Oldies But Goodies {Put This One on Your TBR List} Book Review: Jurassic Park and The Lost World by Michael Crichton by Karen S. Wiesner

 

Oldies But Goodies

{Put This One on Your TBR List}

Book Review: Jurassic Park and The Lost World by Michael Crichton

by Karen S. Wiesner

   

Be aware that there may be spoilers in this review. 

Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs! Seriously, with both dragons and dinosaurs, I'm interested instantly in anything, everything. From the time I was a little kid, dinosaurs fascinated me. I devoured whatever I could get my hands on when it came to them. I was like the kid Timmy in the movie. Every bit I got made me want more, more, more! Even as an adult, I'm drawn to them. Michael Crichton's two books on the subject, Jurassic Park and The Lost World, are some of the best fiction available on this topic. Note that the posthumously written novel Dragon Teeth, though it deals with dinosaur fossils and paleontology, isn't set in the same world as the two I'm focusing on in this review (but is nevertheless worthy of being read on its own considerable merits). 

Jurassic Park was published in 1990 with the sequel, The Lost World (as you'd expect, an homage to Arthur Conan Doyle's 1912 novel that had the same name), coming in 1995. The follow-up title included familiar faces from the original as well as all new characters. In 1993, a blockbuster film adaption directed by Steven Spielberg was released to critical and commercial acclaim (at the time, it became the highest grossing film ever). It spawned numerous sequels, all fantastic in various degrees, though there were some cringing burps that could have been avoided altogether if the books had been followed closer. Eventually, in the first three movies, the basic, most intriguing scenarios that took place in the books are covered, so I was appeased. My husband cringes whenever a new installment comes out in the movie series, saying sarcastically, "Hmm, what are the odds that the dinosaurs get loose and try to kill everyone?" Okay, okay, we know what's going to happen from one movie to the next, but dinosaurs. Dinosaurs!!! And, in each film adaptation, they get bigger and badder. I implore you, what's not to love?

At its heart, these two stories are cautionary tales about unregulated genetic engineering. In Jurassic Park, a zoological park (or, maybe more aptly, a biological preserve) is designed showcasing genetically recreated dinosaurs via amber preservation and DNA extraction in an authentic environment. The owner is a billionaire named John Hammond, who founded the bioengineering firm InGen. Investors become wary when strange animal attacks are reported in Costa Rica, where the theme park was built on an island called Isla Nublar. To silence them, Hammond decides to give a tour of the park to several people he hopes will endorse it in advance of it opening. The guest list includes a famous paleontologist Alan Grant; his graduate student Ellie Sattler; a mathematician and chaos theorist Ian Malcolm; the lawyer Gennaro that represents the investors; along with Hammond's own grandchildren Tim, a dinosaur enthusiast, and his little sister Lex. In a fine bit of foreshadowing, while trekking through the park, Grant finds a velociraptor eggshell. This is the proof that pessimistic Malcolm's assertion of dinosaurs breeding in the park is true despite the geneticists' fervent denial. 

A series of unfortunate events with a bad storm, a bad and traitorous employee, and all-around bad planning collide in rapid succession. The guests and staff are separated, the park safeties and redundancies for keeping the dinosaurs safely behind fences are disabled, and there seems to be no way off the island. 

This author in particular nearly always creates a larger-than-life scenario and populates it with living, breathing people that you find fascinating in every way, that you cab trust their expertise because Crichton builds believability and utter veracity in right from the start of each book, and you care desperately about these well-developed characters. You want them to survive. You want them to kick the mean dinosaurs in their armored fannies and send 'em back where they belong. Even Crichton's villains are fully fleshed out and understandable, which doesn't mean you're not also rooting for them to fall into the nearest big ol' pile of dino doo-doo. 

Following the events in Jurassic Park, we're brought back into the world created there. Though most readers believed Ian Malcolm had been killed in the first book (and he was--you're not crazy), the movie Jurassic Park became such a hit, Crichton was asked to write a sequel (notably, something he'd never done up to that point, and never did again), and that meant resurrecting one of the most beloved characters from the original story. According to Crichton, "Malcolm came back because I needed him. I could do without theothers, but not him because he is the 'ironic commentator' on the action." How he made the transition from sure death to life anew was with little more than a Mark Twain-ian sentence to the effect of, "The rumors of my death were greatly exaggerated." Even if some might call "Foul" about this, I loved Malcolm, and I was thrilled with his return. For one thing, he's hilariously sarcastic and so quotable in the process, frequently in an thrown-over-his-shoulder sort of way as he's already moving on to the next issue. Indulge me as I post a few gems from the mouth of Ian Malcolm taken from both the books and movies: 

"If Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."

"It's fine if you wanna put your name on something but stop putting it on other people's headstones."

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

"Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun."

"Oh, what's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores."

"Let's be clear: The planet is not in jeopardy. We are in jeopardy. We haven't go the power to destroy the planet--or to save it. But we might have the power to save ourselves."

"Change is like death. You don't know what it looks like until you're standing at the gates."

In any case, to get back to the review of the sequel book, four years have passed, Malcolm is alive, and strange animal corpses are washing up on the shores of Costa Rica. Malcolm and wealthy paleontologist, Richard Levine, discover there was actually a Site B for Jurassic Park on nearby Island Sorna. This was the production factory while the theme park on Island Nublar became the sterilized, seemingly harmless front face. When Levine goes missing, Malcolm had no choice but to go after him. With a brilliant team, he launches a rescue to find Levine and explore this "lost world" filled with dinosaurs who have escaped the lab facilities they were being held in and are now creating their own environment. In the process, two young kids who assisted Levine at the university stow away in a pair of specially-equipped RV trailers and end up having to join the expedition--becoming value resources that assist in the team's survival. 

