Theme-Character Integration Part 1: What Does She See In Him

Theme-Character Integration

Part 1

What Does She See In Him

by

Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Here's the foundation post for this advanced investigation of Relationship in Romance.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-does-she-see-in-him.html

There are two essential parts to what one person "sees in" another person: A) What is really there and B) What the viewer is capable of discerning.

There is a classic Biblical story of Moses and Aaron arguing which is resolved by the Sages with the explanation that Moses and Aaron were brothers, yes, but very different as individuals.

Remember Moses was the one sent to Pharaoh to demand "Let My People Go" and Aaron (after fighting a delaying action by participating in making the Golden Calf) was appointed High Priest and inaugurated into serving in the Tabernacle.

Moses was the Teacher -- who repeated what G-d told him to say, then wrote it down.  Aaron was the Doer -- who took the offered animals, grain, spices etc to the Alter and offered them.

Side note here on CAPABLE OF DISCERNING: one huge problem most people have with The Bible comes from deriving conclusions from the semantic loading behind English word translations. 

A huge case in point is the word "Sacrifice" -- to us it means inflicting a deprivation upon one's self, giving away something of value for nothing in return, giving UP, suffering pain for the sake of something or someone else.  Many people are capable of discerning "Love" only in terms of what "you are willing to sacrifice for me." 

People see "marriage" as a "sacrifice" of "freedom."  Is it?  Or is it a net gain? 

Knowing the semantic loading of words is part of the job of the professional writer, and when crafting a Romance story, the writer has to craft the dialogue and its interpretation in the light of these shifting semantic loads, the emotional implications of a simple WORD can mislead someone about the character of a person.  This is why "deeds speak louder than words" -- or in writer-parlance, Plot speaks louder than Narrative or Exposition.

So back to The Bible (you all know what an impact the History Channel presentation of The Bible made around Easter, 2013) -- one of the most misleading translations of Biblical terminology is the term "Sacrifice." 

The Hebrew term is Korban -- and that has nothing to do with GIVING UP anything.  Note the instructions for most of the "offerings" in the Temple include who gets to EAT THE ANIMALS that have been offered, and where and when they must (not may, must) be eaten. 

Nobody is giving up anything when bringing an offering to the Temple, so the word "Sacrifice" is massively misleading.  The one who brings the offering ends up with a net gain, a connection to the Divine. 

The term Korban means essentially a binding, a tie, a connection.  And the purpose of the action of bringing an offering is to create or reinforce a TIE to God, a connection between the deepest psyche of the bringer and the pervasive Unconditional Love of God.

What do you see in God?

What does God see in you? 

That's the TIE we're talking about here where we investigate what one Character can "see" in another Character, and how that causes them to act and react to various utterances, to dialogue (which I remind you is not real speech recorded, but a method of moving PLOT FORWARD.)

So why do we have this argument between Moses and Aaron recorded in the Torah and re-read incessantly every year for all time?  What is that about and why is it relevant to writing Romance? 

What that argument is about, and what you can learn from it as a writer (after all the Bible has lasted a while and still sells pretty well, as we see from the success on the History Channel which was repeated immediately in re-runs on other channels) is the Nature of Character.

What is "a human" -- are we all alike?  How can there be ROMANCE or sexuality (the essence of sexuality is Mystery, you know) -- how can there be ROMANCE if we're all identical? 

What does "Soul Mate" mean?  What does "Mate" mean?  A "Mate" is an opposite -- or at the very least has something you don't have which enables you when added to you.

A "Mate" is a complementary element, a completion of a whole. 

A Soul Mate completes your Soul.

For that Relationship to form, a Character has to be an individual who is capable of "seeing" something that they don't have but need inside the other Character. 

So from the argument between Moses and Aaron we learn how even brothers are distinct and different individuals.

