[Writing] Change is everything

I'm going to develop these ideas into a blog post over at AuthorCulture, but
that may be awhile, and this is too good to lose, so I'm going to dump it
all here and then parse it into something much leaner and more focused
later.

Here it is:

Two items about change popped up in my list of things yesterday, one note by
David Farland, and the other a movie review by Nancy Kress. Both say the
same basic thing, *the most powerful stories are about change*.

First, this post from David Farland:

Last night I watched Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. My sons
> both loved it, so it seemed to be a hit with the kids. It was tougher for
> me, in many ways. The novel was based in part upon the book ON STRANGER
> TIDES by Tim Powers, and it has been a book that I’ve loved for more than 25
> years.
>
> After reading it, I had a strange reaction, which was mirrored by Algis
> Budrys, who was then the literary critic for the Chicago Sun Times. While
> sitting in a hotel room, just jawing one evening, he said, “You know, that
> book gave me nightmares for three months after I read it.” He was right. It
> gave me nightmares, too. Somehow the book touched me on a subconscious
> level, giving me wondrously creepy nightmares that lasted for months. No
> other book has quite done that to me.
>
> So I found the movie to be a lot flimsier than the book. While I love the
> character of Jack Sparrow, I felt that he got in the way of what was a
> really fine story. You see, Sparrow as a character doesn’t seem to be
> someone who changes. He’s a bit slippery and untrustworthy. If you’re
> talking about him as an archetype, he’s what we call “the coyote,” the
> trickster, the Loki character. I always find that trying to focus on a
> coyote doesn’t work.
>
> Why? Because you can never trust that such a person will change. The whole
> point of examining such a character is to point out that in life there are
> some people that you just can’t trust. Hence, Sparrow’s love for Penelope
> Cruz rang hollow, and when he leaves her, it is expected.
>
> Much more interesting to me was the side story of the priest and the
> mermaid, both of whom have to change their natures in order to make their
> love work. I would really have liked to have seen that more. I even know how
> I would have written it.
>
> I’ve recently been adapting my novel THE RUNELORDS into a screenplay, and I
> found something interesting. I’ve watched several other screenwriters try to
> tackle this book, and while some of the writers did a fine job on different
> levels, ultimately they all failed. I tried their tactic of narrowing the
> cast. I tried pulling out some of the minor characters and focusing the
> story on the major POV characters. It didn’t work. The tales of the minor
> characters (Chemoise, Myrrima, and King Sylvarresta) defined the world.
> Their stories created resonance with what the major characters all faced.
> They were such an integral part of the tale that I had to scrap the opening
> and the ending of the screenplay and put their stories all back in. That was
> an eye-opening experience for me, to see how completely integrated the story
> can become when you write it naturally. The world and the society had all
> become so bound together, so well defined by the tales of the minor
> characters, I you couldn’t remove one thread without having the whole tale
> unravel.
>
> So, this week I’ve been noticing something that I learned long ago: the
> most powerful stories are about change. I’m fascinated by a priest who
> sacrifices everything—his world, his society, his vows—for the woman he
> loves. There’s the center to a great story in there.
>
> I sometimes like to take a character and define wildly different
> “definitions” for them in order to map out a story. For example, I might
> say, “My story here is about a BOY who goes to war and becomes a MADMAN and
> then realizes in time that in order for him to save the world, he needs to
> be killed and become a MARTYR, so he becomes a SUICIDE.” (That’s the basic
> plot to Apocalypse Now and a number of other stories.) So my movement is
> from boy, to madman, to martyr, to suicide.
>
> But you can look at other radical changes—SINNER, to SAINT, to HUSBAND, and
> map your story points along those tracks.
>
> A person doesn’t have to change in order to have a great story. Remember
> the book/movie Remains of the Day? Here we had a character, played by
> Anthony Hopkins, who was unable to make the changes that he needed in order
> to find love. It was a heartbreaking tale. Why? Because the person we cared
> about couldn’t make the changes necessary to fulfill not only his own life,
> but that of the woman we all came to love.
>
> Do you see that “a story” is really about the changes your character can
> and should go through? We create characters that we care about, give them
> the opportunity to change for the better, along with obstacles that prevent
> them, and watch them struggle.
>
> If your character is lazy and just unwilling to change, your story will
> ultimately be boring. If the audience doesn’t believe that the character can
> change, we’ll abandon the tale. If we don’t see how the change will enrich
> the lives of others in your world, the change becomes purposeless. If there
> aren’t sufficient obstacles to the change, the story will lack power.
>
> So look to your tales. Who are your characters now? What changes are your
> characters going through? What are your characters’ end goals? How can you
> amplify the power of your tale?
>
> If you figure this out, the “story” creates itself.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The second is from Nancy Kress, known for writing a series of posts called
Cranky at the Movies:

*Charmed At the Movies*
"Tell me what a man likes and I will tell you what he is," somebody said a
very long time ago. I had only a mild liking for THOR. But the movie I saw
last weekend captured my
heart.<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jnhJI7RSm_g/TeV5PB1I0uI/AAAAAAAAAYk/4W-IDk793Do/s1600/queen_to_play.jpg>
It's
QUEEN TO PLAY (in French, with English subtitles; the French title is
JOUEUSE). It's about chess, although that's not why I liked it. The chess
games are never clearly presented, probably because a film full of chess
positions would baffle or bore 98% of the audience 98% of the time. This
movie is about people.

Hélène, a chambermaid at a small hotel by the sea, glimpses a vacationing
couple playing chess on the balcony. The woman -- sensual, confident,
absorbed in something challenging -- is everything that Hélène is not, and
would like to be. She has her hair cut like the woman's, but that makes no
difference at all. She acquires a satin nightdress like hers, but Hélène's
husband doesn't even notice. What Hélène needs is not a superficial
make-over, but a passion. She learns chess, the thing that attracted her to
that balcony in the first place.

How she does so, what she learns along the way, and how Hélène's passion
transforms every relationship in her life, is the substance of the movie.
Chess is not without its dark side. Many of its champions were at least
partly mad (Paul Morphy, Bobby Fischer) and some of its adherents became so
drawn in they abandon the rest of their lives (Marcel du Champ). Hélène,
however, does notbecome lost to ambition or gain the World Championship or
destroy others' happiness -- this is not THOR. QUEEN TO PLAY is a delicate,
wry, humane film about change, and it stays on a human level. Sandrine
Bonnaire as Hélène and Kevin Kline as her chess teacher are both superb. See
this movie.




Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |*
*
-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot