Visualizing Characters

Any Superman fans here? I mostly enjoyed the first two episodes of the new series SUPERMAN AND LOIS on the CW network, although for me neither this program nor the older series SMALLVILLE measures up to LOIS AND CLARK. My husband complained about my griping over Lana Lang's black hair (same objection I had to that character on SMALLVILLE). Everybody knows Lana is a redhead, just as everybody knows Lex Luthor is bald (eventually ending up bald even if he doesn't start that way). Her hair is one of the iconic traits of her character in the comics. It wouldn't have been hard to have the actress wear a wig—flame-red, auburn, strawberry blonde, any shade within that general category. A visual image of a fictional character so jarringly different from expectations interferes with my immersion in the story.

Many actors have portrayed Count Dracula, the classic character I'm most familiar with, probably lots more than I've gotten around to watching. Christopher Lee and John Carradine come closest to my image of Dracula, although even Lee never performed him in a script fully faithful to the novel. Among the myriad attempts at adapting the original, the Dan Curtis TV movie starring Jack Palance makes a pretty decent try, but Palance in the title role made it hard for me to suspend disbelief. In my opinion, he's the least suitable Dracula I've ever seen.

For fans of Dorothy Sayers' mysteries, the adaptations broadcast on public TV under the umbrella title MURDER MOST ENGLISH dramatize the novels with a high degree of fidelity. Ian Carmichael, however, doesn't quite fit the image of Lord Peter Wimsey as described in the books. Still, he comes close enough not to undermine my suspension of disbelief. As far as Sherlock Holmes is concerned, for me Jeremy Brett was perfect (until he began to gain a little weight in the later seasons, but he can hardly be blamed for that). And from my perspective, Anthony Hopkins IS Dr. Hannibal Lecter, probably because I'd seen clips from the movie (although not the entire film) before reading the book.

How much does the appearance of an actor who plays a character from a novel or comic series matter to you? Does it make a difference whether or not print illustrations (as in comics or on book covers) exist to provide a template? If you view the movie before reading the original text, do you visualize the character as looking like the actor?

For writers, this topic bears on how much visual detail to provide in describing characters. Some novelists touch very lightly on physical appearance. The only characters in DRACULA described thoroughly enough to draw portraits of them are Dr. Van Helsing and the Count himself. Robert Heinlein sometimes delineates characters in detail, but not always. Although the clothing and body paint of Eunice in I WILL FEAR NO EVIL are often described, we get very little hint of how she herself looks except the "telling" rather than "showing" remark that she's very beautiful. According to Heinlein, she's meant to be Black, but the actual text of the novel says nothing to indicate that fact (nothing to contradict it, either, though). As a reader, I want to know what fictional characters look like, preferably early in the story. It's jarring to imagine a character one way and later receive information that invalidates the image I've formed. It also bugs me to visualize a fictional person as a particular gender and then find out well into the story that I've been mistaken, unless the author has a sound narrative reason for the ambiguity. As a writer, I know it can be difficult to work in descriptions of characters—particularly a viewpoint character—with grace and subtlety rather than producing a "wanted poster" list of traits. It's especially hard to manage this task with a first-person narrator, of course. If she gazes at herself in the mirror and says things like, "I brushed my luxuriant blonde hair," she'll come across as insufferably self-absorbed. That's probably a major reason why I use third-person limited rather than first-person narrative in my fiction.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Superpower Pros and Cons

A new Marvel superhero TV series recently premiered, CLOAK AND DAGGER. Tandy ("dagger") can materialize a knife out of light. Tyrone ("cloak"), associated with shadow and darkness, can teleport. So far, the powers of both protagonists pop up spontaneously, with little or no control. Also, each can read minds, sort of, in a limited sense. With skin contact, Tandy sees visions of people's hopes; Tyrone sees people's fears. My initial thought upon watching the first few episodes (although I do like the series so far) was that these aren't terribly impressive superpowers. Teleportation does have versatile possibilities—once he learns how to control it instead of leaping from place to place at random when confronted with danger. Materializing light daggers, however, seems of limited benefit unless the character gets into a lot of knife fights or aspires to become an assassin. Moreover, her magical knives wouldn't do her much good in combat without training and practice in using them. The latest episode demonstrates, though, that the conjured blade can cut through anything, a potentially versatile feature. She would be even better off if she would develop an ability to create other kinds of objects, too. As for the empathic visions, because they transmit images of people's hopes and fears, they can't be counted on to convey factual information. It's an appealing facet of the story, actually, that discovering their paranormal gifts doesn't automatically and immediately make the heroes invincible.

As I see it, many superpowers that seem cool at first glance wouldn't, by themselves, turn their bearers into superheroes. There was a TV series I never watched (so I may be misjudging it) whose protagonist couldn't feel pain. I got the impression that this trait was presented as a gift. No, it would be a handicap. In real life, people with defective pain perception live in constant danger of getting badly injured. Immortals in the "Highlander" series come back to life within minutes of getting killed unless they're decapitated. Living for centuries has its appeal, and if you work in a dangerous occupation or devote yourself to rescuing victims and protecting the innocent, immunity to most modes of death would confer a definite advantage. The gift has downsides, though. Like vampires, Highlander immortals are frozen at the age they'd reached at the time of their first death, so there are a few children and adolescents stuck with centuries of life in which they never grow up. Immortals aren't necessarily any more intelligent or ethical than ordinary mortals; whether they learn anything over the course of their extended lives depends on their individual characters. And even though they heal fast and can survive horrible injuries, getting killed still hurts. Furthermore, an immortal trapped at the bottom of the ocean or locked in a dungeon with no drinking water will die and revive over and over indefinitely.

Flying would be impressive but wouldn't make a hero invincible by itself. He or she could get to the scene of a crisis in a hurry, especially if the power included being able to fly faster than normal human running speed. But once the flying hero got to the site of the trouble, if he or she didn't have any other paranormal gifts, the success of the ensuing fight or rescue would come down to ordinary human strengths. Super-strength alone would seem pretty useful, once the hero learned to use it efficiently, but if that were his only power, he could be wounded or killed like anybody else. Flying and super-strength together would make a better combination, yet the hero could still get hurt—unless he or she were also invulnerable. Now you're approaching the qualities of a multi-gifted superhuman such as Superman himself. Spider-Man, with his leaping, climbing, and web-spinning, also has the capacity to travel quickly to otherwise inaccessible places; however, his ability to trap villains in webs probably needed to be honed through practice.