What exactly is that distinction in this case?  The Sages maintain that Moses served G-d via Truth.  Moses saw the world of Truth behind the illusion we ordinarily think is real.  Moses saw the Reality behind our daily illusion, the Truth of Reality, and transmitted that vision via his service as a teacher, an intellectual service, a service via words.  He transmitted the words of G-d just as he was given them. 

Aaron on the other hand was very different.  Aaron saw the "illusion" of reality as we see it, as we live in it, the seeming that we perceive as solid, and sought to resolve the conflict between (there's that word, again, CONFLICT which is the essence of STORY) the Illusion and the Truth.

Aaron served G-d through action, in the Biblical case, he served by being the one to act at the Altar.

So Aaron served by acting to resolve the conflict between what appears to be real and what Moses saw as actually real.

Doesn't that sound like the "Battle of the Sexes" -- "Oh we're lost. We have to stop and ask directions."  "Oh, we're lost.  Let's go around that corner and see if that's the right way."

"You talk too much."  "You never talk to me!" 

Is "life" (i.e. THEME of your story) about Truth, about what is actually really there?  Or is it about how you feel, what you feel is there? 

Note that in many decisive instances in life, where your Characters make decisions, there is the core conflict between Fact and Opinion -- between Truth and Illusion.

Resolving that conflict is what Romance Stories do for, with and by your Reader.

Will your characters act on Opinion or on Fact?  Either one alone is pretty ineffectual (that's a thematic statement).  In a Romance, each member of the forming Couple "sees in the other" the missing element (Fact or Opinion) and when the Couple coalesces and implements a course of action rooted in Fact/Opinion Conflict Resolved, their connection to functioning Reality works smoothly and their cooperative actions produce solid results leading to Happily Ever After.

Understand that archetype illustrated by the different personalities of Moses and Aaron (and their respective spouses and children), each with a unique way, functioning as a unit, and you can amp up your "Steam" element in your Romance Novels.

Now let's take an example.  I have many, many examples in my reading history, but here's a series I've been raving about in my reviews, The Dresden Files, all about Harry Dresden, by Jim Butcher.  I've discussed this series at some length in this blog:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/paranormal-romance.html
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/01/collateral-repairs.html

Now we come to COLD DAYS by Jim Butcher, 14th in the Dresden files.  These are long novels in a long series, and tightly plotted, tightly written.

There's a couple of great Love Stories in this series, too.  After 14 novels, it is beginning to look like Harry Dresden has found a Mate. 

Reading outside Romance Genre can teach you all about "what she sees in him" (and vice versa).

The genre usually called "Action" -- whether it's in space or running across a stack of alternate dimensions where Magic is Real -- is perfect for studying "What She Sees In Him."

Why?  Because the Action genre is usually formulated around One Hero (can be female), a single character, who is what I might term a Free Radical.

In the pre-mated state, this Hero Character bounces around from adventure to adventure, hacking away at life, the universe and everything, most making a complete hash out of the art of living life.

For another long series of long novels that is really fun to read, but illustrates this Free Radical character (whose story is OVER once he finally mates) see my discussions of Allan Cole's STEN SERIES:

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/01/career-management-for-writers-in.html

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

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/05/theme-plot-integration-part-8-use-of-co.html
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/05/theme-plot-integration-part-9-use-of-co.html

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/05/theme-plot-integration-part-10-use-of.html

And for more on THEME

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2013/05/index-to-theme-plot-integration.html

Do an in depth contrast/compare between these two series and you can learn a lot about "what she sees in him" and how to depict that guy who attracts "her."

Sten and Dresden are two very different characters, as different as Moses and Aaron, and like those two, they make a set. 

Jim Butcher has mastered the full integration of THEME into PLOT and CHARACTER.  His writing is so seamless that you will have a hard time factoring out the component elements.  But it is worth the effort as a learning exercise.

Harry Dresden is a Professional Wizard.  When we first meet him, he's floundering his way haplessly through trying to make a place for himself in a world where he just doesn't fit in.

ACCIDENT plays a plot-role in the Dresden novels as it does in STEN, correctly used to generate plot. 

