A Novel Project [Part 1] Ideas, intent and direction.

Life mission: Write a novel. Publish it. Gain readers. Repeat.

It is a simple dream that I have drooled over for over 7 years. I have learned a lot in those years, primarily that a novel does not write itself. This is a project which will require hard work and commitment. Yes, I have written poems and short stories; however, my ambition lies in longer forms of fiction at approximately 80,000 words - for some reason this arbitary amount of words seems enough. That line in the sand will satisfy my luster for writing, for a spell.

Now is the time to start writing my novel and documenting my progress, reflections, ideas and revisions. I foresee a lot of spoilers for the story feeding into the planning and reflection parts of this writing blog and I will try to keep some details top secret, while spoiler-tagging out others...

So, for those of you reading the spoilers through this documentary, hello! I appreciate the sacrifice you'll be making in order for me to share more detailed thoughts and plot hooks as these blogs progress. Also, this first spoiler tag is the last spoiler tag without any actual spoilers for the novel I will be writing - so if you are reading this and seriously do not want any spoilers for the future, then never click on this again.

The reason I have decided to document this writing process has two parts. Firstly, so I will be motivated to keep writing and return to making progress on the novel. Secondly, so that I may reflect on my writing to enhance it. Thirdly, so when I am frustrated or in a corner or my mind is sapped of creativity, I have somewhere else to brainstorm ideas and write to reflect and think out the trappings of my writing. Fourthly, in the vague hope that it is benefitical for myself or others intending to write their own novels - perhaps it will be inspiring, I predict it will be anything but. I guess that was two more than two parts.

Without further delay, let's jump in to this week's part of A Novel Project.

The novel I will be writing will uncomfortably squat over the Fantasy genre. There will be horses, knights, swords and bows, Kings and Queens; but no orcs, dragons or elves. So, medieval, alternate history, alternate Earth story. No magic, but not normal as we know it, just Earth-ish. The geography, kingdoms, cultures and religions will all be new and different, a whole new world; an imaginary world.

The fantasy setting is one that I learned when I watched the Lord of the Rings as a kid and I fell for it. This setting is one where I feel comfortable writing and have thought a great deal about. My inspiration has grown through different books, RPGs, D&D and other fantasy films, excluding the Hobbit - which was not awe-inspiring. This, coupled with the intrigue and politics of A Song of Ice and Fire, where the fantasy felt grounded and realistic and gritty - LOTR meets the Dark Knight of brooding and GRR(m). So gripping and tense. I intend to write a one-shot novel, not an anthology of novels building upon one larger universe - this isn't the MCU or discworld, here. And this first book, this first world will be magicless. Now, I love me some magic and I love magic in stories, but my story isn't about magic and it would only distract if I were to include it. Also, I'm not writing fan fiction for LOTRs or Game of Thrones, I want to carve out my own space and create my own lore, ideas and take on the fantasy genre; I only want this novel to be made up of what it needs and what makes it better, more interesting and more immersive for readers. Magic wouldn't grant that for the story I want to tell, so it is out.

The idea that particularly struck a chord with me from watching Game of Thrones, and other shows like The Walking Dead, House of Cards and the News; I found that Good and Evil is not all it cracked up to be. Studying history, considering politics, ethics and philosophies; actions and events are rarely so black and white - everyone thinks they are the good guy, everyone thinks their actions are justified.

I want to write a story which explores characters who are all trying to do what is right and fight for good, yet they end up crossing one another and creating conflict, even though their pursuit is the same.

This is a theme, Good Vs Good, that I want to explore through the central characters of my story.

Early ideas

I have been developing ideas for a larger story for many years now and this first story I intend to write has had events and characters plucked out of that universe and refined into a linear story. In the past, I have planned out multi-book spanning adventures and the rise and fall of Empires, but if I never start writing, I'll be a penniless planner until the day I die - I want to be a writer. So, I have chosen a writeable idea, with depth and some thought-provoking elements, which I believe are worth the time to be read and pondered on.

