Alt- Magazine Milwaukee, WI Covering art music fashion film and the alternative scene

Alt- Magazine - Stay True to Yourself by Hoam Rogh

Stay True to Yourself by Hoam Rogh Average rating: 4.4

Posted: 10/21/2008
Category: Writers on Writers
Rating: 14 rating(s)
Views: 2853

“Stay true to yourself,” is a saying that starts off roughly 1/3 of all chick-lit available in your local grocery stores, and 99% of books with pink covers. The saying started out its life as a verse from the bible. However, it was terribly old(e) fashioned and full of itself, thus reading, “To thine own(e) self be true.” This phrase had less meaning in my life than real terms like “default,” “lapse,” or even “fucked.”

On a regular basis, I would come across the saying whilst standing in grocery lines, thumbing through the chick-lit in the impulse isle, and standing behind some dude reading the part of the Bible about “thine own(e) self” being true, and soon I forgot to pay for my groceries because I was not sure if paying was what I did truly, or truly did. I had no idea how to be true to myself.

The confusion ended in me buying the pink chick-lit book. Not of my own free-will, mind you. I had lit the book on fire after being torn apart emotionally by its conflicted, sexist story. The grocery store informed me that it had a stupid “you burn it, you buy it” policy. And one about calling the police, and one about me not being able to return to their stores, and some independent contractors have a policy about serving me with papers that inform me of my newest lawsuit.

I had no idea what it meant to “stay true to yourself,” none. I did try and guess that staying true to yourself meant being who you are all the time, anytime. It was a cure to that existential funk of being what you’re not. I thought up an example of not being true: a whore who wonders if her life is really all in her pants. Such ponderousness is not staying true to her self, I mean whore-self. That’s what I figured, at least.

But the ‘staying true to yourself’ cliché holds so much more meaning than merely accepting the person you are. Staying true to yourself is also the(e) key to creating good dialogue.

The biggest problem I have with the dialogue I read: it sounds like one idiot having a conversation with him or herself. Good character-driven shit will not have one character, which so happens to have several different names and faces.

Good characters tied to a plot need to stay true to themselves. They are who they are; and more importantly, they are not who they are not. They are fucking one-dimensional. Sorry.

If a character needs more than one dimension, then that character is a main one, and either on a journey of spiritual, or personal growth—for you stupid atheists out there. At least I can count on the atheists to stay true to themselves and remain shallow one-dimensional characters.

Yet, “staying true to yourself” is crucial for a story that has several characters. It is crucial because conflict, which evidently is the life-blood of the fiction industry, breeds between opposite poles. Fine, conflict could be between poles and slots if the story features sexist gender roles. But back to the point, if the reader is to understand what is going on in a story, he or she must truly know who they are reading about.

For example: Bob loves pie. The reader now knows that Bob loves pie. No matter what happens, Bob will love him some pie. To stay true to himself, all Bob has to do is love pie. To write a doomsday story, simply place Bob in a room with big, giant pie sitting in its deep-dish pan. And place that pie on top of a big ol’ red nuclear launch button. Bob will go for that pie in an instant. Boom, just like in Raiders of the Lost Ark, certain doom ensues when weight is lifted off of the button that triggers that huge, rolling ball. In that scenario, so long as Bob stays true to himself, he will destroy the universe every-fucking time.

Unless the pie is coconut; Bob hates that shit. This does not mean that Bob is not being true to himself. Rather, Bob considers coconut not to be the stuff that pies are made of. Therefore, Bob is still true to himself, and somewhat metaphysical. However, the fact remains that the pie can be anything. The pie could be gold, silver, sex, booze, anything—except for bisexuality.

Bisexuality creates ambiguity, and ambiguity opens the flood-wall to another key part of excellent stories. Suspense!!

If a character, who got into a mess for staying true to him or herself, is thrown into a situation where their fate hangs in the balance, one thing is certain: suspense is the key role. And perhaps to sell books, that main-character will have some spiritual growth, but only if s/he survives.

WARNING!!

The crap written above is intended for fictional use only. Whatever you do, do not—repeat, do not—stay true to yourself. It limits the complex and diverse person that you really are. And limitations are all fine and good if you're a Nazi. But for the other 99.9% of us good people out there, who just live from day to day, being able to grow beyond who you are will only keep you from being pigeonholed by your enemies.

Fine: assholes would conclude that growing beyond yourself is actually a form of “being true to yourself.” However, if you continue to grow, their ability to define what you have grown into will be outpaced; unless, they’re a real bitch and shoot guns.
 


