The Fates of Social Networks

Cory Doctorow's latest LOCUS column explores the breakdown of social networking sites, which he seems to believe is the inevitable culmination of their life cycles:

Social Quitting

He focuses on Facebook and Twitter. Are they doomed to go the way of their predecessors such as MySpace? They've had a longer run, but he thinks they, too, are in the process of changing from "permanent to ephemeral."

Personally, I don't expect Facebook to fade away anytime soon like previous services that imploded "into ghost towns, then punchlines, then forgotten ruins." I can't speak about Twitter, since I've never joined it and, given the current turmoil surrounding it, I don't plan to, even though lots of authors make productive use of it. Mainly, I can't imagine myself conjuring up cogent, entertaining tweets several times a day, which seems to be the criterion for using Twitter effectively. I had a MySpace account during the height of its popularity. The site struck me as a visually exhausting mess, dominated by flashy ads and hard to comprehend or navigate. Also, if anybody I knew used it, I never managed to connect with them. I joined Facebook because it became the only reliable way to keep track of many of our contemporary and younger relatives. (People who ignore e-mails will often answer Facebook messages.) Later, numerous organizations and businesses I wanted to keep up with established dedicated Facebook pages.

Doctorow analyzes these "network effects," summarized as, "A system has ‘network effects’ if it gets more valuable as more people use it." Facebook's attraction of more and more customers has a snowballing effect; people want to go where other people they know are. When the volume of users reaches critical mass, the "switching cost" becomes prohibitively high for most customers. Leaving the service becomes more trouble than it's worth. As long as the benefits of the service outweigh disadvantages such as becoming the object of targeted advertising, most people who've grown used to the advantages will stick around. But, as Doctorow explains the current situation, social media platforms shift more of their value—the "surplus," in economics terminology—to advertisers rather than users. Later, they tend to get greedy and make things difficult for advertisers, too. Then the "inverse network effects" kick in: The greater number of customers and advertisers that quit the network, the less value exists for those who stay, so even more leave.

Although Doctorow doesn't use the term, his explanation reminds me of the "sunk cost" principle. If we've already poured a lot of time, money, or energy into something, we're reluctant to give up on it. We continue to invest in it because otherwise our previous efforts would seem "wasted."

In my opinion, although based on my own probably limited experiences and interests, Doctorow exaggerates as far as Facebook is concerned. I have no intent of abandoning it in the foreseeable future. Our relatives and real-world friends who use the service haven't begun to disappear. (In fact, one who stopped several years ago has come back.) Local businesses still post updates there. Our church has an active page we rely on. My various writing-related groups continue to thrive. As for the advertising, it doesn't bother me. How hard is it to scroll down to the next post? Besides, some ads alert me to products such as new books that might actually interest me. The occasionally outright spooky knowledge of my habits and interests many websites display (how does the weather page know what I recently searched for on Amazon?) has a definite downside in terms of privacy concerns. However, it also offers advantages by way of customizing and streamlining the user's internet experience. And how can I legitimately complain about Facebook advertising when I use the site to promote my own books?

In short, there must be enough people and organizations among my contacts who are as change-averse as I am, to maintain the site's value for me. And I can't believe I'm alone in that position.

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Theme-Plot-Character-Worldbuilding Integration Part 12 - The Character Driven Plot

Theme-Plot-Character-Worldbuilding Integration

Part 12

The Character Driven Plot

Previous parts in this advanced series are indexed at:
https://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2015/12/index-to-theme-plot-character.html

From Twitter -

J. H. Bogran (who did a Guest Post for us here: https://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/06/settings-part-4-detail-guest-post-by-j.html ),  forwarded a tweet from "thebigthrill.org" in April 2019.


J. H. Bogran writes:
------quote--------
Interesting topic this week at the Roundtable “Does ‘character-driven’ mean the plot should be simpler or more complex?” (link: http://www.thebigthrill.org/2019/04/april-22-28-does-character-driven-mean-the-plot-should-be-simpler-or-more-complex/) thebigthrill.org/2019/04/april-… via
@thrillerwriters

@thrillereditor
 #writingcommunity #litchat #scifichat #thrillers #amwriting

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

Forwarded message the comment was about:

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

April 22 – 28: “Does ‘character-driven’ mean the plot should be simpler or more complex?”
With regard to novels,  August Norman, T R Kenneth, Cathy Ace, Caitlin Starling, Jerry Kennealy, Lisa Towles, Gary Haynes, Rachel Caine, Elisabeth Elo, Nicole Bross, Lynn Cahoon and Laurie Stevens.  we use terms like "character-driven" does that mean the plot should be simpler or more complex? This week we're joined by ITW Members

thebigthrill.org

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

My answer, in tweet-format, was:

--------quote---------
JLichtenberg@JLichtenberg
1 min ago
#scifichat "Character driven" = plot's energy comes FROM Character's internal conflict. Writer shows via THEME how our angst creates our vicissitudes, while strengthening of character allows us to overcome them. "Driven" means Character Arc is Story.
-------end quote------


Compare to their take on the subject, here:

 http://www.thebigthrill.org/2019/04/april-22-28-does-character-driven-mean-the-plot-should-be-simpler-or-more-complex/


As we've discussed at length in these Tuesday posts, when you have your THEME clearly in mind as you write (or most usually rewrite), and use each scene, each Character, each line of dialogue, etc., choose details of environment, all to express that single theme clearly, then both the internal-conflict-plot-resolution AND the external conflict-plot-resolution sequences are crystal clear to the reader, and though complex seem simple.

On rewrite, you use THEME to decide what to keep and what to delete.  It really is that simple to write a simple plot -- it will be complex, but only other writers or editors will notice that.  Readers read it as simple.

It's the same in every art form.  Sounding spontaneous takes careful preparation.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg

http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

What Futurologists Do Part 1

What Futurologists Do

Part 1

by

Jacqueline Lichtenberg

I found this highlighted image post on Twitter, posted by Brandon Morse ( @TheBrandonMorse) 

It is a quote from a book by Carl Sagan, titled The Demon-Haunted World and the post had amassed over 27,000 Likes.

Would you like to sell another 27,000 copies of your latest novel?

Study this quote, and note it was written before 1996 - travel back into history and study the previous 10 years Sagan had just lived through.

Think about what his world and the younger people in it seemed like, what they wanted and what they were willing to do to get what they wanted.

One more consideration -- think about what actions the 20-somethings of 1996 believed would cause the result they wanted.

Sagan is talking about a mis-match between how the currently emerging into power generation thinks the world works, and how it actually does work.

And by "the world" I mean physics-math-chemistry-spirituality.  Notice his disparaging remark about mysticism, which you might expect of Sagan.

By "the world" today most people mean politics, social justice, what the majority have the right to take from the rich minority - the 1%, and the loss of a distinction between a right and a privelege.

Now, sitting in the head of a futurist in 1996, look at 2016 -- a nice 20 year generational shift.

Note what information he had to work with, and what conclusions he drew.

Match his conclusions to the actual reality of 2017 (and pretty soon, 2018).

Now you are sitting in 2018 -- what does 2038 look like to you?

What can you write today that will be quoted on Twitter (or its successor) in 2039?

We are convinced Love Conquers All -- but we rarely consider what "all" there is to conquer.

We hear politicians adamantly affirming they "fight for you" -- for your rights, for the betterment of your life -- but they never say who they are fighting against or define precisely why that enemy of yours is out to destroy you, and why you can't defend yourself without their help.

And we continue to read novels about Love Conquers All -- most often without actually defining what there is that has to be conquered.

Write THE definitive novel about "the all" that must be conquered, define it, nail it, name it, and show its weakness, show how it can be conquered by Love.

Consider whether you are the enemy that must be conquered by love.

Look at what Sagan wrote -- he sketched an "all" that needs conquering by Love.  Consider how that can be done.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Strong Characters Defined Part 3: Tit For Tat in Paranormal Romance by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Strong Characters Defined
Part 3
Tit For Tat in Paranormal Romance
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Previous posts in the Strong Character Defined series are:

Part 1 in Strong Characters Defined series posted:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/10/strong-characters-defined-part-1.html

Here is another post with foundational material about Character:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/07/theme-character-integration-part-7.html

And here is Part 2 in this series:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/08/strong-character-defined-part-2.html

Today we're going to examine a Theme that turned up in a quote posted on Twitter.

This tiny quote reveals a Theme that can be used as foundation of a really hot Romance which has a Character-driven Plot, and might be a long series of very long books.

Michelle McKee retweeted a tweet that @Goodluck Msangi sent to @tase_ny :

---------quote from Twitter Retweeted by Michelle McKee----------
Goodluck Msangi ‏@tase_ny May 12

Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good  for each other and for everyon… http://bible.com/111/1th.5.15.niv …

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

That's from Thessalonians 5:15 which is posted on the URL ".niv"
https://www.bible.com/bible/111/1th.5.15.niv

The full, non-twitter condensed, version is:

"Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else."

