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

The Flintstones Vs. The Lone Ranger

I've discussed the massive shift in the Romance Relationship Icon in this post about the novel TOUCHED BY AN ALIEN, contrasted with the film FACE OFF and the TV show Scarecrow and Mrs. King:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/04/turning-action-into-romance.html

Now we get down to creating the next new universal icon of this era we're in now.

Screenwriting courses discuss methods for creating "catch phrases" (like, "Make My Day" and "You and what army?" or "Oh, boy!")

Creating icons likewise is half random inspiration (subconscious digestion of myriads of details) and half perspiration.

Part of the trick is just having the right Natal Chart relative to the natal chart positions of the broader audience you're targeting, as I've discussed in my series on Astrology Just For Writers (which doesn't require you to learn much astrology):

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/11/astrology-just-for-writers-part-6.html

And this one where I list the Pluto positions by "generation."

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/10/astrology-just-for-writers-pt-6.html

Practice is how you get to Carnegie Hall (a joke punch-line that's become a catch phrase and then a cliche!)

So to create a new icon that will speak to your target audience in subconscious symbolism as the cover of TOUCHED BY AN ALIEN contrasted with the poster from the film FACE OFF shows, you must practice. You must do your "scales" like any musician.

Writing is a performing art, as I was taught by Alma Hill. Practice, practice, practice does not mean write whole stories for the trash can. It means do what musicians do, limber up the mind by doing your scales, THEN tackle whole pieces, but in sections. For a story, that means you do worldbuilding, characterization, plot, story, all the elements SEPARATELY until you can do it smoothly, then start blending one with the other, with the other etc. until you are doing whole stories.

Here is such an exercise on creating an icon taken as a separate skill.

http://editingcircle.blogspot.com/2010/10/kelly-why-flintstones-is-evil-and-happy.html

That blog post is a challenge to get you to create your own cultural icon like The Flintstones by using this critical bullet-pointed breakdown of the philosophy behind the show:

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/867804--kelly-why-the-flintstones-is-evil

You also need to read the comments on that article about The Flintstones where readers note the origins of the parody and take-offs. Not that you don't already know the ingredients in The Flintstons, but that you need to understand what the commenters knew and didn't know in the context of how they liked (or didn't like) The Flintstones. Then ponder that even those who hated the show, or never watched, have an opinion all these years later. That's the result of the ICONIZATION of a cultural principle, or abstraction, in a cartoon character.

Now, after you've doodled up a new icon of your own based on The Flintstones analysis, you can't stop. You're doing scales, remember?

So you might want to consider some even older examples of such an iconic creation to add to your source-material mix, and then add a more modern incarnation, then shake don't stir.

By contrasting and comparing at least 3 cultural icons, reverse engineering them, and spicing your result up with SFR or PNR, you may just hit it lucky. But you will certainly increase your skill, and perhaps add a 4th or 5th to your mix, and eventually meld it all into a vivid image that will work.

I've been incessantly and obsessively exploring the question of why the "general public" shuns Romance as if it reeks of old socks and rotten dog food. The objective of the exploration is to get around that dislike in order to explain why the Happily Ever After ending and the Love Conquers All theme are not only plausible but the inevitable outcome of life.

Heather Massey contributed to that discussion here:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/09/do-your-lovers-live-hea.html

In this exercise of creating icons, writers should reach deep into the past -- maybe as far back as 39,000 BCE as in my post here on December 21, 2010
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/12/ancient-egypt-steampunk.html
about the book, Ancient Egypt 39,000 BCE. And then extrapolate into the far future.

Also remember that to write about the future for a current audience, you have to translate the icons of that future into the iconic language (subconscious symbolism) of the current audience.

So let's look at the anatomy of an icon: the comic strip, radio show, TV show, feature film, franchise known as THE LONE RANGER.

http://weirdscifi.ratiosemper.com/loneranger/creed.html

http://weirdscifi.ratiosemper.com/loneranger/index.html (click the graphics at the top of the page for more details if you're unfamiliar with the Lone Ranger story).

The link above to the Creed of the Lone Ranger is interesting not so much for the content of the Creed (though I have many thoughts about the content), but for the EXISTENCE of such a formal document -- it was a foundation document created by the originator of the show to guide the many writers. There was also a set of Guidelines for the writers which you can find laid out neatly on Wikipedia.

The Lone Ranger was a KIDDIE SHOW -- why did it have a formal philosophy?

Kids have no formal training in the artistic cohesiveness necessary to elevate a story to classic status. Do they? Why-why-why????

Also note another old radio kiddie show exploiting this philosophical popularity, a show I loved to bits and pieces.

http://www.old-time.com/sights/s_arrow.html -- read the opening oration to the radio show Straight Arrow in the white box on this page.

The Lone Ranger and Superman (also include a study of Superman among your icons) were great favorites of the adults who became Star Trek Fans, and that's no accident.

Gene Roddenberry built the foundation of the Star Trek franchise from the cutting edge of cultural philosophy of the 1960's, but it was rooted in 1930's radio shows of adventure. I don't recall The Lone Ranger being among Gene Roddenberry's favorites, but I don't know any Star Trek fan who was old enough to remember The Lone Ranger who wasn't already a Lone Ranger fan long before Star Trek.

