Theme-Archetype Integration Part 5 - The Minority Speaks

Theme-Archetype Integration
Part 5
The Minority Speaks
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Previous parts in this Theme-Archetype Integration series

Part 1 - The Nature of Art
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2016/12/theme-archetype-integration-part-1.html

Part 2 - How to Tell Hero From Villain
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2017/01/theme-archetype-integration-part-2-how.html

Part 3 - Showing Character Without Telling
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2017/01/theme-archetype-integration-part-3.html

Part 4 - Ownership and Marriage
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2017/01/theme-archetype-integration-part-4.html

And previously on Marriage:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2015/01/if-hea-is-implausible-how-come-it.html

Here are some posts on Theme.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/05/theme-element-giving-and-receiving.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/03/soul-mate-characters-heroic-villainous.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2011/10/believing-in-happily-ever-after-part-4.html

This post is of use to Fantasy writers creating Kings, Princes, Dukes and other marriageable scions of high society.  It is the kind of thinking necessary to create original Fantasy, not derivative Fantasy.

We'll consider the plight of the minority. and how that plight is now changing fast.  

So Theme is a statement (or question) derived from the Artist's view of the universe, from the Vision of Reality the Artist sees that others may easily miss.

Husband and Wife might usefully be viewed as an Archetype - The Couple. 

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-does-she-see-in-him.html

The King, The Warrior, The Warrior-King, The Priest, The Hero, The Villain, and  are classic Character Archetypes. 

Just because you don't have a Kingdom doesn't mean you aren't a King.

We have the "Man is the King of his Castle" idea enshrined in law.  Even if you are just renting, you are King -- you get to kill robbers who break in and threaten your life.

THEME: Humans are territorial animals. 

ARCHETYPE: King of his Castle. 

Lord of the Manor:  Baron. 

Even in the U.S.A., we have established a Peerage, a Hierarchy of "importance" -- often based on wealth, as in any Aristocracy, but also very much based on "Rights" and "Privileges." 

Privileges are not rights -- they are earned. 

One must qualify for a privilege.  The theory in the U.S.A. is that anyone can qualify for any privilege, but you don't get the privilege unless you qualify. 

That theory is being altered by the adamant support for the idea of "White Privilege" -- that only "white" humans can qualify for, and that they qualify for it without actually doing anything but being born. 

In an Aristocracy, certain individuals are chosen by a King to be elevated to the Peerage. 

In the U.S.A., you are entitled to trial by a jury of your peers.

I've seen many juries empaneled who did not seem, to me, to be the peer of the person on trial.  For example, O.J. Simpson. Nobody on his jury was a celebrity of such renown, so not one person on that jury was his "peer."  So in what way do we get trial by our peers?

Note the relationship between the word Peer, and the word Peerage.  A Peerage is a hierarchy of aristocrats, a list of successors, a hereditary position. 

Peerage - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage
A peerage is a legal system historically comprising hereditary titles in various countries, comprising various noble ranks. Peerages include: ...

Peerage | Define Peerage at Dictionary.com
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/peerage
Peerage definition, the body of peers of a country or state. See more.

Peerages - definition of Peerages by The Free Dictionary
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Peerages
The rank, title, or jurisdiction of a peer or peeress; a duchy, marquisate, county, viscountcy, or barony. 2. Peers and peeresses considered as a group. 3. A book ...

A Peer is your equal, someone born at the same "level" as you were.

To have a society arranged by Peers is to imply that not everyone is "equal" to everyone else.  We are not all the same.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the U.S.A. were written by Aristocrats steeped in British culture as well as a pioneering culture.  They came up with a blend of Democracy (mob rule: two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch), and a Republic (the Roman Empire model).  Well educated men (all men) decided to invent an entirely new form of social organization.

Never before, not even in Biblical times, was such a free hand invention promulgated -- and it has worked (sort of) for more than 2 centuries (baby on the World Stage).

They had lived under British Rule, and so they understood the concept Peerage in ways you and I do not.  When they wrote "jury of peers," they knew what they meant.  We do not know.  Even modern day Brits do not really know. 

But we, Fantasy writers, can imagine or invent new meanings and create worlds inhabited by humans alongside non-humans (Fairies, Elves, Trolls, Zombies, Vampires, Gnomes, Griffins, Furies).

Last week, we discussed the TV Series, Lucifer, and the way Fantasy handles the archetype The Immortal.  And we delved into how your Self-Image (personally, as the writer) is visible to readers in your Theme, even when you can't see it yourself. 

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2017/04/self-image-and-tree-of-life-by.html

There we referred to an article on bbc.com about scientific studies of Eastern and Western civilizations and how they think in profoundly different ways -- Collectivism vs Individualism.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170118-how-east-and-west-think-in-profoundly-different-ways

Think now about whether Immortals form a Group - or a "level" -- a Peerage? 

What exactly is a Peerage?  What differentiates King from Duke from Baron?

Basically, it is wealth -- the amount of Land each level commands.  All Barons are peers as they control about the same amount of land (and number of peasants to work that land).  Dukes command (not own, as the King owns all) a number of Baronies.  And Kings command all the Dukes, Counts, every level.

Kings get to command them all by virtue of owning all the land, and then handing command of the various segments to the various levels.

Originally, (as far back as Biblical times) Kings got to be King by leading armies to conquer and just TAKE the land.  And then they would appoint men who had fought well and loyally for them during that campaign to command sections of land. 

In return, the appointed ones got to keep profits from their lands, but had to be able to muster troops for the King when battle might loom.

So a King is peer only to another King, Counts and Dukes are at about the same level, one step below the King, and Barons etc are peer to other Barons etc.  Who is heir to whom, and who inherits what depends a lot on who marries whom.

So we get to the "arranged" marriage -- and the social rules about marrying someone who is not your peer. 

It is all an imaginary way to create "levels" or "classes" or "castes" in human society. 

Can you imagine a society of humans, a state or country, where all humans are entirely and completely equal to, the peer of, absolutely identical to, every other human?  All have the same amount of money, the same square feet of apartment, the same clothes?

It is easy to imagine such a situation among Aliens from Outer Space, harder to see it among Fantasy creatures.  Most of our classical mythology depicts the society of the gods in a heirarchy under a King. 

I don't know any myth system that has more than One God that depicts all the supernatural beings as identical or in any way equal.

There is always a contest, a competition, to see which is more powerful than the other.  We see that in the story of the Exodus where there is a contest (of sorts) between the Egyptian gods and the Creator of the Universe. 

So even our Heavens are created in a hierarchy of non-equals.

The framers said "All Men Are Created Equal" -- but they didn't say that men had to stay that way (and of course never mentioned women -- boy, did they get blindsided or what?)

THEME: there is something in human nature that requires social hierarchy for health, but how hierarchy is created differs vastly.

Concurrently with the Framers of the Constitution being born and growing up, being educated and founding fortunes, France was brewing the ouster of its Peerage and science was gathering steam as mathematics and data handling became possible.

Change moves so fast now that we forget it took a century to accomplish what we have done in the last few decades.

Population is exploding, and with it the task of governing so many people has become nearly impossible. 

Therefore, we have resorted to dividing human population into neat little compartments containing humans who are all equal to each other.  But the inhabitants of a compartment are not equal to the inhabitants of another compartment.  The science of this is called Statistics.

Creating and defining "compartments" must precede "getting organized" or creating a government.  A government can't govern if it does not know what exactly it is governing and to what end it is shaping the behavior of that population.

Dukes needed farmers and ranchers to work the land, artisans to manufacture things (such as weapons) and soldiers and Knights to answer the King's muster.  Dukes might enjoy or just tolerate minstrels to keep the peasants entertained.  That was the mob they had to govern, and it was pretty simple as they knew almost everyone by name or surname.

Here is an article that traces the development of the information that government needed to govern as the Middle Class developed, nations conquered more territory, and Kings confronted other Kings further and further away.  It delves back to the 15th Century and shows what kind of change we are in the middle of now.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/19/crisis-of-statistics-big-data-democracy

This article from The Guardian presents the thesis that Statistics has lost the confidence of the public because it is impossible to take small, local communities into account when measuring national level statistics such as unemployment and GDP.  It is a great article, long and complicated, but Fantasy Writers inventing Kingdoms and Wars (with Elves, Goblins, or whatever) need to read this article and understand what it says and why it says it.  In short, it says statistics is regarded as vulgar.

But at the same time as you read in The Guardian, keep in mind this item on statistics failing to capture cervical cancer rates, and why reports indicated the cervical cancer rates were lower than they really are.  I think THIS is the real reason people distrust statistics these days.

It is from a newsletter called The Skimm January 24, 2017.
http://www.theskimm.com/

--------quote The Skimm----
WHAT TO SAY WHEN YOU FINALLY GET AROUND TO MAKING YOUR ANNUAL APPOINTMENT...