I have no idea what this conversation was about or why the retweet ended up before my eyes, but it fits perfectly with the discussion on Depicting Culture using Dialogue:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/10/strong-characters-defined-part-1.html

Aphorisms, platitudes, punch-lines of jokes, and every sort of encapsulated Ancient Wisdom passed down in sayings or children's rhymes can be used to depict the culture your characters live in without ever a word of Exposition (thus avoiding the dreaded Expository Lump.) 

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2011/08/astrology-just-for-writers-part-10.html

We all know that Bible Quote as a version of "An Eye For An Eye" -- which is so garbled in translation it's hopeless to try to explain that it's not Revenge or "making someone pay" but rather, just like the US Constitution, LIMITS the power of the judiciary by expressing the precise liability a person has for the damage done to another person. 

Therefore, it makes marvelous fodder for the care and feeding of a Romance.

We all know that Couples argue (even fight) over Politics, Education, Birth Control, or the cut of a political candidate's suit.  Most of the time, the domestic issue is not the ostensible issue.

Marion Zimmer Bradley taught that the Villain is the Hero of His Own Story -- that who is good and who is bad is a matter of Point Of View.  She learned that from her mentors.

Read the quote again.

Words like "pays back" and "wrong" and "strive" and "good" are subject to wildly varying definitions as you switch point-of-view to tell a great story.  There are hundreds of distinctly different novels set in dozens of Worlds buried in that one little quote as you change the definition of those qualitative words as you shift Point of View.

When you write a story from two points of view, you (as writer) must draw a STARK (i.e. artistic) distinction in black and white for the comparison of the points of view.

The reader must feel secure in comprehension of that distinction before you introduce any shades of gray.  The nature of that distinction is the source of your narrative hook.  Readers will accept or reject a book on the basis of whether the difference, the conflict, has personal relevance.

Fiction is not reality, but rather an artistic depiction of reality.  Certain attributes your Built World are exaggerated, others minimized, to bring depict the Theme of this character's Life. 

Shades of gray, and "there's no such thing as an absolute Truth" just won't work to fuel the hot-hot scenes you want to write, and won't hit the reader in the G-spot of imagination.

You need the high contrast of absolute Right and absolute Wrong, but once those polar opposites are in place, you can bury them in colors chosen from the palate of colors appropriate to your Theme (just as an artist selects certain tones to key a picture; writers must select just a few tones of reality to depict their world and let the reader fill in the rest.)

"Never repay a Wrong with a Wrong" makes a dynamite theme if both the Protagonist and Antagonist (or both who will form a Couple) are absolutely committed to behaving that way, yet define what is Right and what is Wrong differently. 

So even though the real world the reader lives in is painted in shades of gray, blue, red, yellow, green and everything between, the Art that is sought by a Romance Reader needs to separate the shades, to bring up the contrast. 

The romance reader won't be able to sink into the story if it isn't clear "What She Sees In Him" and "What He Sees In Her."  At the same time, it has to be clear why the Couple doesn't  just skip the story-part and get married today.  The Conflict is them vs whatever-keeps-them-apart. 

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/06/theme-conflict-integration-part-2.html

The essence of story is Conflict.

Therefore, what she sees in him and vice versa has to be utterly clear (even if it is to change later in the novel via an Epiphany.)

So let's assume both the Soul Mates are Strong Characters when they meet.

And let's suppose, since this is the season, that they are working together for a particular Political Candidate.

They are both on "the same side" - so there should be no barrier to them getting together.

Let's employ what I like to call "karmic plotting" -- using some Paranormal Dimension to explain how and why the main characters came to this Situation, why they are in it together, why they want to kill each other even if not literally.

Maybe this Couple were the victims of an Arranged Marriage way back in the Middle Ages.  Maybe they never shared a bedroom?  Maybe, in bitter retaliation and grand defiance against his inattentiveness and against her Father for hurling her into this, she had a kid by another guy and pretended it was the husband's kid (but the husband knew better).  The husband threw the wife and kid out of the mansion and repudiated them publicly.  (i.e. he returned a Wrong with a Wrong). 

In other words, the Arranged Marriage is "unfinished business" in their karmic relationship.

And let's take the case of a married woman getting pregnant by another man as the karmic background here.

So each of them is feeling relentlessly attracted to the other (without even considering sex in the mix), and absolutely scared white lipped at the idea of getting involved with each other. 

The part of the mind that has an affinity for RIGHT says, "Marry that one!" and the part of the mind that has a weakness for WRONG says, "Run!"  because running is the easy way out which a Strong Character would never choose.

As the campaign they're working on heats up, the campaign manager turns to Attack Ads, and maybe includes lies about the opposition's record.

Let's say the Opposition is claiming to be the son of a famous person -- and that connection is what makes his following trust him.

In a Conference meeting about their next attack ad, one of the Couple blurts out a suggestion, "Just say he's not the legitimate son of Famous Guy.  His wife cheated and he's been fooled into accepting this guy as his son." 

"We don't have any proof of that."

"What do we need proof for? It'll hit only two weeks before the election - early voting will be under way!"

And the other one of the Couple says, "We can't do that.  It would just be so wrong!"

The first one of the Couple says, "Not only can we do that, we should do it because of all the dirty lies he's told about our Guy."

The Campaign manager considers, "Well, tit for tat, we'd be even."

"Besides," adds the first one of the Couple, "there is so little resemblance between father and son that I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't really the father."

So the Campaign Manager launches the disinformation ads.

At a Campaign stop, in the middle of the novel, the two get a Tarot Reading, or a Psychic divines the Relationship of their previous lives -- but they don't believe any of that non-sense.

Meanwhile,the Couple destroys the headquarters staff as they argue every aspect of the issue and the staffers take sides, then fight between themselves. 

If you're writing from this Outline, you insert encounters with Psychics, Clergy, and some spooky experiences on the campaign trail.  Oh, and they get the endorsement of a Romance Writer famous for Historicals, who has written Their Story.

The parallels between the Middle Ages arranged marriage build slowly, and there's confusion in them both as they dream the Past, and it's the same as the Present.  Maybe they decide to break the jinx by having sex which they never did in the Past?

Not only are they now arguing that the Campaign Ads should not have veered toward such a blatant lie, but also that it's bad karma to lie.

Maybe they start to think the Campaign Manager is a reincarnation of the son she fobbed off as her husband's?  This novel can be very spooky in a realistic way as the staff takes sides in the Couple's battle.

The Campaign becomes ineffectual for lack of staff cohesiveness.

The Campaign loses. 

The Opposition Candidate (now Elect) turns out to be the son of another man.  The Lie turns out to be True.   The Public is outraged, and divided over whether this man (an imposter) is actually Elected or not.

The newly Elected Official commits suicide, because he had no idea he wasn't his father's son and couldn't face the world after living a lie so publicly.

The Couple has to attend the Funeral, as part of the Political Campaign Staff.  Be sure to give them jobs on the Campaign that would require them to do the courtesy.

At the Wake after the funeral, they get drunk together, having both learned that one does not respond to a Wrong by doing another Wrong.  The Karmic Consequences are just way too severe.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Social Networking Is Not A Promotional Tool - Part 2 Comparing Services by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Social Networking Is Not A Promotional Tool
Part 2
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
Comparing Services  

Here is Part One on Social Networking

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2011/04/social-networking-is-not-advertising.html

A few months ago, someone on a Facebook Group of Screenwriters (serious beginning professionals with accomplishments to their names) asked what use TWITTER might be, and how to work with Twitter. 

A whole lot of people on the group had experiences with Twitter to relate and opinions about how effective the time spent on Twitter might be, plus hints and clues about how to get the most screenwriting info out of Twitter.

I tossed in a couple of answers, and someone tossed a question to me: "What is Google Plus?" 

Oh, boy, how this world of social networking is exploding so fast! 

Even those working hard to sell screenplays don't know what's happening in social media, even though it is reported on TV often and in depth!

I've been on Google+ since it was by Google's invitation only. 

So I put a link to my G+ page
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+JacquelineLichtenberg/posts

And my twitter:
https://twitter.com/JLichtenberg

And the questioner went and looked at it and noted some differences from the way Facebook presents information about people. And I answered that.

So the person who asked me looked up the stats and commented: the stats reveal Gplus has 300MM users compared to FB 1.2 BB   AND FB users spend 6 hrs a week or month vs Gplus 7 minutes...

That's about true.  G+ is much FASTER to use, somehow.  You get more done in 7 minutes than in an hour on Facebook.

My opinion, as you all know, is pro-Twitter.  I follow many video producers, actors, writers, directors, and production companies, Indie film promoters, just a lot of people in The Industry and the Indie segment of the film industry. 

But the Sime~Gen fans have created a Group on Facebook, so I also spend a lot of time with Facebook as well as Google Plus.

Here's the explanation of the comparison I wrote for the Screenwriter's Group on Facebook.

-----------QUOTE-----
I don't think it's worth while to compare Google+ to FB.  Both are just tools.  Your reward will come from your need for that tool and your ability to employ that tool to accomplish your purposes. 

