7 Pursuits To Teach Yourself Writing Part II

This is Part II, continued from Tuesday April 20.

3) What Is Your Favorite Story

Of all the stories you have floating around inside you, which one(s) are your real favorites?

Which universe have you created that you really live in, while just visiting our shared reality occasionally?

Which character pops up leading your stories most often?

Oh, yes, you have dozens, right?

Probably not. Probably, if you are like most writers, for long stretches of your life you will actually write only one story, about one character, with one problem.

Those Literary Criticism writers I discussed above actually do produce some useful information as they compare works from a given writer over a lifetime.

One thing that turns up among many prolific writers is very similar to what movie critics find about Lead Actors -- there is a single character or "type" and a single story-theme that the writer or actor does with exceptional audience "reach" (breadth of appeal).

And as I have said that I learned from my first writing teacher, Alma Hill, Writing Is A Performing Art.

Writing and Acting are really the same profession.

The skills of one apply to the other.

Very likely, your favorite story will be the story you can craft with the broadest possible "reach."

In Hollywood marketing, "reach" is the measure of how many different demographics will pay to see a work. Does it appeal to 15 year old boys AND 30 year old women, AND 25 year old men and women, and Parents taking their kids, AND 20 year olds taking a date? Can you get them all into the theater? Then you have "reach."

Or you might be in a "niche" market, and not have a very broad reach but really, really REALLY hit that single demographic, 15 year old boys who will drag their date into the theater whether she likes it or not.

And woe betide her if she says she doesn't.

If you read enough biographies, you'll find a lot of very popular writers have been shocked and surprised by the explosion in popularity of a particular thing they've written. Some can duplicate that success, and some can't. I think mostly those who can't are those who have written something very well indeed, but it isn't a favorite inner story of their own.

Why are we talking about this? Because one pursuit you can't stray from is the pursuit of the right mentor for you at this particular time in your development.

That mentor will be someone who is currently selling your favorite character in your favorite story.

If you pursued the study of archetypes, you will be able to see why you resonate to that author's work. Your story, inside of you, is somehow also the same as this author's. But the similarity will be on the highest abstract level, and the differences will mask that similarity in every way possible.

It's the differences that you have to sell. That's your stock in trade.

But what makes your stuff sell is the "vehicle" - the archetype behind it all.

Well mastered craftsmanship lets you showcase the differences and hide the similarities. And that's what gives you penetrating power into an existing market.

If you can't find books on writing by a writer whose work tells you that you belong in his orchestra, in his classroom, among his peers, playing his song, then you must learn by studying how and why you respond to his stories.

A "pantser" learns best by studying what others have externalized. A plotter learns best by studying what's inside themselves. I do both.


4) What Is Your Natural Trope?

One of the pursuits of a writer who wants to reach a broad and deep market, to extract money out of her audience, is the formal education in "literature."

Since the printing press is much older than the moving-picture, there's a lot more written about story-craft in reference to text-based stories than about films.

A film, though, is a story. It's a story in pictures. It's images and iconography, and in many ways far more powerful than the written word. But in other ways, pictures are less powerful than the written word.

But if you have studied the Shamanistic story telling, the Bardic tale, the living oral traditions that led to the Ancient Greek theater, to Rome, to Shakespeare, etc., you surely have noted that the genres created in each medium bear a haunting similarity to each other.

The Adventure, The War Story, The Costume Drama, The Coming Of Age Tale, The Hero's Journey.

Each prototype is adaptable to each medium we've invented so far.

Now, it seems 3-D is the next big thing, but it's so expensive that only the simplest, most visual stories (AVATAR) can be distributed in that medium.

So for the next few decades, I would suggest new writers perfect ways of crating their stories to blend both text and images. In time, distribution costs may come down to where a select few "classics" written for future media will reach future generations.

So, search the inventory of stories floating around in your mind, then learn the popular tropes, the genres, the rule-bound formulaic stories, and study how old genres evolve into new genres.

Consider the "Dime Novel Western," Hard Boiled Detective novel, the Bodice Ripper, the Gothic Romance, the Kickass Heroine SF-Romance, the time-travel Romance, the adventure, the soap opera, the sourcerer's apprentice and all the ever morphing forms.

Then contrast-compare those extant forms with the classic, eternal "storytelling" tropes.

Learn the forms that make classics, then search through the stories inside you and find out what you have in those forms.

Now, it may happen that almost all the stories inside you are of one or another classic form. That could make life easy because you already have inventory to sell. Or it could make life hard because you don't know which one to work up into selling form or where to market it.

But more likely, you will find your own stories are the same as the extant forms you imbibe a lot of. Your favorite entertainment shapes your inner dialogue, but you also gravitate to the extant form that most resonates with your own personal story.

I've discussed how and why this matching happens in several posts on Astrology Just For Writers, with a list of links to them here:

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

And in a discussion of Blake Snyder's SAVE THE CAT! series on screenwriting, is a discussion of what you can achieve with the knowledge of how your internal stories match (or don't) with the tropes that are most popular now, and classically.

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

If it happens that your internal stories just don't match any of the commercial genres, then you have at least three possibilities.

a) You can found a genre with a blockbuster they'll name the genre after.

b) You can whittle, craft, rearrange, develope, unfold, and morph your internal dialogue to match one of the currently extant genres.

c) You can develope a whole new internal dialogue.

Or you can do all of the above. None of this is a betrayal of your personal artistic nature or the gift you bring to the world. It's just mastering a craft, no more complex than learning to talk at age 2.

Storycraft is a language you can acquire as a native speaker -- without knowing grammar, spelling or punctuation. Or it's a language you can learn as an adult, a second language meticulously learned through grammar, vocabulary drill,and ennuciation.

If you speak story as a native, you become a pantser whose stories sell because your internal stories are already in the language everyone else speaks.

If you learn it as an adult, you become a plotter who tells only part of their internal story - the part that can be translated.

So when you've sifted the seething mass of stories inside you down to a set of those that match the external market.

So discovering your natural trope is the 4th pursuit in teaching yourself to write. If your natural trope isn't popular right now, that's a problem to solve by taking up the 5th pursuit, the study of your natural audience.

5) Who Is In Your Natural Audience?

You might think of this pursuit as "Where did everybody go?"

Or perhaps, when everyone is stampeding in the opposite direction from where you're going, you might ask, "What do they know that I don't know?"

As I noted above, actors and writers are really doing the same thing, and so spend a lot of time people watching, especially stampeding herds of people (i.e. trends in reading tastes).

Studying your audience, finding out what amuses them, what they laugh at, what they think about, what they worry about, is very likely the biggest life-long pursuit of a writer.

The commercial fiction writing craft is all about audience "reach" -- how broad an audience can you entertain? How little do they have to have in common with one another to enjoy your product?

But you don't have to be a commercial fiction writer to slice out a demographic of your own and entertain them fully and deeply.

Today, you have self-publishing options, and ebook publishers who are developing famous imprints in very narrow niche audiences.

Today you have many more choices for what to do with your internal story dialogue than ever before.

Find your natural audience, then ask yourself if you want to do what it takes to reach beyond that natural audience.

Very often, that might mean reducing the emotional impact on your natural audience in order to stir and fascinate a broader audience.

Once you've made that decision, you can choose a medium of delivery.

Today, there is a thriving independent film market beginning to develop niche audiences.

In any delivery medium, though, reaching your audience is all about cost, investment, up-front expense.

Part of your expenses as a writer include your education (not tax deductible yet), and the time spent on your day-job.

Who you want to write for, and what mechanism you want to use to reach that audience will shape and empower the fiction you produce.

For example, there was a time you couldn't write a sex scene in a YA novel. That world has changed. But the rules for YA sex and general audience sex scenes, and "Adult" sex scenes are still different.

So you will find yourself re-evaluating what audience you want to write for, and what medium to write in, for each individual work you tackle. Thus studying your natural audience, and audiences around the fringes of your natural audience will become a lifelong pursuit, not a single career decision graven in stone.

When you write a story, you are just like the oldest of old time storytellers. You are standing up before an audience, and what you say, how you say it, when you pause, and when you shout, all depends on how well you know the people behind the faces looking up at you from across the campfire.

Writers are just like actors, singers or dancers. It's the same craft performed in different media.

Writing is a performing art. To master it, you must perform.

And that doesn't mean just write a 1,000 words a day.

The story is not told until someone hears it.

The story is not written until someone reads it.

How well you can get your story to "go over" with your natural audience depends on practice - incessant practice.

But how well you can reach beyond your natural audience also depends on practice. A lot of that practice is practice at getting rejection slips and figuring out what to do about any comments on them.

Learning to reach beyond your natural audience, to reach enough people to justify book publication expenses, to justify a stage production or film production, takes persistent practice.

The more expensive the medium of production, the farther beyond your natural audience you must "reach." And so the more practice it takes.

Finding your natural audience is the first step in a long, involved pursuit. Once you identify your natural audience, you must figure out what they have in common with other audience-fragments you might reach with only tiny adjustments in your internal story's tropes.

And you have to do this over and over again for each story you want to tell. So again and again, it becomes a lifelong pursuit in teaching yourself to write.

However, just as telling your story can't happen until there is someone to tell it TO -- likewise, teaching yourself can't be done in total isolation.

6) Who Is Your Natural Mentor?

When you have done all you can do by yourself, when you have produced several works you have polished until you can't see a difference between your work and the other similar works in your genre, then you need a mentor.

Again, a mentor is not a teacher. A mentor is more like a drill instructor, a martial arts sensei, or a dance teacher or orchestra leader.

Before a mentor can help you at all, you must have the basics down pat, but not to the point where you believe you know it all, or where you've practiced your errors to be habits you can't change.

A mentor does something. You copy it. The mentor tells you what you did wrong, kicks your feet into allignment for the posture, drills you in the forms, tells you your note is flat, sets the tempo. You do it again and again and again until you conform your output to standard.

Who will you accept that kind of discipline from? How do you find that person? How will that person recognize you?

In teaching yourself to write, you will adopt many lifelong pursuits. Searching for your mentor -- and your next mentor and the next -- becomes a lifelong pursuit.

