The One that I Want

If the story "form" is Want, Obstacle, Action, Resolution and the ingredients are Emotion and "show" (Jerry Cleaver), then we can pontificate some more about the nature of story.

The first thing is that if prerequisites are WANT and EMOTION, then the "want" that drives your story had better matter a lot, otherwise nobody, least of all your protagonist, is going to maintain interest. So the want might well loom up into the nature of obsession, a la Ahab and the whale.

But "WANT" isn't the same as "NEED" and that gives us another clue as to the nature of story. And the satisfying nature of the more complex version where what a character WANTS is not the same as WHAT IS GOOD FOR HIM or, perhaps, no hero can win until he has shown he deserves it. Or she, naturally.

But I digress.

Let's consider Jack and the Beanstalk and Cinderella.

They begin in poverty (and in the universal fairytale condition of either orphaned or down to one impoverished parent).

In the case of Jack the Beanstalk want and need arrive hand in hand, and Jack makes the (on the face of it) disastrous decision to trust some glib traveller and swap the last thing he and his mum have for some magic beans. But ultimately his decision is exonerated as the beans grow into the beanstalk and he climbs it, steals the golden goose and slays the giant. All it lacks is a Princess to marry and the throne of the Kingdom, but you get the gist.

But right at the start of the story we have two drivers...the change, impoverishment, and the action, going off to market to sell the cow and opting for magic beans. He appears to have been duped, but the beans really are magic.

Digressing, you could argue that the story is an allegory for those who raise herds to move over to raising crops. In a way all seeds are magic, even if they don't grow over night. But back to the point.

So having made the decision to trust the person, or thing, that sold him the beans, Jack is equally bold in his actions thereafter. He climbs the beanstalk. He makes an ally of the Giant's missis (that's a bit odd, ain't it?), but I suppose that's only one version of the story. Wasn't there also one where she is short-sighted? Anyway, in all versions he steals the goose that lays golden eggs and hares it, pursued by Giant, and chops down the beanstalk quick enough so the giant falls to his death.

Now the giant is obviously both cannibalistic and doesn't like Englishmen, but has he done anything else in the story to deserve this fate? In some ways he plays exactly the same role in the story as the Dragon who guards the hoard of gold and is slain by the Knight or whoever. It is just an obstacle to be overcome, whether by riddle, by magic sword, slingshot, subterfuge or maybe even tamed, it's just there to be gotten past to get the gold.

And we come to the want and the need. He needs to eat, but he gets untold riches. The WANT appears the moment he sets eyes on the Golden Goose. Another Mcguffin. He now wants the magic money machine and must slay or otherwise cheat its owner to get it.

Now I'm not sure how the Giant got to own the Golden Goose but Jack doesn't have any claim to it, except that he stole it. Now historically speaking the guy in the castle on the hill owned everything and everybody and going to steal his money would have got you killed. But you could always have married the Squire's daughter. But that might be a digression too.

The point is that Jack started with a need and then it became a want and then he gets everything. And the only things remotely deserving that he does to get them are

• he trusts the magical tradesman or woman of fairy with the magic beans (faith or gullibility?)
• he is bold

Now Cinderella begins with a need...she's not exactly hungry (although Jack doesn't seem too hungry in his story either, most of the time), but she is downtrodden and badly treated. There's something about the spirit of her mum in a tree there somewhere, turned into a fairy godmother in other versions. But she wants to go to the Ball (not really a need) but she needs to be rescued.

She has to earn Prince Charming and as far as I can see she earns his love by:

• Being beautiful when decked out by the fairy godmother
• Not being cruel
• the shoe fits her; and
• possibly by leaving the party at the stroke of midnight as ordered

Now that last one is a bit contentious, but if you think about it, she leaves at midnight as ordered and by doing so she appears to have lost the Prince, when staying might have seemed the best decision. You could argue what the story is really getting at is she withheld her virginity from him, and thus earned his later proposal as a properly modest bride. But more likely, we have the more storylike motivation that he is fascinated by the one he can't have (absence makes his heart grow fonder). By leaving she appears to herself to have lost her heart's desire, but actually she becomes his WANT (obsession?), and he starts the shoe trying on search.

Okay these are simple stories but the wants and needs are already getting a wee bit complex (like fight and flight it's only when you look closer that you realise how complex motivations can be).