One neat thing about G+ is that it can be set to use the same login as you use for your blogger.com blogs, for your gmail and other google tools.  And as with FB you can use that google login on other sites.  That neat thing is it's main drawback.  Lots of exposure to things you'd rather not be exposed to.  But for a professional, it can be worth the risk.

Many people I know are on both G+ and FB and cruise through those and several other social sites at whim.  Both are just TOOLS -- how rewarding the experience is depends on who you know not what you know. 

As a professional writer, I go where the people who want to talk to me are -- it is my responsibility to make the effort to accommodate the habits and preferences of my customers, without regard for my own. 

There are more people on FB, but G+ lets you connect easier with people you don't know but who want to know you. 

In socializing, it's more about quality than quantity, so the fact that FB is bigger is why I'm here and why my fans are gathering on the SimeGen Group here.  The fact that there are large numbers of writers on G+ is why I'm there.  Also there are lots more image-oriented people on G+ and writers are always evaluating images for cover potential.

G+ has been handling images better, but FB has caught up during their launch of more advertising in your stream.  FB interfaces with lots of other social media products so you can aggregate posts by making those connections.  Post an item on your tumblr blog and set tumblr to post that item on FB, Twitter, etc -- but G+ won't allow that cross-posting (yet.) so posting to G+ is a separate operation.  That's a huge drawback.  Also my blogger blog auto-posts itself on FB. 

My point here is that you don't choose ONE or THE OTHER -- you establish a core presence where it's convenient for you, then connect to all the other networks where your own customers tend to hang out with their friends.  Your objective is to do the most connecting with the least time/effort on your part as possible.  Efficiency is the watchword in social-media.

FB limits the number of friends you can have (outside of your "Page" as a celebrity one-way communication).  G+ has no such tiny limit, which makes it valuable to me.  On FB I have just over 1K connections, but on G+ in half the time I have acquired 7K followers.  I have about 2200 followers on Twitter.  But as with FB only a few dozen actually TALK BACK when I say something.  I treasure those commentators because they really think!  

Both G+ and FB allow for Groups and Communities where you can meet and talk to people who aren't connected to your stream and don't see your general posts.  Each community on G+ has its own rules (just like FB) and a focused interest.  The NaNoWriMo folks are huge on G+ and they are a kick and a half! 

I suspect my problem is that I just love PEOPLE -- lots of them all talking to each other.  I sit back and marvel at the rich harvest of story-ideas! 
------END QUOTE---

So my advice to people who want to use social media to promote their work is don't do that.

Use social media as a source of your work, not a destination.

Then people who want to talk to you will appear.  You will get to say what's dear to your heart, and they will run off and repeat that while pointing their friends at your work.

Draw your story ideas from the subjects, ideas and attitudes bandied about among your primary audience, then tell them you have this new novel or whatever available in such a way that it's clear you understood what they meant. 

Don't tell them you took their ideas (which you didn't, but that's hard to explain).  Tell them their ideas.  They will recognize their own ideas, and run around espousing this ultra-clear statement of their own ideas by someone they barely know -- "I couldn't have said it better myself."

Even more, when you do it this way -- your readers will see confirmation and maybe even vindication in your restatement of their ideas because you can utilize SHOW DON'T TELL as the mechanism for explaining these very abstract matters.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Theme-Character Integration Part 5 - Fame And Glory: When You're Rich They Think You Really Know by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Theme-Character Integration Part 5

Fame And Glory: When You're Rich They Think You Really Know

by Jacqueline Lichtenberg 

Theodore Bikel, my favorite actor (Worf's human father on Star Trek), singer, raconteur, did an album a long time ago with a song from FIDDLER ON THE ROOF (he played Tevye on Broadway and toured it for years). 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000QQZQNY/  99cents for that single song

There's a line in "If I Were A Rich Man" -- "when you're rich, they think you really know!"

That is a wondrous song that captures the depths of human psychology, line after line.

It looks at being rich from a poor man's perspective, but not a poor man powered by greed, avarice, jealousy or resentment of those who are rich. 

The song is really about what stops us from great achievements, and what keeps us going toward great achievements which we sometimes achieve!

Would it ruin some "Master Plan" if I were a rich man?  The assumption is that riches "just happen" -- that there is no fundamental difference between a person who happens to be rich, and a person who just happens to be poor.  What kind of strength of character does it take to look at the world that way, when you just happen to be poor? 


So today we're going to use Point of View to talk about Strength of Character as a thematic element in the episodic novel (or series) Springboard. 

Here are some previous posts on the Springboard construction:

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

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

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

We will return to the Springboards series with a Part 5 on Zombies and a Part 6 on Earning a Sobriquet.  But first we pick up the issue of Springboard Construction for a long series of novels by delving deeper into issues of Theme-Character Integration.

There was a TV show a while back titled FAME.  And that was the theme of the series -- all about a special High School teaching performers the skills to achieve fame on the stage.

The Klingons in Star Trek embodied WAR IS GLORIOUS as a theme.

"Fame" and "Glory" often equal "Riches" in the minds of Characters who do not have these traits.  Notice Tevye only yearned for "a small fortune." 

The starry-eyed attraction toward "fame" (or local popularity) and the sense of achieving something "glorious" (e.g. something that goes viral on YouTube), are deep human responses that are laced with raw thematic material writers can use with wondrous results.

I had a quick exchange on Twitter a few months ago with Rex Sikes and Becket Adams

Twitter Bios:

Rex Sikes' Movie Beat conversations w filmmakers Inet radio show, website & blog - subscribe to podcast actor/producer/director/ filmmaker & interview host

And Becket Adams bio:

Business writer @theblaze. Opinions are my own. Re-tweets because they're funny, foolish, or newsworthy. badams@theblaze.com

------twitter exchange--------

BecketAdams 9:02am via Web

Pro tip: Just because someone famous and/or inspirational said it doesn't mean it's wise or true.

RexSikesMovieBT 9:04am via TweetDeck

How2 get your movie funded @FlywayFilmFest @Trigonis "it's bout who you R (who r you?) becuz people give2 people not2 projects"

JLichtenberg 9:04am via HootSuite

@BecketAdams Agreed, one should not idolize the famous. Just because you're rich doesn't mean you REALLY KNOW!

JLichtenberg 9:06am via HootSuite

@RexSikesMovieBT It's a combo! "who you R" = "what project U choose" = "what ppl you know who know U" = "FUNDING INVESTED IN U"

JLichtenberg 9:09am via HootSuite

@RexSikesMovieBT "Who U R" = Keeping Ur Word = delivering ON TIME = No gossip, bad-mouthing others, or Put-Downs. Character is a MUSCLE

And after a couple minutes, @RexSikesMovieBT answered me, so I Retweeted.

JLichtenberg 9:25am via HootSuite

RT @RexSikesMovieBT: @JLichtenberg very wise words you share! ==> THANK YOU!

Somewhat later RexSikesMovieBT answered:
I am quoting speaker in my tweets.RT @JLichtenberg: @BecketAdams @RexSikesMovieBT Excerpted Ur tweets on getting movie funded…

-----------end twitter exchange----------

Which praise got me to thinking.  Most people just preen themselves when praised, or maybe get shy and crawl under a rock. 

Me?  I THINK -- I dissect and analyze what I said, what that praising person thought I said, why they thought that, why I said what I said just that way and not another way, and how the exchange created a "stirring in The Force" as they say.

THINKING-THINKING-THINKING

It is often said men consider thinking about emotion to be anathema, a horror to be avoided at all costs, and a sure sign of a lack of strong character.  Only WOMEN think about feelings -- and only women talk about feelings, articulate emotions "on the nose."

That's certainly true in our current culture.

But is it a universal truth about humankind?

After all, we have the whole Book of Psalms which has been preserved and is read regularly to this day -- and it is mostly poetry about feelings written mostly by men (I can't prove only by men, but the attributions are all to men, mostly King David.)

Being a science fiction writer by trade, I generally come to "but is it a universal human trait" with the immediate backlash of, "what would non-humans for whom it is a universal trait create for a culture?"  Or what if they didn't have that trait at all? 

That's how Gene Roddenberry (as I learned while interviewing GR and the actors and crew of Star Trek (ToS) for the Bantam Paperback STAR TREK LIVES!)  arrived at the concept "Vulcans" and why Gene fought to have Spock retained, combining "Number One" (the unemotional female first officer) with Spock-half-Vulcan-science-officer character, who turned out to be the source of SCIENCE FICTION ROMANCE as a genre.

Yes, the first human/alien romances were Star Trek Fan Fiction --  the first Christian SFR (written by a Reverend's wife!) is posted for free reading on simegen.com:

http://www.simegen.com/fandom/startrek/showcase/

It is Star Trek fan fiction about a Romance with Spock involving a Christian woman who is a very devoted and sincere Christian -- so the conflict is inherent in the situation.  The work abounds with deep themes.  And it's well crafted, easy reading. 

SFR and romance novels in general are really about character.

