For all the LA-based stalkers

This is what I'm doing Saturday:

Enigma, UCLA's science-fiction, fantasy, horror and gaming fan club, is psyched to invite you to be a guest at EnigmaCon 2005, a charity fundraiser to help support WorldTrust.org's efforts to rebuild the villages in Sri Lanka devastated after last year's tsunami (and even more recent earthquake). EnigmaCon combines the forces of academia and fan culture to produce exciting panel discussions, live gaming, and art exhibits all for a great cause.

I'm pleased they're psyched, but this does make me worry for them. Anyway, I'll be at the Animation panel at 2:00 and the "Science in Sci Fi" panel at 4:00. The four o'clock will be particularly fun, as Ron Moore will be there. I'm really just going to meet him and tell him how much I dig Galactica. Well, that's a lie, I'm also going to hunt down good RP guilds for WoW and Guild Wars. I almost feel guilty.

Writing: Plot and Story

Our friend Alex over at Complications Ensue is currently entertaining one of the perennial "three-act structure: useful tool or misleading cross-dresser in the bar" discussions. He (as do many guys in both TV and the action movie world) goes for the "sequence" model, while I still hew to a modified version of three act structure. This nicely leads into a whackload of questions about plot and breaking stories I've received. (we'll get to that urgent "How to rewrite" question too, this week ...) Everyone's got their own personal thing. Akiva Goldsman's told me he likes the three act 40/40/40 structure. I'd choke on that long a first act, but he's got an Oscar, I don't. Elliot likes thirty two-minute scenes. I tend to structure plot out in three-page sequences over a 25/50/25 three-act story structure ( I always run fat, that low count's my safety net). So frankly, whatever gets you to page 120.

This difference between TV writers and film guys is pretty common, actually. As one of the relatively few guys who flips back and forth I think this is because in film, a plot's something you move your characters through to change them. In TV, generally, your characters inhabit the plot, but don't really change. (this is evolving, but slowly). The goal of TV characters -- and I'm not even going to try to dive into the meta-osity of this -- tends to be to resume the status quo. TV characters may shift attitudes somewhat at the end of an episode, but they are essentially unchanged. Interestingly, if you look at Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you can see that there only only incremental changes at most to the characters in each episode, but the seasons produce radical changes in the personalities and lives of each character. I'd say Joss Whedon created 7 movies over 140-odd sequences. Or 1 long movie over 7 emotional swing points.

In short (too late), I believe TV writers have a fundamentally different relationship with story than film writers do.

Back to the discussion at hand. For the newbies, it's important to understand the difference between plot and story. For probably the thousandth time you've heard it:

A story is what happens. Plot is how it happens.

The story is about your characters. What they do, their changing relationships with each other and their surroundings, the choices they're faced with , the results of those choices and how they play out, all illuminating whatever little inner mystery you're trying to explore.

The horrible overly-used term for the character's journey is called, by various annoying executives who've taken a Bob McKee class, the character arc. There is something valid here, however, to focus on, even though there are subtleties in arc theory*. In a movie, your character starts somewhere, and ends somewhere else. Their emotions and the emotions of the tale change. Tracking that journey, breaking it down -- well, let's state this plainly: Breaking your story is not quite the same thing as breaking your plot. And that seems to be where a lot of you young'uns are getting hung.

Let's examine the story and plot breakdown for The Transformers script I just wrote.

... psych.

Let's look at Alex's example of THE INCREDIBLES (his breakdown, not mine):

/* SPOILERS */

Act One: Mr. Incredible stops all kinds of mayhem. Gets married. Act out: he's sued.
Act Two: Mr. Incredible has miserable ordinary life. Gets in trouble. Act out: Gets fab job offer.
Act Three: Mr. Incredible defeats giant robot. Life is good. Then turns out it's all a setup. Act out: he's nearly killed.
Act Four: Mr. Incredible sneaks into bunker. Act out: Is captured.
Act Five: Mr. Incredible and family fight to defeat Syndrome and destroy his bunker.
Act Six: Mr. Incredible and family fight in the city to defeat Syndrome's robot.
Act Seven: Mr. Incredible and family fight Syndrome and win.

/*end spoilers/

Now, at first glance, that kind of blows the three-act structure out of the water. But the thing is, you're looking at the plot here. The sequence of events which occur around Mr. Incredible's (the family's, actually) story. What complicates matters is that Alex has chosen a movie with essentially a stagger-step, a jump to a new narrative chain in the middle.

