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

Writing and Distractions

While searching for the online page of this month’s LOCUS column by Cory Doctorow, I came across this older column:

Writing in the Age of Distraction

Its short length is packed with useful tips for avoiding distractions while at work on a writing project. I’m already ahead on the admonition not to keep instant messaging, etc., active while writing. I never use IM or anything like it. I especially like Doctorow’s advice to write for 20 minutes every day. He equates that time to a page and points out that a page a day equals a novel in a year (or less, I may add). Writing every day keeps the momentum going. He also suggests leaving a “rough edge” to pick up when you start the next session. Stop in the middle of a scene or even the middle of a sentence. I’ve found this practice does help to maintain the writing flow, although it took me a while to overcome my compulsive neatnik urge to tidy things up by closing my session with the end of a scene or chapter every time. (However, I must admit that 20 minutes don’t usually equal a page for me. I assume he means single-spaced pages?)

Now, if only I could claim to write every day. I embarked on “retirement” with that intention. Maybe I should take on Doctorow’s discipline of the daily 20-minute session when I can’t fit in the thousand word goal I originally set for myself. This past week, for instance: On Friday my computer freaked out; nothing appeared on the monitor. The hope that the problem came from a defective cable or even something as simple as a video card proved illusory. When our son who serves as the resident computer tech managed to get some sort of display to appear on the monitor, it became clear that the machine had suffered a nervous breakdown. So we mounted an expedition to Best Buy to acquire a new computer before dinner. The next day, we drove on a 5-hour round trip (not counting the lunch stop) to pick up a 2-month-old St. Bernard. The day after, Sunday, was filled by church in the morning and catching up on all the routine stuff I hadn’t been able to do on Saturday, plus constantly supervising the puppy. Monday we took the puppy to the vet. Tuesday I had a dental appointment. Yesterday I had to do an interview over the phone. Plus, each day, constantly supervising the puppy.

The other day we were fantasizing about buying a second house (a very small one, of course) just to hold our books, like Forrest Ackerman. I suggested we could also use this hypothetical house for a writing office, where no mundane distractions could provide excuses not to write. Of course, the space would still be full of books . . . .

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

Worldbuilding From Reality Part 3: Creating Future History

Worldbuilding From Reality Part 3: Creating Future History by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

But first I have to point you at the new story-driven, cross platform, science fiction RPG Ambrov X -- there's a constant stream of news about it on the Facebook Page,
https://www.facebook.com/ambrovx

and a free Newsletter signup at:

http://www.ambrovx.com

About Ambrov X

A story-driven, cross-platform Science Fiction RPG set in the award-winning universe of Sime~Gen®! Join us on Kickstarter on Sept. 3, 2013! ambrovx.com

Description

Set in the award winning Sime~Gen® Universe by Jacqueline Lichtenberg and Jean Lorrah, Ambrov X casts players in a far distant future as leaders of an unlikely but elite crew tasked with planting space beacons which allow for faster than light space travel. The Ambrov X saga unfolds into an action-packed story of first contact. Complete with epic battles and emotional decision making, Ambrov X brings to life the single-player, story-driven RPG through a thrilling space opera adventure. Releasing cross-platform for PC, Mac, Linux, iOS and Android.

-----------Worldbuilding From Reality Part 3------------

Previous Parts in this series and a Link List for Worldbuilding posts:


http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/02/worldbuilding-from-reality-part-2.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2010/03/worldbuilding-from-reality.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/06/worldbuilding-link-list.html




Have you ever explored biorhythms?  They graph like this image above from
http://www.whitestranger.com/free_biorhythm_chart.php 

Note that an astrology chart or a biorhythm chart has no beginning and no end. 

Astrology takes BIRTH as the beginning of a sequential process that is endless, but there's conception before that -- and the parent's origins -- and after you, your descendants and the echos of your actions in life.

WORLDS ARE ENDLESS. 

We just arbitrarily stipulate "the beginning" of "the story" and the "end of the story."

We cut a "novel" or a "story" out of an endless sequence of interwoven events -- like the waves of the ocean, without beginning and without end.

So when you set out to write a novel, that "beginning-less and endless" vista has to be part of your worldbuilding -- the building of the world your specific character must navigate.

It isn't enough for a writer to create a world with a history of it's own.  That world, in which your characters work and live, has to have a future, too.

A story or a novel is a POINT -- two points and you can draw a line, but a line isn't a direction or trajectory.  Three points - maybe a triangle.  Lots of points (my Sime~Gen universe has 12 large points, novels, and several small short-story points with a videogame extending it into it's "future history) create a curve.