When we first meet Harry, he has a girl but has lost her -- he's not quite sure how permanent that will be, but there's a lot of angst festering there.

By the end of the 14th book, another "possible" Soul Mate has appeared, been deemed both impossible and improbable, and then suddenly re-defined into a whole different emotional situation. 

That entire problem -- finding a Mate -- is completely peripheral for Harry.  He is just not paying attention to HIS OWN NEEDS, WANTS AND DESIRES.  He is wholly focused on solving the problems that are a) threatening his very existence b) threatening people he loves c) threatening people who have hired him d) threatening people who don't know he exists and don't care but whom he feels responsible for.

Jim Butcher has mastered the principle of screenwriting (Dresden was briefly a TV Series) in which you hurl your character into a Situation with 6 problems to solve or die trying.  The plot can consist of the problems solving each other or the character solving them one at a time.  As in gaming (and war), the solving of problems costs, so the Hero usually takes damage.

Now we come to this THEME-CHARACTER integration technique. 

What she sees in him will not be what he sees in himself. (and vice versa).

These ACTION HERO genre novels from a male POV don't usually reveal or dwell on what the Hero sees in himself. 

Anita Blake (female action-hero by Laurell K. Hamilton) is a good contrast.  The first books in that series have Anita articulately explaining her traits and attributes in which she takes pride.  The series as a whole  chronicles the disintegration of that personality in which she so prided herself, and then a gradual rebuilding of a new personality.  Many readers who loved the early books despise the later ones. 

In STEN and HARRY DRESDEN we have heroes who have no clue who they are and couldn't really care less.  Their self-awareness and introspection (i.e. the usual male blind-spot) is totally lacking, but it is completely, starkly, clearly apparent "who" each of these characters is by their ACTIONS.

They don't think, rarely FEEL unless clubbed over the head, and yet shout their Identities loudly into the world with every action. 

As they work with their external realities, they grow, change, and become stronger characters, more integrated, harder to derail, disrupt or corrupt. 

Sten becomes the owner of the greatest power in his universe, and gives it away to everyone.

We haven't seen what Dresden will "become" yet, but we have seen him "do the right thing" over and over, each one harder than the last to choose to do, and each one costing him more personally than the last one cost.  That's the same as the Anita Blake story, except for one essential ingredient.  Harry Dresden pays the price and pays the price -- and emerges from it all with more to give, more strength, more and greater dedication to doing the right thing.

Dresden does not start out with a high opinion of himself (as Anita Blake does), and his opinion of himself does not increase a whole lot through all his triumphs.  But he only suffers moping, depression, and misery for brief times before pulling himself together.  It isn't just that the next challenge smashes into his world before he's gotten good and depressed.  He does get a shower, a change of clothes, a good meal and sometimes a happy interlude between challenges. 

The key to Dresden is that he isn't aware that his triumphs and successes are making him a "stronger" character -- less vulnerable to corruption and disintegration. 

But he is growing as a person, and there is a woman who is seeing that growth, seeing the strength, seeing the Values he upholds that he doesn't even really know that he has.

There is a "dark" side to Dresden and his story.  There are demons, possession, a serious temptation to use Black Magic, and the actual use of the Black Magic that actually does "corrupt" and grind away at Dresden's character.  There are those who have a low opinion of him because of his inherent connection to the Dark. 

You should read all three of these series and make up your own mind -- most likely you'll have a different take on it than I do, and very probably I'll have a different take on it all in a year or two.  But for the moment, think of it this way:  Sten is more like Moses, searching for the Truth behind the illusion since he is no Moses.  Sten is trying to find the Truth that Moses sees, and when he thinks he's found it, it acts on that Truth.  Dresden is no Aaron, but he is trying to find a way to make Peace among all the criss-crossing forces he sees in his world, and from time to time is rewarded with a period of some balance.  Anita Blake acts on the assumption that the Illusion is the Truth. 

THEME: there is a natural human tendency to strive to become a "better" person; whatever "better" might mean to you. 

