I'm happy to share this interview of my co-teacher, Robin Jason Sebolino, who has a new book, Vassals of the Valley. Read about the book and Robin's creative process. 1. What inspired or motivated you to write Vassals of the Valley?
I’m naturally interested in writing, so there’s that sustaining energy that I have. But if we’re specifically talking about Vassals of the Valley, I’d say it’s mainly the historical events in the late 16th century Philippines. I learn this from an online conference called Rethinking Philippine History Slowly hosted by the University of Asia and the Pacific. There were quite a few topics they covered, but I got particularly interested the period I had said.
So there were the two big events in 1582.
The first is the Cagayan Battles where the Spaniards drove away the Wokuo Pirates settled in the north of Luzon. It made me think of people at the time—how they dressed, how they spoke, and how they thought—especially how they thought as the country was entering a cultural and spiritual change with the arrival of Spaniards, mainly priests and missionaries.
My main character in the novel was actually a member of the Wokuo pirate band that the Spaniards defeated.
The second is the Manila Synod. There should be more work around this event, scholarly, creative, or whatever. It’s because this is the earliest record we have when there happened a discussion on the human rights of the natives. Basically, the Manila Synod was a gathering of Spanish clerics and laypeople. They discussed Spain’s right to stay in the Philippines Island, if there was even one. It condemned the abuses of the natives by the conquistadores. It gave priests an order to deny the Sacraments to the Spaniards if they did not practice restitution. It’s an interesting meeting, and the documents are quite revealing of some of the most powerful sentiments at the time.
2. Kindly describe your creative process in writing the novel.
I always begin with character design. So I make a character, give them a name, age, and experience. The most important thing would be their desire, a deep-seated hope that they cannot escape. If they try to not deal with it, they will live an empty and unfulfilled lives. I will do this mainly for my protagonist.
Then I write more characters—sincere characters with relatable aspirations and dreams. I’ll treat them as charitably as I did with my protagonists. I believe we should love all our characters, even the bad ones. I balance their traits. They should have strengths and weaknesses, quirks, complexities, like a real person.
Then I write the story. The story begins with my protagonist making decisions in relation to his most fundamental desires. Challenges happen. Characters clash, especially my protagonist. He meets friends and enemies. Events build up. Characters change or their true colors emerge. I look for the tensions and conflicts mainly because these are what really makes a character shine or decay. Conflicts also show them change. It tests them, and it exposes what they are really made of. Conflict does a lot in real life. And we know this also applies to fiction—albeit with less complexity—so I really dwell a lot on conflict for my characters.
But the movement of story and conflict of characters happen in the classical five-act structure. The good think about this plot structure is that it mirrors how people live their lives. It’s about people reaching out for what they want, not getting it right away, or if they get it, they realize that it isn’t quite what they wanted. Then they change, face even bigger challenges until they face the ultimate test. This is what the plot structure tries to do—to capture how people live. The plot structure is life, essentially.
Okay, this might sound reductive, too simple. I'm preempting questions about working on a structure here. Please pardon me if I'm making a presumption that I'm speaking to people who are averse to structure, but this is how I feel the world is right now. Anyway, if the reader likes structure, then they'll probably agree with me. Otherwise, I'd like to suggest to them something about how structural writing has a sound rationale and purpose to consider.
Is it problematic to write with a structure?
I wouldn’t say so. Just because there is a structure, it doesn’t mean it’s crude or trite. Plot structures have been derided to cause many stories to all appear and sound the same. Sure, to some degree, yes, not that there’s anything wrong with it. But there are unique differences too, and this is unavoidable. I mean it's unavoidable for unique changes, incidents, changes, and struggles to emerge. This is the beauty of art.
Here are other art forms: cooking and baking. What I'm talking about is more obvious in cooking and baking. Cooking is formulaic. Baking is formulaic. But the food can still come off differently and uniquely, depending on what the chef or baker brings to it. I believe it’s the same with writing. Authors can follow the same structure, but they will create something new every time.
Anyway, I so it’s characters, more characters, write their story in the organization of five acts.
I’ll do my edits, revisions, and proofreading. It’s mainly editing from now. Editing in various phases until we get to the final product.
Links to purchase a copy:
.jpg)
.jpg)
