The 5 last puzzle pieces that allowed me to see what writers haven't. Storyteller's Log 1-7-2013

It's now time to present the map of story structure that fit all of my criteria about what a good story theory should have. But first, I 'd like to acknowledge some people who helped me see it. To do this I'd like to enlist the aid of a quote by someone you may know.

"A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life depend on the labors of other people, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving." Albert Einstein

The thing I love the most about Einstein was his playfulness

I don't believe that we stand on the shoulders of giants. I believe that we stand on the shoulder of all the ordinary people who tried to make life a little better for themselves and others and in the process created this thing we call human culture. Take a moment to look around and see how many comforts you have that our ancestors have created. They literally created a magic lamp for us that has granted so many wishes.

So on top of all of the screenwriting and drama writing books that I have read which taught me a wealth of valuable information about writing, there were four more puzzle pieces that lead my long search to a emergent surprise that allowed me to see how to write.

1. The first was Aristotle's original idea to map a story. Only I think he mapped the wrong thing. His mapping is important but secondary.

2. Second, Nancy Duarte and her book, Resonate, showed me that what's at stake could be mapped over time.

3. Third, it was Toy Story producer,  Ralph Guggenheim, that taught me C programming when we were both at NYIT's Computer Graphics Lab, as part of the emerging of the field of computer graphics. I had taken math in high school and college but never understood the concept of mathematical functions. Ralph showed us how a circle could be mapped over time onto a sine wave by graphing it. Finally, I got it because I could literally see it. Little did I know, (Dramatic Irony, check out "Stranger than Fiction" for the full reference.) that this would be a crucial piece of the puzzle.
The hero's journey is a circle. But what does it map? It maps a journey over time and as Chris Vogler pointed out in his book, The Writer's Journey, that journey is a psychological one. It's just not in a form that I can use to help me write. But sine waves are the key, that and another math concept Ralph taught us- fractals.

BLOGGER NOTE: Do not be afraid, there is no math involved in this theory.

4. The discovery that stories are woven sequences of cause and effect. And it was my Vocabulary of the Media Critic class, in which Dr. Alwyn Scott told us if we wanted to be filmmakers, we better learn about semiotics. This was back in 1980 and he was right. Though semiotics I discovered there are many types of causality beyond the pure physical causality of a Rule Goldberg machine.

5. The fifth and final piece of the puzzle came from Peter Dunne's book, Emotion Structure: Creating the story beneath the plot. From his excellent book I learned that character's use psychological defenses to try to achieve what they want. I won't go to much into this here. Don't want to give away too much now, but this book was very helpful in allowing me to see story causality.

Emotional Structure

Finally, in answer to the rhetorical question that I heard in my mind,  "Why could I see it when no other writer could for over 2000 years?" Read that sentence again for the answer.

So the first mapping of a story is to map that there is a problem. I'll leave you to think about that question.

We've begun.

Double O Iggy, Storyteller's Log 12-10-2012

In addition to Aristotle, the plot point theories and the hero's journey there are other approaches to try to understand how stories are put together. The structuralist school is once such approach. Today we're going to look at Umberto Eco's analysis of the James Bond movies.

Eco proposed that the characters basically serve functions in the plot, which he likened to a chess game.

Here are the chess moves of a typical James Bond movie according to Eco.

A. M moves and gives Bond his mission.

B. Villain moves and appears to Bond. Often very charming at first.

C. Bond "checks" villain. Or Villain checks Bond.

D. Woman moves and appears to Bond.

E. Bond moves to Woman.

F. Villain captures Bond. Sometimes Woman too.

G. Villain tortures Bond. This is usually frowned upon in chess.

H. Bond checkmates Villain. 

I. Bond recovers with Woman. (He will lose the woman in time for the next installment.)

Simple. 

Eco goes on to show that by sometimes repeating elements this adds variety. Thus in one Bond movie Bond might be tortured twice or maybe get two women. The character of the villain, their sidekicks, their plan for world domination, Bond's gadgets and the method of torturing Bond also help to distinguish each Bond film from another. The Austin Powers series plays with these ideas.

The other thing to note in his approach is that the elements are arranged into binary pairs such as Bond/M, Bond/Villain, Bond/Woman, Free world/Bad guys, Love/Death, Loyalty/disloyalty. A very important theme explored in the Bond films is that of domination between dominators and dominated. This is expressed in relationships between Bond and his boss, the villain, the woman, the free world and the bad guys de jour. Originally the Bond series emerged during the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union. 

If you wish to read more on Eco's approach check out: The Law of Bond Richard Taulke-Johnson

The Bond films are about spying. This is perfect for cinema because it's two primitive conflict structures are peeping and chases. Can't get more fun than that. 

This is great if you ever find yourself being asked to write the next 007 movie. Is it helpful for the rest of us mere mortals? Before we answer,  next time we'll explore another structuralist  thinker and examine the pros and cons of this approach. (I'm still finishing the artwork for that blog post. Shaken but not stirred...)