# plots as events, thoughts, or emotions



## EmmaSohan (Aug 14, 2014)

You could think of a book as being events happening in time, making a plot. Like an action book.

But some books really are thoughts and ideas. In a detective story, the real plot is what happens in the detective's mind. Right?

In my books, the main plot is emotions. Can the MC be happy? Can she find someone to love?

I keep running into the whispery idea that this is important. Like, I hated Kyle's advice that the conflict should be life and death -- because those aren't the conflicts that interest me. But I just realized when I started to write this, I have four good action scenes and....they're all life-and-death. Laughing at myself.

Now I am writing a scene and trying to make it as important as I can. Kyle, I _am _taking your advice. But it's about love and finding happiness. Which to me are maybe the ultimate things.

Am I just saying another crazy thing that everyone disagrees with? Or is this well-known and I just don't know what words to use? Or can someone say it better?

Thanks for listening!


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 14, 2014)

I don't disagree. I think different authors write for different audiences, and different audiences care deeply about different things.


----------



## TKent (Aug 14, 2014)

Sounds like an emotional life or death to me... sounds like a story I'd like 



> But it's about love and finding happiness. Which to me are maybe the ultimate things.


----------



## Kyle R (Aug 14, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> ...Like, I hated Kyle's advice that the conflict should be life and death -- because those aren't the conflicts that interest me.



Sorry for the confusion! Just to clarify, when I mentioned that, I used a very specific term: *story goal*.



			
				Kyle R said:
			
		

> I like to use the rule of thumb that a *story goal* should have the consequence of _death __upon failure, be it a physical death, a professional death, or an emotional one._



The *story goal* is the main objective the MC is trying to accomplish.

All other goals (_scene goals_) exist as byproducts of the story goal. Scenes don't always require super high stakes. In fact, having every scene be about life and death might make the story too monotonous. Having a variety can be a good thing.

Scene goals are more like stepping stones that the MC uses to get to the story goal. The consequences of each scene can vary in intensity. They don't always have to be about life and death.

It's the _story goal _(the main goal) that, in my opinion, should have a threat of _death_ hanging over it.

What is the main thing the character wants to achieve in the story?

In the novel I'm working on, my MC's _story goal_ is to: _Go undercover to w__in the trust of an outlaw. _If my main character fails with her story goal, the consequence will be: _She will lose her job, a job that means everything to her._

So, my MC, if she fails to accomplish her story goal, will suffer a _professional death_. The death of her career. 

The threat makes the story goal a compelling one, because the character will do all she can to prevent it.


In summary:

- Scene goals and story goals are two different things.

- A story goal is the primary objective (the single big motivation) the MC is trying to accomplish in the story.

- Scene goals are like stepping stones toward accomplishing the _story goal_.

- Scene goals can have varying levels of stakes.

- A story goal should, IMO, have a consequence of _death_ upon failure (physical, emotional, or professional). This will help your MC be as motivated as they can to succeed.

:encouragement:


----------



## Newman (Aug 15, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> You could think of a book as being events happening in time, making a plot. Like an action book.
> 
> But some books really are thoughts and ideas. In a detective story, the real plot is what happens in the detective's mind. Right?
> 
> ...



Sounds like you're talking about the external and internal journeys.

You're right, it is the internal journey - thoughts, ideas, what happens in the detective's mind - that's important.

The external journey is just as important, but it's a ruse to push the internal journey.

What you're saying makes perfect sense.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 15, 2014)

As I said above, sometimes the 'death' is entirely emotional or metaphorical. 'Death' in fiction is not necessarily a person dying. I could be a state of emotion, a relationship that ends, a trust that's broken, failing 6th grade math. A LOT of things can be 'death'. 

In my current novel, a fourteen year old orphan has latched onto a 32 year old miner. She (the miner) shooed off a gang of kids that was beating on him, and so he started following her around because he has no friends or family. His 'death' would be if she broke the friendship that he is trying to build (which she tries to). The idea is that little deaths, emotional deaths, physical deaths... the stakes for all of them are as high as the character values that 'life'.


----------



## Jeko (Aug 15, 2014)

> You could think of a book as being events happening in time, making a plot. Like an action book.
> 
> But some books really are thoughts and ideas. In a detective story, the real plot is what happens in the detective's mind. Right?
> 
> In my books, the main plot is emotions. Can the MC be happy? Can she find someone to love?



All stories are all three. You have the events of the story, and the wider-scale event(s) of the narrator(s) telling the story, sitting between and within the events of the reader's life. You have the thoughts of the characters, and the thoughts of the narrator(s), and the thoughts of the writer all mingling together with the thoughts of the reader, inside and outside their reading experience. You have the emotions of the characters, and the emotions of the narrator(s), and the emotions of the writer all working together with the emotions the reader experiences inside and outside the story.

There are probably other things as well that are both in the characters, the narrator(s), the writer and the reader, but thee three that you mentioned are probably the most important.


----------



## Morkonan (Aug 15, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> ...Like, I hated Kyle's advice that the conflict should be life and death -- because those aren't the conflicts that interest me.



They rarely interest anyone.

What you're actually talking about isn't "conflict", but the "stakes" of a conflict.



> Am I just saying another crazy thing that everyone disagrees with? Or is this well-known and I just don't know what words to use? Or can someone say it better?



Life and Death conflicts are only immediately interesting to the degree that the Reader is interested in the characters or lives "at stake." Nobody really cares about such conflicts/stakes for their own sake. Instead, the sorts of stakes we really care about are things like self-actualization, love, good and evil regarding something that we're made to care about, valued goals in the plot, redemption, revenge, etc...

If I battle society in order to receive the recognition that I have plainly demonstrated to the Reader that I am morally due, but am kept from receiving due to some "flaw" within society that should be corrected, then is my "life" at stake? Is this a "life or death" struggle? No, but it's still very valuable and exploring it in a novel can be extremely compelling.

In order to get the Reader to empathize with your character, you generally have to explore their own inner lives. You have to show how they view the world, what their values are, what their pains and self-doubts might be, how society views them or any number of things that the Reader, themselves, may experience in their own life. The experience doesn't have to be exactly the same, but the experience you provide will evoke similar emotions in the Reader, if done properly. You can not get a Reader to value a "life and death" struggle if they do not care about the Characters involved and the most common way to get the Readers to care is to evoke just the sort of emotions and more interesting aspects of the character that you say you like to write about!

You're doing fine. Forget all this "life and death" stuff as any sort of main focus on "stakes" for your "conflict." Instead, you can still have life-and-death struggles, but they can just be ancillary parts of your conflict. The real stakes are self-actualization, love, redemption... something more meaningful than just continuing to breathe every day. THIS is the kind of thing that really draws the Reader in.


----------



## Sc0pe (Aug 15, 2014)

From what i read in all this I think your on the right track. You don't need a life and death struggle to make an interesting story in-fact if you rely on that and not on making the characters interesting and relate-able to a degree then that will only serve to leave a blank taste in the readers mouth since they where no invested into the characters to begins with. However I do think i understand where *Kyle R* was coming from. I think he means any main goal if it where to not be reached would mean the death of that goal. Even if the characters life is not endanger his goal in life is dead making them in a sense a shell.