If you track Mr. Incredible's story, it's about rejection, isolation, ego, and family. (Here's a fun game to play. Take your favorite movies or unproduced scripts. Say what they're about in one word. It's very interesting.)

Now, I'm not going to go parsing out Brad Bird's genius here. But first, note that the movie is called THE INCREDIBLES, not MR. INCREDIBLE. If you look at Mr. Incredible's relationship with his family and their relationship with each other, and his own internal emotional state, the three act structure's pretty useful.

-- Incredible falls from grace.
-- Incredible is frustrated, angry , unhappy. He feels limited by his obligations to his family. (delineated in really, the only weirdly poor scene of the movie. Mrs. I couldn't be more wantonly bitchy here ...)
-- Incredible gets the opportunity to change his life.
transition:
-- Incredible regains his confidence.
-- Incredible is happy / affects relationship with Mrs. I. (distant from family)
-- Incredible, at the moment of his biggest triumph, discovers this is a false paradise.
transition: (midpoint)
-- Now, ignoring that fact that at this point it's really Mrs. I and the kids' movie, let's keep going. Incredible realizes he misses/needs his family.
-- Incredible learns to work with his family, growing acceptance ...
-- Incredible and his family are now a team.
transition:
-- Incredible's acceptance of his family as team is validated as they succeed in doing what he alone could not.
-- Syndrome at the house is really a weird coda, but it reinforces the same emotional point as the launch into this act, validating the family ethos.

Mr. Incredible moves from frustration to overconfidence to despair to new acceptance. That's the story. The events which bring either motivate these changes or create opportunities for them, that's the plot. You can even see the emotional/relationship change within Alex's own example -- note how in his breakdown, suddenly the phrase "and the family" pops up for second half of the movie. That change is the story right there.

So am I saying that it wouldn't matter what happened to bring Incredible low, or that he could have fought a frikkin' dinosaur instead of a giant robot, or that the plans of the villain were irrelevant? -- hell no. Choosing the cool/appropriate/telling plot points to move your story along is what makes you a good -- or in Brad Bird's case, brilliant -- writer. Melding plot to story, choosing the right plot for your story, sometimes orchestrating your plot so nobody notices the story ... in every way that's the craft.

You'll note I tend to put way, way more emphasis on the midpoint than many people. That's because, for me, it's the tentpole of the second act. I often mock my friend DJ for saying this, but he holds that "The midpoint is where the movie ... becomes an entirely different movie." I have to admit, that wrench is way more useful in the toolbox than I would've thought.

So, if you're stuck, the problem may be that you're tyring to break your plot before you've really structured your story. Try focusing on your story first, in the larger broad strokes of emotional movement, or conflict/obstacle. Then, when you have that working, figure out how the plot works to get you through your story. Just be aware that these are two separate jobs, and that may help you.

Let's say I'm breaking my movie. For example, in my first act, do I need to have introduced every character, every element, every detail ... ? No, I just need to know, by page 28, what everybody's status is, how they feel about it, and promise an interesting change. Complications ensue (heh) from decisions, leading to a big story change/obstacle in the middle, more struggles with obstacles in either heightened or changed emotions, and the in act three, all the decisions come home to roost. Once I've got my story broken, then I can worry about the plot structure and tone appropriate to this particular piece.

Later this week: Nuts and Bolts


*specifically, most executives only consider transformative arcs. There are also revelatory arcs. Almost every big-budget franchise hero (and good villain) has a revelatory arc.

Doggie Slave Leia Costume

AAAHHHH! AAAGGHGHAAHAHAHHAHAAAAAA!!! Why won't you come, sweet apocalypse, WHYYYY!!???

(here, via BoingBoing)

Marching II: Stem Cell Research

Wondering about all the hoo-haa in South Korea and what it exactly means? Vis DailyKos, an excellent article on the new stem cell process. Please note that the cell itself is stripped of its own genetic content, and is unfertilized to boot.

Also note, just today the President has reminded everyone he will veto the new bill loosening restrictions agasint stem cell research in the US.

CUT TO:
The year 2042.

Timmy (in wheelchair): Mommy, why are all those other children skipping and playing?
Mommy: Because President Bush saved us from evil, evil gene science!
Timmy: ... you do realize I hate you, right?
Mommy: At least you don't have devil cells in your spine. Now hold still while I clean your breathing tube.

My Bad

Oh, wow, I just got back from Fanboy Rampage and ... I'm ... so Rob Liefeld's actually insane, then? Not just an asshat?