A mentor can't teach you. You can use a mentor to teach yourself, but only if you have defined what you must master and what you're willing to suffer through to master it.

The other 5 pursuits listed here help you define what you must master.

Only you can set limits on what you will suffer to achieve mastery.

Generally speaking, searching for a mentor will most likely not prove successful.

Mentors find you.

A potential mentor is someone who has just recently mastered what you now need to master.

People who are ready and willing to "pay it forward" - to pass on what they have internalized to a non-verbal understanding, will not generally go around looking for someone to mentor.

But they will be working in the field, demonstrating their mastery, cutting a swath through all the competition.

In the course of that, they may stumble upon your output, and recognize that the one thing it lacks is this newly mastered technique.

And they will offer a clue, a comment, a crumb, to help you recognize what's missing.

If you respond by accepting that casual input and putting it to use, incorporating it easily and quickly, and producing something ELSE to show them (not saying, "I made these changes. Is it right now?" but creating something new that does demonstrate an attempt at the technique) -- then perhaps you will capture this mentor's attention.

Once captured, you may not be able to shake that attention off so be careful who you respond to.

The flip side of the coin is that once you accept input from a mentor, you then must "pay it forward." You can't fail to offer that crumb to someone else who is lacking it.

Accepting a mentor doesn't cost money. It's much more expensive than that.

"By your students you'll be taught."

When you offer to mentor someone, you have to be vulnerable to what comes back at you because of it.

From that experience, though, will come your next great work.

Ultimately, that's where all our ideas come from -- other people.

Today, you can accept mentoring after a fashion via printed or ebooks on the craft.

But as with living, hands-on mentors, no one single source will inculcate everything you must master.

As I mentioned above, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of books on screenwriting and on novel writing.

They all pretty much say the same thing, over and over, in different ways, just as living mentors impart their craft in different ways.

Which book is good for you will depend on who you are and where you are in the learning curve at the moment you pick it up.

You can read the same advice 6 times and think you have it -- then read a 7th book and WHAM finally get it.

It all boils down to little sayings all professional writers know -- such as "show don't tell" "conflict, resolution" "characters must arc" -- but exactly how you personally implement these sigils of the craft depends on who you are.

If you go to
http://www.triggerstreet.com/

Sign up, and then look for JLichtenberg, you will find about 19 in depth analyses that I have done of screenplays others have written (some of the screenplays are still available there for free reading - some subsequently rewritten).

Quickly look through the screenplays and what I singled out as the main problem, and you will find that the same thing happens with screenplays as with novels -- over and over, the real and only problem with beginning writers (and seasoned pros, too) is CONFLICT.

Identifying, developing, and resolving a single main conflict, a thread that runs right through the work as the backbone of the work, is the one thing necessary to sell a work, and the last thing writers master.

Really. All these books on writing try to convey ways, means and methods of getting your mind to grapple with a conflict in such a way that a reader/viewer can grasp that conflict and experience its resolution as the personal payoff to sitting through the storytelling.

Every trope and genre has a specific conflict, and a pattern of events that leads to a resolution of that conflict.

All our lives have a main conflict (the story of your life) -- read my posts on Astrology and Tarot for more specifics.

We resonate to fiction that discusses our main life conflict "off the nose" - subconsciously, or by distancing the issue.

It's CONFLICT that connects your internal stories to your audience's internal stories.

Showing rather than telling CONFLICT is the main technique all books on writing try to mentor new writers into realizing in their drama.

Here are some books that do a fine job of it - books recommended by Rowena Cherry. In my opinion, you would do just fine picking a book off the library shelves or out of the discard bin at a used book store.

7)Books others use or recommend.

Three suggestions from Rowena Cherry - the writer who started this co-blog:
-------
Laughing at myself. Some would say that I did not do a very good job of teaching myself to write... so my list might not be a good recommendation.
Ronald B Tobias's "20 Master Plots" is always close at hand when I draft a new book, but I tend to take two of his master plots at a time, and mix them, one for the hero, the other for the heroine.

"I rely heavily on "The Joy Of Writing Sex" by Elizabeth Benedict (I think), because I don't naturally enjoy writing about sex."

"Al Zuckerman's "Writing The Blockbuster Novel" has some excellent recommendations of blockbusters to read (Thorn birds, The Godfather, Gone With The Wind..." However, I have yet to write a blockbuster, so either the advice left too much to extrapolation, or I am a lousy student.

Probably the latter!"

"Orson Scott Card's "Characterization" book is excellent, but if you read "How To Write Science Fiction and Fantasy" you find the same great advice, pretty much."
--------

I would agree with all three of those.

Pray hard, close your eyes, pick a book, start reading in the middle of the book. You'll find the mentoring advice you need to get started on this pursuit.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Stephanie Meyer - Books->Film

--------------
BUT FIRST -- a public service announcement --

"Bloggers — particularly "mommy bloggers" — must now disclose freebies or money they receive to review products or risk an $11,000 fine per post, the Federal Trade Commission announced today. It's the first attempt to regulate what's known as "blogger payola.""

This ruling takes effect December 1, 2009.

That's from
http://baradell.com/ftc-issues-rules-to-end-blogger-payola

As a reviewer, I often talk here or reference books which have been sent to me by publishers (or authors) to review in my review column which is posted at
http://www.simegen.com/reviews/rereadablebooks/

And even if it was a free copy, I'll warn you off of a product that does not meet my standards or point out the flaw which might not matter to you. With a little practice, you'll know my standards and how they compare to yours.

I know I won't remember to put this disclaimer on every post, or to cite the source of every book (very often I don't know who sent me a given novel if I've lost the Press Release, which happens a lot)

Some of these books I discuss are freebies; some are not. And who can remember if some 30 year old title I discuss was sent to me free? Even before I was a reviewer, I was a SFWA member and as such got a lot of books free.

This ruling is impossible to comply with because the data is not available.

However, in this particular post -- I actually BOUGHT a copy of TWILIGHT at a Westercon from BOOK UNIVERSE which is a store operating out of Oregon. I don't yet have copies of the sequels or of THE HOST.

aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com is not my personal blog so I can't put a disclaimer in the header saying SOME books discussed here may have been promotional copies.

The article also says:
"While the FTC will obviously have a hard time enforcing these regulations, there can be no doubt that marketers regularly approach independent bloggers (and especially mommy bloggers) with freebies. When bloggers accept these exchanges, they may not always disclose them in the posts that result. So, while bloggers who are involved in these schemes often tend to say that they would have reviewed the product anyway or that their reviews are often critical, there can be little doubt that payments and freebies influence these stories."


Well, folks, nobody has ever approached me with any freebies because of this blog or any other that I write on. I get books via SFWA, The Monthly Aspectarian, Amazon Vine, and personal requests when I hear of them, and I even buy some. DVD's and other such items likewise. And if you read my review column, you'll see I ONLY review books worth reading (5 star level). Lots of what I get does not get reviewed.
--------END PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT------------------

I've just finished reading TWILIGHT by Stephanie Meyer, a trade paperback edition from Megas Tingley Books, an imprint of Little Brown.

On the front it says it will soon be a major motion picture. I've had this book for probably half a year high on my to-read stack, and only now gotten to it. I haven't seen the film yet, but I will.

From several sources, notably
http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/33694/stephenie-meyers-the-host-heading-big-screen ( @dreadcentral on twitter)

I saw the following
----------
Twilight series author Stephenie Meyer is about to see another one of her projects up on the big screen, and luckily for us, this one's geared toward adults. Rights to Meyer's The Host have been acquired by producers Nick Wechsler and Steve and Paula Mae Schwartz (who also teamed up for John Hillcoat's adaptation of The Road).
----------

I haven't read The Host (yet). *sigh*

From
http://www.simegen.com/reviews/rereadablebooks/

you can easily see that I do read a lot of (freebie) books and review only SOME of those. Still, there's more really good stuff out there than I can read.

I've always been a reader, even before I decided to go for publication. So I've acquired a view of the cross-section of the fields I've been discussing under "genres" -- see last week's post.
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/09/genre-root-of-all-evil.html

That may not be a full and clear cross-section, but it's the view I'm working with.

Your view may differ and that doesn't matter because the point of these posts is to demonstrate the workings inside of a writer's mind, how it works, what you do with what you observe. An artform.

Art can't be "taught" but it can be "caught," which is the basis of the apprentice system of teaching.

The point of these posts is not to argue the veracity of the data used to derive conclusions, but rather to grasp the method by which conclusions are derived from data. First you practice with my data. Then you go find some data of your own and use the same method -- the result will be Art, very distinctively different from anything I could (or would) do, but still with the stamp of commercial potential clearly visible.

With that in mind, and Marion Zimmer Bradley's oft quoted admonition "The book the writer writes is not the book the reader reads" let's take a good look at TWILIGHT and the phenomenon of popularity in general (which is the ultimate point here -- how do you make Alien Romance more popular?)

And now I see what Stephanie Meyers did with Twilight (yes, I plan to read the sequels), how she did it, and what people love about it as well as what people have been complaining about.

As I've mentioned before "spoilers" can't spoil a really good book, and nothing I've read about TWILIGHT before I actually read the novel has made a dent in my own enjoyment of the story.

The story is great, but more on that later.

First let me point out there are many technical glitches that should have been fixed in the editorial process.

One glitch that really grated on my nerves was the portrayal of a non-cell-phone; dial-up internet culture, and then 3/4 of the way through the book, a character casually pulls out a cell phone, upon which nobody remarks, and from then on cell phones are everywhere. That's a continuity glitch.

Editorial could easily have fixed it by involving the Sheriff/father in demonstrations around a new cell tower being built nearby. Only out-of-towners would have active cell phones that would suddenly come online the moment they juice up the tower. Only out-of-towners would complain of the lack of cell service. The addition wouldn't have added any words that couldn't be trimmed from excess verbiage elsewhere.

I can't imagine how that slipped through editorial. But I'm used to reading fanzines and book manuscripts and "ARCs" (Advance Reading Copies) so errors like that don't really spoil the enjoyment of the story.

