|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 26
|
So... Stieg Larsson, Stephanie Meyer, J K Rowling, James Patterson and Dan Brown... What `Top 10 Things' do their best-selling fiction novels all have in common?
1) ALL ARE IN THE EXACT-SAME GENRE...
All are in the Suspense-Mystery-Thriller Genre. - Lisbeth Salander and Mikael Blomkvist are investigating/pursued by killers
- Potter has to find out who killed his parents; people are trying to kill him
- Cross always has to solve a murder;
- Langdon has to work out who is killing these people, and why;
- Bella has to urgently find out whether she should:
- a) abstain from having sex with a vampire, or
- b) abstain from having sex with a werewolf - (before someone gets themself killed.)
2) ALL ARE A `TEXTBOOK' CAMPBELL / VOGLER'S HERO'S JOURNEY.
All of them have the "Hero's Journey" story structure, and have all of the classic Hero's Journey Character Archetypes.
3) ALL HAVE SIMPLE/`INVISIBLE' PROSE STYLE
- All of them are written in very simple, unmemorable prose.
i.e. So that, a Young Adult (or, an old adult, or even a dummy) could read this book, without going to the dictionary every second page.
So - write like Hemingway.
Small words. Short sentences.
Next...
4) THE SAME THEME / PLOT STRUCTURE
All have the same exact Theme / Plot Device.
ie - Revenge is sweet.
- Salander's journey is "all about Revenge" (she even literally says this, at the end of the 3rd book), as is Blomkvist's journey (given the events at the start of the 1st book)
- Potter wants to/(has to) avenge his parents death by Voldemort;
- Cross is always trying to avenge the deaths of murder victims;
- Langdon is trying to take revenge on the Church for its crimes;
- and the 2 individual males - and their `tribes' - tussling over Bella in `Twilight' are constantly Revenging on each other, at every alternate step, in her evolving relationship with them - though sometimes Bella talks them out of it.)
5) FILMIC-NESS. (ALL HAVE THE SAME "SCENE-ERY" TO THEM)
All their novels are constructed with `Scenes' - just like a feature film.
ie - The Pacing and the Timing, Scene Structure and Length (and Dialog) - is all written `like a film screenplay'.
(And - they have all therefore been Optioned, Adapted, and Filmed and - Marketed back to the mainstream, and - fans of the books. Which is the mainstream anyway.)
Importantly - by contrast - such heartbreaking works of staggering literary genius as `The Catcher In The Rye' and say `On The Road' and `The Great Gatsby' are filled with internal narration, slow (or haphazard) "meandering" plots, and -don't necessarily make for decent movies (or even `Films', which are more `literary' than Movies.)... They just make for awesome literary novels.
(Note also that - those 3 (latter) novels AREN'T mystery-thrillers, as such. Certainly not with the Sherlock Holmes/Agatha Christie-style suspense-mystery-thrillery-ness about them...)
6) CLIFFHANGERS, AT THE END OF EVERY CHAPTER.
Self-explanatory. This is partly why they are "page-turners" ("Chapter-turners"?).
The Millennium trilogy books are especially great at this.
This also feeds back into Point #5, ie - Films kind of HAVE to do this - or there is a lack of Suspense - which, The Audience finds: Boring.
7) All of them feature `VILLAIN TRIUMPHANT' stories in their first book of the franchise.
 ALL ARE AMATEUR-DETECTIVE PSEUDO-`SHERLOCK HOLMES' STORIES...
Again the Millennium trilogy is the most obvious example of this. And - it does it brilliantly.
This also ties back into point #1, all of them are in the Suspense-Mystery-Thriller Genre.
The hero is always a `Detective' (sometimes `amateur' detective, eg Potter, or Bella) and - has to `solve the mystery / catch the killer' - or else they (or someone close to them) will die.
High-stakes, life & death suspense. (If this sort of pulp fiction doesn't appeal to you, then, possibly, you are not in the "mainstream'...) Then again, half the world is `below-average'... What can you do. Cest la vie. So it goes.
So, re-read the classic Sherlock Holmes mysteries - (and Agatha Christie `classics'!) and, create your own damn Sherlock Holmes...
But - make him an investigative journalist, or a wizard in high school, or a Jedi Knight in space, or a forensic psychologist in New York, or religious symbologist in Paris, or heck - maybe a tree-doctor in the Sahara. (Why not?)
9) ALL OF THEM FEATURE A "NON-EVERYMAN", `ELITE' HERO... - Harry Potter is `special' - born of `special' parents, with an amazing talent. (See: Luke Skywalker in `Star Wars'.)
- Cross is a super-sleuth, as well as being a strong, handsome, intelligent black man.
- Langdon is a genius symbologist/academic / "cryptographer / code-cracker" type.
- Bella... hmmm, isn't really that great at anything much, but she is one hot, sulky, sultry babe. Not `average'.
- Lisbeth Salander and Michael Blomkvist are phenomenally-gifted experts at what they do. Lisbeth is one of the 30 best computer hackers in the world(!) and a mathematics genius (see Fermat's Last Theorem in the novels..). And - Blomkvist is an exceptionally-bright, gifted and talented investigative journalist.
ie - These are NOT ordinary/Everyman/Everywoman people by any stretch. - They are all `super-special' or outstanding in some, or even many ways.