Important. A new study found that cervical cancer is a bigger threat to US women than people realized. For years, the mortality rate for the disease was based on data that included women who’ve had hysterectomies. Hysterectomy: the procedure that typically removes a woman’s cervix, and - yup - the risk of cervical cancer. Once the data excluded those ladies, it showed a different picture. Even worse, the death rate is much higher for black women than white women. Some doctors say that could be because black women don’t have equal access to screenings or health coverage. Big problem.

---------end quote---------

And here is an excerpt from the article in The Guardian about why statistics has lost public confidence.  Convey this information to your reader using dialogue in short, snappy sentences fraught with subtext.

--------quote-----------
There was initially only one client for this type of expertise, and the clue is in the word “statistics”. Only centralised nation states had the capacity to collect data across large populations in a standardised fashion and only states had any need for such data in the first place. Over the second half of the 18th century, European states began to collect more statistics of the sort that would appear familiar to us today. Casting an eye over national populations, states became focused upon a range of quantities: births, deaths, baptisms, marriages, harvests, imports, exports, price fluctuations. Things that would previously have been registered locally and variously at parish level became aggregated at a national level.

New techniques were developed to represent these indicators, which exploited both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the page, laying out data in matrices and tables, just as merchants had done with the development of standardised book-keeping techniques in the late 15th century. Organising numbers into rows and columns offered a powerful new way of displaying the attributes of a given society. Large, complex issues could now be surveyed simply by scanning the data laid out geometrically across a single page.
---------end quote---------

The thesis of this long document is that Statistics is now distrusted because it captures the aggregate behavior of large populations but does not address the experience of the individual.  Here's how the article puts it:

---------quote-------
Blindness to local cultural variability is precisely what makes statistics vulgar and potentially offensive
------unquote----------

Note this article is in THE GUARDIAN, so use of the word "vulgar" is possibly misleading to Americans. 

The writer of Fantasy Romance may gain a lot by being skeptical of the idea that blindness to local cultural variability has anything to do with why the general population of the 21st century "distrusts" statistics.  Again, consider the "scientists" and "mathematicians" who decided to lump women who had their cervix surgically removed with those who had not, to create a low-incidence statistic.

Would you choose to include women who had their breasts removed in statistics of the incidence of breast cancer?

Science is now and always has been under pressure by politics and religion to get the results that are most profitable or beneficial to those in political or religious power positions.  Science has fought against this, but we never know which topic will fail to resist pressure.  That trait is the source of wonderful plot twists.

One alternative idea to explore is innate in the mathematics behind statistics -- statistics only yields useful information when analyzed in one direction, but not ever in the other direction.

Prejudice, (ethnocentrism, racism, bigotry) are cognitive errors based on trying to work a statistical equation backwards. 

For Example:
1. Most Terrorists are Muslim
2. This person is a Muslim
3. Therefore this person is a Terrorist

Or another example:
1. White races have unique unearned privileges
2. This person is of a white race
3. Therefore this person has had advantages of privilege unearned

Statistics, plain math, counting, multiplying, dividing -- very simple stuff -- can determine that most individuals of a category of human share a certain trait.  But statistics can not determine if any given member of that category of human actually has that common trait.

Statistics can not work backwards.

-----quote-----------
 In talking of society as a whole, in seeking to govern the economy as a whole, both politicians and technocrats are believed to have “lost touch” with how it feels to be a single citizen in particular.
--------end quote-------

Yet most media outlets, even school textbooks these days, and general conversational English assumes that statistics does indeed work backwards -- what math can reveal about a Group can tell you something about any individual member of that group. 

Hillary Clinton became famous for the phrase, "Basket of Deplorables" - lumping all supporters of Donald Trump together as a category (basket) and assigning them all the quality "deplorable." 

You had only to have a certain Presidential Preference to get into the basket -- so if you were in the basket, you also necessarily shared an unrelated trait, deplorable.

Statistically, that may be accurate, but faced with an individual supporter of Donald Trump, you dare not assume that individual is a "deplorable."  That individual may in fact have non-deplorable reasons for preferring Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton, or they might just be wholly ignorant of Trump's misdeeds. 

Statistics can't tell you anything about an individual.  But it is a powerful tool for analyzing large bodies of data.

This article from The Guardian shows you the historical link between Liberal Democracy and Statistics via the history of government. 

--------quote---------

Then it shows you the way Statistics as a science is being disrupted or rendered useless by the whirlwind of technological change.

--------quote--------
For roughly 450 years, the great achievement of statisticians has been to reduce the complexity and fluidity of national populations into manageable, comprehensible facts and figures. Yet in recent decades, the world has changed dramatically, thanks to the cultural politics that emerged in the 1960s and the reshaping of the global economy that began soon after. It is not clear that the statisticians have always kept pace with these changes. Traditional forms of statistical classification and definition are coming under strain from more fluid identities, attitudes and economic pathways. Efforts to represent demographic, social and economic changes in terms of simple, well-recognised indicators are losing legitimacy.
-----------end quote----------

As we've discussed many times, the entire science of Public Relations (PR) and thus the big business of Advertising (getting people to do something against their own best interests and for your profit), is based on the mathematics and science of Statistics.

------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relationsJump to Definition - "Public relations is a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics." Public relations can also be defined as the practice of managing communication between an organization and its publics.
-----------

Note that definition says "mutually beneficial."  If it requires "strategy" to make someone do something, then that something is not beneficial to the one strategized against. 

You use "strategy" to get people to do things that benefit you, and you tell yourself it is "for their own good." 

You don't need strategy to make people do things beneficial to themselves.  Strategy is a form of aggression and there's nothing micro about it.  Hobson's Choice is a strategy to make someone take an unacceptable option to the benefit of Hobson.

The essence of Story is Conflict.

Conflict illustrates or symbolizes Theme. 

So the problem is to govern a large and growing population of Individualists who don't know what's good for them (but you do). 

It takes centuries, but you finally get a handle on it via Statistics so you can predict how sub-groups of the population will react.

Then, suddenly, they don't react as expected (Brexit, Trump).

Why? What happened?

Twitter.  Facebook.  Big Data.

Read this article from The Guardian we've been discussing.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/19/crisis-of-statistics-big-data-democracy
-------quote---------
The rise of identity politics since the 1960s has put additional strain on such systems of classification. Statistical data is only credible if people will accept the limited range of demographic categories that are on offer, which are selected by the expert not the respondent. But where identity becomes a political issue, people demand to define themselves on their own terms, where gender, sexuality, race or class is concerned.
-------end quote--------

"Basket of Deplorables" is a demographic category chosen by someone other than a denizen of that basket.

The denizens of the basket, now living in a customizable world thanks to Microsoft, want to define their own basket. 

------------quote--------
In recent years, a new way of quantifying and visualising populations has emerged that potentially pushes statistics to the margins, ushering in a different era altogether. Statistics, collected and compiled by technical experts, are giving way to data that accumulates by default, as a consequence of sweeping digitisation. Traditionally, statisticians have known which questions they wanted to ask regarding which population, then set out to answer them. By contrast, data is automatically produced whenever we swipe a loyalty card, comment on Facebook or search for something on Google. As our cities, cars, homes and household objects become digitally connected, the amount of data we leave in our trail will grow even greater. In this new world, data is captured first and research questions come later.

In the long term, the implications of this will probably be as profound as the invention of statistics was in the late 17th century. The rise of “big data” provides far greater opportunities for quantitative analysis than any amount of polling or statistical modelling. But it is not just the quantity of data that is different. It represents an entirely different type of knowledge, accompanied by a new mode of expertise.
-----------end quote---------

So suddenly the goal is no longer to predict the behavior of large groups of humans -- but rather to predict and prompt/guide the behavior of individuals. (Facebook ads; Google Adwords).

Facebook and Google show you ads for products you've been browsing, or related items others like you might have bought.  ("like you" is rapidly becoming much more accurate.)

THEME: This application of technology, Data Mining, is going to render the Character Motivations you use in your novels that you are writing, incomprehensible to readers 20 or 40 years from now.

Think about that.  If you wrote a novel today that used Character Motivations rooted in the culture that will grow out of being governed not by a government of statistics (GDP) but of Big Data, customized government, personally customized LAWS???  -- today's readers would not understand that Character.

The Regency Romances being written today depict the women as 21st Century, individually strong, independently minded humans.  They were not any such thing.  Even those with a character pre-disposed to independent thinking were emotionally crippled compared to today's woman.

Think about a writer 40 years from now depicting you, today, without understanding the statistics driven world?

What is the looming statistical horror of today?  Income Inequality -- the extreme difference between the 1% and the lower 50% of the population.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2015/02/depiction-part-6-depicting-money-and.html

What is the biggest issue driving our collective concerns?  Women's health?  Minority Rights?  Women aren't quite a "minority" these days, but at times and in places we have been. 

We have had our first "minority" President in Barak Obama, and almost had the first woman President in Hillary Clinton. 

There is a yearning in the U.S.A. to place "minorities" in government, in "power" (though U.S.A. government officials have no power; only voters have power).

How would someone born and raised in a world where government uses Big Data to manage policies view our driving will to see Minorities rise in the Peerage?