TWILIGHT grabbed me from the first page. I opened it because it's a Vampire story, but I stayed with it because of the locale.

Years ago, I considered moving to Port Arthur, close to the main setting for this story.

I ended up living in Phoenix, where the author lives, and part of the story is set. So I know both settings, and that may color my responses. The coincidence may not be random.

Now, if you've been studying the "expository lump" as discussed in Sexy Information Feed and the posts linked in it
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/09/sexy-information-feed.html

And this one on Michelle West's THE HIDDEN CITY.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/09/for-my-review-column-httpwww.html

you will understand this statement about Stephanie Meyer's (first novel!) Twilight.

She has committed (and sold to grand effect) a massively unskilled novel, and the truth is that is a very VERY common thing to have happen.

Future posts on astrology just for writers will show you how that happens and help you see when it will be most likely to happen to you. (No, Astrology can't predict "the" future, but it can show you open doors. You and only you shape the way you use those open doors. And yes, I see Divine Will as a component of how things turn out.)

So reading TWILIGHT is very like reading a really delicious fanzine more than it is like reading a tour de force like HIDDEN CITY by Michelle West which will curl the toes of any expert in writing craft and tickle most readers too.

The massive skill deficit behind TWILIGHT is one we have discussed in detail on this blog -- the expository lump and scene structure.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/07/6-tricks-of-scene-structure-part-2.html (and it's prequel post linked inside this one)

There is no mastery in Meyer's skill at hiding the lump which is almost the entire middle third or even half of TWILIGHT (I really do LIKE or maybe LOVE TWILIGHT for reasons I'll get to -- I love fanzine writing and I love the "Mary Sue" of which TWILIGHT is a fair example.)

BTW: the title TWILIGHT isn't right for this story. Post your suggestions for a title if you've read this novel or even just seen the film.

I don't know if anyone taught Stephanie Meyer "show don't tell" skills to avoid the expository lump in the sequels, or if all the praise made the editors protect her from learning these skills (I've seen that kind of pressure ruin new writers, and I've seen writers bear up under it and improve in skills despite roaring sales (Katherine Kurtz being an example.)

The expository lump is a tell instead of a show, and the most common cause of lumps is lack of CONFLICT. Without conflict there really is no neat way to SHOW anything. With CONFLICT, "showing" is easy.

Showing is illustrating by actions; or in the parlance of film, staying off the nose. The writer can't illustrate something that doesn't exist. CONFLICT brings things into existence.

In the case of TWILIGHT, the expository lump is disguised as dailogue mostly between just two people, the Vampire Edward and the human Bella.

The ostensible point of all this dialogue (not up to Buffy standards) is "getting to know you." The dialogue consists of asking questions about character, backstory, and worldbuilding facts. Without the appropriate conflicts, there really is no other way to convey this information but "on the nose" dialogue.

When you as a writer find yourself stuck in a dialogue trap, you know you have a missing conflict, and possibly a missing character.

So to get this complex and fascinating "world" across, the plot stops dead in its tracks while two people dance around each other and probe each other but without being at loggerheads, or cross-purposes, or in opposing camps, or misunderstandings, or secrets (think DARK BLUE) or anything that would illustrate a conflict.

But that stopped-plot problem is easily fixable on second draft if you know what caused it.

What really irritates people, even those readers who can't put their finger on it, is that the plot stops dead to progress the Relationship, which contains NO CONFLICT EITHER INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL, and therefore does not progress.

The relationship starts out perfect, without conflict and only a little strangeness which is easily accepted by both. From perfect, there's nowhere to go, so no plot and no plot progress.

During the dialogue scenes, the relationship progress becomes the plot, but there is no conflict to drive that plot, so it just sits there not even qualifying as a sub-plot.

This could have been cured easily by the editor who bought it sending it back with a rewrite note saying "put the werewolves and the killer vampires inside the school with Bella and Edward in Chapter One, and rework it so the threats escalate."

As it is written, both human and Vampire look at each other, storm and fume a bit at the awful problem of being attracted to a soul mate, and then gracefully and without event, they both accept the fact that they're soul-mates and proceed to ask each other questions about the nature of vampirism and relations between vampire and human, their respective childhoods, etc. The question of whether a Vampire even has a soul never comes up.

Both plot and subplot are at a standstill during this. Not even the third plot-line of Bella's mother following a second husband around a baseball circuit in the Southwest interferes with "getting to know you" conversations. Another set of (possibly werewolf) characters circle the edges and provide a hint of foreshadowing, but they don't matter to the "getting to know you" or to the ultimate threat (killer Vampires) that finally causes some action (meaningless and easily resolved action).

The werewolf premise sticks out like a sore thumb, a "plant" for future books. The plot-action here is created by some other vampires who JUST HAPPEN BY at an awkward moment. This violates a cardinal rule of story-telling which, if violated disqualifies the piece as a "novel."

That rule is simple. Accidents can trigger a plot - right before or just at, or just after the beginning, opening, chapter one, or preface. Accidents can CAUSE plot-problem but only if placed at the beginning of the story. Accident can be the "catalyst" beat of a script.

The theme then becomes something having to do with accidents -- karma, well deserved poetic justice, or an illumination of character that explains why someone deserves the adventure or come-uppance, or how things you don't deserve happen to you anyway.

But the cardinal rule is that ACCIDENT can not resolve a plot conflict. There are other forms of narrative that are popular, and don't even have a plot so don't need conflict, but we don't study them here.

Romance needs conflict. Conflict is sexy.

Well, since TWILIGHT has no conflict, there's nothing to resolve so maybe I shouldn't complain about the lack of plotting.

However, the un-caused, un-summoned, expected only by precognition arrival of killer-vampires is an ACCIDENT, so it's in the wrong place in the narrative. It should be in Chapter One.

The arrival of stranger vampires who just wander into town triggers the run-for-your-life sequence that ends in (off-shot, off-stage) violence, but it's violence without conflict.

That structure is the reason for the expository lump.

The only reason to insert the random band of vampires at that late point, after the "getting to know you" sequence, is to attempt a "show don't tell" that it's dangerous to "get involved in the affairs of wizards" and that this little girl Mary Sue character is tough enough to handle that danger (she thinks).

The flaws in TWILIGHT are legion. I won't enumerate because the point of this discussion is not how bad this novel is, but HOW GOOD IT IS, and why and how it has achieved such fame and glory.

I don't know the real story of how Twilight got to be such a best seller, nor how it got to become a film. But through my unique cross-section of the field of SF/F/Romance I see a clue.

The fact that Twilight has been financially successful in the woeful shape that the narrative work is in (it's as if it got published in 2nd draft when it needed to be 5th) tells me something that you possibly are not interested in.

So if you are not interested in the magickal view of the universe, seeing "reality" through the lens of Tarot and Astrology blended seamlessly with Science and even History, stop reading this post here. The rest of this is really, really boring.

*****

Now, all the rest of you try to grab this idea and hold it while you read on.

I personally am delighted and tickled that Stephanie Meyer and both her novels are so successful and can become films. This may be the break we've been waiting for.

These events, which appear on the surface to be Stephanie Meyer's personal triumphs, just as Harry Potter appears to be J. K. Rowling's personal and individual triumph, are in fact much, much larger than these individuals, and possibly not triumphs at all (I've discussed Pluto transits a bit, but there's more to learn -- Pluto transits don't deliver triumph but rather melodrama).

Gene Roddenberry's success with Star Trek went far beyond his personal life.

He's still being written ABOUT, and I've commented on this recent post which I found through a mention on Twitter

http://scifiwire.com/2009/10/michael-cassutt.php

Michael Cassutt has written about how many other people contributed to the phenomenal success of Star Trek (the success we're looking to repeat for Alien Romance) and mentioned Theodore Sturgeon and Amok Time which I've been talking about in this context on other posts on this blog.

Meyer's, Rowling's and Buffy's creator Joss Whedon's successes can be viewed as due to the confluence of what you might call magical forces.

(BTW Rowling and Joss Whedon are examples of success attained AFTER acquiring skill with conflict generating plot which progresses by show-don't-tell not expository lumps, and resolves at a precisely structured ending).

In the magical view of the universe, everything (people, places, things, artifacts) are all connected by unseen threads of energy, resonances. The Universe and all of us are of one piece. I've explained this in my Tarot posts here on this blog.

Rowling's work paved the way for the Twilight teen novel success.

See:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/09/hogwarts-bush-witchcraft-harry-potter.html

Which says:
--------------
"Harry Potter" books have sold more than 400 million copies and been translated into 67 languages -- not to mention the history-making film adaptations, which collectively have gone north of $5.3 billion in worldwide box office."
--------------

We all, as writers, aim for such towering achievement, and pursue that with dogged determination and soaring aspiration.

Our society and civilization are structured around some deeply hidden philosphical ideas (the kind of philosophy that rules your personal life even though you don't know you have a philosophy nevermind this one).

We are embedded in and awash with this philosophy. Like air we don't even know it's there. Or like a fish that doesn't know water is there. It's an unconscious cultural assumption. Transmitted to young children in school, it becomes an incontrovertible fact like gravity.

It is a Hellenistic philosophy, a view of the universe within which the entire "scientific revolution" was incubated.

For more on the residue of Hellenistic philosophy at the root of our culture, the root upon which the scientific view of the universe is grafted see my non-fiction book on the Tarot: Never Cross A Palm With silver.

(The publication of my 5 books on the Tarot is delayed waiting for ARTWORK to show-don't-tell the principles).

The following assumes you've read Never Cross A Palm With Silver (see Amazon, that first volume was published on paper), or that you didn't have to read it because you already understand the history of Philosophy. If you can dissect our world into a conflict between Hellenistic Philosophy and Biblical Philosophy (Kabbalah), then the rest of this discussion will make perfect sense.

We sometimes believe, because we are embedded in a Hellenistic world, that success such as Meyer has achieved is something you do on purpose, and somehow she has just had a little LUCK that we haven't had, due to no particular trait of her own that we don't share. Not only that, but she's not as good a writer as some of those reading this blog who haven't published for money yet.