So - make your novel's protagonist super-special; an expert, or highly-talented (or genetically-gifted... which, is the same thing as highly-talented anyway) at - SOMETHING...
...Cops and lawyers are always popular. Look at all the `police procedural' and `legal' shows on TV.
And now - the last, most politically-contentious point:
10) ALL OF THESE BEST-SELLING HEROES ARE PRIVILEGED WHITE MALES.
Ok - so, Bella isn't a male - but Edward Cullen sure is, they don't come much whiter n' a vampire. Sheesh!
(So, Tip #10: Don't go writing about a non-white Hero, in your would-be best-selling novel.)
Make the bad guys as `ethnic' as you wanna, though. (Hey - knock yourself out, make the bad guy a spooky albino, with a weird spiky-chain-garter-thingy on his thigh... 
(...Okay, okay, so, Alex Cross is black... But - everyone in Stieg Larssen's Millenium novels are Anglo-Saxon, so, we're still talking "4 out of 5" of these best-selling characters are priveleged Anglo males... And check out how much Revenge there is in the (awesome) Millenium series, and how much it is in the Agatha Christie/Sir Arthur Conan Doyle mould/genre/tone/style..! Aye carumba!)
------------------
So, yeah...
That's my `take' on why those best-selling novels (novelists) are all successful - and what you need to do, if you want to emulate that Bestseller success. They all do those 10 things.
(Then again - I am a priveleged white male. If it helps, I feel real guilty about it.)
Okay - Motivational hyperlink time... check this out:
Ok - so you have the `10 Rules'...
Now - get cracking on that best-seller novel !!!!
Hope it helps..!
I blog about this type of stuff, but am keen to hear what other writers think of this Theory of mine...?
JoeTV
http://on-writering.blogspot.com/
|
|
Joined: 3/13/2011
Posts: 412
|
I disagree with a few points. Namely, bella and harry both ARE normal, shoved into not normal situations. Harry is given power as a wizard, but its not part of his character, it's it's own plot device that he has to deal with, and HOW he deals with it, as an everyman, is part of his appeal.
|
|
|
|
Your Point 2) "all have the Hero's Journey story structure" intrigues me. I know you did not express these 10 points in order to say that the top 10 stories are all the same story, but isn't that what Campbell said? Cultures and generations within them repeat the story in context, meaning names and details change, but the story remains recognizably the same.
Perhaps everyman has their own story, our story, and the novels most people can relate to best at the moment become the most popular. Such stories are mirrors. In them we read our own story.
So, to write a contemporary best seller, show people what they could have seen in themselves. Make it entertaining and they will forgive you. Make it easy and they will pay you.
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 26
|
Great points GD
I recently discovered this about Campbell, which intrigues me
http://www.maureenmurdock.com/heroine.html
Maureen’s groundbreaking book, The Heroine’s Journey: Woman’s Quest for Wholeness, published by Shambhala Publications in 1990, was written as a response to Joseph Campbell’s book on the hero’s journey.
Maureen, who was a student of Campbell’s work, felt his model did not address the specific psycho-spiritual journey of contemporary women. She developed a model of the feminine journey based on her work with women in therapy and showed it to him in 1983. Campbell’s response was, “Women don’t need to make the journey. In the whole mythological journey, the woman is there. All she has to do is realize that she’s the place that people are trying to get to.”
Knowing that women were indeed involved in their own deep psycho-spiritual journey, Maureen developed a model of the heroine’s journey which has become a template for novelists, screenwriters, and those who desire to understand the deep wounding of the feminine on both a personal and cultural level.
All rather fascinating...!
JoeTV
|
|
Joined: 6/14/2012
Posts: 194
|
I found both Campbell and Murdock (deliberately using the last names of both; guess why) to be annoying, each in his or her own way, on the subject of women...and for that matter men...by reducing individuals to avatars of a gender.
There is no "the woman" or "the man." Especially not in fiction, where the individual character (whether extraordinary, as Aristotle recommended, or more ordinary) is none the less individual.
This woman may be defined by "the deep wounding of the feminine on both a personal and a cultural level" but that woman may be defined by her ability to hold a helicopter steady in 50 knot winds over a life raft. Either woman is an individual--unique--and it's the unique individual that readers want in stories. This man is an obvious hero, jut-jawed, square-shouldered, assertive, from a long line of leaders, movers, shakers....that man is unobvious, physically less impressive, quieter, and has failed notably several times. But again, these men are individuals, defined by themselves and by others as unique. Either might end up as President (someone very like each one did) or in the pen (ditto.) Readers want to connect to someone recognizable, but not a featureless man or woman shape like those on restroom doors who follows some theoretical notion of what a hero's or heroine's life pattern should be.
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 26
|
All great points Elizabeth!
But also - we may (possibly?) be "talking past each other", or "talking through" each other here.
(Forgive the clumsy analogy, but I see Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" notes that a lot of scientists do this, entirely by accident... and they walk away (quite happily) from the conversation, with 2 different interpretations of
a) What was just said
and
b) Overall, What just happened.)
Forgive me in advance if any of this is misguided, I usually am. I have no idea about anything to be honest.