The group discovers that others are on the island: 1) Geneticist Lewis Dodgson (introduced in the first book as the employee of InGen's rival company who sabotaged the theme park and led to its disaster there) and a biologist side-kick to steal dinosaur eggs the company they work for intends to use to start their own theme park, and 2) Dr. Sarah Harding, an ethologist and close friend of Malcolm. Note that this character in the book was nowhere near as annoying as Julianna Moore was in the film version (frankly, she ruined the movie for me with her utter stupidity in every situation, including that foolishly pegged-on, "King Kong" fiasco at the end of an otherwise pretty good movie). In the book, Harding was actually inspiring and a role model for the girl stowaway Kelly (who was a student of Levine's, not Malcolm's daughter, as she was portrayed in the movie). 

Both of these books have literally (pun intended) everything you could ever want in great fiction--amazing characters placed in unforgettable settings, forced to act in situations that challenge them internally and externally. I've read both books countless times over the years since I first discovered them. If you've never read them or haven't read them in a while, I highly recommend you do so at your earliest convenience. You won't regret it. 

Next week, I'll review another Oldie But Goodie (or two) you might find worth another read, too. 

Karen Wiesner is an award-winning, multi-genre author of over 150 titles and 16 series.

Visit her website here: https://karenwiesner.weebly.com/

and https://karenwiesner.weebly.com/karens-quill-blog

Find out more about her books and see her art here: http://www.facebook.com/KarenWiesnerAuthor

Visit her publisher here: https://www.writers-exchange.com/Karen-Wiesner/

 

Targeting a Readership Part 9: Creating a Market by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Below is Targeting a Readership Part 9, BUT FIRST!!!!!

-------------ANNOUNCEMENT----------
It's official. The Sime~Gen RPG has been announced and you can SIGN UP for a Newsletter, and watch all the fun and excitement as the word spreads about the upcoming KICKSTARTER.

This announcement is from Loreful about AMBROV X:


Kickstarter on Sept. 3, 2013. We are launching AmbrovX.com as well as all of our social media channels. From today until the Sept 3rd, we will be slowly growing our social media presence and awareness of Ambrov X, our Kickstarter and our presence at the Cincy Comicon on Sept. 6-8. To do that we need your help!

If you would be so kind as to follow, like and/or share our channels we would be eternally grateful to you.

Our Social Media Channels are as follows:

Website:

http://www.ambrovx.com

Twitter:https://twitter.com/ambrovX
https://twitter.com/loreful

Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/ambrovx

You are more than welcome to add me as a friend on Facebook as well!
https://www.facebook.com/aharonc

YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeZnSio9rddvRKscisKL03A

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/company/loreful
(Also, if you haven't, feel free to connect with me via LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/aharon-cagle/3/8b/39a )

And Finally, our Ambrov X Newsletter SignUp: http://ambrovx.us7.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=3d9d8789cea68597a937e84d6&id=5921b27e81

-------------END ANNOUNCEMENT-------------------
==============
Targeting a Readership Part 9: Creating a Market by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

The previous 8 parts of this Targeting a Readership Series can be found here:

Targeting Readership Part 1 is:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/09/targeting-readership-part-one.html

Part 2 is inside this post:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/10/astrology-just-for-writers-pt-6.html

Part 3 is inside and woven into the following post in my Astrology Just For Writers series which by mistake has the same number as the previous part but is really Part 7:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/11/astrology-just-for-writers-part-6.html

Targeting a Readership Part 4 is:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/06/targeting-readership-part-4.html

Targeting a Readership Part 5 is:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/07/targeting-readership-part-5-where-is.html

Targeting a Readership Part 6 is:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/04/targeting-readership-part-6.html

Targeting a Readership Part 7 is:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/04/targeting-readership-part-7-guest-post.html  A guest post by Valerie Valdes on use of setting

Targeting a Readership Part 8 is:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/06/targeting-readership-part-8-anne-pinzow.html  A guest post by Anne Phyllis Pinzow, a journalist who has created a readership for a newspaper after its readership evaporated.

Note at the end of her guest post, Anne sums up the difference between 1955 and 2013 in terms of the themes exemplified in film:

Fifty's movie glorifies honor.

2013 TV series glorifies, well, Machiavelli and the uselessness of honor.

This and other value-shifts have been noted by many people -- some with approval and some with disapproval.  Which attitudes are good and which are bad is not what WRITERS must figure out.  We must be able to portray all sides of any issue, speak from the mouth of any character espousing any attitude and do it convincingly. 

As Gene Roddenberry taught me, fiction is about asking questions not answering them.  Frame it, pose it, exemplify it in the CHARACTER, SETTING, THEME,  CONFLICT AND PLOT, keep it out of the words and in the visual symbolism, then tell the story.

That's what Robert Heinlein taught other SF writers, just TELL A WHOPPING GOOD STORY because you're competing for beer money.  Or maybe today, white wine -- whatever Romance readers want to drink.  A paperback costs about what a drink in a bar might cost - a little less some places. 

Today you are also competing for your reader's time because the proliferation of media forces people to decide which media to consume in their shrinking spare-time-moments.

Knowing what you're competing against (other media, other relaxing pass-times, not other writers), allows you a chance to build an audience, a market that will prefer your product over others.

So here is Part 9 developing these notions into the study of creating an audience to target -- from scratch. 