One of the signature expressions of "character" is the way people respond to "Fame and Glory" (Spock is a great example of both) -- either by being famous and preening under yes-men praise and fawning-fans, or by lusting after the Glory of Fame from a low-self-esteem position.  Hence the Spock character became the center of many "Mary Sue" stories. 

Part of the appeal of Romance to the very young teen girl is the aura of "what it will feel like to have HIS attention on ME."  Awakening sexual awareness is all about very greedy attention-grabbing.  Hold that thought.  We'll get back to greed at the end of this blog entry.

Attention-grabbing is the core of fame.  It is also the core of the High School yearning for "popularity."

"Glory" is often seen as the pre-requisite to Fame.  The HS Football Star's girlfriend, for example. 

Being voted "Most Popular" in High School, it turns out, is not the key to success in the rest of life.  But during the High School years, popularity is often seen the only way to success in life. 

Likewise, in college -- being the Party Guest Of The Year is not the key to success that can substitute for actually learning how to think, and how to teach yourself anything you subsequently need or want to know.

Fame does not mean you really KNOW!!!

The only ones who think that fame means you really know are those who are not famous.

Do you see the subject we're circling around here?

It is the simple thesis I've been harping on in these blogs.

CONFLICT IS THE ESSENCE OF STORY

And a whole lot of "conflict" that generates story-movement is all about Point Of View.

The famous look at the world from one point of view; the non-famous see it all from a different point of view. 

Likewise with riches, with real expertise, with age, with wisdom, with disability due to injury, with disability due to birth defects, etc etc -- each of these points of view provide different perspectives which, when pitted against each other, create conflict that causes the characters to change. 

Story is the sequence of lessons learned by the main character whose story you are telling, the lessons that are mileposts along that character's arc.  "Story" means how that character changed his point of view. 

The plot is the sequence of events that happen TO the character who internalizes a lesson from that event.

The main character does something on page 1 -- makes a decision, parses a problem and sets a goal, evaluates a character and decides to invest in that character's project, or tries to get others to invest in their own project.

How is Romance related to investing? 

Romance is related to investing via the investment that one makes in the Significant Other -- the Soul Mate.

Soul Mating is all about joining two into one -- just like merging a business. 

To make the joint-venture profitable, both firms must eliminate the overlapping and duplicated departments (secretarial pool, rented space in the cloud). 

In the case of Romance, it can be the renting of two apartments that has to be eliminated.  It used to be that record collections and book collections would be merged, discarding duplicates -- with iTunes and e-books, that isn't how it's done anymore.  Today it's more about cancelling duplicate ISP accounts.

Once joined, the Soul Mates each "lack" something ( look up "packing fraction" in atomic physics -- the energy an atomic nucleus does not have because it was emitted when the components joined to create that nucleus.)  In a Romance, the packing-fraction would be the discarded duplicate DVD, book, or ISP account, the extra square-footage rented, etc. 

Now look again at Star Trek. 

Gene Roddenberry joined two characters into one, in order to get his show on the air, in order to appease the Network which refused to risk money on a show that put a woman in command of men on a bridge crew.

GR had to discard either Spock or Number One (by making her male), and chose the non-human crew member to speak of how humans look from the outside.  

Science Fiction is all about Point of View from inside a Character.  Crafting and expressing that Point of View requires clarity of a theme wholly integrated into (married to) a character. 

To do that, Gene Roddenberry lost the avante guarde thrust into a feminist culture that he wanted Trek to be. He got it back with the first inter-racial kiss on TV, Kirk and Uhura, but when he made this decision to drop Number One, he didn't know he'd be able to pull that off.

So Uhura got lines like, "I'm scared, Captain."  But the show got on the air.

Gene Roddenberry (and quite a few others) got fairly rich from it all -- a "small fortune."  He got rich because "they" invested in him, not in Trek. 

Does that mean the Rich Really Know?  Does that mean GR really knew? 

Well, he did become famous, too, so obviously that means he really knew, right? 

Think about it.  THINK-THINK-THINK.

Combining Number One and Spock drove human male Characters on the show to speaking about emotion, out-loud on TV.  What a concept! 

I knew Roddenberry -- spoke with him in private, personally, recorded and transcribed interviews with him, studied what he said and excerpted it for the book STAR TREK LIVES!  (all this while writing Sime~Gen Novels, too). 

So during this twitter exchange cited above, my thoughts went from considering why people invest in getting movies made (usually via Kickstarter) -- to the idea that they are investing in YOU, in the person not the project, to why "they" invested in Roddenberry.  He was, at that time, a known Character -- it was only the Idea that was crazy-nuts-ridiculous.  They invested in him, not Trek. 

*I*N*V*E*S*T*I*N*G* in YOU -- wow. 

It is not the project but YOU that gets the investment.  How very personal that makes all business -- just like romance gets really, intimately, personal.

OK, person not project.  Hmmm.  And Conflict is the Essence of Story as well as of Plot.

If you want to understand the world, you have to "follow the money." 

So in your novel that you are writing, you depict how investment money (or emotion) flows to the Character not the Project that the Character is launching.

Remember that THEME is the glue that holds the entire artistic composition of a novel, TV screenplay, Series, Feature Film, -- any fictional work -- together.

That's why SAVE THE CAT! emphasizes the necessity of getting that "Theme Stated Beat" just right. 

I happened to have been watching the fall, 2013 first episode of the season of ONCE UPON A TIME just before engaging in that twitter exchange, and I had noted how (once again) this show delivered a picture-perfect THEME STATED BEAT. 

At this moment, I don't remember what that theme was -- I just remember how that beat leaped out at me in vivid technicolor as being just, absolutely, p*e*r*f*e*c*t*l*y executed.

And that perfection came from the construction of the characters. 

Consider that each of the characters in ONCE UPON A TIME is "famous" in their own right -- from the fairy tale characters they are based upon.  Some of them are "rich" too.

When you're rich, they think you really know.

So with all of this sizzling around in my head, I got into a conversation with a professional writer in a chatroom between tweets in that twitter exchange.

The conversation was about "life, the universe, and everything" -- A.K.A. "what's wrong with this world?"  I mean what else do professional writers talk about in off moments in private?  It went from current political campaign maneuvers to assisted living facilities to water quality control to building new bridges and infrastructure, all the way to G-d Himself.

During that chatroom exchange I got onto one of my hobbyhorses -- CHARACTER. 

We follow fictional characters episode after episode because of the story of the characters -- not because of the PLOT. 

It is the character arc that intrigues us.   

During the years of ST:ToS, series characters were not allowed to "arc" -- because the shows had to be viewable in any order to qualify for syndication and thus be worth the cost of production.

But fans wouldn't accept that "anthology" structure.  Fans wanted to follow the characters through life-changes -- such as finding true love.  So they wrote and shared their own Trek stories. 

For fans, aired-Trek was just the springboard for the stories they shared. 

Here is a non-fiction book about the development of Fan Fiction.  I have an essay in here, as does Rachel Caine, author of the best-selling Morganville Vampires series.
http://www.amazon.com/Fic-Fanfiction-Taking-Over-World/dp/1939529190/

A "springboard" -- like a diving board -- must flex under the weight of the character, then "spring" upward to hurl the character into the arc. 

The board must not break at the bottom of the flex.  What gives your story springboard that flexibility and strength to support the weight of the character is theme. 

Fame and Glory Makes "them" Think You Really Know so "they" invest in you rather than your project

That is a concept replete with strong and flexible thematic material. 

So as I was tweeting, I found myself in this chat room expounding on a thesis -- a point that seems to be escaping notice by the general public, and is therefore a theme to generate a Best Seller. 

Fame, Glory, Riches are tools.  Who is the tool user? 

Your characters are tool-users, just like real people.  Sometimes a Character gets used, as if he/she were a tool.  They invest in you, not your project.  That's how politicians get "chosen" by the financial backers to be "groomed" for office.  The money gets invested in grooming the politician's image, not in what the politician stands for, not his personal hobby-horse, not his project but in him. 

Lots of really great books and films have spoken on themes such as The Hollywood Producer who says, "I will make you a star!"

Here is the gist of the micro-essays I hammered out between the tweets cited at the top of this entry.

------edited transcript of chatroom discussion ------------

ME 9:46 am
    ...yes, I object strongly to high-density populations -- VERY strongly.  Humans are not built for that.  It ruins all sense of morality. (previously cited studies on rats over-crowded turning violent)
    But schools are AWFUL EVERYWHERE -- graph historical deterioration against growth of Fed Dept of Ed.

 SHE 9:47 am
    The people who were running for school board were against diverting all the tax payer money to the private schools which is stripping the public schools of all the arts and sports programs.
    No music, no art, no sports of any sort, not school plays, no concerts.

 ME 9:48 am
    I'm against arts and sports programs in public schools -- flat against. 
    COERCION AND BULLYING ARE WRONG
    And that's what "sports" has become.  No such thing as "sportsmanship" any more.  Public School sports programs do not build character as they once did.  Sports was all about character building; now it's about winning, not about how you play the game, or behave toward the loser.  Nobody loses, so no character building happens.
.....
 ME 9:50 am
    Art used to be about character building (the shows I love are about STRENGTH OF CHARACTER IS REQUIRED FOR SUCCESS) -- today Fed money supports pub school arts programs that prevent art from expressing necessity to be a STRONG CHARACTER (kids now think "strong" means bulging muscles gained by taking pills). 
  "Art" used to be taught as a method of displaying poetic justice abroad in the world.  Those who adhered to the highest moral standards would win in the end.
    That was THEN -- this is NOW.
    Things have changed.