I think the Hero's Journey myth (Campbell) was put forward as it is the most common understructure of the most widely-viral myths. So, exactly as you say - the detail overlaid (by any given writer) needs to be different in each case, otherwise, all stories would be exactly the same... but Campbell and Jung theorized that the myth satisfied some psychological need...
ie You by all means could have a female rescue chopper pilot as the "outer" story. But - perhaps (and this is a huge `perhap's, and I am not saying it's correct) by layering under that the monomyth, that story might have a greater likelihood of reaching a wider audience.
This also assumes you want to reach a wide audience, which may not be the case.
In my own case - it is true, I'd like all my stories to be read by as wide an audience as possible. The hope is, the message/theme therefore: spreads further in the culture. Has more impact. Possibly, changes things.
But I absolutely understand - not everyone wants that. Some writers are totally happy if just 3 people read their story. And - why not.
But also my own bent is influenced by my experience as a million-selling author, in a highly-competitive commercial environment. For example - when doing a Game Story, you know that the financial backers of the game want to see a huge ROI (return on investment, ie profit). ie they could care less about "great storytelling" or how it's done. As the "owners of economic capital" (the finance), they just want to make money.
(See: Pierre Borudieu, The Field of Cultural Production for vastly more on that, if it is of interest and it may not be, in the slightest
So as a writer, in that situation, you don't really get a choice. LOL! ie You need to ensure: your story is as commercial as possible, and by that - I don't necessarily mean: shallow populist garbage, though I can see how the term `commercial' could be interpreted that way.
Anyway, so the monomyth is a good `tool' for those sorts of cases - where the stakeholders in the story/game need to ensure: the thing is going to work.
(Find a wide audience/turn a profit, and games usually cost million$! ie risky. How to reduce the risk?)
I guess Murdock is getting at the same thing, with a female readership. (But - from a female perspective)
But yes - both of them, are sort of offensive in a way, it implies: we are all just animals; our primal needs are of the utmost primacy.
ie Men need to be heroes and get the girl (as - this is what Campbell said the monomyrth was really saying) and women just need to do `chick stuff'.
I, in fact, am convinced that's why those 2 story syntagms `work'... (we are animals. Highly evolved ones, but we share 99% DNA with chimps. Ouch!)
But of course, there are many other story syntagms that work too, and as I say, maybe the goal is not to reach a wide audience necessarily, ie to tell a universally-resonant myth under the story. - Who says every story needs to do that? Why?
But as I say, perhaps we are (accidentally) talking past another... I tend to think - these are 2 separate things, ie You can have a female character as the hero, in a Hero's Journey.
And - you are absolutely right, the details may be what "defines" the character, whether male or female (or even cross-gender), whether a Hero's Journey or a Feminine Journey. The `underpinning myth' can even be a Bible story, a Greek myth, or one of the (alternative) ten templates in my free book:
http://www.lulu.com/shop/joe-velikovsky/feature-film-screenwriters-workbook/ebook/product-20376941.html
But I do notice - the most popular novels tend to use the hero's journey:
http://on-writering.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/top-10-common-elements-in-all-best.html
I'm not "selling anything" by the way, LOL. (These resources are free - and are just meant to possibly help writers/advance the art & craft of narrative.)
I can see why you might be annoyed by both these narratologists. - Nobody wants to be `classified' - and made as one-dimensional as these mythical story structures may suggest.
ie - Are we really all that reducible/typical? Aren't characters complex/antithetical? eg Cant you have a feminine sort of a guy, and a masculine sort of woman? And can't they each, do each others jobs in the workforce?
And people (creative people) ARE complex, and antithetical. See:
The 10 Antithetical Traits of Creative People
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199607/the-creative-personality
So - it (those story templates) seems: sexist, repressive, oppressive, reductive, simplistic.
But on the other hand -- I think they (Campbell, Murdock) both were just suggesting: these are the archetypal "male" and "female" stories.
Given the nature of Creativity, ie Combining 2 things to produce a third (a new/novel) thing - there is nothing stopping us - or anyone - as writers, from "subverting these dominant paradigms" (in fact - in order to be seen as fresh/original, it is usually utterly necessary... unless the Voice is `original and fresh', and the story is cliche. ie That can still work!)
ie But - Why not, do this: Take both those myths, put a male in the `female' one (Murdock) and a female in the "male" one (Campbell) and mash them together into the one story? Now - THAT might be interesting...(And - I use the word "interesting" very loosely here. It might also be lousy, and/or boring, and/or just weird.)
But given how `Agency and Structure' work, I think the power is entirely in your own hands, as a writer, Elizabeth. (Even: mine!)
ie I think (and I could well be wrong, and usually am) we can take the Structures (eg the monomyth, or whatever) and use our own Agency (our own choices) to make something incredible from their raw materials.
Another idea: take the monomyth - and tell it backwards
Another idea: take the monomyth - but swap the roles. Make the Villain (eg like a Voldemort, or Darth Vader or Polonius from Hamlet, etc) and make THEM the hero, and make the hero (eg a `Hamlet' sort of character) the Villain in the monomyth.
(Sorry for using male examples, the female equivalents equally apply of course). Also - I am not suggesting literally to use those characters obviously, either. Just speaking metaphorically for (perhaps) the characters in your own story/ies.
