Plot: themes expanded

In this last blog before I start the NaNoWriMo (National Novel Writing Month if you didn't already know), I'm going to go slightly deeper into the topic of themes.

But first a digression. The aim of the NaNoWriMo is to write a fifty thousand word first draft of a novel in a month, the month being November. This is my first attempt. I've done the sister campaign, the April Script Frenzy, when you write an entire movie script in a month. I did a mock NaNo in July, when I wrote 100K words. So this time I'm aiming for 100K words as well.

To that end, I've been outlining the plot and detailing the characters using the snowflake method - see Randy Ingermanson's site for more details. Basically, you describe the story in one sentence. Then expand it to a 5 sentence paragraph. Then create character summary sheets. Then expand the plot to 5 paragraphs, create a one page character synopsis for each of the major characters and so on.

The idea behind all this is to ensure that come November 1st, everything is worked out, plot is known, each scene is sketched out and all I have to do is write around 4000 words a day.

So what's my story about (I hear you ask)? What's the theme?

By theme, I mean which essential human emotion is being most thoroughly explored. Which element of the human condition is being plumbed and exposed.

There aren't that many themes, just as there aren't many basic emotions. Perhaps the commonest ones, the heroic ones, together with some filmic examples are:

• Vengeance - (Gladiator)
• The reluctant hero (High Noon)
  
• Overcoming inner demons (My Beautiful Mind)
• The tragic hero (Troy)
• The family protector (The River Wild)
• The coward transformed (Deliverance)
• The tortoise and the hare (Die Hard)
• True love conquers all (Casablanca)
• Doomed lovers (Romeo and Juliet)
  

Now, my story can be summed up in one sentence:

"Can two lovers persuade their opposing factions to fight the enemy in their midst?"

What theme is being explored here?

I mention lovers, so there's obviously a romantic element. I mention opposing factions, so there's obviously conflict. I mention an enemy so there's more conflict.

It's clear from that one sentence that the lovers are going to have to convince warring groups to co-operate, so Romeo and Juliet might spring to mind.

But there's personal tragedy a-plenty, for which vengeance must be sought. Neither of the lovers wants to be a leader or a hero, so they're reluctant. Each has his and her own inner turmoil to confront. The enemy at first seems unbeatable, so tortoise and hare. The only ones that aren't present in bucketfuls are the family protector and the coward transformed.

This is often the case. A novel's main plot may express one theme, but other themes are brought out in the sub-plots. One major character may represent one theme while another may have completely different motivations.

And so it is here. I would say that honour and duty are the predominant facets of both the major characters, so reluctantly, they do what must be done, no matter the cost to themselves or others.

In my next post, whenever that may be, I'll expand on the ideas of conflict and romance a little more, as they are two essential elements to nearly every fiction and every theme.

7th Son: Descent by J C Hutchins

Just a quick reminder: I don't give 5 stars (well maybe once or twice a decade). I'm stingy. I'm mean.

So, on with the review.














7th Son: Descent by J. C. Hutchins

Now, I haven't read all of this book. I've only read the first 33 pages. So I can make no comments about the book's overall structure, or character arcs, or sub-plots.

What I can comment about is the quality of the writing.

It is superb.

From a real kick-ass opening, unexpected metaphors and unusual word formations flow with assurance. Characters are introduced with almost dizzying rapidity, yet each establishes his individuality, his own personality, rapidly and with great economy of prose.

The dialogue is believable, snappy; the internal thought processes consistent with the character thinking them. Vignettes of their various normal lives are pointed enough to let us get an idea of what they were like before something happens to them.

Something unexpected. Something horrifying.

The action sequences - and yes, there is plenty of action, from the prologue on - are well executed and realistic.

The basic premise of the book is excellent.

All I can say is that I'm going to order a copy this week - the print version comes out on the 27th - and if the rest is as good as the start, I'll write another review, this one going up, perhaps to that fabled 5 star realm where only the literary giants dwell.

OK, hyperbole, but this book is really very, very good.

So, Mr. Hutchins, or Chris if you prefer, excellent beginning. I was hooked from the first page.

I'm happy to give it 4 stars.

PS - I bear no relationship or affiliation with the author, and have not been offered any inducement of any nature to write this review, apart from a simple request that I do so. I don't know if it's a requirement to make that statement yet, but I thought I'd make it clear anyway.

Previews and the first episode of the book can be seen at

http://jchutchins.net/site/about-7th-son/7th-son-descent/

The book details are: ISBN 978- 0- 312- 38437- 1

and it is available to order online from:

Amazon
Barnes & Noble
Borders
Books-A-Million
Powell’s
Macmillan
Indiebound

Review: 'Riders of the Spew' by Robert Thompson

Remember, I hardly ever expect to give 5 stars to anything. 1 star is so bad, I wouldn't even finish the book.

