Just in Case Anyone is Alive....

I have a feeling everyone is dead, but if not I posted part of my story on The Erratic Muse. If you have a little time, it would make me so happy if you read it. :-)

Here are links to a movie and two book reviews I've been able to do-

The Red Baron (2008)

Stepping Heavenward - Elizabeth Prentice

Canon of Scripture - F. F. Bruce

Thanks for reading.
Miss Pickwickian

Textus Receptus, Looking like a stuck-up Nerd, and Mark 16

So. WHO'S READY FOR SOME CONTROVERSY???????????

Aha. Aha.

So, once again, this is a school assignment. This blog should really be very thankful for my Omnibus class. :-P This post is partly to revive my reputation that I'm sure took a nasty fall when I posted that...lemon...one...

The only drawback is that I stand a great chance of looking like a nerdy bloated stuck up know it all. Which I'm not. But this may make it look like I am.

Will you all forgive me for forcing my school paper upon you?

All for the sake of keeping the blog alive, you know :)

Ugh, I just realized, the paper is rather long....

If you decide to waste 7.3 minutes of your life reading this, I would appreciate comments/criticizms/controversy/compliments or anything you want to say.

:)

Hadley Ayers
Omnibus IV section C, 4th quarter assignment
5/3/10

Not very long ago, I was reading the book of Mark. I was nearing the end of this captivating book, in chapter 16. I had just finished verse 8, and was starting on verse 9: [Now, after he had risen early on the first day of the week…I stopped reading. Wait a moment, I thought. Why was the beginning of verse nine in parentheses? I turned the page to the end of the book. The last word of verse 20 also had parentheses around it: …confirmed the word by the signs that followed]. I looked back down at the page. The wonders continued, for right after verse 20, both in parentheses and italics, were the words, [And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. By now, I was thoroughly confused. I had never encountered anything like this in the Bible before. Now, I had been reading the New American Standard version. Curious, I turned to my New King James version. When I read the same chapter, there were no parentheses around verses 9-20, and it did not include the italicized addition to verse 20. My curiosity now further awakened, I looked up the passages on BibleGateway.com. The website had this footnote: Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter, etc. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20. Aha, I thought. There must be some controversy over this chapter! I decided it needed some looking into. Mouse in hand, I set out to uncover this mystery.

There are two ‘families’ of Greek New Testament manuscripts that have been found. The first is called the Byzantine text-type. The Byzantine text-type is made up of a vast amount of manuscripts, and its manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark contain verses 9-20 of chapter 16. The Byzantine text also does not include the addition to verse 20. These Byzantine manuscripts became the commonly accepted New Testaments. In the 14th century, Erasmus compiled most of the Byzantine manuscripts and translated them into Latin, which was called the Textus Receptus. From the Textus Receptus, the King James and New King James versions were both translated. The second family of manuscripts is the Alexandrian text-type, which was not discovered till the 19th century. The Alexandrian text is made up of far fewer manuscripts than the Byzantine, but what manuscripts it consists of are older and closer to the time of Christ. The oldest of these Alexandrian manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, do not include verses 9-20 of chapter 16, and some texts include the addition to verse 20. In 1850, Karl Lachmann published the first New Testament that relied only on the Alexandrian manuscripts. The Critical Text, which is compiled from the Alexandrian manuscripts, is the basis for all English translations (except the King James and New King James), and is now in modern times the accepted New Testament.

These two families of texts from whence the Bibles we read come from have different endings for Mark. Which text is more reliable? The Alexandrian Text is older than the Byzantine. If it is older, and thus closer to when the New Testament was actually being written, then the chances of it being the original are more likely. On the other hand, though the Byzantine text is not as old as the Alexandrian, it has the majority on its side; for its manuscripts are more numerous, and all these manuscripts agree. How shall we weigh these arguments?