Not that this means anything - I've written 30 feature film screenplays (some have been made into films) and loads of games, so I have tried about every story structure there is. I don't have a preference for one over the other, each are just a tool... Like a carpenter who needs to build a different house each time. The template/plan is sometimes: very conventional.
But sometimes I get totally sick of formula/convention - (and, after 20 years of fulltime writing, who wouldn't?) and - that's why I wrote my novel (A Meaningless Sequence of Arbitrary Symbols).
Even the title is a reaction to narrative. (it's a spoof of The Da Vinci Code's title.) ie the opposite of a `code' is just a meaningless sequence of arbitrary symbols (though ironically it has a meaning, as if you look at the symbols, it literally translates to "Games Don't Kill People, Books Kill People"). I make the point that books have killed 100 million people: eg Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, The Bible, etc
And the story structure itself is a spoof of the Mentor's journey in the monomyth. - ie What about all the lousy Mentors, as - not all of them are as successful as Ben Kenobi, Hagrid, Gandalf, etc - In 9 out of 10 cases, their heroes DIE on the hero's journey. As - their Mentor's advice/training was lousy (or maybe their Mentor's knowledge was: out-dated).
So, yeah... None of this is a defense of the monomyth, or Murdock. I don't mind if I never see/read/write another monomythical story... I'm actually pretty tired of it. Yet it seems to keep on `working' with a mass audience... Why?
(And Elizabeth this is not to say that others don't work or - that there aren't other story structures that would be BETTER, ie more universal, and more effective in spreading in the culture, virally)
It's just that, I usually have a message - and want to use my story as a `Trojan Horse' in the culture. So I want to use the best Wooden Horse I can find - that will become a meme - and spread my message like a virus.Then the horse bursts open and the message pours out into the culture - and changes the world.
(But don't read/buy it. - ie I am not peddling my wares, I was just trying to make a point.
Anyway all your points are all still totally valid, but I still think, possibly, (I don't know anything, seriously,) we are talking past another. And - Elizabeth, you have every right to feel the way you do.
Also though - (sorry if this is turning into a rant, LOL) Aristotle is a big bugbear for me... Have you read Poetics? (I guess you have.) - I have searched 3 different translations of it - in vain - as I cannot find anywhere he prescribes 3 Acts and I don't think `3 Act structure' is useful; the stories that fail (that don't spread at all, in the culture) and the stories that DO both can be seen to have 3 acts, ie every story has 3 acts. But it wont help a story, to have them. Every story has a `beginning middle and end', if it is a story. I also don't think any of Aristotle's other prescriptions are useful at all. (But as Bertrand Russell said, every major leap forward, begins with an attack on some Aristotelian doctrine or other).
My reasons for this eschewing of Aristotle overall (with respect to narrative/story) are twofold:
1) Aristotle examined Greek tragedy plays, a form that is not used today. Whether it has influenced modern-day storytelling or not, the stuff in Poetics isn't useful now.
2) In examining those Greek plays (which don't have 3 Acts - and yet everyone thinks they did, but - just check Poetics and also check the plays he refers to... None of them have 3 Acts.) He chose a few selected plays he felt were good. So what? Who says he was right? Oedipus the King is a Greek play - but who says it was the best (or even the most popular?) Greek play in 335 BCE? He didn't use an empirical method to pick the plays (eg highest box office, etc) so why should we take his prescriptions as gospel?
I just have massive issues with Aristotle. Sorry(!) I think, he has done massive harm to storytelling. This sounds like the opposite of "what must be true", given how many people quote him, I know.
But all I can say is:
1) Read Poetics. Read as many translations of it as you can (you may have already done this, but if so, i doubt you'd be quoting him, and Elizabeth this absolutely is not a personal attack... I think your comments are great and I thank you for making them. But it is just a general comment I make to anyone about Aristotle.)
2) See what he really says in there.
3) Check the plays that he quotes.
4) See if you think - any of it applies today. To novels or films - or even short stories.
PS - Sorry for a rant. LOL. This is what my PhD is on. ie - All this stuff. And - I am finding - there are a lot of "accepted truths" in the dominant narrative discourse (eg Syd Field, Robert McKee, etc), that are based on complete misunderstandings.
As as result, like with "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" I find the necessary "paradigm change" meets a lot of opposition. (ie if we want to tell effective stories? - DO NOT LISTEN TO ARISTOTLE!!)
But - if people actually read Aristotle, they might have a very different view. (Don't get me wrong, I spent years believing Aristotle was right!) And the grand irony is, Poetics is only like, 50 pages long. It's sooo short! But - who ever reads it? Instead we take it as `gospel', from everyone else. We need to stop this. Storytelling will get better, quicker.
PPS - Like I say, I know nothing. There is too much to know! LOL
Cheers
JoeTV
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
JoeTeeVee,
You say a lot of stuff, I don't have a clue what most of it means, but you're entertaining as hell. I'm all for that approach.
I love your attitude: I have no idea about anything to be honest. I'm in the same boat. Any scholarly/psychological angle I work is strictly for laughs.
Elizabeth, Joe, I'm going to reread all this until I can add something meaningful to the conversation. And, what will I learn that I can use in Sly?