CHARACTER: a Hero who tackles and surmounts problems becoming more like his/her own Ideal Person.

ROMANCE: a Character who loves (has an affinity for) that which she admires, sees in a Man the striving toward a personal ideal that she admires, sees his willingness to pay the price of improvement, and the achieving of at least part of that goal.  She finds in herself the need to help that Man -- and ultimately to propagate those values and ideals.

Imagine Sten or Dresden living in your world, fighting the battles and problems that people in your world face every day, applying the character traits these two have to those problems.  Would you want that man in your life? 

Remember these Hero-type folks don't cultivate an articulate awareness of Ideals, don't see themselves as striving, don't bother to feel their own emotions and strive to perfect that emotional life, to get to where they don't have to experience emotional pain.  To discover what these folks are made of, a woman has to examine and analyze their actions. 

That may be the basis for a man opening the door for a woman -- men act; women feel flattered, attended, cared for. 

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Paranormal Romance

This post leads up to a workshop exercise in World Building.

A couple weeks ago, Linnea Sinclair asked on the Paranormal Romance forum at goodreads.com if SF Romance should be a subcategory under Paranormal Romance. I've been haunted by the topic ever since.

Opinions varied widely. People looking for "Paranormal" don't want any nuts-n-bolts mixed in with their ghosts, vampires and werewolves.

I can understand that. There are times I want my Paranormal straight up, no ice. But I always like my SF with some telepaths or other Scientific Law Breaking element.

That is one (of the many) things essential to a good SF story, the confounding of all expectations.

SF is about the effect of science on PEOPLE (human and not), about the approach to The Unknown, and about the way that Relationships affect what Science can and can't do.

SF was (not any more) about the maverick kid who solves adult problems by inventing something adults think is impossible. Today it's a much more adult and complex field, so it's much harder to define. Still, there is a unifying pattern in SF that joins it directly to Fantasy and thus Paranormal Romance.

So to set off the train of plot events leading to a unique Relationship, the SF story starts with an Idea.

The Idea has the form, "What if ..." or "If only ..." or "If This Goes On ..." And the idea that sparks the story leaps over all mental and emotional barriers. On internal emotional barriers: see my post from last week about The Tower Card and mental barriers
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/02/paradigm-shift.html

So SF relies on a story springboard that leaps over all mental and emotional barriers in the reader to suppose something that "simply can not be!" under the current understanding of reality. And right there, the reader is sucked into a world that can't exist. That's what's FUN about SF -- it violates the laws of reality as the reader knows them.

At core, SF is about breaking the rules that confine imagination.

Almost by definition, Science Fiction is about venturing outside your comfort zone.

But what's the difference between SF and Fantasy -- and between Fantasy and Romance?

Today, we're all looking to mix and match genres, to adventure where no woman has gone before, while most readers of Romance of any sub-genre don't want to be dragged outside their comfort zone. The comfort zone may enlarge or change, but the average Romance reader doesn't want to cross that borderline for fun.

Readers are looking for a good adventure into a unique but satisfying relationship, a story with an optimistic ending, HEA or better.

Part of the fun of the Paranormal Romance is finding that great story interwoven into a background that changes the story without distorting or marring it. (What if that hot new boyfriend is actually a Vampire?) The Romance has to grow out of the background, be caused by the background, but still be our own beloved story.

For years the Gothic satisfied that itch. Stories about inherited old houses with resident ghost, brooding mysterious neighbor, or spooky powers held endless fascination because they had endless variations.

And the Regency Romance delved into a period of history that twanged the fantasy nerve just as Western Romance did -- marvelously alien dress codes, women resisting or secretly thwarting the power men had over them, behavior and manners that could be an alien language. Regency England was indeed another planet! SF Fandom gravitated to the Regency Romance and to this day hold a Regency Ball at conventions -- The Regency Romance is SF.