Barbara Meyer-Spidell says:
I wish I could read fully this page, oh well.
Hoam Rogh still rox.......
Friday, October 31, 2008 8:16 AM
Whatever says:
Hey, if you're going to dole out advice on writing, wouldn't it make sense for you to actually know how to write a legible sentence?
Saturday, November 08, 2008 11:26 PM
Ulysses says:
Please consult the final 50 odd pages of Ulysses for an answer to the above question.  
But keep on hating, it's what you do and who you are.  So stay true to yourself and keep on hating.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:50 AM
Hoam Rogh says:
Hey,  knock it off down there.  I am not up on a high-horse, doling out life lessons regarding fictional stories to get bogged down into a quibble.  

Whatever, you missused the word legible.  You can read the text, unless you're doing acid or something.  What you meant to say was that my writing is convoluted, or overly complex in both what I make the reader go through with my sentences and the level of inference that I assume the reader able to make.  My bad.

But thanks for the idea for a piece about how I hate on people.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:46 AM
Stefan Cel Mare says:
I looked this article up for the sole purpose of telling Hoam Rogh (dumb pun) how bad it is.  But I must admit, I wasn't able to read it, for it is just too horrible to suffer through.  Hoam Rogh is the worst writer I have ever come across.  The combination of a horrible, convoluted and somehow arrogant writing style with the absolute dearth of ideas in his writing makes me want to cut myself.  
Friday, November 14, 2008 2:07 PM
Hoam Rogh says:
I'll dumb pun you, you stupid emo!  It took years of arrogance school and alcohol induced brain damage to get this writing style.  Why your insubordination is enough to create an ultimate loser character and have him suffer through a trivial life, where his only consolation comes from put downs.  No, it's not a book that 90 percent of people want to read, but the other 10 percent are losers just like this protagonist and shit on anything that does not suit their style.  With that in mind the story may just win an award.  
Saturday, November 15, 2008 10:44 AM
Whatever says:
A story about a "loser character" who suffers through a trivial life, where his only consolation comes from put downs, huh? Would that be autobiographical? I ask, because it seems that your so-called writing style is nothing but put downs, and lacks the substance you insist that it has.

Oh, and if you ever decide to consult a dictionary (which, guessing from your grasp of the language and your misspelling of misuse, is unlikely)you would see that legible means:

1. capable of being read or deciphered, esp. with ease, as writing or printing; easily readable.
2.capable of being discerned or distinguished: Anger was legible in his looks and behavior.  

Your essay, with its undeveloped ideas that gloss over such important concepts as sexuality, is so hard to read, decipher, discern or distinguish that it might as well be smudged ink on a discarded piece of paper.
Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:02 PM
Whatever says:
Oh, and Ulysses, thanks for the 10th grade English lesson. I am sure than James Joyce would simply revel in such pithy phrases as "keep on hating." You and your buddy are obviously destined for literary greatness. Wow.
Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:08 PM
Whatever says:
Oh, and Ulysses, thanks for the 10th grade English lesson. I am sure than James Joyce would simply revel in such pithy phrases as "keep on hating." You and your buddy are obviously destined for literary greatness. Wow.
Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:10 PM
Hoam Rogh says:
Whatever,

You're seriously a loser.  And if you're that guy that that I think you are, you're a flake.  You won't ever do much with your life except for think that you're smart and be a dick in general.  The world would be better off with you not in it.  But conflict is good for people becuase it forces them to triumph over adversity.  Like that time in the last sentence when I was typing too fast and misspelled the word because.  I recognize that and if you were worth the effort, I would have corrected the error.  That is not the case.  You are so far from being worth it that the distance between you and worth cannot be measured.  Perhaps you can claim your worth, and I imagine that you can claim many other things.  All these, however, are simply claims.  I could make them too about how you suck, but they would also be of little to no worth.  I do apologize that you lack the ability to enjoy things, it may be your hang up on sexuality.  If only you had a sense of humor, any sense of it, you would probably see humor in the subject of sexuality.  Really, I hope that you come out of your little adolescence--that is not a shot at the size of your sexual parts--with a sense of the lunacy of dictionaries, greatness, and the last comma in a serial being superfluous.  But it seems you believe in rules and order, so I won't ask for us to get to know one another better over an evening of jazz, or improve comedy, or anything else that takes creativity.

Good luck out there.  With people like you in the world, you'll need all the luck you can get.