 SHE 9:51 am
    It's still wrong to strip the public schools of these programs just to send a few other kids to special ed classes.

 ME 9:52 am
    If you make it a fight over money -- bullies win by crying "You victimized me."
    WATCH for the victim mentality and how passive-agressives play the victim card to mask the fact they are bullies.
    THE LESS MONEY THEY CONTROL THE MORE HONEST THEY WILL BE -- control of large amounts of money you didn't make by your own sweat tests character, and it is character that our society is lacking right now. 
------pause chatroom transcript--------------

I was thinking about Tevye's lack of envy and jealousy, about his unconscious assumption that money was not a limited resource, that if he had a small fortune it didn't mean others in the town would have less.  "Would it upset some master plan?" he asks.  In his world, sending some kids to special ed would not mean "stripping the public schools of programs."  Tevye didn't live in an Aristotelian, zero-sum-game world.  Is Tevye a "strong character?"

Remember, we're chasing what it is about "story" that creates "interesting."  Is it in the point of view? 

We are looking into the story-element "character" and pondering the adage "follow the money" to understand why investors invest in the person, not the project (and how that can make for interesting episodic story-structures.)

Some investors may have decided that strength of character is the signature of a person who will be able to bring a project to successful (profitable) conclusion.  Gene Roddenberry was definitely seen as having strength of character. 

Other investors may be looking for a "weak character" who can be manipulated and bamboozled into doing the investor's bidding. 

The twitter exchange above indicates publishers invest in you more than in your novel. 

Do you have the "strength of character" to imbue your fictional characters with strength?

Can you show-don't-tell character strength? 

Can you increase or decrease a fictional character's strength during that character's arc, and pace that change in such a way as to interest your audience?

The essence of story is character while the essence of plot is conflict. 

In this chatscript, I expressed a point of view about the world around us as suffering from a gradual weakening of "strength of character."  If that's true, what does that mean to publishers looking to profit by investing in you, the writer, rather than in your book?

Entertainment that is intrinsically interesting to the greatest number of people, entertainment with "reach," is (today; not in ST:ToS's market) entertainment structured around Character Arc.

Character Arc used to be only growth of characters toward a stronger moral or ethical fiber, an increasing ability to handle large amounts of power over others and not wimp out on choosing "the right course of action" over the "expedient course of action" or the popular course, or the profitable course. 

The advent of the anti-hero has led to popularity of a character arc that traces the devolution of character.

A great example of that is Laurell K. Hamilton's Vampire Series about Anita Blake. 

Up to #22 in that series now:
http://www.amazon.com/Affliction-Anita-Vampire-Hunter-ebook/dp/B009NY3HSG/

I think that anti-hero character devolution trend has bottomed out and we're turning a corner.

I see that turning in the evolution of the Vampire Romance -- the Vampire once represented the epitome of seductive Evil, and has been transformed by Romance fans into a hero returning from the pits of hell to be a staunch advocate of morality (at least to the extent of not-killing his lovers).

The Sexy Vampire Hero is so interesting to me for how he resists temptation (for blood).  Resisting temptation is a measure of strength of character.  The Anita Blake Series describes giving in to temptation as the only sane course. 

-------Back to chatroom discussion where I'm talking to a professional writer -----------

 ME 9:55 am
    You are intrepid -- and you don't see all that's happening around you because you are a person of very strong character. 
    You would not be challenged by being handed control of billions of dollars -- you don't understand the kind of challenge others face when in that position because you are such a GOOD person, down to the core.  They are good people, too  -- and you recognize yourself in them -- but fail to comprehend where exactly they are weak that you are strong.

 SHE 9:57 am
    I guess that's true. When I fantasize about winning the lottery my first thought is all the swimming pools I'm going to fund for the Town, the half-way houses....

 ME 9:58 am
    OK, so you see what I mean.  Watch for it -- it is subtle, but devastating.  And the origin is at the point where the Fed d of ed deleted the teaching of GEOMETRY PROOFS from HS.
    They just lately promulgated an actual prohibition on teaching geometry proofs in that Core thing they're beating down people's throats.  That core thing rewrites history -- in ways only you would see -- considering that praise from your former HS History Teacher.

 SHE 10:00 am
    Actually, I see in the candidates they put up for office how they have no understanding of how things work.
    I don't mean politics either.
    They don't understand the difference between a law and a regulation. The don't understand what jurisdictions are.

 ME 10:01 am
   Yes, law vs reg -- YES!
    Very important.
    Also I watch a lot of shows about grifters and rackets -- watch for those tactics being used on voters and then the voters do not see it even though they watch the same TV shows.

SHE 10:02 am
    I was at a forum where they're asking businesses to discuss outdated and duplicating regulations, ones that cause more harm than good.
    But none of these people spoke about regulations, only laws.
    They had no idea about the difference.
    These people are running businesses.
    Also, I'm sitting there and I'm thinking, "well, that's a good law because it does standardize certain safety measures and make things easier."
    But, THEY consider it too much paperwork.
    It really is nuts. One good thing that came down from, actually I think it was Obama, was that there had to be a country wide standard of chain of command for first responders.

ME 10:03 am
    'REGS THAT DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD'  -- don't confuse the tool with the tool-user when examining the source of a result.
    "Guns don't kill people -- people do"  "videogames don't make children into criminals"  and 'regulations don't cause the harm - it is the regulation creators and users who do the harm'  -- PEOPLE DO THE HARM NOT THE TOOL THEY USE. 
   That's a principle - a theme - in TV shows about grifters and rackets.
  Grifters can only manipulate Marks who haven't the strength of character to ignore their own Greed.  Protection Racket uses the Greed for Safety to manipulate Marks by arousing fear.  The Mark's Greed is the tool the Grifter uses. You can't eliminate Greed from human nature.  That tool is always there for grifters to use.  It's the grifter that does the harm, not the Greed.  
   That's related to what I was saying about CHARACTER.  It's people of weak character who shoot people, become criminals because of their chosen entertainment, waste themselves on the internet, or bully others on Facebook. Facebook is a tool -- IT IS THE TOOL USER WHO DOES THE HARM, not the tool.  A rock can make a meditation garden restful or that same rock can be a weapon to murder someone with or drop off an overpass onto a car.  You can't eliminate harmful behavior by eliminating tools like guns.  The one bent on harm will pick up a rock, which can be even more deadly. 

 SHE 10:06 am
    The Chain of Command Reg is so that CAPTAIN, means the same level of authority and responsibility throughout the country.
    When firemen from New York go to help out in New Mexico and someone says, "ask the Captain," they all know exactly what they all mean.

 ME 10:08 am
    YES - CHAIN OF COMMAND FOR FIRST RESPONDERS -- yes, but it is the tool USER who sees that wondrous powerful tool of Chain of Command and decides to use it for harm (maybe because they don't see the harm but just the personal gain). 
   "Too much paperwork" complaint is because the weak character of the people involved in a long chain of command makes the whole chain REQUIRE SUPERVISION.     They aren't individuals who operate on individual judgement calls made on the spot.  Ordinary, normal people aren't considered smart enough to act on personal recognizance and take the consequences of their actions.  All decision-making must be centralized and "accountable" to others -- no individual judgement allowed.  If we'd done that in WWII, we'd have lost. 
   Today people think personal, on the spot, judgement calls must be eradicated because of the "danger" that the judgement call won't be correct and the person who made that call (or their supervisor) will be legally liable.  In a world where kids are raised to have increasingly strong characters throughout life, they automatically mature to make correct judgement calls (mostly) no matter how fast-moving events may be. 
  Developing strong judgement is the main side effect of developing strong character.    Since we have deteriorating strength of character, we think it's better to have "tight supervision" and "chains of command" (long ones) so responsibility can be escaped as long as you don't act on your own judgement. 
   Once supervision is in place, then the "power-seekers" (who are always of weak character) will flock to the control point of central command and use those regulations to DO HARM (whether they realize what they are doing is harm, or not).  We appoint certain people to become Users of the Tools that we make others into -- but those "power-seekers" are not of stronger character than the "tools" they are appointed to use.
   An entire chain-of-command composed of individuals of weak character will not perform nearly as well as a single individual of strong character -- e.g. a Hero. 
   The source of all the problems making headlines (I'm seeing hot novel-topics all over the place!)  today that all seem unrelated to one another is WEAK CHARACTER. 
    Don't blame the tool (gun, Law, Regulation, or Bible) for the tool user's bad judgement stemming from weak character.
 ----------END TRANSCRIPT--------

So the character trait that you can base a long, interesting episodic series upon lies within that element quoted in the song from FIDDLER - "when you're rich, they think you really know."