You bet I'm gonna check out all the links. Thanks.
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 26
|
LOL
Thanks for dropping by Mimi.
Like you Mimi, even I usually don't have a clue, what I am on about
And - Elizabeth, please please please take me with a grain of salt. (Tomorrow I will probably decide, I suddenly love Aristotle again.)
And - thank you so much for contributing!!!
Cheers
JoeTV
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Heads up:
I am reading your Mysterium thingy. As always, your point of view is a joy and/or a wonder to behold, in ways, an entertaining train wreck. And it influences my own thinking immensely. As if I needed any more ideas than I have already.
Whether it works, that's gonna take some time to decide. First, I have to finish the read. Then I have to read it again. And, probably, again. You know I'm in your corner. But this one is way up in the air.
Your open-ended multi-purpose What does it all mean/meme? Kind of like, And so it goes.
What does it all mean, your repetitious What Does It All Mean? Tell me it means nothing, it's fill, fluff, it's a cute bit, I'll tell you that it means something that it means nothing. I'm going to tell you what it means. Or at least what it means to me.
You gotta know I adore the concept of the do-overs. You'll hear, by and by, my For-sure-no-PhD, no-serious-education-past-high-school-and-we-all-know-how-serious-that-was final comprehensive opinion.
Nobody beats you for the mesmerizing bells and whistles. That alone keeps me happy as a clam. (Is that a real line or have I screwed it up? Are clams happy? What do they have to be happy about? See what you do to me?)
Ah! The nice thing about the web is that you can bop over to Google and fact-check yourself. Back in a sec.
So: Happy as a clam: To be exceedingly happy and content.
The full phrase is "happy as a clam at high tide."
Clams can only be dug up at low tides, so at high tide a clam is safer and secure,
so therefore, happy.
As my husband says, Ya! (he says ya! a lot, he's German) Let's try to believe it.
|
|
Joined: 6/14/2012
Posts: 194
|
Joe...there's been discussion lately among women writers about the prevalent monomyth and how many of us do not feel that the female monomyth as Murdock defined it really does apply to all women--or just women of the period (and maybe before) that Murdock studied. Any writer can, of course, choose to use any sources they want to use...but you should know that this has been discussed by women writers (at least) esp. w/regard to the common trope that a woman becomes a hero/rebel/leader/butt-kicking urban fantasy protagonist by having been traumatized by (usually) rape. It's an old trope; it's familiar to all; it's embedded in the culture...but is it true, or just handy? If true now, would it be true in another culture? In a far-future culture? Some of us have deliberately written women who are not defined by an existential or actual wounding in their past--and yet find that these characters resonate with readers. (So do the ones that are. Readerships vary.)
I mentioned the female helicopter pilot, because the Coast Guard helicopter pilot who flew the mission to rescue the crew of the Bounty when it capsized in Hurricane Sandy...was a woman. Not a hypothetical woman, a real one. Was she, in the act of rescue, defined by some existential wound? And if so, how? She was doing the same thing male pilots did before women were allowed to be helicopter pilots. How, in that circumstance, could the postulated wound affect her? How would the acceptance of her talent as a helicopter pilot affect her? How would the successful rescue affect her?
We still have a society that refuses to accept women as true equals, allowing them autonomy and giving them respect at the same level as men, and many other societies on this planet are even more restrictive than ours. Some are less. Enough progress has been made that some women writers can imagine women characters who never experienced what is common today (and was common even 50 years ago.) I think that's a good thing; you may not.
Aristotle. No Ph.D, but three years of classical Greek, reading Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Sophocles, Thucydides, and many others in the course of a history degree focusing on ancient and medieval. Also, of course, in translation. Usually in more than one. I see the hoofmarks of the Poetics in all modern discussions of plot and characterization, especially as applied to commercial fiction (the main topic here.) Some parts are certainly limited to drama as it was performed then (although some TV dramas--where a story is complete in one episode--pick up the timing requirements.) As with anything academic, there's room for discussion, disagreement about the weight given to this or that source...some people hate Aristotle the way I loathed (and am still not fond of) St. Augustine. Fair enough.
But I'm not primarily a theorist...I have used Aristotle (sitting over there on the shelf) to remind me of elements I've found essential when (in the heat of composition or as the result of wading through post-modern criticism) I forget them and a book flounders and I feel stuck. Primarily--and particularly here, where the purpose of the exercise is to help people write effectively--I'm trying to convey what I have experienced as a working writer as simply as possible.
I didn't find Campbell helpful...possibly because I was already familiar with a broad range of mythology (it helps to be old, you see...!) and had already read psychological syntheses of mythology, like The Golden Bough, and a pecular little book whose title I can't remember, but was a Marxist interpretation of the same material.
But mostly, I think, because I was much more interested in writing the stories that came to me than anything else. Read the mythologies and folk tales, yes--read everything that attracts you, fiction, nonfiction, poetry, drama, good, bad--but let it all sink into the great soup kettle of Story along with every other experience in life without over-thinking it. All this becomes the ingredient list in your own personal Story recipe. Given time, something will bubble to the top, and then...write it.
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Joe, you and Elizabeth are coming at this argument from opposite directions, with different goals. You use your academics to bolster an absurdist approach to, I'd bet, everything, to life.
