


The universal language of storytelling

There are two universal languages. One is math…the other is story. Storytelling is built into the human experience. It’s how we pass on our history, where we can learn how to live, and answer questions about “right” and “wrong.” 

It doesn’t take a PhD in English Lit to understand what makes a story good or bad. We all know what a story should do, even if we can’t articulate it. Perhaps the most common storytelling element that “makes or breaks” a story is structure.

Our goal for today is to lay out one such narrative formula: the Dan Harmon Story Circle. Let’s start with a quick definition.


CLICK THE LINK for More Video On The Story Circle as Well As Useful Worksheet Packets – All Free – Just Reblogging This Content with Source Rather Than Stealing It

The Beleaguered Art of Essay Writing

Here are some sources that discuss what an Essay is, from its origins, and pulling it back from being a totally cookie cutter form used by uninterested students when given an assignment to choose a thesis and defend it. An essay, literally ‘an attempt’, is an exploration of a subject, to do with life, that brings in the personality and experience of the writer to some degree.

The History and Purpose of the Essay
The Lost Origins of the Essay
The Art of the Personal Essay: An Anthology from the Classical Era to the Present
The Situation and the Story: The Art of Personal Narrative


2013 by Jeff Porter

The essay occupies an odd place in the history of literature. One moment, the essay is a marginal form, barely alive on the fringes of poetry and fiction, the next, the trendiest thing in town. Recently, its fortunes have been on the rise. Wherever you look, the essay turns up: in graphic memoirs, in blogs, on the radio, in poetry. Its proponents range from Ira Glass and David Sedaris to Andrew Sullivan and Julie Powell, not to mention filmmakers such as Agnes Varda and Harun Farocki. No other genre is as infinitely adaptable as the essay.

In its directness and intimacy, the essay is the ideal literary form for the twenty-first century. Overwhelmed by an endless flux of information, we inwardly crave the momentary stay against confusion promised by the essay. We relish, as Scott Russell Sanders wrote, “the spectacle of a single consciousness” confronting the chaos of cultural overload to which we awake each day.1 The trademark of the essay is its intimacy, the human voice addressing an imagined audience. We also relish the opportunity to lose ourselves in the wandering thoughts of the writer. In his Dictionary of the English Language (1755), Samuel Johnson defined the essay as “a loose sully of the mind; an irregular indigested piece.” What Johnson saw as disorder we see as an experiment in form and sensibility. We eagerly embrace the essay’s nonlinear quality, losing ourselves in its unpredictable twists and turns and moody swings. Yet getting lost in an essay is not the same as getting lost in a novel. Novels have plots; the essay is famous for rambling, its paratactic structure favoring breaks and digressions over continuity—the kind of disjointedness criticized by Johnson. What Johnson didn’t like appeals to us now. It is the mindful-ness of the essayist, no matter how digressive, that offers us a refuge from the hullabaloo of the world, the discursive slippage from one thought to another.

Most readers know that the word “essay” comes from the French essai. The verb form, essayer, means to attempt, to experiment, to try out. The standard definition of the genre holds that an essay is essentially a way of trying on a thought or an idea like a hat. The fitting room in a French clothing store, by the way, is called a salon d’essayage. On an artsier note, the Club d’Essai was the name of an experimental sound studio directed by the inventor of musique concrète, Pierre Schaeffer, in Paris after the war.

In a way, all thought is experimental and remains so until it can be fixed in a sentence. We are all essayists for a brief moment. As O.B. Hardison, Jr. has noted, Roland Barthes suggests that the essay may have even preceded the concept of genre, owing to its ability to emulate the genesis of thinking.2 If there is something that is fundamental about the essay to the play of the human mind, as Montaigne insisted also, one wonders why it took so long for the form to evolve. Why wasn’t there a Bronze Age essay, for instance, something written by the hero in retirement (surely Nestor would have had something to say after the burning of Troy) or perhaps set down by the stay-at-home wife, the caretaker of the oikos, a meditation on crushing olives or weaving while waiting the warrior’s return? Given the wanderings of Odysseus, his irrepressible digressiveness and curiosity, not to mention his fondness for the personal anecdote, the Odyssey might have been that Ur-essay. It could at least have contained essay-like intervals—“On Cyclopes” or “Of Listening”—enlivened by shrewd reflections on the credulity of men and the cleverness of fish.


Using “He said.” in your dialogue? – from Thepassivevoice.com

February 8, 2021 by PG

From Dave Farland:

I don’t often give actual tips on how to compose stories. I tend to focus my lessons on storytelling to things that you can’t learn elsewhere.  Yet from time to time, it might be worthwhile to actually give a few technical tips. Today we will go over one on how to improve your dialogue. 

A few years ago, I listened to a bestselling writer give perhaps the worst advice on dialog tags that I’ve ever heard.  He told new writers, “Never use the word said.  It’s boring and repetitious.  Worst of all, it doesn’t really tell us much about the feeling behind what has been spoken.”

His advice was that you should “mix it up, and never repeat verbs that deal with speaking on the same page.  If you are forced to use the word said, he suggested that you add an adverb to it in order to define the quality of the words spoken.  

Given his advice, you might have a teen “mumble” one sentence:

“I don’t want to go to church,” she mumbled.

While the reply would use a different verb:

“Well you’re going to go, Missy,” Dad retorted.

The problem that arises is that we find ourselves using a lot of verbs that seem rather silly when put into a string of tags.  Thus, you might have people mumbling, shouting, profaning, teasing, snarling, squealing, averring, blaming, and so on in rapid succession.   


In Search of the Present – On Writing and the Mindful Now

I am at a point in my work on my novel project right now where I am having a lot of ideas, and want to keep track of them.

I already do multiple bulletin boards and note taking methods, from notebooks as I read to apps like Google Keep which is easy to stay on top of. There is so much going on in the world it seems and so many ideas going through my head each day that my main issue is getting back to all these thoughts later on without losing track of them. Taking notes is great and facing the fresh insights of the ever-passing moment all good, but the content of a lot of these thoughts involves the dilemma itself I’d like to address here: The need to remind myself to spend time with yesterdays ideas. To not just chase after the fresh and new but to sit down and spend time with things in a deeper, more resolved way.

Does anybody have similar issues with keeping a course and making your inspiration turn into practical output?

This essay by Nobel Prize winning poet Octavio Paz addresses the idea of feeling like we are always on the cusp of a new tomorrow while being pursued by both the plagues and the consolidated wisdom of all that has come before. Past fault lines rolling up onto the idea of a modernity that is different, exciting, and new, but is also an aplification of what already is; I invite you to experience it with me and respond with your thoughts in the comments or in a reblog with commentary. How does this feeling of being alive in interesting times affect your calling and role as the artist/shaman of the tribe?

Marshall McLuhan believed artists see the future before it arrives as they are attuned as a type of living antennae of the race to changes and shifts in media, technology, and art. More than translating an interpretation of things half-perceived coming from the future, the task of the artist is trying to set down future values for the world in flux, I believe. And thus the artist needs to be ahead of the game on knowing what she or he wants, and what world one would want to bring about. With that in mind, please enjoy this piece by Octavio Paz written on acceptance of his nobel prize, titled ‘In Search of the Present’.

From the site NobelPrize.org

Octavio Paz

Nobel Lecture

English Spanish

Nobel Lecture, December 8, 1990


In Search of the Present

I begin with two words that all men have uttered since the dawn of humanity: thank you. The word gratitude has equivalents in every language and in each tongue the range of meanings is abundant. In the Romance languages this breadth spans the spiritual and the physical, from the divine grace conceded to men to save them from error and death, to the bodily grace of the dancing girl or the feline leaping through the undergrowth. Grace means pardon, forgiveness, favour, benefice, inspiration; it is a form of address, a pleasing style of speaking or painting, a gesture expressing politeness, and, in short, an act that reveals spiritual goodness. Grace is gratuitous; it is a gift. The person who receives it, the favoured one, is grateful for it; if he is not base, he expresses gratitude. That is what I am doing at this very moment with these weightless words. I hope my emotion compensates their weightlessness. If each of my words were a drop of water, you would see through them and glimpse what I feel: gratitude, acknowledgement. And also an indefinable mixture of fear, respect and surprise at finding myself here before you, in this place which is the home of both Swedish learning and world literature.

