SCHEDULE A.

LRH Biog. -- Workpoints

          From the outset, it is essential to realise that a biography of LRH, if

it is to be worthy of its subject, should be different from previous works of

that genre. It would be an attempt to project (rather than to portray) a unique

being who appeared suddenly on the world stage, provided a new spiritual tech-

nique which changed the lives of masses of people on this planet, and then passed

into legend.

          In a word, a new literary form is called for. Of necessity, it would be one

developed from the material available to the writer - both in his subjective

consciousness and in the form of historical data - when he is ready to write.

          Overall, I conceive it as a kind of scenario for a cosmic cinema: the reader is

seated, as it were, in a darkened theatre while before him on the blank screen

of his imagination are projected images that have life and passion, and which

involve him in both the dramatic action and the inner emotional drives of the actors.

          The idea, the goal, is to present a story set always in the living, dramatic

present, rather than in the dead past. (Easier said than done!) To accomplish

this, I think the writer could employ a number of devices that are indispensable

in writing the screen-play. Let me mention a few examples: the use of different

perspective (camera angles) to highlight different aspects of a given situation,

character or scene; reverse-angle revelations to highlight communication between

people; the extreme close-up; cutaways to relieve tension, heighten suspense,

or to provide comment on the action; montage for mood change; dissolves and

slow fades for effective time-lapse; careful use of dialogue to support movement,

advance the plot narration, or to reveal and develop new ideas. And so on.

 

LRH Biography - - - - - 2

In this case, the equivalent of the camera lens is, to use a Joycean phrase,

"the groping of the spiritual eye" of the author.

          All of which is simple to describe, but enormously difficult to achieve.

But what is the alternative? Stark representation, such as that found in most

conventional biographies. In these, it is customary for the writer to string

together a series of events, oftener than not in chronological order, like a

reconstructed skeleton in a museum. Even when the story takes a semi- fiction

form, one has the impression that the biographer has merely gone rumaging

through the attic of his subject's life, examining discarded articles of apparel,

poring over old love letters, or puzzling over sentimental trinkets and faded,

nostalgic snapshots.

          It has also been fashionable of late to make biography a kind of Freudian

analysis, exploring in depth the psychodynamics of the subject's behavior,

thought processes, and so on. I believe this kind of thing is spurious and

misleading. I believe you should insist that the writer who undertakes the LRH

biography avoid it like the plague. I have always maintained that character is

best revealed in actions. For example, in a biography of Lenin (written by a

close relative - I think an older sister), a true insight into the man's character

and motivations emerges in a single fact: as a child, he did not play with his

toys, but systematically destroyed them.

          I'll not bore you here with details of structure that should be obvious to

any competent craftsman. Talent and ability determine the selection of material:

 

LRH Biography - - - - 3

how much to quote, kinds of exerpts from his work, anecdotes, topics to stress,

what is significant, what trivial. I believe the thematic thread or plot should

be based on how LRH developed and gave to the world the techniques and applied

philosophy of Scientology; his struggle against secret enemies and their snares, but

weighted on the positive side.

          Above all, the principal criterion of the entire work should be its irresistible

interest. Dullness is unforgiveable. At the risk of stating the obvious, I must say

that if there is a single primary task of the writer, it is to create interest and

to arouse his readers. The first question has to be: will the reader turn the page?

If he won't -- and I mean the reader collectively -- then other qualities do not

matter; they will never be known.

          These reflections are, I admit, somewhat discursive; but I hope that their

residual import can provide a new point of departure in your thinking about a

good LRH biography. The memory of this great man deserves the best.

OVG