You do exactly what Elizabeth preaches, "… read everything that attracts you … let it all sink into the great soup kettle of Story along with every other experience in life without over-thinking it. All this becomes the ingredient list in your own personal Story recipe. Given time, something will bubble to the top, and then...write it." You are the quintessential bubble-to-the-top-head.
Your plots are not plots, they are happenings. Any stereotype you create is gonna be in service to your goof, therefore, no stereotype.
Your recent bout of scholarship gives you more ammo and, perhaps, better aim and, for sure, many more targets. What was that degree in? The uses and abuses of zany?
Let's see ... do I have any kind of useful thought here? Elizabeth, Joe may or may not know what he's talking about. (Like I should know.) In this ping-pong game, you score points on substance (or at least on seriousity.) He scores points on style.
You know, I've completely lost sight of the topic: How Do You Write A Contemporary Best-Selling Novel. That's Elizabeth's territory. If you want to loosen up, expand your horizons, you can't do better than to look at Joe's work. There is something valuable to be learned from each of them.
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 26
|
Hi Elizabeth, Mimi
All excellent and thought-provoking comments, I must thank you both!
And - Elizabeth, I absolutely agree with you. (And Mimi too!)
And - absolutely agree, the idea that a "female wounding" isn't necessary, to make any story work.
And totally see your points about the chopper pilot, etc, thanks Elizabeth.
Random Idea: - It is possible, (I think?) that, (it appears) a common writing technique - for creating sympathy for the protagonist of any story - is "the Undeserved Misfortune" trope. (and as I'm sure you'd both know, this, for example - is why the `classic monomyth' often involves an orphan, and often, for no good reason.
ie Just to jump over to the massively-popular ones: Frodo, Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, (even in a way Bella - as her parents separated - not exactly `orphaning' per se, - Maybe, a 50% or `temporary orphaning'!)
Though - ironically, (please forgive me the digression) speaking as "a child of divorce" - (my own parents divorced when i was 6) - divorce (though regrettable in many circumstances) can actually, be a wonderful thing - and often means - as a child - you then soon get 2 sets of parents, ie a stepfather and a stepmother, in addition to a father and mother - and, perhaps even step-siblings which can be wonderful, and, for example, as a child it means: twice the presents at Christmastime & birthdays, and, overall, you get relatively-more-`spoiled' by both parents - as they both see less of you relatively/comparatively, etc etc). I am digressing as I love digging (mining?) deep into irony whenever I stumble upon it. ie Divorce? A good thing? How ironic.
Re: the very-difficult topic of Rape... (which makes me feel nauseous even to consider) - I am in absolute agreement with you Elizabeth - and, with anyone who feels similarly to what you've outlined...
Like orphaning, the concept of rape, feels like (in one sense) the laziest possible trope, any writer could employ, if we assume that they are simply seeking an `undeserved misfortune' to throw at their (female) protagonist. (Or - if we `need' to find "a wound that needs healing." I suggest, we do not... Not all stories need be a female monomyth anyway, and for this reason Elizabeth I can absolutely see and support your position in rejecting Murdock's position. If I was to use Murdock's story system it would certainly not involve a rape... And if other writers are doing that - then like you - I wish they would stop.) I;m not even aware of examples of this. (Would `50 Shades' qualify? I am not even sure, as I haven't read it.)
Just from my own personal perspective, (more digression, YIPE!) as it happens - I was fortunate to be raised by an extremely-feminist mother, and, older sister. (As well as - all the various parents and step-parents mentioned above)
So - as it happens in my particular instance, even if I had ever wanted to repress a woman, or, not treat her as an equal, I would have been instantly `beaten down' (perhaps psychologically rather than physically) - by my mother and sister, LOL.)
I've also, marched with my (hardcore feminist) girlfriends in Blue Stocking Day marches, and attended (participated in) loads of womens' equal rights rallies (here in Australia)...
And - all the people I know (and associate with) treat women as the absolute equal of men, and in fact, most of my social circles (men and women) see women as vastly smarter, more capable, and stronger than men. This is as it should be.
(Now it sounds like I am being defensive. I just anted to point out, Im not one of the people who repress women, and am opposed to "those in society" who do.)
I also find the notion of rape (in fact - of either sex) abhorrent. I find it very difficult to watch rape scenes, in films, or read them in books. All very sickening.
Also - an award-winning feature film I wrote (Caught Inside, 2011) features a psychotic male - who attempts to rape a woman (she fights him off - and then takes her revenge.). Just to re-state the obvious, he is psychotic (his character is established as this - from the very beginning). This film (story) is my authorial comment on anyone who wants to rape anyone else. The film has been recognized (by critics) as tackling a very difficult issue, but also leaving the audience with cause for deep thought. Essentially: that rape is never, ever cool. How could it be?
Wow - this is suddenly all so hardcore - and heavy. (Sorry.)
Aw Man - (Mimi you know me so well) I need to get back to the `zany and light-hearted' - or I will soon get depressed.
Anyway, yes Elizabeth, you're 100% correct!
I don't disagree with anything you have said... and - I agree with everything you've said - and, as it happens, have always been a supporter of women's equality.