Languages are vast realities that transcend those political and historical entities we call nations. The European languages we speak in the Americas illustrate this. The special position of our literatures when compared to those of England, Spain, Portugal and France depends precisely on this fundamental fact: they are literatures written in transplanted tongues. Languages are born and grow from the native soil, nourished by a common history. The European languages were rooted out from their native soil and their own tradition, and then planted in an unknown and unnamed world: they took root in the new lands and, as they grew within the societies of America, they were transformed. They are the same plant yet also a different plant. Our literatures did not passively accept the changing fortunes of the transplanted languages: they participated in the process and even accelerated it. They very soon ceased to be mere transatlantic reflections: at times they have been the negation of the literatures of Europe; more often, they have been a reply.

In spite of these oscillations the link has never been broken. My classics are those of my language and I consider myself to be a descendant of Lope and Quevedo, as any Spanish writer would … yet I am not a Spaniard. I think that most writers of Spanish America, as well as those from the United States, Brazil and Canada, would say the same as regards the English, Portuguese and French traditions. To understand more clearly the special position of writers in the Americas, we should think of the dialogue maintained by Japanese, Chinese or Arabic writers with the different literatures of Europe. It is a dialogue that cuts across multiple languages and civilizations. Our dialogue, on the other hand, takes place within the same language. We are Europeans yet we are not Europeans. What are we then? It is difficult to define what we are, but our works speak for us.

In the field of literature, the great novelty of the present century has been the appearance of the American literatures. The first to appear was that of the English-speaking part and then, in the second half of the 20th Century, that of Latin America in its two great branches: Spanish America and Brazil. Although they are very different, these three literatures have one common feature: the conflict, which is more ideological than literary, between the cosmopolitan and nativist tendencies, between Europeanism and Americanism. What is the legacy of this dispute? The polemics have disappeared; what remain are the works. Apart from this general resemblance, the differences between the three literatures are multiple and profound. One of them belongs more to history than to literature: the development of Anglo-American literature coincides with the rise of the United States as a world power whereas the rise of our literature coincides with the political and social misfortunes and upheavals of our nations. This proves once more the limitations of social and historical determinism: the decline of empires and social disturbances sometimes coincide with moments of artistic and literary splendour. Li-Po and Tu Fu witnessed the fall of the Tang dynasty; Velázquez painted for Felipe IV; Seneca and Lucan were contemporaries and also victims of Nero. Other differences are of a literary nature and apply more to particular works than to the character of each literature. But can we say that literatures have a character? Do they possess a set of shared features that distinguish them from other literatures? I doubt it. A literature is not defined by some fanciful, intangible character; it is a society of unique works united by relations of opposition and affinity.

The first basic difference between Latin-American and Anglo-American literature lies in the diversity of their origins. Both begin as projections of Europe. The projection of an island in the case of North America; that of a peninsula in our case. Two regions that are geographically, historically and culturally eccentric. The origins of North America are in England and the Reformation; ours are in Spain, Portugal and the Counter-Reformation. For the case of Spanish America I should briefly mention what distinguishes Spain from other European countries, giving it a particularly original historical identity. Spain is no less eccentric than England but its eccentricity is of a different kind. The eccentricity of the English is insular and is characterized by isolation: an eccentricity that excludes. Hispanic eccentricity is peninsular and consists of the coexistence of different civilizations and different pasts: an inclusive eccentricity. In what would later be Catholic Spain, the Visigoths professed the heresy of Arianism, and we could also speak about the centuries of domination by Arabic civilization, the influence of Jewish thought, the Reconquest, and other characteristic features.

Hispanic eccentricity is reproduced and multiplied in America, especially in those countries such as Mexico and Peru, where ancient and splendid civilizations had existed. In Mexico, the Spaniards encountered history as well as geography. That history is still alive: it is a present rather than a past. The temples and gods of pre-Columbian Mexico are a pile of ruins, but the spirit that breathed life into that world has not disappeared; it speaks to us in the hermetic language of myth, legend, forms of social coexistence, popular art, customs. Being a Mexican writer means listening to the voice of that present, that presence. Listening to it, speaking with it, deciphering it: expressing it … After this brief digression we may be able to perceive the peculiar relation that simultaneously binds us to and separates us from the European tradition.

This consciousness of being separate is a constant feature of our spiritual history. Separation is sometimes experienced as a wound that marks an internal division, an anguished awareness that invites self-examination; at other times it appears as a challenge, a spur that incites us to action, to go forth and encounter others and the outside world. It is true that the feeling of separation is universal and not peculiar to Spanish Americans. It is born at the very moment of our birth: as we are wrenched from the Whole we fall into an alien land. This experience becomes a wound that never heals. It is the unfathomable depth of every man; all our ventures and exploits, all our acts and dreams, are bridges designed to overcome the separation and reunite us with the world and our fellow-beings. Each man’s life and the collective history of mankind can thus be seen as attempts to reconstruct the original situation. An unfinished and endless cure for our divided condition. But it is not my intention to provide yet another description of this feeling. I am simply stressing the fact that for us this existential condition expresses itself in historical terms. It thus becomes an awareness of our history. How and when does this feeling appear and how is it transformed into consciousness? The reply to this double-edged question can be given in the form of a theory or a personal testimony. I prefer the latter: there are many theories and none is entirely convincing.

The feeling of separation is bound up with the oldest and vaguest of my memories: the first cry, the first scare. Like every child I built emotional bridges in the imagination to link me to the world and to other people. I lived in a town on the outskirts of Mexico City, in an old dilapidated house that had a jungle-like garden and a great room full of books. First games and first lessons. The garden soon became the centre of my world; the library, an enchanted cave. I used to read and play with my cousins and schoolmates. There was a fig tree, temple of vegetation, four pine trees, three ash trees, a nightshade, a pomegranate tree, wild grass and prickly plants that produced purple grazes. Adobe walls. Time was elastic; space was a spinning wheel. All time, past or future, real or imaginary, was pure presence. Space transformed itself ceaselessly. The beyond was here, all was here: a valley, a mountain, a distant country, the neighbours’ patio. Books with pictures, especially history books, eagerly leafed through, supplied images of deserts and jungles, palaces and hovels, warriors and princesses, beggars and kings. We were shipwrecked with Sinbad and with Robinson, we fought with d’Artagnan, we took Valencia with the Cid. How I would have liked to stay forever on the Isle of Calypso! In summer the green branches of the fig tree would sway like the sails of a caravel or a pirate ship. High up on the mast, swept by the wind, I could make out islands and continents, lands that vanished as soon as they became tangible. The world was limitless yet it was always within reach; time was a pliable substance that weaved an unbroken present.

When was the spell broken? Gradually rather than suddenly. It is hard to accept being betrayed by a friend, deceived by the woman we love, or that the idea of freedom is the mask of a tyrant. What we call “finding out” is a slow and tricky process because we ourselves are the accomplices of our errors and deceptions. Nevertheless, I can remember fairly clearly an incident that was the first sign, although it was quickly forgotten. I must have been about six when one of my cousins who was a little older showed me a North American magazine with a photograph of soldiers marching along a huge avenue, probably in New York. “They’ve returned from the war” she said. This handful of words disturbed me, as if they foreshadowed the end of the world or the Second Coming of Christ. I vaguely knew that somewhere far away a war had ended a few years earlier and that the soldiers were marching to celebrate their victory. For me, that war had taken place in another time, not here and now. The photo refuted me. I felt literally dislodged from the present.

From that moment time began to fracture more and more. And there was a plurality of spaces. The experience repeated itself more and more frequently. Any piece of news, a harmless phrase, the headline in a newspaper: everything proved the outside world’s existence and my own unreality. I felt that the world was splitting and that I did not inhabit the present. My present was disintegrating: real time was somewhere else. My time, the time of the garden, the fig tree, the games with friends, the drowsiness among the plants at three in the afternoon under the sun, a fig torn open (black and red like a live coal but one that is sweet and fresh): this was a fictitious time. In spite of what my senses told me, the time from over there, belonging to the others, was the real one, the time of the real present. I accepted the inevitable: I became an adult. That was how my expulsion from the present began.