To get the sine-wave of History, you need points extending over years and years.  Whether you write those endless years into your novel or not, they need to be in your head somewhere (not necessarily consciously). 

To know your character, you have to know where he/she came from -- but to know that character's story, you have to know where that world is going and what that character has to do with that destination.

Look again at that pattern of interwoven sine-waves.  There is a way to graph the planetary movements that is used in astrology to understand influences in play for a particular life over a particular stretch of years.  It looks exactly like that biorhythm chart.

It doesn't matter whether you (personally) "believe in" astrology, Tarot, Romance, biorhythms, or whatever else.  To become the best writer you can be, you must be able to look at data-sets from all kinds of points of view, from within every sort of belief system, so the characters who disagree with each other, who argue and conflict to generate story, who oppose each other, can SPEAK to each other in ways that will ring true to readers who live within one or another belief set.

You don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand what the world looks and feels like when you do believe it.  You need to walk some miles in the moccasins of various belief systems.

My blog posts here are all about how the writer's mind works, inside itself, and how to train your mind to work like whichever sort of writer you want to be.  More than that, whatever sort of writer you are now -- to be "professional" at writing, you must be able to produce ALL the other sorts of writing.

Professionals (i.e. those who make a living in a field) spend most of their time mastering their tools.

You can tell a professional in any field by that versatility of mind, the ability to improvise with whatever tools are at hand, and the ability to know which tools can do which jobs most efficiently.

The difference between "amateur" and "professional" is basically attitude, but the result that others see to judge professionalism is "efficiency." 

So the writer's career is spent LEARNING -- constantly and forever learning, every day something new, and every day another stage of mastery of a tool of the trade.

Today's exercise is in PERSPECTIVE.  Today we look at the world readers live in, and attempt to replicate it's shape in a fictional piece of worldbuilding.

OK, one thing readers live with but never notice is that "no beginning, and no end" effect of biorhythms. 

To cope with that scope of the world around them, (being human/ -- non-humans might do this differently) humans IGNORE what came before, and mostly don't think about "the future."

People used to think about "the future" more than they do today.  Our temporal horizon in this culture has shifted to a more "now" focused view.  Writers must, however, worldbuild with the unseen past and unforeseeable future in mind.

How do you go about doing that? 

Energy.  Kinetic energy and potential energy. 

You analyze what is now in terms of those interacting sine-waves in that image to find the amount of available energy -- the potential being stored, the potential stored from distant history, what has been released and is moving now, where that motion will lead.

That's very abstract.  How do you apply such an abstraction to the task of worldbuilding for a novel?

Watch the daily news -- and watch some TV series fiction.  Watch some specials.  Read some biographies.  Maybe watch some really old movies on Amazon or Netflix.

Let's look at a set of data from an exercise of that type and see how to apply this "no beginning/no end" model.

Focus on SOCIETY.  Personally, I regard "society" something that doesn't exist.  It's rare to find two people who mean the same thing by the word. 

But let's look at FOUR "periods" in social-history.

A) 1940's-1950's
B) 1960's-1970's
C) 1980's-2000

Take for example the 1940's, just after Rosy The Riveter won World War II for the USA.

Yeah, women moving into men's jobs (jobs "society" reserved only for men) freed up most of the able bodied workforce to go fight a war. 

After 1946, the repercussions of that never stopped.  The men came home but the women didn't want to go home. 

The women were forced to "go home" as the baby-boom exploded.  With the technology available at that time, there was no other way to have and raise kids than to have a family structured with a breadwinner and a homebody to raise the kids.

In the 1940's, there were still many homes with no telephone, or if they had a phone it was a party-line where the neighbors could hear what was said from your house.  People generally had electric lights, indoor flush toilets, many had a car but they didn't work very well, and there were no interstate highways (there was the U.S. Highway system, not very good).  Everyone had a radio, and radio drama and news wove the country into a single culture. 

They had refrigerators, but usually only a tiny compartment of a freezer that had to be defrosted weekly.  Women cooked and did laundry and cleaned (even in an apartment that was 30 hours a week at least) and shopped every day.  Clothes had to be hand washed on a washboard, hauled outside and hung to dry, then IRONED (another 10 hours a week for a family of 3 or 4).  Shopping was usually done at a local market, DAILY, bags hand-carried home or rolled in a "shopping cart."  Milk was delivered in glass bottles which were collected for refilling not recycling. 