2 = OK, passes the time
3 = Good, would recommend and read again
4 = Very, very good.

'Riders of the Spew' by Robert Thompson (available from Smashwords and Amazon)




OK, where to begin with this one? Don't think I've read a book quite like it before. Robert Thompson fills nearly all his pages with action, action and more action. Occasionally interspersed with dry humour.

It would have been hard for me to imagine that I could have come to empathize with a collection of six sociopathic, sadistic killers and their savage, mutant steeds, but perhaps the book contains a kernel of hard truth. A few centuries in hell changes a person. And some of the creatures they encounter!

Well drawn characters, natural dialogue and a host of unexpected twists kept me reading 'Riders of the Spew' non-stop from start to finish. I look forward to the sequels - their work is not yet done. Well worth three stars.

Reviews: Spellbound by Jaimey Grant

My review system:

5 stars is only given to books that are brilliant; ones that I will want to read again and again, ones that will become classics. I haven't come across more than a double handful of those in my lifetime, and I read a lot.

4 stars is given to books that are very, very good.

3 stars goes to good books, that I enjoyed and which had few or minor slips.

2 stars means that it passed the time in the absence of anything better to do, but I wouldn't want to read it again.

1 star indicates that I was sorry I ever picked the thing up, and wouldn't want to recommend it to my worst enemy.

"Spellbound" by Jaimey Grant, ISBN: 1440414726




I read this recently.

Now I have to admit, the genre, Regency romance, is not something that I habitually read. Well, to be honest, it's not a genre I've ever read.

I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised. It was a lot better than I was expecting. The protagonist, Raven, was someone I took to immediately. There was an admirable supporting cast of eccentrics, Regency fops, nobility in various shades of good, evil and torment, and a good story line. It's not a genre I could relate to, but I was hooked and made to care about the ultimate fate of Raven. All the characters were believable and well-realized. There were sub-plots and red herrings in abundance, and the dialogue was often snappy, believable and witty. There were a number of words and phrases that were new to me, but that were authentic to the Regency period.

The book was also proofread and edited with very few mistakes that I noticed.

I have to admit I got confused at the late introduction of the nemesis, but overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it; much more than I was expecting.

So I am happy to award this a 3 star rating. Nice one, Jaimey.

Plot structure - expanded

This post focuses on the classic Aristotelian three act structure.

Broadly speaking, any work of fiction, whether a novel, novella, short story, play or film script, will fit into the three act structure. I'm going to generalise here, but the structure goes something like this.

Act one:
About one quarter of the length of the work. Starts off with the main characters going about their daily business. A little scene-setting, as it were.

A short way in (3-7 minutes for a film, somewhere in the first chapter for a novel) comes the

Inciting incident (also called the complication.)
This is the thing that forces the protagonist into motion. It doesn't even need to be in the work. It can have happened way back in the back story. In Lord of the Rings for example, you could argue that the inciting incident happened in the Hobbit, when Bilbo found the ring. Or a thousand years ago, when Gollum found it. Or three thousand years ago, when Isildur didn't destroy it. But generally, it happens in the work you're creating.

The II is the thing that propels (or perhaps compels) the protagonist to become involved in the action of the story, often reluctantly.

Also in Act one, all other significant characters are introduced, especially the nemesis. The threads of the main plot are laid. Some of the major sub-plots are introduced.

Act one ends with

Plot point one, a critical incident. Our hero(ine) discovers a crucial fact, gains a significant ally (buddy, rival, mentor or similar) or develops a talent he or she will need to defeat the nemesis.

All the significant features of the story have now been exposed to the audience. From this point on, all that occurs is inevitable because of the groundwork you have done.

Act two:
This is where the majority of the character development, the other sub-plots and a lot of the action takes place. Generally about half the length of the work. If Act one was about laying the foundations, Act two is about building the house. About halfway through this act comes the

Midpoint. This is the first significant trial of strength against the nemesis. Our hero may retire, defeated but alive. He may defeat the chief lieutenant of the enemy. The point is, it is inconclusive. The threat remains, and from here on to the end, intensifies.

Act two concludes with

Plot point two (also called the Crisis.) Our protagonist is at his lowest ebb. His wife has been kidnapped, his dog shot, his son proves to be the spawn of the Devil, and he's hanging head down over a vat of boiling sulphuric acid.

This point is perhaps the most important of the whole story. This is why our protagonist is a hero. Remember the classic themes mentioned in the last post.

Now, any reasonable being would give up at this point. Heroes don't. They're too stubborn, or stupid, to recognise that they're beaten. Instead of dying quietly, they get mad. They stiffen themselves for one final attempt.

They take full responsibility for their life and their actions, taking charge of events. If they have been reacting so far, now, in a titanic expenditure of will and courage, they take charge of events, driving on to the end. Their entire life has narrowed down to one focus; victory or death.