So on the SimeGen Group on Facebook, Donna Michele Fernstrom posted this link to an article about the dropping price of self-published e-books:

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2013/self-published-ebooks-are-nos-1-and-2-best-sellers-average-price-drops-to-all-time-low/

I commented on the Group:

Jacqueline Lichtenberg: There is always the factor of "supply and demand" reflected in "price." And there is the principle that the lower the price, the higher the demand. But there are a lot of other variables in any market situation. Each story is a "unique" product.

And Donna answered:

Donna Michele Fernstrom: Absolutely true. Also true is that we haven't figured out what the threshold is for something to 'go viral' and become so wildly popular.

Which raised a whole lot of thoughts about the "go viral" phenomenon.

Perhaps we haven't found the threshold because there isn't one?

Perhaps it's not a certain number of people reposting something that causes the notion to "go viral" -- perhaps going viral is more about WHO the item reaches, not about how many of them there are?

I also remember, from several years ago, an item by a social media expert marketer who pointed out you don't have to amass a gigantic following to leverage your social media followers into a living-wage.  You really (as a self-publisher) only need to reach 1,000 people who become hooked on your stuff and will buy anything you write/publish. 

I think there's some serious truth in that.  You don't need the whole world at your doorstep to make a living from writing.  But publishing is hard, which is why it's expensive and publishers pay writers a pittance compared to the prices they charge, because the rest is overhead and their salaries.

Publishing involves content-editing, copy-editing, creation of the product, distribution of the product, advertising of the product -- it's a full time job for a lot of people to transport a story from a writer's computer to a reader's eyes.

So a product, to be viable in the marketplace has to reach more than 1,000 people who will grab it.

Creating product is one thing; creating the business to transport that product is quite another.

So with the massive shift in publishing due to the explosion of electronic media, I've been watching for success stories among the abundance of failures I've been seeing.

Anne Pinzow has had some success finding stories the newspaper readers want to read (non-fiction, mind you!).  It took years for the readers of the newspaper to discover that suddenly THIS paper contains the exact information they want to know, that no other paper even mentioned.  But the paper, as a business, isn't quite making the dollars it must to survive even as its fame increases.  It's exploring options to go online.

I know another local paper printed newspaper that I read is promising not to stop printing on paper, but is building their online presence as fast as they can right after that paper got sold to new owners.  I don't think the print edition will survive. 

And I worked for a print publication that went down over the same print/costs issues. 

I'm sure you all saw this in the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-miles/koch-brothers-la-times_b_3180391.html

That's about the Koch Brothers bidding for failing newspapers, such as the LA Times.

When wielders of such massive fortunes as the Koch Brothers command make a move, you have to ask yourself what do they know that we don't know?

PAPER IS DEAD, right?  I mean iPad and Kindle have become the subscription media for reading magazines and newspapers.  Online (especially mobile) advertising just isn't paying the way yet, but people are starting to pay to get past the online pay-wall and get deeper articles. 

There's a market for "news" and "commentary/analysis" -- and that requires a staff of hundreds to tromp over to the scene of an event and poke around, collecting the information you would collect if you were at the event.  This saves you the time and travel - you can't be everywhere, but reporters can be.

So the process of gathering, editing, and distributing NEWS is still a viable part of a business model.  There's a market for well digested, well presented, succinct and accurate information.

The way to make a profit on finding, digesting, and delivering that information is still changing -- businessmen are searching for the method that will leverage the electronic age into serious profit.

The Koch Brothers -- famous or maybe infamous for their Right Wing stance -- are looking at buying out the remnants of famous old newspapers as a framework for rebuilding their readerships just as Anne Pinzow found a method of writing news articles that readers of a printed paper wanted to read (and talk about -- her articles get coverage on local radio).

The only newspapers really left standing specialize in local news.  National and international are on TV, Radio, and online.

That's the very lucrative non-fiction market impacted by the electronic revolution. 

But what about fiction?  What about Romance? 

Romance novels represent a niche market, a specific and very exactly defined market.  We, here, add in all kinds of other spice -- Paranormal, Interstellar wars, aliens, and any and every manner of Fantasy creature, but it's still all about Romance.  Romance is what we DO -- if there's a human around anywhere, love is what drives the plot, any plot and every plot. 

What we want in our fiction is a specific, defined and specialized as the Koch Brothers "Right Wing" niche activities. 

The Koch Brothers item on their interest in buying the LA Times newspaper (did you know that decades ago the LA Times was right wing?) "went viral" when it hit the blogosphere and was carried by the various news services (which still exist but don't function as well as they once did).

Follow the Koch Brothers story as a lesson in "going viral."

The Koch Brothers story even turned up on The Blaze, the TV network created (from absolute scratch) by Glenn Beck.

I've discussed Glenn Beck at far more length than he deserves in previous posts here,

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/10/glenn-beck-didnt-invent-overton-window.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/10/worldbuilding-with-fire-and-ice-part-i.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/11/worldbuilding-with-fire-and-ice-part-ii.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/11/worldbuilding-with-fire-and-ice-part.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-to-change-perception-of-romance.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/08/finding-good-paranormal-romance.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/08/worldbuilding-with-fire-and-ice-part-7.html

...but we must revisit his progress now in order to get a grasp on the possibilities for Romance to create its market in online streaming video, talk, author interviews, old movies, NEW MOVIES, and series. 

A lot of what is labeled "Romance" is actually erotica or smut that's had the Romance part stripped out.  Purified of the Romance parts, raw sexuality has a major market appeal, and makes lots of money.  But the overall subject of my blog entries here is elevating the respect for the Romance genre, for the Romance story, and the Romance novel -- fiction with a core driving force toward a Happily Ever After ending. 

As a writer, to let your characters plausibly achieve "happily ever after" or the HEA, you have to do a lot of clinically distant, unemotional, analysis of what "happiness" is, where it comes from, why some people have it and others don't, and how to change those who don't into those who do.

