Marketing Fiction In A Changing World Part 4: Understanding The Headlines You Use For Springboards by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Marketing Fiction In A Changing World
Part 4
Understanding The Headlines You Use For Springboards
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Previous parts of this series:
Last week:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/02/marketing-fiction-in-changing-world.html

And long ago:
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/03/marketing-fiction-in-changing-world.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/05/marketing-fiction-in-changing-world.html

The Story Springboards series:

 http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2014/01/index-to-story-springboards-series-by.html

I've been illustrating how to use a Headline as one ingredient in your Springboard via my posts on Google+ and Facebook. 

You've heard the phrase, "Ripped From The Headlines" as part of the hype for a film or TV Miniseries.  It tries to sell you on the idea that you must see this film (or read this book) because it is relevant to the world as you already know it.

Last week we examined the role of PR (Public Relations the mathematical discipline underlying advertising) in self-publishing.

If you license your novel to a big publisher, you don't have to know anything about PR beyond filling out the questionnaire the publicity department sends you, and doing any radio or TV interviews that come your way. 

If you self-publish, you need to know much more. 

It's all about the business model of the Entertainment Industry.

In this blog, I've talked about the impact of new technology on the writer's business model as the e-book has emerged since 2007.  Yes, I've been posting on this blog since March 2007 - almost 7 years now.

In 2007, few were aware of the potential in the e-book market - and self-publishing was an idiotic idea.

Today, the big publishers are aware, and perhaps alarmed, at the emergence of the Indie writer and a plethora of Indie publishers.

The same is happening in Music and Film - YouTube is a game changer. 

The underlying concept of "Business Model" is morphing fast enough to frighten those who have spent a lifetime building a big business.

So today we'll look at the business of Journalism.

Last week, I mentioned in passing how publishing in the early 20th Century was a business run for the purpose of losing money.\

Publishing companies were owned by large, profitable corporations as a tax write-off, and therefore could spend a lot of money publishing and promoting "Important" books filled with ideas too abstract, or too difficult, for a person of average education to grasp.

In fact, the average person just wouldn't be interested in such ideas. 

Remember, Silent Films and the Talkies burst into the fiction scene during that publishing era.

Movie moguls made "stars" of comely actors -- or even those would couldn't act. 

During those decades, newspapers, weekly and monthly magazines, radio news and the News Reel (a short headlines with snatches of film shown between features at a movie theater) were the sources of information people used.

Then came TV News, a daily newsreel that quickly replaced radio news.  Radio news is back now, but call-in, talk show, and commentary dominate.  Radio is mostly web-radio.  "Spectrum" is expensive, sold at government auction.  A lot of it is going to smartphone service.  Satellite radio is struggling financially.

So, against that historical background, let's look at how Journalism has morphed in response to advancing technology.

Last week we established why fiction writers need to understand Journalism as a business. 

I've pointed out many times the Journalism background of many famous writers.

Most particularly, you should note the autobiographical works of the screenwriter (whose writing you know very well, even if you've never noticed his name) Allan Cole.



and later, Allan Cole's screenwriting career launch, and how having been a professional journalist helped:



And here's a newly available copy of Allan Cole's first written screenplay -- that got optioned many times, but never made.  It's mentioned in Hollywood Misadventures and now you can read it:




This non-fiction writing for profit first business model doesn't just apply to screenwriting. 

Journalism, and/or general non-fiction writing gives a huge boost to Mystery or Romance writers.

Here's one I found offering a freebie copy via BookBub.com
Susanne O'Leary -- non-fic turned fic writer shows another path:



-----------------
About O'Leary -- from Amazon:

I was born in Sweden and live in Ireland (married to an Irishman). I started my writing career by writing non-fiction and wrote two books about health and fitness (I am a trained fitness teacher). While writing these books, I discovered how much I loved the actual writing process. My then editor gave me the idea to write a fun novel based on my experiences as a diplomat’s wife. This became my debut novel, ‘Diplomatic Incidents’ (the e-book version is called ‘Duty Free’), published in 2001. I wrote three further novels, ‘European Affairs’ (now as an e-book with the title ‘Villa Caramel’), ‘Fresh Powder’ (2006) and ‘Finding Margo’(2007). The latter two were published by New Island Books in Dublin. In 2010, when the publishing industry started to decline, I broke away from both publisher and agent and e-published my backlist, along with two novels that were with my agent for submission. Since then I have written and e-published four further novels and, as a result, now have ten books out there in the e-book market worldwide. I write mainly in the women’s fiction genre, some chick-lit, some contemporary romance, with two historical novels and two detective stories thrown into the mix. I enjoyed writing those but my first love is romantic fiction with a lot of humour and heart. My bestselling romantic comedy, Fresh Powder was translated to German last year and, with the title ‘Frischer Schnee’, is selling well on Amazon.de. My website: http://www.susanne-oleary.com Blog: http://susannefromsweden.wordpress.com/ Amazon author page: http://www.amazon.com/Susanne-OLeary/e/B001JOXAJO
-------------

So, as far as staying marketable in a world where the very business model is morphing under your feet, never mind the background drumbeat of shifting audience taste, the beginning writer should not skip the non-fiction-career-step.

If you think you should skip that step, read more biographies of writers like the type of writer you want to be.  It's possible you are one of the few who should skip the non-fiction step.

It's true, I didn't work in journalism before selling fiction.  However, the connection to that discipline is deep within me.  I was raised by a mother and father who both worked in journalism.  I lived and breathed those disciplines from before I knew how to say a complete sentence.  So don't use me as an example of skipping that step.

So, we've talked about how fiction publishing in the early 20th century was a "for-loss" business, not a "for-profit" business. 

Since loss was not only allowed, but encouraged, especially in high-tax years, "Important" books had a chance to get well published. 

But what about Journalism?

Today, headlines are full of lay-off notices at big Newspapers, of bankruptcy filings of all kinds of print-media outlets, the sale of famous print-magazines to other publishing groups (that would change the editorial slant).

Simultaneously, professional journalism is finally moving online.

As with the advent of e-books which was ignored as a trivial market-share by Big Publishers, so print news outlets ignored the blogosphere until things like The Huffington Post changed the landscape.

Twitter is regarded by TV News and Finance as way over-priced at $50/share, but at the same time is seen as THE one and only place to 'be' with a breaking story.  All the big news media put headlines there. 

How did the journalism business model get to a twitter-driven base? 

Well, the path is parallel to that of fiction publishing.

This is the little-known fact dredged from history that you should take away from this blog.

In the mid-20th century, News was not a for-profit game. 

Prior to Radio and TV News, there was print-media news.  And that ran at a slim, but real profit margin.

Newspapers didn't make a profit from NEWS.  They made their PROFIT from advertisements, especially "The Classified" (think Monster.com ) And grocery coupon advertising. 

Before Radio and TV, News stories were printed as the bait to collect eyeballs to deliver to the advertisers.

That business model element was adapted to Radio News which was also advertising driven.

When Radio was replaced (mostly) by TV News, again it was advertising driven.

News Reels in theaters were sandwiched between feature films, cartoons, and serials, but customers paid for access to that bundle.  Even in the mid-20th century, box-office did not support the expense of renting the viewing bundle -- concessions did, and still do, represent a theater's profit margin.

Today, theaters have reduced access to 1 feature film plus a whole lot of advertising reels (except of course the material is digital, not on reels of film).

Around 1985, when the Internet was beginning to connect individual households to the outside world (Prodigy, AOL, local ISPs), you begin to see an inflection point where this old, stable business model suddenly would morph into what we're seeing today.

What we're seeing today is essentially chaos.  That always happens at major transformations -- for better or for worse, transformation has a chaos phase.  We're in it.

The point to remember is that NEWS -- the pithy reporting of facts -- has only ever existed to attract and hold eyeballs to advertising. 

Advertising has gone from random, artistic expression to mathematically based PR. 

It's germane to your business model as a writer. 

Once you get your mind around the longer, historical perspective of the "changing world" of the fiction-delivery-system I keep talking about on this blog, you will be able to chart your path, as a writer, into the rapidly morphing future.

It has often been said that the internet (and e-book creation/distribution) is an Event in History as significant to society as the advent of the movable type printing press.

The printing press was the high-tech innovation that heralded the overthrow of Aristocracy as the main means of government.