That assumption can trigger jealousy -- "Why should she have all the luck?" "It's just not FAIR!" -- and jealousy (coveting your neighbor's goods) runs counter to one of the 10 Commandments of the Bible.

The magical view of the universe provides some good reasons for that prohibition on coveting as well as the means to avoid coveting (which the Hellenistic view does not provide because in the Hellenistic view, coveting is the essence of human nature.)

Consider when an "advertising campaign" succeeds, how the success is attributed to WHAT the advertising agency did, or how much they spent.

That's like the Hellenistic/Scientific view where the results of what you do depends entirely on what you do and never on who you ARE.

Advertising execs keep trying to do the same thing that someone else did and expecting similar success. That would work in the Hellenistic view of the universe, but not in the magical view.

Have you any idea how much money was spent advertising Space 1999 specifically to Star Trek fans after Star Trek was canceled? Space 1999 was sold as having an inevitable appeal to Star Trek fans.

Do you realize how much of that money was totally wasted because Star Trek fans just turned up their noses at the shoddy product that bore no recognizable resemblance to Star Trek?

The producers of Space 1999 thought they were doing the same thing Gene Roddenberry did, and that therefore it would succeed.

How much money was spent promoting Chicago for the Olympics only to lose to Rio?

Now I can't recall a recent Presidential campaign that spent less money than the opponent and still ended with the impecunious candidate winning. The most money almost always wins political campaigns.

But in political campaigns in the USA, most of the money spent comes from the very people who will vote & from corporations whose advertising responses have taught them public taste. So the amount of money collected for a political campaign is proportionate to the size of the support base for the candidate (sort of).

Sales campaigns don't work like that. All the ad bucks spent on a promotion come from the purveyer not the customer.

Can you imagine paying money to a Fund to pay for ads for Pepsi at the Olympics?

There's a different dynamic at work when you have a product to sell and need to advertise it.

See my post on Marketing here
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/09/marketing-via-social-networking.html

And notice this post from an Agent on writers' personalities and "networking"
http://cba-ramblings.blogspot.com/2009/10/dedicated-to-lone-ranger.html

When the product you are selling is entertainment, it gets very complicated because what entertains you is influenced by those invisible "connections" that bind us and our material universe into one. I hope to trace some of them for you in a future post here, another part to Astrology Just For Writers.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/12/astrology-just-for-writers-part-5-high.html

For now, remember my discussion of the Suit of Pentacles in the Tarot and the nature of a "Pentacle" and what it really symbolizes.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2007/10/ace-of-pentacles-setting-up.html

10 Pentacles can be taken to symbolize the epitome of success in the material world (a type of HEA), and many people would think that Meyer or Rowling have materialized that symbolism. Nothing can destroy the success they've achieved.

Life is never that simple because of all those connections that make us one with the Universe.

Did Meyer's success come only from her own efforts?

Entirely and only from her own efforts, and the efforts of those around her, people she knows, who helped her materialize these novels? (see the Gene Roddenberry post linked above).

Or do we need to examine a much broader cross section of reality to understand what is happening in this world and why, and therefore perhaps understand where it's all going and what it means?

Let's look at a cross section from a different angle and see what turns up.

The first novel in my key universe, Sime~Gen, "went viral" via the Star Trek fan network connected through my Kraith fanzine universe and my professional non-fiction book STAR TREK LIVES!

http://www.simegen.com/fandom/startrek/ for Kraith for free reading.

Sime~Gen spawned about 6 different fanzine publications started by fans and contributed to by fans, discussing aspects of the Sime~Gen universe.

Most of the Sime~Gen fanzine material is posted online and one of the 'zines, Companion In Zeor, is still publishing online. A totally separate "shared universe" co-operative fiction Sime~Gen story is being created by a number of fan writers and posted online.

The master index page is
http://www.simegen.com/sgfandom/

The Rimon's Library section contains most of the fiction and you'll find a separate link to the Co-operative fiction at the bottom of the master index page.

The second Sime~Gen novel, Unto Zeor, Forever, won the Galaxy Award.

For the timeline, see my biography page
http://www.simegen.com/bios/jlbio.html

During and after writing/publishing Unto Zeor, Forever, I brought Jean Lorrah onboard to write the professional novel FIRST CHANNEL in the Sime~Gen Universe. The whole concept of FIRST CHANNEL was entirely Jean's idea.

That was a major first - female-female SF collaboration. Jean had already written some really splendid fan stories which are posted on /sgfandom/ in Rimon's Library.

I don't recall exactly when, but during those initial years a manila envelope appeared in my mailbox with a return address of "Andrea Alton."

As most of you know, Marion Zimmer Bradley had become my writing mentor and really helped sell House of Zeor and Unto Zeor, Forever. She actually wrote one of the paragraphs which survived to the final draft of Unto and taught me how to "sharpen" a sentence by writing my sentence for me. (then I went back and used that technique throughout the novel)

One of the families in Bradley's Darkover series is named Alton (common enough name, but it had never turned up in my mailbox before).

I was active in Darkover fandom, and fans have a habit of taking names from the fiction they be-fan. Bradley had grown up in fandom. So had I.

I looked at the envelope, saw the name, thought it had to do with the fan organizational work I was doing for Darkover fandom (I ran "Keeper's Tower" the group that kept track of official fan groups; I was Fan Guest of Honor at the first Darkover Grand Council Meeting; I grew up on the planet Darkover and eventually sold Marion a Darkover story for an anthology).

With my mind on the Darkover fan activity and the growing Kraith fandom (55 creative artists worked on Kraith at one time or another, and the print run would sell out 1,000 copies within weeks of publication), plus the budding Sime~Gen fandom, I just stared and stared at that name, ALTON on that envelope and mentally screamed FAN HOAX.

Someone was playing a joke on me. For sure.

So I opened the envelope prepared to be the butt of a fannish joke (not the first time).

It was a Sime~Gen fan story titled Belling The Cat by "Andrea Alton."

A rewritten and lengthened version is currently posted here:
http://www.simegen.com/sgfandom/rimonslibrary/cz/cz12/bellcat.html

Here's the editor's notes:
Editorial Note: The following story was originally submitted to A COMPANION IN ZEOR in 1981. After Jacqueline read it, her opinion was that it was a good basis for a professional novel. It was further developed into "ICY NAGER" which at one point had been submitted to Doubleday for publication. Because of that decision, A COMPANION IN ZEOR never printed this piece. What you are reading is the original first draft of "ICY NAGER" which has been available both as a print fanzine and on our Websites. Karen MacLeod

The first draft of the story that landed in my mailbox was PERFECTLY executed, with a firm artistic hand, with a disciplined and full-voiced stylistic cadence, with a deep full throated thematic chord and perfectly reticulated structure. It was better written than anything I could have aspired to write at that time (maybe since, too).

I loved it.

But I loved it because it was MY story.

The quality of the writing freaked me out.

It was a story I had had in my mind for well over 10 years and never told anyone about, that I could remember.

I had dreamed of being able to write and sell that story one day, if the other novels succeeded well enough. But Alton's story didn't have the Action/Adventure genre signature in the foreground as would be required to sell it commercially. It was pure Intimate Adventure.

Alton's story was more like a very well written TWILIGHT.

Alien Romance readers would love it, but there were no Alien Romance readers then, and no real "Vampire As Good Guy" novels either.

My ambition to sell Andrea Alton's Sime~Gen story was realistic since House of Zeor had been mentioned for the Hugo, and Kraith brought me in as a runner-up for the fan Fan Hugo even though the Fan Hugo was never ever awarded for fan fiction and there was a huge anti-Star Trek movement in SF fandom.

I sat there and read the original Belling The Cat story over and over, parsing every sentence, looking for a clue about who was playing a trick on me.

I tried to think who, of all the people I knew which was thousands, who could possibly have heard me mention this story idea, this plot. (every word exactly MINE) I couldn't think of anyone who might have heard me mention it who also had the skill to write like this.

Except Marion Zimmer Bradley.

Apropos of this, many years later when I was a Guest at a Star Trek convention in Great Gorge New Jersey, I met Theodore Sturgeon and told him about how I knew every scene and every plot move and Vulcan detail established in his script Amok Time (but I knew the broadcast version, not the version he wrote) before it was broadcast just from the footnote in David Gerrold's Ballantine paperback THE MAKING OF STAR TREK which noted that in the upcoming Star Trek season, Spock would go home driven by the Vulcan mating drive and the story was written by Theodore Sturgeon. That's all it took, and I KNEW.

Here's my post on Ted Sturgeon.
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/08/theodore-sturgeon-ask-next-question.html

At the time that Andrea Alton's Belling The Cat arrived in my mailbox, I had already had the experience of KNOWING Ted Sturgeon's plot and mating drive details before seeing the episode. But I had not had the experience of telling him about it.

So I knew that I was capable of grabbing a story off the astral plane that someone was working on or planning to write. I knew what it felt like to access such an unwritten work.

This knowledge undermined my ability to simply attribute Belling The Cat to Marion Zimmer Bradley and call her up and accuse her of hoaxing me and sharing a good laugh.

The postmark on the envelope was not where Marion lived at the time, but she could have pulled off a re-mailing.

Belling The Cat had Marion's strength, but not her "style" -- it had my premise and idea, but not my style or skill level.

There was no clue of a cover letter, no note saying this was a submission to this or that S~G 'zine to indicate the author knew of Sime~Gen fandom, no real title or header on the manuscript. It was just what someone would do to play a joke on me.

In this period, I was "editing" (teaching to write) a bunch of fan writers for Kraith and also for Sime~Gen since we'd begun publishing fiction in the S~G fanzines. I knew a lot of people who would have a blast getting my goat.

And I had to answer that author.

So I wrote a very tentative, very cautious letter (yes, snailmail) kind of hinting that I'd like to know the history of this story and pen name.

Andrea Alton wrote back and said that's her real name and that she wanted to submit the story for 'zine publication.

