Story Values -- a McKee reprise

Alice commented yesterday about a few posts I had done in May on McKee's Story. In particular, she asked about the term story value. But I still can't grasp exactly what a story value is. Is it an emotion? An attitude? A state of mind. All of these?

The short answer is all of these.

Right, I suspect it is a case of not understanding the terminology used. Or the way the concept is described. It is one of the reasons why it is sometimes useful to read several books on craft. Not everyone gets the concepts in the same fashion. Both authors may be explaining the same thing but one makes you scratch your head and the other makes you have a light bulb moment. Swain in Techniques of The Selling Writer is very useful on the subject. My problem with Swain is his bigoted view of women's books, but it doesn't mean the concepts that he writes about are any less valid. On concept, he is brilliant. It is one of the reasons that his book remains in print.

Deep Breath.

A story are made up of events but ultimately a story is a method of communicating feelings. Storys are all about emtion.

Events have no meaning or change their meaning depending on whose POV you are in. In that POV, the character will have values (feelings, motivations etc). These values will be particular to that character and the story -- hence the name story values. They may or may not be values that the author holds.

An event or happening without a value assigned to it is uninteresting, neutral. The reader wants to know how it affects the character. Is a rainstorm a tragedy or a blessing? Is a family birthday party where a toddler is given a wrapped present a happy occasion full of love and laughter or one fraught with tension? The answer is it denpends on the characters and the meaning they assign to it. The filter if you like through which the reader views the scene. It is the values of the character that assign the meaning to the event.

If these values do not in some way change during the scene, what is the point of the scene from that character's POV? Why is it necessary for this character to change?

It can be helpful when revising to make a note of the opening and closing values (feelings, emotions, motivations) of the POV character in a scene that feels flat. Have they changed? If not, this could be a reason why the pace feels off. the changes can either be huge or they can be the very turn of the tide, but they will have changed.

If the value do not change, you will often experience a lack of tension.

In other words, every scene must drive the story forward in someway. Stories only move forward with conflict and conflict implies change of some sort. Without the grit of change and conflict, the writer is spinning her wheels.

Some of the revision that I have been doing has involved making sure the relationship progresses with each scene. This does not always mean that it progresses forward. It simply means that there is some sort of change.

Does this make sense or do I need to take another stab at it?

McKee -- a final bit

I am going to end this short series on McKee by briefly going his principles of story design. This is the heart of the book and where he uses the most examples. He also explains things much better than I.
BUT what some people miss is the admonition at the start -- these are only tools to be uses AFTER you have your first draft, if the scene feels flat. They are not something you should be attempting to use consciously while you are writing the first draft of a scene.

When writing a story, the protagonist is a wilful being and has a conscious desire. He must also have the capacities to pursue this desire. In other words, he is proactive and has the chance of achieving the dream, He must be in end willing to pursue the dream in spite of all the obstacles and when the end comes, the audience must feel that this is truly the end. They can not imagine an action beyond it. In other words, at the end , your readers need to be satisfied with no real threads dangling. This does not mean that there will not be a sequel simply that there is an ending, there is closure.

Your reader may or may not find your protagonist sympathetic, but they must find the character empathetic. In short they must feel a bond of humanity with your main character. They do not have to like him or her very much at the start, but they do have to have that bond. That understanding. Likability is no guarantee of a bond. The reader identifies with deep character -- those qualities deep within the human psyche that only revealed when a character is forced to choose under pressure.

This is why the inciting incident -- the start of the story happens when the protagonist's life is thrown radically out of balance. When this happens, the protagonist must react to the incident. Her desire to restore the balance in her life makes it the spine of the story -- it a Romance the spine of the story is always the growth of the emotional relationship. If it is not, you don't have a romance as the main plot, you have it as a subplot. As I write romance, I have to make sure that the spine of the story is the romance, even if there are other major subplots and with the length of my books, there are always other major subplots. The spine is sometimes referred to as the monomyth or the quest. And here it is useful to have read Volger. Unlike Volger though he does not believe in three acts. he simply warns about the problems of having too many acts, as the climax of each act must surpass the act before it and too many climaxes can dull an audience.

After the Inciting Incident, the LAW of Conflict takes over: to wit NOTHING MOVES IN A STORY EXCEPT THROUGH CONFLICT. A turning point happens when a character is forced to make a choice -- a choice between good and evil or between right and wrong or black and white is no choice, even if it feels like one. True choice is dilemma. Things are not clear cut. Nothing is what it seems and everything has unexpected consequences.
The crisis moment needs to be a static moment.It freezes everything. It is the instant before the dam breaks. It must happen On Stage.