It may seem paradoxical to say that we have been expelled from the present, but it is a feeling we have all had at some moment. Some of us experienced it first as a condemnation, later transformed into consciousness and action. The search for the present is neither the pursuit of an earthly paradise nor that of a timeless eternity: it is the search for a real reality. For us, as Spanish Americans, the real present was not in our own countries: it was the time lived by others, by the English, the French and the Germans. It was the time of New York, Paris, London. We had to go and look for it and bring it back home. These years were also the years of my discovery of literature. I began writing poems. I did not know what made me write them: I was moved by an inner need that is difficult to define. Only now have I understood that there was a secret relationship between what I have called my expulsion from the present and the writing of poetry. Poetry is in love with the instant and seeks to relive it in the poem, thus separating it from sequential time and turning it into a fixed present. But at that time I wrote without wondering why I was doing it. I was searching for the gateway to the present: I wanted to belong to my time and to my century. A little later this obsession became a fixed idea: I wanted to be a modern poet. My search for modernity had begun.

What is modernity? First of all it is an ambiguous term: there are as many types of modernity as there are societies. Each has its own. The word’s meaning is uncertain and arbitrary, like the name of the period that precedes it, the Middle Ages. If we are modern when compared to medieval times, are we perhaps the Middle Ages of a future modernity? Is a name that changes with time a real name? Modernity is a word in search of its meaning. Is it an idea, a mirage or a moment of history? Are we the children of modernity or its creators? Nobody knows for sure. It doesn’t matter much: we follow it, we pursue it. For me at that time modernity was fused with the present or rather produced it: the present was its last supreme flower. My case is neither unique nor exceptional: from the Symbolist period, all modern poets have chased after that magnetic and elusive figure that fascinates them. Baudelaire was the first. He was also the first to touch her and discover that she is nothing but time that crumbles in one’s hands. I am not going to relate my adventures in pursuit of modernity: they are not very different from those of other 20th-Century poets. Modernity has been a universal passion. Since 1850 she has been our goddess and our demoness. In recent years, there has been an attempt to exorcise her and there has been much talk of “postmodernism”. But what is postmodernism if not an even more modern modernity?

For us, as Latin Americans, the search for poetic modernity runs historically parallel to the repeated attempts to modernize our countries. This tendency begins at the end of the 18th Century and includes Spain herself. The United States was born into modernity and by 1830 was already, as de Tocqueville observed, the womb of the future; we were born at a moment when Spain and Portugal were moving away from modernity. This is why there was frequent talk of “Europeanizing” our countries: the modern was outside and had to be imported. In Mexican history this process begins just before the War of Independence. Later it became a great ideological and political debate that passionately divided Mexican society during the 19th Century. One event was to call into question not the legitimacy of the reform movement but the way in which it had been implemented: the Mexican Revolution. Unlike its 20th-Century counterparts, the Mexican Revolution was not really the expression of a vaguely utopian ideology but rather the explosion of a reality that had been historically and psychologically repressed. It was not the work of a group of ideologists intent on introducing principles derived from a political theory; it was a popular uprising that unmasked what was hidden. For this very reason it was more of a revelation than a revolution. Mexico was searching for the present outside only to find it within, buried but alive. The search for modernity led us to discover our antiquity, the hidden face of the nation. I am not sure whether this unexpected historical lesson has been learnt by all: between tradition and modernity there is a bridge. When they are mutually isolated, tradition stagnates and modernity vaporizes; when in conjunction, modernity breathes life into tradition, while the latter replies with depth and gravity.

The search for poetic modernity was a Quest, in the allegorical and chivalric sense this word had in the 12th Century. I did not find any Grail although I did cross several waste lands visiting castles of mirrors and camping among ghostly tribes. But I did discover the modern tradition. For modernity is not a poetic school but a lineage, a family dispersed over several continents and which for two centuries has survived many sudden changes and misfortunes: public indifference, isolation, and tribunals in the name of religious, political, academic and sexual orthodoxy. Because it is a tradition and not a doctrine, it has been able to persist and to change at the same time. This is also why it is so diverse: each poetic adventure is distinct and each poet has sown a different plant in the miraculous forest of speaking trees. Yet if the works are diverse and each route is distinct, what is it that unites all these poets? Not an aesthetic but a search. My search was not fanciful, even though the idea of modernity is a mirage, a bundle of reflections. One day I discovered I was going back to the starting point instead of advancing: the search for modernity was a descent to the origins. Modernity led me to the source of my beginning, to my antiquity. Separation had now become reconciliation. I thus found out that the poet is a pulse in the rhythmic flow of generations.


The idea of modernity is a by-product of our conception of history as a unique and linear process of succession. Although its origins are in Judaeo-Christianity, it breaks with Christian doctrine. In Christianity, the cyclical time of pagan cultures is supplanted by unrepeatable history, something that has a beginning and will have an end. Sequential time was the profane time of history, an arena for the actions of fallen men, yet still governed by a sacred time which had neither beginning nor end. After Judgement Day there will be no future either in heaven or in hell. In the realm of eternity there is no succession because everything is. Being triumphs over becoming. The now time, our concept of time, is linear like that of Christianity but open to infinity with no reference to Eternity. Ours is the time of profane history, an irreversible and perpetually unfinished time that marches towards the future and not towards its end. History’s sun is the future and Progress is the name of this movement towards the future.

Christians see the world, or what used to be called the siècle or worldly life, as a place of trial: souls can be either lost or saved in this world. In the new conception the historical subject is not the individual soul but the human race, sometimes viewed as a whole and sometimes through a chosen group that represents it: the developed nations of the West, the proletariat, the white race, or some other entity. The pagan and Christian philosophical tradition had exalted Being as changeless perfection overflowing with plenitude; we adore Change, the motor of progress and the model for our societies. Change articulates itself in two privileged ways: as evolution and as revolution. The trot and the leap. Modernity is the spearhead of historical movement, the incarnation of evolution or revolution, the two faces of progress. Finally, progress takes place thanks to the dual action of science and technology, applied to the realm of nature and to the use of her immense resources.

Modern man has defined himself as a historical being. Other societies chose to define themselves in terms of values and ideas different from change: the Greeks venerated the polis and the circle yet were unaware of progress; like all the Stoics, Seneca was much concerned about the eternal return; Saint Augustine believed that the end of the world was imminent; Saint Thomas constructed a scale of the degrees of being, linking the smallest creature to the Creator, and so on. One after the other these ideas and beliefs were abandoned. It seems to me that the same decline is beginning to affect our idea of Progress and, as a result, our vision of time, of history and of ourselves. We are witnessing the twilight of the future. The decline of the idea of modernity and the popularity of a notion as dubious as that of “postmodernism” are phenomena that affect not only literature and the arts: we are experiencing the crisis of the essential ideas and beliefs that have guided mankind for over two centuries. I have dealt with this matter at length elsewhere. Here I can only offer a brief summary.

In the first place, the concept of a process open to infinity and synonymous with endless progress has been called into question. I need hardly mention what everybody knows: natural resources are finite and will run out one day. In addition, we have inflicted what may be irreparable damage on the natural environment and our own species is endangered. Finally, science and technology, the instruments of progress, have shown with alarming clarity that they can easily become destructive forces. The existence of nuclear weapons is a refutation of the idea that progress is inherent in history. This refutation, I add, can only be called devastating.

In the second place, we have the fate of the historical subject, mankind, in the 20th Century. Seldom have nations or individuals suffered so much: two world wars, tyrannies spread over five continents, the atomic bomb and the proliferation of one of the cruellest and most lethal institutions known by man: the concentration camp. Modern technology has provided countless benefits, but it is impossible to close our eyes when confronted by slaughter, torture, humiliation, degradation, and other wrongs inflicted on millions of innocent people in our century.

In the third place, the belief in the necessity of progress has been shaken. For our grandparents and our parents, the ruins of history (corpses, desolate battlefields, devastated cities) did not invalidate the underlying goodness of the historical process. The scaffolds and tyrannies, the conflicts and savage civil wars were the price to be paid for progress, the blood money to be offered to the god of history. A god? Yes, reason itself deified and prodigal in cruel acts of cunning, according to Hegel. The alleged rationality of history has vanished. In the very domain of order, regularity and coherence (in pure sciences like physics) the old notions of accident and catastrophe have reappeared. This disturbing resurrection reminds me of the terrors that marked the advent of the millennium, and the anguish of the Aztecs at the end of each cosmic cycle.