Raised in such a world of the future, would they even know what a "Minority" is?  Or would they care?

From the perspective of that (not so far) future, your readers would be sorely puzzled by the antipathy to Donald Trump and his millionaire riddled cabinet. 

The media is brim full of articles decrying the absurd and insane wealth of the 1%.

The reader raised in our Big Data Governed future will look at those articles and then at all the articles about the unfair treatment of minorities, and be unable to understand why we admire a President from one minority (Blacks) and decry a President from another minority (1%). 

The Super Rich are a very tiny minority, so if we want minorities to take turns governing, then why would we object to the rich getting a turn?

THEME: All Minorities Should Get a Turn Governing

Explain, using symbolism and conflict, why certain minorities (Kings, Dukes) should govern and other minorities should not.

Remember, you are explaining this to a readership that has no concept of "statistics" and thus can not encompass the idea of a "1%" as a category, or a "basket," -- as a homogeneous group.  What do the Super Rich have in common with each other besides money?  Nothing.  So those used to a government guided by Big Data and Deep Diving into Big Data simply have no referent for the concept "the" Super Rich.  They don't have a concept for "Hispanics" or "Blacks" or "Asians" or "Muslims" or "Jews."  These words do no summon to mind a visual of a Group.

Grouping the way we think of it just makes no sense if you are managing individuals by knowing everything about that individual.

Differences matter more than Similarities.

As this article points out, attributes defining groups become "fluid."

Writers who live in that world will put Characters into our world who do not think the way we do.  So what will they think?  How can you explain us to them?

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Theme-Archetype Integration Part 4 - Marriage and Ownership

Theme-Archetype Integration

Part 4

Marriage and Ownership

by

Jacqueline Lichtenberg 

Previous parts in this Theme-Archetype Integration series

Part 1
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2016/12/theme-archetype-integration-part-1.html

Part 2
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2017/01/theme-archetype-integration-part-2-how.html

Part 3
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2017/01/theme-archetype-integration-part-3.html

And previously on Marriage:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2015/01/if-hea-is-implausible-how-come-it.html

And now Part 4 opening a whole new can of worms, ownership and marriage.

This series on integrating Theme with Archetype was started because of a question posed by a reader of this blog.  Exactly what is an archetype?  What are we really talking about here?

And the answer is complicated because these Tuesday posts are on what goes on inside a writer's mind before the light bulb, "I've got an idea for a story!" flashes on.

This series is about what writers need to know about archetypes in order to use them effectively, and in such a way as to connect with an audience.  And all of this is about the period before the Idea occurs to you.

So "what" an archetype is to you depends in some part on what you intend to do with it and for whom you are doing that.  An archetype is not intellectual property.  The applied and realized archetype - the Characters and their Story - is intellectual property which is owned.

An archetype is a pattern -- like a dress pattern cut out in tissue paper, or a "template" for a web page so that you add your own images and text to a pre-existing design.

In the case of the Archetypes that subsume our shared Reality, the owner of the Archetype is the Creator of the Universe.

We've discussed theme at great length (and will have to discuss it continuously).  The essence of story is conflict that progresses through plot events to a resolution.

What conflicts with what and to what ending -- how those elements relate to each other is where the theme resides.

Theme is a statement about reality, or an inescapable truth, a lesson to be learned because of the plot events that happen to the main character as a result of that main character's character traits.

Theme is the writer's understanding of the nature of life, the universe, and everything as it pertains to the reader's personal problems, joys, triumphs and failures.

What a human being is, and how we related to each other (or to Aliens from some other planet), is all a matter of opinion.  But where did that opinion come from and how do you explain how you arrived at it?

For example, Love Conquers All is our primary theme in the Romance genre.  But how do we know that, despite all the reality based evidence to the contrary?

Plotting a Romance novel is a process of explaining how some Character comes to understand that Love Conquers All, giving the reader a glimpse of that lesson.

Here are some previous posts on Theme.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/05/theme-element-giving-and-receiving.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/03/soul-mate-characters-heroic-villainous.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2011/10/believing-in-happily-ever-after-part-4.html

So Theme is a statement (or question) derived from the Artist's view of the universe, from the Vision of Reality the Artist sees that others may easily miss.

The Artist's job is to depict that vision in concrete form so that those who can't see it do come to understand it.

The problem is that this Artist's Vision of the Universe is non-verbal, but novels are written in words.

How do we translate gut feelings into words?  What property of Reality allows us to flip a non-verbal conceptualization around and make it come out into a string of 100,000 English words?

How can "words" depict an archetype?  What is an archetype - what is it made of and where does it come from?  A thematic premise is that such universal archetypes are created (and owned) by the Creator of the Universe.  (a theme would be: The Creator of the Universe is not God but Humanity.)

Is the concept of "archetype" something a philosopher just made up so academics could earn a living teaching about it?  Is it something that occurred to a philosopher at the dawn of mass production which uses molds and forms to make many copies of a thing?

Or is the concept "archetype" actually an inherent property of reality that humans just make use of? Maybe it is an "undocumented feature" of the hologram we live inside of?

Sometimes a writer just sits down and tells a story, typing away making words flow because they can see and hear the characters.

But sometimes "inspiration" does not happen and the writer then gives up, saying they have "writer's block."

Here is a post on writer's block:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/07/six-kinds-of-power-in-relationship.html

Or the writer buckles down like a professional and analyzes the Nature of Reality on its highest abstract level, finding where this novel violated an Archetype's inherent form and thus became a formless mess instead of a depiction of a reality.

For example: one of the major Conflicts in any Romance is "your place or mine?"

The argument may then develop into moving in together, then into "sharing" a bathroom, and your half of the closet vs my 3/4 of the closet (well girls have more clothes!)

We use the word "marriage" when describing a mixture of wines.  You can't take such a mixture apart again.  The different chemicals in the different wines may interact producing another chemical that was not in either one at the start.  How do you assign ownership then?

There are two main, underlying, very abstract, issues behind the process of creating a Marriage out of a Romance.  Without Marriage as the end-game, Romance fritters out and dissipates leading to the "epic breakup."  But "marriage" in this sense is not a piece of paper, but a state of being inextricably mixed.

Here are two posts involving Romance as the state of mind that signifies a melting away of ego-barriers, allowing people to blend into a unit.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/07/genre-root-of-all-passion-by-jacqueline.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2016/06/astrology-just-for-writers-part-14.html

Neptune, the planet most symbolizing blending or blurring.  It is the transiting planet that always seems to be involved in Romance.  When that transit is over (can last most of 18 months), there comes the Waking Up Next To A Stranger moment where the "honeymoon is over."  The "honeymoon" state of mind is the trailing edge of the Neptune transit where the Other's flaws and faults just don't count, don't irritate, don't matter because they strike softly with blurred edges.

Remember that in this model of the universe, transiting planets don't "cause" anything.  The solar system is just a giant clock with 9 or 10 "hands" pointing to different parts of the cycle of life.  It is just TIME.  What HAPPENS (plot) at any given TIME is the result of how the Artist in us crafts that moment.

The plot events of real life are not entirely and only Free Will Choice -- since everyone has free will, and most of us exercise that will, and everything that others do or don't do affects everyone to some degree, what you do spreads ripples of effects that intersect others' lives.  What they do about your ripples affects you (eventually).

We act. But we also interact.  And we deal with the consequences of other people's actions.

Think about driving a car -- your quick response, avoiding an accident, saving someone else's bacon and they whiz by without ever knowing how close they came to being wiped out.

You can think of the State Motor Vehicle driver manual as an archetype and the embellishments of the drivers as the manifestation of that archetype.  Each trip, each situation is unique.  The archetype behind it all, the Manual, is always the same.

Driving is a good example.  Every trip you make is your artistic creation, just as every novel you write is your artistic creation.

The car you are driving may be registered in your name -- or your spouse's name.  The errand you are doing may be driving car pool, having your neighbor's kids in the back seat.  The gas in the tank (or charge in the battery) may have been paid for jointly by your spouse and your neighbors, and you are contributing time.

Or the car and its fuel may be owned by your live-in S.O. but the errand (going to work) may be yours.  If you earn money at work, but get there driving a borrowed car, is the money you earn yours or your S.O.'s?

Maybe you pay the apartment rent, and the two of you share the car?  Who buys the groceries?

Money is always primary in conflicts in a Relationship (do your Characters date Dutch?).  Next comes belongings, the possessions each brings to the Relationship.

A kept woman, a Mistress, expects the guy to buy her clothes, at least the expensive ones to wear on fancy dates.  But if a guy buys his Mistress clothes and jewels, who actually owns those objects?

Or take a married couple.  The one who earns more, puts more toward the mortgage, two cars, pet grooming, take-out dinners, and covers medical expenses, surely has more "rights" than the one who barely makes enough to cover child care?  They may work the same number of hours, put equal effort into their work, but bring home very different pay checks.

If the paycheck disparity is too irksome, the third type of argument erupts, a conflict over who has the "right" and who has the "privilege" of space occupied.  The territorial arguments may seem to be over closet space, drawer space, or who gets to park inside the garage.