If the MC as a crush and the the over all story was them asking them out but they where beaten to it and someone else did this could be seen as a death of his/her love. It was important to them and they made it there goal, the story is a romance and centers around this so when they fail maybe they don't die but that goal, that love did. This could apply to anything so long as it's the main charters main goal be it real life of him or the goal it's still the same.

So in other words it would be a little more dire than finding out that you fort the eggs on your shopping list.

Me personly cant see why it cant be a combo of all of those things so long as it's clear and not all over the place I mean i'm sure we all don't have only one big goal in our life and im sure that most of our goals don't involve us dieing... do they? 

That's my take on it anyways.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 15, 2014)

Thanks. I'm still thinking about what _everyone _said, but I will respond to Kyle. I have a book where, in the second half, the heroine goes to Mexico leading a small team of misfits and tries to help Mexico with its problems. That main goal is pretty much irrelevant to the story. I could have done a different country, or really any different situation. She solves some problems (a lot, I guess), as you would expect.

What matters to me? She's not as strong as she used to be. How does she avoid a return to depression? How does she lead a team when she isn't strong? What does it mean to be a female? She finds someone she loves. She builds a team.

So, what I am thinking is this. Your idea of main story goals works well for action stories. And I think you could force it onto my story. But my "emotional story" just seems to need a different way of analyzing what is good and bad in my story and what I am trying to accomplish and what the reader wants. I don't know what that different way is.


----------



## Morkonan (Aug 16, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> ...What matters to me? She's not as strong as she used to be. How does she avoid a return to depression? How does she lead a team when she isn't strong? What does it mean to be a female? She finds someone she loves. She builds a team.
> 
> So, what I am thinking is this. Your idea of main story goals works well for action stories. And I think you could force it onto my story. But my "emotional story" just seems to need a different way of analyzing what is good and bad in my story and what I am trying to accomplish and what the reader wants. I don't know what that different way is.



Look at your questions, above: How does she avoid a return to depression? How does she lead a team when she isn't strong? What does it mean to be a female?

THESE are important story points. They're possibly main plot goals, but definitely all about building your character. These are important questions and these are going to be the main points of interest in your "story." As you say, she could have gone to any country in the story/plot. She could have fought any battle. She could have been in several life-threatening moments. But, the most important questions are the ones that you have just asked. Your story will likely be about this character as she attempts to resolve these questions for herself. Along the way, she (you), might be able to give the Reader some insights into their own questions about themselves. At the very least, you might be able to give the Reader a glimpse of your own insights. 

Work your storyline so that main plot components bear directly on these questions. How is she going to "lead" her team when she can't get enough confidence in herself to get out of bed in the morning? What will the results be? Maybe her current failure as a leader gets people killed and sets the team against her? How is she going to deal with this extra pressure being added onto her shoulders while she is trying to come to grips with her own identity? Things get worse. Then, they get worse. A few loyal die-hards try to support her. They're her allies. But, then the worst happens - One of them dies, presumably due to her own inadequacies. Worser and worser... But, then, there's a possible solution, a way for her to do what she needs to do! What is it? And, why is it fatally flawed? When does she realize that her plan for solving her problems is doomed? What makes her realize that? When does she finally find the right path? When dose she redeem herself for whatever bad acts she may have committed while holding onto false hopes?

THAT is what will make your action/adventure/conflict/high-stakes story shine. You are doing perfectly fine - You know that what you need in such a story is exactly the sort of thing that you like to write about, the sort of things that you think are really important. Don't worry, keep writing, you're doing fine.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 17, 2014)

I think part of my unease, explained so poorly in my OP, was this. There is an IF part to any story (or scene) -- the reader keeps reading to see _if _the MC will achieve her goal (or solve her problem or extract herself from her difficulty, or whatever). Kyle describes how to do this well.

There also can be a HOW part. People face problems in life, and they want to know how to solve them. A book isn't an answer, it's just how one person solved that problem, but it can still be interesting and useful. That's what I most like to write about. How to get along with your step mother, how to talk to your biological father who doesn't know you exist, how to forge a relationship, how to grow up, how to deal with things about yourself you can't change. And on and on.

Does anyone know terms for these? (Internal and external helped, Newman, thanks.) Mercifully, I have skipped the zillion responses I made to Morkanon in my head. Comments, disagreements, etc. always welcome and useful.


----------



## HalcyonDiscordia (Aug 17, 2014)

It seems to me that what you are talking about is writing that focuses on the journey rather than the destination. A lot of times the only real way to address some issues is in addressing the journey, whether because at the end of the day it is more interesting to do so, or simply because some issues and concepts are never really "resolved," merely "experienced."

For example, in _the road_ by Cormac McCarthy, the MC and his son travel along a road and experience events. by the end of the book, the primary 'goal' (safety and survival) is not resolved except in a manner that could be undone through any number of possible misfortunes. But the book is not about _attaining_ the goal, it is about _seeking_ the goal, and how the characters grow and interact in doing so.

Likewise, in _to kill a mockingbird_ by Harper Lee, the primary goal is to vindicate the falsely accused, whom no-one believes due to their racism, and they fail in doing so. but despite failing in their goal, they grew and learned.


----------



## InstituteMan (Aug 17, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> I think part of my unease, explained so poorly in my OP, was this. There is an IF part to any story (or scene) -- the reader keeps reading to see _if _the MC will achieve her goal (or solve her problem or extract herself from her difficulty, or whatever). Kyle describes how to do this well.
> 
> There also can be a HOW part. People face problems in life, and they want to know how to solve them. A book isn't an answer, it's just how one person solved that problem, but it can still be interesting and useful. That's what I most like to write about. How to get along with your step mother, how to talk to your biological father who doesn't know you exist, how to forge a relationship, how to grow up, how to deal with things about yourself you can't change. And on and on.
> 
> Does anyone know terms for these? (Internal and external helped, Newman, thanks.) Mercifully, I have skipped the zillion responses I made to Morkanon in my head. Comments, disagreements, etc. always welcome and useful.



Hey, Emma, I don't know any terminology for you, fancy or otherwise, but there are lots and lots of books that take the approach you prefer. Halcyon mentions some, and I would throw out Bridget Jones' Diary as the somewhat recent quintessential book about a woman learning about herself and how to relate to the world. 

The not particularly event driven book is a literary staple. There usually is some light plot to hang the emotion growth upon, but not anything too event driven like alien invasion or super villains or anything. Too Kill a Mockingbird is not particularly event driven other than in how those events spur Scout's growth. On a different spot of the literary spectrum, all the events do for Bridget Jones is change what goes on between her ears. Come to think of it, Huckleberry Finn is pretty similar -- he floats down a river and learns stuff.

You are in good company with your approach, Emma. Write away, and I am sure you can get some critiques here!


----------



## Newman (Aug 18, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Does anyone know terms for these? (Internal and external helped, Newman, thanks.)



It's theme and its siblings (learning the lesson etc).



EmmaSohan said:


> That's what I most like to write about. How to get along with  your step mother, how to talk to your biological father who doesn't know  you exist, how to forge a relationship, how to grow up, how to deal  with things about yourself you can't change. And on and on.



These internal journeys will have central arguments / choices / ideas / lessons etc.

You don't want to try to execute multiple lessons (unwise if you have difficulty executing just one lesson) - you'll want to reduce the solutions down to a central idea / point of view and that'll be the core of all these internal journeys.