What about invisibility? An invisible character can sneak into places, explore without getting caught, and (if so inclined) steal small objects. Unless his or her powers include walking through walls and closed doors, though, the invisible man or woman still needs to access enclosed areas in the normal, physical way. Furthermore, invisibility in the strictest sense has obvious drawbacks. Do your clothes disappear with you? If not, you have to endure the discomforts of nudity. In H. G. Wells's classic novel, anything eaten by the invisible man remains visible until digested, so the time periods during which he can be truly unseen are limited. More effective might be a gift for clouding the minds of observers, like the Shadow; in that case, cameras would still reveal the hero's presence.

The most versatile type of superpower might be a multifaceted psychic talent such as the ability to read and control people's minds (provided you could shield against the thoughts and emotions of others at will). There we get into some deeper ethical problems, though.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Human Hybridization

It's now widely believed that early Homo sapiens crossbred with Neanderthals. Here's an article speculating on why interbreeding may have happened:

Human Hybridization

Offspring from mates of two different species often display "hybrid vigor." This author also suggests (using the example of mules) that a hybrid may have higher intelligence than either ancestral species.

These factors show that interbreeding may bestow advantages on the offspring; however, they don't explain why individuals would be motivated to mate with other-species partners. Mistaken identity? As a last resort when members of their own species aren't available? From positive attraction?

In one of my favorite novels, CLAN OF THE CAVE BEAR, Cro-Magnon (Homo sapiens) child Ayla, adopted by Neanderthals, grows up to bear a Cro-Magnon-Neanderthal baby. Her pregnancy results from rape. Like the rest of the clan, the father of her child considers her ugly, or at least odd-looking, and he rapes her to assert dominance, not from desire. Because human babies are born less developed than Neanderthals, Ayla's adopted people think her infant son is deformed. At birth he can't even hold up his head! As he matures, of course, he outstrips his Neanderthal kinfolk in many ways. (As a child, Tarzan in the original novel fares similarly among the apes, who at first take a dim view of she-ape Kala's adopting a hairless, frail creature that will obviously never be able to care for itself. Burroughs' series, by the way, assumes that his "great apes"—definitely not gorillas, which are shown as lesser animals, so the great apes must be a "missing link"—are related closely enough to human beings to interbreed, as seen in Tarzan's visits to the ruined lost city of Opar.) In later books, Ayla learns that other hybrid children exist, usually conceived by rape of Neanderthal girls by gangs of Cro-Magnon men. She speculates that her son may have to look for a mate among these crossbreeds, since both types of human beings often view "children of mixed spirits" as abominations.

James Tiptree's story "And I Awoke and Found Me Here on the Cold Hill's Side" postulates that human beings have a powerful exogamous drive. We're drawn to exotic partners because, in prehistory, marrying out of the tribe kept the genes circulating. A girl's elopement with a boy from the strange people on the other side of the mountain gave evolutionary benefits to her descendants. In Tiptree's story, this impulse has gone wild and become a liability as human beings traveling among the stars pursue the irresistible attractions of exotic aliens, with whom no fertile mating is possible.

Science fiction teems with fascinating human-alien hybrids, such as Spock. In most cases, the writer and reader simply agree to suspend disbelief in inter-species crossbreeding, with no inconvenient mention of incompatible genes. Larry Niven's well-known essay "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" uses Superman and Lois Lane to highlight how improbable this crossbreeding would be. To make such characters biologically plausible, the author would have to assume the galaxy was purposely "seeded" with life from a single point of origin or perhaps that meteors transported DNA through interstellar space.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Story Springboards Part 6 - Earning a Sobriquet by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Story Springboards
Part 6
Earning a Sobriquet
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Here is a list of the previous parts in this Story Springboards series -- about how to build a "springboard."  In this section we've been examining the adage "just write an interesting story and it will sell."  "Interesting" is a very complex subject.  What interests you might not interest anyone else.  What interests you today might bore you tomorrow.

So what is the secret of being "interesting?" 

In Part 3 of this series,
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/11/story-springboards-part-3-art-of.html
we started sketching out the issues and topics relevant to constructing an Episodic Plot.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/11/story-springboards-part-4-art-of.html

We looked at the link between fame, glory and the "interesting story":
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/12/theme-character-integration-part-5-fame.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/12/story-springboards-part-5-explaining.html
Examines the popularity of Zombies and offers an explanation which might lead you to find the next most-popular subject.

In Reviews Part 3,
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/12/reviews-3-by-jacqueline-lichtenberg.html
we discussed the TV Series version of Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. -- and noted in the dialogue the use of the concept "Origin Story."

Origin Stories in superhero land are about how the "Hero" became "Super" -- how they got started on a career of crime-fighting or protecting the helpless or innocent.

An Origin Story is a certain type of "story springboard." 

In Romance, the "origin story" can be the "how we first met" story.  Or it can be the recent 'breakup' story of one member of the couple-to-be that sets up why the new Relationship just can't crystalize yet.

In Romance, "Pet Names" are sobriquets that personal and unique to the couple, often so confidential people use them as passwords. 

In Romance, the partner occupies the position of "Superhero" from the point of view of the lover -- the "He can do no wrong," position and "She is mine," position. 

Almost every Superhero has a nickname -- "Superman" is a nickname for Clark Kent which is formed as a sobriquet -- an alternative name that is derived from an observable trait.

Remember, there are many mystical ramifications of Names that we've discussed.  In Magic for Paranormal Romance you want to build into your World a definition of true-name and a mechanism that describes how finding out the true name and calling a person or thing by that true name actually works. 

True Names can be powerful - and so can sobriquets.  A sobriquet can mask a true name, or resonate with the person more strongly than the true name.

Many "ordinary people" acquire nicknames as sobriquets. 

In the Air Force and other military organizations (like the Space Patrol) the "nickname" often becomes a "call sign." 

In Battlestar Galactica "Starbuck" is a call sign and a nickname, a sobriquet.

Native American cultures had the custom of not naming a child until the personality and/or sponsoring animal-god (totem) was evident.  In many cases, that name had to be earned by a coming-of-age feat. 