These conflicts are usually the result of some inequity or dissatisfaction with the deployment of joint resources (money, time, etc).  When people live together, over time they acquire or redefine space and physical objects until they have created "marriage" in fact if not in Vows.

So if you're writing a Romance about a Couple trying to move in with each other, or maybe going from living together to getting married (thus involving merging bank accounts, beneficiaries, liens, torts, liabilities and other legal entanglements), and your novel stalls out on you, you might set that novel aside and forget it, or you might examine where these conflicts come from, and why they are so intense, urgent, life-or-death matters for the Characters.

The writer doesn't have to reveal all to the reader.

Readers already know most of what they want to know about Life, The Universe, and Everything.  Novels are to entertain not to explain.

But also, Readers know a lot more about Life, The Universe, and Everything than they know that they know.

It is the writer's job to know these things consciously, and present them in the story entertainingly.

For most readers, thinking is not entertainment-- well Mystery Genre reading requires an amount of reasoning and remembering, a bit of psychology, but rarely delves into the Nature of Creation. Mystery, like Science Fiction, is more concrete, about the tangible realities of life, not the nebulous theories.

The last thing a reader wants to know about is archetypes.  The first thing a writer facing writer's block and a deadline wants to know about is archetypes.

The Reader shares all archetypes with the Writer.

Archetypes are the feature of reality that allows stories made from words about arguments and adventures of fictional characters to connect with a stranger's emotional reality.

Archetypes are the medium of exchange, the carrier wave, between writer and reader.  This is what we both understand, and what we agree on.

The Reader sees that this Character is "one of those" -- but so different from all other Characters and people in reality that the Reader barely recognizes the similarity.

As Jung said, Archetypes are part of the "collective unconsious" -- that dimension that binds us as one (and maybe binds us as One with all the other sentient species scattered around all the galaxies.

Diagram where each point of light is a Galaxy

Jung invented that collective unconscious concept, right?

Maybe he did, but it has existed for thousands of years - probably in more cultures than I've ever heard of.

The easiest place I know of to learn about the connection between the dimension of reality where the concept "collective unconscious" makes sense and our everyday dimension of reality is the Talmud -- the understanding of the Bible written down from the oral teachings of Moses.

Our Reality, physical reality as described by Pythagoras and Aristotle, and investigated by the addition of the rules of the scientific method propounded by Roger Bacon, is easily within the reach of the human mind.

OK, not everyone is smart enough or smart in the necessary way, to understand astrophysics or genetics -- or computer networking and Artificial Intelligence and self-driving cars.  But humanity as a whole produces people who can conquer these subjects.

Writers have perhaps a bit of this or a bit of that ability, plus an artist's ability to "see" what can not be revealed by physics, math, and chemistry.

The artist sees Reality plus another "dimension" -- it is there, we don't know what it is or why it is there or what it does, nor can we "prove" it is there, but it is there and it affects how things go in human life.  Everyone knows this, even those who don't want to know that they know.

In other words, human Will, decisions, even intentions matter.  Heroism matters.  The Lone Ranger's Code matters.

We talked about the Code of Honor here:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2017/01/theme-archetype-integration-part-3.html

A Code is a moral template.  The Lone Ranger would ride into a situation, perhaps summoned by a silver bullet message, and HELP.  When applied to a Situation, his Code prompted him to HELP, even at risk of life and limb.  So he helped.

The Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible, the story of the life of Moses, is a Code which, when applied to all the various situations of life, down through millennia, prompts certain actions (or inactions).  It is a template, an archetype, a Motor Vehicle driving manual, for how humans must behave in order to get the physical world to behave.  It reveals how the Universe was constructed, and shows how to operate within that Universe.

The Talmud is the collection of real world problems and their solutions as derived from the Oral teachings (how Moses explained what the words of the Torah meant).

One of the most curious features that leaps out at the casual student of the Talmud is how decisions of these ancient Rabbis blended the geometry of the physical world with the thoughts, words and intentions of humans to decide when or if a certain deed was appropriate.

Physical things, space, buildings, fields, roads -- the physical world as we find it and as we craft it -- have attributes that depend on ownership.

One of the key elements in decisions of all sorts is ownership.

Who owns an object (or piece of land; a dwelling), what they do with that object habitually, the right to rent the object or dwelling to another, the right to sell that object or dwelling, can make the difference between a permitted action and a non-permitted action.

Close study of these Rabbinic decisions, the argument driven method of arriving at these decisions, reveals a view of the universe that is fundamentally at odds with our modern secular world view.  At the same time, that ancient world view forms a context where Love Conquers All is a natural law, inescapable consequence of fundamental reality.

A human being's emotions, intentions, habits, contracts, ownership of physical objects, all have vast implications in right vs. wrong.

This is a description of physical reality that portrays human intention as making a difference in how Events proceed.  Love matters.

A physical object (or real estate) is connected to its owner -- the equation is rather difficult, but the connection is real and makes a difference between right and wrong.  This also holds for every business transaction.

Around the world, there are many other such code books of behavior based on other descriptions of Reality.  Study as many as you can.  Never pass up an opportunity to learn.

Here's the useful thing about Torah and Talmud for a writer facing writer's block and a deadline.

Reducing what you've written so far to a Question of right or wrong, can break that writer's block.

This is especially true in resolving the common disputes in Marriage (before or after the Ceremony).

A simple Question of what it means to "own" something, of what is the difference between a "thing" and a "person" and what confers authority, can suggest exactly where this novel must start and end.

Very often writer's block happens because the opening line is badly chosen, leading to a middle from a different book than the ending belongs in.

The three pivot points in a novel, Beginning, Middle, End, have to be a matched set.  The Beginning has to bring the elements that will conflict to generate the plot into contact.  The Middle has to describe the best or the worst consequence of that conflict.  And the End must resolve that Conflict.

Oddly, you see that pattern in most Talmudic arguments -- even arguments between Rabbis of widely separated generations. The arguments illustrate methods of conflict resolution that rely on very specific understanding of the Nature of Reality, of the way ownership imbues items with specific properties - some temporary and some permanent.

If you can pose the plot conflict of your stalled novel as a question of whether you may or may not rent or loan a thing, as a question of rights and how you acquire such rights, then you can reveal where the novel you are writing has to END.

If you know where you "are" in your story-arc, and you suddenly know how it must end, how your reader expects it to end (but fears it won't), then you can figure out what has to happen in between.

The trick here is that the reader knows, unconsciously, how the universe works.  And so do you. Therefore you know how this novel must end, and your Reader knows too.  Just to make sure, though, you should state the theme succinctly and directly at about the 3/4 point of the novel.  The theme will validate the Reader's cultural assumptions about how things work -- ending with Happily For Now, or Happily Ever After.

Our current culture is derivative of a blend of many older cultures -- just as Languages borrow words and concepts, create new words, evolve syntax, etc. and become new and different languages, so too cultures evolve.

The Torah and the Talmud as a pair (especially when combined with Kings, Prophets, Chronicles) form a Template for our modern culture.  These books reveal an Archetype from which modern Western cultures have been created.  Just as you create a specific Character from the Hero Archetype (or The Magician, The Mother, etc), so too our modern Culture is created from a cultural archetype.

Our cultural archetype is based on the Idea that reality as we know it was Created by Words - G-d said, and there was!  Theory is that all that is now is still being created by such Divine Utterances.  All is vibration.

Humans also speak.  What we choose to say, and how we say it, matters.

The Love Conquers All and Love At First Sight/Soulmates themes explicate the older culture described in the Talmud. Get a grip on how that older culture worked, and every novel you write using a Love Conquers All or Soulmates based theme will be easy to write, and will have internal consistency.

And there are a large number of other, older, sources that reveal these older cultural archetypes which, in today's world, are stewed together unrecognizably.

The more widely read you are, the better chance you have of smashing through any writer's block situation that confronts you.

To resolve the age-old marriage disputes of who owns what, reach back to those first principles about the nature of reality on the highest abstract level -- then work your way down to the particular situation your Characters face.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Theme-Archetype Integration Part 3 - Showing Character Without Telling

Clayton Moore - The Lone Ranger

Theme-Archetype Integration Part 3 - Showing Character Without Telling

Previous parts in this theme-Archetype Integration series

Part 1
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2016/12/theme-archetype-integration-part-1.html

Part 2
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2017/01/theme-archetype-integration-part-2-how.html

And now part 3 - about how to convince readers (especially editors) that your novel is about "strong characters." 

We've discussed the requirement for "strong characters" previously, in some detail.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/07/index-to-theme-character-integration.html

In summation, a fictional character is considered "strong" not because he has muscles or is stupid enough to run into danger instead of away from it -- but because he or she has the will to adhere to the "values" or a code of ethics. 

Juvenile fiction is about "building character" -- character is not a trait humans are born with (though Aliens might be).  It is an acquired trait -- but not one that can be 'taught' as in a course in school.