I had no idea. Apologies to Rob, then, for judging him by sane-guy standards, and best wishes to his family as they deal with this trial. God Bless.

Marching Ever Forward

Ahhh, it's so nice when the gods do the juxtaposition for you. From the always excellent Intel Dump:

American Congress Moves to Bar Women from Combat

Amendment passed by subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee may have far-reaching effects — will set back the role of women in the military by a generation*

This morning's (May 12 - Ed.) Washington Post reports on an amendment passed yesterday afternoon by the House Armed Services Committee which would bar women from service in "forward support companies" — defined very broadly — that have any chance whatsoever of seeing ground combat.

And from Boing-Boing:

Pakistan's First Female Fighter Pilots "Doing Rather Well"

Until recently, most women in this conservative Muslim society would more likely have imagined marrying a dashing fighter pilot than being encouraged to become one. But this was not true for Saba Khan, one of four female cadets to make it through the gruelling first stages of training. Coming from an enlightened Pathan family in Quetta, capital of otherwise conservative Balochistan Province, Saba was initially inspired by one of her uncles who had been in the air force.

And she says the first newspaper advertisement seeking female cadets was like a dream come true.

"I always wanted to be a fighter pilot, and eventually with Allah's wish and the full support of my parents, I made it this far," she said. (copyright BBC)

We risk getting lapped ... by Pakistan.

Okay, it may be time to just say this. Everybody who wants to live in the 21st Century, over here. Everybody who misses the 1800's over there. Good, thanks. Good luck with that.

*(The AU-smarter-then-I Phil Carter, who served, points out the nine ways that this is craptacular, including the fact that women are right now serving spectacularly in combat in Iraq.)

Promethea petition

For the four-color-heads who hang here, I'd suggest swinging by over to the Absolute Promethea Edition petition. (Say that five times fast)

Promethea is Alan Moore's foray into the world of magical (no, I'm not spelling it with a K, bugger off) realism. He presents the books as an exploration of a recurring character in the world of literature, a warrior-woman Muse who inspires poets and battlefield story-tellers from generation to generation. It's presented with footnotes, etc. much like his detailed real-life research into Jack the Ripper for From Hell.

Once you start digging into the quoted sources, however, you realize Moore's playing around with way, waaaaay more levels than most of us hang out in. So rarely does the word "meta-textual" truly apply. The work, claiming to be fiction based on truth, but is actually just fiction, has inspired real-world followers of the philosophy dilineated within as espoused by historically fictional organizations. So the fiction based on truth/fiction has inspired followers who create a truth which then in some way validates the original fiction as truth.

The book itself explores the adventures of an idea which can manifest itself by posessing someone, and its war with other ideas, all dressed up in superhero clothing to help you get the first few bits into your skull.

Oh, and the art will make you soil yourself. Toss in that Moore himself had a sort of real-world religious epiphany in the middle of the run which informs the rest of the book, and you've got something that very closely resembles the top of what graphic novels can accomplish as literature. I'd say that deserves a nice hardback. Seeing how no less than Michael Moorcock agrees, and has signed the petition, I'd suggest clicking over at earliest opportunity.

They Gave us Dr. Who and Monty Python ...

Smart bastards. Cory Doctorow does an article on how the BBC is embracing the future, digital archive sharing, figuring out ways to share with the audience using interesting copyright concepts, and basically is kicking big fat bloated Hollywood in the trousers when it comes to understanding how the future is going to work. Hollywood's loss vis-a-vis the broadcast flag is a piquant reminder of who's going to win this little battle and how.

They are the public's airwaves. You use them at the public's sufferance. Smarten up.

That Ironic Smell ...

... is what caused us to become concerned, and break into Irony's apartment. To, of course, find it dead. Irony is not only dead, but the cats had a while to work on its soft bits as it lay on the kitchen floor.

I come back from a four day holiday with no news coverage to find this?

(Warning -- Atypical rant commencing.)

This administration -- the guys who threw out the Geneva Convention (fact - and proudly, just ask the AG); sends prisoners to countries so they can be tortured (factitty fact fact); and put into place policies which led to images of Muslim men, 70-90% of whom were innocent according to the Department of Defense, being electroshocked , dog attacked, and bound naked, these images being spread worldwide -- these guys claim Newsweek is damaging America's image abroad? Newsweek?