If a scene feels flat, then you can try to use scene analysis to discover the problem: 1.Define the conflict. 2. Note the opening value 3. Break the scene into beats 4. Note the closing value and compare with the opening value. It needs to be different (or else the scene has not moved the story forward) 5 Examine the beats and find the turning point. McKee then breaks down several movies including a scene from Casablanca (which happens to be one of my favourite movies)

Anyway, I think McKee is for those people who like to take apart rainbows, put them together and still believe in them. There is absolutely tons in the book. Little throw away comments, that make me go -- ahh, so that's why this and this has to happen. Hopefully I have convinced one or two to pick up the book and read it. However, writers' minds work in many different ways and what speaks to one writer will leave another scratching her head. And itf you can only take one thing, then take away this craft and the study of craft enhances talent. It does not diminish it.

Character v Characterization:McKee

I am starting to realize just how FULL of things I use McKee's STORY is. And I have not even gotten into his analysis of Story design. And it should be noted that I am just giving you the highlights as they occur to me. The subject matter is huge.
As an side, I understand, his workshops are great as well. He goes through Casablance scene by scene.

Right, so here is today's bit on character and characterization.

Characterization is observable -- everything knowable through human scrunity, the hair colour, the eyes, house, the mode of transport, education etc etc The sum total of these characteristics makes an unique being, but it does not really tells anything about true character. This is often wht one feels out on character questionaires btw. As an aside, I rtend not fill out the questionaires until after I have completed the first draft. If I can't do it WITHOUT thinking too deeply then, then I don't know enough about my characters. I may not have written about a favourite thing, but I will know what the favourite thing has to be. Other writers approach it differently, but it is what works for me as often time, character is not cut instone until I have reached the climatic moment.

True Character is only reveaked when a human being is put under pressure. The greater the pressure, the more significant the choice. Choices made when nothing is at risk mean nothing. It is the choices your protagonist makes when she is under pressure, that reveal her inner core of humanity.

You need to make sure that the pressure is continually applied and that she has to make choices that have consequences. the choices she makes will reveal her innner humanity, in a way that makes her resonate with the reader. Making a chioice where there in no consequence is not really a choice. Choosing to tell the truth when a lie will save her life is very different than choosing to tell the truth when nothing will happen to her.
A protagonist is always a willful being. She makes proactive, not passive choices. It are these choices that define the story.

Equally, the revelation of true character as opposed to characterization is what fine storytelling is all about. For example, if your protagonist first appears to be a loving wife blindly devoted to her husband and at the end is still a loving wife blindly devoted to her huband, you have created a character with no growth arc and the character will feel flat. Through the pressure applied, characters need to reveal their inner cores and grow. Character arc changes inner nature for better or worse in the course of the story.

The revaltion of true character must effect the climax. If the climax fails, the story fails. The ultimate pressure needs to be put on at the climax. It is the blackest of black moments when the hardest choices have to be made.

One good trick he does say is to consider which actor/actress you would have play the role? What would happen if a different actor played it? How would the character change? What would be different about that character?
He also says FALL IN LOVE with your characters. The reader can tell when a writer is not in love with his characters as they do not possess the same depth. Embrace all of your characters. Note this does not mean protect your characters. It means putting them under pressure and seeing how they react.

He also says -- self knowledge leads to great character. The only person you can ever know truly is yourself. The root of all character writing is personal experience and personal emotion. The more you can understand your own humanity, the better your characters will be. Human emotions are what you want to write, and the only human emotions you can directly expereince are your own. The same is true for Hemingway, Steinbeck, Shakespeare, Moliere, Austen and Dickens. The only emotions they ever directly experienced were their own. It is the ability to communicate those emotions that results in fine writing.

Much of this is probably not revolutionary, but I do like the way he says it and his examples. When I first read Story, it made sense.

Authentic: McKee

because this has a little to do with setting, creative limitation and genre, I am going to talk about AUTHENTIC here.

To my mind, this is one of the most important parts of the whole McKee book. It was a revelation when I read it. An author means authority and that results in authenticity. The reader is willing to suspend disbelief because she is totally absorbed in the world that the author has created.
The writer knows everything about the world she has created. The important words are: the world she has created.