This is a rather tricky matter, but not unsolvable. Not only does the Byzantine text have the Majority in its favor, it also has a longer history of acceptance. From about the 5th century till quite modern times, The Byzantine Text and the Textus Receptus became the accepted New Testament. The Reformers used it. The vote of confidence of all the great men of Church History has to amount for something. There is a reason the Alexandrian text type was not common in ancient times, and why we have not discovered it till late. There is a reason the early church fathers must have rejected it in favor of the Byzantine texts. Also, just because we can’t find any manuscripts that are dated closer to the writing of the original document doesn’t mean that the Byzantine manuscripts are not original. The quantity of agreeing manuscripts points to something. If you are hiking, and come to a point where you can see a great big river, but are unable to see its source, you never the less know that the source exists. Merely being older does not give the Alexandrian text automatic authenticity. Being a little younger does not mean the Byzantine Text is any less authentic than it is. Thus, the Byzantine text is more reliable, and as it includes verses 9-20, we know that these verses are legitimate; also, the addition to verse 20, which the Byzantine text does not include, must not be legitimate.

Even though we have established that the Byzantine text is probably the more reliable, and thus we can trust the addition of verses 9-20, we must still go over a few criticisms with Mark 16 itself. One objection to verses 9-20 is that it uses several words and phrases that Mark never uses before. It doesn’t seem to be written in Mark’s style, and thus it is assumed that these verses must have been added later by someone else. The main question here is the authority of writing style. Should an author’s writing style be the law that says a work belongs to a certain author? Would you take a book that had been written by J.R.R. Tolkien, discovered that it had a few words that he either didn’t use very often or never had before, and start up a ruckus claiming that J.R.R. Tolkien didn’t write the book? Is an author to be given no freedom to write differently from works previous? A biblical author’s writing style does not carry as much weight as some people make it out to carry. It should be an interesting, enjoyable study, and no more. Also, why would Mark end his book at verse 8 with these words: And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid. This does not seem like a very complete or good news-like ending to the great story of Jesus Christ. Moreover, though this ending briefly mentions that Christ has risen, it does not include any actual appearance of Christ after his crucifixion, as all the other gospels do. Thus, these objections to Mark 16:9-20 are shown to be of no weight.

I leaned back in my chair. Through the course of my research, I came to the conclusion that verses 9-20 were indeed a part of Mark. The arguments in favor of the Byzantine text, which is the basis for the versions that include verses 9-20, outweighed the arguments in favor of the Alexandrian text. The objections to this passage in Mark did not carry enough weight to convince me of their validity. However, as I was researching this information, I found it necessary to remind myself of the big picture. It’s easy to get caught up in the debate over which version to use, which versions are superior, and what not. While we may hold that a certain translation is more correct than another, we shouldn’t get too wound up over it. We can still be good Christians if we read the NASV, or the ESV. This whole subject about the ending of Mark is important, but it should not estrange us from other Christians. To close with a quote:

“The New Testament was inspired by God, and came from the pens of its writers or their amanuenses in infallible form, free from any defect of any sort, including scribal mistakes. However, God in His providence did not choose to protect that infallible original text from alterations and corruptions in the copying and printing process.” –Douglas Kutilek

St. Clement

This actually isn't about St. Clement at all....it just reminded me of that rhyme:
Oranges and Lemons, say the bells of St. Clement's....
Anyways. I wrote this when I was very bored the other day. I honestly don't know very much about it. It is very odd. So odd, you may give me funny looks next time I see you. But, after all, desperate times call for desperate measures. No one has posted anything for a very long time! Someone needs to save the blog from utter ruin! Esmeralda to the rescue! (:-P) I needed something to post, and something quick. Thus, I give you,

Lemons on Sunday

P.S. There are a few wonky allegories in this. So wonky, you may wonder if I actually understand the meaning of allegory. However, I'm curious to see if any of you can figure out what all it means. If you can't, that's ok. It prolly doesn't make much sense. It made sense in my head :-P


'I do like lemons,' he said.
He was gazing out to the street, not looking at her. She was staring at her feet.
'Yes,' she murmured, 'But limes are far more effective.'
'Oh, I don't think so.' He leaned back against the wall. His voice was drawling and bantering. 'Lemons can hide things, sour things that certain people shouldn't see.'
'Yes, but limes are stronger,' she replied. 'They can keep certain people from coming in. They are too slippery for attackers.'
She turned to him, her face earnest, almost pleading.
He glanced at her, one eyebrow raised, then turned his gaze back to the cold street.
'So you prefer limes to lemons?' he asked in a rather acidic voice.
She blushed. 'I'm not saying I like either of them, actually. As far as it goes, I'd rather have a strawberry, or a peach, or an apple-' She stopped, and quickly put her hand over her mouth. She had been disturbed by his coldness, wasn't thinking clearly in her effort to defend herself. She had let-that word- slip out. She had said it. What would he think of her now?
She was trembling now, shifting her feet.
He turned to her. His face was like stone.
'What did you say?'
His voice seemed to have grown deeper. Her mind went blank. Fear swept over her. She tried to speak, but her voice shook.
'No, no, I- I didn't mean- don't think- oh, please-don't be mad at me!'
She was near tears. She couldn't look at his face. A tear slid down her cheek and plopped onto her shoe as she waited fearfully for him to respond. She was both dreading and hoping his words. She finally summoned enough nerve to look up- and he was gone. She let out a wail, and fell down weeping on the steps.