Gee, any of you idiots bitching about Newsweek stop to think why the Afghan people even believed this? It's not like the plate was set for this to be credible behaviour.

Abdul: Mumar, my friend, even though I was innocent, they tortured me, stripped me naked, waterboarded me, had dogs attack me, and shocked my nuts!
Mumar: I heard they also desecrated the Qu'ran.
Abdul: Please! How could you believe such a thing?
Mumar: ... Dude, they shocked your nuts.
Abdul: So? They have taken cultural sensitivity courses. They would never cross that line!
Mumar: I am filled with shame at jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

Did Newsweek fuck up? Of course. They single-sourced a story. Although I'm a little hazy about how this causality of blame works:

1.) Newsweek hears from government official about Qu'ran abuse.
2.) Newsweek, knowing this is controversial, gives the story to another government official for confirmation.
3.) This government official does not correct that item.
4.) Newsweek publishes story with a single detail which has been reported multiple times in other newspapers.
5.) Afghanistan, already a tinderbox because of the incompetence of even more government officials who botched the reconstruction, erupts. Into riots which, according to someone who is probably smarter than I, oh, say, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are actually related to the ongoing reconciliation process more than the article.
6.) Government officials bemoan Newsweek's carelessness.

Of course, nobody cared when the media single-sourced stories on, say, WMD's or whether the occupation would go smoothly. But we're sharper now.

According to the autopsy, what finally pushed Irony over the edge was this:

Larry DiRita, the spokesman for the Pentagon, actually had the NUTSACK to say, of the original source "People are dead because of what this sonuvabitch said. How could he be credible now?"

He actually had the big brass stones, standing there atop Iraq with no WMD's, no links to al-queda, and no links to 9-11 ... he had the unholy testicular power to stand on the corpses of 1600 dead American soldiers, 15,000 wounded American soldiers, tens of thousands of probably-dead-but-we-don't-count-them-because-they're-brown innocent bystander Iraquis and claim the moral high ground on credibility?

I am actually beyond humor. I'm in awe.

So let me see if I understand this.

-- Osama bin Ladin, Zaquari, and Omar are still strolling around ...
-- the Taliban is making a comeback. The Taliban, a group which after 9/11 which should have been so thoroughly vaporized in such a horrifyingly white-smoting-light-of-righteous-violence that even now a mere random combination of the syllables "Tal"," i", and "ban" should cause grown men to wet themselves at the unspeakable memory of their fate, they apparently have a sign-up sheet going in Pakistan like a fucking office softball team ...
-- Afghanistan's a destabilized hellhole.
-- Iraq, according to even the most optimistic of planners, will chew up American troops for at least five more years ...
-- Iraq is an insurgent war hell because (whether you agreed with the reasons for the original war or not) nobody planned for the occupation, based on the rosy beliefs of a few "government officials" ...
-- We have, demonstrably, statistically, one of the worst health care systems of the industrialized world ...
-- Tax cuts have put this country in the hole to the Chinese ...
-- North Korea and Iran are about to go nuclear ...
-- the government's now declared that pensions are fair game for the corporate fucking-off train, possibly stranding 36 million hard-working day-job Americans ...

... and they've got everyone screaming about Newsweek. That's ... just unspeakably beautiful. It's brilliant. That's Lex Luthor brilliant. It's so magnificently evil, I wish I'd done it, just to be able to say I pulled something like that off. When you manipulate public opinion like that so shamelessly, with such breathless artistry, you should seriously be doing it from inside a giant rampaging robot head. It's the only context that makes any sense.

We are officially in post-modern politics in the US.

Really, congrats to everyone who gives a rat's ass about this. I can't wait until the day, standing in the flaming ruins of America's impending economic collapse, watching as Third World countries race past us in technology, education and power, our populace grown disaffected and violently cynical over repeated betrayals and trivializations of the great governmental process, the day when I can turn to my trusty gyrocopter pal and -- raising my voice over the inconvenient weeping of another mother whose kid has died in Iraq -- say "Hey, remember when Newsweek single-sourced a story?"

Boy, that'll be the kicker right there.

Spam-Verdammt

On the odd chance you got hit, while I was out of town, this account seems to have been spam-jacked -- or a lot of Germans very concerned with honor-killings kept hitting the "Reply all" button on some e-mail I was cc'd on. Either way, good to be back, and we'll be hitting some writing questions tomorrow.

Oh, for those who emailed about the peak oil series, I'm still doing the research. That's right, I work for you bastards. It should start soon.