I don't recall right now if she was a Darkover fan at that time, but she became one. She wanted to submit the story for the fanzines but was very afraid it wasn't good (!!!!) enough.

You see, it was just an idea she suddenly had, and sat down and dashed off as a story, WHOOSH like taking dictation. It was the first fiction she'd ever written.

It took quite a while to convince me of that, but it was really true. Eventually I met her. A real person, and NICE too.

Years later, she wrote and sold a truly fabulous, utterly original, completely perfectly crafted SF novel titled DEMON OF UNDOING.
http://www.sfreviews.net/demonundo.html

The company she sold it to (the high prestige, nothing-but-perfectly-crafted novels packager BAEN) published it in 1988 and immediately offered her a contract for a second book. She turned down the contract. She never sold anything else that I know of.

Eventually Demon of Undoing was one of the earliest e-books, posted online for download. That e-publisher is gone now, and I've lost touch with Andrea, though people write to me looking for her.

I was able to believe BELLING THE CAT was her first attempt at fiction and that she had never heard of my intent to write that story (which I now won't ever write because it's been written) because I knew I had KNOWN what Amok Time would be without seeing it.

Only personal experience can convince you of something this impossible.

Well, impossible in the Hellenistic view of the Universe; not in the Biblical view of the universe.

Andrea Algon wrote more Sime~Gen, and you can find all her Sime~Gen posted online in Rimon's Library.

Eventually, we were close to a chance to sell Sime~Gen novels by authors other than Jean and me. The fan novels we had published were professional quality work. They were fan novels only because they lacked backgrounding (what's a Sime; What's a Gen; What's a Channel; What's a Donor; What's the Tecton; Where did it all come from and why?) But they were all prime examples of Intimate Adventure in styles different from mine.

Andrea was one of the writers we tapped, and she turned the hero of BELLING THE CAT (nicknamed Icy Nager) into the hero of a novel titled ICY NAGER (which we couldn't sell; it's posted online too). And that novel has a fair adventure genre signature.

Now why am I telling you about Andrea Alton and Belling the Cat?

Because this is just one of many, many examples of this phenomenon.

This phenomenon (one person writing another person's mentally sketched (or obsessively dreamed) story and selling it) happens so often that Hollywood (which gets more submissions than Manhattan publishers + e-publishers combined) has a phalanx of lawyers who return submitted manuscripts "unopened" with stern notes of legal warnings.

Any writer who originates something thinks it's original because they haven't seen it anywhere else. And yes, it may never have been made visible anywhere -- but it might have been made visible (Pentacles again) somewhere the writer has never had access to.

One originator may think the other originator "stole" something, plagiarized.

Fans have accused Star Trek of "stealing" their fanzine ideas. I know that many in the Star Trek offices had read at least some Kraith. Fans see a lot of Kraith elements turning up in the films -- elements that were heretical when I first wrote them, long before anyone but Gene Roddenberry dreamed of films. I did things such as destroying the Enterprise NCC-1701, or giving Spock a sibling, or placing Spock's family high in Vulcan society.

But any good writer looking at Classic Trek would have done the same, no stealing involved.

The assumption that what you dream inside your own mind is original and belongs only to you is rooted in the Hellenistic view of the universe, the scientific view.

In the magical view of the universe, though, not only is it possible for other creators to envision or create what you have dreamed privately, it's a necessary condition for the complete description of a magical universe.

Thus, if you've internalized a magical view of the universe, you can't ever feel the urge to "covet" another's work, success, or possessions.

Look again at all the Greek Myths and you see the gods constantly attacking each other from jealousy, covetousness, or just to steal to demonstrate power. Coveting is deeply embedded in the Hellenistic philosophy, so deeply that you can't even find it stated, because it's assumed to be an element of human nature that is a reflection of the gods, immortal and unchanging.

Covetousness of one neighbor's position in life is not possible if you hold the Biblical view.

It's not "forbidden" - it's just not possible.

In my way of looking at it, that Commandment forbids the Hellenistic (or Babylonian, Ancient Egyptian etc etc) view of the universe. Why is that philosophy forbidden? Because it's not true and it doesn't work.

This overlapping creation phenomenon is only one small example of how the real world really works. We are all connected, of one piece, even in our dreams -- or perhaps especially in our dreams.

But of course, there are dozens of other explanations that don't require a Biblical philosophy; as I said above use your own data to derive your own conclusions.

The point here is the derivation methodology.

Take an explanation and interpret a fact. Take a fact and find an explanation. MAKE THEM MATCH to make your worldbuilding resonate with verisimilitude.

OK, look back on what you know of the history of technological innovation. Edison wasn't the first to make a lightbulb, and Bell wasn't the first to create a "telephone." Many patents are held by the second, or tenth, person to invent something, just as with TWILIGHT.

''''''''''

IDEAS (Wands) are "up there" somewhere, and they penetrate this plane of existence following whatever channel of least resistence they find. YOU may be standing under one of those penetration points at any time in your life. (To understand that, wrap your mind around what I've said about Tarot and Astrology - they are not two different subjects.)

Just because you "have" the idea does not necessarily mean you can manifest it (as I had been not-writing Belling The Cat).

The individual who can manifest it will have a certain kind of Natal Chart and be under certain types of transits, and have a soul that's due for whatever lesson that they would learn by manifesting that idea.

That may or may not be you, and there's nothing personal in that.

Yes, everything in art, love, and religion is personal! But that's another subject -- one centered on characterization.

IDEAS that are manifested often go nowhere commercially, as far as the world knows.

A book may "bomb" and sell only a few thousand copies (or a few hundred e-book copies). A movie may not make it past the Festivals. An invention may be a dodo before it's manufactured.

But every once in a while, the right person in the right place at the right time of their life, at the right time of the evolution of The World and maybe Humanity, will ALSO receive an IDEA just at that moment, and of their own Free Will they may choose to act on it.

BANG!!!!!

It "goes viral" because a lot of humans are harboring that idea, can "almost hear" that idea rattling around "up there" above their minds where we are all connected, all of one piece.

The public may recognize the thing as their own dream even if they've never remembered dreaming that dream.

That's what happened with TWILIGHT.

It happened with Sime~Gen too, but on a much smaller scale.

Those who have read TWILIGHT can see the hint of a similarity with Sime~Gen. If not, consider that Sime~Gen has been billed as "Vampire In Muddy Boots."

Stephanie Meyer has achieved with TWILIGHT (and sequels) what I set out to achieve with Sime~Gen (best seller to film), and she's used the same dramatic material that I was using.

For similar dialogue expository lump to TWILIGHT see the early draft of UNTO ZEOR, FOREVER posted online at
http://www.simegen.com/sgfandom/rimonslibrary/surgeon/SURGEON1.html

The published version of UNTO that won the award is 5th draft.

The spookiness continues for me with the news that Stephanie Meyer's THE HOST has been optioned for film (from option to theaters is a long complex journey).

The 2008 HC/pb release of THE HOST by Stephanie Meyer.

It's unusual for an author to be allowed to use the same byline for an adult novel as for a teen novel.

THE HOST has the following premise according to Publisher's Weekly:

---------------
In this tantalizing SF thriller, planet-hopping parasites are inserting their silvery centipede selves into human brains, curing cancer, eliminating war and turning Earth into paradise. But some people want Earth back,

-----------

I have no way of proving the following because it's all in my mind.

Way before I started writing Sime~Gen, I developed several SF universes, all more complex and richly backgrounded than Sime~Gen.

Then I chose which one to launch my career with and discarded the others. In order to write HOUSE OF ZEOR, I had to pare the Sime~Gen background as I knew it way, WAY down to the barest hint.

One of the rejected worlds was a complex world I call the Diasite universe.

I found all the pages (hand-scribbled) ever written about the Diasites while thinking about TWILIGHT and THE HOST.

To my utter shock, none of the premise is on those pages. They're chapter-structured PLOT outlines, remarkably well done considering I didn't know then what I know now about plot outlining.

But I remember the premise, crystal clear, and recently have been noodling around with the idea of casting the Diasites into a feature film format. I keep stubbing my mental toe on the knowledge that "the world" would not accept this -- it's just too SF, even though Hal Clement did something similar in NEEDLE.

Then (just a few days ago) I discovered (via Twitter) that Meyer's THE HOST has been optioned, so I went to look up what it is about. I haven't read THE HOST, and have read only the barest sketch of the premise.

It's the Diasite universe, simplified.

And according to Publisher's Weekly on Amazon, Meyer has learned conflict and how it generates show not tell and avoids expository lumps (but who knows? I haven't read the novel yet.)

Meyer could be more successful than Jacqueline Suzanne.

If you're curious, here's part of the Diasite concept.

The Galactic civilization gives up its barricading of Earth because of an interstellar war and Earth has to become prepared to defend itself, galaxy-class weapons and all.

The prerequisite for membership in the Galactic union (whatever it may be called, you couldn't pronounce it), is that the world that wants to join must accept a colony of Diasites onto their world.

Here's the SF hitch that is more "revolting" than tentacles and that would prevent this premise from become big box office.

The Diasites are energy beings -- pure soul. (think Arisians; Hal Clement's aliens were evolved viruses)

The Diasite home planet was destroyed several revolutions of the galaxy ago.

On their home planet Diasites evolved bonded to physical beings, "hosts."

After nearly going extinct when their planet was destroyed (war with the same encroaching enemy that's "now" reappeared), the Diasites developed the ability to use any Intelligent species as Hosts.

The Diasites are very VERY peaceable beings who don't covet. (no exceptions; and yes that viciates the premise)

So the Diasites have basically created this vast galaxy spanning civilization using their species need for hosts and a trait they can give in return for bodies. They are parasites that have made themselves into symbionts.

Diasites contribute communication.

There is no scientific means of communicating across galactic distances.

But the Diasites are (this was invented before Star Trek) like cells in one brain, and they can all communicate "telepathically" with each other. Distance doesn't make a difference because Diasites don't exist in the space-time continuum, but "above" it where there is no such thing as distance. Hence they communicate instantaneously across galactic distances.

But they can't survive without HOSTS.