In trying to define "strong character" we have to consider "gender" and "gender roles."  There was a recent article titled WHY TV NEEDS 'WEAK FEMALE CHARACTERS' in

--------quote----------

Put another way, what distinguishes this run of TV tragicomedies isn’t their heroines’ unlikeability, but rather, their vulnerability, that is, the frankness with which they disclose feelings and experiences women have long been encouraged to suppress. It is no coincidence that so many of the programs mentioned make deliberate (and much-derided) use of nudity. Like the shots of unmade-up faces that fill Transparent’s third season premiere, the images of Hannah Horvarth sans culottes are a sign not of the shows’ prurience, but of their politics: their insistence on giving women the license, and space, to be exposed. In contrast to the “strong female characters” that have dominated popular culture in recent decades—and that, as Carina Chocano argued in The New York Times, are often distinguished by their lack of gendered behavior—these comparably “weak” characters undermine the conflation of complexity with an implicitly masculine code of values. Too often, to be “strong,” in Chocano’s phrase, is to be “tough, cold, terse, taciturn, and prone to not saying goodbye when they hang up the phone.” Instead, these shows take the bold step of assigning to their lead characters some of the most disparaged of “female” traits.

------end quote---------

Read the whole article at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/12/why-tv-needs-weak-female-characters/509192/

There are a lot of thoughts there about current tastes in female characters characterization, particularly the popularization of the female face with makeup smeared and dripping with tears.
Strength of Character comes through "growing pains" -- the school of hard knocks -- from failing and getting your comeuppance, from being excruciatingly embarrassed, from doing things you are ashamed of later (often much later) because you finally see why that deed was 'wrong.'

There was a 1968 TV Series IT TAKES A THIEF  (the fictional one, not the reality series)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Thief_(1968_TV_series)

And more recently, the TV Series White Collar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Collar_(TV_series)

Regency Romance has thousands of examples of honorable crooks -- outlaws who adhere to a strict Code of Honor.

The contents of that Code of Honor -- or the Honor Among Thieves -- is largely irrelevant to determining whether a Character is "strong" or not.

The strength of a character is measured by how much pain, suffering, loss, expense, and pure grief the character will suffer in order to avoid violating his/her OWN code of honor, sense of ethics, and values.

The Lone Ranger's Creed is a prime example we've discussed. 

https://myfavoritewesterns.com/category/the-lone-ranger-creed/

And here are blogs where we've examined this aspect of Character creation.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/11/marketing-fiction-in-changing-world.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/10/theme-plot-integration-part-13-superman.html

Does your main character have a Creed?  Ideals that he/she lives by? 

Now think again.  Once you thrust a "creed" or Ten Commandments up front at the reader, the expectation is that the plot will test the Character, usually to destruction.  The expectation is that this novel is about forcing this "strong" character to BREAK his Oath, his Creed, his Beliefs, to violate the core around which the Character is built.

And that is, indeed good plotting.  It is true in life that whenever we say, "I would never ..." some time later we find ourselves doing exactly that.

So if you create a Strong Character, then right up front tell rather than show that the character has a STRICT CREED by which he lives, you are telegraphing to the reader that this book is about destroying a Good Character to reveal that all "good" people are really rotten at the core.

That's a theme: "No human is really Good."  But if you state that on page 1, the expectation is that the novel is about that singular oddity - a Good Human who is really Good, who is actually a Strong Character.

Rotten core means the Character is not strong on the inside -- though might have a brittle facade.  Such a character is not a Hero.  Such a character might not be a Villain, but he is not hero material (until or unless the rotten core is revealed, cleaned out, and rebuilt).

Life comes in sections or epochs -- lives have a shape, child, teen, college age, marriage age, (re-marriage age!), parenting age, retiring age, old age.  Each stage of life has its own business, its own lessons to be internalized.  Some of those lessons build the core stronger, some erode the strength.

By creating your character's biography, not at random, not choosing "interesting" things that happened to the character, but rather by "filling in" (as with a coloring book, or sewing a dress), the details from an Archetype, you can show rather than tell what kind of person your character is.

Hero and Villain are archetypes.  The Lone Ranger is built from the Hero archetype, given only one other trait, (being last survivor, keeping that secret).  The "last survivor" trait is a show-don't-tell illustration of the basic Hero Archetype.

Captain Picard of the Starship Enterprise made that point a few times -- the Captain of a ship far from home port, the final decision maker, must maintain a social and emotional distance from the Crew while at the same time being open, approachable and friendly.

The Hero who has a partner, a sidekick, a bosom buddy, makes the best kind of lead character for a novel, especially a Romance novel.

The love interest might be the sidekick or use the sidekick as access to the Hero.

Think about the TV Series Zoro. (not the recent movies, the very old TV Series)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorro_(1957_TV_series)

Now consider how many remakes, rewrites, renewals, that series had.  Wouldn't you like your Science Fiction Romance series to get that kind of longevity?

Now think about Superman -- and eventually the TV Series Lois and Clark:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_&_Clark:_The_New_Adventures_of_Superman

The Lone Ranger never got a love interest (neither did the Cisco Kid (also of early TV fame)).  But we knew both of these Hero Characters by the Creed they lived by -- never articulated on air, but rather woven deep inside the plots. 

So, if you are going to write a "weak" character, you tell the reader right up front, what this character (pridefully) refuses to do, or definitively insists on doing.

If you are going to write a "strong" character, you show the reader right up front, how the character (unconsciously, and without actually intending or exerting any effort of will) simply adheres to his personal code of ethics, his/her values and creed.

How do you do that?  What do you choose to include in a first page of a novel to indicate what kind of a person this Character is?

We have discussed how the opening lines of a story or novel delineate the first meeting of the Lead Character (the one whose story you are telling) with the opposing force that will be overcome on the final page.

That is the Conflict -- Lead Character vs. Opposing Force

The Middle is where the Lead Character is defeated and vanquished by the Opposing Force.

The Ending is where the Lead Character vanquishes the Opposing Force.

The Hero wins by Strength of Character followed by Strength of mind/body/will. 

The Villain loses for lack of Strength of Character - no matter how much strength of mind/body/will the Villain may have.  Physical strength, cunning, wealth, power -- none of these can stand against Strength of Character.

So if Hero and Villain have the same strength of mind/body/will and the same Strength of Character -- then you have a conflict between their respective Creeds -- their values, ethics, morals. 

That sort of Plot Conflict using the content of Creed is a setup for the perfect Love Triangle novel.

The Main Viewpoint Character is the one who must choose a mate.  One man and two women -- or one woman and two men (or variants on this pattern). 

You might open where the two men of the triangle are interacting, and the woman sees this. 

The Hero says something most readers in your target readership would find neutral or innocuous, and the Villain retorts, "That is offensive!"  The verbal combat goes on, and the Villain uses some sort of Power (financial, social, perhaps the threat job loss or disgrace) to force the Hero to apologize. 

Within this exchange, you can code a large amount of worldbuilding detail, sketch the relationship among the three, and their life stories, current status and relationships, etc. But the scene focus is sharp on the issue of taking offense and counter-attacking the offender. 

It should seem to the reader that the objection to the offending utterance is rational, reasonable, and righteous.  Of course that statement was utterly offensive, so naturally any Good Man would take offense and obtain an apology -- either knowing or not-knowing the Woman is watching.

A modern twist of this Situation would be if a friend of the Woman in Question is recording a video of the exchange to send to the Woman in Question (as proof of the Character or lack thereof, illustrated by each man's behavior.)

For an Alien Romance, the Woman In Question might be the Alien sent to judge humanity, perhaps for entry into the Galactic Civilization -- or maybe for worthiness of being defended against some Galactic Invading armada bent on taking over this whole planet.

The plot problem in the opening conflict is very much the same as in a Detective Mystery, where a Colombo Character has to tell the guilty from the innocent. Which is the Good Guy and which is the Bad Guy?  Which will the Woman In Question choose to marry?  The one who offends?  Or the one who takes offense?  Strong Characters never take offense.  Though they may form a low opinion of the offending person, Strong Characters will not let their opinion show.  It is not in the Creed. 

Guilt is the feeling driving characters who know they have violated their own creed.

Innocence is the feeling of those who know they have not violated their own creed.

Offense is the feeling telegraphed by Characters who are convinced their own Creed is the only acceptable Creed, and all humans must be forced to obey that one Creed. 

The difference between a Hero and a Villain is in how and when they will use Force to make others behave.

In other words, the difference between hero and villain is inside the content of their Creed.

A Hero is never offended by what others say or do, because he/she is secure in the knowledge that they have followed their own Creed well enough.  A Hero can be put into a physically (or socially, or economically) humiliating position and still be cloaked in dignity. 

A Villain is easily offended by what others say and do because he/she needs the behavior of others to conform to his/her Creed in order to feel secure in the virtue of that Creed.

In other words, Villains evolve to villainous behavior because of the content of their Creed.  Not all humans with a Creed of dubious content will become Villains (in fact, few do).  But would Aliens trying to evaluate us know that?

As a Romance writer, you can take a valiant Hero adhering to a Virtuous Creed and break him, break the Character, make them violate their Creed. 