There was no such thing as a diaper service for cloth diapers and no disposable diapers.  Diapers (cloth) were washed by hand and then boiled.  Baby formula was only beginning to exist, and many made baby food though Gerbers existed.  Babies were nursed for years (as is coming back into fashion today).  While nursing or pregnant, women had to do all that hand-housework so "exercise" and "gym" didn't exist as an activity.  Everyone was too tired.  In fact women were cranky and tired when their husbands demanded attention. 

So the returned soldiers set out on a concerted effort to create "labor saving devices" and "convenience" became a marketable commodity. 

The returned soldiers were eligible for school grants and housing loans.  Housing was built fast (you've seen some of those 1950's houses, maybe live in one).  They had good jobs and worked specifically to buy a house for their wives to raise all those kids in. 

In the 1950's working-class homes began to have television sets and clothes washers (no microwaves, but power-appliances for kitchens), and freezers to store lots of food, and the TV dinner, and other frozen convenience foods.  And cars. Everyone had a car or was saving to get one.  Houses and cars were suddenly "within reach" and that generated the suburbs and the commuter.  

1960's-1970's

This was the do-it-yourself generation, the home-handyman/woman, the rise of "kits" and every manner of repair or build-from-scratch project.  People didn't pay others to do things.  They did it themselves -- gardening to roof repair.  They did it themselves to SAVE MONEY, and the saved money was indeed saved (in a bank). 

This next period saw the wild post-war success of Rosie The Riveter at home raising kids as an opportunity, a hope, a rising joy with no end.  (remember that no beginning, no end)

Women could now spend less vital energy just keeping house and raising kids. Clothes washers and permanent press clothes, the freezer and frozen dinners, VACUUM CLEANERS!!!, and a myriad labor saving devices and products gave women spare time they'd never had before.  Ever.  In all history and before that. 

Girls could aspire to college and majors other than teaching or librarian.  Secretaries didn't need college, and neither did waitresses. (today waitresses need a college degree in business because they're really just working their way up to owning the franchise!).

And this was the era of Star Trek (late 1960's TV Series) where people focused on the future, and the sky was no limit.  Here is the origin of the computer, the internet, the world wide web (two different structures), and today the smartphone/tablet/phablet and beyond. 

So women awoke, and demanded equal pay for equal work.

Previously, women who worked were secretaries or teachers and that was considered a temporary phase in a life destined to bearing and raising 12 kids.

Birth control options changed that, big time, but let's focus here on the part of the society-dynamic introduced by the notion of WOMEN WORKING PROFESSIONALLY (potential energy -- remember, go look at those sine-waves again and think ENERGY).

Here's the argument from the 1960's, which originated in the 1940's.  Prior to the 1940's this argument wasn't in play because women had no options. 

Employers MUST pay women LESS for their hours of work because MEN MUST SUPPORT A FAMILY, and any money an employer pays a woman is money taken away from a man.

Women were not "bread-winners" and not responsible for SUPPORTING DEPENDENTS.  Being female meant being dependent -- no option.

And that is the reality of things in 3rd world countries today -- and in anti-women societies which may not be all that primitive technologically, but adhere to a philosophy which places steel-walls around the entire class "female." 

Male = PROVIDER
Female = DEPENDENT

That's a social paradigm that has existed since "female" was invented. 

The argument that we can still play with in futuristic romance is still a hot one. 

Now with "labor saving devices" (so far no artificial womb such as Bujold postulates in her VORKOSIGAN SAGA series) and contraception, women can choose.

That choice threw "society" into a tizzy because the stable situation of all choices made for you before birth ws suddenly upset, but in a lopsided way.  Women could choose but men couldn't.

1980-2000

In the 80's and through the 1990's men began to grab their right of choice back.

Marriage as an institution is in flux, being redesigned.  Romance isn't any less common, soul-mating and life-bonding is not less common.  But "Marriage" took a body-blow with the anti-marriage tax penalty structure in the USA (where a married couple that both brought home man-sized salaries paid more in tax than two people living together but not married).

We get the rise of the "house-husband" -- and during the economic bubble-burstings of the 2000-2020 decades we're seeing the whole FAMILY PARADIGM SHIFT.

Not just marriage is being redefined -- FAMILY is being redefined drastically.

The gay-marriage argument is very complex.  There are a few among the advocates of gay marriage as a legal institution who opening admit that their ultimate goal is the destruction of marriage as a way of life. (really, there's a whole coherent philosophically driven group dedicated to that).  But the majority just want government to leave people alone to do what they want. 