The last element in this hasty enumeration is the collapse of all the philosophical and historical hypotheses that claimed to reveal the laws governing the course of history. The believers, confident that they held the keys to history, erected powerful states over pyramids of corpses. These arrogant constructions, destined in theory to liberate men, were very quickly transformed into gigantic prisons. Today we have seen them fall, overthrown not by their ideological enemies but by the impatience and the desire for freedom of the new generations. Is this the end of all Utopias? It is rather the end of the idea of history as a phenomenon, the outcome of which can be known in advance. Historical determinism has been a costly and bloodstained fantasy. History is unpredictable because its agent, mankind, is the personification of indeterminism.

This short review shows that we are very probably at the end of a historical period and at the beginning of another. The end of the Modern Age or just a mutation? It is difficult to tell. In any case, the collapse of Utopian schemes has left a great void, not in the countries where this ideology has proved to have failed but in those where many embraced it with enthusiasm and hope. For the first time in history mankind lives in a sort of spiritual wilderness and not, as before, in the shadow of those religious and political systems that consoled us at the same time as they oppressed us. Although all societies are historical, each one has lived under the guidance and inspiration of a set of metahistorical beliefs and ideas. Ours is the first age that is ready to live without a metahistorical doctrine; whether they be religious or philosophical, moral or aesthetic, our absolutes are not collective but private. It is a dangerous experience. It is also impossible to know whether the tensions and conflicts unleashed in this privatization of ideas, practices and beliefs that belonged traditionally to the public domain will not end up by destroying the social fabric. Men could then become possessed once more by ancient religious fury or by fanatical nationalism. It would be terrible if the fall of the abstract idol of ideology were to foreshadow the resurrection of the buried passions of tribes, sects and churches. The signs, unfortunately, are disturbing.

The decline of the ideologies I have called metahistorical, by which I mean those that assign to history a goal and a direction, implies first the tacit abandonment of global solutions. With good sense, we tend more and more towards limited remedies to solve concrete problems. It is prudent to abstain from legislating about the future. Yet the present requires much more than attention to its immediate needs: it demands a more rigorous global reflection. For a long time I have firmly believed that the twilight of the future heralds the advent of the now. To think about the now implies first of all to recover the critical vision. For example, the triumph of the market economy (a triumph due to the adversary’s default) cannot be simply a cause for joy. As a mechanism the market is efficient, but like all mechanisms it lacks both conscience and compassion. We must find a way of integrating it into society so that it expresses the social contract and becomes an instrument of justice and fairness. The advanced democratic societies have reached an enviable level of prosperity; at the same time they are islands of abundance in the ocean of universal misery. The topic of the market is intricately related to the deterioration of the environment. Pollution affects not only the air, the rivers and the forests but also our souls. A society possessed by the frantic need to produce more in order to consume more tends to reduce ideas, feelings, art, love, friendship and people themselves to consumer products. Everything becomes a thing to be bought, used and then thrown in the rubbish dump. No other society has produced so much waste as ours has. Material and moral waste.

Reflecting on the now does not imply relinquishing the future or forgetting the past: the present is the meeting place for the three directions of time. Neither can it be confused with facile hedonism. The tree of pleasure does not grow in the past or in the future but at this very moment. Yet death is also a fruit of the present. It cannot be rejected, for it is part of life. Living well implies dying well. We have to learn how to look death in the face. The present is alternatively luminous and sombre, like a sphere that unites the two halves of action and contemplation. Thus, just as we have had philosophies of the past and of the future, of eternity and of the void, tomorrow we shall have a philosophy of the present. The poetic experience could be one of its foundations. What do we know about the present? Nothing or almost nothing. Yet the poets do know one thing: the present is the source of presences.

In this pilgrimage in search of modernity I lost my way at many points only to find myself again. I returned to the source and discovered that modernity is not outside but within us. It is today and the most ancient antiquity; it is tomorrow and the beginning of the world; it is a thousand years old and yet newborn. It speaks in Nahuatl, draws Chinese ideograms from the 9th century, and appears on the television screen. This intact present, recently unearthed, shakes off the dust of centuries, smiles and suddenly starts to fly, disappearing through the window. A simultaneous plurality of time and presence: modernity breaks with the immediate past only to recover an age-old past and transform a tiny fertility figure from the neolithic into our contemporary. We pursue modernity in her incessant metamorphoses yet we never manage to trap her. She always escapes: each encounter ends in flight. We embrace her and she disappears immediately: it was just a little air. It is the instant, that bird that is everywhere and nowhere. We want to trap it alive but it flaps its wings and vanishes in the form of a handful of syllables. We are left empty-handed. Then the doors of perception open slightly and the other time appears, the real one we were searching for without knowing it: the present, the presence.

Translated by Anthony Stanton.From Nobel Lectures, Literature 1981-1990, Editor-in-Charge Tore Frängsmyr, Editor Sture Allén, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1993Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 1990

The Important Thing (In NaNoWriMo, As In Others) Is To Not Give Up

Read the advice of NaNoWriMo Coach for getting over the mid-way slumps Rosanne A. Brown here.

A quote that caught my eye, particularly since I make a joke of telling people I dropped out of a college whose motto is ‘If something is worth doing, it’s worth doing well’, is this quote by G.K Chesterton: 

“Anything worth doing is worth doing badly.”

Which means, if you set yourself the goal of doing NaNo, that means you have a desire to write, and giving up on that dream is no plan! If it isn’t working out as best as you thought it might at the beginning of the month, still, stick with it, keep writing as well as you can. Try for less than 50 thousand words. But keep trying. Because abandoning things you want and moving on to a new project, is another way of ending up with a pile of unfinished projects and not finishing anything! Stick with the things you truly want to do. Moving from one project to the next is a great way of finding out more about yourself and what you want, but also, sticking with things is a way of building depth of that dream you know you really do have.

So check out this NaNo talk from Rosanne A. Brown in full, and remember another quote that might help, “It doesn’t matter how slow you go, so long as you don’t stop!”


This month I want to talk about Techniques for getting at TRUTH. Which the Realist and Naturalist Movements were both working on. They were trying to write in a way that reflected Real Life, and depict the struggles of Real People, without the overly fanciful flights of Romanticism or some of the Over Idealisations of the Enlightenment. Many times they were harsh in their depictions, and they had their characters fall into troubles that they claimed were justified by scientific theories, rough chance, ‘the way things are’, or other deterministic equations that reflected the face of reality as it presented itself to their increasingly modernistic minds.

It seems, we’re all doomed in the end to a negative fate. But art, I think, is about knowing the world as it really is, and accepting it for what it is, and fighting anyway. And still putting up a damned good resistance. Art, is about not giving into the inevitable. There’s a bit of madness in the artist, always.

The Realist and Naturalist movements are semi-reactionary movements against Hegel’s philosophy, and his idea that History is progressing towards some positive, absolute good, and that the mind works with reality to create an ideal. For a brief moment it seemed the world might make sense. But the vision falls from such sublime heights into the chaos of fractured ideas about how to make the world ‘better.’

It reminds me of the 1960’s in our more recent cultural history and how the 70’s turned all those great ideals of revolution and peace back on themselves and end up turning everything into marketing and money and jeans ads and from LSD mind expansion and garage rock to cocaine and… Disco.

In the Sixties a lot of writers were experimenting with Fiction and Non-Fiction blends and cross-overs, from Norman Mailer’s ‘The Armies of the Night’, billed as “History as a Novel / The Novel as History”, to Hunter S. Thompson writing ‘Gonzo Journalism’. Going back to the Realists and Naturalists, they took a first step in this direction by no longer making fiction only about Kings and Queens and the Aristocratic Elites, but starting to write about the lower classes, and everyday people, to say that their lives were just as important and full of meaning. That class war in who cuts muster as SUBJECT seems to me to march onward to find itself engaging on the same battlefield in the battle of IS THE TRUTH OF THE SUBJECT worthy of the SAME REGARD AS THE TRUTH OF SO CALLED ‘OBJECTIVITY’. Though, again, that way traverses into MADNESS TERRITORY. Off the edge of the known map, where they mark the unknown, non-terra-firma “HERE THAR BE MONSTERS!”