What feat did your Main Character execute (maybe in college?) that earned a sobriquet?

Many cultures have various ways of creating layers of "names" for everyone.  There's the name you are given -- and the name you earn -- the name plastered upon you by your enemies -- the name awarded by History.

In fact, you find the power of Naming a person also in the Bible as God renames people variously: Abram became Abraham; Sarai became Sarah; Aaron became Aharon; Jacob became Israel (after wrestling with an Angel), and so on and on.

In online communities, people create an Avatar and name it.  This custom was also practiced in organized Science Fiction Fandom decades before the internet, and today you can register for the World Science Fiction Convention and give a fannish-name to be inscribed on your badge (so everyone will know who you really are -- as your "real" name would be meaningless.) 

Actors (and pole dancers in strip joints) use "stage names." 

Undercover Agents adopt and discard names, but think of themselves by one name.

Hackers make an art of adopting or awarding a sobriquet. 

Writers use "Pen Names" -- known in journalism as a by line. 

All these alternative names are to be considered when naming a character.  Each one you use for a character has to be carefully chosen -- it is an art!  You don't want "too many" names or the readers will get confused.  You might know many sobriquets your character has been known as over his lifetime, but use only one in this story. 

In a Romance, intimating a long-disused sobriquet to a lover is a form of revelation, a baring of Character. 

The sobriquets your Character has been awarded define both the character and the "circles" in which that character has moved. 

The sobriquet then becomes "interesting" because it hints at relevant information yet to be revealed, and at questions such as, "Well, then why aren't you currently moving in Hacker circles?"  "Why did you quit playing World of Warcraft?" 

So Avatar sobriquets are usually chosen by the person who is known by them, while appelations are chosen by those who love them, or hate them -- or just peripherally know them or have been impacted by their actions. 

Adding to or changing a person's NAME has potent magical significance, and that magic makes the Name a source of "springboard" energy for a storyteller.

That's why, very often, the correct first word of a novel -- or even of a pitch for a screenplay or novel -- consists of the character's full name.  Consider what you learn of a character whose full, proper name is six names followed by a list of titles. 

The Name of a character can be intriguing, interesting, portentous, suggestive.

Referring to our "ripped from the headlines" theme on this blog, I should point out that the conservative commentator Anne Coulter (who writes books, appears on several TV news comment shows, and has her own show) has earned the sobriquet, Firebrand.

Wound up tight within the sobriquet, you will find the Origin Story for your superhero.

Very often, a character will "appear" to a writer out of the blue, and the writer knows that character only by the sobriquet the character reveals.  Unraveling that nickname into the Origin Story could easily reveal the powerful springboard for an episodic work.

The sobriquet plastered upon a "Figure" by adversaries or enemies usually contains invective expressing how this Heroic Figure is anathema to the opposition.

The story of how a particular sobriquet was earned, and how that nickname differs from the person's given or family name, makes a terrific subject for a First Novel -- not necessarily the first in the story's own timeline, but the author's first sale to a major outlet.

So let's think a little bit about the earning of a nickname.

The concept "an earned name" speaks to the individuality of a person -- what makes you different from others.  Your given name may be in honor of an ancestor and your family name is inherited -- these are names that connect you to the Past, Present, and Future -- they are symbols of the time-binding function of humanity.

The earned name speaks entirely to what makes you different, singular, and identifies you with an achievement or style of achieving.

The sobriquet, therefore, is the element of CHARACTER that "springs forth" to create that character's story.

And since the sobriquet is earned by DOING something -- it therefore connects the story to the plot, (hus showing the reader the bud that will open to the many-petaled flower of the theme. 

The meaning of your story is the theme, and the sobriquet of your main or ancillary characters connects that meaning to the event sequence which forms the plot.

So "what he did to earn this sobriquet" is the SHOW that is not a TELL. 

Naming characters is a "show-don't-tell" exercise in explaining your theme. 

Your theme is what you have to say, which is what this story is about. 

Many people think they'd love to write novels, but they just don't know where to start.

One place to start is with the springboard -- and one filament in that board that is flexible enough to bend and then spring up to hurl the reader into the story is the Name of the Main Character.

Inside the theme, which is shown by the Main Character's appellations, lies the sound of your Voice.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/12/reviews-3-by-jacqueline-lichtenberg.html

The story springboard propels your main character into his "story."  It is a "leap" (as in "leap of faith.") 

The character jumps off a cliff, dives into a situation.  Maybe the Main Character gets fed up and runs away from home, cuts all ties with his past and forges out into the world to create a new identity.  In other words, the beginning of the "Origin Story" for your character-sobriquet is where the character "leaps into action." 

And all of that is hidden within the Name and attendant sobriquets.

The sobriquet awarded to your Main Character by another character poses the question and hints at the answers.

And therein lies one of the best kept secrets of writing an "interesting" story.

"Interesting" is not you TELLING the reader the story.

"Interesting" is you hinting at stories within stories -- stories untold -- questions lurking in the background but not quite asked.

Reading a novel is an adventure.  The best part is not knowing what will happen next.

The novel reader wants to figure out what will happen next just before the Main Character twigs to the tricks being played.

Writing a novel is very much like a teacher using the Socratic Method to teach.  You don't TELL the answers.  You ASK the questions, and thus SHOW the matter to the students who feel entertained and thus interested.

What does "interesting" mean?

It means something you do not know.

What "interests" people?

Their own ideas, thoughts, and imagination -- theirs, not yours. 

Review the tweets cited in this post:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/12/theme-character-integration-part-5-fame.html

What's in a Name?

Inside a Name you will find an organizing principle for the meaning of an Origin Story.

More examples and exercises on creating story-springboards via Theme-Worldbuilding Integration on January 14, 2014 on this blog.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Theme-Plot Integration Part 13 - Superman: Man of Steel Action-Romance by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Theme-Plot Integration Part 13 - Superman: Man of Steel Action-Romance by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

This is actually a 3 or 4 way "integration" post, an advanced writing challenge that requires several skill sets in use at once.  Theme, Plot, Targeting a Readership, Worldbuilding, and even Character, Story and Conflict, to dissect and replicate Superman: Man of Steel.

We start, as usual, with THEME -- and of course without the foundation of Plot, you haven't got a story or anything else to hold an audience's attention -- but when you blow the "worldbuilding" element, the plot falls apart, the audience you've targeted is jarred out of the story, and nothing in what you've written makes sense to anyone but yourself.