Fiction is all about CONFLICT, you know, and the resolution of a conflict requires the main character to CHANGE.  In a Romance the change is from a person who does not have happiness into a person who does have happiness, and not only that but into a person who has crossed a one-way threshold into a realm of living where the happiness quotient will never subside below a certain level.  That requires an internal change in the character, a spiritual enlightenment, a serious personality reset.  "Life" is always the same; your view of it can change. 

Yes, after The End, the level of happiness a character feels does go down, and life gets to be "life" again -- but the "ever after" part puts a floor under the down.

Maybe the floor is at the level of simple contentment, or maybe it's a bit above mere contentment, but from that floor the person's happiness quotient goes UP again, then down a little, and UP again, down a little, then UP again etc in an up-trend -- something special and very significant changes inside that Main Character in a Romance that achieves a new level of HAPPINESS that is permanent and ever-after increases from there.   

That's what a Romance is all about. 

I seriously doubt you'll easily find a single outlet in streaming or cable that specializes in that kind of story. 

The level of rejection among the general population of the HEA as realistic is so high that this HEA kind of fiction is regarded as wish-fulfillment-fantasy and thus childishly self-indulgent fare of a loser. 

That is exactly the way science fiction fans were regarded before Star Trek. 

Glenn Beck has created, in The Blaze online newspaper and his streaming subscription network, ( http://theblaze.com ) a vehicle for a "message" that is as horrendously scorned as "starships" were before Star Trek, and Romance with an HEA ending is now scorned.

His message has nothing (at all) to do with our message, but his business success has everything to do with our goals because he has started from the same place we are in right now -- a large, lucrative, steady, hungry market with no real vehicle serving that market.  And he's built something that is -- almost -- showing signs of actual success. 

Glenn has done what we want to do but with non-fiction. 

My point here is that when it comes to Targeting a Readership, to finding or creating or gathering an audience, a market, when it comes to the business end of story-telling, there's no difference between fiction and non-fiction. 

Actually, watch a little Glenn Beck and that distinction between fiction and non-fiction blurs completely! 

He got his start in show business as a clown, did talk radio (and still does), and basically spins a narrative web out of current events and into a fictional reality all his own.

But many are absorbed by his reality.  I think that's because, several times an hour, he actually says something that's true, but that nobody else is saying, often something you wouldn't likely know because you don't have the army of researchers he has.  What makes his audience stick with him is that scattering of obscure facts that fill their hunger for information.  I suspect few of his audience use that information to derive the scenarios Beck specializes in.  But facts are hard to come by these days, so I suspect a lot of his viewers and readers are doing their own thinking with his facts -- thinking he probably couldn't replicate. 

He has some very smart people working for him, and that shows in the research behind what he presents.  His people dig up real, solid information, stuff you want to know even if you never suspected it was going on.  What he does with that solid information is --- well, that's another matter.

The important point to learn from studying The Blaze is the business model.

As a businessman, Beck is superb, insightful, fast moving, and in full command of the basic process of building a business.  He's had successes and failures, and he's learned from all of them, even though as he emphasizes, he has very little formal education.  In fact, his lack of formal education is part of the reason for his success.  With The Blaze, he's done something NEW and it seems to be proving to be profitable. 

The specific audience you and I are after is very different from Beck's primary audience, but the business model that seems to be working for him could work for Romance. 

Search on Google for
romance channel online 

...and you'll find a number of attempts to do something with "Romance" that are similar to what Beck has done and is doing.  There's a lot of research someone planning to launch such a project with Alien Romance would have to do.  But there's room for a replica of The Blaze focused on the Romance Genre instead of religion and politics. 

I suspect Romance Readers/Viewers out-number Beck's audience.  So take a look at what's going on with him in 2013.

After the resounding loss of the 2012 election, Beck moped in public for a while, then "doubled down." 

He had a business plan that spanned 5 years, a plan to build his newspaper (The Blaze) and his streaming subscription TV online thing called GBTV and his publishing business Mercury Arts which also owns his radio show, into a single operation.  He was adding TV streaming shows one at a time and producing a few "specials" covering topics in depth, building methodically.  With the loss of the election, he decided to execute that 5 year plan in 2 years to build a platform before the 2014 elections.

He's worried about the direction of the country on a person-by-person level, about the values preferred by the general public today.  Anne Pinzow pointed out one clear observation about this in Targeting a Readership Part 8, as I quoted above, and you really should read what she wrote about how she came by this observation:
---------
Fifty's movie glorifies honor.

2013 TV series glorifies, well, Machiavelli and the uselessness of honor.
------------

Substitute the word "Romance" for the word "Honor" and you have a perfect description of our problem.  Now juxtapose that with an analysis of Beck's approach to exactly the same problem -- the general public does not share our sense of the plausibility (in real life) of the HEA.

Beck cites a peck or two of various Values he feels have been "lost."  But he's found a large enough audience ( over 300,000 paying subscribers which is more than that 1,000 cited by the social media marketing expert) to support a delivery channel for that exact set of values.

Early in 2013, Beck started a campaign to rename his fledgling network from GBTV.com to theblaze.com -- combining the video delivery and newspaper style delivery.  And he launched a bid to get his streaming-only TV channel (which had several shows, but not 24 hours of programming) onto cable systems.  The audience response was tremendous, and several small cable systems came onboard immediately, then I lost count. 

How many cable systems carry The Blaze now?  The thing is, I don't know.  It changes constantly. 