These are the realms the poet makes their home when they decide to tell their story, though! That is written invisibly on every blank page: “Here thar be monsters!” – Is it not? And the best tools at our disposal for cutting through the jungle are both machete-like, AND mystical. The things that give us the raw energy to attack the page, to hold back our fear and refill the inkwell with subconscious hutzpah, whether it is a writing group that lets you be yourself, the help of the whole community of art and the books you give your faith to daily, as a reader and fellow, and the sheer willpower to tell your story. And also, those divination techniques that free the muse, from the use of tarot cards, or the ‘Cut-Up Technique’, or Dream Journaling, regular journaling, 10 minute writing exercises, all those things that let you get a word in edgewise and continue beating down the blankness of the page. Truth is cumulative, and spreads like fire, fed. The more you add to it, the more it grows strong, and has a hunger for more of itself. But we also must find ways to stay connected to it. To not have those days where we feel disconnected from what we have created, or fall into imposter syndromes from all that we have already accomplished. We need to practice self-gratitude and appreciation for what we have and who we are, then. And this grows with the strength of our voice!

So, this month, let’s start a discussion about both TRUTH and FACT. From the SUBJECTIVE portion, where we spark those flames, and throw our oxygen, and fuel (our sweat, hard work, and will) at the goals we set for ourselves… The things we see behind our eyes, the dreams we envision… to the OBJECTIVE side- The things that for one, we can never know, but only interpret, and yet, keep nagging at us, for they seem to never live up to what we hope to receive. The appreciation and acceptance we want from the world, the publications we want to achieve, the finished book we want to hold in our hands finally. — The history that we remember and want to try to remember in a sharper, clearer way; to make into our truth, that may hurt us to remember. The harshness of that bright reality that makes it hard to try sometimes, which we keep trying to turn into productive days. To be worthy of our own dreams.


  1. Is my writing an experiment where I am trying to learn something, to test a hypothesis, to figure out a thought while I write?
  2. Or do I want to present my writing like a magic trick where all the hard work goes on behind the scenes, and I make the telling seem effortless, and all the reader sees is rabbit popping up from the hat, where there was no rabbit before? Will I eventually strive to hide the mechanism?
  3. What is the benefit of each of these types of writing?
  4. It is very important to write on the ‘in-between’ days, when you are working through something, but don’t feel like ‘talking about’ it. Because the thoughts that are churning in your head, happen to be the very conflict of the story, of your personal/character dillema being thought through. Try to at least make a few notes on these days, so that you can flesh out the thoughts that are at the heart of where your story goes through tough changes! You don’t go from point a to point b without  a ½ ? Know what I mean?

NOVEMBER 2018 – Self-Help For Writers and Other Imaginary Peoples

monarch signature

Hello Monarch Writers!

We’ve been talking about the philosopher Hegel, a very complex and influential figure in philosophy, and we’ve got a good overview in the Literary Theory text we’re working through.

The study guide I prepared earlier in the month for the study of Hegel and how he relates in particular to the practice of writing is up now on the Monarch Writers site here, in case you want to refer back to that ever.

One of the main focuses of our study of Hegel is his motion ‘from substance to subject’, that is, seeing how individual parts of a system, when looked at in situ —as part of a WHOLE— jump, start, and stir, to become living things, as the system itself is a living thing! And this is a wonderful way of looking at stories, where flat characters, upon striving to write an organic-whole piece, become lively creatures who climb the walls and leap off the page.

In continuing this focus, I’d like to attempt a strange exercise for Monday’s meeting, and look at a list I got from a self-improvement web site – a list of 23 ways to make yourself better everyday, and I’d like to look at these in the meeting and see if we can morph them creatively into ways we can make our characters, and our stories, and our characters -in-our-stories- become something more alive.

So, the list is below, take a look before hand, see if anything springs to mind, jot down a few ideas, feel free to stretch around corners to let good ideas come forth, it’s just a prompt after all. And come to the meeting on Monday ready to discuss!


Practices That Make You Better Every Day

1. Keep a reading habit.

Don’t isolate your characters from the real world
While you don’t have to constantly be breaking the
Your characters should be aware of the real world
And that tension between them and their story
Is what makes the reader want to read
And bring them to life by continuing reading

2. Have a growth mindset.

You want to not break the ‘vivid and continuous dream’

Things will come up that interrupt your ‘plan’, for your life, for your story, for your characters.

You are not so much dictator putting on a parade in tribute of your skills as leader, as an alchemist creating a Frankenstein monster out of parts of your favorite pieces of art, and the world, and your experience, and dreams. With a dash of wild destiny, and rebellious pursuit of some dream of purpose your great work holds in its heart for itself. Whether it has the heart of an athlete, the brain of a madman, hands of a great thief, or the toes of a magician… the wondrous thing is when the lightning strikes the disparate flesh of words and bits, and congeals the parts, and it comes ALIVE!

3. Meditate regularly.

The Idea of
ROMANTIC IRONY* (*SEE THE END OF THIS PACKET. I’ve quoted a section on Romantic Irony from the next chapter in the Literary Criticism Text we’re using: Chapter 16: Romanticism (I): Germany and France – Which discusses the phenomenon of ‘ROMANTIC IRONY’ more in depth and which we’ll be talking about more in December

4. Align your priorities with your goals and values.

Writing is about
And making choices is about

How Do your characters’ struggles affect them?
Do they break them? Make them?
Or Take them… some other place altogether?

5. Visualize your success.

In my opinion, in order to chase that united vision and holistic artwork, one should

Write the Whole Piece at Every
Juncture, as Much as that is Possible
But also, Give Focus To Each Scene As
It Is The Most Import In The Moment

Your CHARACTERS have motivations, or they should.
Goals, desires, things they are chasing.
Give them scenes of pining, scenes where they glimpse the thing they strive for. Scenes that further motivate them, perhaps only the throw them down again, back into the chase.
But, which make them stronger? More themselves?

6. Measure your improvement.

Keep in Mind What You’ve Written
And Revisit It Often
ReRead and Don’t Be So Critical
That You’re Constantly ReWriting,

7. Make good use of your time.

There is always
to Write

8. Learn new skills.

Take time away from the literal writing from those things that should be left unsaid or the bits too dark for TV.
Paint a piece of used furniture,
Make a Collage,
Take a walk to someplace new and take some pictures

Practices for the Body

9. Exercise on the regular.

Best exercise in the world, especially for writers,
because it’s a great pace for thinking.

10. Respect your body.

Or abuse it, for the sake of a story.
How much coffee can you drink before you die?
That’s a story in itself.
As long as you survive to tell it, or, like Hamlet, have
someone to tell with your dying breath, some witness,
“If thou didst ever hold me in my heart
Absent thee from felicity awhile
And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain

But respect the fact that if you don’t take care of your body, it will kill you.

11. Practice self-care.

For real, tho.

12. Eat mindfully.

Vegetables. Potatoes and whutnot.

13. Schedule regular breaks and down time.

“Sometimes it’s the fight that keeps you out of the ring.”

14. Mind your daily water intake.

Drink a bunch of H2O.
Keeps you awake and fresh.

Practices for the Soul

15. Practice daily mindfulness.

Directed thinking.
Think about your writing, on purpose.

Is your character the type to make great realizations?
Are they the victim of circumstance, or are they, -or are they BECOMING- a person who rises above the waves to be a mover and shaker, someone who other people watch to see what’s going down? Have they got their sails out and tuned into their own winds? Pumping loud their own drum beats?

16. Practice mindful listening.

Does your character have a favorite song?
Or twenty favorite songs they’ve been listening two exclusively the past year and they feel like they’re living in a biodome against the rest of the world, some kind of experiment, some kind of lost civilization, and what’s wrong with the rest of you?

17. Practice gratitude.

If your character did catch that break,
how would they respond?

Do you look on the bright side?

Strike a healthy balance between remembering tough times and hoping and enjoying the good times, because if you let go of the pain too easily, you’ll fall back into those habits that lead to trouble. It’s best to remember some parts of what causes your woes, if only to avoid those pitfalls. And be thankful things aren’t worse when they’re just going okay.

18. Recite positive affirmations.

Put quotes up on your wall.
Treat language how you want them to treat your words.
Graffiti the truth on sidewalks and tape posters of your most frequent incantations inside the walls of the skulls of the apathetic.

19. Develop a mindful journaling habit.

Is your character an artist?
These days, everyone has their fifteen minutes, spread out over social media, looking for that one viral post.
Everyone’s an artist nowadays.
Mindful, of course, is another sort of animal.

20. Surround yourself with positive people.
Does your character have that person they can confide in?
Are they their own person? More than just some supporting actor in the main character’s mythos?