Then the Vampire As Good Guy appeared, venturing over from the adult fantasy lines spun off of Science Fiction where the Vampire was usually a bad guy hero such as Linnea was talking about in her post
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/redemption-rake-and-reluctant-hero.html

Emma Bull's Hugo Award winning novel, War For The Oaks, launched an urban fantasy revolution, and before long we had Laurell K. Hamilton's genre busting Anita Blake urban fantasy. And of course Buffy. Now Harry Dresden in Butcher's THE DRESDEN FILES combines it all - bad guy hunk, angst, magic, even his ex who became a vampire. He's not a private eye. He's a private wizard! (that private wizard part is one of my oldest old time favorites)

But where did it all start? And what is the DIFFERENCE between SF and Fantasy and Romance?

How many of you remember the mid-1950's story which was Marion Zimmer Bradley's first sale, (I think to Vortex Magazine? 1952? Or Fantasy and Science Fiction in 1955?) called Centaurus Changeling which has been widely heralded as the very first SF story that had RELATIONSHIP in it at the plot level -- relationship beyond rescuing the damsel in distress.

Prior to publication of Centaurus Changeling, SF was "Neck Up Science Fiction" -- it was aimed at adolescent boys who didn't want to deal with emotions.

Marion Zimmer Bradley changed that aim of the genre and began to serve the interests of young women, too. But it didn't seem like it for yet another 20 years or so, though her Darkover novels were being published and scarfed up by an ever increasing fandom, mostly female.

So with Darkover as the thin sliver of a wedge, gradually SF with a relationship and emotion driven plot was introduced.

So what is Darkover? It's a story about telepaths who have all sorts of other ESP powers and with those powers on their far-away lost colony planet called Darkover, they do everything that Science does for us from heal the sick to mining and smelting metal, and even making atom bombs.

On Darkover, technology is driven by ethics. Morals. And passionate love affairs as well as passionless arranged marriages.

See my comment on Linnea Sinclair's post which is about Moral Hazard -
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/03/redemption-rake-and-reluctant-hero.html

So what is the Darkover series? Is it SF? Or is it Fantasy? World Wreckers is certainly one of the best Romances I've ever read and it's about ecological warfare. (she wrote it in response to Ursula LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness which is SFRomance too -- or more exactly Alien Romance which is the topic of this blog. I expect all of you have studied and dissected Left Hand of Darkness -- the Worldbuilding she did with that won her both the Hugo and the Nebula with one book.)

In Science Fiction, the scientific laws that are challenged or broken by the story premise are from the physics, math and chemistry we all know and love. The plot mysteries are solved by applying laboratory science.

The Fantasy field split off from SF, and for decades the only Fantasy readers were SF readers too. But gradually it came to be that only women wrote Fantasy and mostly only women read it. Then that changed too. I think there may be more men writing adult Fantasy today then women. (by "adult" I don't mean sexually explicit).

But I'm still looking for the DIFFERENCE where the split between SF and Fantasy occurred.

I see a similarity so glaring it wipes out all differences.

In Fantasy -- Paranormal, Urban, whatever -- in Fantasy the scientific laws that are challenged or broken by the story premise are from parapsychology, mythology, archeology, anthropology.

The thinking that generates that Law Breaking story premise is precisely the same as the thinking that goes into an SF story premise.

From the writer's point of view, Fantasy and SF are identical.

"What if were-creatures had legal rights?" (Laurell K. Hamilton created what is called in Hollywood a High Concept with that one.) And all of a sudden, Earth becomes a galactic civilization in microcosm with dozens of sentient species co-existing.

Both SF and Fantasy do alternate history and parallel worlds and time travel.

I see no real difference except in the backgrounding that delineates what is "real" and what is "not real" -- what can and what can not exist in the story-universe.

Which brings me back to the Tarot posts and the Astrology posts I've done on this blog. I've shown how I see Science as a branch of Magic, or of Philosophy. Science studies 1/44th of the reality structured by the philosophy illustrated by the Tree of Life.

Science is a special case of the much larger subject of Philosophy in which you can account for the Soul and all kinds of ESP type powers.