OK, we have a new type of "aristocrat" today -- but really, it's not the same.

We are at an inflection point which, after all the turbulence is over, will be regarded as heralding another new era of society.

There are those who are pushing (hard) to eliminate the entire philosophical concept of "copyright" -- of Intellectual Property.  If you think something, it must be because others influenced you, so what you think belongs to everyone.

It's an interesting argument (worthy of many novels with all kinds of themes!).

The Internet and self-publishing e-books (and POD) are going to change things you wouldn't expect fiction to touch, never mind change.

To figure out where you, personally, fit into the new pattern (that hasn't emerged yet), study the business model with a long view.

Get used to thinking of fiction and non-fiction (and docudrama or News Analysis or Opinion Op-Ed) as simply the bait for eyeballs.

The business-model is really just about gluing eyes to screens long enough to flash an advertisement crafted of PR-informed-techniques, to arouse EMOTION to the point where people form herds and stampede toward the advertiser's goal.

Learn to see the TV News that way.

Learn to figure out why they do segments on this or that topic, and why they say one thing but avoid another -- why the choose the language they do. 

You will see how the emotion aroused during a segment is used by the advertising between segments.

It's easiest to see on "News" -- but now watch some fiction shows.

Now analyze the advertisements to discover what audience those TV shows are aimed at. 

You have to reverse-engineer the composition you are watching on TV.

Note that BOOKS don't usually (yet) carry advertising except the publisher's list of other books at the back.

It's coming.  Watch for it.  Embedding video ads in e-books is only a step away.

Here is an item on how much self-publishing writers make from writing:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeremygreenfield/2013/12/09/how-much-money-do-self-published-authors-make/

If those writers could make up the difference by embedding ads, would they?

How would that change what they put in their writing? 

Nobody is going to TELL a writer exactly how PR works, you know.  It is a secret -- well hidden in plain sight.

Stuffy, obtuse college textbooks teach you about it, but who reads those without being forced to take the course?

Advertising is all about emotion.

I saw an article in December explaining that all advertising now relies entirely on rousing emotional pitch, and never on actual information.  I've re-surveyed some ads, and yes, that seems to be true.

So maybe it's a trend.

Parallel to that shift in advertising, we have the dilution of News content, and the invasion of "slant" into "hard news." 

As I pointed out previously, I was raised in a journalism family. 

The cardinal rule of journalistic writing (e.g. news stories for news papers) other than write with an 8 year old's vocabulary and syntax, is to choose language that is absolutely devoid of any hint of your own personal opinion.

In Part 5 I referred you to a non-fiction book about the history of science fiction in which a certain work is called "melodramatic."  "Calling" is revealing your own personal opinion.  An adjective like "melodramatic" refers to a quality which is only present subjectively.

The usage has changed the meaning over time. 

In the mid-20th Century, the Merriam-Webster definition -- ( emotional in a way that is very extreme or exaggerated : extremely dramatic or emotional ) held true.

The word was used to refer to an "extreme" or "exaggerated" situation - a caricature of reality.

The more modern Urban Dictionary says:
The state of being overly emotional - therefore often in a situation that does not warrant such a strong reaction.

Can you see the subjective judgement components?

What is "extreme" -- well, that's your opinion, and might not be mine.

What is "exaggerated"  to you may seem in correct proportion to me, or even understated.

What is "overly" emotional?  What exact degree of emotion does in fact warrant 100% response?  What is "over" what?  Where that borderline is depends on who you are and what else you've experienced.

So a JOURNALIST can't use the word Melodramatic -- not ever, except when quoting someone, and then only to illustrate how judgmental that person seems.

The word itself is commentary -- and Hard News is factual and only factual.

So there are a hundred little tricks of the trade journalists used to use (assiduously) to keep all hint of opinion out of News.

Another characteristic of Old Fashioned Hard News was that, while every outlet had an editorial slant (clearly delineated in editorials and never hinted at in News items), and each outlet selected things to report on according to their slant, they did not CRAFT A NARRATIVE.

Today, TV News (and most other media outlets) blatantly admits (via TV anchors) that they omit any item that "does not fit the narrative" being crafted to justify their editorial slant -- no matter how much hypocrasy oozes through the cracks.