William the Conquerer, trademark 1066; has been hugely influencial, not just for my love of history, but for being a central building block which so many of my ideas have spawned from. Good ol' Willie was a Bastard that became a Conquerer, a King - the ultimate underdog who came in and changed things, who was a bit of a dick at times and out-right mean the rest of the time. There are heroes on both sides of the conquest, charm and characters and heroic moments and feats of strength and stupidity; the more you research it, the greater muse it becomes. There is a character that will perhaps appear, probably only be mentioned, who is directly based on William the Conquerer - though his actions will be very different and he will not be the focus of this story - maybe next, as he is so wonderfully complex and interesting. 

Structure

Another way my story will be set apart from the other fantasy books which have come before it will be the structure. Currently, though this is subject to change like all of the ideas and bits and bobs I record here, my story will be structured into 2 parts, each part told from a different character's POV, like A Thousand Splendid Suns. 

Basic outline of the plot and, I mean, this is all spoilers; so, skip this entire section if you don't want to know any spoilers. However, I will give an outline of the story here, with key details in spoiler tags. Also, any points in this story are subject to change, edits and restructuring - but you've been warned.

My next post will go into characters, names, traits, etc. So, please forgive the 'Hero', 'King', 'Generic description of a person' remarks below.

Side note: For planning purposes and because of familiarity from screenwriting, I use the 3 Act structure to plot out ideas, however, I tend to steer away from it when writing and editing, but a healthy frame for your ideas if benefitical, in my experience, to track a logical order of progression.

Part 1

Act 1

- Hero will be resolving conflict in a region, to show the reader the responsibilities and reputation that these Knights have across the Kingdom.
- While attempting to resolve a conflict, the Hero meets an array of characters, some useful, some not; some nice, some not. The point of this is to set up characters for later in the story and to give insight into how our Hero's mind works in contrast to others.
- The Hero resolves the conflict with the aid of Person A, who is important; but almost right away, the Hero learns that the King has fallen sick and may only have days left to live - Hero returns to the capital.
- We meet the rest of the Knights, briefly. Hero goes to King's bedside and learns super tip top secret oh my gosh, what is he going to do!

The King confides in Hero a death-bed secret, a religious custom established earlier in the story, so the Hero cannot tell anyone, but it releases this weight from the King's mind before he faces the afterlife. The secret is that Person A, from before, is sectretly the King's bastard son and rightful heir to the throne.

- The King dies without an heir. When the King does not have an heir, the council of powerful Dukes and Counts decide who is the next King, but the leader of the Knights gets the final say. The Hero disagrees with the council's decision, but the leader of the Knights cannot be convinced to go against the wishes of the council.

Act 2

- The new King is eh, at best. Hero does not like him one bit and really wants someone else to be on the throne, but cannot justify releasing his dead King's sacred secret shared on his death bed. Hero likes keeping his oath.
- In an attempt for long term influence, Hero works on positioning someone, who he thinks would make a better King and a greater leader, into power and renown; while discrediting the council and the current King. He begins to work in secret, as to not arouse suspicion from his peers, the greatest knights, detectives, soldiers and heroes in the land - there are some close calls.
- Eventually, it all comes too much as the new King is bad for the Kingdom to prosper - radical action must be taken, why else would the King have confided in Hero, other than to see that this would be pursued to the very end.
- Knowing that breaking his oath and starting a civil war would lead to thousands and thousands of deaths, Hero concludes with dark intent. With careful planning and planting of some vague, yet incriminating clues on the council; hero arranges for the assassination of the new King.
-The new King is assassinated and the Hero kills the assassin.

Mid-point; Point of View shift to INVESTIGATOR, another Knight, also present for the assassination of the new King.