So it's a trade.

The member planets of the galactic union "pay" for galactic communications and trade etc. by HOSTING a colony of Diasites large enough to handle all the galactic communications for the planet. You have to HOST to join the union.

So one day (shades of THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL) out of a clear blue sky, a "mothership" of Diasites appears over the U.N. Building.
And the appeal is presented to Earth -- host a colony of diasites and become well enough armed to fight off the menace coming, or don't and succumb (roll the film of conquered planets).

"Oh, sure. No problem. We'll take some of your Diasites. What do we do?"

Well, all you have to do is find (several hundred) volunteer women who will become pregnant with a Diasite, give birth in the usual way, and raise the (utterly indistinguishable from human) child to be an upstanding citizen of Earth.

That's all.

Shades of several horror genre SF stories -- but the SF premise here is that IT IS NOT HORROR. (it's like the Vampire-As-Good-Guy; it's a twist on horror, a reversal).

And yes, this bears a resemblance to "V" but was created long before that TV series.

So the first novel is about the arrival on Earth with ultimatum, the various lies and half-truths about Diasite non-physiology and lifecycle, the terrible angst of finding enough volunteers, the factioning of Earth for and against the Diasites (let's get conquered; we can make peace with those guys, but not rapists), the birth of the children, and their coming of age (entering High School).

(wrinkle - the Diasites procreating into human form never touch the women).

The second novel is from the POV of a young Diasite in High School at puberty.

The entire first generation colony of Diasites matures at about the same time because their mothers were impregnated at the exact same moment.

The Diasites send another Mother Ship to take the first human Diasites into their first reproductive cycle. (oy, the politics)

And of course, right in the middle of all this, the ENEMY arrives at Earth.

Remember, at the time I created the Diasites, and at the time I discarded them in favor of the Simes, it was basically illegal to have sex figure in an SF novel unless your name was Philip Jose Farmer. Today's SF Romance would be considered porn. (plain brown wrapper, under the counter, no book keeping, go to jail for selling it, porn)

Each Diasite novel is in a different genre, -- that's what I've done with Sime~Gen, too. The point I'm trying to make is that SF is not a genre at all, because you can write every genre in it, including Romance. Well, especially Romance.

The third Diasite novel would be the galactic war (think my Daniel R. Kerns novels, Hero and Border Dispute.)

The fourth would involve Earth's Diasites reaching out to free a conquered world and bring that world into the galactic union. (Humans are much better at freeing and bringing-in than most of the rest of the galactics at least in our spiral arm.)

Along the way you'd learn what Diasites really are (human Diasites aren't given to know this until several generations into the colony, but being human they don't want to wait to be told). You'd learn what the existence of Diasites means about the structure of the universe.

Mostly you'd learn about the human Soul and what happens when a Diasite body is conceived by a human mother without a "father."

The Diasite universe is all about religion and sex, forbidden topics in SF of that time.

None of what I've written here is in the "outlines" I found in my files.

I think Stephanie Meyer has probably already written this universe and sold it to Hollywood as THE HOST and anything I might do with the Diasites would be seen as imitating her.

Know what? I hope THE HOST really is Diasites simplified. Look at all that work I don't have to do and the world gets the benefit anyway!

REMEMBER THIS:
Even things you write that don't ever get read by anyone else, even things you think or feel that you never let anyone else see, affect the whole universe and perhaps beyond. Somewhere up there we are all connected. What one of us does in solitude enables another to do in public and neither could do anything at all without the other whether they know it or not.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://twitter.com/jlichtenberg

Bits and Pieces of Catchup

I think one of my greatest ambitions is to write SHORT blog posts.

Didn't make it today. I did try. Really, I did!

I'm way behind on getting packed for Westercon which will be held in Tempe, AZ, right up the road from me over the July 4th weekend. I've just filled out the speaker questionnaire but don't have my schedule yet. Anyone reading this blog who's planning on Westercon? I didn't see any Alien Romance panels, but signed up for everything that might lead into such a discussion. Come help me open (warp?) some minds.

http://www.westercon.org/

I hope you have had time to read my previous post and all the stuff linked to it. Could take you a week to wade through all that.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/06/crumbling-business-model-of-writers.html

Waiting for everyone to catch up, here's some bits and pieces of followup on other open topics woven into a writing challenge.


I know there's a novelization of the Trek movie, and I haven't read it yet. (yet being the operative word -- I sooo want the DVD and book; I'll pass on the action figures.)

There's a wild and thriving ongoing set of posts on twitter about people seeing the new ST movie 4 and 5 times and more. Some posts saying "what's so great about ST?" and others in goshwow shock. Other long time fans of Trek are still seeing it FOR THE FIRST TIME.

Twitter is carrying some criticism of the actors, some snearing at the entire concept.

I saw one review that really lowered my opinion of both the reviewer and the publication, calling the ST movie melodramatic.

It isn't.

But I can see how someone assigned to review a movie set in a universe they think of as kiddie stuff or teen-action-stuff (SF has borne that perjorative all along) would find this script "melodramatic." That's a point of view that always happens when someone is not engaged in the fictional universe. If you're wholly engaged, the emotional tension does not seem overblown or out of proportion to the issue. But that works only if you really understand the issue.

If everyone is running for the exit in screaming panic, and you're just standing there, you should ask yourself, "What do they know that I don't know?"

Reviewers who slap the label "melodramatic" on a piece of fiction generally haven't asked themselves that question about the audience that does not see the story as melodramatic. In fact, the rest of the audience may be seeing the story as understated while "sophisticated" reviewers trash it as melodramatic. This is in general, not just about this particular Star Trek movie.

It's not the writer's fault usually. "Melodrama" is not a property of the text or script. It exists only in the reader/viewer's mind. (You won't likely find anyone else who holds such an opinion).

There is one flaw a writer might introduce that could give some viewers the impression of melodrama, and that's failing to display in show-don't-tell the character motivations, sensitivities, hot-button issues, loyalties, friendships, and relationships, all clearly derived from the theme.

The JJ Abram's Star Trek movie is written to give you as much of these character and situation traits as possible in the time alotted (and fit in all the commercially requisite action). Anyone have an opinion on what the envelope theme of this film is? Perhaps it's "The Challenges Temper The Character Strengths?" I.e. what character strengths are there already get made stronger by challenges.

When a reviewer sees a movie as "melodramatic" it may not be the reviewer's fault for being unobservant, disinterested, or prejudiced. It might be the "fault" of the review publication for assigning the wrong person to do the review. If someone has a strong emotional reaction to a piece of fiction, a reaction which embarrasses them deep inside, they might slap a distancing label on the fiction -- as if the fiction is at fault for their own refusal to confront their own emotions. You can't tell if that's the case just be reading a review of a film you have seen.

Or the negative reaction might possibly be the fault of the professional reviewer for choosing to review a product because it's popular so that the review will get read rather than reviewing something else that's less popular.

When I read that accusation of "melodrama" against Star Trek (in the context of "it's not a good enough movie for this much hype and people who are enchanted with it have something wrong with them") it brought up questions about how people interact with fiction, fictional universes, and with their own expectations and anticipations.

There's a lot of hype for the Trek movie, and as usual fans are divided into various camps regarding how well or poorly this or that favorite aspect was handled. In general, and overall, there's a consensus of approval and wait-and-see from the old fans, and some astonished interest from new or younger people. To them, it's just a good action movie without a lot of subtext. To veteran fans, it's ALL subtext.

So public discussion makes non-fans (or even non-viewers of Star Trek) curious, and they go see the movie, and express their reactions in public (on twitter maybe).

That's how you sell a lot of movie tickets, you see. Word of mouth (or tweets) motivates people better than any amount of paid commercial time on TV.

All these thoughts are related to some very abstract thinking I've been doing lately, about how fiction strikes a person at different stages of maturity. (I've been reading a number of children's books for my review column.)

And there are subjects flickering in the back of my mind about how the USA used to have so much of a common language and experience, and how that's all been destroyed.

The base cohesiveness of our society has been shattered. That lack of imagery and trivia in common is taking a huge toll, and most people don't realize why these horrific things are happening. New stuff will arise to take its place, because humans need stuff in common with each other, but meanwhile we've got a generation without a cultural connection to anyone other than those with interests in common. The wireless web is changing THAT, too, but it hasn't taken hold yet.

Not everyone paid attention to the Presidential Election! Those that did formed cliques, as usual in politics. But we can't even say "everyone" heard Obama's speeches other than snippets on news shows. You can read his words on the web, but it's not the same as watching his delivery.

Recently, I met someone who had worshipful, shining, beatific eyes every time she mentioned (often) how much she TRUSTS Obama to do the "right thing." She was absolutely pro-Israel, and seemed totally unaware of Hillary Clinton's declaration that none of the USA's verbal agreements with Israel will be kept, period.

I was thinking, as I watched her speaking to other pro-Israel and not-so-pro-Israel people, that if I put her conversation into a story as dialogue, the editor would X it all out because it's implausible the way she ignored everything everyone else said and insisted on how much she TRUSTS Obama, and that trust solves all problems. (talk about melodrama -- her conversation dripped melodrama -- I could hardly believe I was watching a real person not a character).

Other people listened to her politely, but didn't CHALLENGE her thinking (remember the idea the Star Trek movie is about character tempered by challenge). People just expressed their own opinions, without pointing out the fallacies in hers -- they could see she would explode emotionally if challenged, and that would be disruptive to the group. So she left without having her certainties questioned, as one would expect in DIALOGUE. Her "story" and "plot" did not progress because of this group conversation.

Which of course leads into a point I've made on this blog before, that:

A) DIALOGUE is not CONVERSATION.

B) CHARACTERS are not PEOPLE

Somone who prefers to read non-fiction, but has to watch the Star Trek movie ( because maybe their wife dragged them?) might take the film's dialogue as "melodramatic" because it tries, in a very short time, to lay out for you a set of comprehensible motives.