You're probably better to experiment with one thing (e.g. how to talk to your biological father who doesn't know  you exist) and learn how to execute that.

It's actually quite a precise science. A good way of learning how to do it is to deeply analyze a story that does it and try to understand the underlying mechanics.


----------



## Morkonan (Aug 19, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> I think part of my unease, explained so poorly in my OP, was this. There is an IF part to any story (or scene) -- the reader keeps reading to see _if _the MC will achieve her goal (or solve her problem or extract herself from her difficulty, or whatever). Kyle describes how to do this well.



_"Fred has decided to go to the laundromat...._"

Do I care?

Is there a "What If" component to my caring or lack of same?

There's a very complex array of components within this sort of "What if" reason you're stating that causes Readers to keep reading. For instance, if I don't care about or identify with the character in a meaningful way, you're not going to be able to use sympathy/empathy in order to drag me through the story. If I care about the character, but whatever it is they are doing is nonsensical, my disbelief will run rampant and I'll lose interest. If you focus drama and risk equally, across all boundaries, I will soon get worn out reading with rapt attention passages detailing dishwashing with equal intensity as those describing warfare. (Though, metaphors probably abound...) 

It's more than "What happens next." You can, however, catch a Reader's attention with an interesting occurrence. But, you won't successfully engage and hold them with nothing but some unexplained dilemma with a goal that has no recognizable human components. 



> There also can be a HOW part. People face problems in life, and they want to know how to solve them. A book isn't an answer, it's just how one person solved that problem, but it can still be interesting and useful. That's what I most like to write about. How to get along with your step mother, how to talk to your biological father who doesn't know you exist, how to forge a relationship, how to grow up, how to deal with things about yourself you can't change. And on and on.
> 
> Does anyone know terms for these? (Internal and external helped, Newman, thanks.) Mercifully, I have skipped the zillion responses I made to Morkanon in my head. Comments, disagreements, etc. always welcome and useful.



Here, you're speaking more towards Empathy or Sympathy components than anything else. (Call them "sympathetic" reasons.) Some people do read books in an attempt to grasp their own problems. However, in fiction, we're often confronted with characters and situations that may have qualities that are emergent within the story, itself, and not detailed on the back-cover-copy. For instance, I may not know that a story is about a young man is struggling to deal with his feelings of solitude and loneliness, which is the real struggle that he eventually overcomes. Instead, I may read something on the blurb that say's _"Fred must face an ancient evil in order to save a dying world and, in the end, learns how to save himself."  _Here, the Reader can't truly know that Fred's situation will be similar to theirs, only that there may be the possibility of personal hope found within the story.

In my opinion, including things that Readers can sympathize with is important. That even extends to emotionally charged circumstances that vary widely between persons. However, it often takes more than affording the Reader an opportunity to wallow in their own problems in order to keep them reading. Reading is an "experience" and they'll have had quite enough of that particular sort of experience - Now it's time to move through it.

(Note: Some sorts of stories tend to specifically target these kinds of Readers, almost like the Teenxploitation films of the past.. Angsty, overwrought, whining, socially dispossessed, lovestruck, infatuated, sexually frustrated, idealist "novels" cram the shelves of the YA section... There's a reason for that.  )


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 19, 2014)

H Morkanon. You first wrote about what makes a good IF story. Which is all true, and you have written more on that before just in this thread, and authors get a lot of good advice on how to do this.

Then, you don't have much advice about writing HOW. You identify the market for who most wants and needs this. But are those works well done? And if some are, what are they doing right? On the Road, by Jack Kerouac, is in some ways a brilliant HOW book. And I have read excellent YA books on this, such as Jump (Elisa Carbone). I know a teen who faced her fears and using Jump.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 19, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> H Morkanon. You first wrote about what makes a good IF story. Which is all true, and you have written more on that before just in this thread, and authors get a lot of good advice on how to do this.
> 
> Then, you don't have much advice about writing HOW. You identify the market for who most wants and needs this. But are those works well done? And if some are, what are they doing right? On the Road, by Jack Kerouac, is in some ways a brilliant HOW book. And I have read excellent YA books on this, such as Jump (Elisa Carbone). I know a teen who faced her fears and using Jump.



How do you wish me to tell you "how?" Tell me what you want and I'll try to do it.

In something like this, I prefer to work with the material I have at hand instead of simply pointing at some notable book and saying "_Go, yea ,and seek and do this thing which I hast pointed thee at..."_ 

Instead of me hand-waving and dropping some notable titles in this thread with no clear direction on how to apply them to your work, you tell me what you want to do and tell me what you've got to do it with and I'll tell you "_how_" to accomplish your desired goal or message and I will craft specific examples of text that demonstrate that, if applicable. I don't need to point at another author's work when I can write something, myself, right here in this thread that works more intimately and directly with your subject material. If you want me to point you to books that are similar in scope, theme or literary significance to your work, I can try to do that, but it'll most likely be something in the Science Fiction and Fantasy Genres... (Barring some recognized literary works that most people have read, or should have.  )

I hope I correctly interpreted your use of "HOW." It's not clear. But, be assured, if you have a question or need some help, I'll do whatever it takes to assist you. Except walk your cat... I don't walk cats. 

So, slap me around a bit. Throw whatever problem or question you might have at me and I'll try to give as complete an answer as I can.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 21, 2014)

Thanks, that was a generous offer and I'll try. _The Fault in our Stars_ gets my vote as the best-written book ever. It has no story goal. If your response to that is "Of course, a lot of good books don't have a story goal. There's a whole genre that doesn't worry about it.", then I don't have a problem. That book has a few scene goals, but not a lot. Also not a problem?

If you want to say that every story has a story goal, then I start to get frustrated.

If you want to say that _The Fault in our Stars_ is an exception, then I get frustrated too. It's unusual, but I find, over and over again, books beginning with someone who is not particularly happy and has problems.

In one book, the problem is that her father is manic-depressive. Does she come close to solving this problem in the middle of the book? No. Does she even try to solve this problem? No. Is the resolution to the book that he'd cured? No. The whole apparatus for analyzing books with Story Goals just doesn't work well for the other books. If you agree, I have no problems.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 21, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Thanks, that was a generous offer and I'll try. _The Fault in our Stars_ gets my vote as the best-written book ever. It has no story goal. If your response to that is "Of course, a lot of good books don't have a story goal. There's a whole genre that doesn't worry about it.", then I don't have a problem. That book has a few scene goals, but not a lot. Also not a problem?



You say the "story has no goal", right? OK, but what about the experience that the author intends to deliver? What you're actually saying is that there is no plot-related goal. But, that's not true, either - There are many, there just isn't one over-arching plot goal.

I haven't read the book, but I read a synopsis of it. This is a book about dealing with death, both one's own and the death of others. It's about redemption and sorrow, in the form of the author in the story. It's about love and sacrifice, the sacrifice of one's own protections against the pain of loss that love can bring. It's about living while dying.

Those are laudable goals and it's the experience that the author communicates that is important.

In the plot synopsis I read, there are several storylines. There's the love between two characters, the constant threat of cancer relapse and death, the search for the author, the journey and disappointment, the quest to have an ending or a new sequel for the book, etc... These are "goals" for the protagonist in the story to overcome or master.



> If you want to say that every story has a story goal, then I start to get frustrated.