Here are previous entries in the Theme-Plot Integration Series:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/07/theme-plot-integration-part-11-correct.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/05/theme-plot-integration-part-10-use-of.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/05/theme-plot-integration-part-8-use-of-co.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/05/theme-plot-integration-part-9-use-of-co.html

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

And here are the Theme-Worldbuilding discussions:


http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/09/theme-worldbuilding-integration-part-1.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/09/theme-worldbuilding-integraton-part-2.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/09/theme-worldbuilding-integration-part-3.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/09/theme-worldbuilding-integration-part-4.html

http://www.aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/10/theme-worldbuilding-integration-part-5.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/02/theme-worldbuilding-integration-part-6.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/10/theme-worldbuilding-integration-part-7.html


You can't accurately TARGET A READERSHIP (or audience) and hold their attention if the component elements of the Work are not wholly integrated with each other.

The previous parts of Targeting a Readership Series can be found in last week's Index Post:


http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/10/index-to-targeting-readership-series-by.html

By now, I'm assuming everyone reading this post who wants to see SUPERMAN: MAN OF STEEL has seen it, so I'm including "spoilers."

Here's a trailer for Man of Steel on YouTube:



This SUPERMAN film succeeds terrifically in ALL it's individual components, and fails utterly at the "integration" level. 

Before we consider the flaws I see (which are actually strengths from the Hollywood point of view), let's examine what it's done in the "real" world.

Firstly, this re-design of the entire myth of Superman is based on the DC Comics consolidation of the "Superhero" Vigilante genre into the Justice League.

That entire ploy was created to sell comic books, and has been an unqualified success, generating an entire genre of Superhero stories for every medium from print to TV Series, to theatrical releases. 

You can't fault the thinking from a commercial standpoint. 

All my posts on aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com since 2007 or so have been about replicating that kind of success that DC Comics has had but for the Science Fiction Romance genre, SFR.

Our objective in studying these writing skills individually and then studying how to integrate them is to replicate DC Comic's process, that Walt Disney Studios succeeded at, and that Glenn Beck has launched himself into (in another field, but it's the same process).  Beck is of little interest except in the business model transformation that he's experimenting with.  Today, his web-TV channel is filling up with a diversity of shows and has been picked up by a long list of Cable distributors including Satellite.

My thesis is that you can't argue with commercial success.

Romance genre itself is commercially successful to the absolute dismay of its opponents.

But so far the respect due because of that success is lacking.  Examine your respect for Glenn Beck and you will understand why Science Fiction Romance has its detractors.

Likewise 'comics" and comic fandom only gained grudging mention on TV news etc. with the advent of the commercially driven, gigantic Comic Con circuit where collectors bid up the prices of old comics to major investment decision ranges.

Money talks and money does get some respect, but not always the sort you and I are looking for.

Right now "Money" is not talking so much as it is gibbering in a panic.

The summer "blockbuster" films with Big Name Stars were flops at the Box Office.

But Superman wasn't a flop.  It's done respectably well. 

Here is a quote from imdb.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/business

-------quote----------
As of MID JULY 2013 for Man of Steel June Release (as of mid-July it was still on several screens per multi-plex and pulling in audiences, which is success territory). 

Budget
$225,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend
$113,080,000 (USA) (16 June 2013) (4,207 Screens)
$116,619,362 (USA) (16 June 2013) (4,207 Screens)
HUF 56,995,608 (Hungary) (23 June 2013)
€900,007 (Netherlands) (23 June 2013) (118 Screens)
PHP 245,085,619 (Philippines) (16 June 2013) (469 Screens)

Gross
$271,188,450 (USA) (7 July 2013)
---------end quote-------

So you can see it made more than its costs, and will continue to earn on Netflix, Amazon, etc.  And all of that is gravy.

But is it worth our respect? 

Well, for me Man of Steel makes it in the HUNK FACTOR: Henry Cavill as Clark Kent/ Kal-El is terrific (but I prefer without the beard).  Russell Crowe made a lovely Jor-el, Kevin Costner's Jonathan Kent was thrilling, Amy Adams as Lois Lane worked well, and all the others were well cast, too.

The actors seemed to be aware they were playing characters, not that the characters were playing them (as seemed to be the case with Tonto in The Lone Ranger starring Johnny Depp as the sidekick.) 

Of course you've seen Cavill in THE TUDORS and IMMORTALS - not exactly a small name.  But  this movie does not look as if it is designed around what the Big Names in it are known for (unlike The Lone Ranger casting where Johnny Depp presented Tonto as if Tonto was Johnny Depp). 

Man of Steel didn't succeed at the box office because of the big name cast, but because it is Superman (and the release dates were cleverly orchestrated - check IMDB; there is a science behind that.)

It is a GREAT movie. 

So what's wrong with it?

For me, it isn't SUPERMAN. 

Part of that reaction is how I just don't think the Justice League approach works as well as the original (even though I'm endlessly fascinated with Justice League!)

The original Superman was, like the Lone Ranger, a champion of Truth, Justice and the American Way. 

All three elements of the Superman Character, truth, justice and the American Way, have been thrown out with this reworking of his past in Man of Steel.

What is inserted to hold up all 3 Pillars of Character is Defense of Earth -- not America, Earth.

America is left in cinders, and nobody cares. 

This Superman wears a dull bluish suit with a red cape, but it isn't the AMERICAN Blue and Red. 

One thing they did in re-designing Krypton actually cured some of the problems with the 1978-1980's series of films.

General Zod's motive in trashing Earth has been changed into the more honorable "Restore Krypton" motive. 

Jor-El's motive has been degraded into sending Kal-El to Earth for the purpose of "guiding" Earth -- instead of to learn to become more like an American, and less like those whose politics destroyed Krypton. 

In Man of Steel, Krypton implodes because the ruling council decreed they needed energy, so they mined the core of the planet, and the planet implodes while Zod attacks the ruling council.  This is an example of Hollywood ripping a theme (ecology) from the Headlines and throwing it into your face at any excuse. 

Another theme that coincidentally made headlines just as this film was being released is the Justice League theme of the Vigilante Justice which had America glued to the TV screens during the Treyvon Martin Murder trial.  That timeliness may have helped Man of Steel at the Box Office. 