Act three:
This occupies the final quarter of the work. If Act one was laying the foundations, and Act two was building the house, then Act three is defeating the neighbour who objects on planning grounds, stopping a horde of crazed bikers from trashing the place, throwing up a wall of dirt to stop the flood from washing the house away and finally moving in with your loved one.

Almost immediately, we are plunged into the

Climax. The final trial of strength. Our hero generally overcomes his fears, his limitations, masters that crucial flaw and defeats his nemesis, who cannot do the same.

OK, our hero may die in the process. In many ways, it is deeply satsfying if he does. After all, who would actually want to know or live with a genuine hero? They can't be easy people to get along with.

Of course, if you're writing from the 1st person POV, it is not a good idea to have your hero die here. That's the end, fini, right there. If you've used third person, shifting POV, fine. Film scripts, you have written omnisciently anyway, so no problem.

The climax was presaged in Act one, developed in Act two, and is now fully realized in all its violent, terrible beauty.

Act three finishes with the

Resolution. All the loose ends are tied up. Unless you want to leave room for a sequel. Boy gets girl, music swells, they walk hand-in-hand into a beautiful sunset. The audience sighs in appreciation, gets gently returned to reality and walks out happy, having shared time with someone who took charge of their destiny, albeit briefly.

Something most of us can never, will never do.

That's why they're called heroes.

Plot - theme or structure?

First, yet another apology. It seems that whenever I'm presumptuous enough to post that I'm going to write about something 'tomorrow', fate intervenes, and I get buried in extra work. Yet again it's taken me three weeks to dig myself out far enough to see daylight. In future, I'm going to simply say 'next time I'm going to...'.

So, not tomorrow, but three weeks later...

There are two ways of creating a plot - with almost any sort of story.

You can focus on the structure - that is, what happens in the story?

Or you can focus on the theme - what is the story about?

As a concrete example, consider the clasic Western 'High Noon'.

Structurally it's about a man who is systematically abandoned by all those on whose loyalty he has a right to depend, prior to his impending battle with a band of vengeful killers.

Thematically it's about a man's struggle to maintain his integrity and honour when surrounded by cowardice, hypocrisy and overwhelming temptation. He is an archetypal reluctant hero.

I suppose you can say that structure focuses on the events; theme focuses on how the participants feel about those events; or perhaps the actions they choose when faced with those events.

Now, you might say that the two are very much interdependent. You'd be absolutely right. A person can't be a hero, reluctant or otherwise, unless there is an occasion where heroism is called for.

There are only a limited number of themes available - such as:

• Vengeance - (Gladiator)
• The reluctant hero (High Noon)
• Overcoming inner demons (My Beautiful Mind)
• The tragic hero (Troy)
• The family protector (The River Wild)
• The coward transformed (Deliverance)
• The tortoise and the hare (Die Hard)

When designing a story thematically, I suppose you would have to start by creating a protagonist with a flaw, and an antagonist, also with a flaw.

You can already tell that this story would be about the protagonist being able to accept help and advice, overcome his weakness and so defeat the antagonist - who of course, because of hubris was not able to overcome his, and so failed.

Structurally, you would start with an exciting idea - a protagonist who has a mortal falling out with his former best friend. They fight on a high, swaying bridge above a bottomless pit.

Synthesis of the two gives you the protagonist afraid of heights, who falls in love with his beautiful psychoanalyst and rescues her from his former best friend turned nemesis. She is of course at the far end of the bridge on which the two are fighting. The nemesis was in love with her till she fell for our hero. He spurned her offer of help overcoming his fear of hamsters.

At the height of the battle, our hero presses forward despite his profound acrophobia to rescue the woman he loves. He hurls his pet hamster at his nemesis, who recoils in horror, slips and plunges to his death. Boy and girl reunite, hero risks all to rescue beloved hamster from the lip of the abyss, and hand in hand in paw they walk into the sunset as the music swells...

OK, it's a silly example, but it illustrates my point. Theme and structure are different ways of looking at the same small, isolated sequence of events that makes up a piece of fiction. Both are still, and always will be, subordinate to the story.

Avoiding hubris myself, I'm simply going to say that next time, I'm going to examine plot structure in more detail.

Till then, enjoy!

Plot structure - Introduction

For as long as people have been telling stories, there has been a structure that works well. One that captivates the audience, hooks them, draws them into the world of the storyteller.

As far as I'm aware, that structure was first analysed and codified by Aristotle in his work 'The Poetics.' Of course, he was talking about epic oral poetry and Greek theatre, complete with chorus. Nonetheless, what worked for 100,000 years huddled round fires at night, worked for Ancient Greece, was followed by the Romans, the writers of Northern European epics such as as Beowulf, the Prose Edda and the Nibelungenlied and was obeyed by great writers of the Medieval and Elizabethan periods (Chretien de Troyes, Mallory, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Jonson and others) is as relevant and important today as ever it was.