21. Heal your negative self-talk.
22. Learn to forgive yourself and others.

There are many formulas you can borrow and lean on, or at least study to give your character an arc. From Joseph Campbell’s ‘The Hero’s Journey’ even to Alcoholic Anonymous’ 12 Steps, many things can be graphed onto your tale to provide a skeleton for you to ply some flesh onto.
Take the time to Bake up some ginger bread protagonists (it makes the whole house smell delicious), or plant some plot seeds and water them a bit with details from the Possibilities-Can each morning, and watch how you lose the negative attitude that you can’t paint like the masters, because you realize there is a reason you were drawn to writing. Because you have your own style and enjoy words, language, making phrases and meaning, into stories, and moving pictures. Imagining things and creating the meaning of a happening that only you can convey.

23. Be giving and kind.

Be a generous writer. Be ambitious, take risks, aim for big effects.
Give your plots and characters a wildness, a recklessness. Tell those bone truths that are dangerous to explore but more dangerous to ignore.
Lay it all on the table, and know when it’s necessary to call the dealer out, the game rigged, the exchange blasphemous, and flip the table over with a joyous yell! Stand up to the silence that suffocates the spirit, run into the burning building to save those photographs that prove the past the dream destroyers would have the world forget, protect with clenched fists (and nimble, typing digits) the delicate things, the mysteries that will be forgotten from neglect, that you can save with the strength of your own hands, alone.





The Romantic self was a profounder, more authentic ego lying beneath the layers of social convention, a self which attempted through principles such as irony to integrate the increasingly fragmented elements of the bourgeois world into a vision of unity. And it was primarily the poet who could achieve such a vision. In general, the Romantics exalted the status of the poet, as a genius whose originality was based on his ability to discern connections among apparently discrepant phenomena and to elevate human perception toward a comprehensive, unifying vision.

The most crucial human faculty for such integration was the imagination, which most Romantics saw as a unifying power, one which could harmonize the other strata of human perception such as sensation and reason. It should be noted that Romanticism is often wrongly characterized as displacing Enlightenment “reason” with emotion, instinct, spontaneity, and imagination. To understand what is at issue here, it is necessary to recall that much Romantic thought took Kant’s philosophy (which itself
was not at all Romantic) as its starting point, notably his distinction between phenomena and noumena, his treatment of imagination, and his establishing of a relative autonomy for the category of the aesthetic. Kant’s relation to Enlightenment thought was indeed ambivalent inasmuch as he attempted to establish the limitations of reason. However, Kant declared that the categories of the understanding applied throughout the phenomenal world; his notion of the noumenon is merely a limiting concept and its actual existence is nothing more than a presupposition of morality and free will. He had, moreover, viewed imagination as a mediating principle which reconciled the deliverances of sensation with the categories of the understanding. The Romantics, like Hegel (who himself was certainly not a Romantic), placed the noumenal realm within the reach of human apprehension, and often exalted the function of imagination, viewing it as a vehicle for the attainment of truths beyond the phenomenal world and beyond the reach of reason alone. But they did not attempt to dismiss or discard the findings of logic and reason, merely to place these within a more embracing scheme of perception. Hence Coleridge saw the secondary imagination, peculiar to the poet, as a unifying power which could reconcile general and concrete, universal and particular. Shelley even saw imagination as having a moral function, as a power enabling the self to situate itself within a larger empathetic scheme, as opposed to reason, which expressed the selfish constraints of the liberal atomistic self. Hence the relation between Romanticism and the mainstreams of bourgeois thought, which had risen to hegemony on the waves of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution, was deeply ambivalent. Our own era is profoundly pervaded by this ambivalent heritage.

This ambivalent connection of Romanticism to bourgeois thought operated through both the notion of imagination and the equally archetypal notion of Romantic irony. The ancient Roman authors Cicero and Quintilian had followed the Greeks in defining irony as a form of dissemblance whereby a speaker’s intention differed from his statements. This broad definition of irony remained in currency through late antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the neoclassical era. Both the French Encyclopédie of 1765 and Johnson’s Dictionary reiterated the definition of irony as a figure of speech in which the meaning undermines or opposes the actual words used to express it.

It was only at the end of the eighteenth century that irony rose in status from a mere rhetorical device to an entire way of looking at the world, becoming, in the guise of Romantic irony, an index of a broad philosophic vision. The emergence of this change is usually dated to Schlegel’s Fragments of 1797, which accords irony an epistemological  and ontological function, seeing it as a mode of confronting and transcending the contradictions of the finite world. The theorizing of irony in this direction was furthered by numerous writers including Heine, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. At the core of irony as formulated by most nineteenth-century thinkers was a Romantic propensity to confront, rather than overlook, the obstinate disorder, contingency, flux, and mystery of the world. In this sense, an ironic vision accepts that the world can be viewed from numerous irreconcilable perspectives, and rejects any providential, rational, or logical foreclosure of the world’s absurdity and contradictions into a spurious unity. Yet such Romantic irony is not entirely negative: while it rejects the “objective” order imposed upon experience or the world by religious or rational means, it seeks a higher transcendent unity and purpose, grounded ultimately in subjectivity. Modernist irony is seen by most theorists as a development of Romantic irony and as entailing a dual posture: a negation of prevailing values and institutions, and a helpless complicity with them. However, it diverges from Romantic irony in being more nihilistic, despairing over the possibility of transcending or changing the current state of affairs. Irony effectively entails a failed search for meaning and unity.

The “Romantic” metamorphosis of irony in the eighteenth century from a classical and medieval rhetorical device to an index of a metaphysical perspective was integrally tied to the broader social and political changes earlier invoked. The emergence and rapid theorizing of irony as a metaphysical perspective coincided with the era in which the hegemony of bourgeois interests and values was establishing itself not only in political life and economic practice but also in philosophy, literature, and science. Irony was essentially an idealistic reaction against the mainstream tendencies of bourgeois thought which attempted to define the world in terms of its own clear-cut categories, founded on rationalism, pragmatic efficiency, and an atomistic and utilitarian commodification of all the elements of the world, including the human subject. Underlying these tendencies lay the conviction that, in principle, knowledge, reason, and science could extend their control over all aspects of human life.

The Romantic thinkers who embraced an ironic vision reacted against the reductively mechanistic, utilitarian, and commercial impetus of bourgeois thought. Irony was a means of reinvesting the world with mystery, of limiting the arrogant claims of reason, of denying the ideals of absolute clarity and definition, of reaffirming the profound interconnection of things, and of seeking for the human spirit higher and more spiritual forms of fulfillment than those available through material and commercial efficiency. Yet irony as a very mode of reaction bore the imprint of defeat: it could merely voice subjective protests against colossal historical movements which were already in process of realization, protests which often floated free of any viable basis of institutional change. The Romantics were struggling against a world whose materialistic, pragmatic, utilitarian, and scientistic foundations had already been laid since the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. Like the French symbolists after them, their only recourse was to an ironic vision which insisted that reality is not confined to the here and now but embraces the past or is located in a Platonic ideal realm. The connections between Romanticism and subsequent eras have been influentially examined by M. H. Abrams, Frank Kermode, and others; as Marshall Brown notes, crucial elements of both elitist modernism and populist postmodernism can be traced back to Romantic criticism; the rhetorical, textual, and skeptical dimensions of Romanticism have been explored extensively by critics such as Paul de Man, J. Hillis Miller, Harold Bloom, and Stanley Cavell. Feminist approaches to Romanticism – advanced by scholars such as Margaret Homans, Susan Levin, Anne Mellor, and Mary Jacobus – have attempted to rescue neglected female authors, examined the ways in which some of the Romantics exploited women, questioned the Romantic masculine obsession with self, and challenged what they have seen as the essentialist doctrines of  Romanticism.

Good Hunting, Writers,


Cypress monarch signature

NOVEMBER 2018 – Hegel, The Enlightenment, And Romanticism – Regarding Literary Theories

I went ahead and found a text book on LITERARY CRITICISM AND THEORY that has very
good reviews, for a book providing a compressed overview, without skimping on the in-depth details. And I want to do a section a month, which amounts to about 20 pages a month. I hope that we’ll get enough people following along to have some stimulating conversations.