 Very few people channel-surf News programs and do relentless contrast/compare studies to sift out the few real Hard News Facts buried amidst the torrent of opinion.

That group of channel surfers is so small that most people have no idea there is a Narrative being "sold" (via precise mathematical PR techniques).  And in fact, if you told them, they'd consider you a bit daft, or maybe a flat-out liar.

To understand what's happened to the world of fiction publishing (and how to leverage that to the advantage of the Romance Genre HEA credibility), we'll look at the world of TV News.  The changes have happened in lockstep in both fields, and the reasons for those changes in both are the same.

The reason is PR.

Behind that, the reason is quite simply profit. 

It's a business-model shift that caused a shift in content. 

The shift in content is easiest to see in News -- but is also visible in fiction.

Next week, in Part 5, we'll look at some fiction -- and in Part 6 the following week, we'll examine the News Game. 

Put the two perspectives together and you will see what you can do to gain credibility for the HEA and Romance in all its crossed-genres.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

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

Story Springboards Part 4 - The Art of Interesting Episodes by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Story Springboards Part 4
The Art of Interesting Episodes
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Here is the index of previous posts relevant to this discussion:
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 out the issues and topics relevant to constructing an Episodic Plot.

We noted that most books on how to write fiction end up with the famous writer just saying that a new writer simply has to write an "interesting story" and it will sell.  That is what most famous writers have done to get famous, and it is good advice.

Problem is -- how do you write something "interesting?"  What do you do with all the story ideas boiling around in your head to form them into an "interesting" story?

That brought us to the problem of what exactly the word "interesting" actually means.

A tweet from twitter attributed the property "interesting" to thoughts, which set us off on an investigation of the properties of language and its use for communication.

What exactly does "interesting" mean?

One person means one thing by a word, another means a different thing -- but they both think they mean the same thing by that word.

I Love You is one of those marvelous examples.  Men mean one thing during sex, women hear another totally different thing in those words.  Later, comparing notes, furious arguments and searing emotions erupt.

Words are incendiary weapons.  Very possibly words are "weapons of mass destruction" instead of "weapons of mass instruction." 

To a writer, "words" are the, single, most interesting subject in creation! 

So to ponder what "interesting" is all about, what it really means, let's look at what most people would consider to be the opposite of interesting.

Boring.

Miscommunication, which we discussed in Part 3, over various concepts of TIME in various cultures has been the cause of culture-wars throughout history.  Miscommunication between the sexes involving the simple little phrase "I love you," (which is more precise in Greek, but still very slippery), has caused wars and the rise and fall of huge corporations.

Miscommunication between the generations likewise causes massive friction, and shapes personalities during childhood. 

As the twig is bent; so grows the tree.   What your love-life will shape up to be might be discernible in childhood via the issue of, "Mommy, I'm bored." -- (or put another way, how you learn to move from 'bored' to 'interested.') 

Miscommunication causes the "I'm bored," conversation between child and adult to go nowhere. 

The child is convinced that "interesting" is a property of THINGS, and boredom would be gone if only Mommy would supply an interesting toy, or game. 

Mommy, having survived boredom, probably knows that "interesting" is a property of the person who is interested, not of the thing they are interested in.

The Happily Ever After (HEA = never bored?) ending is a full resolution of the conflict while the HFN (Happily for Now = I found an interesting Event/Person) ending is a partial resolution -- leading to SEQUELS when boredom sets in again and the search for another interesting object is launched.

"I love you" can be all about sustaining an "interest" in you.  Many happily married couples cite a fascination with the "surprising" (i.e. Uranus/Aquarius) nature of the relationship. 

SIDENOTE: Tom Baker, who played DOCTOR WHO for many years, was a multiple Aquarius and played the Doctor in that "footloose" interested in all humans, never attached to anyone for long, mode of the Aquarius male. 

The core essence of the Art of Episodic Plotting (which reached a level of perfection with Baker's DOCTOR) is simply the concept "interesting."

Spock made the single word "Interesting" a household metaphor. 

INTERESTING is something children just don't understand.  It happens to them sporadically, is totally delightful, turns on something inside that they adore, makes the wriggle with pleasure, and they don't know why that happens. 