Don't forget, people have told stories as long as there have been people. The idea of reading stories has only been around for some 500 years. Watching them at the talkies or on the telescreen has only been around for a century.

What I'm saying is that what worked for millennia worked for a reason. It satisfied some basic human need. Technology may have evolved, but the human brain has not kept pace. What worked when the sabre-toothed tiger roared outside and mammoths roamed the plains still works.

We call this the Aristotelian structure.

Aristotle's six most important elements of any drama were:

1. Plot
2. Character
3. Theme
4. Dialogue
5. Music
6. Spectacle

This list still works marvellously for films, though sadly, Hollywood seems to have reversed the order in recent decades. Special effects do not make a great movie no matter what the movie moguls think.

You might also notice that music is on the list - important for Greek drama, crucial in films.

OK, if we're talking about writing books, you can ignore music.

Spectacle for books is what the reader envisions as he or she reads your prose.

Tomorrow, I'm going to write about the two ways of creating (or analysing) any decent plot. In later posts, I'll go through every other element on the list with the exception of music.

Enjoy!

Ideas - where do they come from?

OK, after a slightly longer than expected absence, due to family stuff, I'm back with the next installment. By the way, I do apologise most humbly for the delay.

Ideas and where do they come from?

I suppose that's the one question that we all face if ever we mention that we write.

"Where do you get your ideas from?"

So where do they come from?

A few concrete examples. My first film script (it's available if anyone wants to buy it for the going rate - hint, hint) was about eco-terrorism masking corporate greed, and it came about from reading an article on dams in Idaho and the potato farming that had been made possible by these dams. This was an article in National Geographic, and I was reading it in the dentist's waiting room. The rest of the plot was elaborated in thirty minutes of semi-inebriated conversation with a script-writing friend of mine, Dr. Roger Cottrell, a few days later. Just a few concrete (no pun intended) facts and then the 'what if' moment.

My third novel (no, it's not finished yet, just the first draft) was loosely based on the premise - 'what if man-made global warming is a reality? What if Governments and corporations were aware what they were doing? What if they were doing it deliberately? Who would benefit? What if the beneficiaries weren't human?'

Add a few facts and figures, and a degree of inventiveness and you have the idea from which the plot develops.

My second film script was based on an article in one of the broadsheet newspapers, commenting on the increasing divide between urban and rural communities. I thought 'what if you take this to its logical conclusion?'

You would have totally separated communities living entirely dissimilar lives, with the chattering urbanites being blissfully unaware of their complete dependence on the rural society. Throw in a few other semi-related facts and stir. Voila! You have a plot.

You can see from the examples I've given, that my ideas come from events or facts in the real world, twisted by my warped imagination into some sort of demonised offspring. Add in a few other facts, similarly distorted, and you have an idea.

The 'what if?' bit is crucial. Take Event A, as reported by e.g. the BBC. What if it were totally false? What would be the consequences? OK, what if someone stood to gain from a widespread belief in this event? How would they organise it? Who would notice what they were doing? Who would try to stop them? Then stick the story thirty years in the future when - unrelated fact - all cars apart from emergency services were electric, state owned and driven by computer. Add in an elevated concern for health and safety, risk avoidance and litigation, exaggerated to extreme levels. (I know, that bit is already true, but bear with me.) What sort of society would we have? What would be the likely outcomes? And you have the basis for a story.

So, today's homework: choose your own event of interest, extrapolate thirty (or fifty or a hundred) years, add in two unrelated facts of your choice, and then (this is the fun bit) open a bottle of your favourite tipple, sit back, kick off the shoes, loosen the tie, ignore the dog and just ... speculate.

When it comes to facts, related or otherwise, I'm lucky. I have the sort of memory that stores immense quantities of information. OK, 95% of it is completely useless, but the remaining 5% - oh yes.

Paydirt!

I've read other writers who say their ideas come from watching people in the street, or a chance conversation overheard on a bus or ...

Fine, whatever works for them. I store up observations and snippets of conversation to give authenticity to dialogue or description, but my ideas are always generated by events or facts.

Or at least, by articles that claim to relate events and facts. I don't actually believe much I read in newspapers or hear on TV, but if it's interesting, the authenticity quotient doesn't matter.

Finally, I would like to quote an answer that Stephen King gave when asked, on a chat show, where his ideas came from. He said the usual things we always say, but was then asked, 'But why do you always write horror and darkness?'

To which he replied, 'What makes you think I have a choice?'

Tomorrow I'm going to start a series of articles on plot structure - typical Aristotelian plot structure that is. A technique that has worked well for story tellers for the last 10,000 years.

Enjoy!