Saturday, November 26, 2005

My evolving view of plot

There seems to be a certain serendipity in the way I research writing - all the books, courses and webpages I go to all seem to link to a particular subject at certain times, as if the universe is trying to teach me something in particular each time.

The evolution of my writing started out with correcting my grammar, all those years ago, then moved onto eliminating my excess purple prose, and learning how to actually write words on pages on a regular basis.

More recently, everything that's turned up has related to plot - but over the last few weeks the things I've come into contact have started to give a different angle on that.

My first look at Plot came with the infamous Robert McKee's Story, and Syd Field's Screenplay. Both feature very strong emphasis on three act structure and the two plot points that bookend act two. I felt they had something important here, but it also felt simplistic, formulaic if done wrong. Certainly, the buzz I've heard (admittedly a quiet buzz, from over here in the UK) is that executives are seeing a lot of structurally sound but ultimately dull screenplays.

Yesterday I went on a Masterclass for the local Film Festival with Billy MacKinnion, who wrote, among other things, The Piano, Hideous Kinky and Small Faces.

He was very critical of the Three-act-structure meme sweeping across Hollywood, saying (rightly, i think) that if you go through planning a film and think only of the signposts to mark along the way, without looking at what you're central idea of the film is, you'll get a structured mess.

I also read Christopher Vogler's Writer's Journey, which expands the three-act structure to fill in the gaps, and i think it does it well. But the problem, I think, is that most writers and producers (who put the pressure on the writers) take all this too literally - it's perfectly fine to fiddle aroudn with these concepts, change the order of things or move things so that it fits the theme of the story.

The trouble is, American movies concetrate too much on form, ending up with structurally sound, boring, riskless films. European films are too much mood-pieces, and are often quite slipshod in their story arc, resulting in a powerful but confused feeling.

It's easy, I think to see the middle ground, where you use traditional film structure, but try to be loose and adaptable with it, letting the structure evolve with the films message, instead of constricting it. The structure is there to amplify the message or central idea(s), not to kill them. Too many writers look at it far too mechanically, or too experimentally, eschewing all form to create an incomprehensible film.

I'm gonna take the organic approach. A tree is structured, you can tell it's a tree, but branches from one tree come off at different angles and height to others, leaves are fewer or different colour. The basic 'tree' form is still present, but it adapts and changes to suit the growing conditions. That's how I intend the strucutre of my work to adapt around the story I'm writing. I offer it up to you too.

Friday, November 18, 2005

On writing advice books, and critique groups.

Yesterday, as me and Josh prepare our starting screenplays for a number of short films we plan to film in the next few months, we went to the local library and got out a number of books on screenwriting and directing short films. We also went to the local screenwriter's group, then watched the excellent French remake of 'Fingers', 'The Beat My Heart Skipped' (Although superbly acted and directed, I felt there wasn't enough consistent change in the plot and character arcs to fully justify this as a 'great' movie, but it had a nice, disconnected, 'Taxi Driver' feel to it.)

I know a lot of successful writers both in print and on screen hate the idea of books giving advice on how to write, that it restricts the creative process and turns everything into formula, boring and static. Personally, I think books on writing are as useful to you as writing itself, but with one condition - you have to open the book with an open mind.

There's a similar argument behind critique groups - a lot of people don't like people reading their work and tearing it apart. We're very close to our material - it's like a child to us, completely our own making. So when someone tells us we're doing it wrong, like parents we can often react badly. After all, no one likes being told what to do.

For me, the gain from critique groups and advice books far outweighs the (not inconsiderable) blow to my ego. When I started out writing I devoured everything I could find on writing Science Fiction, looking primarily on the internet because as a sixteen year old fifteen pound textbooks weren't exactly easy to buy. I read a lot of advice, attended two Alpha workshops for Young Writer's Of Speculative Fiction, and then wrote a fairly large amount in reponse to what I'd read.

After a few years of not writing much, I started to get back into reading around the subject - this time mostly screenwriting and story structure. To my surprise, reading these books kick-started my own writing again - not only was I learning, but I was being inspired to write.

It's continued on like that. I'll read a load of advice and be inspired to write. Then after a few months my writing will run out of steam. After a while I'll sit down to read some writing books and suddenly my word coutn will start picking up again.

I think the important thing to remember is that you're never finished learning. I don't intend to ever assume i'm the master. I'll always be open to suggestions of improvements, or how else will I stop becoming stale?

The key to brilliance is a willingness to change.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Novels, and how not to kill them

I started work on my second novel last month. My first novel, a sprawling space opera with a massive galactic war underpinned by a theological theme, reached about 50,000 words over the course of four long years before it shuddered to a halt, running out of steam because I didn't know where to go with it.

Partially the reason it was such slow, painful process is because whilst I was adding to that novel I wrote some thirty odd short stories and novellettes, started reviewing for a website, finished school and started university.

Mainly, it was because I didn't know where I was going. I'm never the fastest writer out of the block wordcount wise so even writing every day I'd not add much. The thing is, because my outlining wasn't very good, i had no idea where to go next so when I got stuck I had no guide to fall back on, so I'd go and write something else and the novel would sit untouched for weeks or months at a time.

In the last two years I've mostly ignored that first novel and concentrating on learning the theory of story and story structure, taking most of my inspiration from screenwriting books.