Monday, November 24, 2008 9:45 PM
Rasha Nul says:
Okay, Hoam, in Whatever's defense, you say he's not worth correcting a typo, yet you write a relatively lengthy diatribe that holds true to his attack on you. Insults. Nothing but insults. Yep, that's creative.

And is anyone wondering how often Mr. Rogh checks these posts to defend his work? Who needs to come out of their little adolescence? It couldn't be the one who exhibited magnanimous maturity with such lines as "you suck."

On the upside, Mr. Rogh does know big words like "superflous." I wonder, though, if I tell him that's exactly what his writing is, will his next commentary be on my genitalia?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 8:03 PM
hoam Rogh says:
Rational,

The wards in the hospital don't let me out much.  The website is something that I check often because I have nothing else to do.  And if you're the guy I think you are, neither do you.

Insults are creative.  They are funny.  Especially in this case where people using fake names write junk for their own entertainment.

On the upside, big words like 'Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious' mean very little if they are used to simply tickle the smug-bone on pseudo-intellectuals.  

I don't know you or your genitals.  I'd like to keep it that way.  I don't think writing about your genitals is what will help my writing.  Not at all.  If anything it would make it even worse.  It is already tough enough on people and now you want me to talk about your 'junk'.  No, don't want to do that.  

ps.  Don't think that last paragraph was me just validating (big word for lending force to) your comments about insults and my next comment being about your junk.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:20 AM
Whatever says:
Well, you would know all about people using fake names to write junk. Too bad you consider a critical look at your work to be the results of some sort of vendetta, rather than helpful input that could create the opportunity for growth. Critics who can't take criticism. Cute.

But go on, just fill that empty time of yours trying to figure out which guy I am instead of taking a closer look at your work. That's a much better time expenditure than correcting typos and maximizing your sentence structure.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008 1:39 PM
hoam Rogh says:
Look moTan:

When you come out and simply state that I am the worst writer that you have ever come across, stab a people's egos with all your might, and not have anything out there in print that I can shit on, that's a little unfair.  Why don't you write something, anything, and we'll put it up in here so that people can entertain themselves with your style and 'maximum' sentence structure.  By all means, please submit something we could print.  New writers build an audience.  If my crap is so crap that it only provokes crap responses, what do you got that's better?  And don't point to something done by something else as better, or take the position that you do not contribute.  I think that whole non-contributing but all critiquing is like the guy complaining about the government even though he did not vote.

Thursday, November 27, 2008 9:51 AM
Whatever says:
Actually, all the friends I've sent links to have found my short comments more salient than your lengthy essays. But alas, Sherlock, you're gonna have to guess again. Sorry to burst your bubble, but there must be more than one guy who is less than thrilled with your work.

Anyway, why are you picking on me? You're the one who's getting paid to do this... Oh, wait, never mind. You have to be good to charge.

And that is my contribution.
Thursday, November 27, 2008 2:57 PM
Not Impressed says:
Oh, how I wish I could get back the 5 minutes I spent trying to read this rubbish.

Mr. Rogh's writing brings back unnerving memories of high school, where moody teenage boys begged me to read and critique their "work" which was usually just scribbles in the back of their school notebook. Scribbles that they truly believed to be literary genius... just because they used big words and succeeded in the occasional witty turn-of-phrase.

Back in the day, I would praise such boys for the potential of the piece. I usually failed to mention that finding the potential in their work was akin to finding Waldo in those god forsaken children's books--- unnecessarily difficult and a complete waste of time.

Please, Hoam... do the world a few favors. Stop taking yourself so seriously. Stop trying to be edgy- you only come across as judgmental, narcissistic, and terribly misogynistic. Also, try reading your own stuff after you write it. I have a hard time believing you even attempt to self-edit. Or, I suppose you're just so enamored with yourself that you can't see the flaws.
Thursday, November 27, 2008 4:22 PM
Spartacus says:
I too would like to pile on to what this guy is doing.  Who does he think that he is?  I for one will make sure that I opine to him all his faults, starting from being conceived and ending right up until here and now.  Who's with me?  

You should be with me, the man clearly has no talent.  And he should be told so and shamed into hanging it up.  We all must stop him and kill him if needed.  People that believe themselves to be genius, the literary kind especially, are frauds: all of them.  

We must all do the world a favor and kill any that attempt to work with dreams of greatness, self-love, and that try to make their presentation complex.

I am Spartacus.
Friday, November 28, 2008 5:54 PM
Whatever says:
Hey Sparty!

Hmmm, your flair for the uncomfortably dramatic makes me think you're sucking down the same kool-aid as ol' Hoam (or you're one and the same, which is truly sad).

No one's saying he needs to die, but writing is kind of like evolution. The process of natural selection weeds the weak work out of the literary world, just as the bird with no beak bit the big one. If he's too weak to take criticism, he has no business wrting about writers or pretending to be one himself.

And as for these dreams of greatness... there's a big difference between complex and unreadable, and it shouldn't take a great genius to know the difference.

Oh, and be careful with that self-love, Sparty. You could go blind.
Friday, November 28, 2008 9:34 PM
Drew Preston says:
man,  I don't know about the story itself.  Fine, one-dimensional characters do make for better stories because they make the story flow better.  I can find the stuff Hoam wrote, and it is not all that great.  However, it can be found and read and does make jokes.  Whatever seems to be trying to co-opt his work.  The person comes in and starts assailing the writer and grasps for the higher position, but I can't find out what, if anything, the commentator does.  Whatever is making proclamations about how writing and the literary world is, which makes me think that he is in it.  But when trying to find out what angle Whatever is trying to propagate besides the demise of a guy that told some bad jokes and reminded would be writers to ensure that their characters behave like themselves.  I dunno, but it seems that some people have nothing better to do than give one position and then follow it with a counter position.  That is great and all for conflict, but I was directed to this website for an inside tip on a pony that I got in the third race tomorrow.  So, I am pissed that I have nothing but two egotistical idiots giving me shit!  I am out 30 grand and needed that racing tip.  My fucking bookie breaks thumbs.  And I have to put up with "oh, you're not a writer, Mr. Self-absorbed."  Which is responded to with, "Oh, yes I am., you stupid pathetic asshole!"  None of this shit will tell me how to box my fucking Trifecta.  Damn it.  

And flair for the uncomfortably dramatic, what is this an episode of the office?  I guess that would explain the pointless back and forth over nothing more than a quibble.  Seriously, it is painful.  Almost as painful as what my bookie will do to my thumbs, but that will now be berated by one of these two idiots that are butting heads over words.
Friday, November 28, 2008 11:52 PM
Rasha says:
Who gives a good goddamn about your thumbs? You really couldn't come up with a better premise for your little homily? Poor, poor Hoam. He attacked an entire genre of literature, but anyone who criticizes him is a monster. They certainly couldn't be an accomplished writer who happened upon this website one day, and thought he could engage in a discussion without being somehow guilted into posting pieces on a website that would not advance his career by a singular iota.

Now, Drew, or Ulysses, or Hoam, or whatever your name is, can you stop talking about killing and demise, suck it up and learn from the arguments in which you engage? If the lady characters in one of the chick-lit books you so deplore can hack that, can't you?
Saturday, November 29, 2008 12:26 AM
Hoam Rogh says:
Hey Rasha,

So you're an accomplished writer you say, which one?  And I did not attack Chick-lit.  It's a fine genre.  If any thing, it was parodied.  This should be fairly obvious by the ridiculous content of the article.  I'm sorry if you believe that I stepped on your favorite genre.  I think that its one of the more interesting ones out there, way more interesting than horror.  Something like 85% of the fiction is bought by women, some of it in the grocery store.  And I know I have seen books with pink covers that use the phrase that was all over the article.  

Here's a tip.  Next time you engage in a 'discussion', or 'argument', or 'lesson' of yours, don't start it with flagrant accusations that are unsubstantiated.

Advance your career?  Writing is as much a vocation as good health.  And what is an accomplished writer?  What qualifications did you get before you dubbed yourself that one?  
Saturday, November 29, 2008 10:52 AM
Whatever says:
What flagrant accusations? That your writing style is hard to read, decipher, discern or distinguish and depends solely on insults for its humor? That's not a flagrant accusation. It's just the facts, substantiated in what you wrote and the multitude of comments from different people (yes, I really have no idea who Stefan or Not Impressed is, but I do know Rasha, and she really is quite something) on it.

But where, oh where did you get the idea to go into attack mode on people just for taking advantage of this site's comment mechanism? Tell me, whenever a teacher gave you a bad grade, did your parents go and yell at the school, and insist their baby boy was just too smart to be understood? Did you throw your term papers at professors (assuming you made it past high school) and throw a tantrum when they didn't love your work unconditionally? Is that where you get this infantile propensity to attack writers just for giving you honest feedback?

Well, at least we agree on one thing--the content of this article is ridiculous. But it in no way compares to how you've continued to embarrass yourself. You might be better served by trying to write an article that people actually want to read and not "cut" themselves, as Stefan most cleverly put it.
Saturday, November 29, 2008 2:48 PM
hoam Rogh says:
Boo.  I'm bored.  This is boring me.  

Yeah, I made it a little bit beyond high school.  But I am not embarrassing myself.  You're a jerk.  It's clearer than my freshly polished eye-glasses.  I did not go into attack mode.  I was simply discussing with a reader, a reader that I wish was a writer so that I could analyze his--assuming whatever is a man--style and deconstruct it.   After doing this, I could see if I should listen to the merits of his onslaughts against my work.  

But Whatever has gone and told all his friends and girl friends about how much I am not good at what I do.  Like a fan in the stadium bitching about the quarterback, you provide no value to the work.  The idea that I should listen to honest criticism from an unknown commentator is silly.   I have no idea what level of deference that I should give to your advice.  Currently, your advice is like an existential novel: pointless.  

and so, I am bored with this.  
Saturday, November 29, 2008 4:05 PM
jay a/k/a the letter J says:
u r the ones who r the ball lickers.we are gonna **** your mothers while u watch and cry like little bitches. after that we r gonna find thoughs mirmax ****s who r making the movie and make them eat are **** then they **** out our **** and then we will eat the **** that was made out of our **** then all u mother ****ers r next!
Saturday, November 29, 2008 4:39 PM
Ivorie Tauer says:
Ah yes, shrewd indeed to dismiss the ideas of the unknown. If you happen to be published, or get published one day, I hope you dismiss the responses of the masses of unknown commentators who would make up your readership. What merits would their thoughts have? Only smug writer cliques and those who've made it a bit past high school to publish drivel online are the ones who deserve deference...

Oh, what I am saying? You're already bored with this anyway. Just like we're all bored with you.
Saturday, November 29, 2008 4:50 PM
Ivorie Tauer says:
Ah yes, shrewd indeed to dismiss the ideas of the unknown. If you happen to be published, or get published one day, I hope you dismiss the responses of the masses of unknown commentators who would make up your readership. What merits would their thoughts have? Only smug writer cliques and those who've made it a bit past high school to publish drivel online are the ones who deserve deference...

Oh, what I am saying? You're already bored with this anyway. Just like we're all bored with you.
Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:10 PM
hoam rogh says:
Tauer,

If you or your friends want help on getting published just email me. Hrogh@altdash.com
Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:18 PM
hoam rogh says:
Tauer,

If you or your friends want help on getting published just email me. Hrogh@altdash.com
Saturday, November 29, 2008 5:42 PM
Ivorie Tauer says:
What? Will you hand write it on a napkin and hand it around? Write it in sharpie on bathroom stall doors? That's okay. We know the real deal.
Saturday, November 29, 2008 6:51 PM
Hoam Rogh says:
That's it, you got me.  But, I'll have you know that the reason Steinbeck had to schlep around Cup of Gold for five years was that he just could not get it written on a bathroom wall quite right.  So he moved from bathroom to bathroom using the 1930s equivalent of a Sharpie, a grease pen.  But I withdraw my offer of help. Your collective, or whoever you have around you that is we, will have no need for guidance, for you know the real deal.  Enjoy your mediocrity, it's all you got.  Remember that next time you are looking in the mirror.  

Part of me greatly enjoyed that this back and forth highlighted the central point to the article.  Characters are one-dimensional.  I know that I am going to say, "Oh no you didn't," to which you'll retort, "Oh yes I did."  And it will go off into infinitum.  One shallow one dimensional character butting heads with another, and all in a vain attempt serve their own singular interest.  If only I had listened to my own warning about not being so "true to myself" and actually learned something, but the article was illegible--according to some.
Saturday, November 29, 2008 11:20 PM
Puhleese says:
So I heard that there was a new column for writers in Milwaukee. I googled it and came up with this "Look Kid" stuff: http://www.altdash.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=45. Then I clicked on these so-called writing tips. I have to say, I am about as impressed with this exchange as I was with that phony interview.
Saturday, December 06, 2008 12:19 PM
hoam Rogh says:
Oh Puhleese,

Remember that one time we got loaded and spent three hours corralling all of farmer Jed's sheep into his basement?  Man, we stole all his moonshine.  Well bad news.  Turns out his still exploded when he was cooking up a batch of his sour mash, and he ain't going to make it.  Good news; I talked him into leaving you the still.
Monday, December 08, 2008 10:18 PM
Name:
E-mail:
Comment:
Insert Cancel