Phantastes

I have decided that this Saturday’s post (ooooh…doesn’t that sound official?) will be about the most wonderful book in the world. It never ceases to amaze me how few people have read it.
Well, at least I think it’s the most wonderful book in the world. It is a tough call, though. :)
The Title? Phantastes.
The Author? George Macdonald. For those of you who are familiar with George Macdonald, the mere fact that he is its author should automatically endear this book to you. Those of you have the great misfortune of never reading any of his works, you have only to talk to someone who has and watch them swoon at the mention of his name.
First, a quote. “It must have been more than thirty years ago that I bought – almost unwillingly, for I had looked at the volume on that bookstall and rejected it on a dozen previous occasions – the Everyman edition of Phantastes. A few hours later I knew that I had crossed a great frontier. I had already been waist deep in Romanticism; and likely enough, at any moment, to flounder into its darker and more evil forms. Now Phantastes was romantic enough in all conscience; but there was a difference. Nothing was at that time further form my mind than Christianity and I therefore I had no notion what this difference really was. I was only aware that if this new world was strange, it was also homely and humble; that if this was a dream, it was a dream in which one at least felt strangely vigilant; that the whole book had about it a sort of cool, morning innocence, and also, quite unmistakably, Death, good death. What it actually did was to convert, even baptize, my imagination.” -C.S. Lewis
When I first read Phanastes many years ago, I couldn’t have told you the main plot or what the point of the story was. At first glance, the story is about a young man named Anodos who gets lost in Fairyland, and wanders through many bizarre and random adventures trying to get un-lost. The nature of the story leaves one confused, befuddled, not knowing what the point to Anodos’ seemingly random wanderings is or where the author is going with this story. The whole tale has a quality of unearthly, bizarre beauty that initially can be mind-twisting if you’re not used to that sort of writing. But as I’ve read it over and over again, the point becomes increasingly clear. While Anodos has many seemingly unconnected adventures, two themes and two people run through the whole thing.
The first real mishap Anodos has in Fairyland is the acquiring of his Shadow. He finds his Shadow as a result of ignoring some wise advice, and the Shadow fallows his wherever he goes. The influence of the Shadow makes him moody, and makes him suspicious and distrustful. If his Shadow falls on flowers, they wither. If his Shadow happens to fall on a Fairy-child, the child becomes a plain and vulgar farm boy. In short, Anodos’ Shadow is a symbol of his Sin, and the process of disposing of his shadow a symbol of his search for redemption.
The other two people who run through the whole story are the White Lady, and the Knight. Anodos frees the White Lady from her marble tomb through his singing, though she runs away from him. Throughout the story, he is driven by his love for her and a desire to see her once more. Anodos also meets the Knight, who symbolizes the kind of man Anodos desperately, wishes to be. The Knight flits in and out of the story, and near the end Anodos comes to love the Knight as a master. Through the course of searching for the White Lady, however, Anodos learns that his White Lady loves the Knight, and that she is meant for him and cannot love Anodos in the way Anodos has been wanting her to. Anodos at first struggles with this, but later accepts it through realizing that the Knight, his master, is more worthy of the White Lady than he is. Anodos displays his unconditional love for both of them by sacrificing himself for their sakes. The ‘revelation’ is that Anodos has been searching for the wrong love and loving the wrong way; he eventually realizes “that it is by loving, and not by being loved, that one comes closest to the soul of another”.
Related to both the love theme and the sin theme is the Alder Maid, who Anodos mistakes for the White Lady, but who is in truth wicked and a snare for men’s souls. Her part in the story reminds me very much the Proverb’s Strange Woman.
In short, Anodos’ journey through Fairyland is a quest (the knight theme is very prevalent in this story) for both Redemption and a search for the right kind of love. It all gets resolved at the end, which is quite moving, and I won’t give it away. :) Phantastes can strike one as being odd or bizarre, but it is also intensely beautiful. It’s an unearthly, unreal kind of beauty that will leave you in a daze when you get up from finishing it. I highly recommend it- I read it every year to get my priorities straight:-P. If its weirdness puts you off at first, give it a chance. Underneath its seeming random and odd narrative, it’s truly the most beautiful story I’ve ever read.