These iconic fictional figures all hit the same cultural chord, harmonizing with either the idealism or wish-fulfillment fantasy of the times. Or perhaps they reach beyond the troubles of their times to archetypal solutions to those troubles.

We live in such troubled times now. There's a niche in our fictional universe for such icons. Superheros abound and scientific explanations for their transcendent abilities are now being used in graphic novels, on TV and film.

Do you need to invent another superhero to be the Hunk in your PNR or SFR universe?

I don't think so. I think the "superhero" is an artifact of the cultural ambiance that gave rise these kiddie shows. It's all about the audience. You have to pull your material out of the audience's subconscious.

I think the next, huge, iconic success will be created by someone who goes to where the "superhero" came from and generates something that the people of today desperately need and want, but can't name or identify for themselves.

It's not "superhero" but something new. Spock has been named a new archetype because he was the heroic egghead (a term considered an oxymoron prior to Star Trek), the smart guy who was respected for his intelligence not despised for it (because before Star Trek intelligence made you different and different was shunned).

Spock became the Alienated Hero who was really alien. He made intelligence "cool" because he wasn't human. Today TV shows always have a resident geek who can hack any computer or solve any science problem. That's the Spock archetype manifesting into subsequent fiction. (and yes there's a reason most Spock fans were originally Sherlock Holmes fans. One of the first Star Trek fanzines, T-Negative named after Spock's blood type, was published by a Baker Street Irregular.)

This next icon we are seeking will have to pull off another reversal like that, only this time in Relationships.

That's the secret to becoming a popular writer. Lay your talent at the feet of people who need to say something about their problems, but just don't have the words. Create words that express their hearts, but not "on the nose" as they say in screenwriting. Express their hearts in subtext, in theme and symbolism, in philosophy and Creed.

I covered the issue of "What Does She See In Him" (the core question in any Romance) here:

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

If this new Icon image constructed from The Flintstones and The Lone Ranger, perhaps with a dash of Star Trek thrown in, is going to elevate Romance Genre to the kind of "cool" that Spock gave to smarts, it's going to take the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle trick I pulled off with my first novel, House of Zeor.

In House of Zeor, now called Book I in the "Sime~Gen Series" (it's not a series, but a Universe, however the publisher's terminology rules, and Sime~Gen now has a new publisher.  Here's the newest edition of this novel, which will be in e-book forms (Kindle, Nook, etc) in 2011

House of Zeor: Sime~Gen, Book One (Sime Gen)       )


 the point of view character, the person whose story is being told, is not the Hero. In fact the real story being told is what's going on inside the other person, not the point of view person. It's all seen from the outside and deduced by guesses, then by a series of tangible experiences. By the end of the book, the reader knows the POV character's story (Hugh's story), but FEELS the story of the other character (Klyd).


Where did I get the technique other than from Marion Zimmer Bradley and Andre Norton?

House of Zeor's Hugh and Klyd pair predates Star Trek by a decade.

I got the literary technique from the Lone Ranger and Tonto, Superman and Lois Lane, The Cisco Kid and Poncho, -- all these singular icons come in character-pairs. (all of which have classical ancestry hundreds if not thousands of years old.)

Every philosophical "creed" can be illustrated by such icons. The icons are composed of a matched-set, pair-bonded by some force currently being disrupted in the society that elevates that icon to immortality.

That is the icon itself is ONE thing. That thing is the PAIR.

The Lone Ranger is not an icon. The Lone Ranger and Tonto is an icon.

Spock is not an icon. Spock and Kirk is an icon.

Romance is all about that pair bonding, or at least the potential for pair bonding.

Now why is that?

Lots of theological systems will talk about the dichotomies of the fundamental universe, and even the divine or eternal triumvirates or quadruplicities.

The universe around us is factored into elements set into dynamic tensions that (we hope) balance out. But at any given time in human history, the dynamism dominates because the elements are jigged out of balance.

Here is a list of posts where I discuss that fundamental philosophy in terms of Tarot and Astrology, but you can use whatever esoterica you know to generate your new icon.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/pausing-for-you-to-catch-up-with-me.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/pausing-for-you-to-catch-up-with-me_23.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/pausing-for-you-to-catch-up-with-me_30.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/04/pausing-for-you-to-catch-up-with-me.html

Each of those posts contains links to previous posts all on philosophy presented in a form that writers can use immediately to create icons such as I'm describing here with The Flintstones and The Lone Ranger Creed.

You see, you didn't waste your time reading them as I posted them. Now you have a use for all that knowledge.

Note that I've made the point elsewhere that applying the maxim "Write What You Know" means do your research today for whatever you may be writing years from now.

To be able to create smoothly with any material, you need to learn it, forget it (that is, sink it into the subconscious), and then create with it without consciously knowing where you got the material or what you're saying with it. That's called "art" and writing is a performing art.

That's where the new icon will come from: the subconscious of a writer whose subconscious is connected to the deepest currents of society at this time.

Practice-practice-practice.

Remember what I learned from Alma Hill, "Writing is a performing art."  That means the objective is not to produce one perfect iconic performance, but to produce PERFORMANCES to order, on demand with apparent effortlessness. (apparent, mind you)  That takes practice.  

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com