Part 2

-The new King is assassinated and Hero kills the assassin. Investigator reacts to the situation and then is put on the case by the Knight's leader.
- Leader of the Knights assumes the regency. Investigator picks up some of Hero's clues, but puts the pieces together much quicker than Hero predicted, showing that Investigator may have been underestimated.
- After learning that one of the council may be behind the assassination, causing internal confusion and suspicion in the council; the leader of the Knights cannot accept any of their choices for the next King.
- The regency begins to drag on too long and the leader must reach a decision. Investigator is at a dead end. The leader, after discussing this with all the knights, decides on Hero's candidate to become the next King, as they are not a part of the council, have been influencial in the nation and have shown good leadership qualities.
- The new King is coronated, immediately taking efforts to make the country great; but Investigator begins to suspect Hero, reflecting on the assassination event and breaking down the outcome of the events.

Act 3

- Investigator puts most of the pieces together, but is missing vital details to be certain. 
- There is a questionning between the Investigator and Hero.

After Investigator concludes that Hero is responsible, the Knights venture out into the wild and then deliver their verdict upon Hero, who does not fight or resist. They sentence him to die for killing the King. Before Hero is to be executed, he is granted the opportunity to unburdon himself of any secrets or revelations before he enters the next life. Hero reveals the rightful heir of the former King is the now new King. Hero is killed. Investigator ponders.

The End.

As I have started my writing process for this, I have questioned a lot what readers will get out of my novel, how I can make my writing engaging and thought provoking and immersive. I hold high expectations for myself and am worried that I will pour so much time into this project and then it will be crap; but, I need to move on and accept that: the first novel I write, probably will be crap, just like the first poem I wrote was utter toss-tissue.

I am perhaps, front loading fear and self doubt, but by acknowledging that and keeping an eye on them, I hope to not let it hinder me from writing.

Writing is a scary thing to do and to write something which may be hated, or worse unread and ignored; is terrifying. I'd better crack on!

At Last Sung

Black grass whistled, blades slicing side to side carving the white sky behind
like broken charcoal scratched into the horizon dancing atop white-hot embers
the skyline only broken by a one-legged piano, toppled to its side and burning;
the flames carve between each key, black and white and red spitting out strings
they engulf the crippled form, when a crack of thunder beats the heavy humid air
- a loud pulse ripples through the sky, a warning shot that heaven may tear in two
and the earth will crumble into dust anchored into damnation below the God-fury.
Over the hill, under the looming torment, a dozen, a hundred, a thousand bodies lay
still and cold and pale, rotting gently. Their rib cages rattle, shaking left and right,
bones audibly cracking and snapping in the desperate struggle to break out before
it is too late and the long sharp swift blade, sprouting from a pole held by bone;
white and clean, wrapped in loose black silk; slowly sweeps across the land
overloaded by Father's wrathful outburst, blazoned into the earth and scorn into
the field of dead; the piano slumps to its belly, losing the last leg and a note moans,
the rib cages groan and with the final pluck of muscle snapping, a thousand chests
burst open and unleash a dainty dreary mass of sun-white shinning silhouettes 
turning the sky black by contrast and the void-grass blacker still, blind to the eye.
Death's long reach harvests the golden grain, loading the shimmering outlines
of man into the jaws, crushing against the gate, piling up. The metal bars of the gate
bend, threatening to bust, under the weight. The heavens open and the tears of every
angels weep; sodden the earth - a rainbow shines, puddles grow, droplets splash
about a dove's feather, eye-white, in wet soot, bare branches and crisp brown leaves.
A man, rope about his waist and a large drum hanging from his side, walks -
stick in hand, toward the white field. Death looms closer, creeping under the storm.
A woman, holding the neck of a guitar slung over her shoulder, walks -
fist clenched, toward the white field. Death looms closer, creeping forward still.
A child kneels into the dirt, lifts the soft - still warm - feather from the wet soot
scoring lines of black across a crisp brown leaf, like ink drying into paper,
symbols, notations and scrawl scribe across the charred veins of the leaf, then rolling
into a scroll of sheet music, sealed by thumb and finger; held to the quick beating
at a chest, toward the white field. Death arrives and sees a wall of three figures
like shepherds of light standing guard against the growling wolf of darkness.