But, the hook that has me glued to Superman is the Lois/Clark relationship -- and nothing was more satisfying than the TV Series Lois And Clark  (Lois, first, note!).  Not ecology, but Alien Romance.

The film SUPERMAN II definitely scratched the Alien Romance itch.

Here's that trailer:



Superman II has plenty of "action" to satisfy the action viewer, but it has the ROMANCE that makes the action make sense.  Kal El has to 'give up his powers' to marry Lois, and willingly does so - then the villains turn up (Zod and crew) (senselessly bent on destroying Earth and co-opting Superman to their own cause because of his noble birth) and to SAVE EARTH (not America: Earth) Kal El takes back his powers cutting himself off from nice, human sex with Lois. 

Notice how all the good stuff is missing from the Superman II trailer to sell it as pure action to Action audiences. 

In the end, Superman in Man of Steel does throw in with the Americans, but refuses to accede to American Law unless he agrees with the commands given him by a General. 

This ending seems NOBLE compared to the rest of the film, as if Kal El has values from Kansas.  In fact, it is antithetical to The American Way depicted in the original Superman as proceding from Truth and Justice. 

Note in Man of Steel, the S is cleverly redefined as an Alien Symbol of Peace. 

To remain thematically coherent, the S symbol should have been redefined as a symbol for Truth or Justice. 

The "America" Superman deals with (and this is where the original theme is massively changed) is General Swanwick -- not The President! 

This character (OK, it's a scripting efficiency problem, but it distorts the original Superman's thematic integrity) General Swanwick ends up unilaterally making live-or-die decisions for all Earth, not just the USA.

How insufferably presumptuous.  What do you suppose Iran would be saying in the U.N.?

In other words, Swanwick (without ever being challenged on it) institutes a military coups. 

Not one person in the audience that I saw the film with was groaning or booing about this.  It's acceptable for the USA to be taken over by the military.  Even Kansas farm boy, Clark, didn't seem to notice.

What has that to do with Romance?

Everything.

Hunk isn't just a matter of a square-jawed face.

Remember how I made the point about the crucial question that every Romance must answer:

"What does she see in him?  What does he see in her?"

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

A nice square jaw just isn't enough - helps a lot, but isn't enough! 

Strong character, with detail of what composes that strength, is necessary to ignite the flame of real Soul-Mate driven Romance. 

Lois and Clark have always been portrayed (from the 1930's radio shows) as Soul Mates, even when we didn't know Clark was from another planet.

Originally, they didn't emphasize the Science Fiction element of an Alien From Outer Space -- that wouldn't have been Romantic to people of the 1940's when Science Fiction itself had barely been invented.

What science fiction there was, then, was "neck up science fiction" -- without elements of Relationship other than adversarial. 

The B&W TV Series of the 1950's played Lois and Clark as foils, with Lois always trying to sleuth out the Secret Identity. 

SECRET IDENTITY (like the Lone Ranger) was the plot dynamic that drove the suspense, not Alien From Outer Space Falls In Love With Human.

The big reveal of Alien From Outer Space as the Secret (even from Clark, himself) came much later, because, given Clark's abilities, it was just logical.

Personally, I think Alien Romance is where it is at for Science Fiction and I always have, which is why it's always an element in my novels.

As Clark Kent's Alien origin was revealed, it was morphed and morphed to support various sorts of Superman Character definitions.

In other words, our Hero has been co-opted

Well, they did that on purpose.  They are risking huge amounts of money, so they want a known box office draw topic.  But Superman is old, worn, antique.  It's appeal was that it bespoke the yearnings of the audience of that day.  They needed to update it to speak to today's audience. 

And they did that!  They got everything in except the Alien Romance which needs a Kickass Lois.

And the reason the romance failed is a major gliche in the worldbuilding. 

Yes, Lois gets her moments, but she's relegated to fourth or fifth place in the B story, and doesn't even get to be the one who hammers home the key that stops the destruction of Earth.

Lois doesn't get to save Superman's Life -- doesn't get to Reveal His Past -- doesn't get to pass judgement on his moral fiber and trust him with Truth, Justice And The American Way, doesn't get to kick ass, doesn't even get to save Clark's human mom.

Clark doesn't act for Lois's sake.  Clark's father Jonathan Kent gives his life to maintain Clark's secret identity, and in his memory, Clark is moved to act -- not for Lois's sake, and not for the sake of his Relationship to Lois.  The action that Clark chooses for Jonathan Kent's sake is to adopt the guise of the mild mannered reporter and take a job at The Daily Planet where Lois gets to say "Welcome to the Planet."  And they share a secret smile, because she knows he's Kal-El.  But that's the ending. It should be the beginning. 

This movie is not the Romance you're looking for; move along.

If I'd been consulted (never likely to happen), on the script, I'd have pointed out that the entire composition falls to shreds because of a major gliche in the Worldbuilding. 

Fix the worldbuilding, and everything else, including the Romance, would fall into place.

I have this same issue with the DOCTOR WHO depiction of Gallifrey, and with the home planet of the aliens, the Tenctonese, in the TV Series ALIEN NATION. 

The Science Fails.

I'm an absolute, dedicated fan of both series.  And a lifelong Superman fan.  As a fan, I can and do "forgive" errors in the depiction. 

But such errors are the reason I wanted to be a writer with a published "voice" in the matter of how it should be done.  I've seen "it" done right in so many genres, which just etches my dissatisfaction in fire when I see the error in Science Fiction Romance, especially the Action Romance genre. 

And I believe that if Alien Romance is done "right" (i.e. with consistent worldbuilding, rigorous science), it will attain a position of respect as a Literature bespeaking the most valuable part of our 21st Century Culture.

So What Failed In The Worldbuilding?

It was a failure of imagination. And it was all the more glaring an error because we have occasionally seen it done right in film.

Here's Part 4 of Failure of Imagination, with links to prior parts:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2011/01/failure-of-imagination-part-4-teasing.html

The movie DUNE did pretty well at avoiding this particular failure of imagination, but came up a bit short as it tried to stay true to the book.

We've seen glimpses in the newest Star Trek movies where they got it right - particularly the nearly invisible space suits.

The failure is actually a failure to show rather than tell.