Neck-Up Science Fiction, Science Fiction pre-Marion Zimmer Bradley, deals with 1/44th of the realm of storytelling.

And clearly, from the discussion Linnea Sinclair stirred up on goodreads.com, the largest coherent market for novels (Romance Readers) cares as much or more for the BACKGROUND (i.e. the rules of science or magic behind the story) as they do about the Romance itself.

BACKGROUND is what readers see. WORLDBUILDING is how writers put it there to be seen.

Readers see a distinction based on the setting and background. Enjoyment is at least as dependent on the background as on the story.

A distinction which I see as no distinction at all is of vital importance to a huge readership, Paranormal Romance readers.

I think I see a reason for this. It is often referred to as "accessibility" -- and I'm not entirely sure what exactly that means.

But here's a blog post from 2005 discussing the accessibility of science fiction today. This pertains directly to another issue we've discussed on this blog, how to elevate the reputation of Romance in general but Alien Romance or SFR or PNR in the eyes of the general population.

http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003914.html

He makes the point that SF just isn't "accessible" the way say Harry Potter is.

And I don't think it's the STORY as such that isn't accessible. It's the background that isn't accessible to the typical Romance reader.

Romance Readers aren't uneducated. They just have a different education, one that emphasizes philosophy, mythology, literature, sociology, psychology (Marion Zimmer Bradley's education was in psychology) -- the soft sciences.

Reading for relaxation, you want to play with what you know, not stretch to learn something new which is what you do at work all day every day. When your brain is tired, you want to stop learning.

So the challenge in Scalzi's blog is to create SF that's accessible like Harry Potter.

The challenge for us then is to create Alien Romance or Paranormal Romance with a background that's "accessible" to the sort of reader who would like the story.

And as we've seen with Laurell K. Hamilton, what it takes to reach a large audience is a High Concept (a trick I'm not good at.)

So when you're not good at something, you practice. Let's practice.

On my writing workshop blog, I'll put up a story opening and a challenge to wrap WORLDBUILDING around the story to make it accessible. This will call for OUTLINING which is what Blake Snyder calls a BEAT SHEET.

The BS Beat Sheet works perfectly for novels, and at this stage of developing the Worldbuilding for a story, it doesn't matter if it's a novel or a movie or TV Series, the essence of the craft is the same.

You can download Snyder's Beat Sheet for free here

http://www.blakesnyder.com/tools/

If you're a writing student, consider this part of your million words for the garbage can. If you're a publishing writer, come play with us and see if you can do something you've never done before.
I will dare to predict that one of you will learn something from this exercise that will solve the acceptability problem for SFR.

http://www.editingcircle.blogspot.com/

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

Collateral Repairs

You've heard of collateral damage. Now let's consider collateral repairs.

The phrase "collateral repair" has been used in other ways, but I want to propose a writer's jargon application of the term which dovetails with Blake Snyder's explanation of screenplay structure.

Collateral repairing would be some sort of healing, fixing, anti-damage side-effect that an action might have as an unexpected consequence or side-effect, not the goal of the action.

When you are focused on goal-directed behavior (like a hero in a story solving a problem), you move through the world on automatic pilot, doing everything else without thinking, by habit, by knee-jerk reflex.

That means that most of what you do when acting in a goal directed fashion reveals your essential character, who you really are rather than who you want the world to think you are.

Your actions reveal who you actually are because they aren't deliberate, well thought out, not intended to have specific long term consequences in your life or any one's.

Your actions in pursuit of a goal with long term consequences may head you into trouble, into a learning and growing experience, a "story." But your negligent, habitual actions show (without telling) what lessons of life you think you've already mastered.

Writers can use this widespread human trait in sketching a character in conjunction with the Window Character Linnea Sinclair told us about in her post at
http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2009/01/windows-to-soul.html
where she reported on Writer's Boot Camp with Todd Stone.

