Ironic

Get this: I have a writing assignment due in 10 hours. It's 2000 words long and I'm really stuck on it. It's about writing.

And I can't think of a thing to write.

It's based on a book called 'Story' by Robert McKee and we're basically looking at 8 points about 'Story' McKee claims:

1. Story is about principles, not rules.
2. Story is about eternal, universal forms, not formulas.
3. Story is about archetypes, not stereotypes.
4. Story is about thoroughness, not shortcuts.
5. Story is about the realities, not the mysteries of writing.
6. Story is about mastering the art, not second-guessing the marketplace.
7. Story is about respect, not disdain, for the audience.
8. Story is about originality, not duplication.

What is a rule compared to a principle? A rule is a generalized course of action whereas a principle is a basic truth. Rules in a story can draw you away from the basics, what you NEED in order to make the story work. Just because the rules of a story, or plot, exist does not mean that they have to be followed exactly. The basics are there, and they are there to be played with and worked to the advantage of the story. Rules make the structure, but following the principles allow the writer to let the story evolve without always following the structure the reader is accustomed to. Perhaps the main conflict occurs at the beginning of a story and it is followed up with the back story explaining to the reader how the conflict came about. Therefore, the principles still make use of the rules, but not in the easily recognized format. It is the same thing with the protagonist. The big assumption is that the protagonist is the 'hero' of the story and therefore someone the reader should look up to. His goals are the goals of every reader and that is how the protagonist becomes likeable. But if a protagonist has desires and an object of desire, could this not be construed as greed? Could that be seen in a villain, in someone the reader cannot empathize with? A villain then becomes a protagonist and they become empathized with and therefore alter the way the reader views his character.

Instead of following the basic formula for a plot, it is completely plausible to alter it in such a way to still have the plot flow but in a non-linear way. Again, the conflict doesn't necessarily have to be resolved at the end of the story, but could bring in the setting of the story. It is an opportunity to mix things up as it were and find a new method to intrigue the reader. If done properly, it can be quite engaging. If not, then the reader will be completely lost. I think 'Usual Suspects' is a good example of getting away from the formulaic style of a "murder mystery" but at the same time still flows through the basic plot outline. In the manner brought forward in this film, while the audience finally believes everything has come to a logical conclusion, everything is turned upside down again as the "killer" is revealed all over again. A formula means that everything becomes predictable and typical. The formula can bore the reader unless the writer finds a way to engage the reader in something different. Finding the core forms in the formula and adding them in an altered method can bring the reader in to discover the story as it continues.

Archetypes are the original design and stereotypes are simple copies of what’s happened before. So, the focus of any story is to be original. Why do what’s been done before? If you give the reader something new to think about, they’ll be much more engaged in the story than if it’s something similar to what they’ve read, heard, or seen before. The most important thing in a story is offering something new. Something that hasn’t been done before be that through the characters, the plot, or even in the style it’s been written. To give anyone anything else is cheating them out of a new experience. The stereotype over simplifies the design and can draw the audience away from the story. Again, if the story becomes predictable, than it does not entertain nor engage and loses everything in the process. The key to originality in an archetype can inherit itself from previous patterns, but the method in which the patterns are constructed can still make it original. Superman and Batman can be seen as the archetypal super-heroes, but even Superman was modelled after Samson. Batman, in a fashion, was modelled after Sherlock Holmes.

Thoroughness is another method of engaging the reader and assisting in the suspension of disbelief. Taking shortcuts cheats the reader out of the experience. Taking for instance a scene where Detective Jones walks into a murder scene. He could just walk into a room and see the body and the reader would get that. But with no tone, no mood or environment , the reader misses another level to the story. 'Detective Jones walked slowly through the doorway, the room reeked of death and Jones shuddered as he saw the blood covering the walls.' The reader can feel the shudder and could feel it even more with more of an in-depth approach. To be more thorough also allows the writer to bring about another level to the character that the reader may not have seen before. Detective Jones "shuddering" at the murder could be delved into further if it reminded him of his first murder call back when he was rookie on the force. More depth to the character then begins and events of the past then emotionally draw the reader in.

The realities of writing are the characters, the plot, the setting, and the conflict. All stories have them, but the approach different stories take are what make them unique. It would be difficult to have a story without a setting. Where would the story take place? To not have characters means there's no opportunity for conflict or real emotion on the part of the audience. Granted, a documentary can be seen as a story, but even a documentary on a country cannot help but let the audience understand the people who live there. Conflict brings about the emotion of the story and allows the audience to empathize with the characters. To relate to them on a more meaningful level. To not have conflict means there's no level of emotion for the audience to be drawn into the story.

Originality is of the utmost importance in a story. Even if it's a story type that's similar to something done once before, it could be the timing that makes it fresh and original. A film like 'Gladiator' is in no way an original movie, but it brought about a whole series of "medieval-style" films that have not been nearly as successful as the first. "Alexander," "King Arthur," and "Troy" have all failed to bring about the same emotion in the audience. It was because of the asuccess of 'Gladiator' that all the other movies tried to grab the same audience. Along the same lines, zombie films have really picked up after the success of '28 Days Later.' Most of the following zombie films also failed in their own way with the exception of 'Shaun of the Dead' which took the zombie genre and asked 'what would happen if no one noticed?' Just because something isn't popular at the moment does not mean that it's not the right time to tell the story. In it's own way, it becomes unique and therefore original.

'Respect your audience' has to be one of the most important rules of storytelling. I think of insulting one's intelligence when it comes to the story. It would be the simplification of a story that insults my intelligence. It's the taking of an idea and dragging it out into convenient plot devices that would insult me too. It's the originality of a story that engages the reader and therefore shows a level of respect in allowing the reader to gain interest. Writing is something that most people do for themselves and why would anyone want to show disdain for themselves? Yes it happens, but it may be a way to pull the readers into the emotions that the writer is dealing with and engages the audience to see the story through. In that way, it's giving a level of respect to understand what the writer is going through.

I'm going back to the "Shaun of the Dead" example here because it's a great example of taking an idea that (no pun intended) was being done to death in zombie movies. But by adding a comedic level to it and allowing the audience to see that Shaun truly felt he was having a bad day before he even realized that zombies were running amok and following him down the street. Duplicating stories that have occurred before cheats the reader out of a new experience. It's the same reason why so many sequels fail to live up to the original film. Ironically, it's the reason why sequels are made in the first place. The first movie is original, engaging, and popular enough to continually bring in an audience. The next movie is more of the same and not necessarily in a good way. It's a rehashing of the same idea. This can become even more of a ripoff to the audience if it seems the characters failed to learn from one story to another. The fourth 'Jaws' film comes to mind. The wife of one of the characters of the first film hears of shark attacks in the area and decides to leave the area --by boat. Sure, it sets up the story for even more shark attacks, but the originality is gone and the film insults the audience as the main character apparently learned nothing about sharks from the first few films. A movie like "Scream" becomes original because all the characters understand the horror movie stereotypes and mocks them throughout the film. They still die, one-by-one, but the characters acknowledge that they know enough not to get into the typical situations that gets people killed in horror movies. All it takes is a 'spin' on something that has been done before that can make a story original.

Oh, hey, look at that. I did it.