Statistics show that children raised by a man and woman who are married (usually to each other; not always these days) fare better in school and in life than children raised by a single parent.  This holds true even if both husband and wife work.

Which brings us back to the EQUAL PAY issue.

Today compared to the 1940's (remember we're focused on no beginning/ no end), a husband and wife who BOTH WORK bring home about what a HUSBAND of the 1950's was bringing home in terms of purchasing power.

To have a medium-nice house in the suburbs, car, clothes, food, college for say 3 kids, both husband and wife have to work.  That same lifestyle in the 1950's was financed by one man working -- and didn't have to be a college graduate professional to pull in that much purchasing power.

So (a writer can have a character argue) it turns out that the MEN arguing against EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK in the 1950's were in fact CORRECT (if not "right"), that men were pulling larger salaries BECAUSE they had dependents to support.  Putting the dependents into the work force could be seen as causing that single salary to be divided between two workers.

Again, go back and stare at those sine-waves.

Think potential energy transforming into kinetic energy, and back again, no beginning, no end.

The world your readers live in came FROM --

One bread-winner supporting one dependent plus kids (sometimes 10 or 12 kids, but the older boys start work at age 10 and the girls work at cooking, sewing, cleaning, growing vegetables, canning etc.)

TO--
Two bread-winners supporting 2 or 3 kids, sometimes 0 these days as the USA birthrate is under 2.0 for the first time on record.

Remember, in worldbuilding -- no beginning and no END. 

So you have to project the world your reader is living in ahead into your reader's future (as your reader might see it).

Think potential energy again, and think of that constantly undulating sine-wave.

We had the paradigm:

Male = PROVIDER
Female = DEPENDENT

But we broke it with technology freeing women -- and the men created that technology of labor saving devices to free up their wives so they could have attention (you know what kind; you're a romance writer so use your imagination).

What got broken?  Only one of the two things got broken -- the relationship between gender and role in providing.  The paradigm part that did not break is PROVIDER VS DEPENDENT.

Today we have the house-husband displaced from professional arc by these nasty recessions staying home (maybe working from home, selling on eBay or whatever), and the woman climbing a corporate ladder.

That's not a common arrangement, but it is losing stigma.  2020 to 2040 will see a change.

OK, what might that change be?

Look at the economy, then look at 1950's Science Fiction. 

What we see happening is just exactly what was postulated by 1950's science fiction -- a problem was described back then and never solved.  Without that vision of a solution, we (as a society) are muddling through to something that might be a solution.

Your readers don't want to look at that future, but they are aware of it, and you can use that awareness to craft your "endless world" illusion.

In the 1950's, writers were pointing out the effects of the burgeoning technological revolution.

By 1960, that revolution was roaring out of the laboratories into manufacturing.

The trend the SF writers of that day saw was the demise of the "idiot stick" job.

An "idiot stick" is a broom.  Many jobs of that post-war period, and very often the job the 12 year old boy would get as his first job -- especially as far back as the 1920's -- was pushing an "idiot stick" or the classic paper route on his bicycle.

In other words, every boy started his working life with UNSKILLED LABOR, and a certain percentage never gained any skills beyond that level.  By 1960, jack-hammer operator was added to unskilled labor. 

All those jobs are gone now.  Only a few years ago, "voice mail" replaced "telephone operator" (the girl's unskilled labor job) and "message taker" in hotels were GONE.  Now a machine does that.  Soon robots will clean rooms and make beds in hotels.  Farmers are already investing heavily in picking equipment to replace the migrant labor they can't get across borders.

Child labor laws and automation have eliminated starter-jobs.  Look at amazon's warehouse operation -- mostly automated.  One classic unskilled job is stocking grocery shelves and produce departments.  Amazon and other online sources are beginning to handle groceries.  Amazon is building warehouses all over so they can deliver "same day" -- where does that go?  Produce and perishables will be added to amazon's warehouse, eliminating grocery stock clerk jobs.  Google is working on a car that drives itself -- truck driver will be an unskilled job (even school bus driver) that is eliminated.

Now look at the jobs that are left standing.

They all require considerable training and intelligence enough to absorb that training (not to mention showing up for work without drugs in your system).  Look at new categories of jobs being created.

America's employers are screaming for Engineers of every stripe! 

Other jobs of that kind that are being invented all require an IQ above 100 to learn and to do.