I spent a lot of time looking at three act structure, plot points and story arcs, and where to place the turning points of your story to fully make the most of classic storytelling form. I'd practice this using short fiction.

The basic caveat of screenwriting 101, as taught by Syd Field, William Goldman or Robert Mckee is three act structure. It involves four or five main major parts.

First, you have the Opening. In a screenplay of 120 pages, this is the first 10 pages. In a 100,000 word novel, you're talking about the first 10,000. This is where the scene is set, the characters introduced and the main story idea starts to take form. It doesn't actually have to reveal much about the main plotline, just intrigue the reader or viewer enough to keep watching or reading.

An example: American Gods by Neil Gaiman. The first few thousand words of this book are about Shadow's release from prison and his discovery of his wife's death. While there are segments of wierd god related events to pique the reader's interest, the main focus is on Shadow and letting the reader get to know the main character. Shadow meets Wednesday, the mysterious old god figure, but only as a man. the main parts of the story are introduced but nothing major happens, yet.

The opening starts the First act, which is roughly the first quarter of the book. At the end of the first act, there's the First Act Turning Point. here is where things suddenly take a severe change for the worse, life gets a lot more complicated and the main character(s) are thrown into the main plotline of the film. Essentially this means that the first 25000 words are setup. the world is introduced, the problem is introduced but its not until this point that things really get so desperate that the protaganist has to start ACTING instead of reacting to what's happening.

A good example is Lord Of The Rings, when Frodo reaches Rivendell and decides to take the ring to Mordor himself. Until this point, Frodo is merely doing what Gandalf tells him, and running from the Ringwraiths because they are chasing, rather than because he knows what's going on. When he gets to Rivendell and is told the full meaning of the Ring and how important it is to the world, he makes a conscious decision to ACT and destroy this evil himself. That's when the plot proper (the quest to destroy the ring) begins. Appropriately, it's also where the fellowship is formed.

The first turning point starts the second act. Now the setting, characters and plot have been setup, the second act is the meat of the book or film, where there's lots of action as the protaganist tries to fulfill the goal he has set himself. In the film Cool Runnings this is where the four jamaican bobsleighers have agreed to go to the olympics with John candy (first act) and now arrive and have to train, get their equipment and start preparing for the event.

In Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, this is where Harry is entered into the tournament (first act leads up to the drawing out the hat) and he now has to de his utmost to win the tournament and find out why someone cheated to get him entered.

Another major step but not an essential one is the Second Act Midpoint, halfway through the story. Basically, this is a twist that sends the second act off in another direction. it's useful to know if you're getting stuck but you can get by making this one up as you go.

The next, and perhaps the most important part of a good structured story is the Second Act Turning Point, about three quarters of the way into the novel/film. This is the point where the main character finds out a key bit of information or a key event occurs that allows him/her to complete their goal. It ends the second act of the character TRYING to do it and moves into the Third Act where the character COMPLETES the goal, either with success or final failure.

Examples: James Bond finding the location of the enemy's secret base so he can now go and destroy it. Han, Luke and Leia escaping the death star with the secret plans, knowing now how to destroy it. Frodo and Sam being shown the way into Mordor by Gollum. In mystery/detective stories, the detective will find a key piece of evidence that unlocks the crime and reveals the person who did it. In a romance, the main character realises something about the love interest that changes their minds into wanting a relationship.

The last part is simply the end, or Resolution. This i where the loose ends are tied up, the final battle occurs, the crime is solved, the princess saved, Tom Hanks finds Meg Ryan on the top of the Empire State Building, The Death Star and the Ring are destroyed, etc.

It doesn't have to be a victory, but the final third act needs to complete the goal in one way or another, using the key bit of information or event from the second act turning point to do it.

Learning these basic milestones for my stories helped me understand where I was going a lot better. Now I don't start writing until I know what my First Act Turning Point and Second Act Turning Point are, as these are the 'tentpoles' on which the story hangs. If I know the major events to aim for a quarter and three quarters into the story, I have something to aim for and filling in the gaps either side of them becomes much easier.

Once you have this basic skeleton worked out, the novel ahead of you isn't a blank canvas waiting to be filled. it isn't so scary. It's a sketch needing fleshing out.

Outlining isn't everyone's cup of tea, mostly because I think they envisage long days spent researching, or textbook sized character essays and other thigns that don't help move things on. But personally I feel a lot more comfortable once I know these basic points of the story arc.

my new novel has almost half the 50,000 words I wrote in four years in barely six weeks, because I know where I have to go. Hopefully this technique will help you get there too.

Darrkenium and what it means

I have a livejournal. It's where I post personal things and random crap that goes on in life. But whenever I post something about my craft - writing - it seems out of place in the journal about my life.

So - this place. Darrkenium, a suitably irrreverant and ridiculous title, but it's as good as any. Ask me sometime what it means and maybe I'll tell you.

I'm Tomas L. Martin, I write book reviews for and also a lot of fiction of various smells and flavours. Screenplays, novels, short stories, novellettes...

A common theme in my stories is wierdness. Fantasy, horror, science fiction, slipstream. Anything where it isn't quite like real life. You get to look at real world issues but from that slightly diffferent angle.

A lot of what I imagine will end up here is writing talk - and for me that's more plot talk than individual words and styles. I like the ideas of structure forms and outlines, in theory at least. I should think every now and then I'll be motivated to write some big spiel about one side of writing or another. Feel free to comment if you read and/or enjoy it.