Have you ever seen the movie "Ferris Buehler's Day Off?" It's an American film comedy about a high-school student that decides to skip school one day by pretending to be sick. He convinces a couple of friends to do the same and they go off on adventures together. It's a "Day in the Life" sort of story. There is no major "plot" goal, other than the characters trying to keep from getting caught. But, even that story arc is loosely important. What's more important are the subplots and escapades that these kids get mixed up in. There are lessons to be learned and communicated to the viewer, as well, which Ferris does in a number of Fourth Wall Breaking soliloquy to the audience.

(Right after convincing his parents he was sick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KFVLWX7eEY

So, he's determined to enjoy the beautiful day. That's a "goal" isn't it? _"If you don't stop and look around for awhile, you might miss it." _Could it be that "Ferris Beuhler's Day Off" is just a long parable? 



> If you want to say that _The Fault in our Stars_ is an exception, then I get frustrated too.



It's no exception. It just tells a story from a slightly different, slightly unconventional view. But, in doing so, it's not so different from "Ferris Beuhler's Day Off," is it? Just like "Ferris Beuhler's" put you right in the middle of the life of an ordinary teen, it seems that "The Fault in Our Stars" puts you in the life of an ordinary teen who happens to have the extraordinary problem of cancer in her life. Both stories (I haven't read "..Stars") are about the "experience", not about some primary heroic goal that must be achieved in a straight-up adventure drama.



> It's unusual, but I find, over and over again, books beginning with someone who is not particularly happy and has problems.



Those are always interesting books, aren't they? Don't you cheer for the protagonist, hoping that they find happiness or solutions to their problems? Are those "goals?" Is their failure to achieve them means to call these stories anything less than a good story?



> In one book, the problem is that her father is manic-depressive. Does she come close to solving this problem in the middle of the book? No. Does she even try to solve this problem? No. Is the resolution to the book that he'd cured? No. The whole apparatus for analyzing books with Story Goals just doesn't work well for the other books. If you agree, I have no problems.



I'm a little unclear as to what you consider a "Story Goal." Goals are things that a character hopes or needs to achieve. Drama is created as we insinuate risk and impose barriers that the character must overcome in order to reach their goal. That is a standard story. It is, by no means, the only way to tell a story.

In a story, something happens. If that's all the story is, then it's like a "Day in the Life" sort of story - You're just there for the ride, for the "experience" of experiencing whatever it is that is going on. However, if something happens that is "_caused_" by something else, there you have a "_plot_." A "plot" is entirely different from a "story." Though, a book with a plot can't exist without also being a story, a story, however, can exist without having a plot.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 21, 2014)

Are we actually agreeing? We can imagine a book where Gus is diagnosed with cancer. If this is done well, the reader doesn't want him to die and reads to find out whether or not he dies. There is, say, a good chance of living, but then the treatment doesn't go well, but there is an experimental treatment which he gets into at the last minute, etc. etc. This is a story goal and hopefully as writers we learn to handle it well.

In _The Fault in our Stars_, we learn that Gus has cancer and -- I think in the same sentence -- that he is going to die. Zero story goal. It is clear in the book that if anyone thinks he is not going to die, they are deluded.

Maybe his girlfriend would leave him because she doesn't want to deal with the pain, or maybe she decides to be brave and stay with him, she goes back and forth, etc. etc. etc. Story Goal, read to find out what happens.

In _The Fault in Our Stars_, she never even thinks about leaving him. It's a "how" book -- how do these two people deal with cancer and living their life?


----------



## Bishop (Oct 21, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Are we actually agreeing? We can imagine a book where Gus is diagnosed with cancer. If this is done well, the reader doesn't want him to die and reads to find out whether or not he dies. There is, say, a good chance of living, but then the treatment doesn't go well, but there is an experimental treatment which he gets into at the last minute, etc. etc. This is a story goal and hopefully as writers we learn to handle it well.
> 
> In _The Fault in our Stars_, we learn that Gus has cancer and -- I think in the same sentence -- that he is going to die. Zero story goal. It is clear in the book that if anyone thinks he is not going to die, they are deluded.
> 
> ...



Goals can be as simple as a character wanting to get through a single day, and in fact, can have a lot more meaning when they do. Just because the outlook is bleak, that we know he's going to die, that doesn't mean he has no goals.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 21, 2014)

"How" is a plot development tool. All books have plots. Plots are the actions the characters take to achieve what they want, and the things beyond their control which get in the way. What you are describing is simply a book which is more character driven than plot driven. "How" do the characters react to the events (plot) of the book? It's a simple matter of focus: does the author concentrate on the external actions of the plot, or on the development of the characters? All books are a blend of the two, the proportions are simply different.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 21, 2014)

> _The Fault in our Stars gets my vote as the best-written book ever. It has no story goal._



Of course it does; the characters have cancer. One of their most basic goals is to make the most of the life they have left, and the narrative runs through a whole list more and questions them in the process.

I love TFioS because it handles the characters' aspirations so naturally and subtlety that you forget you're reading about fictional people. It's one of the climaxes of 21st-century mimesis so far.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 21, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Of course it does; the characters have cancer. One of their most basic goals is to make the most of the life they have left, and the narrative runs through a whole list more and questions them in the process.


The question is how to analyze, understand, and appreciate this book (and eventually thousands like it). Will "there is a story goal" work for every book? Or does it work great for many books, and we need something different for this book?

Here, I am pretty sure that is not Hazel's stated goal. I am pretty sure that is not Augustus' stated goal. (The two main characters.) I can't see them actually trying to achieve that goal. To me, it trivializes both them and the book to think those are their goals or the story goal.

The reader does not keep reading the book to find out at the end if they have achieved this goal. In other words, it's a horrible hook.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 21, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> The question is how to analyze, understand, and appreciate this book (and eventually thousands like it). Will "there is a story goal" work for every book? Or does it work great for many books, and we need something different for this book?
> 
> Here, I am pretty sure that is not Hazel's stated goal. I am pretty sure that is not Augustus' stated goal. (The two main characters.) I can't see them actually trying to achieve that goal. To me, it trivializes both them and the book to think those are their goals or the story goal.
> 
> The reader does not keep reading the book to find out at the end if they have achieved this goal. In other words, it's a horrible hook.



I think you're over-analyzing this. Goals in the context of a novel are what the character wants. No matter how trivial (I want some toast!) or important (if I don't destroy the mothership, humanity will perish!) people _want _things. Some people's goals are life-long pursuits, like us with literature. Some people's goals are arranging their time so that they have ample hours to play Call of Duty after they get out of work at Wal-Mart. Neither is bad or wrong because both are consistent with what people want, which makes those characters realistic. They also might never achieve them, and they might not fully understand them. But they have them, because they're people.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 22, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> ....In _The Fault in our Stars_, we learn that Gus has cancer and -- I think in the same sentence -- that he is going to die. Zero story goal. It is clear in the book that if anyone thinks he is not going to die, they are deluded....



There is a goal - Learn to live while dying. 

That seems to be one of the "goals" of the characters in this story, though they may not realize it. That is an incredibly difficult lesson to learn, especially since you only get one shot at it. There are no "do overs."  