That's what the 1950's SF writers pointed out -- automation and computers would inevitably lead to a world where to get a job you had to have an IQ way above 100.

100 is "average" for a reason -- half the people in the world have an IQ less than 100.  They can't learn or do these jobs -- not won't, CAN'T.

The other counter-trend to take account of in worldbuilding is that we are now using computer chips to alter "jobs" -- to dumb-down procedures so that average people can do them.  Look at smartphones -- you don't have to be a genius to use an app, but running a full Microsoft desktop computer used to take engineer-level tech skills and the ability to acquire new skills very fast.  Now everything is "in the cloud" and anti-virus companies just send you updates like all other software.

Microsoft is already running "rent-it-by-the-hour" software in the cloud.  That dumbs-down the requirement for being a typist.

Less and less THINKING ABILITY is required to do jobs, so they can "employ" average people (who abound in numbers).

Today, schooling generally consists of learning to use an iPad to access Wikipedia. 

What kind of future are the current teens envisioning? 

IQ 100 people expect to get paid what an IQ 130 person would be worth. 

Do you think that will happen (there's a novel in that) -- and then what about the IQ80 folks, whose numbers likewise abound?

Who's going to create the tech that does the actual work FOR the IQ 100 employee?  Will that IQ 130 person get paid more than the IQ 100 person who uses what the IQ 130 person creates?

Why didn't we have this problem BEFORE World War II?

Well, we did.

Remember, another argument against employing women at equal pay is that women aren't as good at working, aren't as smart as men which is why women shouldn't be allowed to go to college.

Now remember what you read (I hope you've read it by now) in the Darkover Series by Marion Zimmer Bradley.  Inside every man there's a woman/ inside every woman there's a man.

We are all both.

The paradigm technology broke was the link between gender and dependence.  What technology didn't break -- what it actually exaggerated, is the link between PROVIDER and the DEPENDENT.

The reason we didn't have "a problem" before WWII is that we had a PROVIDER who provided for a FAMILY.

We had a classic nuclear family structure consisting of provider, and dependents.

Today, the family is shattered.  With each decade the man/woman/marriage/kids paradigm is dissolving away.

There are those today who scream bloody murder over this dissolution.

But we're romance writers.  We write romance novels for a reason.  It's not going away. 

Soul-Mates isn't going away.  "The Family" as we knew it is never coming back.

We are in the process (look again at the interlinked sine-waves -- PROCESS)  of creating a new paradigm for family.

The economic basis for FAMILY is what always held it together, but that grip created a great deal of serious Evil with a capital E while it was about doing all that good for humanity.

The Evil in the old-fashioned family was that it was a trap that stole a woman's FREE WILL.

Remember philosophically I'm really bugs on FREE WILL CHOICES.  It's the free will choice that starts a novel, that impels a character onto a path of confronting a conflict and resolving it. 

Without free will choice, there is no story, and I'm all about STORY TELLING.

The stories I see that now need telling are stories about NEW TYPES OF FAMILIES.

And the opportunity I see in the past I've described here since WWII is the creation of a new family consisting of a bread-winner, a PROVIDER and his/her DEPENDENTS, regardless of the ages, genders, IQ or talents of either provider or dependents.

That's the argument for gay-marriage as a legally supported institution. 

The element, though, that both straight and gay communities have lost over the last decades is the permanents of marriage.  The concept "marriage" shouldn't necessarily have so much to do with gender as it does with provider/dependent agreements.

Note how I described the typical wife's life in the 1940's -- that's a dependent, yes, but not someone who does not "work."  Wives contributed, as did kids.  We now legally prevent kids from contributing.  That needs some serious thinking (I'm adamantly against exploitation, but it makes dynamite story material.)

One of the reasons Rosy the Riveter revolted in the 1970's was that "women's work" (e.g. housework) was as physically demanding as "men's work" but garnered nothing but contempt from society (except on Mother's Day an invention of commercial interests).

The New Family Structure has to include serious respect and rewards for the economic dependent that rival or exceed the respect and rewards garnered by the provider. 

Remember that sine-wave.  We're going to get to parity between provider and dependent, but at that point there will be more kinetic energy than potential energy and we will blast right through parity to another imbalance (though none of us may live to see that happen.)

So fasten your creative mind around that picture of the world your reader lives in.

Now REPLICATE THAT SHAPE -- not the details, but the shape -- in the world you are building for your characters to romp through an adventure in, taking those readers along with them.  The world you build has to be familiar enough to your reader that it doesn't distract them from the story, and at the same time contain some unfamiliar elements that shadow the developments your reader unconsciously expects to see in the real world around them.