A child has no mastery of how to direct their own attention or hold attention on a subject long enough to penetrate to the core concept.

Part of the definition of "child" is the state of being "non-sexual" or "pre-sexual."  A child lacks a direct awareness of sexuality.  But it is there, within them, anyway, and something at the periphery of that zone of awareness is stirred when "interest" is "aroused."   

You know how easily a child is distracted from whatever they are doing or however they are feeling.  The older the child, the harder they are to distract.

One underlying problem today is how adults have not developed attention spans longer than say, a 14 year old's.  Beyond the natural lengthening of attention span by age, it takes training and discipline to stick to a task long enough to finish it. 

How many would-be writers have a multitude of unfinished works?  How many rejections happen because a work is turned in 3 or 4 drafts too soon -- for lack of that attention-span discipline to finish it?

That kind of discipline of attention comes only with maturity (in astrology represented by Saturn.)  The age of 7 is pivotal, and interestingly enough that year is the year that Saturn makes its first square with its own place. The opposition (1st peak of success) comes at age 14. 

That attention span deficit is why you can "distract" a child under the age of 7 from a tantrum or "Mommy buy me this" or any other problematic behavior.

Which brings us to why we discussed the linguistic and cultural aspects of TIME as a component of "interesting" last week.  

The condition of childhood is a SHORT view of TIME (time is also represented by Saturn) -- the adult condition requires lengthening that TIME-SPAN or attention-span.  For the mature adult, "now" is a much longer span of time than it is for a child. 

But attention span does not lengthen naturally, or simply by the passage of time.  It is just like musculature -- it changes and matures only by usage, by exercise, by effort. 

That's another reason the HEA or "Happily Ever After" ending seems implausible to many.  "Ever After" is a long time to be "interested" in anything, let alone a person.  Those who remain mystified by their roving "interest" and are subject to spans of "boredom" will not be able to relate to being interested in someone for the rest of their lives.  Those who have mastered their internal "interest" needle can much more easily imagine a person who is captivating for a lifetime. 

The trick of lengthening attention span (so you can hold a job and/or a Relationship) is to learn all about the intricate notions of "interesting" so that external influences can't "distract" you.

That lesson is also the trick behind writers finishing a writing project -- something as long as a book takes months, sometimes years, to finish.  Most of the hours spent toiling on a book are spent on repetitive, "boring" tasks.  Thus the writer who intends to make a living from the craft must master their own attention mechanism -- master it to a degree not expected of the audience.

To do that, the writer who works consciously (rather than from innate Talent) can benefit from understanding the abstract depths of the word "interesting."

What is the origin of interest, what is the effect, what is the use, why does it exist, how does it work?

How many parents know the following exchange by heart?

"I'm bored!"

"You have a closet full of toys. Here, play with this one."

"I don't want to."

"Try this one"

"It's too boring." 

"Well, I can't help you."

A while later, "Mommy, I have nothing to do!"

"So do your homework."

"No. It's boring." 

And on and on. 

Many writers will be able to recognize in that exchange the same pattern that underlies the phenomenon that has become known as "Writer's Block." 

Being "bored" by your own thoughts is not a property of the thoughts any more than a child being bored by their toys is a property of the toys. (ask a toy-manufacturer; watch focus-group tests of toys!)

No parent has ever won this fight about boring toys (or homework) unless the parent has matured enough to have spotted the misnomer issue with "interesting" that we discussed in Part 3. 

The misnomer issue is all about language, about words and definitions, where they come from, how they evolve, and how we come to agreement on what words mean. 

Words exist at the intersection of Art and Magic, but we use them for Science.

The concept of where "interesting" originates can be applied to Writer's Block as well. 

Maturation is the process of sorting out what originates inside of you (e.g. who you are, finding yourself, etc.) from what originates outside. 

Maturation is the process of becoming an individual distinct from your parents, and even from your environment, becoming independent and self-sufficient.  Watch time-lapse photos of a fetus developing, and consider that process continues throughout the entire lifetime. 

The child is "bored" because the child is not "self-sufficient." 