Death pulled a fiddle
and plucked out a riddle
to query a mortal in song

The man starting drumming
the woman was strumming
the boy and the field of dead
were all humming to the song
of the sky and the hymn
of the earth and the clouds
clashed loud and the angels all
sung to the dead leaf's scrawl


Bones clinched loud
silk swayed in the wind
each string screamed out
as the field was thinned

Together they played
and together they sung
until the field was empty
and a new day had begun.

a broken yew tree

 find me

below a blue wind
orange sky
bare branches:
green leaves and red berries –

picked at by the crows – scattered,
shaken to the ground. Eye-white
hourglass trunk has been
hollowed
out
a small cave
within a terrible giant.

Inside

breathless and beatless
hear the echo of life; charred
bark, rings of ash and room for two

stay awhile, only
a little walk
from the butterflies
and sundial

look above the painted petals
smeared about the hazel canvas
trace the thick wooden spines,
reach up, feel for the groove

touch: scored date,
initials

no
don’t get up
please

stay awhile

An Essay on Morality and Politics

<essay>

A quick story, if you will:

A handsome, young man falls in love with a beautiful, young woman and, as luck would have it, she falls in love with him, as well. After a few, brief and awkward encounters, they overcome their self doubt and confess their love for one another. A Hollywood moment.

They get married and buy a small house in the countryside, which sits alone on an empty, far stretching road; one car passing by every other week, at most. They work the farmland and raise a flock of sheep. They are happy, but something feels missing.

Late on a warm summer's day, the man finishes a cool glass of beer and then his wife informs him eagerly that she has fallen pregnant. Suddenly, their lives feel complete.

Nine months later, she gives birth to an angellic baby daughter. She grows up quick, toddling about the house and yapping 'da-da'.

One day, the girl stumbles into the road as that fateful car is passing by, which strikes her to the ground. The car drives off and hours later, the girl dies.

Her parents bathe the cold body, cut the flesh from the corpse and roast the meat for dinner. They enjoy a meal celebrating the life of their daughter.

Something feels irregular with this tale, you are probably feeling disgust. Have the girl's parents done anything wrong? You want to say yes, but if you think on it, can you justify a reason why?

The parents never harmed the girl and did everything to love, cherish and protect her. Yet, in eating her, it feels off. If no one saw or ever found out to be offended by it and the parents found peace in celebrating the life of their daughter in this way and the girl's death was completely out of their hands; is what they did morally wrong? And, why?

I will return to this later.

First: Morality is an abstract noun representing the principles that draw a distinction between what is right and what is wrong; actions which are considered good or evil.

As a collective, humanity is obsessed with morality - the themes of good and evil are sprawled across reams of literature, canvas and film - we have attempted to teach, enforce and fight for righteousness across the ages. Some of our most ancient texts, medieval morality plays and children's fables' only purpose is to inform, persuade and threaten us into agreeing with a particular set of principles which define what is right and what is wrong. However, all too often humanity disagrees on matters of morality.  Why is this? Surely, we can all agree on what is good and what is evil? How hard can it be?
 
Well, if we return to the quick opening story, let's explore two situations where we only have one moral principle and see the conclusions they reach.

Do not harm without consent. The parents did not harm the little girl, nor each other and if there are any adverse biological reactions to their actions, then they did so consenting. Therefore, what they did may not be right, but it wasn't wrong either. You wouldn't neccessarily want to be friends with these people, but when asked if what they did was wrong, we would answer no.

Alternatively: live a life in sanctity. Eating the flesh of another human is bad for you, degrading and unclean. Even though they were consenting in the act, we can interpret their action as a slight against the sanctity of the dead or an offence against a wider community in which these parents are a part of. By degrading themselves, they increase the spreading of diease and illness. Therefore, when asked if what they did is wrong, we would answer yes.

Now, let us imagine that Person A and Person B both hold these principles: do not harm without consent and live a life in sanctity; as part of their moral make up. However, each person values and puts a different weighting on each of these principles, that vastly differ, and therefore, Person A and Person B reach vastly different conclusions in their assessment.

