Food for thought

I had three options for a story for Writers Magazine in which food played a major part. One was the last two men of the Arctic expedition wondering who would eat who to survive. It's a good psychological study. One man may even volunteer to be eaten. What will the other think? It could have one man talking religion to the other to avoid being eaten but intending to eat his companion, as an allegory for how evil can hide behind morality in the church and politics.
The third idea was the baking contest where the husband of A was having an affair with B and didn't know who to bribe the judge for. Fairly straight forward.
The second idea of the king's taster knowing the meal was poisoned lad me to think what point of view would be best, then to think it would make a good tale doing several points of view - the queen's feelings, where the taster's loyalties lie, the kings attitudes, if he knows about the poison and so on, to show the group dynamic in a court as an illustration of what it can be like in the top echelons of industry. That led to thought that it could be a novel with someone trying to work out who the poisoner is. One candidate for the 'detective' would be the taster, who has only the time from the meal is cooked until he tastes to find a solution. It could be the king is setting up some way to accuse the queen, or a senior courtier of disloyalty. Not so much a 'Who-dun-it' as a counter espionage story about 'who will do it and how can they be stopped'. I had a go at the genre with the sailing story 'Vital Spark' and enjoyed it and the one I'm working on now with the help of Lorraine Mace, is looking good but the idea will have to go on the back burner for now.

www.sullatoberdalton.com/pen-sullatober

One of the people our Sunday School teacher made a hero of, was Samson. Of course, it was war time and there were Nazies to hate but, since then, there have been a number of terrorists/freedom fighter organisations who have made me re-examine the Samson story and the lessons it teaches. When Samson arrived, the Israelites were dominated by the Philistines. Samson grew up, killed thousands with the jaw bone of an ass, married someone from their culture, was betrayed, blinded and took his revenge by pulling down their place of entertainment, thereby killing, not only himself, but more than he had when he was alive. After all that, the Israelites were still dominated by the Philistines. So, apart from the death of many Philistines, what had Samson achieved? It doesn't seem to have been a great deal, so what lessons does the story teach?
Firstly, as has been proved over and over since 1945, killing people solves very little. 
However, these notes are meant to deal with personal and relationship problems and it is necessary to look more closely at the incidents in the story. Samson was betrayed by his wife, a wife he had taken from outside his culture. That's not the same as race or social class, it's the philosophy we live by, how we see our social responsibilities. For a relationship, social, work, or business to work, partners' cultures have to overlap. For some reason, it is better if they have areas of difference that have to be worked on, but the overlap must be considerable or one partner will betray the other.

Then there is the question of revenge. Samson’s efforts may have altered the demographics but each tit following a tat only escalated the confrontation and solved nothing of the general problem of Philistine domination or equality between them and the Israelites. The same applies in relationships. Paying back some slight only encourages another. It’s not good to allow oneself to be trampled on but, ideally, one should leave the other party an honourable way out of a dispute.

Food stories continued

I made a list of some story lines that might suit the Writers' Magazine competition on my website but they needed fleshing a bit. The one that seemed to have instant drama was the one where the two survivors are eating one of their dead companions and wondering which of them will be next.
That led to me thinking the possibility of rescue or survival would influence what happened. If they have no hope, they may just decide to die but if they are expecting rescue, or are close to safety then another dynamic is introduced. Suppose one is big and the other small and skinny. Then the bigger chap would be stronger and better able to survive but he would represent more meat and the skinny guy would live linger. Who is the point of view character? The big guy may not be too worried, he can always choke the smaller one but the small chap needs some devious way of killing.
That's a bit gruesome but was triggered by seeing something about the North West Passage to the Far East.
The funeral idea where the eaters wonder who will inherit as each dish is the favourite of a different person seemed all right but how does it finish? I'm not sure it would be believable.
Let me introduce an additional line of thought. Let's assume it is in the days when there was a royal taster and the taster knows the food may be poisoned. Will he eat it? If he refuses, will he be forced to eat it or will he be forced to tell how he knows, then have to eat it? In other words, is he going to die anyway? That would depend on the ruler. Can he find a way out? The ruler loves his dogs, so that is out.
Then we have the WI scone confrontation. A's husband is a butcher like Gillespie in 'Best in Show' and can influence the judge with fillet steaks and legs of lamb, but he is having an affair with B. What will he do? If B wins what will he tell his wife? I think this is one for the sequel to Best in Show.

www.sullatoberdalton.com/pen-sullatober