Shakespeare's Sonnets

Recently I've been dealing more with poetry and lyrics then I've ever done in my life.
I've never really read very much poetry because a lot of it has always seemed so over the top. I tend to dislike overly romantic or meandering drama over leaves and scenery etc.... And it seems like what there is to say has already been said and so much of it is similar. (Very narrow view I know.)

Lately, however, I have been trying to study some poetry and delve into lyric writing etc. I enjoy the actual writing part and I can think of plenty of things to write about. (And maybe since I don't like meandering drama I should do something about it. ;-)
I've been writing a lot of rough lyric sort of verses in short bits of time. It helps me feel like I've accomplished something well I still work on my long story. :-)
Anyways, I thought I should learn some stuff about how it actually should be done.

I've picked up two books on poetry (how to understand it, what it's uses/powers are, how to write it, etc...). I've also been working through a book on song writing, but it is a bit of a drag. (The first chapter is about diving into the depths of your soul to find your polished pearl of inspiration...exactly the sort of thing that put me off poetry to start with.)

Anyways, I thought a good place to start would be studying the best, so I picked up a lovely copy of Shakespeare's Sonnets at "Exodus". I can't say it's my favorite thing, but I am happy that they are enjoyable. :-)

What are your views on poetry? Do you have favorite works?


"Where art thou, Muse, that thou forget'st so long
To speak of that which gives thee all they might
Spend'st thou thy fury on some worthless song,
Darkening thy power to lend bas subjects light?
Return, forgetful Muse, and straight redeem
In gentle numbers time so idly spent;
Sing to the ear that doth thy lays esteem
And gives thy pen both skill and argument.
Rise, resty Muse, my love's sweet face survey,
If Time have any wrinkle graven there;
IF any, be a satire to decay,
And make Time's spoils despised every where.
Give my love fame faster then Time wastes life;
So thou prevent'st his scythe and crooked knife."


Enjoy,
Miss Pickwickian

The Erratic Muse

Self Inflicted Goals

For about two weeks last month I met my goal of writing 500 or more words a day.

Then....kidding and lambing season started happening and it all went out the window. I'm trying to start back up again, but lets face it, life is BUSY!
I haven't got any routine down since the critters started having babies everywhere. I need one! I have a lot of after highschool studies and such that I want to be making speedy headway through and I am 100% determined to write.

I'm working on a number of projects.
A book for our business
My Ligonier study course
School writing....
History and a couple other independent (and very fun) stuff for school
Song lyrics
And dearest to my heart, my story!

In January I set the goal as having the final draft done by Feb 1st 2011. It seemed reasonable as I was plugging through past 25,000 words and all. But then....CRASH! Now I'm on my 100 billionth redo.
I'm still hoping to make Feb 2011. There is an amazing contest that you can get feed back on and that is the deadline. I can do it! (..........maybe)

So I'm back to 500 words six days a week. It really isn't very much and only takes 1/2-1 hour. If I cut down other optional activities I know I can make it most days. And I want to write! It makes my whole day better. And writing every day keeps you in shape, it's the constant theme in all writing advice. It must be sound.

This year my journal has almost been reduced to plan schedules and goals, but I think it is good. Goals are good. I think their even gooder when they are self-inflicted. :-)

I hope I make it.

I don't know what this post was all about really...but I guess now you can all hold me accountable for my 500 words. ;-)

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

The Erratic Muse

BTW, if you all didn't see Plushenko's Gala skate, you should see it!

Project Assignment

So, what if we all take a day of the week, and we post at least twice a month on that day of the week (or close to...doesn't really matter)?

It's just if we have a day then we'll be more apt to actually post and we won't get a bunch of posts on the same a day or something so people can see them all etc...