Man's inability to agree on morality when tested or in conflict is why communities have created absolute laws to establish what is agreed upon and how society responds to breaking of moral codes. Laws became the foundation of governments and states; therefore, our complex, interconnected web of legal systems and boarders, which co-exist on our planet all find root in man's morality and coming together as communities. Nothing has a greater impact on a society than the common ideals which it agrees on; other than perhaps, the ideals which it disagrees on. This is politics.

People are fluid and can be manipulated; therefore, society is fluid and can be manipulated - for good or for evil. To understand and better our society, we need to look back and analyse what the influences, corruptions and precious founding principles are for our morality and our morality through history; so that we can readjust our thinking when looking forward and changing our future for good. 

 

<side note> 

 The most fundamental laws in our society are born from moral codes: murder, theft, abduction, holding someone captive; all break these codes, and thus, our laws. These adhorrent acts are punishable offences because they are against the law; the state; the morals.

But, why do we punish criminals?

After all, too often a prison sentence never seems quite enough. Some favour the death penality as a more tough response to crime, while others believe that death is an escape too easy for a violent criminal and they deserve to suffer a far worse fate.

Before we can truly answer this question, 'why do we punish criminals?', we must first consider two other question:

1. Why do people break the law, or, act immorally?

2. Is it ever good to punish a person with evil*?

 *Murder, death penalty
Theft, fines
Abduction, arrest
Holding someone captive, inprisonment

We use different words for these same acts when we believe they are justified. 

The former question perhaps deserves its own post. I believe that all people think they are good people and I believe, whether a crime is reactionary or planned, people whom break the law, and in turn, a moral code do so because either they follow a different set of principles for their morality than the society's laws they transgress in; or, more relevantly, they decided that an evil act can be justified. 

For the second question, I think that most people would answer yes, though some may be against the death penalty, they accept inprisonment and arrest as common place. This presents a troubling paradox, the reason why people answer yes to this question is because they decided an evil act can be justified.

If we don't punish criminals, what do we do with them?

Will a more advanced society than ours in 100 years look back in their history books in disgust at the barbaric ways our societies dealt out justice, just like we look back at ancient or primitive societies in disgust?

</side note>

 

According to Moral Foundations Theory, there are different principles which form our morality, and in turn, our society. The following is quoted from: http://www.moralfoundations.org/ check out their website for more detail.

"1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

"2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

"3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

"4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

"5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).  

 

"6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty."

<politics>

There is a natural conflict between principles 4 and 6.

Authority viewed as oppression; liberty seen as subversion. This conflict is one of the two main axis on the political spectrum: the Libertarian/Authoritarian, Y axis. At the extremes, Liberalism is Anarchy and Authoritarianism is Facism.

Also, the economic left and right is the weighting of priciples 1 and 2.

To best understand what this compass represents, look at this example of the candidates from the 2016 presidential elections in the USA, plotted onto the compass:

 

Or, looking at the major UK political parties:

Other famous figures:

Even simpler still:

Libertarian Vs Authoritarian = Weed Vs No weed
Economic Left Vs Right = No guns Vs Guns

Libertarian Vs Authoritarian = Pro-choice Vs Pro-life
Economic Left Vs Right = Benefits Vs No benefits

Libertarian Vs Authoritarian = Freedom of religion Vs State religion
Economic Left Vs Right = NHS Vs NO NHS

Libertarian Vs Authoritarian = Freedom Vs Control
Economic Left Vs Right = Socialism Vs Capitalism
 
Do you trust people to be free? Do you trust people to control others?

Should we look after each other? Should we look after ourselves?

When you decide to vote for a person or a party, you are answering these questions for the country and putting your vote towards the collective morality of our society. Whether intentional or not, knowingly or unknowingly, these are the core principles of politics. 

Websites such as https://www.politicalcompass.org/ apply this school of thought to political events, such as Brexit;

<political compass>

Remain voters were themselves divided between:

A. Those enthusiastically embracing the EU's prevailing economics (neoliberal/free trade) but unhappy with the Social Charter and Chapter — especially on migration. This is a position held by many Conservatives.