Shadow is the substance of fiction.  But it has to be a shadow of reality.

by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Update From A Pirate

Why is it, I wonder, that any alleged pirate can post a few "figleaf words" on his or her site, and they automatically receive the benefit of the doubt?

For instance, "....does not host any files to items listed. We simply index file links we have found on other websites on the web (similar way to how Google works!)" or claims to be "non-profit" while set up with PayPal to take donations and subscriptions such as "You can now buy a 10 Day 'Limited' Trial to Supporters Club for just $4.99"

Someone forwarded this email from one of the allegedly most egregious, allegedly for profit  alleged pirates ever to be ignored by the authorities and by the Big Tech businesses that profit from his activities. (PayPal, SocialGo, Googlegroups, Picasa, Yahoo.)

I will post it almost as written, with two especially interesting passages in bold)
Quoting:

Hi Everyone

It's been an almost impossible week!

The main club computer crashed. I sent it for repair, but it has come back with even more faults!

I cannot unzip files
The browsers keep crashing
The computer shuts itself down randomly
I cannot re-instate programs we need to run the club properly

I am going to try once more to zero the computer and start afresh, on Monday, but I fear it will need a new master-board, power supply and hard disks

It lasted almost 5 years, so I can't complain too much.

I have prepared Monday's page (Mix 163) via an Internet cafe, and will send this out sometime tomorrow, giving me time on Monday to see about what can be done with the computer, although, I think  we will be forced to buy a new one. Either way, it will take me most of the week to re-instate everything on the computer

I have many more files to add to Gigatribe and to send out to the members, but until I can unzip and store them (even our external hard disks are full), there is not much I can do!

The club is over $300 in the red at the moment, so we need a little financial support from the membership to get over these problems. I wouldn't ask, if we weren't in such a dire position!

Remember, we are a 'non-profit' organization, and a need a little help every now and then!

Please help with as much as you can afford, by making a donation......

Unquoting.

For those who don't see what I see, having files on a computer or in zipped format and uploading them to Gigatribe is not my understanding of how a Search function works, and is not what Google does.

What do you think? And why do you think there is so much apathy about piracy among authors?

Musicians and movie makers appear to have made considerable headway with this particular, for-subscriptions alleged pirate. Moreover, although this alleged pirate might distribute an album occasionally, that is one work. With authors, he will give away almost everything a self-published, relatively new author may have written (multiple e-books) in one "Mix"..... as he does to two authors in particular with "Monday's Mix 163".

Best wishes,
Rowena Cherry
SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

Beauty and the Beast

Happy Independence Day to all our American readers!

Do you feel let down when the Beast changes into a prince? I always do; to me that moment feels anticlimactic. I was surprised to learn that not everybody reacts that way. Suzy McKee Charnas wrote a provocative essay exploring the appeal of the Beast:

The Beast’s Embrace

I don’t necessarily believe the fascination of the “Beauty and the Beast” myth always involves every motif she discusses. But many points in this essay resonate with me.

To me, the fascination of the Beast arises from his Otherness. By comparison, the handsome prince seems bland. Also, the original fairy tale describes the Beast as ugly. However, I have never seen a dramatization of the classic tale in which I think the Beast looks ugly. He impresses me as a majestic, fur-clad predator and therefore alluring rather than repulsive. Oddly, for me, the Disney version succeeds better than most others in making the Beast’s transformation at the climax into the heart-stirring eucatastrophe it’s supposed to be. For one thing, the Disney Beast has earned his restoration by redeeming himself through love and self-sacrifice. The classic fairy tale hero is presented as a noble creature all along, merely trapped in the guise of a monster by an act of seemingly random malice.

I tend to agree with the princess in a parodic skit on the old children’s TV show THE ELECTRIC COMPANY. When she kisses a frog and he transforms, she says, “If I’d wanted a prince, I’da kissed a prince.”

Margaret L. Carter

Carter's Crypt

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

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

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

This announcement is from Loreful about AMBROV X:


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

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

Our Social Media Channels are as follows:

Website:

http://www.ambrovx.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifty's movie glorifies honor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I commented on the Group:

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

And Donna answered:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what about fiction?  What about Romance? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's what a Romance is all about. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search on Google for
romance channel online 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Optimum" is by Cablevision. 

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

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

TheBlaze TV adds another major cable provider  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously, in April came this announcement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com