In the author's world she is God. No sparrow falls without her knowing why. It is not the entire world. There are far too many unknowable imponderables. The world an author creates is never 100% accurate. The author needs to always choose what to include and what to exclude. It is at best a reflection from a Claude glass. Claude glasses were popular in Regency and Victorian times among painters and tourists -- people who wanted to smooth out the ugly and have a certain view of the world. By using different tinted mirrors, the viewer was able to see the scene in different aspects -- fiery, moonlit, in winter etc, without ever having to actually be there. This is what story does -- it holds a smoky mirror up the world.

What happens when an author creates an authentic world is that the reader willingly suspends disbelief. Sometimes, the reader can't details out of her head and goes to check, thus learning more about the time period or the location that the writer has set the story in. This is excellent as the story has touched the reader.

Authors do research so they can decide what to leave in and leave out and to make their world appear more authentic, but they can never be 100% accurate. A historical written in 1957 is very different from a historical set in the same period but written in 2007 and is most certainly different from a contemporary novel written at that time. IE Jane Austen is contemporary, Georgette Heyer is constrained by her own reality just Nicola Cornick or Loretta Chase (to name two of my favourite current Regency authors) are constrained by theirs. I would never mistake them, and I adore them all. And indeed being in the midst of Decency and Disorder --The Age of Cant 1789 -1837 by Ben Wilson, I will never quite look at the Fancy, the Four In Hand or indeed Cambridge University during the period in quite the same way again. It does not mean my enjoyment of the novels is any less as the over riding STORY is what makes them.

Accuracy helps to build authority and authenticity by providing the TELLING DETAIL. It means that when an author does take a leap, go up the wrong way on a one way street, the reader who knows forgives because she is so entranced with the story. It is the preponderance that makes the story, not the specific detail.

Creative limitation: McKee

McKee is very good on creative limitation and its purposes. It is slightly counter intituive, so bare with me.

Many people think that creativity happens when you have a free reign. McKee argues (as does Twyla Tharp btw) that true creativity needs limitations. Just as every house must have a foundation and a framework, every story should have its limits. Without limits, your wheels spin. It is why writing genre frees the writer to be truly creative.
This means creating a small knowable world. According to McKee, every good story takes place within a limited word. Even stories that seem epic such as War and Peace concentrate on a few families and their struggles. Dr Strangelove has three sets and eight principal characters. Gone With The Wind again once you start actually the world is small. The cast of main characters number only a few. The main focus is on Scarlett and her relationships with Rhett Butler,AshleyWIlkes and really Melanie.
The key to writing a good story is to limit your world. This does not mean to create a trivial world, but one where you as the writer know everything about the world.Knowledge is power. The smaller the world, the more God like you as a writer become. As a writer you must know everything. The reader does not need to know everything, but you need to by the time you finish YOUR LAST DRAFT. Notice the emphasis. You do not needto know everything before you start writing the story, just by the time you finish.
Small means that the writer knows the laws and probablities of her world. Your story must follow its own internal logic. It is the relationship between coincidence and causality or how to avoid deus ex machina.
Small means you can explore the complexities of your characters and their interactions with each other. Every time you expand your speaking cast, you add complication but you sacrifice complexity. And the size of your cast is in part determined by what you want your story to do and what sort of genre you are using. For example an adventure film such as James Bond does not have a great of complexity. James Bond is shaken not stirred. He does not really change from film to film. The excitement is the complications that he faces. The cast of characters is large. On the other hand, romances are very much focused on the interpersonal relationships, and the characters do change and grow. You get to know them, you walk in their shoes. They are complex. Keep your cast size small forces the writer to increase the complexity of the relationships between the characters.
McKee also dissects the variuous different genres, explaining generally what each is about. It is very interesting and helped me to understand WHY pure detective stories do not make good romance. Clue it has to do with the passivity of the progtagonist.

IN short limitation is a good thing. It frees your creativity because it forces the writer to find new ways to say things. Because writers do have to try different ways, not everything will work. It is the getting it right in the LAST DRAFT that counts.
He also makes the point that no one has to see the 90% of a writer's work that is less than the best. When a reader reads the finished book, the reader does not know how many drafts you have written to get there. She only knows the feeling of satisfaction that she gets from reading your book.

Questions/ comments/ Have I convinced you to buy this book yet?

More on McKee: plot is more than a four letter word

Right as I got two comments endorsing this short series, I will continue and hopefully convince you that you should purchase this book if you are at all interested in writing commercial ficition. One very big plus in his book is that as it aimed at screenwriters -- all the examples are films. This means rather than evaluating the book, I am able to see how the vision works out.