In April 2013, Beck announced a Pennsylvania cable system acquired The Blaze TV channel, after I think it was 5 small local cable systems had signed on.  In May a big cable system, Optimum, acquired The Blaze for it's upper tier subscribers in the North East.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/01/theblaze-extends-its-reach-announces-tv-deal-with-tri-state-cable-provider/

------quote from Optimum----------
“TheBlaze is the rare independent network that has a built in passionate audience, and therefore adds value to Optimum TV’s channel line-up,” TheBlaze President of Business Development Lynne Costantini said in a statement. “TheBlaze serves a growing conservative and libertarian audience, and we are pleased to work with Cablevision on bringing our network to Optimum TV customers.”

TheBlaze TV will be available in May to Optimum’s residential customers with the Optimum Preferred, Silver and Gold Packages.
---------end quote----------

"Optimum" is by Cablevision. 

------------quote-------
Cablevision Systems Corporation is one of the nation’s leading media and telecommunications companies. In addition to delivering its Optimum-branded cable, Internet, and voice offerings throughout the New York area, the company owns and operates cable systems serving homes in four Western states. Cablevision’s local media properties include News 12 Networks, MSG Varsity and Newsday Media Group. Cablevision also owns and operates Clearview Cinemas. Additional information about Cablevision is available on the Web at www.cablevision.com.
----------end quote-------

Here's another announcement Beck's newsletter carried the same day:
----------quote----------

TheBlaze TV adds another major cable provider  

Today is a big day not only for TheBlaze TV but for you. It was YOU who let your voice be heard when you demanded (and continue to demand) TheBlaze TV be carried by your TV provider. Cablevision, one of the largest providers in the country and one of the most influential, has now announced it will carry TheBlaze.
--------end quote---------

"...that has a built in passionate audience..."  does that sound familiar?

At about the same time Optimum Cablevision announced The Blaze, The Blaze announced acquiring a programming addition to their children's program.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/02/glenn-beck-announces-theblaze-tv-partnership-with-mega-hollywood-filmmaker/

------quote------
Glenn Beck on Thursday announced a new partnership for TheBlaze TV with major Hollywood producer Gerald Molen, whose credits include “Jurassic Park,” “Schindler’s List” and last year’s “2016: Obama’s America.”

TheBlaze TV’s children’s education program “Liberty Treehouse” will start showcasing student work from “Sneak on the Lot,” an experiential curriculum for aspiring young filmmakers developed by Molen and partners Darrin Fletcher and Chet Thomas.
---------end quote-------

Previously, in April came this announcement:

http://www.gettheblaze.com/updates/2013/3/28/theblaze-launches-247-network-on-blue-ridge-communications-a.html
------quote--------
New York – March 28, 2013 – TheBlaze announced today that it has entered into a carriage agreement with Blue Ridge Communications, the nation’s 21st largest cable operator. TheBlaze will launch on Blue Ridge Communications in April.

After a tremendous start on DISH Network, the TheBlaze has also entered into agreements with BEK Communications, Sweetwater Cable Television and Atwood Cable.
-------end quote---------

Beck's vision includes a hard-news gathering network spread internationally but as far as I know that hasn't launched yet.  The news items on The Blaze website are becoming better written and more diverse with skyrocketing hit-rates. 

In April 2013 I think April 30, Beck's publishing arm released a non-fiction book about the gun control issue, and as of May 2 that book was #1 Amazon paper best seller, and had been in the top 100 for 18 days (pre-publication counts, I suppose).

http://www.amazon.com/Control-Exposing-Truth-About-Guns/dp/1476739870/

--------blurb quote--------
When our founding fathers secured the Constitutional “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” they also added the admonition that this right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

It is the only time this phrase appears in the Bill of Rights. So why aren’t more people listening?

History has proven that guns are essential to self-defense and liberty—but tragedy is a powerful force and has led many to believe that guns are the enemy, that the Second Amendment is outdated, and that more restrictions or outright bans on firearms will somehow solve everything.

They are wrong.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. In doing so, he takes on and debunks the common myths and outright lies that are often used to vilify guns and demean their owners:

The Second Amendment is ABOUT MUSKETS . . . GUN CONTROL WORKS in other countries . . . 40 percent of all guns are sold without BACKGROUND CHECKS . . . More GUNS MEAN more MURDER . . . Mass shootings are becoming more common . . . These awful MASSACRES ARE UNIQUE TO AMERICA . . . No CIVILIAN needs a “weapon of war” like the AR-15 . . . ARMED GUARDS in schools do nothing, just look at Columbine . . . Stop FEARMONGERING, no one is talking about TAKING YOUR GUNS AWAY.

Backed by hundreds of sources, this handbook gives everyone who cares about the Second Amendment the indisputable facts they need to reclaim the debate, defeat the fear, and take back their natural rights.
--------end quote----------

Reread that and substitute "HEA" for "gun."    

You all know how Romance often hinges on the twin issues of Control and Safety.  Have you been watching the 2013 TV episodes of Beauty and the Beast? The whole romance between the genetically altered guy (yeah, a hunk) and the Beauty of a police detective is based on "I want to keep you safe."  Safety is the sexiest issue out there! 

The constitution does guarantee the right to the pursuit of happiness (not the catching of it, just the pursuit, not the HEA), so there's an equivalence between the Gun Control issue and the HEA issue that's eerie.  Our topic is just as unpopular as Beck's topic -- and the comparison of Romance and Gun Control is even more appropriate if you consider the sex/violence paradigm. 

Beck has amassed major marketing power with a subject-niche market that's smaller than ours.  Color us embarrassed?  What could we do with the tools he's using?