Also consider this is a feature film. The series was designed to be an ensemble show, and each of the characters got a 50 minute (back when there were fewer commercial minutes per hour - maybe 49 minutes) show in which to be introduced. But JJ Abrams was starting from scratch to introduce these (NEW) characters to a new audience, all in one movie.

The script actually does that introduction fairly well within the time alotted. The characters of course come off shallow if all you know is what you see in this new movie, shallow and perhaps overly impressed with themselves.

One of the requirements for good feature film script writing is that there is ONE star character, and maybe a co-star, and all the rest are SUPPORTING characters. Kirk is of course nominally assigned the "starring role" -- but the truth from the POV of many viewers is that Spock is the star. (yep, I'm one of those). Because this show was (will be again?) a TV show (already another movie is in the works), the ENSEMBLE CAST requires fudging the "star-co-star-supporting" paradigm.

If, in your mind, you're superimposing these characters on the old TV characters, you see disparities and are so busy thinking what the old characters would do that you don't totally engage in and thus BELIEVE the current characters.

The result is that you see melodrama instead of drama because you think the characters are OVER reacting.

Well, is this woman who "trusts" Obama "overreacting?" She doesn't think so, and most of you don't either. She thinks she has good reason to trust him, but can't say what those reasons are. She's just bewildered that anyone might squint sideways at Obama and wonder if WYSIWYG.

It all has to do with how we "judge" people and how we "judge" characters -- how we evaluate the values of another person.

And that brings us to the question of whether politicians (and say, actors?) whose "images" have been professionally built by spin-doctors are "characters" or "people."

And what has this all to do with creating that blockbuster TV show with Alien Romance that will change the world?

That woman was in love with Obama, even though she'd never met him. She couldn't separate the image from the man - the character from the person (as often happens with fans of a TV character who can't separate the actor from the character.)

The adoration I saw in her eyes was soooo totally "romance" -- it was Neptune at it's best, worshipful adoration. I'd seen fans of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Chekov, Uhura, and Scotty with that same beatific expression when discussing the lives of the characters as if they were the lives of the actors, or vice-versa.

I saw in her eyes the experience of JOY in being UNDERSTOOD and being SAFE AT LAST. (I'm not kidding; I saw that, but it may not actually have been there. I am always researching this Alien Romance problem even when wandering around the social fabric of my mundane existence!)

She was not an SF fan. She was ever so mundane. She was an older woman, well and securely married. Her husband was there and totally agreed with her assessment of Obama and apparently had no inkling that there could be a jealousy issue going on there.

Here was a woman so infatuated with a public image that is a "character" more than a "person" that she totally believes she's assessed him correctly.

That's what falling in love does. It cuts the critical faculties out of the circuit and allows you to believe the image you are projecting onto someone is the actual, real person and not a reflection of your own aspirations.

And that's exactly the state of mind you must have in order to "fall in love with" a real Alien From Outer Space.

Here's the thing about Neptune, though. What you see in another person through Neptune's veil is sometimes more TRUE than what you see through your critical faculties.

Sometimes, your critical faculties have been honed by training in very logical, practical ways. And because of that, sometimes your critical faculties will reject information that is actually pertinent simply because the information seems implausible.

That's how a professional reviewer could conclude that the JJ Abram's ST movie is "melodramatic." A reviewer often is trained as a critic (they aren't supposed to be the same function), and an art critic has to view art through his/her critical faculties.

But art, by its very nature, speaks to the subconscious, subverting all critical analysis. Even the art of the spin-doctor creating a politician's image for the media speaks to the subconscious. Spin-doctors work with the fabric of symbolism to get you to believe what they tell you in ways that mere words could never achieve.

The subconscious does not view the world through the conscious mind's critical faculties.

When the subconscious becomes convinced, it over-rules the conscious mind and asserts its opinion as the TRUTH. And subconscious can't be swayed by facts.

So, if we're going to create a TV show, an Alien Romance, that will argue our case the way Star Trek argues the case for SF, we have to include one character like the woman I met with the starry-eyes for Obama. This character has to speak for the human capacity to see past the obvious surface and into the true heart -- as McCoy does in Star Trek, and as this woman believes she has with Obama (which she may have; we'll see).

------and one more bit-------or maybe a piece?------

I've been talking a lot about social networking, the cure for the shattering of our culture as mentioned above.

Found this link on twitter
http://social-media-optimization.com/2009/02/top-twenty-five-social-networking-sites-feb-2009/

and on that page it says:

Interesting information from Compete.com that shows Facebook surging past MySpace in Monthly Unique Visitors and that Twitter has moved from #22 to #3 in the rankings of the top 25 social networking sites by monthly visits.
-------------

And another link on that social-media-optimization page is to an article on the "graying of facebook"

-----------------

http://social-media-optimization.com/2009/02/the-graying-of-facebook/

WHICH STARTS:

Last week I was at a meeting at Facebook and as Facebook was talking about their demographics, one of the statistics that struck me was facebook’s demographics is starting to mirror those of the U.S. of A.

-----------------

Nevermind reading these whole articles (hey, I'm not the only long-winded person on the web!), just those two facts juxtaposed with the snatches on ST from Twitter and various reviews is telling us so much about where to find a lever long enough and where to stand to move the world toward respecting Alien Romance.

Here's another bit of the puzzle.

http://www.thegalaxyexpress.net/2009/06/8-ways-science-fiction-romance-could.html

quotes my blog entry at
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/05/marketing-fiction-in-changing-world.html

and reasons to the conclusion:

---------- THEGALAXYEXPRESS.NET ---------------
These days, authors aren’t just writers—they’re entrepreneurs.
----------END THEGALAXYEXPRESS.NET ----------

And that is what Jean Lorrah and I have been discussing with an ever increasing intensity.

Jean Lorrah is researching (she's a professor, you know? Research is her bag.) how to employ the techniques used by web based entrepreneurs to the needs of writers. Basically, it's not really a compatible set of techniques. A writer can't just take what these (big buck$ maker$) do and use it to sell books. Readers would run away in droves. But, as you can learn a lot by watching Mission: Impossible or McGiver or Burn Notice or Royal Pains, you can stoke your creative fires by subscribing to free things around the web.

Jean has found a Free Offer from one of the best teachers in the web-entrepreneur business which will open June 15, 2009 and run for a very short while.

See? That's one of their techniques -- short, quick opportunities that ignite your greed to get something others can't get! But to put our culture back together, everyone has to be able to get some specific thing that that everyone else has. We need things in common, not divisiveness.

Here's a link where you will be able to get the free offer (as of June 15th which is next Monday and I don't know how long it'll run). Jean says this is a good place to learn web marketing from Jim Daniels, who has been doing and teaching since 1996.

http://fc403pw6f3th2ke9upz2l1cngo.hop.clickbank.net/

Now to the writing lesson.

If you want to write a BURN NOTICE type TV program to pitch to TV producers, but using (say) a web entrepreneur ( tall, blond, built, and HOT!) as the male lead, and perhaps the actress who stars in (and probably writes and produces and creates the music for) his YouTube videos, getting this free subscription would be a good start in scoping out the character of these people and finding some of the web-entrepreneur tricks that are like the spy-tricks used on BURN NOTICE.

The web entrepreneur tricks can be used as plot devices as High School Chemistry often served McGiver (and now Royal Pains).

Remember how I discussed the use of SETTING in telling a story when a Producer, J. Neil Schulman, mentioned how a Psychic Cruise could be the setting for a Monk or Murder She Wrote episode?

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/05/medium-is-message_19.html

Here's a chance to do an exercise like that "USA Characters Welcome" pitch.

"Wagon Train To The Stars" became Star Trek because Wagon Train was the most popular, longest running, iconic TV show at the time (maybe other than Gunsmoke, but Gunsmoke took place mostly in one town).

What is the most popular TV show today? Or web-show? What is iconic in the USA? What is topping the ratings? What is the longest running or has the widest demographic? How do you pitch an Alien Romance to the general audience? What do kids and parents watch together?

Iconic Current Show into A New Setting.

We have to transpose that woman I met into the setting we need, and build a springboard into a CHEAP TO MAKE TV series. (Star Trek was cheap for its day, considering the state-of-the-art FX; and it looks it!)

A Web Entrepreneur's life would be a great SETTING, (mostly shot on a standing set of an office with lots of electronics; plus some location shots of hotel ballrooms for speeches; stock shots of airports; standing set hotel rooms -- pretty cheap) and I'm sure a worshipful woman would "fall for" his spin-doctored character in each episode, pissing off his Soul Mate.

Are there any Web Entrepreneur TV series yet? Have I come up with something new here? THE APPRENTICE MEETS MY FAVORITE MARTIAN?

Now consider what an Alien stranded on Earth would do for a living? In BURN NOTICE, we have a guy with no visible means of support using his spy skills to help people and make a few bucks in fees. Why wouldn't an ALIEN gravitate to electronic salesmanship to make a living?

Yes, of course there would be obstacles -- which points to conflict.

Today's audiences are filled with people who have been ousted from salaried jobs and are applying their talents to becoming "consultants" or self-employed entrepreneurs.

Tell me the story as an Alien Romance. I do hope you've read Linnea Sinclair's DOWNHOME ZOMBIE BLUES!!!

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/

Ace of Swords

Folks:

First, I have to say that at Nasfic, Linnea Sinclair provided me an advance copy of THE DOWN HOME ZOMBIE BLUES. I just started reading it (it's a 516 page pb and I'm on p 10) and it's so good I'm recommending it to you now. NOTE: I'm reading an ARC so changes might have been made in the version you buy now.

Remember I teach writing, and (even at Nasfic on panels about writing) students say it's not possible for editors to reject a book on the first 5 or 10 pages.

Well, it IS possible because those pages have to contain the bits and pieces that form the foundation for the novel, all arranged in the right order. Linnea's done that first 10 pages perfectly except for one parag I (as editor) would have deleted (but as writer, I'd have wanted to save) -- so I'm watching to see what it foreshadows.

The paragraph on p 7 starts "Unless you were a pilot taken prisoner by the Tresh." and ends with the POV character deciding she couldn't afford to think about that now. This is a classic "abort" -- starting the reader down a path then pulling them out for no obvious reason.