Very often the writer is "blocked" because their own material "bores" them, just as the child's own toys bore the child.  (classic cure parents learn is to save a new toy for those rainy-day-I'm-bored moments, using the Uranus method of igniting "interest" via novelty.  This tactic may benefit the parent more than it does the child, but that's a topic for a YA novel.) 

The immature can substitute novelty for interest. 

You can be immature at age 50! ... in fact, there is always some part of you that is immature. 

So we're closing in on the core element that defines what is, or is not, "interesting," and thus what a writer must do to turn out an "interesting story." 

"Interesting" is partially about something you didn't know before.

The tweet  cited in Part 3 indicates that happiness comes from having interesting thoughts -- and that can be interpreted as being "self-sufficient." 

Many children learn to entertain themselves by telling themselves stories they make up (most who eventually sell novels start off like that!).   

Reading stories written by people who are more mature than you are can inspire you to make the effort to distinguish yourself, to become the individual you are born to be, to realize the unique potential that is you. 

But while we are, each of us, unique, we are also composed of the same array of variables that compose everyone else.

We discussed this from the writer's point of view in the series on Astrology and Tarot. 

You'll find those posts listed in Part 3's index to Art and Craft of Story and Plot Arcs summary of previous discussions.  (see the top of this post)

We are unique by virtue of having our common variables filled with differing values, thus making each of us a unique pattern composed of components we have in common. 

That's why "astrology" works -- everyone has the ten variables astrology studies, but they are arranged differently and each Soul uses each of these variables with different degrees of mastery. 

Everyone has a Sun Sign -- so we all understand on a non-verbal level "what" the Sun Sign provides to people (e.g. energy). 

Captain Kirk was acted by an Aries (so was Spock) and portrayed an Aries - an explorer charging ahead of the pack, not a "Leader" (Leo) who made policy.  Kirk was not comfortable in the Admiral's role (Leo) and wanted his ship back -- for a reason.  Gene Roddenberry was a Leo and ran the set like a Leo male.

1/12th of us have the same Sun Sign (and usually don't get along with those of the same sun sign.)  We recognize that commonality and resonate to it.

And so on around the zodiac -- then variations modify each of us when "Houses" are considered.  And the Soul wearing that natal chart is the wild-card that changes everything. 

So while we are self-sufficient individuals, we are also part of various groupings, (1st House of Self, always opposite 7th House of Group) and we do not see a contradiction in this. 

Thus, when we read a book on writing craft that says all you need to do to sell your writing is to tell an "interesting story," we do not see a contradiction in that instruction.  We grow up considering "interesting" a property external to Self, a property of the object of interest.  We grow up as audience, not performer.

We resonate to that instruction because we have, at some time, been interested in something.

We have read a lot of books that we found "boring."

We all want to write "interesting" books.

Surely the essential ingredient that distinguishes an interesting book from a boring book is a property of the book.

Books that don't sell well fail in the marketplace because they are intrinsically boring, right?

But then how can it be that those books, when self-published, have a small cadre of enthusiastic fans?

They say, "There's no accounting for taste."  Really?

Some will also say that the people who adore one type of book (say, for example the Romance Novel?) just aren't as well educated as normal people.

All of these paths of reasoning are based on the idea that the quality called "interesting" is a property of the object which has captivated interest (book, movie, TV show, game, whatever) and not a quality of the specific person who has become "interested."

A writer has to look at it differently.

A writer is out-putting the object in which other people will be "interested."

That is a drastic Point Of View shift, from audience to performer (writing is a performing art.)

Ponder that curious property of language noted above: one distinguishing characteristic of children who will grow up to be professional writers is interest in the meaning of words.

Words and their meaning are not intrinsically interesting.  If they were, everyone would be "a writer."  Everyone would read the dictionary for fun! 

No!  "Interesting" is a property of the person who is interested -- not the object that they are interested in.

In writing an "interesting story," the writer is not the person who is to be interested (writing itself is often lonely and boring).  The audience, the reader, is the one whose interest is to be ignited.

The reader's interest is inside that reader -- not inside the story. 

The writer does NOT write "an interesting story."  That's how it seems to the reader -- but that is not how the process seems to the writer. 

The discovery some writers make only after selling novels and seeing them marketed, listening to fans raving and others giving it 1-star on Amazon, bloggers tearing it apart and sounding as if they never read it, is very simple.