Keep in mind that Oprah Winfrey was likewise a popular talk-show host who went off and created her own network, OWN I think it was called, and starting it on Cable, she didn't succeed.  Beck started streaming online subscriber-only, and is now inching onto Cable with a proven product way ahead of his own schedule, and his network is adding shows.  His children's show adding young student producers education is important because he's decided the problem with America lies in how kids are being educated. 

We have to follow in these business-model footsteps and infect the hearts and minds of our estranged audience with Love, and perhaps Beck is right that the place to start is with children's programming.

by Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Theme-Plot Integration Part 6: The Fallacy of Safety

The previous 5 parts of this Series of posts are:

LINKS TO PREVIOUS PARTS:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/12/theme-plot-integration-part-1-never-let.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/12/theme-plot-integration-part-2-fallacy.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/12/theme-plot-integration-part-3-fallacy.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/01/theme-plot-integration-part-4-fallacies.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/01/theme-plot-integration-part-5-great.html

Part 7 of this series of posts will appear on March 26, 2013

The essence of story is CONFLICT -- and conflict is the power-plant of the plot.

As I've defined it in previous posts about novel and film structure, story is the sequence of emotional states and lessons learned from those states experienced within the viewpoint character(s), while plot is the 'because line' or sequence of external events each occurring "because" one of the previous events occurred.

Story is about how you feel, and plot is about what you do because you feel that way.

Not every writer, or writing teacher uses those definitions -- but every commercial story writer I know has firm grasp of these two components of story, and how they interact, regardless of what labels they use to designate them. 

As I've been pointing out in this series on Theme-Plot integration, commonly held fallacies are a wondrous source of steaming hot romance stories and science fiction, fantasy, and magic based plots. 

One such plot generator of a commonly held, or wished for, fallacy is the fallacy that "safety" is real, is achievable, and even desirable.  Some would say necessary for life, especially if you're planning to raise children. 

Safety is the goal of every Main Character caught in a Horror Novel plot. 

In Horror, you stumble upon some monstrous Evil, it hits you, you hit back, struggle free, flee for your life, double-back to rescue someone, perhaps someone who's rescued you, someone you owe a favor, some total stranger you then fall in love with -- a SOMEONE who rouses emotions counter to stark-terror  -- then flee with that someone who perhaps then rescues you, and finally reach some kind of weapon to use against the Evil, turn and confront the Evil, and -- because it's Horror genre and this is the rule -- YOU MUST IMPRISON THE EVIL.  You can't destroy Evil, but you can be SAFE FOR NOW by putting it behind a barrier, a wall.  Think of a 3 year old hiding behind his mother's leg. 

The goal of Horror Genre is the payoff of FEELING SAFE (after long, drawn out, stark terror).  The more stark the terror, the more potent the feeling of safety -- people indulge in Horror Genre to achieve that RELIEF of SAFETY-AT-LAST.

The iconic film to consider here is Jurassic Park -- a love story, chase scene, horror imagery mixture worth studying.  The horror is caused by the usual "power in the hands of Evil" -- or uncontrolled or uncontrollable -- people.  And in this case, the classic bugaboo is "science." 



To understand the connection between Horror genre, Science Fiction and Fantasy, consider how Science as we know it today is a branch of Natural Philosophy, which was an attempt to make a systematic study of the how's and why's of Magic. 

Yes, it all starts with Magic - with Herb Lore, and other attempts by humans to get a handle on the Environment and all the threats to life and limb that abound in our world.  Since the first Cave Painting, humans have apparently been using our well developed brains to leverage intelligence into a method of "getting safe." 

With agriculture, medicine, well built construction, and the mastery of fire (and all subsequent forms of power sources up to electricity), we have been building a wall between ourselves and the ravages of Nature, extending our life spans and making those lives more gentle. 

Horror is an extremely popular genre because life isn't safe.  And the same can be said of Romance -- we search for (and most often do find) a Soul Mate, a PERSON who complements our skills and increases our ability to make a safe-spot in the whirling storm of ever present threats.

So while we've been applying every clever trick we can think of to gain safety from our environment (fire, famine, flood, draught, desert heat, arctic cold, disease, and hard work that breaks down the body) we've also been using that same powerful brain to figure out ways to gain safety from EACH OTHER. 

Yes, all the monstrous threats Nature throws at us pale in comparison to what we throw at each other.  We have warred with stones, clubs, axes and atom bombs, and now we war with chemicals and even diseases.  Every bit of Nature we control, we turn into a weapon against other humans who think, believe or feel differently (or who just own better crop lands or electric power sources).

The basic bond of the Soul Mate grows into the extended bonding of family, and multi-generational family structures which become tribes, villages, towns, cities, whole civilizations. 

Writing courses teach that there are three basic CONFLICTS: Man vs Man, Man vs Nature, Man vs Himself.

But I've never seen a writing course teach that all humanity, and every story ever told, has only one goal: SAFETY. 

Safety is certainly the goal of every Romance.  Safety is another way to say "Happily Ever After."  It's a point or situation in which there are no further threats that you can not overcome.  Everything from there on is easy.  You are SAFE.

Why do we seek safety?  And what is safety?  What ploys, dodges, plots and schemes have we invented along the way to convince ourselves we're safe?

What do we define as "safety?"  Where does that definition come from?

These questions are all philosophical in nature -- such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  Philosophy, as I've often noted in these posts, is the source-material for Theme.

Pick a philosophical stance, state it clearly in one sentence, find an object that symbolizes it, and you have the essence of what you want to SAY with your story.

Every story, novel, poem, song, film, says something.  It is you the writer talking to your audience, and (as in a speech) taking a thesis, explaining it, demonstrating that it's true, then restating the thesis, transmitting an IDEA about life, about the environment, and maybe about the Soul.