I've met two types of terminally ill people, those who are determined to "live" while they are dying and those that become embittered and end up losing what is left of their life before they die. Stories like "The Bucket List" emphasize the same point, but also place an emphasis on the things that are truly important that we might take for granted when faced with death. What is truly a better thing for one to do in their final days, look upon the Mona Lisa and stand at the foot of the Pyramids or to look upon the face of someone who truly loves you and stand at the foot of the crib of your grandchild?  Poignant lessons learned.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 22, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Will "there is a story goal" work for every book? Or does it work great for many books, and we need something different for this book?
> 
> Here, I am pretty sure that is not Hazel's stated goal. I am pretty sure that is not Augustus' stated goal.



Stories do not have goals, characters have goals, and those goals are usually not shown as concrete statements. The reader definitely keeps reading to find out if the characters achieve their goals, that's the case for *all* successful books.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 22, 2014)

> Will "there is a story goal" work for every book? Or does it work great for many books, and we need something different for this book?



1) Yes, there is a goal in every story, but no, a story cannot have a goal, as Terry D explained. 2) No.



> Here, I am pretty sure that is not Hazel's stated goal. I am pretty sure that is not Augustus' stated goal. (The two main characters.) I can't see them actually trying to achieve that goal.



In that case, we should be seeing them giving up on life. But they're not. So they obviously want to do something with the life they have left.

Saying you're 'pretty sure' of something doesn't help; if you're trying to 'analyze, understand, and appreciate the book', give evidence from it.



> The reader does not keep reading the book to find out at the end if they have achieved this goal. In other words, it's a horrible hook.



You're confusing goals and hooks. The goal doesn't have to be what keeps the reader reading. 

And actually, I _do _keep reading because of that goal, because I'm in awe of their tenacity in the face of death; their pursuit of life as it's fading away is tantamount to the teenage condition, which I have always found evident in Green's work.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 22, 2014)

1. A framework: The MC has a goal, the reader wants to keep reading to find out if the goal is accomplished, the MC has progress and setbacks, with the final resolution. There are a lot of variations, one being not doing it well. I am not the only person who has come to this list and found advice for doing this better.

2. Trying to put this framework on _The Fault in Our Stars_ seems like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Maybe you can do it, but it damages the peg and the hole.

Damaging the framework: Cadence writes "The goal doesn't have to be what keeps the reader reading" and Terry D writes "The reader definitely keeps reading to find out if the characters achieve their goals, that's the case for *all successful books." *How can two people, who I am guessing actually agree, say such opposing comments?

Damaging the story: The main characters disparage the stereotype of the cancer child heroically fighting their cancer. I think they would have the same opinion of maximizing life (what does that mean?) and learning to live while dying (what does that mean?). These seem to state their goals as a cliche, which seems to be the exact opposite of what they respect.

3. Trying to find a different framework doesn't seem impossible to me. I am painfully aware that I could be wrong and I have not been consistent on how I stated this. _The Fault in our Stars_ deserved to be understood. It may be unique, but to me there's a whole genre (or two) that doesn't fit the framework.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 23, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> 1. A framework: The MC has a goal, the reader wants to keep reading to find out if the goal is accomplished, the MC has progress and setbacks, with the final resolution. There are a lot of variations, one being not doing it well. I am not the only person who has come to this list and found advice for doing this better.
> 
> 2. Trying to put this framework on _The Fault in Our Stars_ seems like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Maybe you can do it, but it damages the peg and the hole.
> 
> ...



Again, I go back to "overthinking". The point of the goal is realism of character. It can be what grabs the reader and keeps them going, it can be what advances the story. But in my humble opinion, it's what makes the characters real. When you get out of bed in the morning, you have a goal. Maybe you want to get rid of your morning breath. Maybe you want to stop Dr. Voltor from taking over the world. Either way, your desires are part of the story, be it conquering villains or morning breath. _It's part of being human. _That's why it's important to the story. Not for framework (really, all stories are unique in their own way and any framework is a square peg in a round hole: no one framework will fit EVERY story, it's not possible, not even every story within a single genre...) but instead for realism of character. For us to follow why the character does what they do. Your characters are people, believe it or not. For them to be people in the text, they need to act like people, have wants and desires like people. GOALS are just an overarching term for those wants and desires, and while a central goal might not be present in a work, or maybe it's very understated, characters have them. Is it the focal point of the story? Maybe. Maybe not. But for the character to be a human, they must have a goal of some kind.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 23, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Damaging the framework: Cadence writes "The goal doesn't have to be what keeps the reader reading" and Terry D writes "The reader definitely keeps reading to find out if the characters achieve their goals, that's the case for *all successful books." *How can two people, who I am guessing actually agree, say such opposing comments?



They are not oppositional at all. I said the reader keeps reading to see _if the characters achieve their goals. _As a reader, I might not care about the character's goal, or even approve of it, but I will keep reading because I am interested in the character's progression toward their goal. The goal may be dramatic, or insignificant (though it is always there), but what keeps people reading is the character's journey toward it.

It's storytelling 101. Character+Goal+Setting+Obstacles = Story.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 23, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> ...Am I just saying another crazy thing that everyone disagrees with? Or is this well-known and I just don't know what words to use? Or can someone say it better?
> 
> ..



It's sounds like you're talking about a "Theme." Themes are important and, many times, they revolve around a character's internal development.

What are some themes that revolve around the character arc of characters in the movie "Jaws?" (You know, the one about the big shark.  )

Brodie - Face your fears. 
Quint - You will be consumed by the things you hate.
Hooper - You don't know everything.
Little boy on a raft - If you don't have speaking lines in a monster movie, your character _will_ get eaten.

The general theme behind "Jaws," the movie - Don't go into the water.  Or, really, it's that some things in nature can only be conquered by the strength of the human spirit, alone. Even then, don't go into the water...

What about a generic gumshoe mystery? Maybe it's that "love is dangerous, but you'll still brave that danger in order to claim it, if only for a short time."

Themes are important and they're often reflected in the experiences, thoughts, and emotions of the characters in a story.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 23, 2014)

The MC's only stated goal (in the first chapter) is to graduate a year early, get early admittance to college, and leave town. The readers all know this is a *fake goal*, signaling some underlying psycho-social-emotional problem. That's the way it is in this genre. She has a birthmark, which she has decided she just wants to hide, live with, and have people leave her alone. The readers all know this is just an indication of some other psycho-social-emotional problem.

Contrast this to the start of Kyle's book, where the MC is trying to discover her superhero. We all know this is a real goal, we hope along with her, suffer at her setbacks, and cheer when she finally succeeds. Like TerryD describes. We don't take this as a fake goal with the book being about how she handles the underlying psycho-sociological-emotional problem that has produces her inappropriate desire to be a superhero.

The first pattern occurs over and over again. One more example: The MC's only desire in life is to become a partner in the law firm where she works. The author makes it perfectly clear this is not a real goal, and the reader knows that. The book is about how she faces the problem of being overwhelmingly stressed and workaholic.

So, to me, this is a different framework. We read to see the MC become aware of, face, and solve his/her psycho-social problems. Any goals in the first chapter are probably false and merely signal some underlying problem. The real action is in the head of the MC, so the story is almost certainly first person, often present tense.