It's a failure to integrate the science, the technology, and the civilization it belongs to, using visual methods to ILLUSTRATE that the science is what it is.

Any technology sufficiently advanced will seem like magic. 

 Here it is from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws

--------quote------------
Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

    1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
    2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
    3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

....The Third Law is the best known and most widely cited. Also appearing in Clarke's Essay "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination". It may be an echo of a statement in a 1942 story by Leigh Brackett: "Witchcraft to the ignorant, .... Simple science to the learned".[2] Even earlier examples of this sentiment may be found in Wild Talents by author Charles Fort where he makes the statement: "...a performance that may some day be considered understandable, but that, in these primitive times, so transcends what is said to be the known that it is what I mean by magic."

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

FAILURE OF IMAGINATION. 

That is our greatest problem with science fiction today, the lack of the kind of futurology we saw in science fiction in the 1950's and 1960's.  Even Star Trek as a TV Series was able to visualize futuristic instruments that acted "magically."

So what did I expect from this Man of Steel that it did not deliver?

I went into the movie without expectations.

But a few scenes into it, I saw the very clever, very elegant, VERY IMAGINATIVE devices, instruments, methods of living, used by the Kryptonian civilization.  And it was indeed a very solid extrapolation of our current science/technology into a possible future.

So I was blown away by this vision of Krypton.  (then we got to the politics and I was disappointed as I had been when The Doctor first went back to Gallifrey.)

The technology was depicted amped up to the level of what we see as "magic."

Great work.

But ....

After we get to Earth, the entire premise just falls to shreds.

And in it's fall, it destroys Clark's character.

The premise is that Krypton has this technology that seems like magic. 

Now, look at our technology over the last few centuries.

Up to the 1940's, technological advances were always made by the triggering of a war.

World War II triggered the creation of the Atomic Bomb (and its use).

From the Middle Ages (knights in shining armor) through WWII, all our advances have been in ways to deliver more and MORE kinetic energy to a target and destroy bigger and bigger areas at a swipe.

We used the Atomic Bomb and spread collateral destruction over two (huge) cities when all we needed to do was destroy the war-making-capability of Japan, not the population. 

After that, The American Way judged America's use of that weapon to be a major tragedy.

Subsequent military weapons development concentrated on delivering pin-point destruction, making smaller explosions right on exactly hit targets.

Today, we have the new term "collateral damage" -- meaning failure.  When we strike a military target, ONLY that target gets destroyed.  If even one non-combatant is killed, we failed. 

It's a trend, and it probably won't be linear, but all our technology (cell phones being an example) use less energy, and target that usage more precisely.

All our energy-usage trends are down, not up, in terms of productivity.

And that's true of warfare as well - drones being another example. 

The Krypton depicted at the beginning of Superman: Man of Steel indicates they had gotten to where we are going -- small, precise, exact, easy to use, technology, like magic.   

But then General Zod arrives on Earth (out of the Phantom Zone which is not as well done as in the prior Superman film where it's a two-dimensional spinning patch in space, a portal to another dimension), and proceeds to "terraform" earth never mind it'll kill the inhabitants, Clark Kent included. 

Jor-el hid the database of all-Krypton inside Kal-el's body cells, but if Kal-el is dead Zod intends to extract it from Kal-el's dead body so he can recreate Krypton.  Noble goal, -- maybe that means the theme of this film is "The End Justifies The Means."  But during the film, Zod goes from not caring if Clark dies to actively pursuing his death. 

Remember, Lois doesn't get to save Clark and dispatch Zod.

Remember, a few weeks ago, I discussed the contretemps that erupted over a SFWA Bulletin Cover with the typical Brass Bras Babe image?

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/08/theme-conflict-integration-part-1.html

Man of Steel is a perfect example of what everyone is yelling about.  The Lois that we have seen raised from a 1940's "save me Superman" girl into a "Pullitzer Prize" chanting woman hanging under the elevator cage of the Eiffel Tower is back to being a GIRL.

Why?

Because of the epic fail in worldbuilding.

What should have happened when Zod got to Earth to retrieve the database in Clark's body cells and terraform Earth into a replica of Krypton?

If imagination had not failed, we would be seeing Kryptonians wearing ordinary looking clothing that acted like armor and contained all kinds of instrumentation, not the clunky-ugly lumps they wear in this film.

The costumes are supposed to look formidable and scary; instead they look ludicrous because we've seen what their technology can do. 

Remember the ST:ToS episode Squire of Gothos where the Alien we think is a malific adult alien turns out to be a kid-alien eventually scolded by Mom for tormenting humans for fun?

Remember the Organians?

Remember ST:TNG episode 9 "Hide and Q" which introduces the Q dimension beings?

All those Star Trek conflicts pitted hugely superior technology against humans who had technology superior to that of the audience (1960's and 1980's). 

And the superior technology, the "instrumentality" of the Squire of Gothos looked like an ordinary mirror.  The Q invoked effects by a wave of the hand (which was optional.)

In each case, the humans with the lesser technology won by being clever. 

The worldbuilding in those Star Trek depictions was superb (the production technology minimal).

What is the underlying principle that film makers must apply to get this tech worldbuilding consistent?

Kinetic Energy Diminishes As Power Increases

In the opening of Superman: Man of Steel we saw a Krypton vastly superior to any we've seen before.  It was superbly depicted.

Then we saw that technology deployed against a nearly defenseless planet (Earth).

Technology that superior has to be able to accomplish goals without:
a) wasted kinetic energy
b) obviously applied kinetic energy

Note our trend after the Atomic Bomb -- pinpoint accuracy.

Reduce that pinpoint further than we can today to produce the "indistinguishable from magic" effect.

And you have an enemy that takes us out by firing tiny black holes (or Higgs Bosons) or something very small that just tweaks the tiny few atoms necessary to achieve the goal.

No wasted kinetic energy.  No destroying whole cities to "get" one man, not even Superman.

Quiet, simplistic elegance achieves the goal with the barest twitch of a fingertip.

That's worldbuilding, Arthur C. Clarke style, folks.

The opening scenes on Krypton set up the audience to expect that kind of elegance.

Instead, we got messy, primitive, awkward, and pointlessly ridiculous nonsense that just didn't fit the opening scene.

Why?

Think again about the trailers and "Targeting a Readership." 

