Spotity designer Tobias Van Schneider teaches us all how to consume more books:
A couple years ago I always struggled to finish books, as we all do. I had this set concept in my head on how I’m supposed to read a book. One after one, from start to finish. We think we have to honor a book as a work of art and follow it’s pages in order as we learned in school.
I, too, struggle to finish books. But that's because I do honor books as a work of art. On a site called Narrative First that probably shouldn't come as a shock. I can see this working with non-fiction, but fiction?
Story is everything. Why break that up into separate chunks and distract yourself with other narratives, if only to impress everyone with how much you read?
I think I would rather enjoy one story at a time. Novels to me are like movies--designed to be enjoyed as a complete work of art. You don't watch a couple scenes of a movie, then listen to the audiobook for a couple more scenes, and then jump to another movie only to return several days later.
The rest is a listicle advising you to make the books you don't destroy your own and to make sure you carry a book with you at all times. Again, it sounds fine for non-fiction--but atrocious for fiction. My favorite is the suggestion to read a book twice:
The second time we read a book we engage with it on a deeper emotional level.
We project ourselves and our feelings into the story, it’s now about us!
Perhaps you would engage more deeply if you were paying more attention the first time? Or it could be that the story itself is not structurally sound. I know my mind tends to drift when it's apparent the Author has no idea where they're going. If the story is structured competently (i.e., a storyform), that "deeper emotional level" would be felt the first time through.
Assuming you're granting the story your full attention.
While researching resources for developing the backstory of my Main Character, I found a wonderful explanation of the components of narrative in this article on Character Justifications from Melanie Anne Phillips:
The creation of Justification is the purpose of and reason for Backstory. The dismantling of Justification is the purpose and function of the Acts. The gathering of information necessary to dismantle Justification is the purpose and function of the Scenes.
When you understand the psychology behind Justification, you understand the mechanics of functional stories. Stories exist to take us through the Justification and Problem-Solving process. How does this mechanism apply to a character in your story?
when someone sees things differently than they are, they are Justifying. This can happen either because the mind draws a wrong conclusion or assumes, or because things actually change in a way that is no longer consistent with a held view.
Main Characters are blind to their own justifications. If they weren't they would solve them and go about their day. But they don't.
Thus, the need for story.
Stories exist to show us a greater Objective truth that is beyond our limited Subjective view. They exist to show us that if we feel something is a certain way, even based on extensive experience, it is possible that it really is not that way at all.
I love this explanation of story. Every great narrative--whether a novel, play or film--does this juxtaposition of the Objective vs. the Subjective. I'm trying to do this is my own story ... Fingers crossed it all plays out.
For the Pivotal Character, it will be shown that the way she believed things to be really IS the way they are in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Funny. You can tell this is an earlier article in the development of Dramatica. The "Pivotal Character" is now known as the Steadfast Character. I think Pivotal comes from Lajos Egri and his book, The Art of Dramatic Writing
I'm not sure if the rest of the description still holds up, though it is interesting to think that the struggle a Steadfast character faces rests in a lack of information of the present, rather than a misconception based in the past (where you would find justification showing up). It holds true with my current story and with other Steadfast characters that come to mind (Jake in Chinatown, Angiers in The Prestige and Forrest Gump). So it may be something to consider in the future.
For the Primary Character, it will be shown that things are really different than believed and the only solution is to alter one’s beliefs.
Primary Character == Changed Character.
to create a feeling of “completion” in an audience, if the Main Character is Pivotal, she MUST succeed by remaining Steadfast, and a Primary Main Character MUST change.
Not sure what I think about this. "Feeling of completion" sounds more like Story Judgment. The rest of the article tends to show its immaturity in the development of the theory. Will return to it later.
Wake up early and figure out your Main Character's Throughline with clarity and confidence of purpose. It's a great way to write.
Reworked the Main Character Throughline for 2015-02. Managed to get her out of her own head and more focused on the Activities troubling her (As it should be with a Main Character in Physics/Activities). Difficult at first reworking scenes that I thought were working, but now they're charged with greater purpose. A prop that used to be in the scene just because, now is in there to bring out my Main Character's personal issue.
Still running into a snag during the 3rd Signpost (second half of the traditional 2nd Act), but I think I might have figured it out on the ride home.
After a night of sleeping on it--and a conversation with someone who knows a thing or two about narrative structure--I decided I still might not have the Main Character Throughline down as well as I thought I did.
Essentially, I was keeping her struggle cerebral when really it should have been more external. With her Domain in Activity that should have been obvious, but for some reason her Concern of Understanding threw me off. I need to focus on things she does that cause problems for her, not the internal struggle to comprehend.
This is going to take some time to reengineer. But I think it opens up many new possibilities.
Found this article on How to tell when your storyform is right from Melanie (one of the creators of Dramatica). Goes well with the progress I experienced today on my screenplay.
A storyform is just the skeleton or framework of a story, so it is often difficult to determine which one is "proper" for a story you have in mind.
I spent many of my first years working with Dramatica fretting over the perfect storyform. No matter what, I always seemed to get it wrong.
So, how can we determine when we have arrived at the best storyform to act as a pattern for our story? By feel. You need to "feel" that the words that crop up as Story Goal, or Main Character Domain express what you have in mind, both logistically and emotionally, for your audience.
This takes a long time to learn. A very long time. I've been working with Dramatica for almost 20 years now and I still make the occasional flub.
As with anything, the more you practice the better you get. Most of my proficiency with Dramatica comes from having this overall feeling of where a story is coming from thematically.
The rest is pure luck.
Going to try and work my way through the third Main Character Signpost of screenplay 2015-02 this weekend. Keep running into a roadblock trying to keep her issues consistent and evolving properly. Breaking it out into its own document like I did with the Relationship Throughline a few weeks back certainly seems to help--but man, is it difficult keeping it personal and focused.
I did it! Blasted through the 3rd Signpost after about an hour of struggling to rediscover the thread. Dramatica was an immeasurable help in this regard. So easy to get off track from your original intent when you only have an hour or two a day to write. Dramatica's storyform helps keep you honest to your original intent.
On to the fourth and final.
Story news so important it motivated me to create a new section to blog about it:
J. J. Abrams says no to midi-chlorians:
Many Star Wars fans have taken issue with the idea of midi-chlorians and how it gives the mystical Force an (unnecessary) biological component. The Force has traditionally been spiritual in nature and required one to be more aware of their surrounding in order to use its power. That Abrams is taking the concept back to its roots is an encouraging sign for those hopeful that Force Awakens will take the franchise back to its glory days.
Sounds like a return to competent and thoughtful storytelling. Can't wait.
More amazing news that deserves mention: Deadwood wrap-up movie may still be a thing. Garret Dillahunt (Francis Wolcott and Jack McCall) tweeted this last week:
So uh....I'm hearing credible rumors about a #Deadwood movie. #Everybodypray
So I went back to church last week. First time in a long time.
If it's true I wonder what will happen at the Veluzat Ranch. Last time I drove by it looked like they bulldozed the Gem. Swearingen probably won't take too kindly to that.
HBO had their response:
In reference to Garret Dillahunt’s tweet regarding the rumored Deadwood movie, there have only been very preliminary conversations.
Which really means keep your cocksucking mouth shut!