I too find it abhorrent (ie: stupid) if any members of society do not see women as equal to - or better than males... I always remove these people from my life, (and - before doing so, I usually try and help them to see the error of their ways.)
So, Mimi, I also think, you are absolutely correct - Elizabeth and I possibly here are still talking at cross-purposes... (ie there may be assumptions taking place, on either side of this (very interesting) discussion - that are in fact, incorrectimundo)
i.e. We may "appear to disagree" when - in fact - we couldn't be more in agreement... LOL
And thanks for showing me a perspective on all this hadn't fully considered before Elizabeth. I was certainly not thinking of the angle you've presented, when I made all my previous comments in this (very enlightening and thought-provoking) discussion
As it happens - my own interest in the monomyth/s, (whether the female - or the male versions) isn't in the use or misuse of it, by various writers... (and I know this happens, all the time...)
My interest is more just that: Are there universal story memes/structures - that will enable a writer to reach the widest possible audience? (ie the `Trojan Horse' idea)
Not "reaching a wide audience for its own sake" (ie for making money): but - for the purpose of changing the world for the better. (if indeed that lofty goal is even achievable. Do stories change lives? Or do stories reinforce our prejudices/make us more like we already were..? I personally struggle to find stories that have changed the world...)
(For example, might we use Murdock's meme-structure to implant the meme in society's collective minds that women are, in fact, equal to - or superior to men.)
And - in my humble opinion - if anyone uses either monomyth (the male, or female version) to promote (or, use to their advantage) the idea of rape, I am absolutely against it. - If there is a petition I can sign, to stop authors from doing this, I am happy to sign it LOL
Anyway, all your other points are fascinating and illuminating too Elizabeth.
I don't have time right now (long story) but would love to discuss many of them further... (eg I've read Frazer's `Golden Bough' too... fascinating - for entirely different reasons...)
Cheers
JoeTeeVee
PS - Mimi, you are too kind and generous! Thank you for your warm encouragement of my own writing...
(And - as I have always maintained - a PhD doesn't mean I know anything, LOL)
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Joe,
I don't doubt that you are a serious thinker/scholar/writer drawn to issues of substance. I also don't doubt that your natural tilt is toward the absurd, your inclination to mine anything and everything for, if not ha-ha laughs, at least smirks and eye-rolls and bemused shrugs.
More power to you.
|
|
|
|
First of all, I'm probably getting in over my own head by stepping into this conversation. But I do want to give my opinion on a couple of things.
6) CLIFFHANGERS, AT THE END OF EVERY CHAPTER.
Honestly, I find this exhausting and repetitive to the point of boring. There's the wind up and the pitch! Next chapter! There's the wind up and the pitch! Next chapter! After a while, it just becomes formulaic, and I can't stand it.
10) ALL OF THESE BEST-SELLING HEROES ARE PRIVILEGED WHITE MALES.
I'm a poor white woman. I don't know where or how to start writing about privilege ~ especially amongst the mens.
(So, Tip #10: Don't go writing about a non-white Hero, in your would-be best-selling novel.)
You're joking, right? I mean, there's no real way you're actually being serious, right?
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 26
|
Hi Mari
Thanks so much for contributing!
Yes - all good points. The cliffhanger thing does get exhausting/formulaic.
And yes re: #10, I guess I am being unserious. (I'm actually not sure...)
- ie It would appear with `50 Shades of Grey' that a female protagonist can work, in a best-seller. (Is she priveleged? I haven't read it, so I'm not actually sure...)
My latest work is about an atom. I doubt it would ever be a bestseller. - He's not an especially privileged atom either. (But he has certainly led an interesting half-life.)
ie CONSIDER THE MIGHTY ATOM
http://bookcountry.com/Books/BookDetails.aspx?bookId=135052
All I mean by the #10 conclusion is that, it seems all those protag's (except Alex Cross) are priveleged, white and mostly male. I personally wish there wasn't a pattern there. I wish each best-selling novel was about a different race, colour, creed, and socio-economic strata. It would mean, the book-buying public was open to more diversity, and difference.
Like: that odd scramble-suit, in `A Scanner Darkly',
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scanner_Darkly_(film)
I would like to see a protag who morphed into a new, random bio-socio-cultural identity every 5 minutes.
And maybe he only has 5 minutes to achieve his goal each time. ie say, to convince his wife that underneath his 5-minute bio-socio-cultural morphings, he's really still the same old fun guy she married, and loves.
Maybe he has a really neat trick he can do, that nobody else can do, and that's how she recognizes it is still him.
But unfortunately the trick takes 5 minutes and 11 seconds to perform, so he never quite gets to prove it to her, and she is also freaked out at this weird different bunch of people who appear every 5 minutes. Also sometimes: he is an albino ant-eater, but this works quite well, as there is quite a bad termite infestation at their house.
Anyway - it all seems too hard (making that story work, ie - just when we have empathy for the guy, he changes into someone else)
- So, the atom seemed a better way around it. ie He becomes part of different people, throughout history - but: he's still the same old lovable atom guy.
Lisbeth Salander was a terrific character, I thought.
And - she wasn't a male. She was poor too - except when she stole all that cash. (Computer hacking is good for that.)