That parag. would have worked better later. Or perhaps the last sentence might have been deleted.

But it's on p 7 -- and it's only one small paragraph! It does have a purpose (starting the internal conflict, giving the character a haunting past and the sense you've read about this woman before). Then everything moves straight forward again, so I anticipate a smooth, good read here.

It had to be a difficult decision - that paragraph! Which brings me to the topic I want to address. Decisions, habits and actions.

I've found myself writing little essays for this blog each week, and I feel guilty because it's time I should spend writing. So instead of writing, I'm writing! Well, that's what writers do -- they write!

So I'm going to try an experiment that may not work because there are so many interesting things happening in life all the time that I'd like to discuss here.

Let's see how many little essays I can write (I have 20 on my list of must-write essays) essentially about the core topic here, alien-romance, yet still also about the Tarot Minor Arcana Swords (decisions and actions) and Cups (love, character, relationship).

As many of you know I teach writing via Tarot and Astrology - those disciplines are very fruitful sources of plot-twists and characters with recognizable dilemmas. I've been invited to teach at Ecumenicon 2008, March 27-30, 2008 at the Best Western Convention Center in Baltimore, MD. And I would dearly love to finish these 20 essays before that.

These next 10 essays will be a book in the series begun with my book  THE NOT SO MINOR ARCANA (available on amazon.com) - a short introduction to how to go about learning Tarot. The Wands and Cups Volumes and  the Swords and Pentacles Volumes, are now all available separately on Kindle.  The 5 Volumes combined are also available on Kindle as one book, cheaper than buying them individually.
The Not So Minor Arcana: Never Cross A Palm With Silver Aug 30, 2015 99 cents
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0108MC26O

The Not So Minor Arcana: Wands Sept. 1, 2015  99 cents
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0106RVPKU

The Not So Minor Arcana: Cups Sept. 11, 2015 99 cents
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0106SATX8

The Not So Minor Arcana: Swords  Sept. 17, 2015 99 cents
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0100RSPM2

The Not So Minor Arcana: Pentacles  Sept. 21, 2015 99 cents
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0106RVKF0

The Not So Minor Arcana: Books 1-5 combined Sept. 24, 2015 $3.25
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B010E4WAOU

This series is designed not for the beginner or the advanced student, but for the intermediate student and specifically for writers doing worldbuilding..

------------

So THE ACE OF SWORDS!

I use the paradigm where Wands is Fire, Cups is Water, Swords is Air, Pentacles is Earth and Tarot is structured on the Kabbalah's Tree Of Life diagram, or more specifically Jacob's Ladder.
The Aces are beginnings, origins, the number ONE -- the unity behind all reality.
Aces exist at the level of reality where all things are just one thing, and haven't yet been divided into many things.

The moment just before the Big Bang began to fling all the matter of the Universe out from that tiny, collapsed central point is an "Ace" moment. All human activity replicates or recapitulates that moment, over and over on many levels.

Thus the Ace of Swords represents the very beginning point of an action sequence, or course of action, such as writing a book, fixing a leaky faucet, going to college, buying a house.

The Ace of Wands is the point where you wake up at 2AM, grab a notepad and scribble down the IDEA (Ideas are Wands) for a story. The Ace of Cups is the emotion from which the story arose, usually subconscious. The Ace of Pentacles is the moment when you hold the first printed copy in your hands (Pentacles are materialization of Ideas.). The Ten of Pentacles is where you bank the Nobel Prize money. The Ace of Swords is TYPING THE FIRST WORD.

The Ace of Swords isn't "I am writing a book" -- it's "I'm going to write this book."

The Ace of Swords is, "I'm going to fix that leaky faucet." The Two of Swords all the way to the Ten describe the comedy of errors up to the point where you get the next IDEA -- call the plumber. (and the water-damage cleanup company) (and the insurance company)
The Suit of Swords is often thought of as misfortunate. I don't think so.

Swords represent force in motion.

The four "Worlds" of the Kabbalah are expansions of the 4 letters in the Divine Name -- Yod, Heh, Vav, Heh.

The letter Vav is a Yod (a little fillip like a comma or a spark suspended in mid-air near the top of the writing line) with a staff under it, reaching down to the bottom of the writing line.

The Vav is a Yod that has GENERATED downward like a tornado touching down. It is a nail that connects things together. The Yod has expressed itself in the Vav. So the "World" represented by Swords is the expression of the Idea represented by the original Yod, a spark of fire.

Thus "Swords" is Divine Power Expressed -- or in motion.

A human being is the visible end of a connecting channel (a kind of "worm hole") that reaches all the way up through all the Worlds of Kabballah and brings down the cyclone of Divine energy.
Think of the Indian concept of the Chakras, or Marion Zimmer Bradley's Keepers who have to have their "channels" cleared.

The human being is a complicated bit of circuitry, and endowed with Free Will (that's a Kabbalah given -- humans have Free Will at all times).

The human being can be like the Sorcerer's Apprentice and reach up to channel down more power than they can handle. The human being can have more ambition than skill and not know it. The human being can have more imagination than judgement and not believe it.

The human being has to make choices and take action by balancing a myriad factors. Losing that balance doesn't make the energy stop flowing -- thus the cards in the Suit of Swords that follow the Ace, the next stages in the project of fixing the leaky faucet or writing the novel often don't manifest smoothly. That cyclone tip of downrushing Divine energy can touch your life and rip it to shreds. Thus the Suit of Swords has a bad rep.

The Suit of Swords, the 3rd World "down" the Tree of Life, is represented by the "Element" Air which we learn in Astrology symbolizes Thought, the Intellect. Gemini, Libra and Aquarius are Air Signs.

And so we learn that a Thought is an action -- as is speech. How we think, what we think, affects our reality, our world. What we say affects even those who never hear it. Thoughts and deeds are one and the same.

We learn this from the power of positive thinking, and how imagining success often brings success. Your thoughts infuse your deeds with exceptional power when both thought and deed are alligned. (think golf swing)

Decisions (de-cision -- to cut in half) are represented by Swords.

A story or novel (your evereyday life is a story you are writing) usually starts where the two elements which will conflict to generate the plot first come together. At that single (ACE of SWORDS) point, the author and by extension, the main character, must DECIDE what to DO when CONFRONTED by the antagonist element.

The antagonist might not be a person -- it could be a storm, a planet to be explored, a disease to be beaten. Whatever it is, at that moment of confrontation, a THOUGHT has to become a DE-CISION, a dividing point.

It can be nothing more than the recognition of an adversary, or perhaps worse, the recognition of one's True Love. Or a failure to recognize, and thus failure to act. The failure to act is also an action, and thus symbolized by Swords.

Human beings have an analogue brain, so we make decisions based on "experience" -- in other words, we are lazy. What's worked before, we do again - until it becomes a habit. And with age, we become so hidebound we can't do anything but what we've made our habit.

We tend to take that kind of habit from lifetime to lifetime (yes, in Kabbalah, reincarnation is real).

So confronted with a unique situation, we boggle. Confounded, we think slowly, or in non-logical sequences, or by free association. Then we hunt frantically for elements in the situation that remind us of something else we already know the answer to.

Wands represent the kind of original thinking we apply to a unique situation without trying to find a similarity to some other known situation.

Swords represent the kind of habitual thinking we prefer where memorized solutions apply to new situations.

Thus the Ace of Swords can represent the origin of a new habit -- or the groping for a memorized solution that almost applies to the new situation.

More accurately, the Ace of Swords is the moment when you decide if this situation can be handled by a memorized solution or needs something entirely new and different.

The moment right after that is the committment to the course of action, the point of no return. "Now you've done it!"

And the Two of Swords is the moment when you think over what you've done, hoping nothing will happen until you figure it all out!

The ACE OF SWORDS reversed is that exact same moment of tension at the threshold of action -- but without enough tension, without enough potential energy to get the project all the way to the 10 of Swords -- the ultimate consequence of the begun action.

Often, actions begun this way -- ill considered decisions and actions -- take hold of a person because the person is striving mightily to avoid doing something else, or to avoid "feeling" (i.e. Cups) something, or is simply doing too many things at once.

It isn't a particular amount of energy that you must accumulate before you act that makes the Ace of Swords come right side up and a project take off with a bang big enough to reach its necessary end.

Each project requires a different amount of energy, a different amount of committment.

And yes, the Swords represent "committment" -- in relationships, paying off a loan, showing up at work every morning, not drinking too much at night so you can show up alert in the morning, getting through school, staying married to the same person even when things go bad.

So whether the Ace of Swords comes up right side up or upside down in a reading depends a lot on what is going on within the person on the levels of Wands and Cups -- ideas, and emotions -- Fire(wands) and Water(cups) make steam, and steam drives the turbine of life. Working at the level of Swords, remember you are still way above the level of Pentacles which is our everyday 4-dimensional reality, material reality. So we're talking about psychological and psychic energies here in Swords.

The fuel for actions is intentions and the totality of understanding of the universe (what E. E. Smith called, in the Lensman Series, the Visualization of the Macrocosmic All). How well you manage your life will show up in how well matched your selected project is to the amount of "committment" you put behind that Ace of Swords. But it also depends on how shrewdly chosen your projects are -- on whether you've done your homework before selecting a project.

Take the fury of Al Queda for example. It is fueled by religious conviction and the perfectly human sense of right and justice. That fuel is not Swords but Wands and Cups -- and the steam that combination makes drives their swift sword with the full might of human belief.
What will it take to thwart such conviction driven actions?

Now translate that question into the story you've decided to write at the moment when you face the blank page in the Ace of Swords. That question is the conflict which is the essence of story. What it will cost the Hero to thwart the Villain is what your readers want to discover.

In a Romance, the two destined lovers can be each others' enemies (as Linnea's DOWNHOME ZOMBIE BLUES points out) and allies at the same time, against something bigger than both of them -- until they combine forces.

And by the way -- "plot" is Swords. Plot is the sequence of actions the characters take. A deep study of the Suit of Swords might improve your plotting ability by an amount even you would notice.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/