The cleanest example of Collateral Repairs that I can think of is a scene in a Superman movie where Clark Kent is going to work at the Daily Planet, walks down the street amid a series of slapstick comedy mishaps and deals with them using his powers subtly while pretending to be the clueless clutzy reporter.

Now, true, in that scene, Clark knows he's helping people, and deliberately hiding his powers. He knows he's on Earth to help people. But his "goal" is to get to work, to remain in character as Clark. All his actions as he walks down the street are just aside from his progress toward his goal, and in some cases endanger achieving that goal. The people he helps are not part of the main plot.

So we see the Hero beneath the outward seeming. Clark Kent can't just waltz by humans, ignoring what's happening to them, and he can't just ignore the results of his own casual actions. My point is that Clark sees a problem that isn't his own and that isn't on his agenda today, and he reaches out to help. He doesn't ponder, deliberate, calculate, or negotiate a reward - he just DOES what comes naturally to him. And thus we get to know the real Clark Kent, maybe better than he knows himself.

Blake Snyder (http://www.blakesnyder.com ) calls the technique of characterizing by collateral repairs SAVE THE CAT! You can find links and explanations on Snyder's website.

The opening pages of a script set up the characters and the problem, the overall situation. Snyder calls that "laying pipe" -- laying the channel through which the reader will be drawn into the story.

The most essential element in sucking a reader into a story is the characters.

So Blake says the character you want sympathy for has to "save the cat" -- do an act which may be irrelevant (or even counter-productive) to the plot, but that displays the inner nature of the character. The particular trait displayed has to be relevant to the climax of the story and has some thematic link to the B story.

Jim Butcher's Harry Dresden character is a solid case in point.


I was sent a review copy of a RoC trade paperback which Amazon is promoting titled MEAN STREETS. It's an anthology of 4 novellas about currently famous action characters.

The lead story, "The Warrior" is by one of my favorite authors, Jim Butcher, and extends the story of his TV Series/ Novel private eye character Harry Dresden, Wizard.

In 2007, I reviewed Butcher's Dresden novels in my book review column, and did one column where I interviewed Butcher in person.
http://www.simegen.com/reviews/rereadablebooks/2007/rrbooks2007info.html

Butcher's Harry Dresden novels are long, complex, multi-threaded plots where Harry Dresden has three or more life-threatening cases or affairs in progress at once, and usually emerges beaten, bedraggled, bloody and alive. Harry doesn't exult over his vanquished enemies.

So it must have been a real writing challenge for Butcher to produce a novella sized Dresden story with one plot thread and one single point to make. After the discipline of working with the Harry Dresden TV series (on Sci Fi channel but now on DVD (I have the DVDs and have really enjoyed them)

Butcher probably had a better idea of how to write a complete Dresden story at novella length. "The Warrior" succeeds marvelously at this length and is very like a TV episode. I recommend you read that novella before reading my analysis. There are some spoilers in this discussion because the COLLATERAL REPAIRS part comes at the end of this Dresden story.

See my blog post on spoilers -- it is my stance that no really good story can be spoiled by knowing in advance what happens or what some other reader thought happened.

http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2008/03/prologues-and-spoilers.html

"The Warrior" is almost entirely and purely a characterization exercise. It's all about Dresden's sense of proportion and his personal values. No two readers will interpret it alike. And it's an instant classic that can't be spoiled. But if you like, page down to END SPOILER and continue reading.

----------BEGIN SPOILER-----------------


The story opens as Dresden makes a mistake. He's been sent photos that seem to be a threat against Michael, the retired wielder of a Holy Sword. Currently, Dresden has custody of two of these Holy Swords, but not the authority to wield them. Dresden wants to protect his unarmed friend, Michael, and takes Michael's old sword to him, showing him the pictures someone sent him. A stalker is after Michael's family and friends.

Michael refuses the Sword.

Dresden moves through the city investigating who the stalker might be, trying to Private Eye the problem away, and as he does so, he does a few little things he barely notices doing -- he's just moving through the city concentrating on the real threat, the stalker.