You, the writer, as you say what you want to say, must hold the attention of your audience if they're to sit still long enough for you to get to your point.  Your point is your theme - an abstract (boring) philosophical notion. 

So you dress up that boring thought in concrete clothing - in a costume, period, in a practical object (like a lamp or a soup bowl) and you decorate your object to make it beautiful.

The object you decorate is a segment of a life, of a character's life, a segment that is recognizable to your audience and well defined in their minds already. 

Examples: Going Away To College.  Getting That First Job.  Getting That First Divorce.  Finding Mr. Right At Last.  The Death of Your Last Remaining Parent.  Inheriting The Haunted Mansion.  Having Your Child Move Back Home Bringing a Grandchild.  Marrying Off Your Grandchild. 

These are familiar life milestones even to those who haven't lived them yet.  Everyone knows people who have "gone through" a "period" like that. 

You, the writer, take a period like that, a recognizable swatch of "life" and decorate it with particulars, a character, situation, setting -- and theme!  You make a boring, utilitarian object BEAUTIFUL by making it unique.

Which brings us back to the concept of how Safety is a Fallacy a writer can exploit while at the same time delivering that emotional satisfaction of having achieved safety at the end of the novel.

The aftermath or denouement of a novel (to be classed as a Happy Ending or Upbeat Ending) has to deliver the emotional experience of SAFETY - the threat is over, gone, vanquished.  The characters can relax now, and so can the reader. 

You and I know it's an illusion, but the reader can experience it as real.

How do you create that illusion and "sell" it as real?

Let's consider where in life we experience safety.

We say, "There's safety in numbers." 

Families form groups, and tribes - towns etc.  Why?  Because we feel SAFER when surrounded by others.

However, the most formidable threat to human life on this planet is other humans.

So we band together to defend ourselves and our possessions from other humans.

Look again at the essence of the Horror film -- usually involving isolating a person (or two people) from "the others."  In diving, we always go with a buddy.  In spelunking, we always go with at least one -- more usually several -- others.  The object of the Horror Plot is a) isolate b) run from then neutralize a threat and c) REJOIN THE GROUP (or civilization, or your Combat Unit - whatever you got separated from you get to rejoin).

Why do humans feel not-safe in isolation? 

Well, note that biologically we are born "premature" compared to other animals.  Most other animals can stand or walk immediately to nurse, and are more functional in other ways.  Humans are premature because of the physiology of the over-sized head and the birth canal, so much fetal development happens in the first 6 months to a year after birth. 

So very early, there must be one other to care for us, hands-on.  To get good brain development, human babies must be handled a lot.  Later of course we rebel and take off on our own -- what mother hasn't chased their 2 year old across a parking lot? 

We are taught what to fear -- and other people usually top that list.

Familiar people are safe.  Strangers -- not safe, maybe useful, but not safe.

So in your mind, run through the stages of human development and correlate all you know against everything you've learned about how to create, handle, and resolve a PLOT CONFLICT. 

So, again, we're looking for wide-accepted fallacies to challenge in order to create a theme, a statement that leads to Happily Ever After, or at least safety.

The fallacy I'd like you to consider here is Safety Is Real. 

Does that fallacy come from our infantile experience of safety in the hands of our caregiver (mother, surrogate, father, elder sibling acting as parent - whatever hands got us through infancy)? 

Anyone who's raised a child knows that the parent's objective is to get the child to feel safe (to stop screaming and give me a moment's peace), to return to that safe place, ("Come here, Johnny!" Mom yells across the parking lot.) and not talk to strangers (but later to be socialized enough to fall in love and form a new family; what a contradiction.)  Anyone who's been a child knows that the child's objective is to take insane risks while utterly oblivious to the magnitude of the risk.

Human Parenting consists of implanting a "false sense of security" in every child. 

Since we deal with Alien Romance on this blog, I should point out that I said HUMAN PARENTING -- being very specific there.

So safety is an illusion we learn as infants to regard as real, and we crave it periodically throughout life.

Feelings of safety can be evoked by CONNECTING with another human, especially after a long period of facing dangers, risks, and horrors all alone.

The film series Home Alone comes to mind.  That is worth studying for the theme of safety and where it comes in our hierarchy of values.



Of course, we're not writing YA here, however, these are iconic classics about the process of learning what safety is (and is not.)

There are any number of pop psychology books on "leaving your comfort zone."   All of those are great resources for Thematic material you can craft around the concept of the Fallacy of Safety.

So, since we're looking to write for adults -- about adult issues -- we should look at the adult version of the experiences of the infant and the pre-adolescent. 

I have a theory (thematic material, indeed) that all International Affairs, and all theories of government, all governmental forms and the clashes between them, recapitulate the experiences of infancy and pre-adolescence (sometimes adolescence too).  I look at governmental bodies (Congress, Parliament, etc) and their antics as eerily similar to Elementary School play yard activities.

One of the things kids do, especially adolescents, is form cliques.  Countries form Alliances. 

One thing adolescents do is dress alike.  Some generations have prided themselves on each person violating some or all of the conventions of dress imposed by their parents -- in rebellion.  The net result is a school full of kids all dressed identically -- ever noticed that?  Mismatched colors, floppy baggy shapes or tight-skimpy patches that pass for clothes - it doesn't matter.  Teens adopt an identity.

In some neighborhoods, gangs abound - and what do they do?  They adopt a UNIFORM -- something everyone wears to mark them apart from others.  Often it's a scarf of a particular color or pattern, or a type of shirt.  In defense, schools adopt a School Uniform.  This just reinforces the underlying PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT: "Safety In Numbers."