B. Those happy with both the economic and social provisions, which includes many people on the centre/right of the Labour Party, almost all Lib Dems and some wet Tories
C. Those enthused by at least most of the EU's social provisions, but rejecting corporate values and neoliberal economics (left-of-centre social liberals eg Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn).

Brexit voters were similarly divided between:

D. Those rejecting the EU's prevailing economics but accepting, at least to some extent, the social dimension (many Laboure supporters)
E. Those rejecting both (quintessentially UKIP)
F. Those comfortable with many of the EU's economic provisions, if only they could easily exit the Social Chapter (Conservative)

Unsure where you are on the compass? Find out here: https://www.politicalcompass.org/test

 </political compass>

</politics>

Morality is fluid, it has changed over time and it is important to understand this so we can prepare for the future, as it will continue to change for better or for worse, depending on how we act, how we vote and what we stand up for.

For this section, I will look at two areas in short, note detail: sexuality and drugs.

The past-past

Sexuality - homosexuality common among many cultures.
Sexuality - extreme paedophilia towards young children common place and practiced in ancient Greek civlisations, such as Sparta. Child marriage, adult men marrying brides as soon as they are at child-bearing age; early teens. 
Drugs - legal.
Drug addicts - left to their own devices.

The past

Sexuality - Christian religions make homosexuality a punishable offense.
Sexuality - extreme paedophilia towards young children deemed immoral, though common place in some religions. Child marriage, adult men marrying brides as soon as they are at child-bearing age; early teens.
Drugs - Illegal. 
Drug addicts - criminals.

The present

Sexuality - Gay Rights; marriage.
Sexuality - Paedophilia towards young children immoral and demonised, though still common in some religions. Child marriage continues to this day; however, many governments around the world have outlawed it. See http://www.girlsnotbrides.org/child-marriage-law/ for more details.
Drugs - Some being legalised.
Drug addicts - demonised.

The future

Sexuality - Complete LGBT Rights and freedom of sexuality globally. 
Sexuality - Paedophilia no longer demonised and given help or support?
Drugs - fully legalised all drugs? A careful balance?
Drug addicts - treated as a medical condition? Cared for and reintroduced into society? 

Returning to morality, what was the point of that? It is important to acknowledge that morality has changed over history and we can expect it to continue changing. If we pretend there is an objective, perfect morality system and that system is the one most people hold today, then we can review the past. When asking is something morally wrong? Answers can be type 1 or type 2 errors.

A type 1 error is accepting a false positive.

A type 2 error is accepting a true negative.

Therefore, we believe today that no matter your sexuality, you should have the right to marry and love whoever you want, then we will regard the demonisation and illegalisation of homosexuality as a type 1 error. In the past they falsely believe it was wrong.

Additionally, ancient civilisations views on paedophilia and rape, for example, were type 2 errors. We believe that these things are wrong now, though they did not back then. They found these acts negatively wrong, i.e. fine, when in truth they were actually wrong.

However, there is no perfect, objective morality system. It is fluid and changing; and still has a way to change before we're close to perfect. By accepting that humanity has made mistakes in the past, we can accept that we are probably still making mistakes.

The way we handle criminals. The way we deal with drug addicts. The way we treat mental health. The way we interact with each other, or don't. The way we use the internet. The way love. The way we speak.

If morality is fluid, who knows how it will change if we do not guide and form it? How can we do that? And if we don't, who will?

A brief return to politics: people protest to ensure their moral voices are heard, but the protest is dead. When was the last time anything changed because of a strike or a protest? Maybe some wages went up for a union. Real change? Protests and strikes have been overdone, they have lost their effect and the people in charge know this - they know that their core voters don't care about protests anymore.