Please put out dibs on days. We have 8 people, so some of us will have to share. ;-) Those who don't wish to write much, can share if they like.

Please comment with the day you'd like or any other ideas you have on the subject.

Project?

Hey everyone. :-)

It seems like The Ladies Pickwick Society is very slow, hopefully stuck in a hibernation and not death.

I was wondering if you all would like to do a project (sort of like the heroes thing) or something??

Please comment with any suggestions.

What Makes Him Cool?

So. Everybody! We seem to be having some lazy authors here... I feel sort of like I keep rambling on to myself. (Special thanks to Polka Dot, Rose, and occasionally Johanna and Dura Mater for commenting. You rock!)

Miss Polka Dot and I thought it would be fun to do a little assignment. A lot of what makes stories work is characters. I know we all of a lot of heroes. I thought it would be fun for us all to do a squib on one of our favorite heroes or heroines.

Try to include a few of the following:

Why do you like this hero?
How can you relate?
Does he seem realistic? Does this make him more lovable?
What do you think is necessary in a true hero?
What makes or break a guy or gal from reaching the hero status?

Maybe post a picture or two.
Just ramble on your thoughts about the subject.

I know a lot of you think you don't know what to write about, but anything related to story is just fine. Quotes, song lyrics, random inspiring squibs, movie and book reviews, pictures, and so on are all welcome. I know you all love movies and songs, and a lot of you read, so really no excuse. Most of what we do everyday is related to story.

Also...please notice the improvements to the blog. Like the slide shows?

Thanks for reading. Now write!
Lv,
Miss Pickwickian

Lloyd Alexander

Lloyd Alexander (1924-2007) was a successful fiction writer who wrote mostly children stories, but some other varieties as well including a total of over 40 books!

I was reading about him today when I came across this quote in an article of tribute that was published at his death.

The quote from Lloyd Alexander is in reference to his main character in a five book fantasy series who starts out as an assistant pig-keeper. Although his work is sometimes predictable and his female characters are often unbearable, Alexander was a great children's writer. I have been greatly influenced by his style and have enjoyed hours of it, in my youth. ;-)

"For Mr. Alexander, the uses of enchantment were clear: fantasy, he often said, was a powerful way of talking about real-world injustice.




'In whatever guise — our own daily nightmares of war, intolerance, inhumanity; or the struggles of an Assistant Pig-Keeper against the Lord of Death — the problems are agonizingly familiar,” he said in his Newbery acceptance speech in 1969. “And an openness to compassion, love and mercy is as essential to us here and now as it is to any inhabitant of an imaginary kingdom.' "

And from an interview published after his death...

"SF: Of all your books, do you have a favorite book or character?
LA: I can’t single out one of my books or characters as a favorite. In the same way that I don’t have a favorite kidney, my books are organically all part of myself. I might even say that put all together, the books are one ongoing, developing story—which, not coincidentally, happens to be my own lifestory.

SF: What was it like to win the Newbery Medal?

LA: The only way I can describe winning the Newbery Medal is: indescribable. Elation? Astonishment? Those are very pale words. What I did realize after the jubilation calmed down a little (it never calmed down completely) is that all awards, marvelous as they are to receive, are given for something already done. The point is not to look back, but to look ahead to what you hope still to do.

SF: What were your favorite books growing up, and who were your favorite authors?

LA: Favorite books and authors while growing up—I’d need a book to list them all. For the sake of brevity: Shakespeare, Dickens, Mark Twain, Victor Hugo, world’s mythology, the Arthurian legends. And the unabridged dictionary. And they’re still my favorites. They get better each time I read them."

(You can see the whole interview here.)

For more info on Lloyd Alexander go to: this interesting, short bio or Wikipedia.

Just thought I'd share.
Lv,
Miss Pickwickian

(P.S. Perhaps his nose influenced my writing style as well. ;-)

The White Company

By Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Plot Synopsis (sorta...)

The White Company is set during the 100 Years War and fallows the lives of several Englishman as they travel (fighting along the way ;-) from England through France and Spain and back again. It is crammed with historical info along with a compelling although, sometimes slow, plot.
(Doyle obviously did a lot of research and sometimes shows it off with page long list of the names of 12th century knights.)