Fame, Glory, Riches

Those of "weak character" look upon those traits as something to be desired, something which can solve all their problems, alleviate their emotional pain (about which they will not speak because it's an emotion). 

Those of "strong character" look upon those traits as undesirable because they cause more problems than they solve.

Today's audiences seem to want their fiction to solve all problems without the agony of increasing character strength (that teen-angst-agony used to be called Growing Pains).

The solution to most problems that avoids all Growing Pains, or character Arc, avoids all strengthening of character, is violence -- sometimes substituted for by sex.

Only those of weak character "...kill only when I have to." 

Those of strong character don't kill because they never "have to." 

Writing Exercise

Create a Hero and an Adversary -- imbue one with a strong character and one with a weak character -- then convince your reader that each one has a "project" they want the other to "invest in" which is "right" and "righteous." 

Pit them against each other, let the explosion blow apart and reassemble each of the characters -- let the characters ARC, each becoming stronger in character and thus less prone to use force (of law, regulation, grifter-trickery, or backup Authority such as Religion) to get the other to do what they want.  Get the characters to "invest" in each other (that's the core of the Buddy Story from Save The Cat!). 

Relationships between Lovers who happen to become Buddies are the essence of the kind of Springboard that can propel an episodic plot.   

If you want a model for this, check out the TV Series Suits,

http://www.usanetwork.com/suits/cast/harvey-specter

and look carefully at the characters of Jessica and Harvey and their Relationship.  I think of Mike Ross as the Star of this show, but he doesn't have a love-relationship with his prime Adversary.  Louis Litt, however, just may be the mirror of the Harvey/Jessica relationship.  Look at the "strength" depicted in Harvey (who now has an old love-relationship returning to his life), and watch how he mentors Mike into similar strength -- how he clashes and meshes on values.

Study that show for the almost-but-not-quite tease in these Relationships. 

Watch all the shows in close order to capture the "off-the-nose" discourse on ethics and values -- stating the ideal, then not-quite living up to it, then taking the consequences of that failure. 

You might want to do a contrast/compare study between Suits and The Incredible Hulk TV series
http://www.amazon.com/The-Incredible-Hulk-Pilot/dp/B000WFSLRM/

In HULK, the Hero and the Adversary are the same person. 

Some of the episodes were written by my Facebook friend, Allan Cole, and he has told that story in "My Hollywood Misadventures" which is now in paper, e-book and audiobook:

http://www.audible.com/pd/Bios-Memoirs/My-Hollywood-MisAdventures-Audiobook/B00FAUNP1Q/

If you can trace the character arcs in your own story in a way that reveals the Poetic Justice behind all the events of Life, The Universe, And Everything -- it is very likely that the publishers you submit the story to will view you as a Strong Character worth investing in.

Your strength will be revealed in the path, the dynamic arc, of your characters because the characters will be fully integrated into the theme. 

For a book editor, "investing in you" can mean sending you a contract, then sending you rewrite orders.  The editor will consider that the investment has paid off if you send back a rewritten manuscript that now comes up to the publisher's specs.  Profit comes when the product actually markets easily. 

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Theme-Plot Integration Part 11 - Correct Use of Cliche in Plot

Theme-Plot Integration Part 11 - Correct Use of Cliche in Plot
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg

--------
My novel series, Sime~Gen, is in development as a story-driven, cross-platform, science fiction RPG video game.  From what I've seen so far, the developing company, Loreful, has avoided many of the standard cliche elements, and incorporated a couple in a way that makes Sime~Gen readers smile. 

It will be hard for you to FIND the cliche elements in this video game.  It's not actually Romance Genre in form, but it is Relationship Driven on a personal character-to-character basis, and on the basis of whole civilizations meeting (human and non-human) and forming Relationships (diplomatic and otherwise). 

Watch how Sime~Gen takes the leap into the space age, goes where no human of any larity has gone before, and makes friends and influences people (not all of which are human) by joining the mailing list at

http://ambrovx.com

Or "liking" the page on Facebook at

https://www.facebook.com/ambrovx

--------- end commercial interruption ------


Previous entries in the Theme-Plot Integration series:
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


So today we'll discuss the Star Trek movie that had its debut in May, 2013, the week before Labor Day Weekend when the really-big blockbusters of the summer hit. 

This film is an easy way to come to understand the power of the cliche when properly used because Star Trek itself first created the cliches, and now uses them.  This film also draws on cliches made famous by other films in related genres (super-hero, fantasy). 

I'm assuming that by now everyone who wants to see this film has seen it, so spoilers are included here. 

And today is an appropriate day to ponder this film since it's title is INTO DARKNESS, and this is Tisha B'Av.  Tisha means 9, and Av is a month in the Jewish calendar.  This day marks the anniversary of a whole, long list of very "dark" moments in Jewish History.  This is a day of settling up accounts, and if you owe a penalty in any area, today is the day it will be exacted. 

And essentially, that's what this film is about, settling up accounts. 

I'm going to assume you know Star Trek well enough not to need to have it explained. 

Khan, the gene-altered human who considered himself the epitome of perfection (because someone designed him to be that and he believed them, with considerable evidence to support that conclusion), loses a battle with Kirk and Spock (and Uhura, keep your eye on this new Uhura!).

J. J. Abrams and his BAD ROBOT production company has "perfect pitch" when it comes to the rhythm and tone of movie structure.  Star Trek: Into Darkness follows Save The Cat! very nicely, but it does many other things well, too.

I puzzled over the title INTO DARKNESS -- (I really hate the title.  I don't find going into Darkness particularly amusing, bemusing or interesting.  I like Romance.  I want to EMERGE FROM Darkness.)

Here on IMDB is a list of the official "tag lines" (writing advice from me is create your tagline first, then write the story from that).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1408101/taglines

 Beyond the darkness, lies greatness.
In our darkest hour, when our leaders have fallen, a hero will rise.
They have one chance to save us all
Earth will fall

I like "beyond the darkness, lies greatness" -- beyond is good.  Into, not.

So leaders falling - the plot of the movie does have that.  The "one chance to save us all" is typical action-comic formula, which has been considered (erroneously in my opinion) as the core of Science Fiction. 

And that formula is fully reticulated throughout this film, with elegance and flourishes. 

Star Trek: Into Darkness opens on a bright, colorful, interesting chase scene of the TV Series cliche "Beam Me Up Scotty" scenes where Kirk is running for his life.  This opening scene reprises a good many of those difficult, time-sensitive beam-ups.  Of course, the new transporter effect is showcased nicely.  And Kirk is showcased as our Hero who will Rise.

Note the environment of the chase scene just delicately hints of the planet in the film Avatar. 

We see the cliche scene of the SPACE SHIP (the Enterprise) lying doggo on the bottom of this planet's ocean.  Not only have we seen starships submerged before, but this symbolically hints at the TV Series scene where Starfleet "observers" are hidden by a holo-projection field in a kind of "duck blind" -- and the whole issue of the Prime Directive is thus VISUALLY raised and defined.  So there are two cliches in the same visual image.

That single cliche of the submerged starship bespeaks volumes, silently -- no dialogue, no tedious philosophy.  Remember, the title of this piece is Theme-Plot Integration, and that image of the Enterprise on the bottom of the ocean of an alien planet of "primitives" -- THAT is theme-plot integration. 

An image that says it all, fully integrated with the action-plot.  That kind of integration is what writers do for a living.  It is an example of the epitome of the writing craft.  And the whole reason it works as such an "integration" technique is that the starship-on-the-ocean-bottom is a cliche! 

This is a nice lead-in to the cliche reprise of the Enterprise rising up out of that ocean.  And later still, we see the Enterprise rising up through CLOUDS (a visual reprise of the ocean emergence).  Visually, these RISES of the symbol of our HERO, symbolize the tagline "a hero will rise" which is itself a cliche at least as old as King Arthur.  Note the tie-together visual images.

Meanwhile, Spock, in order to complete the mission, descends inside an erupting volcano with a device -- it's kind of obvious what the device is supposed to accomplish.

By the time the cliche sequence of Spock almost dying as he tries to get into position inside the volcano is over, we have much more information -- THEME information -- that we have absorbed visually, with almost no dialogue "explaining" any of it. 

We learn that this alternate-universe Kirk shares our old Kirk's attitude toward rules.  Well, we knew that from the first film, but this Kirk is a little bit older and now Captain of the Enterprise.  His mission is to save this planet from a fatal volcanic eruption.  This reprises the loss of Vulcan in the previous film without any dialogue about that -- the issue gets one line from Spock, so quick that if you miss it, you probably will never notice. 

So our new Kirk treats the Prime Directive just the way our old Kirk did.  And by violating the prime directive (Enterprise rising out of the ocean; primitives making a drawing of that in the sand), Kirk saves a civilization.  Why does Kirk violate the Prime Directive?  To save Spock's life.

PLOT -- Kirk saves Spock by violating the rules. 

DIALOGUE: what would Spock have done if Kirk were at the bottom of that volcano?  Spock would have let Kirk die.