Michael's daughter is kidnapped by the stalker and the ransom is both Swords.

Now these Swords are an Honor, a Holy Calling, each belonging to an Archangel (the real kind) and a fabulous amount of magical power is inside each Sword. They are unique. They are special. And they have the power to protect the innocent, maybe save the world. They must not fall into the "wrong" hands. Dresden is their guardian. He takes that seriously.

Dresden doesn't even think about it for two seconds. He'll give the kidnapper the swords to get the girl back. He has no ego-investment in being in possession of both of these Swords, but he respects and believes in their power.

At the exchange, a fight breaks out. Dresden and Michael win, but Dresden has to remind Michael not to hit the kidnapper too hard.

The last scene is where the meaning of this story, and its commentary on Dresden's character, come clear. Dresden has once again conquered a serious enemy tackling the enemy head-on, though this time a mere mortal human being who isn't even a Wizard. He's sitting in the balcony of a cathedral waiting for Michael and others to finish patching up the kidnapper when the Archangel Gabriel appears sitting next to him.

Dresden barely blinks at that. He lives in a world where such beings are natural. The Archangel Gabriel talks idiomatic English and points out to Dresden that even though he does not wield one of the Swords, he is nevertheless a Warrior fighting successfully for the Light. Then Gabriel enumerates the results of Dresden's easy, unthinking peripheral actions along the way through the story.

What Dresden thought he was doing, what he thought the problem was (stalker; kidnapper after the Swords) was not the most important thing Dresden did that day. The side-effects, the collateral repairs in the world that Dresden made by his apparently trivial knee-jerk responses to situations actually did far more to bring goodness into the world than his titanic conflicts with the magical Forces of Evil.


-------------END SPOILER---------------

Dresden, no matter how he thinks of himself, is The Warrior.

And you and I learn a lesson from Dresden. Everything we do, but most especially the things we do without thinking about them, -- the negligent, the peripheral, the habitual, -- all those little deeds are the ones that count in Collateral Repair of the world.

I read "The Warrior" after I found a message on the EPIC List from Morgan Mandel who had posted a blog about 8 reasons to comment on blogs. And in Blake Snyder's SAVE THE CAT! and Harry Dresden's Sword problem, I found a reason Morgan doesn't have on her list (though her list seems to be growing).

http://morganmandel.blogspot.com/2009/01/seven-reasons-to-comment-on-blog.html

Her reasons to post comments on blogs pivot around the benefits that might accrue to the commenter.

Commenting on blogs for such reasons as she mentions would be the kind of "Goal Directed Behavior" you'd find in a Hero undergoing a story where he/she was about to learn something the hard way.

But commenting on blogs is usually (at least for me) a peripheral activity, a by-the-way done as a reflexive response on a subject I know something about -- sort of like Clark Kent blundering down the street or Harry Dresden acting from his heart, just because he can. And I think it's that way for a lot of people (political diatribes excepted).

Blogs are not central to most people's life goals, yet we who read blogs get something out of it, something intangible but worth the time. When a certain sort of person reads a blog entry and gets something out of it that's worth the reading time, he/she will drop a comment on that blog just to thank the blogger. Or a comment on a comment.

After reading Angel Gabriel's explanation to Dresden, I suspect that commenting on a blog comes into the category of being The Warrior.

Maybe only one person other than the blogger will read the comment, but the effect that comment might have on that one person could be enormously out of proportion to the effort it takes to write the comment. Your comment might save or redirect a life.

Often the comment becomes longer because in thinking how to say thank you, the commenter will put some effort into verbalizing a response that shows they read the blog entry and understood it. As a result, the commenter also gains a deeper understanding of himself and the issue -- as well as providing a "Scotty, you earned your pay for the month!" to the blogger.

I do think the main reason to comment on blogs (or to blog) is that somebody you've never met might read your comment, benefit from it without even knowing who you are. Thus you have a chance to repair the world in the most powerful way.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.slantedconcept.com