But come to think of it Elizabeth (comments above) pointed out those sorts of characters (who have suffered trauma like Lisbeth did) are lazy and a cliche.
But then again Larssen's novel was called `Men Who Hate Women' originally in Swedish but that's the exact thing he wanted to show up - for what it is. (i.e. bad.) ie Misogyny.
Maybe that character is one of the few cases where it's justified. (ie using that in backstory I mean. I don't mean the act is ever justified)
Anyway - to answer your question Mari, I am not sure. ie about #10. I would love to see another type/ archetype crack it, in the bestseller lists. But so far, the previous examples tend to be otherwise... (I am not saying, that's a good thing. As above, I think it's a bad thing, ie `vive le differance'.)
But then again - i would say that, (ie Lets see more different characters as protags rather than the same old same old) as my stuff tends to be very very very different. (Like Mimi's stuff, which is what I like about it. eg `Sly', etc.)
I don't know, what do you think? What sort of character would be good to see in the next bestseller?
Can you talk about your protag in your own current writing?
I am interested in characterization from my work in games. i.e. There is the argument that - the less detail you give (for the main character), the more likely the audience can bond with them. But - I don't know.
Look forward to anyone's thoughts, on all this...
(and I'm sure there's no `right' and `wrong', but only: context and POV...!)
ie - All very fascinating,
always something new to learn and consider...
Cheers
JTV
|
|
Joined: 11/17/2011
Posts: 1016
|
Joe,
You say, of games: There is the argument that - the less detail you give (for the main character), the more likely the audience can bond with them.
I'm not a gamer, but my experience as a graphic artist is that far too many people experiment safely, within well explored channels. It takes someone with a shake-it-up-baby mentality and a take-no-prisioners imagination (you, for instance) to create a memorable new character, with plenty of seductive flaws and strengths and quirks, whom people will not be able to resist, and who will juice up their own imaginations.
It this is a loony-tunes notion, out of touch with the realities of the market, bear in mind that I've never played one of those games in my life.
And I never will. It's more fun (I'm sure) to read.
|
|
Joined: 3/17/2011
Posts: 88
|
Yo Mr. TeeVee,
I think your essay would be stronger if you didn't fudge your examples to fit your thesis. You say all the protags are men and then you have to explain away Bella, shove Edward center stage when he doesn't belong there, just to fit your argument. You say all the heroes are "special" and then half-admit that Bella is utterly goddamn ordinary, but double back with the silly "hot, sulky, sultry babe." No she ain't. She's utterly goddamn ordinary. You say they're all "privileged" and then there's little middle class Bella again. Then you say "they're all white" and have to admit one of the best selling series in the history of the world features a black man. What the hell?
These book series you mention are among the most successful works of fiction ever written and one of these top selling stories of all time centers on a very ordinary high school girl and another on a black man. So, writing about women and minority people CAN work, has proven to work, and work better than nearly anything else ever in these two instances. You might as well say, "Don't go into politics if you're black 'cause you'll never get anywhere!"
You seem hell bent on making these satirical, and utlimately (sorry) kinda misanthropic comments about how enthralled we all are to white male narratives when your evidence proclaims emphatically to the contrary.
Sorry for harshin' on ya like this, but your essay actually kinda pissed me off, Joe. (Perhaps that was your secret/ironic intention?) To me the overwhelming success of these middle class and female and black heroes is something to be celebrated, not explained away to make your argument look better than it is, y'know? I think the human race is trying, REALLY trying to grow out of our prejudices and I think we're making some headway and then you gotta come along and deny every bit of it for rhetorical effect? Say it ain't so, Joe!
I think it's very interesting that Twilight violates more of your criteria than any of the others and at the same time it presents one of the most aggressively regressive love stories in recent memory. Maybe Ms. Meyer could get away with being so progressive in terms of the hero's gender, social class and mundanity because she couches it all in the most deblorable sexual politics imaginable (cf: it's not pedophilia if the girl grows to physical maturity by the age of seven!!!)???
Maybe one of your criteria should be "pander in at least one subplot to the most depraved tastes you can imagine?" See, now I'm being ironic. lol
Anyway. Aside from the afformentioned pet peeve, I'm enjoying the discussion immensely.
-Kevin
|
|
Joined: 4/26/2011
Posts: 26
|
All great points Kevin - and, all very well argued too.
And, yes - you have totally nailed (pinned?) me. i.e. Towards the end of the essay/article/original post (ie `10 Things, etc'), I really just aimed for satirical/ironic effect... (I just thought it would be more provocative/interesting that way.) - I certainly hope I didn't annoy you (or Mari, above) too much, but am pretty sure you both saw right through me, anyhoo
ie - Busted! Sprung! Ya got me Kevin  (And, Mari too
(and Mimi has been onto me from the start, as has Elizabeth.) I just mean for it to be thought-provoking really, ie - you are absolutely correct, the difference is to be celebrated and I totally agree about Twilight. (ie regressive, etc. See: Top 20 Unfortunate Lessons Girls Learn From Twilighthttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/11/twilight-lessons-girls-learn/)
(oops, i may be being le provocateur again, eeep)
Cheers Kevin- and thanks (everyone), for contributing!!!
All very fascinating,
Best,
JT
|
|
|
|