PLOT: later as the plot unfolds, Spock DOES let Kirk die.

Cliche: They stage the scene where Kirk dies to be a reminder of the scene (in a previous film) where Spock goes into a radiation hot-zone and saves the day by hitting a reset button.  Here Kirk goes into a radiation hot-zone and restarts the power as the Enterprise is falling from orbit.  And they replay the scene of the two of them separated by a transparent barrier as Kirk dies of radiation.

Spock's death scene (in the previous Universe) is so penetrating, so dramatic, so perfect, that it all by itself has become a cliche!  And here Abrams replays that scene, but reversed.  And in the same movie, Abrams revives Kirk -- we didn't have to wait for another installment this time.

Again, we're doing Theme-Plot integration.  The EVENTS (plot) bespeak the MEANING (theme) without a word being said.

"What happens" reveals the meaning of "Life The Universe And Everything."

So how does Kirk's life get saved? 

A series of EVENTS and DECISIONS (deeds) (i.e. PLOT EVENTS or BEATS) are concatenated into a Batman/Spiderman cliche fight scene climax.  And it's all perfectly logical, even if you miss most of the dialogue.

As a result (because-line is plot, remember?) of violating the Prime Directive (character; Kirk is a rule-breaker), The Admiral takes the Enterprise away from Kirk.  The new Captain (who is the Captain Kirk replaced) appoints Kirk First Officer, and takes him to a meeting to discuss launching a man-hunt for the perpetrator of a terrorist explosion.

Now do you see why I keep rubbing your nose in CURRENT EVENTS that don't seem to have anything to do with writing Romance or Science Fiction? 

Take a notepad, and watch STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS again, noting every single one of the points "ripped from the headlines."  You'll need several pages, especially if you've followed the Senate and Congressional Hearings on Benghazi, IRS, AP/Media intimidation.  Even though this film was written and made a year or two before all these 'scandals' broke, any science fiction writer would have known they were going to break -- maybe not when, but that this stuff was going on.

You'll find all of those issues in Star Trek: Into Darkness, just as you'll find them in Gini Koch's (grand) Science Fiction Romance Novel ALIEN IN THE HOUSE (which I just finished reading; keep reading her series).

"ript from the headlines" is the reason you get best sellers, blockbuster films, and even non-fiction extravaganzas.  What sells is THEME.  Theme is the essence of the conversation your readers are having with each other, that you are participating in with your comment -- which is your novel. 

Conversations work only if all parties are engaged and listening to each other.  The Headlines are what your readers are listening to.  You'll find what they think about those headlines on blogs, and in other novels and movies in your field.  What you have to say in that conversation is the theme of your novel.  As in any cocktail party conversation, you must wait your turn to speak (write, and get that novel of yours published).  TIMING your utterance is an art, but also perhaps an act of God.

I suspect Abrams and Star Trek just got lucky with the timing of this statement in Star Trek: Into Darkness.  It's been many years in the making, but it hit at just the point in time where the national conversation was all about the Honor and Integrity, the motives and goals of the Leadership.

Star Trek: Into Darkness starts with Kirk getting demoted to First Officer for saving Spock's life by violating the Prime Directive. (I can't think of a more cliched cliche!)

Is Kirk the "Leader" who "falls" -- if you'd seen the tagline before the movie, you might jump to that conclusion.

But Kirk is not the one in that meeting who falls for the simplistic solution to the problem of a "terrorist attack" -- launch an all-out man-hunt.  He suspects that first explosion was only a distraction (how much distraction are you seeing in the Headlines?).  And when the walls of the meeting hall full of Leaders start to rumble, he thinks about how rigidly Star Fleet "follows the rules" which makes them utterly predictable, and he thinks about the caliber of the terrorist, (something our Headlines seem to miss), and he knows he's sitting inside the next TARGET BULLS-EYE.

Note how few words it takes to convey Kirk's thinking in that scene, because of the utterly cliche'd images we've just seen in the opening chase scene, and in the first scene where we see what Khan is up to.

Also note how this film uses LONDON.  Note the current reboot of Dr. Who, and its success.

So Kirk survives this next attack (note the number of minutes into the 120 minute film the second action-scene hits) because a few seconds in advance, he RISES from his chair.

Remember the tagline - a hero will rise.

Unless you know Trek, you still don't know who that hero is.

So the new Captain of the Enterprise dies, Kirk gets the Enterprise back and (despite Spock having ratted him out to the Admiralty and gotten him demoted) chooses Spock for his First Officer. 

And don't forget Uhura.  Is this going to be a problem?  "No, Captain."  "Undetermined."  Note the use of dialogue, and pure silence, to develop the ROMANCE.  Less is more.  That is the hottest romance in film today! 

So Kirk is given orders to take 72 torpedoes aboard, super-weapons, and go take out the Terrorist, whose whereabouts has been determined technologically.  (HEADLINES: Big Brother Is Watching You -- all those cell phone taps, logs, and tracking a Fox Reporter's use of watch-fob pass into secured buildings).  And if he follows orders, it makes the inevitable all-out-war with the Klingons of this alternate Universe come much closer and become more inevitable. 

Spock argues with Kirk about wisdom of unleashing those torpedoes.  Even this new Spock does not see killing to be a solution to a problem, though the Admiral seems to favor it.

When you outline your new novel, stay on POINT with the HEADLINES.  Don't stray off topic, but get ahead of that topic.  "How's your Klingon?"  "Rusty, but good."  What alien language is it that we don't speak? 

Scotty -- oh, this is great screenwriting -- SCOTTY refuses to take the Enterprise out with those torpedoes aboard because he can't determine if they'll interfere with his engines.  He RESIGNS his commission, and Kirk accepts his resignation.  This is a cliche scene that gets a twist.  Instead of caving in to the threat, Kirk accepts Scotty's resignation.  He's not calling a bluff.  He's not determined to start a war.  He's determined to 'get' the terrorist who killed his friend, the previous Captain of the Enterprise.  It's become personal -- but that is not stated in on-the-nose dialogue. 

This resignation scene is dialogue dense, but illustrates the conflict which is the core of the plot.  And it's all about theme-plot integration -- what do you DO because of what you BELIEVE or 'HOLD TO BE TRUE.'   Theme is about the hierarchy of ideals behind our decisions.  This scene is all about what to do and why to do it.  The scene is about following orders -- or refusing to -- about bending the rules, or NOT!!!  Who is on which side of that argument?  Watch that film again, and remember this is "into darkness" and "beyond darkness lies greatness." 

So Scotty (and his marvelous little-alien-friend we met in the previous film who has no dialogue at all, but we know is a dynamite engineer) takes his friend off to a (dark) "dive" to get drunk over losing his position, and leaving Kirk and his friends in a very dangerous situation.  This is Scotty's darkness, his darkest moment.  Is he the Hero who will Rise?

The Enterprise warps off (I saw this in 3D and loved the warp-effect), and the engines fail.  Of course.

So the Enterprise is sitting in space, pointing torpedoes at the Klingon planet which, if they blast it, will trigger a war.  Kirk has been ordered to KILL, and he wants to.

Spock opposes the orders to fire torpedoes.

Kirk chooses (PLOT IS CHOICES) and decides not to fire, but to go down there himself and get Khan, capture him alive to question.  How many "torpedoes" (higher tech than our enemies have) have we fired into the territory of other governments and KILLED the very people we should be questioning?

THEME: Kirk accepts danger to his own life for the sake of upholding his own ideals.  This is a PLOT EVENT that bespeaks the THEME of the underlying value system.  But you're left to figure out exactly what that value system really is for yourself.  Kirk is an action-hero; he neither knows nor wants to know what his motives are.  He just DOES THINGS. 

So Kirk captures Khan, gets Khan to surrender, but doesn't know why Khan surrenders when Kirk says how many torpedoes he has. 

After Khan surrenders, Kirk beats up on him -- doesn't seem to do any damage to Khan who doesn't hit back.

Which of them has the higher standard of Honor?

So back on the Enterprise, Kirk finds out Khan's crew are in suspended animation -- in the torpedoes, and would have died had he fired them.  McCoy experiments with Khan's blood by injecting it into a dead tribble.  It's not emphasized why he did that or where he got the tribble from.  But because that bit just hangs there in mid-scene, you remember that tribble.

Spock calls New Vulcan (note I'm not listing these events in the order they appear on the screen; think about that).  Spock talks to our-Spock who's alive on New Vulcan, who has pledged not to VIOLATE THE PRIME DIRECTIVE and tell folks in this universe about what happened in his universe.  Then our-Spock tells new-Spock about Khan and how the Enterprise beat him.  Much wiser about what they've facing now, Spock adjusts his application of logic to the situation. 

And Kirk finds out about the Admiral who gave the orders to fire the torpedoes and start a war with the Klingons.  He finds out Khan has been the Admiral's adviser.  (this is an info-dump; this is very, very well done, but it's exposition that had to be filled in.  It is done as a big "reveal" and it works.)

Kirk calls Scotty and apologizes, gives Scotty a mission.  Scotty ends up on a ship in Earth orbit.