One famous series that does that, with an admirable expertise in human psychology, is Laurel K. Hamilton's Anita Blake Series (Vampire Romance -- gorgeous work, especially the intricate worldbuilding).

Anita Blake starts out with searing Pride in her Creed -- things she WILL NOT DO -- which, novel by novel, she actually does, hates herself for, gets used to, accepts, and rebuilds her character around new, situationally appropriate, Values.  But as her character grows and strengthens, it is no longer founded on her over-weaning pride.  She regards her younger self as innocent, naive.

The pride exhibited in Book I
https://www.amazon.com/Guilty-Pleasures-Anita-Vampire-Hunter/dp/051513449X/
telegraphs the character-arc to come -- the Creed she lives by may be good, but she will not be able to maintain her integrity.

And she does not.  And she suffers the consequences.  Really suffers.

When it all settles, she is not a Strong Character, but she is not a Villain either.  She's just "one of us" -- an ordinary person coping haphazardly and expediently with impossible situations.

Well, her impossible situations include Vampire politics, shape-shifters, accidental acquisition of power over others, deep involvement with professional hit man, ruining the life and career of a very nice, mild mannered High School teacher, and so on.

The series is the story of a Character whose Creed is honorable, but whose grip on that Creed is shattered.  She can't live by it, anymore and comes to regard the Creed itself as naive.

So what appeared to be the theme at the beginning of the series is revealed to be a red herring.  The actual theme of the series might be stated, "Humans can't adhere to a Righteous Creed."  But how could a human born with the Power to raise the dead adhere to a Righteous Creed?  Isn't that a naive idea? 

So this (very popular) series is an example of how all Weak Characters are not Villains.  Anita Blake is no Villain -- but she's no Hero, either.  She's a Survivor -- and that may be an Archetype, too, one related to the Lone Ranger.

In the Anita Blake series, we see a Character who articulates her Creed right up front, so you know she will break it.

In the Lone Ranger (old Radio or B&W TV version) we see a Character who lives a Creed without any real pride in that fact.  He has a Creed.  He lives that Creed.

The whole pursuit of the Cavendish Gang is not revenge, but simple justice and responsibility, simply Being Prepared, physically, mentally, and morally to fight when necessary for that which is right.  He never says that in so many words.  He just does it -- and very likely does not know he does it.  It is simply right.

Anita Blake knows her Creed and takes inordinate pride in forcing herself to behave according to her creed, head high,  -- in spite of yearning to do otherwise.

The Lone Ranger doesn't know his Creed, but does not yearn to do otherwise.

Anita Blake is not a Villain -- but she is the material out of which Villains are made.

The Lone Ranger is a Hero, pure and simple.

One is a Fantasy Character -- the other Reality. 

Which is which, and why?  Answer that and you will have a dynamite theme for an Alien Romance Series.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Theme-Archetype Integration Part 2 - How To Tell Hero From Villain

Theme-Archetype Integration
Part 2
How To Tell Hero From Villain

by

Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Part 1 of Theme-Archetype Integration: The Nature of Art can be found here.
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2016/12/theme-archetype-integration-part-1.html

There we discussed how human (and MAYBE non-human) psychological archetypes are a fixed attribute of the nature of reality, the pattern from which human personalities and life-courses are created.

The storyteller's "art" does not create archetypes (scholars discover them, as physicists discovered the Higgs Boson, rather than inventing it).

The storyteller's "art" is all about choosing what details go in which compartments of an Archetype to create a fictional "Character" that readers can understand and believe is real.

So, Literary scholars have identified the archetypes they call Hero (the Hero With a Thousand Faces is a worthwhile read).

https://www.amazon.com/Thousand-Faces-Collected-Joseph-Campbell/dp/1577315936/

And of course The Hero's Journey.

https://www.amazon.com/Heros-Journey-Joseph-Campbell-Collected/dp/1608681890/

These two non-fiction books detail old, tried-and-true, analyses of how humans, myth and fiction work.

But this blog is about writing Alien Romance, a blend of science fiction and romance genre that transcends both.

One of the keys to worldbuilding an environment to tell a science fiction tale is to question the very facts that everybody knows to be true.  The least questioned, hard facts of science, the proven beyond doubt facts, make the very best fodder for the science fiction novel's premise.

Science fiction has been described as the pursuit of one of the 3 following inquiries:

1. "What if ...?"

2. "If only ...."

3. "If this goes on...."

Any two combined raise the interest of the mature science fiction reader.

Use all 3 at once, and you get a novel that turns heads and gets talked about.

Note that all 3 apply just as well to a Romance plot.  Staring at a just met prospect, a lead Character might think, "What if he/she was interested in me?"  "If only I could attract his/her attention..."  or "If I agree to a second date, where will this lead?"

In science fiction, the subject is the tried-and-true Laws of Physics or Chemistry etc., and in Romance the subject is the Relationship with a particular person.

Science Fiction worldbuilding premises are about the structure of physical reality, and the Romance worldbuild premises are about the structure of human personality and what we refer to as "Character."  That's not the individual player in the story, but rather the elements that make up the Personality and Values inside such a player.

"Character" is remarkably hard to define.  I wrestled with it mightily when the term showed up on my elementary school report card.  I was well into my 40's before I began to get a grip on what attribute "Character" refers to.

It is a difficult, abstract and complex quality.  You can point to a cup of coffee and say, "That is a cup with coffee in it."  And you see it, and smell it, and you feel the heat, and you know what it is.

OK, so now go point to your own personal character.

Where is it in your body -- between your eyes, at your mouth or throat, at your heart, your gut?  Where do you carry your Character?

What does it mean to be a "Good judge of Character."  Could you write a story where the main character is a good judge of Character?  Could you detail what goes on inside the mind of someone who is accurately identifying a "strong character" or a "weak character?"

Do you think rereading Joseph Campbell's works would give you those lines of inner dialogue you could put in italics and attribute to your Hero?

How about a Villain who is a good judge of Character?

Is the ability to distinguish accurately what sort of person another person is a trait that only Villains have -- or only Heros?  Is it a common trait -- to be very accurate about summing up the driving force of another person just on first acquaintance.

Think about that in terms of Love At First Sight.

In order to have a Love At First Sight experience, to identify your destined mate and absolutely perfect other half at the blink of an eye, do you have to be a Good Judge Of Character in general?

The answer to those questions formulate the Theme of the novel you are worldbuilding.

The existence of the trait (in human and/or non-human nature) "Good Judge Of Character" is a bit of Worldbuilding pertaining to the structure of the Archetypes you are using in your worldbuilding.  Yes, you can "make up" fictional archetypes to create an alternate reality, but in that case you must reveal the distinguishing difference eventually, usually in plot events and conflict.

Without telling or even showing the reader in detail about the physics and biology of the world you are taking them into, you establish the fact among these people there exists a distinguishing trait that the reader might term Good Judge of Character.

Is this trait rare among these people?  Is it a trait that is admired or feared?  Is it the most common trait and thus of no value?  Creating Aliens who have an aristocracy that exhibits the trait Good Judge Of Character, or that have that trait as their most common trait, gives the writer a way to both draw the reader into the created world and to distinguish that world from all others.

The best example I know of using Judge of Character as a common trait distinguishing the Aliens is E. E. Smith's Lensman Series where the Arisians (non-material beings) judge human character and select certain people to be given a device called a Lens that bestows a range of psychic abilities on the human.  The judgement the aliens make is about whether absolute power will corrupt this human absolutely -- or not.  The humans with the ability to hand raw power without becoming corrupt are chosen as Lensmen (and yes, women).

Apparently there is no Kindle edition that isn't riddled with scanning errors or edited down to excerpts.  Here, from Wikipedia is a list of the original series:

Triplanetary (1948. Originally published in four parts, January–April 1934, in Amazing Stories)
First Lensman (1950, Fantasy Press)
Galactic Patrol (1950. Originally published in six parts, September 1937 – February 1938, in Astounding Stories)
Gray Lensman (1951. Originally published in four parts, October 1939 – January 1940, Astounding Stories)
Second Stage Lensmen (1953. Originally published in four parts, November 1941 – February 1942, Astounding Stories)
Children of the Lens (1954. Originally published in four parts, November 1947 – February 1948, Astounding Stories)

Many book editions also were published.  The plot outline (with spoilers) is on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lensman_series

But you don't get the impact of the Character Archetype via the summary.  My favorite of the novels is Gray Lensman, where that Character trait is starkly detailed.

There are many other ways to get the Lensman Series, so look around.

Everyone who has blogged about the Lensman Series has a different opinion about what it is about.  I could write a book about the worldbuilding behind this landmark work of science fiction romance (yes, Helen of Troy Move Over! should be the title.)  This is a Romance.  The Hero is monumentally crush-worthy.  And yes, it was the most scorned work of science fiction at the time of publication, as well as the one work most responsible for the advent of the Science Fiction Romance (yes, in 1941!!!).