Marion Zimmer Bradley always quoted, "The book the writer wrote is not the book the reader reads."

What does that mean?

The book the reader reads is either "interesting" or "boring" depending on the READER, not on the book.

MZB also held that anyone who can learn to write a literate English sentence can sell their writing - fiction and/or non-fiction. 

Another mentor of mine was Andre Norton (the YA author).  I was in her house one time, and she gave me a tour of her book shelves.  She had a vast collection of rare books on anthropology, archeology, pre-history, etc. etc. and could tell you what she'd learned from each of them.

Just listening to her talk about those precious books ignited a ferocious desire to read them -- not because the books had the quality "interesting" but because she was interested in them.  If you picked one up and tried to plow through it, you would be bored to tears. 

Those books engaged Norton, though.  *yes, I know Norton was a pen name.*

Good teachers are like that.  They not only know their subjects inside-out and upside-down, but they just plain and purely love the subject (whatever it is at the moment).

I was "turned on to" DOCTOR WHO in just that way.  A friend visiting me who was a fan of my novels spent several hours on my back porch enthusing over THE DOCTOR in his various incarnations.  I had to get my hands on the videotapes.  I was not disappointed! 

"Interesting" is a property of a PERSON -- not of a THING. 

My friend who turned me on to The Doctor resonated to that material because of a property of her (which I shared). 

If you (the writer) are interested in what you are writing, many of your readers will "catch" that interest from you. 

Yes, "interesting" is contagious.

You don't write "an interesting book" -- you kindle the interest of others, not by the thoughts you think but by your sizzling-hot love of those thoughts.

"Interesting" happens when reading a book because of the CONTACT (like a lit match touching a candle wick) of your inner "flame" with the reader's inert wick.  It is not "the book" which is interesting.  It is YOU.

"Interesting" is a force, an electricity, a power, that you (your personality) conducts like a copper wire conducts electricity -- just like the human Soul conducts Love.  It's pure energy -- not a property of you, or the book you write, or any physical object, and not of the thought.  "Interesting" is a force - perhaps The Force - which you conduct into reality just as you conduct Love into reality. 

And the part of YOU that ignites the reader is usually some part that you are completely unaware exists, unaware that it is conducting a charge.  (springboard = potential energy; interesting = kinetic energy)

More: the part of the reader that is kindled is a part the reader is unaware exists.

It is the lack of awareness of those energies that causes the riveting of attention we term "interest." 

Interest is riveted just as when a person touches a "live wire" and electricity stiffens the person's body.

Just watch the practiced mom on the rainy day when the kid goes "I am bored."  She takes out a toy, (or maybe an adult book) and enthuses about it.  First thing you know, the kid is interested.  The kid has no idea WHY the kid is interested -- but the Mom has studied that kid carefully and chosen from an array of available toys that "speak" to that part of the kid that is not yet developed.  When the Mom 'closes the contact' (throws the switch inside the kid), interest happens. 

The process of personal growth -- of "going where no man has gone before" -- is what we term "interesting."  Traveling there takes energy -- that energy flows through the contact with external reality and into the person creating the potential for change, the tantalizing promise of change.

A Romance happens (Neptune - the blurring, unreality-effect of the zodiac) when two people meet and each finds within the other something that they don't know is inside themselves.

That same definition applies to frenemies, and to "Moby Dick" obsession-style Arch Enemies (Moriarty) (Darth Vader). 

Recognition of Self inside Other leading to an expansion of the definition of Self is another way of defining "interesting."  It happens when energy flows from one person to another. 

Expanding (Jupiter) is part of Maturation (Saturn), which explains why the deliberate mental gymnastic exercises necessary to expand attention-span leads to self-mastery which leads to finding absolutely everything "interesting" by becoming large enough (Jupiter) to touch things, and strong enough (Saturn) to control the in-rushing energy. 

So spend some time walking around your life looking for manifestations of that definition of "interesting" as an energy akin to Love.  We'll be using it to construct "episodic stories" and structuring "climaxes." 

We'll drill down into Springboards a bit more in the Dec. 10, 2013 post, Theme-Character Integration Part 5 - Fame and Glory - When You're Rich They Think You Really Know. 

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com