The thing about stories is that very often a WANT is as likely to destroy a character as save him or her, and very often a character needs to give up what they want to get it. This is especially true in love stories. The character has to see that the thing they wanted is an illusion, or delusion, and it won't bring them happiness. Only when the scales fall from the eyes and the truth is clear can happiness be found ...and they may or may not be what the character wanted in the first place.

Freedom

Freedom is about deciding what you want and giving up everything else. A alcoholic has given up his (or her) freedom...or maybe decided that only alcohol matters and slowly gives up everything else, family, friends, books...the things he chooses to "enjoy" come with a licensed bar, and soon he is not too bothered about the things so much as the bar.

I know this too well.

So. Magic. A long time ago when I was younger
(so much younger than today)
I read some books about magic and ritual, and also read some philosophy. Nietzsche was one of my favourites, mad as he was.

He who seeketh may easily get lost himself. All isolation is wrong": so say the herd. And long didst thou belong to the herd.
The voice of the herd will still echo in thee. And when thou sayest, "I have no longer a conscience in common with you," then will it be a plaint and a pain.
Lo, that pain itself did the same conscience produce; and the last gleam of that conscience still gloweth on thine affliction.
But thou wouldst go the way of thine affliction, which is the way unto thyself? Then show me thine authority and thy strength to do so!
Art thou a new strength and a new authority? A first motion? A self- rolling wheel? Canst thou also compel stars to revolve around thee?
Alas! there is so much lusting for loftiness! There are so many convulsions of the ambitions! Show me that thou art not a lusting and ambitious one!
Alas! there are so many great thoughts that do nothing more than the bellows: they inflate, and make emptier than ever.
Free, dost thou call thyself? Thy ruling thought would I hear of, and not that thou hast escaped from a yoke.
Art thou one ENTITLED to escape from a yoke? Many a one hath cast away his final worth when he hath cast away his servitude.
Free from what? What doth that matter to Zarathustra! Clearly, however, shall thine eye show unto me: free FOR WHAT?
Canst thou give unto thyself thy bad and thy good, and set up thy will as a law over thee? Canst thou be judge for thyself, and avenger of thy law?
Terrible is aloneness with the judge and avenger of one's own law. Thus is a star projected into desert space, and into the icy breath of aloneness.

A ruling thought.

So...what makes a man free is his purpose, not a lack of purpose. And (in a slightly NLP-esque sidestep) all the things in your life should be part of your purpose (that ruling thought) or they are dead wood.

So does that mean that family and friends are dead wood? A writer should discard his or her social life and become a hermit with a keyboard as a pal and lover? The “icy breath of aloneness”?

Not for me, pal.

But purpose is about focus. Deciding what you want, how to spend your time. Making habit your friend and turning impulse into a tool.

So...what are you doing here, my friend, reading this? Haven’t you some higher purpose than hanging around here?

Reader Identification

What makes us keep reading? What makes us care about what happens to a character?

I think it ties in to the idea that a story (and a character) needs an agenda. A goal.

But why would a character needing a glass of water create identification? Well, apart from the fact that we've all been thirsty, what creates the tension is not the WANT it's the obstacle. Something or someone keeping a thirsty character from that cool, refreshing drink.

But what if the character just gives up. Strolls on and thinks, I'll get a drink later?

There's two issues there, I think. First you have to UP THE STAKES. Make them desperate for water...and not just because it's been a day and a half in the dried up drought of the desert, but also, maybe, they've got a sick, thirsty child to save. Or something.

Also very important (I think) is that the character does not give up. Boldness.

I think reader identification is as much envy of characters who attempt to take control of their lives as it is about recognising and sharing goals. Wish fulfilment.

Like those Twilight books where the teeneage girl wins the love of the cold marble-chested vampire.

So...let's have characters with a goal, with a lot at stake (no pun intended, vampire lovers) and who will go for it and not give up. Who can't afford to give up after that first step. No matter what the obstacle and what shit you throw at him or her.

And it's your duty (as writer) to throw a lot of shit.