In order to change society, people need to be willing to change their vote, but there is a strong moral principle which stops people from doing that:

3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

'Self-sacrifice for the group', people vote against their own best interest in loyalty to parties which stopped caring about them a long time ago. Across America and Europe, the re-emerging right wing authoritarian parties are rising up again, endless air time is devoted to a near-dead UKIP, but nearly none is given to the thriving Green Party. These parties are for the rich and the powerful, yet are voted in by the poorest people who have been filled with hate through media, owned by the rich and the powerful.

It is effective. It is working, again. People are fluid and they can be manipulated. If you don't vote, or are unwilling to change your vote when the party you are voting for is being manipulated and changed by the rich and the powerful, then you are prioritising loyalty over all other moral principles. It is a decision. 

Your best friend visits you with a new hair cut, which looks awful. They ask, 'do you like my new hair?' Do you tell the truth and hurt their feelings, or, lie and make them feel good? Comment below.

</essay>

Thank you for reading my essay on Morality and Politics. I hope you found it thought provoking. I tried to be as politically unbiased as possible, but I'm sure some biasedness slipped in there, so remember, while it is important to remain open minded to new ideas and change, it is also important not to be manipulated; ultimately, you need to reflect on what you have read, check it for yourself and follow your heart, mind and soul; not other people's - even mine.

Climb

 
I drove through the day, drove until I was far away
saw the sunlight bleeding over head
crayon red scratched silver sky
left all teardrops in a fire, burning while I drove far away

last light slips behind groves, meadows, humankind
beneath a black sky haunting over head
charcoal carved out the silver sky
eyes open all night, dry, looking out for humankind

quick fast love affair, done by dawn without a care
snaking roads worm through lonely hills
spearhead peak held up the sky
I trudge through bog, car parked somewhere without a care

knee bent, thigh burn, stepping, climbing to the sun
tired so soon but just begun
glasses mist, breath short, high
walking boots grounded in dry roots to the sun

downs a dizzy doom to stiffen, slop steeped into cliff
I could turn around now
hand cups grey rock and elbow gets up
only upward scrambled on the cliff

up, up, farther still, lost a breath and I feel
exhausted and ready to give in
so high up people look like shrimp
I close my eyes, I take a breath, I feel

two wings on the air, below me, above their prey
resting slumbered between two rocks
nestled into a shallow grave
a sheep stepped from a cloud and I pray

show Yourself to me, don't be a hapless dream
wished up by a shepherd
strayed far from the flock
a dark cloud looms as a hapless nightmare

dry rocks and firm ground keep me level
headed in the right direction
the peak draws in closer still
distant lake sits between hills, water level

calm, the wind picks up
the cloud swirl
the sky grows dark
the wind picks up
the cloud swells
the sky grows dark
the wind picks up

the path down is dry for the time being
yet the peak is within my reach
my aches long retreat
but press on with every fibre of my being

a cold droplet runs down my cheek
spills from my chin into the soil
the thirsty earth readies, swallows
a fire chases down my cheek

up, once more, up and over the rock
stand to see a shelf of green
another spire begins to tower up
a pool of blue sits in the shadow of the rock

I'd thought I'd finished, but half way up
knee bent, thigh burn, mind empty, mind churn
as darken skies begin to weep
I trudge in soil deep, but up

but up, but up, but no way down
fistfuls of plants torn from scalp
slip, sliding, tumbling
one way down

dust self, check self, myself steady
hand shake, knee weak, I'm not ready

knee floor, hands floor, crawled through a moor
soaked, beaten, hadn't eaten

doubt self, lose self, myself careless
hands slam, knuckles burn, eyes cry

I cry, I feel. Wind claws a tear from my
cheek and tosses it over my shoulder.

I stand in the day, dark clouds blown away
feel a gentle sunlight on the air
a warmth blossoms
all the raindrops burn away

up, up, farther still, still lost, but now I feel
exhausted and ready to give up
so high up cars look like shrimp
I close my eyes, I take a breath, I feel

fast gale closes in, I roll up, over, over

saw sunlight bleeding through the mist
wrays blurred behind a pile of rocks
then stones atop, then pebbles peaking over

peaked.