In order to go in order, before we get into Romanticism, there’s a section on the 19th-century very-influential- philosopher, who I want to go through first for November, that philosopher being Georg Wilhelm Friedrich HEGEL. He’s one of the big ones. There’s a 20 page section devoted to him in the literary theory book I’ve linked to, and it directly preceeds two sections on Romanticism, and from there we can go through chronologically and cover many of the modern schools of thought. I think if we go through any faster we’ll only get a very superficial survey.

This speed and approach should give us a good look. But I am open to feedback if you think we should try something different. So, let me know what you think. Check out the book. You’ll notice the Modern section begins with a chapter on Immanuel Kant just before Hegel, but I think Kant, who I 1) don’t fucking understand and 2) think… his point was that there is no objective reality? Only our senses approaching some unknown THING out there, which could be something totally other than what it appears… Can be saved to a later time, so we don’t have two big wild philosophies before we get Romanticism. HEGEL, to me, is a very interesting philosopher because I think he uses language in a way that approaches CONSCIOUSNESS, to make Very Living Ideas, come back alive On The Page, and to do so, imploys Very Tricky Tricks with his convolutions, turns of phrase, etc. He tried to encompass all the philosophy that came before him, into his new philosophy. So it’s a good place to start, since he tries to found a new beginning, and his philosophy is caught right between the Enlightenment and Romanticism, and
he is enamored with The French Revolution, as many of the writers of the time were.

The Enlightenment, believed in perfecting humanity. The Revolution showed how chaotic things could become. So what is Romanticism? The synthesis of these cataclysms? We’ll look into the many things the Romantics spoke of! It’s a very rich period in literature. Read the chapter on Hegel and let’s go from there!

I’ve put together a guide of sorts for the chapter we’ll be going through, and pointed out some of the ways Hegel’s work relates to the art of writing and literary theory. If you want, take some notes and we can discuss your ideas at the Monday meetings in November! I know I’ve recommended the ‘Introducing: A Graphic Guide’ Series and the ‘For Beginners: Graphic Guide’ Series before, but wanted to point out that in addition to the Literary Theory editions, there is one devoted to Hegel as well, if you’re interested. Enjoy!:​

Why Study Hegel 

We’re studying the Philosopher HEGEL (Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, 1770-1831) and
reading the chapter on him in the text book ‘A History of Literary Criticism From Plato to the Present’ (2005) by M. Habib. And then we’ll be proceeding chronologically, next through Romanticism, doing one section (about 20 pages) per month, after that.

Hegel, a monumental figure, is smack in the middle of a lot of traditions, is on the crux of many academic movements and conflicts as well – from the Enlightenment and Romantic movements, to the cataclysms of The French Revolution, to the two main schools of philosophy at work today known as Continental and Analytic Philosophy (worth investigating), his influence and importance, depth and difficulty, is universally recognized. 

Hegel united the poetic and personal aspects of philosophy and science in an attempt to totalize all that came before him.This is from ‘Introducing Hegel’ by Lloyd Spencer and Andrzej Krauze: “Hegel is a philosopher of awe-inspiring, monumental ambition. His philosophy aims to incorporate the history of all previous philosophies. He conceives of this entire history as a process of completion, as all of existence, indeed the cosmos itself, evolves to full self-consciousness. There is no room in Hegel’s philosophy for a God  outside or beyond the universe. His system presents itself not only as the self-consciousness of the cosmos, as Absolute Knowledge, but at the same time as an expression of the thoughts of God.”

Hegel’s belief in a path and purpose for history and consciousness is formed in his extremely difficult text ‘The Phenomenology of Spirit’, which outlines idea of conflict and overcoming through his system of ‘dialectic’ – how conversations and reasonable patterns of beliefs circuit through nature and one another from a Thesis- countered by an Antithesis, to recompound in a new belief with functions from both earlier beliefs- the Synthesis-. He shows his faith in the pathways of mind and in rationality itself by professing his philosophy of Absolute Idealism. His view that mind is evolving to greater awareness of its self, and that this greater self-awareness is reaching a new culmination even in his own philosophy, expresses both a view that History has some purpose and rationality, and also inclines one’s rationality to the faith in itself, his views have been seen as egoistic and overbearingly naive. His writing indicates that these universal themes of awakening are in natural expression all around us, and also in expression in
human works, but this has been questioned today after the twentieth century gave us things like World Wars and the holocaust as the receipts of this ‘World Rational Soul’.

But Hegel’s view was definitely right that events like the works of Descartes, who succeeded, with his statement ‘I think, therefore I am’, in separating theology from philosophy, giving us the individual mind standing on the earth as if for the first time, silted out as a substance, which Hegel proceeded to push forward into Subjectivity— And this is an important motion of Hegel’s. The move of substance to subject.


Substances, a main theme in philosophy of 17th century philosophers like Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, had inherited talking in such ways from the Scholastic-Aristotelian tradition. It was largely an analytical way to divy up creatures and their attributes, to discuss how they behaved or theoretically could interact with one another. Like Descartes with his substances in the mind-body dualism. Or earlier discussions of angels and their relations to God in hierarchical great-chain-of-being speculations. Hegel takes the idea of Substances and moves into the realm of the subject, by cathecting the individual with their relationship with their environment, taking the Romantic view of the world that the subject and object (the Self and the World) are philosophically ONE. He makes this terrifying jump by at the same time claiming that the world is headed to perfection.

That reason in the end will win out. That there is a purpose to the madness of history. From static and individual, into a flowing interchange of becoming and transition. He strove to prove history a living tapestry, the very thoughts of God, by positing a striving towards some Absolute Reason – an idea very much in tune with The Enlightenment project, but also giving us the Romantic Science of his ‘Dialectic’, the pathways ideas take when they collide with each other in historical conflicts and the way progress is, allegedly, made. His Dialectic and his view of Art as an ideal form of expressing the Truths of reality, as well as his views on Aesthetics, make him a great study for artists. He finds ways to say the unsayable. His radical notion that, philosophically speaking, the ‘Nothing’ overlaps the same space as ‘The Everything’ and it is, in the shades and circuitous pathways between, around, fleeing, fleeting, escaping, BECOMING, that things exist, make him the author of a very sobering but also invigorating theory of STORYTELLING.

It is a very swift and maddening eye-opening potion, this metaphysics of his. In the portion of the article on him in the textbook, pay particular attention to the section where it speaks of the relationship of the bud, to the flower, and how one is never all one, or the other, but always becoming another.

The idea that one is never wholly one thing can say a lot about characters in our writing. One is never wholly a hero or villain, for instance, but always some shade of both, in one.


Romanticism is often said to be a reaction to the Enlightenment, which put a strong emphasis on grounding man in reason and getting rid of the superstitions of the past, (All Religion ranked among such, according to the philosophes of the time) and attempting to perfect man’s tenure on earth, even possibly wiping out the disease of mortality, according to the notes of one Benjamin Franklin.

The Terrors of the French Revolution were simply the birth pangs paid in the blood of the citizenry, and the incidental monarch, for what was largely a revolution orchestrated by the bourgeoisie, to establish a more mercantile and business ordered society. 

In many ways all of these trends were a continuation of Man’s track of individuation pushed forward by the Protestant Revolution, and the media revolutions of the printing press which fueled Martin Luther’s person-to-person religious apocalypses.

The Protestantism of John Milton, as he began his poem ‘Paradise Lost’ with the invocation to the Muse, summoning the Holy Spirit of God, “before all temples dost prefer / the upright heart and pure.” “He means just that; the is repudiating the temples, all of them, and offering instead his own arrogantly pure and upright heart as the true dwelling place of the crative Word of God. The Spirit that moved over the face of the waters and brought forth our world is identical with the shaping spirit dwelling within the soul of the inspired Protestant poet. [Harold Bloom, The Visionary Company]”

Harold Bloom describes this protestant spirit in his foreward to his book on the romantics ‘The Visionary Company’ (The forward being titled ‘Prometheus Rising’) says that John Milton’s ‘Paradise Lost’ and Edmund Spenser’s ‘The Faerie Queene’ are the best preparation for reading Romantic Poetry.