A visitor

Last night I was visited by a ghost.
"I'm lost." He was just a shadow at the foot of the bed. I could not see his face.
"Who are you?" I asked, but I knew the answer. I knew who he was.
"I'm not anybody," he said. "Not now."
"What do you want?"
"I want to be somebody again."
"Do you want to be me?"
"Are you me?"
This was strange, talking to a shadow. I am locked away in an asylum and I am mad. The shadow was not quite a shape. The voice was an echo in my skull. Whose voice?
"I used to live here," said the ghost. "I escaped."
I wanted to explain to him. What I was doing here, in his cell. Why I was calling myself...
"They put me here." I said. "They think I'm you."
"Who do they think you are?" the ghost wanted to know. Was there desperation there?
Thomas Grimes.
"They think I'm him. Jack The Ripper."
"It that what happens to me?" the ghost asked. "Do I become you? Do I become a monster?"
"I'm not a monster," I said.
"You look like one," said the ghost. "That's enough for most people."

Try This

Ok…you have your character be he a he or a she. Mine’s a he.
What is he doing? Where is he going? What mood is he in?
Then you have a place. Wher he is. What can he see, hear, smell? What is he thinking? How does what he is doing and his mood affect these things?
What happens?
How does he react to this? What does feel? How does he react? What does he do? What does he say?
Then what happens as a result?
How does he react to this? What does feel? How does he react? What does he do? What does he say?
THEN what happens?
…and so on.
What you have just done is to get in the skin of the character and enabled the reader to live the scene with that character.
Give it a go. Try it with your opening scene.

Recipe For Generating Raw Material

350 words a day minimum. Before breakfast. Before anything, except coffee. don't worry about it being any good, at this time of day it's all about quantity not quality.

You can plot and edit any time, but this will give you a bulk of raw material to play with.

After ten days and 4000 words, read back what you've got. You'll be surprised.

But don't stop the 350 words a day.

Before breakfast.

Random House feedback

Here's what the Random House reader (Gary) said about The Shattered Mirror (did I mention the new working title?) after it finished in the top ten on You Write On in July:

The Shattered Mirror is voyage into Surreality...

Following the story of a deformed pirate, a fairy, an near-immortal witch, two characters of fictional legend and the mysterious Mr Bliss placed in a grim Victorian historic novel.

Very bizarre and yet very readable!

Every character is well conceived and voiced. Thomas Grimes is one of the most interesting characters I have read about in a while. A monster of a man who wears his bitterness on his sleeve; tortured, lonely, yet strong and compelling. It reminded me of a dark, David Gemmell style hero in the making! Also, at one point he is referred to as Tommy Grimes, while also discussing the slave trade to the Americas, and this reminded me of writing “The Death of Tommy Grimes” (A most disturbing piece of writing about Tommy killing his first Negro) and wondered if you were infusing another past fictional character in to the story, or if it was coincidence.

Mr Ebenezer Bliss is also a fantastic and well visualised character. I noticed that the author is good at helping the reader picture the character in great detail, not in huge lumps of descriptive text, but subtle through out the narrative.

There are also some very strong sections of dialogue all the way through, especially between Mr Grimes and Mr Bliss, until the meeting with the Sibyl. The prophecy section, with the supposedly cryptic riddle, were a little uncomfortable for me. I think it was a little forced and did not flow with the same quality as the rest of the piece. When done well this can be a powerful tool (Tolkien was the grand master) but I don’t think it is the author’s strength. I would have preferred more of that great dialog like we see everywhere else in the piece.

My last comment is on the section with Sherlock Holmes. While Holmes and Watson were well voiced, I thought the way the legendary characters were introduced to the piece reminded me of a children’s novel, (the repeated use of 221b Baker Street, for example) as if you were grandly announcing them, which was disappointing. Done with more subtlety, so that the reader slowly realises that it is THE Holmes, would be better in my opinion. You have to be careful when using such established characters for accuracy and placement in that characters timeline. (For example, you set the story in 1888, but I believe Watson was married the year before and left Sherlock’s company for a couple of years before his wife’s death – though I could be wrong)

Still, overall, a very imaginative, bold and surreal story that I found very enjoyable to read. I wish the author luck in developing these characters, and Thomas Grimes adventures further.

Phew! Thanks Gary.

I think he's wrong about Sherlock Holmes timeline, but he's very right about not fanfaring him. Let the reader work it out. He's also right about the duff "prophecy" but I thought I'd rewrite that when the plot is fully worked out.

I love this writing malarkey, sometimes.