As with Tolkien, the stories are suitable for young children but the vocabulary and syntax is adult level.  In fact, you might have to use the Kindle "look up" feature to identify the meaning of some of the words.

Being Space Opera, the Villains are likewise drawn in stark, high relief, with utterly villainous traits.  The villain is Boskone, the shadowy adversary of Arisia, two civilizations at war for millennia, using genetic manipulation of humans on Earth to war with each other.

The writer, Edward E. Smith, Ph.D., (a chemist by trade) leaves us no doubt which are the good guys and which are the bad guys.  But it is worth your while to study these novels with that question in mind.

Modern Space Opera (Star Trek and Star Wars in particular) presents a more adult, more equivocal portrait of the Good vs. Evil issue.  In Star Wars especially, we learn the inter-marriage issues between the monster Bad Guy and the rebellious young Good Guys.

We know what Theme is, where it resides in a novel, and how to integrate theme with Character and with Worldbuilding.  Here are the index posts listing those discussions:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-to-use-theme-in-writing-romance.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/07/index-to-theme-character-integration.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/04/index-to-theme-worldbuilding.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2015/12/index-to-theme-plot-character.html

You might have a Theme that says, "There is no such thing as a Villain."  Or conversely, "There is no such thing as a Hero."

If your Theme is that there is no distinction between Hero and Villain, then your plot events must challenge that thesis -- you must create a society where the norm is a lack of distinction between Good and Evil, or Strong and Weak, or whatever traits you choose to distinguish Hero from Villain, and then create that One Oddball Misfit Character in that world who is a Hero (or Villain) and wrestle his/her internal conflict (I'm not like everyone else but I have to be), and his/her external conflict (Everybody hates me and I hate them), to a Climax (Escape From Planet Of The Apes.)

If, on the other hand, your Theme is that Heros/Villains Are Born Not Made, you might fabricate a World where how you are born does not matter -- or conversely how you are born might get you Legally Executed in your teens if you turn out "wrong."

Theme might be: It is Wrong To Make Yourself Conform -- or conversely Making Yourself Conform Is The Highest Virtue.

These themes easily integrate with the master conflict of Person vs. Society.

In our everyday world, we tend to label the people who want to tear down and destroy "society" as the Villains, the criminals.  The Hero, or good guys, are those who protect society from the savage destruction.

Do we have a label, a word, for those who Build a Society?  Are Builders hero or villain or something else?

Many great Romances have depicted the perfect match between a "nice" conforming girl and a "bad" or non-conformist boy.  Falling in love with a drug dealing Biker Dude seems very natural to some women readers, not implausible at all.  Bad Boys are attractive in a dangerous way.

The plot may go in the direction of the good girl reforming the bad boy.  Or the bad boy drawing the good girl into the fun of confronting danger.  Or the plot might explore how society's assessment of the bad boy as 'bad' (e.g. Villain) is incorrect, and he is really a Society Builder, a Great Reformer, labeled "bad" by the corrupt power structure he is intent on tearing down.

All of these Characters are shaped (and often labeled) by their environment, so Worldbuiilding is one of the most critical writing skills.

Theme is the connection between Worldbuilding and Characterization.  How the writer depicts the impact of the "world" (society, civilization, prevalent values, upbringing, social status of parents, etc) on the Individual Character reveals a core theme of the work.

That core theme might be, "Strong Characters Are Not Affected By Environment" or it might be "No Amount Of Strength of Character Can Withstand Environment" (or put another way the apple does not fall far from the tree).

As noted in Part 1 of this series, the writer's Art is in choosing what elements go with which other elements to flesh out an Archetype.

I used the example of buying a dress pattern (choosing an Archetype), selecting material, then going to the notions counter and choosing thread, buttons and other decorative bits to give the dress unique individuality and beauty.

So the thematic contribution to the distinction between Hero and Villain is the simple statement of whether, in your build World, there actually exists a Hero Archetype (Heroes are born not made) and a Villain Archetype (Villains are born not made) or if all humans (or all aliens) are simply victims of our environment -- or possibly some more complex mixture.

This is the old Nature vs. Nurture argument about human Character.

Theme makes a statement about that Nature vs. Nurture issue - yes, no, or maybe sometimes.

But worldbuilding requires the writer to determine how Character Archetypes work in the invented world.  The closer to observed reality the writer chooses to work, the easier it is for readers to immerse in the invented world and walk in the Character's moccasins.

So to tell the Hero from the Villain, first you decide if these are two different archetypes (and if so, what that difference is) -- or not.

In your World, is there such a thing as a Villain with a Strong Character?  Or a Hero with a Weak Character?  Is the distinguishing characteristic of Hero and Villain innate (archetype) or acquired (arbitrarily chosen by the writer).

How do you inform your reader which character is which?

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Theme-Archetype Integration Part 1: The Nature of Art

Theme-Archetype Integration
Part 1
The Nature of Art
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg

On Facebook Messenger, I was discussing how to create fiction that can sell to a commercial market and at the same time just write what you want to write, what you feel you need to say, what is deeply personal and matters to you -- what you personally want readers to feel in their guts, way below the verbal level.

That gut-response is what makes fictions memorable, and thus talked about and recommended. 

I get that response to many things I've written, particularly Sime~Gen.

https://www.amazon.com/Sime-Gen-13-Book-Series/dp/B016QAFPMK/

Sime~Gen #14 is in the works, with more planned.

Most recently, I was reminded on Facebook how moving my first non-fiction book, STAR TREK LIVES!, has been to people still connected to me via social networking. 

Robert Eggleton posted a picture of the cover of STAR TREK LIVES! and said nice things about it, whereupon a number of people chimed in with their memories.  I only noticed the post when Robert J. Sawyer "tagged" me on his comment, and I got drawn into a long discussion where I answered underneath people's comments.  If you know how Facebook "works" -- it spawns lots of conversations under a broad topic where lots of people exchange views.  Choose the right friends, and it can be very cordial.

On previous series of posts on this blog, I've explained the intricate relationship between STAR TREK LIVES! -- non-fiction about a TV Series -- and Sime~Gen a future-history of humanity set (so far) mostly on Earth of the far future.

The private discussion on Facebook Messenger with this other writer was within the context of the lasting impact my work has had, still echoing down the generations of writers and readers. 

I had pointed her to
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/05/index-to-theme-plot-integration.html

and to
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/11/index-post-to-art-and-craft-of-story.html

... which she had read through once, and came back to say she was left puzzled by my use of the term "archetypes" (she is a well educated professional writer, so it was my usage not her ignorance).

And it is true, I do use the word to refer to a bit of fiction-structure which is related to fiction the way math is related to theoretical physics. 

 That archetype structure behind the fictional worlds is what gives those fictional worlds their verisimilitude.

We've discussed verisimilitude in several posts.  Here are a few:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2016/10/alien-sexuality-part-3-corporate-greed_25.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2016/06/depiction-part-14-depicting-cultural.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-every-novel-needs-love-story-part-2.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-every-novel-needs-love-story-part-1.html

Creating verisimilitude is a key writing craft skill -- craft not art.  Craft can be learned by anyone who can write a literate sentence.  Art may be born into you, or absorbed from those who raise you, or a combination, but you can't just "learn" it with the intellectual part of your mind.  And you can't learn Art with the part of your mind that can be trained in a Craft (such as driving a car can't be mastered by reading a book about it.)

I make vocabulary distinctions to refer to components of what it takes to launch into a commercial fiction writing career. 

Art is like Math.  In Math you "let X equal" -- or just arbitrarily assign meanings to blank variables.  That trick is the power behind applying a mathematical discovery to a real world problem, such as the Grand Adversary of all students, The Word Problem. 

A Math formula is the math equivalent of fiction's archetype. 

If you are accustomed to solving problems using carefully selected math formulae, then you know on a nonverbal level what an archetype is.

Yes, it is non-verbal.  The language handling section of your brain can not acquire or manipulate the underlying concept "archetype" with the kind of facility necessary to create the artistic dimension of fiction.

LOVE CONQUERS ALL leading to the HAPPILY EVER AFTER is the result of applying an archetype to a problem, of "letting X equal and Y equal" then applying rules to manipulate the equation until you get a solution.

The problem you are applying the archetype to is the problem of "What Is The Meaning Of Life?"  Or maybe, "What Is Life?"

Which archetype you select to apply to that WHAT IS LIFE? problem is dictated by the theme for your fictional story.  Or maybe the other way around on some occasions, the resulting THEME your novel explicates (after you cut, trim, rewrite, clarify) will have to be an exemplification of the archetype you accidentally applied.

When you are doing "Art" - those "accidents" are in fact your subconscious screaming at you, "SAY THIS!" 

We don't always know what we know until we tell ourselves. 

So how do we know what we know in order to say it in a novel?

We view the world and then we depict what we see.

Art is a selective depiction of Reality.

Art is not reality itself.  Art is a few bits and pieces of Reality, rearranged to say something that may be useful to those who hear it. 

Fiction is a conversation about Reality in the language of Art, between fiction writers with readers eavesdropping.  Art is a "language" just as mathematics is a language.  Physicists talk to each other in Math.  Fiction Writers talk to each other in Art.