After giving you reasons why you should learn about craft, McKee presents the basic forms and he starts with structure. Just as a house needs a framework, so does any film. This is a rather technical part of the book and it is easy to get bogged but it does have some of my favourite bits.

One is the explanation of the types of plots -- archplot, miniplot and antiplot. As I am a commerical writer, my plots fall in the archplot spectrum. This means I have closed endings -- no dangling threads. My protagonist is active and there are external conflicts. McKee defines external conflicts to include social relationships. A miniplot has a pasisve protagonist, open endings and mainly internal to that person conflicts. Antiplots are literary sphere and so I don't needc to go into them. The thing you need to be aware of is that the further you move away from the archplot, the size of potential audience decreases.

The multiplot is half way between the arch plot and the mini plot. It can be best described as multi protagonist. Because you do have multi protagonists, you will of a necessity have less time to spend with each of them.Think The Fugative v Parenthood.

There are certain directors who are happy to make films for smaller audiences. If you are going to do that, you also have to be prepared to come in under budget. In my terms, when you write for a niche market, you must expect a smaller advance as then you will be able to earn out your advance. Publshiers like studios wantto make money on their offerings. It is just some thing to be aware of. I know for example in historical romance Georgian/regency/Victorian occupy a far greater percentaage share of the market, to expect the readers of say Roman to be equal to the number of Regency is unrealistic, and I need to tailor my expectations accordingly. I find this view comforting in the run up to royalities btw.

he also discusses linear v non linear, casuality v coincidence. All terminolgy that a wrtier might run into when thoughts come back from your editor.
He believes that writers should work towards mastering the archplot before attempting the other forms. Much I suppose as Picasso did with art. If you have mastered the classi form, you can understand the why and how of changing it.It no longer feels confining and you begin to see the possibilities.

He ends the chapter with the very importnat point: THE WRITER MUST WRITE WHAT SHE BELIEVES IN. This includes the form, but first you have to figure out WHY you believe in it. Do not break the rules of commericial writing simply because you want to show your independance, but break the rules because there is no other way to tell your story. You have to truly believe in a form to be able to write it.

Deciphering McKee's Story

Trish Wylie asked me very politely if I could tell her why McKee's Story was great or if I had some pointers. In other words - -why do I keep it on my bedside table? Why do I reccomend it? It is a large book and if it just overs the same goround....

So I am going to do a small series on some of the more important points in McKee's book. These may not be everyone's but they are mine. Hopefully it will convince some to pick uip this book or at least to ponder his ideas.

What i am talk about today is Powers and talents. It is a short but I think hugely important part of the book. It actually gets to the nub of the craft of Story.

According to McKee and I have no reason to doubt him, there are two types of talent in story writing.

First is Literary talent. This talent uses words and is the putting together of words to form images. It is a common talent. A lot of people can produce wonderfully descriptive writing. But literary talent does not necessarily lead any where. A description of a sunset stays a description of a sunset. There is no movement. The base material of literary talent is words.

Story telling talent is much rarer. It is the ability to hold an audience, to tell a story in such a fashion that the audience is transfixed. It is what causes the pages to be turned. WIth storytelling talent, even the most mundane can be exciting. The base material for story talent is life.

Commercial publishers buy story telling talent. They want page turning reads that people come back to time and again.

The desire to relate an incident in an intersting manner shows that you have some sort of story telling talent.

It is the combination of the two talents that results in a truly great writer.

Talent can not be taught, but it can be control by the learning and studying craft. You do not need to have studied craft to produce a publishable book, but if you want to stay published over the long term, you need to klearn how to control your talent. You need to learn the why behind the rules. You need to master forms and not formula. It also makes it much easier when editors come back and say -- this is wrong with your novel. With the knowledge of craft, you can see how to rewrite and make better, rater than flapping around in the dark and hoping. Craft is what allows the writer to control her environment, rather than having her environment control her.

Because I apt to have attacks of the crows of doubt. Or simply to forget. Rereading the passages where he says these things makes me feel better. It gives me the breathing space I need. It means that I don't have to get things right the first time, because I know I have learnt the craft tools to get it right when it dfoesn't work.

In other news: the Late Night Praty ducks have discovered the compost heap. where they hide. Then as I return from locking the other ducks in the duck house, one quacks, very loudly, making me jump. The LNPD then rush across the bridge. They consider this a good game. Particularly as we then play round and round the duck house and the other ducks come out and join in the fun. I find it less amusing.