Macro and micro

by Andrea Elizabeth

Writing is difficult because it is hard to tell stories like your eye which can keep track of macros and relevant micros. I have a very difficult time reading Tolkien because his balance of micros to macros doesn’t fit with mine. At first it seems I cant see the forest for the trees, but on tighter focus it seems he is listing thousands of trees, but not helping me get to know them or the forest. I don’t think you can write about trees, unless you personalize them as Ents, which the movie did very well. You can write about their shade, or their bending with the wind or with a Womping Willow-like temper, or a branch’s clutching, Katherine Earnshaw-like claw.

I’m reading my fourth or fifth Stephen King book, Pet Semetary. I think On Writing was first, no it was The Girl Who Liked Tom Gordon, then The Shining, then 10-22-63, then Lisey’s Story, so that’s six. He has very believable emotional buildups and rationalizations. I don’t feel like I’m getting caught up in romanticism, except for the love interest in 10-22-63, which has a very stereotypical female. In King’s earlier stuff his females were complex with positive and negative traits, if a bit dependent. Feminism has made women all one thing. That statement can be easily misunderstood but I feel I would get lost in the micros if I try to explain it. Ok, yes feminism celebrates diversity, but the act of celebrating means that you’re rejoicing over one thing – women. Maybe that’s enough.

Like my last post, God is our Father and the earth is our mother – it can easily be confused into supporting universalism and pantheism. But to just focus on a Pinocchio like creative making, with some people making it to personhood, diminishes the miracle of life. No one really knows how the first microorganisms were made. The evolutionists hope themselves into believing an asteroid brought some amino acids that landed in some water and them some lightning hit a submerged volcano vent and voila. The evolutionist Christians would say, yeah, Frankenstein God could have ordained it that way. This is one reason I can’t be one. I need Christ to gather the bits of earth and the Holy Spirit to breathe life into them individually. Then they can reproduce after their kind. This could seem sort of Gepetto-ish, unless you think of getting half your dna from your father. The fact that living things have DNA, if it was uniquely given on the spot to new creatures, would make God their father in a sense. If new species dna is just a mutation from a previous iteration, then God is not their father, but the basal species was. And then its basal ness was just a mutation from a previous species on down to the earliest micro organism. I suppose they see it in a familial way in that we can say we all came from Adam and Eve but we can identify different races and families by their current characteristics. They are happy with the difference between us and Chimps and bacteria as different families of the same broad chategory of life. Well, if I am saying all living things have God as their father then am I doing the same thing? No, because God is Superfather in that the different species’ dna are his energies and logoi, and not his essence. Gepetto did not give Pinocchio his energies, but he made him with his energies. Pinocchio, pre-real boy, had the energies of wood, fiber, and paint. But don’t inorganic things have God’s energies too? Yes, but they were birthed in the Big Bang, which makes them fascinating and marvelous in a different way. I wouldn’t say they are his children because they aren’t alive in the same way, but they still participate and are affected by his and our lives.

I’m exhausted now.