Physicists talk about the structure of Reality, and Writers talk about the structure of Life.

Both professions are Artistic professions, creative professions, exploring "where no one has gone before." 

Good physicists ask good questions no physicist has asked before.  Good writers as questions no writer -- or in the case of science fiction romance, no living being -- has asked before.

Having asked a New Question, the artist then suggests an Answer.

Not THE Answer, mind you, but An Answer.  Another writer will try to disprove that Answer, postulating a different Answer, and the argument will take shape as readers try out every variation they can imagine.  News stories and academic studies will flow, "progress" will be made, and the conversational argument will continue.

That exploration of the non-existent, unreal world of imagination is endlessly fascinating because if a human can imagine it, some other human can make it real.

That is how Art fuels human progress, and why it is so important to "support The Arts" -- Art inspires.

Commercial Art may inspire but that is not its purpose.  Commercial Art exists to make a profit, and Commercial Artists do this work to make a living while dreaming of making a killing! 

Art is a necessary component of human life -- it existed as Cave Paintings and campfire stories long before people lived in permanent structures with sewers and chimneys.

Art has proven to be a necessary component of Civilization because it inspires creativity and convinces young people to dream and make it real.  Through Art we know we can succeed.

So, as I have discussed in many previous posts, the Artistic component of novel writing, as opposed to the Craft Mechanics component, comes from the writer's ability to look at the tangled mess of "white noise" that is the Reality we live in, and sort out a signal, see a pattern in the randomness of reality. 

That signal may actually be there -- or maybe not, maybe it is just the writer's imagination.  Psychological Studies have determined that humans will always see patterns where there actually are none -- such studies are cited as proof that God does not exist, but is just a figment of our imaginations.

We see patterns in the Stars and give constellations names.  Various cultures have seen different patterns and named them differently, attributing different powers to the same sky patterns.

There is something that we just know:  Reality consists of patterns.

We don't believe this.  We know it. 

Science, on the other hand, seems to have proven that we see patterns where there are none.  Most of reality is random.  Entropy (disorder) always increases.

Then there is the Observer Effect, in physics, where the act of observing changes the observed.  This happens because to observe, one must bounce something off the object being observed and detect it.  When the bounce-impact happens, the observed object thereupon changes, and the bounce-back particle does not carry all the information about what the object will become. 

In other words, as of the early 20th Century, theoretical physics (mostly just math at that time, but now being checked out by the Hadron Collider) postulated a connectivity among all physical objects.

Oddly, this notion mirrored the bedrock principles of the most Ancient mysticism we have record of -- ancient magical traditions, religions even more ancient, -- humanity has always "known" that somehow what we think and feel affects concrete reality. 

Physics is all about discovering the equations that describe how physical objects affect one another (gravity and so on).

Art is all about discovering the archetypes that describe how human lives affect one another (Romance and so on).

The psychological "archetypes" that Carl Jung made so famous
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GYGPZ22/
describe not only how individual humans function, but also how we are all "connected" through the collective subconscious. 

Structuring human psychology this way brings human psychology into the same kind of structure that physics was postulating (during those same decades of the early 20th century).  In short it is "wheels inside of wheels" -- symmetry. 

And if you study Kabbalah, you will find that the Tree of Life structure that delineates (with mathematical precision) the connection between human consciousness and the physical world around us also uses that "wheels inside of wheels" structure.

The 10 Sepheroth or areas of definition, each contain all the 10, each of which contains all the ten -- the infinite regression effect symbolized by the Quaker Oats box with the picture of the Quaker Oats guy holding a box of Quaker Oats with the Quaker Oats guy holding a box of ..... infinitely.

Note how the image here shows each of the Sepheroth as Trees in and of themselves.  Now visualize how each of the Sepheroth on each of the little Trees contains another Tree.  In Math, these are called Cross Terms. 


One excellent way to understand how this bit of physics (reflection, infinite iteration) applies to human emotion at the interface between the spiritual and the physical (Love vs Sex) is to study this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Guide-Counting-Omer-Forty-Nine/dp/B008NAF37Y/

This 49 day drill, done annually, educates and trains that non-verbal part of the mind that knows without believing.  (...knows such things as Love Conquers All -- a corollary of Joy Breaks All Barriers -- and other principles that are hugely unpopular these days.)

The human emotions are the lower 7 of the 10 Sephiroth, and each of the 7 manifest in human beings as combinations with each of the other 7X7=49. 

Each one of these focused exercises will yield at least one, of not dozens, of Romance Novel Plots, all with Beginning, Middle, End laid out clearly.

Underlying this particular book's explanation of this 7X7 structure of the human psyche is the pure Archetype that generates our human personality.  Once fully grasped, these principles will reveal why sayings such as, "There's no accounting for taste!" are not true. 

Archetypes belong to the realm of non-verbalizable knowledge.  It is not belief, but actual knowledge accessed by a different cognitive function that does not encode data in words or even in math.

An archetype is a pattern.  If you set out to make a new dress, you go to the notions store and select a pattern.  That pattern envelope contains several variations (long sleeve, short sleeve), and the one you select will give you a range of sizes. 

Behind all the variations and sizes is an "archetype" of "dress" -- ball gown, job interview dress, cocktail dress, etc.

Now you go select material and matching thread and buttons, zippers, sequins, whatever. Every possible combination will produce vastly different results.

But underlying all those different dresses is still The Archetype for that style dress that generated the folded tissue inside the envelope.

With writing a novel, you do the same thing.  You go to your store of Views of The Universe -- (life's a Ball, life's a party, life's a dinner date, life's all work, life's deep sea fishing expedition) -- and you pick out one of your Views.

Then you go to your notions counter and pick out details of how this Life you are going to depict is going.

Just as sewing that dress is an exercise in craft, so too is writing the novel depicting the meaning of life as experienced by this particular Character.

Your reader will recognize the verisimilitude of the life you are depicting because your reader, too, knows the archetype behind your original creation.

As Jung pointed out, we are all connected by something -- and he called that something the Collective Unconscious.  Maybe there is no such thing, but there is something we all have in common, we all recognize, no matter how hidden by details.

Art is in the selection of details juxtaposed to convey a theme - a message about the nature of life.

But the commercial novel writer does not get to invent new patterns, freehand.  If enough readers can recognize the underlying archetype, the pattern you selected, the novel will sell well.  If that pattern is not recognizable, the first people to buy it will not recommend it to others.

Scholarly, creative writers don't get to invent archetypes either -- but they may discover them.  Archetypes are as structurally fundamental to the structure of reality as are the laws of gravity.  We can't invent gravity - but our understanding of its relationship to space and time has changed markedly over the last few decades.

 Jean Lorrah, my sometime collaborator and a Professor of English, has noted that the novels we write belong to a hitherto unrecognized category, a particular Plot Archetype which I call Intimate Adventure (Action Adventure with the Action replaced by Intimacy which may or may not be sexual).

In real life, all the archetypes overlap and interact -- every human born on this planet has a unique composite of archetypes (Natal Chart) plus all the modifications (epigenetics) they gather through life.  It's a mish-mosh. 

In fiction, the Characters have 3 prominent traits, only one of which is dominant.  Characters are like musical chords, formulated just so. Not every chord goes with every other chord -- in a novel, the writer has to stick to the "Key" as the music writer has to stick to a Key.  The plot events of a novel are the "Time" or rhythm, -- is it a waltz or a fox trot or a tango? 

As I have explained in previous threads, Writing Is A Performing Art, a wisdom taught to me by Alma Hill.

Commercial Fiction Writers perform the story, just as a pianist might perform a Chopin piece for an audience.

No two performers do it the same way, and no two performances by a given pianist come out exactly the same.  A performance is a hand-made, one of a kind, artistic creation.

It is just like giving a speech someone else wrote, or making a dress from a pattern bought at a store.  Individual components are carefully chosen to go together into an artistic whole, with each component enhancing the meaning of all the others.  A huge set of individually mastered skills are brought together into a performance to present a tiny glimpse of infinite wisdom.

The choosing of components, the bringing of the components together to make the underlying Archetype visible, yet manifesting in a unique way, is the writer's Art.  The craft lies in the practice and mastery that makes the performance seamless, effortless, uplifting, memorable.

One sour note, one off-beat plot event, can reduce the sublime to the intolerable.

The Art is in the non-verbal message that is conveyed by the style, voice, and the beauty of the performance. 

Some commercial writers have to know what they're doing to do it well.  Some can't do it at all if they know what they're doing.  Others are hybrids of these extremes.

How you accomplish the performance is idiosyncratic.  What story you perform for which audience is idiosyncratic.  Writing teaches you as much about yourself as it does about the world and your audience.

The art lies in how you fit what you have to say within the recognizable archetype you share with your audience. 

Artists see something in the chaos of reality that the audience doesn't see, then use the tools of shared archetypes to reveal the purpose and meaning of life.

There is no art form that does this better than the Science Fiction Romance.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com