The story follows the lives of four assorted men;

Sir Nigel Loring, a small, feisty yet aging knight who is well known, but poor and spends much of his time looking for honorable advancement (fighting).

Alleyne Edricson, a young man just loosed from being a novice at an Abbey for the first 20 years of his life. (A very cool character, but one does tire of Doyle's comments about his blond, curling, English locks....)

John Hordle, a huge, red-headed Englishman who is very capable of cracking a joke (and heads).

and Samkin Alyward, a hardened and expert bowman.

The book holds all the promise of a medieval tale (saving the damsel in distress, knighthood, chivalry, etc...) and pulls it off remarkably well.

I recommend it, but want say much more, so don't I spoil it for you. Mwhahaha...

Themes

Some unusual things about it really made it interesting for me. Alleyne father dies soon after his

birth and entrusts him to the monks of the Abbey with the agreement that when he is 20 he may leave and see the world. Before the end of that year he must decide if he would like to return to the Abbey and become a monk or stay in the world.

He begins piously thinking he will return and is completely shocked at the state of the world. But amazingly, by the end it has come very clear to him that it is those in the world that are changing it, not those hiding in cells. (This all comes about in a very cool way...not exactly how its coming across. :-) Whatever weeds Doyle might have strayed off to later in life, his view on the Church and Christ are very refreshing here.

Doyle also does an excellent job of portraying believable and compelling leaders. His patriotism and take on chivalry do him credit.
Fighting is very much for a cause or for loyalty to a leader, and has little to do with hate. Many of the French and Spanish characters are nearly as cool as the English.

Some of his characters crazy delight in "honorable advancement" and war in general is a bit weird...

Note on the Author

As you probably all know, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is also the author of Sherlock Holmes, among a series about Professor Challenger, science fiction, historical novels, plays and romancnes, political works, and scattered poetry.



He considered Sherlock Holmes a way to pay the bills for many years. He actually killed him (the time he's not really dead) because he was irritated with the public for their love of Holmes and their indifference of his other works. He believed he needed more time for writing "serious" stuff.

In November of 1891 he wrote his mother: "I think of slaying Holmes...and winding up for good and all. He takes my mind from better things."

His mother responded, saying, "You may do what you deem fit, but the crowds will not take this lightheartedly."
Well...Doyle didn't listen to his mama and after off handedly murdering Holmes was forced to bring him back, both because of popular demand and because of failing finances. (The off handedly isn't really historically accurate...just bitterness seeping through...)

Doyle considered his historical and political works to be his greatest, and often said The White Company was one of his favorites.

Although I don't think any of his characters could possibly be as compelling and fasinating (and lovable :-) as Sherlock Holmes, I enjoyed the players in The White Company. (BTW, we are talking strictly of the book Sherlock Holmes here.:-)

Lv,
Miss Pickwickian

The "Car Wreck" Dynamic

"Just as people slow down to look at wreckage, we can't resist seeing what happens to fully drawn human beings who make an unalterable mess in their lives. A skilled novelist can make us feel that 'there but for the grace of God go I.' "
Plot and Structure by James Scott Bell

Just thought I'd share this quote. This seems very true and really helped me understand this predicament. Bell uses The Great American Tragedy as an example declaring it the worst written "greatest book" ever. Although its style is unpolished, often lags, and the primary character turns into a horrible person it is compelling book. I also think The Mayor of Casterbridge falls into this category. Anyways...just thought I'd share...

Lv,
Miss Pickwickian

Writing and its Characters

"In his book, The Art of Creative Writing, Lajos Egri asserts that the key to originality in fiction comes from characters.

'Living, vibrating human beings are still the secret and magic formula of great and enduring writing. Read, or better, study the immortals and we will be forced to conclude that their unusual penetration into human character is what has kept their work fresh and alive through the centuries...'

Lets test this.

What is it that sets Dickens apart in our minds? Fagin and Wilkins Micawber; Uriah Heep and Miss Havisham; Peggotty and Barkis. Characters who sparkle in his plots like jewels.

How about a more contemporary example? I mentioned Stephen King. Study his work and you will see that his character development is every bit as original as his plot lines. The two work together. Take a look at the myriad characters in The Stand; you will not find a dullard anywhere.

Don't let any of your characters plop into your plot like plain vanilla. Spice them up.

Plot and Structure by James Scott Bell