So we grow up, get a job as a Congressman and join a caucus -- or a coalition -- a GROUP OF GROUPS who all think or act in the same way.

In a previous post in this series, PART 4, Fallacies and Endorphins, I mentioned  Edward Bernays.  Refresh your memory on the idea that the father of Public Relations (i.e. publicity, advertising, spin doctoring) viewed humanity as having a natural herd instinct.

Themes derived from that idea can range from No Man Is An Island to Each Man Is An Island -- from we're all the same, to we're each unique.

All advertising is based on this assumption: humans can be herded.  You just have to hammer the individuals into uniform units (i.e. dress them all alike in school uniforms), and they'll stick together.  You know the Chinese adage that the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.  That's how a governmental system based on herding humans for SAFETY has to treat individuals --- they must be made into uniform copies of each other and taught to stick together.

We all learn in school to be inconspicuous in class when we don't know the answer.

We all learn the value of "fitting in" and we do feel safer in groups.

We don't walk the dark streets at night alone, and it isn't just for safety from muggers.  We go in groups because each human is UNIQUE.

We each have a set of talents, abilities, and acquired skills that are distinctive from those of everyone else -- and no one person, alone, has ALL the skills and talents needed for a high probability of survival -- not safety or certainty, just a good chance.

So we are attracted to our opposites (Soul Mates are rarely identical, and "interests in common" don't usually insure a life-long marriage).  We look for those who don't have our skills -- but have other skills, so that among our friends and relatives (our Church Group or whatever group) we have access to all the necessary skills, talents and abilities.

That diversity of skills arises from a diversity of philosophical positions on any issue, and yet we get along best with people who agree with us about a few basic ideas.  As we change our ideas about things, we change the groups we associate with.

Political coalitions are often formed from groups that are mortal enemies -- who don't argue their differences until a resolution is reached and someone (or everyone) changes their mind. 

We discussed arguing fallacies to a plot-resolution in Part 3 of this series of posts.

Why do we form coalitions?  One good set of answers (good being those that generate plots you can write) arises from the human search for power over other humans, as discussed in Part 4, Fallacies and Endorphins.  Again I refer you to the book, You Can't Lie To Me by Janine Driver and the theory that politicians who exercise power over others (particularly with a lie) feel an addictive rush of endorphins from exercising power over other humans.

Why do humans experience pleasure in exercising power over other humans?

Would that be the case if humans really had a herd instinct as Bernays says?

As I described here above, note that the history and pre-history of all humanity has been the fight against the ravages of Nature -- but that battle pales against the backdrop of the fight of humanity against humanity (war.)

Exercising power over other humans makes humans feel SAFE -- that's what that endorphin rush does!  And it's a fallacy.  A drug induced delusion.

We wouldn't need that delusion to feel safe if we had a natural herd instinct.  Just being with, beside, or among other humans would make us feel safe.  It doesn't.

It takes particular, specific, unique humans around us to produce that feeling of "family."  That is because each of us is a puzzle piece, maybe with a fairly standard shape but a unique color or pattern -- or perhaps with a standard color and a unique jigsaw shape -- we only fit HERE, not THERE. 

Each of us has an exact place in the world, and when in that place we feel safe.  Outside that place, not so much. 

We feel powerful when we are in our place -- threatened when not.

Coalitions (political within a government, or among nations) don't bestow that "in your place" safety - not a safety in numbers, but a safety that comes from being among those whose skills and talents complement your own.  Coalitions are based on the fallacy that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and so always fall apart as soon as the external threat has been handled or neutralized (or just abated a little.) 

The members of a coalition are themselves natural enemies that can't co-exist -- that's usually the nature of a coalition. 

A family isn't a coalition so much as it is a "small business" (an economic engine).  The power of that engine is Love -- not the hate that powers Coalitions.

Each of these statements I've strewn throughout this series is itself the source of hundreds of possible themes strong enough to support a novel.  And each suggests a plot.

The plots based on the nature of a "coalition" (the "agree to disagree" formula) is obvious.  The cooperating entities dispense with the external threat, then (to the surprise, shock or horror of the others) turn on each other in a war of dominance that can turn to a war of extinction.

The plots based on "each human is unique and fits into one exact place in the world" are not quite so obvious because you don't see that many of them, especially not outside the Romance novel field.  These plots are the "find your Soul Mate" plots, "Love At First Sight" plots, and "The Stranger Who Goes Home Makes Home Strange" plots -- all the "Home For The Holidays" plots fit in that category.

We live in an era when internecine warfare is considered the natural state of the family -- almost all the TV series currently running assume some sort of embarrassment, strife, or even hatred of Parents -- going "home" is indigestion-incarnate.  Estrangement is almost synonymous with Family.

So the philosophical statement, "Humans can not be herded because each human is unique and has an exact place in the world," seems to the audience like a fallacy.  That makes it a very powerful source of Theme for a Science Fiction Romance.  The cognitive dissonance inherent in the theme is maximized by the "real" life of the reader.

A plot that addresses that theme might be formed from a Main Character buying an expensive item (a TV set, iPad, Green Energy House) that was ADVERTISED (Bernays; herding humans) enticingly, being disappointed with the performance of the product, fighting the company for a refund or redress of injuries, maybe taking it to Legal Aid services, (meeting a Soul Mate of a Lawyer - imagine that!) and powering it through all the way to the Supreme Court -- years and years and many children later, ending up as the Spouse of a Supreme Court Justice (you never hear about them in the news, do you?)  Becoming a Supreme Court Justice means you're "safe" -- because nobody can fire you and you make enough to support your family well.

Of course, then there's always the sequel where the Supreme Court Justice resigns and runs for President. 

Live Long and Prosper,
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com