2. Paradigms, Particle Physics, and Prayer: An Interview with Madeleine L'Engle
Madeleine L'Engle, the author of such well known works as "A
Wrinkle in Time" (for which she won the 1963 Newberry Medal),
"Ilsa", and "The Moon by Night" discusses
her theories connecting writing, Christianity, and subatomic physics.
3. Happy's Corner - Recurring Feature
Well, we've arrived at Issue #15. For this issue, I have decided to include an article that was previously run in our other webzine "Science Fantasy Anthology." It's an interview with acclaimed science fiction writer Madeleine L'Engle in which she shares some of her believes about how the universe really operates. As well, she discusses her techniques for conveying her point of view through the written word. Also, by popular request, I am going to run in this issue, one of the most popular "Happy's Corner" articles. This one deals with why there are so many people that take piano lessons and why so few of them know how to make music. Enjoy.
Yours truly,
Ronin.
[Christina is a neophyte author currently hard at work on her
first science-fiction story. Previously, she's had varied experiences
ranging from TV newscaster to arts festival administrator.]
"I have a big imagination!" beams the bright-eyed woman
seated across the table from me.
Madeleine L'Engle, author of more than forty books, "A Wrinkle
in Time", "A Wind in the Door", and "A Swiftly
Tilting Planet" among others, chooses her words carefully.
Decked out in a blue and white, pinstripe, denim blouse and a
skirt embroidered with a beaded flower design, the 77-year-old
storyteller looks every bit the wise author who millions of readers
have come to know and love. In town to teach a writing workshop
on Creativity and the Bible, L'Engle casually weaves together
bits of scientific knowledge and spiritual insight to anyone who
will listen.
"We're right now at a new paradigm shift," L'Engle begins,
"and I don't think any of us have really caught on to it,
but it is far more terrifying than anything that Darwin suggested."
"What do you mean?" I ask, puzzled.
"Nothing at all happens in isolation. It all happens together,
and we are no longer in that deterministic world that troubled
Einstein. Then, everything was totally predictable. It was pre-determined."
Catching up to her first remark, I interject, "Wait a minute
- you mean the way we perceive reality has fundamentally changed,
and we're not even aware of it?"
She nods. "Prayer and sub-atomic physics can both communicate
instantly," she continues. "We're part of a new universe."
"How's that?"
She grins. "Physicists have discovered that, under certain
circumstances, two subatomic particles can be thousands of miles
away, but communicate instantly."
"All right. Now how's that related to prayer?"
"We can pray for those we love in far off places knowing
that our prayer is there instantly. It transcends time. Prayer
breaks the boundaries of time."
"So what you're saying is that we are no longer confined
to our former ways of thinking. Science and God have come together.
Is that right?"
She winks. With a smile, L'Engle explains that her vision of God
isn't of some distant omnipotent being who performs miracles,
but rather of an entity that is with us in the midst of chaos.
It takes me a minute to grasp what she's just explained. But something
is still unclear. "What does Charles Darwin have to do with
all this? You mentioned him earlier."
L'Engle pauses briefly to collect her thoughts. "Someone
asked me about creation versus evolution," she says. "I
said I can't get very excited about it. There's only one question
worth asking, and that is, 'Did God make it?' And if the answer
is 'Yes,' then why get so excited about it?"
Madeleine continues, "I need to know when I go to bed at
night that I'm loved, and forgiven. And along comes poor Darwin
and gets everybody upset." She goes on to explain that evolution
does not preclude the existence of God. It may merely be a mechanism
by which God operates.
These words are not surprising coming from someone who believes
that writing is a spiritual discipline. Her first novel, "A
Wrinkle in Time" (1962) met with much initial resistance.
People kept turning it down because it dealt with the problem
of evil and was considered too difficult for children. L'Engle
explains that there was some confusion as to whether it was a
kid's book or an adult's book.
"It took ten years to get published", the author confesses.
"Now I get publishers coming up to me saying, 'You should
have sent it to me.' I say, 'I did!'"
Now that we're onto the subject of writing, I tentatively ask,
"How do you come up with all your wonderful ideas? Do you
actually see the things you write about?"
She replies humbly, "I just listen. When I write, I don't
think. I just listen."
"To what?"
"To the Holy Spirit."
"What about writing technique, structure, and all that? Do
you think about those things?" I ask.
She smiles. "I like the advice of the King of Hearts in Alice
in Wonderland - 'Begin at the beginning, go on 'till you
come to the end, then stop.'"
Madeleine continues by describing her theory of art - that all
art derives from the chaos found in the cosmos. "We're all
part of that unpredictability out of which Pattern comes,"
she says. "All of us are here to help make the Heavens and
the Earth, to bring Creation into being, and in the end wind up
triumphant with God." She shouts with joy, "Allelujah!
We're all at the party - let's have a wonderful time!"
HAPPY'S
CORNER A lot of kids take piano lessons. Why? Status for the parents, perhaps? A sense of infusing children with culture? Another thing to be done to build the perfect child? There's a variety of reasons. But, it's usually some need on the parents' part to improve the lot of their child.
I think that's great. A lot of piano lessons means more work for piano manufacturers and piano teachers and more support for music in general. So, what's my beef? Well, give me a minute to explain.
Most piano lessons start out as fun for the child. They have fun with neat sounds and they get to play pleasant sounding children's songs. After a while, as the kid progresses, most teachers will start the kids on classical music (in general terms, whatever is accepted by classically-trained teachers as 'serious' music). Soon, the kid is asked to memorize pieces from guys long dead to play at examinations or recitals. The pieces get more and more complicated requiring much more work from the student. At some point, students get really bored and parents and/or teachers may give them lectures to persuade/force them to keep going.
I don't think most kids are lazy. I think it's normal to get bored. Just think about it, you spend a whole year working on five to eight pieces written by guys that died anywhere from 50 to 400 years ago. You don't spend any time (at least not with your lessons) learning about all the great music that you hear today. I think great music and great art have value and should be passed on no matter how old they are, but I really think that it's moronic to base all your teaching on old stuff and not even touch the stuff that's going on right now (rock, pop, country, dance, etc. take your pick).
Music is part of society. It's all connected. Some of the older stuff, especially Baroque (about 1600-1750) and Classical (about 1750-1825) pieces, were composed for an aristocratic, Western European audience. The popular music today, especially rock, is democratic global music. It started with the black community in the U.S.A., got picked up by rebellious white kids, and spread to Europe and, eventually, most of the world to embrace people of all ethnic backgrounds.
Someone that understands Baroque and Classical pieces but has
no understanding of pop or rock will, to some measure, be cut
off from today's world. Instead of focusing on just the old stuff,
I think the best thing to do would be to teach mostly pop songs
and then connect them back to earlier music. Instead of separating
things, the teacher should demonstrate how things are connected.
Is this a tall order? Probably, but it's not impossible; there's
a lot of good educational materials (transcriptions, etc) out
there. I think I'll bug Ronin about coming up with a practical
program for implementing my suggestions. It should take him a
few days or so.
[Editor's note: Since this article was initially published, Happy
has badgered me into taking on the above task. It's complete
now but it took more than a few days. ]
Goodbye for now. Remember, stay Happy and don't take no crap!
Yours truly,
Happy.