“The spirit of Hazlitt (William Hazlitt, Romantic Critic), of Blake (William Blake), of the younger Wordsworth (William Wordsworth), of Shelley (Percy Bysshe Shelley) and Keats (John Keats), is a direct descendant of this Spenserian and Miltonic spirit— the autonomous soul seeking its own salvation outside of and beyond the hierarchy of grace. The spiritual nakedness of Hazlitt, Blake, and the others, is a more extreme version of that English nonconformist temper which had so triumphed in Milton that it made him a church with one believer, a political party of one, even at last a nation unto himself.[Harold Bloom, The Visionary Company]”


There was a view, espoused by Samuel Coleridge, that the French Revolution was the period of tribulation which preceeded the millennium, that is, the thousand year reign of heaven on earth. It is no wonder that a great theme of reaction to the Romantic upheaval was a great fear, that indulgence in one’s imagination, that this new emphasis on this thing, which poets were outlining and exploring, to separate it an exentuate it away from the powers of intellect and the less powerful ‘fancy’ (In Wordsworth’s ‘Prelude’ for instance), to the point that it was thought imagination surely would lead to madness, and in fact many figures at the time spent parts of their lives institutionalized. Such as Swift, Cowper, Collins, Christopher Smart, and others (Samuel Johnson came dangerously close to it. [Bloom, The Visionary Company].

The most characteristic product of the Enlightenment is said to have been Denis Diderot’s ‘Encyclopede’. An attempt at a printed compendium at all human knowledge available at thetime. Diderot was one among a number of ‘philosophs’, who were the priests, soldiers, and propagandists of a new spirit of reason, tolerance, and progress. The ‘Encyclopede’ gave the definition of a philosoph as… ‘One who, trampling on prejudice, tradition, universal consent, authority– in a word, all that enslaves most minds– dares to think for himself, to go back and search for the clearest general principles, to admit nothing except on the testimony of his experience and his reason.”

“Josiah Royce passingly remarked a half-century ago that Hegel’s Phenomenology was akin to the contemporary Bildungsroman. (That is, a coming of age story.)

“We can be more precise and more circumstantial. By a remarkable feat of invention, Hegel composed the Phenomenology as a Bildungs biography, which is in a literal sense a spiritual history. It is, in other words, a biography of the “general spirit,” representing the consciousness of each man and Everyman, the course of whose life is a painfully progressive self-education, rendered in the plot-form of a circuitous journey from an initial self-division and departure, through diverse reconciliations and ever renewing estrangements, conflicts, reversals, and crises of spiritual death and rebirth. This plot turns out to be the unwitting quest of the spirit to redeem itself by repossessing its own lost and sundered self, in an ultimate recognition of its own identity whereby, as Hegel says in his concluding section, it can be “at home with itself in its otherness.” [Natural Supernaturalism, M.H. Abrams.

Holding up the Encyclopede against the Phenomenology, we see the Substance vs Subjectivity conflict writ large. A dictionary vs a living story.


The Romantics, who felt such a frisson when the French Revolution began, who rebelled
against the perceived cold rationality of the Enlightenment and sought to inject more feeling into the world, never referred to themselves as Romantics. This was a label provided afterwards by Victorian historicists. These writers referred to themselves with terms like ‘Sensuists’ and spoke often of ‘The Sublime’, and ‘Sublimity’ when speaking of their works.

The Roman-Era writer LONGINUS has a book ‘On The Sublime’ that outlined many of the
tenets of the Idea of ‘The Sublime’ which were revisited during the era Hegel was writing in, but which remain true and insightful today. These include:

Sublimity refers to a certain type of elevated language that strikes its listener with the mighty and irresistible power of a thunderbolt.

Unlike rhetoric, which merely persuades, the sublime overwhelms its audience, literally carrying the audience away to a higher realm of experience.
The sublime has the power to unite contradictions (concordia discors).

A sublime passage can be heard again and again with equal pleasure.

The sublime, and its power to transport, transcends both time and space. Consider, for
example, Tennyson’s poem Ulysses, especially the last fifteen lines.

It is not bathos or bombast: i.e., all that overwrought, pseudo-tragic clap-trap associated today with melodramatic soap operas.

It is not inflated, hyperbolic language that is used, inappropriately, to heighten subjects that do not merit such treatment.

It is not merely the use of fashionable expressions or fanciful images.


’On the surface, such a phrase would suggest that sublimity lies totally in the realm of genius, and is thus limited to those born with the gift.

Indeed, Longinus believed it was better to produce one great work of sublimity than a hundred faultless, but passionless, poems.

The sublime is the mixed product of both genius and art and, therefore, includes a component of skill.

This famous debate between genius and art is a perennial one in the annals of literary theory; we shall encounter it again.

There must be an appropriate, rational, organic relationship between form and content: high and low, serious and comic must not be allowed to mix (i.e., Longinus, like Horace, ascribed to standards of decorum). 

Poets should attempt to mimic in the sound of their poetry the sense that they are trying to convey. 

The best art hides itself; it seems more natural than nature herself.


All aspects of Hegel’s philosophy, logical, metaphysical, political, and aesthetic, are intimately tied to his philosophy of history. Hegel was the most articulate and influential advocate of what was later called “historicism,” the belief that we can understand phenomena – people, nations, events, and objects – only within their specific historical contexts, and that these contexts forman integral element in the constitution of these phenomena. Nothing, in other words, can be examined in abstraction from its particular history, its causes, its effects, and its specific position in a broader historical scheme, a scheme often said to be driven toward specific goals through the operation of inexorable laws.

In general, Hegel sees human history as a progress of absolute mind or consciousness toward self-conscious freedom. The movement toward freedom is equated by Hegel with a movement toward greater rationality, in both the operations of the human mind and the social and political arrangements which express these. Essentially, when our own minds have become rational and the laws and institutions that we live under are also rational, we shall freely consent to live by those laws. Hegel also characterizes this general movement as the progressive attainment of self-consciousness on the part of consciousness; in other words, as consciousness moves to higher levels, it perceives increasingly that what it previously took as the external world, as something alien and foreign to it, is in fact essentially constituted, at its deepest rational core, by its own operations. What was previously confronted as substance is now recognized as
subjectivity. Hence Hegel also describes this entire movement as a progression from substance to subject. It is a process that works both in the logical workings of consciousness and in the progression of consciousness through history.


This idea of substance becoming subjectivity is radical and also positive, though challenging because it gives us the responsibility for much of how the world is and can become. It says much of what we perceive of reality is dictated by what we have in ourselves as we are doing the perceiving. 

Between Being and Nothingness, is BECOMING.


Everything is one, and our characters don’t climb a ladder to arrive on the roof of their problem and thus ‘get over’ it, but instead, parts of their lives and their efforts and thoughts collide, their minds reflect, react, and the light bends and breaks from their heart and refracts in brilliant and troubling ways, with shadows and highlights, so that something shines out in the end, like kaleidoscope, where those things that shot through them are still a part of them. Our characters have conflicts, desires, and through their stories, they change. The important thing is that they take chances.

We move from substance – a man standing in a scene, flat and still– to subjectivity, a mind in a situation, trying, with desire, toward some goal, confronting some conflict.

“For Hegel, the most fundamental form of self-consciousness is desire.” As Hegel puts it,
“Self-consciousness is Desire in general.”


Read the section on Hegel’s Aesethics closely to understand the importance his philosophy places on Art.


THE EMPIRICISTS viewed Experience as an important part of how we receive knowledge and understanding. Hegel agreed with them on this, but went further by saying that we create much of our experience, and placing emphasis on this aspect of IMAGINATION like the Romantics (who thought the Enlightenment figures emphasized REASON too much in this place).

Hegel and the Romantics are thus great for philosophies of the Individual, the senses, and being present in the moment, and thus for stories and storytellers. Because much of what writers do is cultivating and expressing AWARENESS.

The MOTIONS of SUBSTANCE – INTO – SUBJECTIVITY – is an awesome alchemy. And we, as
writers, making our writing from what would appear to be mere words, (substance?), out of the daily lift of grind and grift, into something lofty and self-meaningful. Like Hegel’s aesthetic belief in ART as a way to rearrange reality into a way that shows the cut and shine, the facets of what seems plain glass, to diamond TRUTH. We take from our experience and research and Scrape together, from these and all we burn in the crucible, after we wipe the dross from the vial, we may FIND OUR GOLD…


The moving parts, crystalized into a language of our own,

Some style and STORY that fires the mind and we can believe in, like a holy thing.

We burn to reach that peak. And the work to get there might seem drudgery at times, but
inspiration is all around, and still we climb.

Hegel’s works are full of insight, and he speaks in language that seems difficult and obscure, but he has ways of taking that light to the gem and showing the deepest shines.

Good Hunting, Writers,


Cypress monarch signature