They took away the Romance (Superman hardly got a chance to do any really interesting rescues), they degraded the Lois character into a girl who says she won a Pulitzer but doesn't act like it, they designed the alien costumes to look more like fantasy Brass Bra outfits, and proceeded to wreak collateral damage with stray kinetic energy for no discernible reason. 

What readership prefers non-characters destroying things others have built with blood, sweat and tears?

What kind of person does not value the blood, sweat and tears of grown-ups?

What kind of person is recruited for Army service because of that trait? 

Teenage Boys. 

Not men.  (I do so love men.)  But boys. 

Boys hate Romance.  Too tedious.  Men love Romance. 

I believe that's why "they" did this to Superman, targeting the boy in every man.  Against the backdrop of the re-emergence of sexism in all areas, but especially in SFR, it certainly makes commercial sense.  The fact that this movie succeeded where others have failed this past summer will definitely give us more sexist films next year and the year after.

But the correction is not to add back the Lois character.  Then she'd just be pasted on top of something that does not showcase her properly.  She'd look awkward and artificial - not plausible.

In fact, isn't that what the HEA, the Happily Ever After, ending is ridiculed for?  Being implausible?  There's the reason why it gets ridiculed -- pasted on top of disintegrated worldbuilding. 

So how do you fix it?

You fix Krypton and the worldbuilding, and that fixes everything.  The fight scenes take less time, cause less disruption and destruction, and more screen-time is then available for a real story.

By fixing the worldbuilding so that the technology shown in the early scenes produces warfare that looks more magical, more precise (and reaches its goal faster, more elegantly), you can then spend the screen time on the underlying science.  Superman: Man of Steel runs over 2 1/2 hours.  That's long for any film. 

By definition science fiction integrates the scientific puzzles with the characters, plot, conflict and story.  Battle scenes do not a plot make.  Scientific puzzles that must be solved against a deadline of certain death -- ah, that makes a plot, a story, raises characters to heroic stature, and spurs the audience to learn more science because it's romantic and impresses the women and the men.

Lois, the investigative reporter, solves a scientific puzzle (Clark's genes), and beats Zod, would make a great movie.

Apparently, those with $225 million to spend on a movie thought that story wouldn't sell movie tickets.  And they do have a point.  Young boys, and immature uneducated young men, won't notice the disintegration of the connecting links between Theme and Plot, and will go away raving about this film.

That connecting link is the Worldbuilding.

The Worldbuilding destroyed so much when it came apart that I'm not entirely sure what the theme of Superman: Man of Steel was supposed to be. 

I think maybe it's Might Makes Right, or perhaps Peace At All Costs where the "all costs" contains the "might makes right" philosophy. 

The Justice League central issue is the vigilante justice argument (which is "better" for society, or more efficient, Hired Law Enforcement or Vigilantes that don't have to worry about legal methods of acquiring evidence or the train of custody of that evidence and just cut to the chase.)

The Boy Mentality that prefers sex to love will prefer the Vigilante method over the more tedious and cerebral Colombo Detective method.  

Peace At All Costs makes a good theme for Boys because it lets you solve the problem of roiling emotions by hitting and destroying anything in your path (regardless of whether it is the source of the roiling emotions or not). 

Reconnect the theme with the plot in Man of Steel by upping the elegance of the battle-tech, and you'd get rid of the Boy part and have to deal with the Man part of the Steel.

What does it take to make a Man out of a Boy?

That's a question our society has ducked since the 1980's (Superman II), and as a result, the movie-going audiences don't want to know the question exists, never mind the answer is not "battle."

by Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Collateral Repairs

You've heard of collateral damage. Now let's consider collateral repairs.

The phrase "collateral repair" has been used in other ways, but I want to propose a writer's jargon application of the term which dovetails with Blake Snyder's explanation of screenplay structure.

Collateral repairing would be some sort of healing, fixing, anti-damage side-effect that an action might have as an unexpected consequence or side-effect, not the goal of the action.

When you are focused on goal-directed behavior (like a hero in a story solving a problem), you move through the world on automatic pilot, doing everything else without thinking, by habit, by knee-jerk reflex.

That means that most of what you do when acting in a goal directed fashion reveals your essential character, who you really are rather than who you want the world to think you are.

Your actions reveal who you actually are because they aren't deliberate, well thought out, not intended to have specific long term consequences in your life or any one's.

Your actions in pursuit of a goal with long term consequences may head you into trouble, into a learning and growing experience, a "story." But your negligent, habitual actions show (without telling) what lessons of life you think you've already mastered.

Writers can use this widespread human trait in sketching a character in conjunction with the Window Character Linnea Sinclair told us about in her post at
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/01/windows-to-soul.html
where she reported on Writer's Boot Camp with Todd Stone.

The cleanest example of Collateral Repairs that I can think of is a scene in a Superman movie where Clark Kent is going to work at the Daily Planet, walks down the street amid a series of slapstick comedy mishaps and deals with them using his powers subtly while pretending to be the clueless clutzy reporter.

Now, true, in that scene, Clark knows he's helping people, and deliberately hiding his powers. He knows he's on Earth to help people. But his "goal" is to get to work, to remain in character as Clark. All his actions as he walks down the street are just aside from his progress toward his goal, and in some cases endanger achieving that goal. The people he helps are not part of the main plot.

So we see the Hero beneath the outward seeming. Clark Kent can't just waltz by humans, ignoring what's happening to them, and he can't just ignore the results of his own casual actions. My point is that Clark sees a problem that isn't his own and that isn't on his agenda today, and he reaches out to help. He doesn't ponder, deliberate, calculate, or negotiate a reward - he just DOES what comes naturally to him. And thus we get to know the real Clark Kent, maybe better than he knows himself.

Blake Snyder (http://www.blakesnyder.com ) calls the technique of characterizing by collateral repairs SAVE THE CAT! You can find links and explanations on Snyder's website.

The opening pages of a script set up the characters and the problem, the overall situation. Snyder calls that "laying pipe" -- laying the channel through which the reader will be drawn into the story.

The most essential element in sucking a reader into a story is the characters.

So Blake says the character you want sympathy for has to "save the cat" -- do an act which may be irrelevant (or even counter-productive) to the plot, but that displays the inner nature of the character. The particular trait displayed has to be relevant to the climax of the story and has some thematic link to the B story.

Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden character is a solid case in point.


I was sent a review copy of a RoC trade paperback which Amazon is promoting titled MEAN STREETS. It's an anthology of 4 novellas about currently famous action characters.

The lead story, "The Warrior" is by one of my favorite authors, Jim Butcher, and extends the story of his TV Series/ Novel private eye character Harry Dresden, Wizard.

In 2007, I reviewed Butcher's Dresden novels in my book review column, and did one column where I interviewed Butcher in person.
http://www.simegen.com/reviews/rereadablebooks/2007/rrbooks2007info.html

Butcher's Harry Dresden novels are long, complex, multi-threaded plots where Harry Dresden has three or more life-threatening cases or affairs in progress at once, and usually emerges beaten, bedraggled, bloody and alive. Harry doesn't exult over his vanquished enemies.

So it must have been a real writing challenge for Butcher to produce a novella sized Dresden story with one plot thread and one single point to make. After the discipline of working with the Harry Dresden TV series (on Sci Fi channel but now on DVD (I have the DVDs and have really enjoyed them)

Butcher probably had a better idea of how to write a complete Dresden story at novella length. "The Warrior" succeeds marvelously at this length and is very like a TV episode. I recommend you read that novella before reading my analysis. There are some spoilers in this discussion because the COLLATERAL REPAIRS part comes at the end of this Dresden story.

See my blog post on spoilers -- it is my stance that no really good story can be spoiled by knowing in advance what happens or what some other reader thought happened.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/03/prologues-and-spoilers.html

"The Warrior" is almost entirely and purely a characterization exercise. It's all about Dresden's sense of proportion and his personal values. No two readers will interpret it alike. And it's an instant classic that can't be spoiled. But if you like, page down to END SPOILER and continue reading.

----------BEGIN SPOILER-----------------


The story opens as Dresden makes a mistake. He's been sent photos that seem to be a threat against Michael, the retired wielder of a Holy Sword. Currently, Dresden has custody of two of these Holy Swords, but not the authority to wield them. Dresden wants to protect his unarmed friend, Michael, and takes Michael's old sword to him, showing him the pictures someone sent him. A stalker is after Michael's family and friends.

Michael refuses the Sword.

Dresden moves through the city investigating who the stalker might be, trying to Private Eye the problem away, and as he does so, he does a few little things he barely notices doing -- he's just moving through the city concentrating on the real threat, the stalker.

Michael's daughter is kidnapped by the stalker and the ransom is both Swords.

Now these Swords are an Honor, a Holy Calling, each belonging to an Archangel (the real kind) and a fabulous amount of magical power is inside each Sword. They are unique. They are special. And they have the power to protect the innocent, maybe save the world. They must not fall into the "wrong" hands. Dresden is their guardian. He takes that seriously.

Dresden doesn't even think about it for two seconds. He'll give the kidnapper the swords to get the girl back. He has no ego-investment in being in possession of both of these Swords, but he respects and believes in their power.

At the exchange, a fight breaks out. Dresden and Michael win, but Dresden has to remind Michael not to hit the kidnapper too hard.

The last scene is where the meaning of this story, and its commentary on Dresden's character, come clear. Dresden has once again conquered a serious enemy tackling the enemy head-on, though this time a mere mortal human being who isn't even a Wizard. He's sitting in the balcony of a cathedral waiting for Michael and others to finish patching up the kidnapper when the Archangel Gabriel appears sitting next to him.

Dresden barely blinks at that. He lives in a world where such beings are natural. The Archangel Gabriel talks idiomatic English and points out to Dresden that even though he does not wield one of the Swords, he is nevertheless a Warrior fighting successfully for the Light. Then Gabriel enumerates the results of Dresden's easy, unthinking peripheral actions along the way through the story.

What Dresden thought he was doing, what he thought the problem was (stalker; kidnapper after the Swords) was not the most important thing Dresden did that day. The side-effects, the collateral repairs in the world that Dresden made by his apparently trivial knee-jerk responses to situations actually did far more to bring goodness into the world than his titanic conflicts with the magical Forces of Evil.


-------------END SPOILER---------------

Dresden, no matter how he thinks of himself, is The Warrior.

And you and I learn a lesson from Dresden. Everything we do, but most especially the things we do without thinking about them, -- the negligent, the peripheral, the habitual, -- all those little deeds are the ones that count in Collateral Repair of the world.

I read "The Warrior" after I found a message on the EPIC List from Morgan Mandel who had posted a blog about 8 reasons to comment on blogs. And in Blake Snyder's SAVE THE CAT! and Harry Dresden's Sword problem, I found a reason Morgan doesn't have on her list (though her list seems to be growing).

http://morganmandel.blogspot.com/2009/01/seven-reasons-to-comment-on-blog.html

Her reasons to post comments on blogs pivot around the benefits that might accrue to the commenter.

Commenting on blogs for such reasons as she mentions would be the kind of "Goal Directed Behavior" you'd find in a Hero undergoing a story where he/she was about to learn something the hard way.

But commenting on blogs is usually (at least for me) a peripheral activity, a by-the-way done as a reflexive response on a subject I know something about -- sort of like Clark Kent blundering down the street or Harry Dresden acting from his heart, just because he can. And I think it's that way for a lot of people (political diatribes excepted).

Blogs are not central to most people's life goals, yet we who read blogs get something out of it, something intangible but worth the time. When a certain sort of person reads a blog entry and gets something out of it that's worth the reading time, he/she will drop a comment on that blog just to thank the blogger. Or a comment on a comment.

After reading Angel Gabriel's explanation to Dresden, I suspect that commenting on a blog comes into the category of being The Warrior.

Maybe only one person other than the blogger will read the comment, but the effect that comment might have on that one person could be enormously out of proportion to the effort it takes to write the comment. Your comment might save or redirect a life.

Often the comment becomes longer because in thinking how to say thank you, the commenter will put some effort into verbalizing a response that shows they read the blog entry and understood it. As a result, the commenter also gains a deeper understanding of himself and the issue -- as well as providing a "Scotty, you earned your pay for the month!" to the blogger.

I do think the main reason to comment on blogs (or to blog) is that somebody you've never met might read your comment, benefit from it without even knowing who you are. Thus you have a chance to repair the world in the most powerful way.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.slantedconcept.com