Note that I'm skipping the hot-stuff love affair with Uhura scenes.  We might discuss why in the future, so figure that one out.

So Kirk is on his way back to Earth with Khan, torpedoes and all, and a BIG SHIP appears and starts hammering the Enterprise.  (big space battle cliche scene -- very well done!)  Scotty is on that ship, doing his best.  (it's huge, so we get a lot of action-scene running around)

We have another scene where Kirk flings his life in the balance, going over to the Big Ship. 

The end result of all the life-risking, harrowing high-tech hacking etc, is that Little Enterprise sends The Admiral, Khan and the Big Ship into Earth atmosphere, crashing into London.  Epic damage.  They figure Khan could survive even that, though. 

Note the crashing of an Enterprise-shaped ship into London echoes the Enterprise coming down into San Francisco Bay.  There is a huge amount of information coded into images.  Juxtapose those images to decode that information. 

Star Trek itself created the original images -- and all the reruns etc. and fanzine stories have made those original images into cliches which, when used here, illuminate the theme without a word spoken.  That is theme-plot integration. 

Another reason I hammer at THEME so much is that (contrary to popular belief) theme is the strong-suit of Romance genre novels.  The Spock/Uhura Romance being set up here is just such a novel in the making.  Note how Uhura handles Klingon language.  What do you suppose her Vulcan is like by now?  Not a hint in this movie. 

So back to Into Darkness.  Tattered and shattered, Little Enterprise is also in a death-dive.  This is where Kirk willingly enters the radiation-chamber to restart the power so Enterprise won't crash.

And here we have Kirk's death scene echoing Spock's death scene in the other Universe.

And indeed Khan survived the crash of the big ship.  Spock beams down to catch him, and we have a Spiderman/Batman/Star Wars or superhero generic chase scene CLICHE, with them jumping from floating car to floating car-top in urban canyons.  And Spock is unleashing full Vulcan strength against the perfected human Khan, and not exactly winning.

Meanwhile, the dead tribble McCoy injected with Khan's blood comes alive, and McCoy secures Kirk's body.

Uhura (remember, I said to remember her!) beams down beside Spock, rescues Spock by shooting Khan on stun (which doesn't hurt him much) and  screaming at Spock that they need Khan alive.  Khan better not fall to his death.  Much fighting and rescuing later, they secure Khan, and use his blood to revive Kirk.

Khan killed some people, then killed someone Kirk respected and admired.  Kirk was sent to kill Khan.  Kirk spared Khan's life, and Khan tried his best to kill Kirk and everyone that mattered to Kirk.  Kirk GAVE HIS LIFE to save everyone that mattered to him.  Khan's blood restores Kirk's life.

There's a mythic-Hero motif there, beyond the Jesus resurrection angle.  King Arthur is supposed to "rise" when ENGLAND (remember, we just destroyed most of London) needs him.

 Beyond the darkness, lies greatness.
In our darkest hour, when our leaders have fallen, a hero will rise.

Was The Darkness lurking (remember the Trek episode about Jack the Ripper?) inside The Admiral who wanted war with the Klingons?  Is that Admiral the Leader who falls?  Is Kirk the hero who will Rise?

Is the new Star Trek about Kirk vs. The Federation Government?

What will be the next headline Abrams "rips" a story from?

Did anyone except me love this film, and see real hope for a whole new Trek franchise?

A lot of people didn't like INTO DARKNESS -- no great nude scenes, no nude sex scenes, not enough blood sprayed on the walls. 

Here's the first weekend's boxoffice results and commentary on demographics:

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/star-trek-darkness-needs-younger-box-office-fast-194907698.html

--------quote---------
J.J. Abrams' space epic sequel took in $84 million over the five-day opening that began Wednesday with special Imax screenings. With the film's production budget at $190 million, producers Paramount, Skydance Productions and Abrams' Bad Robot Productions were looking for more. Its $70.5 million three-day total was less than the $75 million that "Star Trek" debuted to four years ago, and that film didn't have the benefit of 3D or Imax surcharges.

Also read: 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Can't Hit Warp Speed at Box Office

Only 25 percent of those who went to see "Into Darkness" were under 25 years of age. That's considerably less than the 35 percent that the previous film attracted, and it's far more older-skewing than the first-weekend audiences for Disney's "Iron Man 3," which was 45 percent under 25, 27 percent families and 21 percent teens.

"It didn't grab the attention of young moviegoers, and you're not going to get your movie over $100 million with just older folks," Exhibitor Relations vice-president and senior analyst Jeff Bock told TheWrap. "It's tough to figure, because with Abrams doing it, it's really not your father's 'Star Trek.' But it needs to find that young audience in a hurry."

And there's the rub.

The young audience that "Star Trek" will try to connect with its second weekend is the same demographic that "The Hangover III," which Warner Bros. opens Thursday, is targeting. And it's the same one that Universal's "Fast & Furious 6," which opens Friday, is going after. Fox's animated family film "Epic" opens this weekend, too, and "Iron Man 3" isn't going anywhere.

Also read: 'The Hangover III' vs. 'Fast & Furious 6' and 4 More of Summer's Biggest Box-Office Smackdowns

"For 'Into Darkness,' this will be a make or break weekend," Bock said.

That's certainly true domestically. "Into Darkness" won't match the $255 million total run up by Abrams' 2009 reboot and it may struggle to hit $200 million, analysts say.

"I do think we're going to find that young crowd, mainly because it's such a good movie," Paramount's head of distribution Don Harris told TheWrap.

Critics like it (87 percent positive on Rotten Tomatoes) and audiences gave it an "A" CinemaScore.
------------end quote------------

Star Trek: Into Darkness did debut as #1 on its first weekend, but did not meet expectations.

Will young people like it?  Will they even bother to see it when they have new action-action films?

The veteran Star Trek fans do like it. 

Twitter conversation with another writer went like this:

LizStrangeVamp: Who else saw Star Trek Into Darkness and loved it? I am officially a Cumber-bitch now. 9:24am, May 21 from Web
JLichtenberg

JLichtenberg: @lizstrangevamp I did see ST:ID, prepping to write a review, saw this box-office analysis: http://t.co/ouORUbLyht will collect more info 9:29am, May 21 from HootSuite
LizStrangeVamp

LizStrangeVamp: @JLichtenberg Hmm. Did you enjoy it?? Thought they did a great job in saluting long-time fans and making accessable to newbies. 9:31am, May 21 from Web
JLichtenberg

JLichtenberg: @lizstrangevamp Yes, enjoyed ST:ID in 3D, noted the tech advances didn't get showcased at expense of STORY. Reboot is WORKING 9:34am, May 21 from HootSuite
LizStrangeVamp

LizStrangeVamp: @JLichtenberg Totally agree. Casting couldn't be better, writing solid, top notch special effects AND an ass-kicking Spock scene. Brillant. 9:36am, May 21 from Web

So I asked if I could quote and she said yes.  Find out more about Liz here; http://www.lizstrange.com/

I also got a comment from my co-author Jean Lorrah, ( http://jeanlorrah.com )author of some of the Star Trek novels.
----------quote-------------
I saw the 2D version (yeah, I stole time for that on Saturday, as otherwise I wouldn't see it till it came on pay TV)--lots of good things about it, but a couple of things I don't like. They've made Spock too emotional too soon--now he simply has a stoic philosophy that may clash with American values, but not human ones, and he blew even that in this film. And of course there was NO suspense about the ending--the audience was told loud and clear how they would save the day. Also, catching the villain was not necessary when they had his followers. He could have escaped to be Kirk and Spock's Moriarty.

I like the alternate universe aspect, with people we know turning up in new roles, but over all they are playing the biggest hands far too soon. And they need to bring in new people and new plots for the main guest roles.

Zachary Quinto does a wonderful job of capturing "our" Spock in certain moments, particularly double takes. He is the saving grace of the new series--lots of actors could play Kirk, but they had to find one who could embody Spock in a way that would at least sometimes play true to the old fans.

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

The consensus I've seen on Google+ is pretty positive.

Of course I hang with Trekfen and our favorite game is FINDING FAULT WITH TREK.

It's what we do, day and night, any time any where.  We can pick this film apart easily.  It's got lots of flaws.  By me, one of the biggest flaws is the title.  Maybe the next one will be called Into Light?

But I see 2 great things in it:

a) Star Trek: Into Darkness used the 3-D technology the way TV Trek used phasers and transporters -- it's just there, it works.  The film doesn't shove story, character, and plot aside to razzle-dazzle you with pop-out surprises.  And that makes the whole thing seem more realistic, not less, in 3-D.

b) It has a truly despicable villain, there is REAL darkness afoot, but Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy, Uhura -- their characters grow in Honor, spiritual strength, and common sense rule-following as well as rule-breaking.  They don't become villains to conquer villains. 

Could anyone ask more of a 21st century film?

Well, yes, they could have done more with Spock/Uhura, but if they had what would fans write/dream about?  Oh, that is one hot romance!  And it's WORKING. 

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com