Archive for February, 2004

The Basic Plots of Literature

Sunday, February 8th, 2004

Whether there’s 1 or 36, the “why?” of the different plots is what’s important.

The universal plot is “the canonical view that the basic elements of plot revolve around a problem dealt with in sequence: ‘Exposition - Rising Action - Climax - Falling Action - Denouement’.”

The most used set is Ronald Tobias’s 20 Master Plots.

The least understood, but to my mind most powerful, set is Polti’s 36 Dramatic situations. Both Polti and Tobias are on my shelf. Tobias is the one you buy so you can use it on your next story. Polti is the one you read, slowly–its damn dry–over the next month or so.

Scratch your head. Wonder why anyone would recommend this tripe.

Pull it off your shelf two years from now. Think it might be useful. Find it frustrating because you are pretty sure you aren’t getting all you can out of it.

Ten years later, you think you’re finally starting to understand. Use it like a tarot deck. Wish you had understood ten years ago.

At least that’s been my Odyssey.

The cool thing about Polti in the age of “boy meets girl, how many more plots do we need?” is that it’s like a sumo wrestler going back to study techniques written down two hundred years ago, then forgotten. But the techniques still work and when they show up suddenly in the ring, its like fire has been rediscovered.

Polti has enumerated dramatic structures about duty and family that have been largely ignored. If you want to write Hollywood “boy meets girl,” nothing wrong with that but you don’t need this book for help: our culture is already saturated with this kind of simple message. You can do BMG in your sleep.

If you want to work with more complex situations and motivations, give this book a gander. Find it at the library for the first read, but it’s turned out to be a long term companion for me.

Free Download: \"Eastern Standard Tribe\" by Cory Doctorow

Friday, February 6th, 2004

Get it. Of course you didn’t miss “Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom…”

On Art and Artifice

Thursday, February 5th, 2004

Stories are lies. A novel is a big, fat lie. Why, then, do we read? To the extent that writing requires a self-deformation of character in order to tell lies regularly and convincingly why do writers write?

A story cultivates a state of uncertainty. Habitual notions of the self are suspended and the possibility of experiment becomes available

Francis McKee finds literature as a form of masquerade

The reflections of famous writers–John Le Carre and Oscar Wilde–on the lies of writing are well worth the trip. [MakingLight]

Required Reading for Beginning Writers

Wednesday, February 4th, 2004

The indefatigable Theresa Neilsen Hayden offers up the sometimes hilarious, sometimes painful inside skinny on rejections. [Mumpsimus]

WTF is Genre, Anyway?

Wednesday, February 4th, 2004

Over at Asimov’s, James Patrick Kelly has an essay that includes some notable definitions of SF as a genre, how a story meets or fails to meet the genre “contract” with the reader, and where interstitial fits into all of this.

Quick, easy to digest for punters such as my self, and worth the trip.

The 2004 Arthur C. Clarke Noms

Wednesday, February 4th, 2004

The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke, “Technology and the Future”

The Arthur C. Clarke Award is “Britain’s most prestigious award for science fiction” and the 2004 nominations are out.

Derek Johnson over at s1ngularity notes that “almost all (with the exception of Gwyneth Jones’s Midnight Lamp and portions of Tricia Sullivan’s Maul) seem to be set in either the present day or the past.”

I can’t comment on the accuracy since I haven’t read any of the titles. And I certainly admire all of the authors in this list that I’ve read. But WTF? Why are these exceptional writers, most of whom made their name writing near-future SF, now writing PFunk fiction or AltH?

Best Regards,

Alan