Does this framework work for _The Fault in Our Stars_? I think so. Their psycho-social-emotional problem is that they have cancer. The book is not about trying to triumph over cancer, it is about how these two main characters face the psycho-social-emotional problems of cancer. And it does that brilliantly.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 24, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> The MC's only stated goal (in the first chapter) is to graduate a year early, get early admittance to college, and leave town. The readers all know this is a *fake goal*, signaling some underlying psycho-social-emotional problem. That's the way it is in this genre. She has a birthmark, which she has decided she just wants to hide, live with, and have people leave her alone. The readers all know this is just an indication of some other psycho-social-emotional problem.
> 
> Contrast this to the start of Kyle's book, where the MC is trying to discover her superhero. We all know this is a real goal, we hope along with her, suffer at her setbacks, and cheer when she finally succeeds. Like TerryD describes. We don't take this as a fake goal with the book being about how she handles the underlying psycho-sociological-emotional problem that has produces her inappropriate desire to be a superhero.
> 
> ...



Goals related to things that are "psycho-social-emotional" are goals just the same as discovering superheroes. There's no such thing as a "fake" goal. Goals are what the character wants. Nothing more. If their reasons for wanting it are shadowed, that doesn't make them any less real. Mork is right, you're confusing goal with theme. Themes are the deeper part of the meaning that the author injected (consciously or subconsciously), the lesson that the reader takes away from the book. This also has no bearing on 1st, 3rd, 5th or 5th person. You can get just as deeply into the mind of a character in 3rd as you can in first, the perspective of opinion is the major changer there. Of course, that's all in execution of the writing though...

Her goals might indicate a deeper problem, but they're still her goals. They're still what she wants.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 24, 2014)

I think I can add to this discussion by simplifying things a bit.

I find it helps to look at stories as working on two levels at once—the *EXTERNAL* and the *INTERNAL*.

Ideally, your character will be pursuing—or struggling with—things *EXTERNALLY*. We can also call this the *PLOT*. It's the *physical* pulse of the story.

Simultaneously, your character will (ideally) be pursuing—or struggling with—things *INTERNALLY*. We can also call this the *THEME*. It's the *emotional* pulse of the story.

In _The Fault in Our Stars_, Hazel is *EXTERNALLY* pursuing the mysterious author who lives in Amsterdam. She's also *EXTERNALLY* developing a romance with Augustus. These, and the various other *EXTERNAL* struggles of Hazel are what form the *PLOT*.

*INTERNALLY*, Hazel is pursuing and struggling many things as well. She's pursuing a solace with her eventual death. She's seeking reassurance that her passing will not traumatize her surviving loved ones. She's searching for the courage to live and love in the face of her own illness. These, and the various other *INTERNAL* struggles of Hazel are what contribute to the *THEME*.

Both are happening in that book. I think what you're noticing, Emma, is the theme, and attempting to articulate it. But the plot is there, as well.

Masterful writers like Mr. Green weave both plot and theme together seamlessly, so that each level of story works to serve the other.

Maybe this way of looking at things helps? :encouragement: (Or did I just go and make things even MORE confusing? :grief


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 24, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> ...Masterful writers like Mr. Green weave both plot and theme together seamlessly, so that each level of story works to serve the other.



I read naught but a synopsis of that story, but this is as it should be for any well-written story. The Plot and Theme advance together, each complimenting one another. The development of the character reflects the Theme of the story and the Plot compliments that or enables it. Or, the other way around.  "Themes" are internal. They are usually personal, something applicable to the experiences of the Reader, something empathic, much like a Parable will give the Reader insight into a broader meaning. Plots can do that, to some extent, but they're often impersonal beasts, striving forward in order to complete their own ends in order to give the Reader an "Experience." They let the Theme handle the soft, mushy, often inspirational bits of the larger story. But, they are never inseparable. Never. 



> Maybe this way of looking at things helps? :encouragement: (Or did I just go and make things even MORE confusing? :grief



Right is "right." That's why it often hurts when we are confronted with it. 

PS - Can't "Like" your post, Kyle. This infernal gadget won't allow it, so I'll just Like it, here: "LIKE"


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 24, 2014)

Yes but.... The "theme" is a well-defined idea, and it's an answer. Morkanan gives examples, and they are typical. In Kyle's examples of "themes", they aren't answers, their topics. A theme isn't a topic. (Or else we are going to have to change everything we say about themes and invent a new word to replace what we were calling themes.)

Which is to say, it is not easy to analyze _The Fault in our Stars_ (and a lot of other books in this genre) using the traditional idea of theme. I see no themes in the book (in the traditional sense). If anything, Green seems to be avoiding them. Like Cadence said, there is an attempt at memesis.

Pursuing a romance isn't external, it's internal. Trying to get a date, or a kiss, is external. Small point, but the plot in _The Fault in Our Stars_ seems to be minimal, it's the internal story that matters. Obviously there has to be events in the story, like Augustus dying. I'm just saying the real story is all internal. Maybe that's an unusual Feature of _The Fault in Our Stars_ -- I agree that having both would usually be better.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 24, 2014)

Splitting enough hairs here to give King Kong the frizzies. The Fault in Our Stars in a character driven novel. Nothing more or less. There's no need to try and invent new ways to look at the book.

To paraphrase John Green's own statements about the book:
He wanted to show how terminally ill people are still human first and have the same wants and needs as healthy people (statement of theme). So Hazel's goal is to live as normal a life as possible even though it will be short.

I only had to read a couple of interviews to sus this out.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 25, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> the plot in _The Fault in Our Stars_ seems to be minimal, it's the internal story that matters. Obviously there has to be events in the story, like Augustus dying. I'm just saying the real story is all internal.



Yep! That's one way of defining good stories. It's definitely how I feel about them.

The plot (the external arc) is what creates the structure. The theme (the internal arc) is what provides the meaning.

Stories are about change. In many stories, this change is internal. But a purely introspective story would be boring to most readers. This is where plot comes in. The external events of the story.

Through plot, the reader is given a reason to stick around to be exposed to the thematic journey of the story. The _emotional _journey.

But make no mistake—without a compelling plot, readers won't keep reading. So, while THEME is _powerful_, PLOT is _essential_.

Don't think Mr. Green undervalues plot, either. He spent a lot of time trying to figure out the events of the story he wanted to tell. He struggled with plots that he considered "boring" and deleted, rewrote, and deleted again. "Ten years" of rewriting, according to him, and "several hundred" drafts.

The thematic, emotional journey is what makes the book so compelling to you. As it should, in my opinion! It's the mark of a great writer. But the plot (the physical, external events of the story) is what enabled that magic to happen.

Hand in hand, plot and theme work to move the reader. They're both vital, and they both exist. 

There's a reason why Augustus confesses his love for Hazel at the 50% mark.

Students of structure (_especially_ students of Romance and Romantic Comedy structure) know that the 50% mark (the "midpoint") is when: *A situation irrevocably binds the protagonist with the love interest and has further implications for the outcome of the relationship. - Billy Mernit (Writing the Romantic Comedy) 
* 
On page 153, at _exactly_ the 50% mark of the book, we see:

"I'm in love with you," he said quietly.

"Augustus," I said.

"I am," he said. He was staring at me, and I could see the corners of his eyes crinkling.

This is a textbook midpoint moment.

Going further into the story, there's a reason why Augustus announces himself as a "skeleton" at the 75% mark. It's a classic "Whiff of Death" beat, for those familiar with Blake Snyder's screenwriting approach. *Whether it's integrated to the story or just something symbolic, hint at something dead here. It could be anything. A flower in a flower pot. A goldfish. News that a beloved aunt has passed away. It's all the same. It's... the "Christ on the Cross" moment. It's where the old world, the old character, the old way of thinking dies. - Blake Snyder (Save the Cat - The Last Book on Screenwriting You'll Ever Need)

*What happens on page 233 (the 75% mark) of _The Fault in Our Stars_? As Gus and Hazel are watching children climb all over that huge skeleton sculpture, Gus says, “Last time, I imagined myself as the kid. This time, the skeleton.” 

This is a plot point, and a thematic beat. Even though he's still physically alive at this point, Augustus Waters' exuberant self has died. And the change in tone is as heavy as an anchor dropping.

Does this mean John Green is a slave to formulaic story structure? Not at all!

But it _does_ mean he's aware of it. It _does_ mean that the plot is there. It also means that he's not _bound_ by plot conventions. Rather, he _uses_ them as a framework to drape his story upon. 

These beats have to do with three-act structure, the workhorse of successful plotters everywhere, and John Green's story hits all the plot points in all the right places.

The fact that you don't _recognize_ the plot (or don't see it as being important) is a testament to his skill as a writer.

You see the emotional journey. You see the thematic arc. You don't see the skeleton holding it all together. And that's okay. That's perfect, in fact. That's how it _should_ be. 

It means he's done his job right. :encouragement:


----------



## Bishop (Oct 25, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Yes but.... The "theme" is a well-defined idea, and it's an answer. Morkanan gives examples, and they are typical. In Kyle's examples of "themes", they aren't answers, their topics. A theme isn't a topic. (Or else we are going to have to change everything we say about themes and invent a new word to replace what we were calling themes.)



Oh, it most certainly can be. That's the annoying thing about themes, they can be anything the author wants or the audience assigns to the work.



EmmaSohan said:


> Which is to say, it is not easy to analyze _The Fault in our Stars_ (and a lot of other books in this genre) using the traditional idea of theme. I see no themes in the book (in the traditional sense). If anything, Green seems to be avoiding them. Like Cadence said, there is an attempt at memesis.



There's themes in the book. My wife, a huge fan of the book and an English teacher too boot, has told me ALL about the themes. To the point where I'm not really interested in reading the book because she spoiled it all! No one avoids themes. I try to. I don't write any themes in my books, yet my rough drafts always have some type of theme that I then develop in my second draft, because dammit, how did I do that? Humanity bleeds into our writing. Humanity is based in experience and lessons. Who I am affects what I say and how I say it in my books, and who you are affects how you read it and experience it. Themes come to life in how the story relates to us.



EmmaSohan said:


> Pursuing a romance isn't external, it's internal. Trying to get a date, or a kiss, is external. Small point, but the plot in _The Fault in Our Stars_ seems to be minimal, it's the internal story that matters. Obviously there has to be events in the story, like Augustus dying. I'm just saying the real story is all internal. Maybe that's an unusual Feature of _The Fault in Our Stars_ -- I agree that having both would usually be better.



Conflict, story, romance... internal or external, it's still part of and affected by the plot. Also, as a man, I can tell you that people pursue romances that are wholly external. Look at Jersey Shore. Nothing deep going on in that hot tub, I tell you right now.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 25, 2014)

I don't think _The Fault in Our Stars _has themes and I think Green tried to avoid them. Even if it has them, are they important? So I worry that attempts to describe themes will trivialize that book.

I was not soothed to read "My wife, a huge fan of the book and an English teacher too boot, has told me ALL about the themes. To the point where I'm not really interested in reading the book because she spoiled it all." (What did she say the themes were?)

Example. Terry D found "Hazel's goal is to live as normal a life as possible." I never saw her trying to do that, and one scene shows her happily accepting a cancer perk. (And the book makes clear that they can't live normal lives.) Can the theme be that they are humans first? I don't even know that means. Aren't we animals first and humans second? Except if you ask people to list their traits, they will probably forget human. Again, this seems to be a cliche, which the characters did not like.

The first chapter makes clear that terminally-ill children are different, not the same. As seems to be true for this genre, the book is about how Hazel and Augustus respond to the psycho-social-emotional problems of having cancer.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 25, 2014)

In the book I am reading, the main character's father is verbally abusive to her and her mother.

Bishop. Is that a theme?

Kyle. You wrote "Simultaneously, your character will (ideally) be pursuing—or struggling with—things *INTERNALLY*. We can also call this the *THEME*. It's the *emotional pulse of the story." *So this is internal, right? And part of the theme?

But you also wrote: "Through plot, the reader is given a reason to stick around to be exposed to the thematic journey of the story...._But make no mistake—without a compelling plot, readers won't keep reading." _The problem is, the verbally abusive father is a hook. In this genre, that is well accepted -- it signals a psycho-social-emotional problem that the reader will somehow have to deal with.

So I don't know if the verbally abusive father is external or internal. (Same for the noncommunicative boyfriend, the unhappy mother, etc.)


----------



## Terry D (Oct 25, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> I don't think _The Fault in Our Stars _has themes and I think Green tried to avoid them. Even if it has them, are they important? So I worry that attempts to describe themes will trivialize that book.
> 
> I was not soothed to read "My wife, a huge fan of the book and an English teacher too boot, has told me ALL about the themes. To the point where I'm not really interested in reading the book because she spoiled it all." (What did she say the themes were?)
> 
> ...



Perhaps you should ask John Green those were his words, not mine.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 25, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> In the book I am reading, the main character's father is verbally abusive to her and her mother.
> 
> Bishop. Is that a theme?



No. But I promise one of the themes of the book is about relationships with father, mother, and daughter, with that being a core component of the theme(s).


----------



## Jeko (Oct 26, 2014)

> Damaging the framework: Cadence writes "The goal doesn't have to be what keeps the reader reading" and Terry D writes "The reader definitely keeps reading to find out if the characters achieve their goals, that's the case for *all successful books." How can two people, who I am guessing actually agree, say such opposing comments?*



Because we disagree on the specifics, but agree on the overall idea.

I'm not going to go through all that's here; the main problem, Emma, is that you're trying to give a 'goal' far more validation checks than it deserves. As has been stated many times in other threads, a character without a goal must be dead, because part of the human condition is to have a goal; that much is inescapable. Whether the goal in a narrative is what pulls you along varies from reader to reader, but in every novel a goal will be there. Say any differently, and you're not talking about a goal. It's like trying to fight against one of the laws of thermodynamics; it is _literally impossible_ for a character to be goalless. If you can prove me wrong, then you deserve the Nobel Prize for Literature, because such proof would be revolutionary.

Same with 'theme'. I should ask how you can say that a story can exist without a theme when it exists in the individual minds of a multitude that will each construct it differently, but I think the question explains my issue with the idea, and your angle in general, sufficiently.

I'd happily go over specific points in more detail, as it will help my preparation for the Oxford Eng Lang/Lit entrance exam, but I'd need to know exactly what we're focusing on; else, the thread will go everywhere and nowhere.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 27, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Because we disagree on the specifics, but agree on the overall idea.
> 
> I'm not going to go through all that's here; the main problem, Emma, is that you're trying to give a 'goal' far more validation checks than it deserves. As has been stated many times in other threads, a character without a goal must be dead, because part of the human condition is to have a goal; that much is inescapable. Whether the goal in a narrative is what pulls you along varies from reader to reader, but in every novel a goal will be there. Say any differently, and you're not talking about a goal. It's like trying to fight against one of the laws of thermodynamics; it is _literally impossible_ for a character to be goalless. If you can prove me wrong, then you deserve the Nobel Prize for Literature, because such proof would be revolutionary.
> 
> ...



You actually want to talk about this? I am happy.

You define "goal" in such a way that all people have goals. I think even trees. They have a million goals, right? So then there is no need to give them a goal? Right.

But some of the best books around start with giving that character goal number million and #1.


Next. I have constantly been focusing on the MC's stated goal. Conscious goal. If you say that desires and preferences can be goals (We all have the goal of eliminating death), then you are changing the word around so it isn't meaningful.

That's kind of what I am trying to say -- we have these really useful words that we need to describe good writing, and when they don't work, we shouldn't change them.


Same problem with theme. Hazel has a relationship with her mother. Is that a theme of mothers? Daughters? Mother-daughter relationships?

As I see it, one of the characteristics of this genre is talking about specific people -- how does Hazel relate to her mother?

And again, theme is a really useful word for describing good writing technique. Steven King says he goes over his first draft, looking for themes to develop. So do I. I know what that means. I think one of the beautiful things about The Fault in Our Stars is that he tries to avoid themes. We have mimesis -- I think he tries to chillingly describe their reality -- not morals or platitudes or, as I understand it, themes.

If you let "anything" be a theme, then you just have a pronoun that doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 27, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> I think one of the beautiful things about The Fault in Our Stars is that he tries to avoid themes. We have mimesis -- I think he tries to chillingly describe their reality -- not morals or platitudes or, as I understand it, themes.



John Green states about symbolism and theme:

"To repeat something I’ve said again and again, the writer’s intention is irrelevant. So you decide whether the swing set is just a swing set; you decide whether Augustus’s prosthetic leg is just a prosthetic leg. Whether the author intended a symbol or a theme or whatever is irrelevant; if you find that it aids you in your observation and interrogation of the universe, then it succeeds regardless of authorial intent."

As Green says: theme is there whether the writer intended it to be there or not. There are morals, platitudes, and themes in every story because readers perceive their own. If you look at the SparkNotes (I hate this site, so I would recommend against it, but...) for Green's novel, you'll see paragraphs on paragraphs about the themes. Whether he put them in there or not doesn't matter: they're there.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 27, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> You actually want to talk about this? I am happy.
> 
> You define "goal" in such a way that all people have goals. I think even trees. They have a million goals, right? So then there is no need to give them a goal? Right.
> 
> ...



Goals are simply a character's motivation for the things they do in the story. If they are doing things, they have goals.

As to whether Green had a theme(s) in mind, the following is from an interview in Real Simple Magazine:

Q. * Did you mean to have one of the major themes in the book center around the “human condition of man”? Regardless of what these young people were going through, they still remained “human”: living life, loving, feeling, thinking, laughing, dreaming, reacting, and playfully taking revenge, if need be. The human spirit is a wonderful and amazing thing and you reminded us of that so beautifully. Thank you!*

Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, I did want to make the point that sick people—even gravely sick people—are still entirely alive and entirely human. I think many of us tend to imagine chronically ill or disabled people as somehow fundamentally Other. (Like, I remember when an elderly acquaintance was dying, I visited him and he was watching the news, and I thought to myself, “Why is he watching the news? He’s DYING.’ But of course he was watching the news because he was still human and still the person he had always been.)_* I hoped the story could show that disability does not prevent you from being fully part of the human adventure.*_

That seems clear enough to me.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 27, 2014)

> I have constantly been focusing on the MC's stated goal. Conscious goal. If you say that desires and preferences can be goals (We all have the goal of eliminating death), then you are changing the word around so it isn't meaningful.



No, I'm not changing anything. You're the one limiting the word 'goal' to mean only what you want it to mean. I'm using the word in its broadest sense because that's how we have to use the English language when we're talking about commonplace words as analytical devices.

Also, 'stated goal' is a horrible term. Most of the most important things in a book aren't stated; they're created, by author and reader, through what is stated in the text.

Be more flexible with definitions. Else, you can't make meaningful statements, because no-one else will agree with your use of vocabulary.



> Hazel has a relationship with her mother. Is that a theme of mothers? Daughters? Mother-daughter relationships?



Theme is the reader's construction via the whole text (or what they've read of it so far) or within a certain part of the text (like a Chapter). A good way of establishing theme in a more concrete way is to cross-reference different concepts within it to see how and why they are used. The film Kick-Ass, for example, has a clear theme of parental control, as each of the three main characters have father figures who are involved in the story to different extents.

We have to leave words like theme and goal very open; else, we won't get all those lovely 10,000 word essays exploring all the possibilities within a work. Flexible vocabulary promotes free thought within a work.



> one of the characteristics of this genre is talking about specific people -- how does Hazel relate to her mother?



What genre? And have you considered the story in a genreless sense? Genre can be a serious limitation on the reader's perspective when invoked as an axis.



> I think one of the beautiful things about The Fault in Our Stars is that he tries to avoid themes.



You may be the one avoiding themes, not the author. It's the same with a lot of consideration of authorial intent.

As for evidencing this, you're up the literary creek without a paddle:

(Green's own words below)

'I ended up including a lot of *metafiction* in TFiOS, so it found its way in as well. I was *thinking a lot about the relationship between books and their readers*, and how the author of the book can get in the way of that relationship just as much as s/he can facilitate it, so I think that had a lot to do with shaping my thoughts on TFiOS.'

'Also, all three projects [inc. TFioS] are *about deprivation and how people respond to it.*'

'I don’t think of story and symbols as separate, really. They emerge from the same place, a desire to go on a journey with the reader that will be interesting (and hopefully helpful) to both of us. So I don’t sit down and say, like, “Green will be the color of all the dreams we were foolish to dream,” or anything like that, because then I think it usually ends up seeming clunky and obvious and inauthentic.
The truth is that metaphor and symbol are all around us, and that we are constantly reading our lives and the world symbolically. *I want figurative language and symbols to be as deeply integrated into the story as they are into our lives.*'

'To repeat something I’ve said again and again,* the writer’s intention is irrelevant*. So you decide whether the swing set is just a swing set; you decide whether Augustus’s prosthetic leg is just a prosthetic leg. Whether the author intended a symbol or a theme or whatever is irrelevant; if you find that it aids you in your observation and interrogation of the universe, then it succeeds regardless of authorial intent.'

So yeah, he definitely didn't avoid theme, and he's also a strong advocate of the reader-response perspective, which I love.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 27, 2014)

Hi Cadence. I meant to say I think you can analyze The Fault in Our Stars using your normal framework.

I meant to say, you will have to have such broad definitions for your words that you damage your framework. You argue that I should accept broad definitions. In order to talk about how to write well, I need to distinguish Hazel's clearly stated goal (like "I want to minimize the number of deaths I am responsible for.") from the goals she shares with the other 7 billion people on earth (like, she is not fond of pain).

Emma


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 28, 2014)

Cadence said:


> What genre? And have you considered the story in a genreless sense? Genre can be a serious limitation on the reader's perspective when invoked as an axis.



Some people like action. Presumably there is some author somewhere getting rich because he can put more or better action in a book than anyone else. And other authors are trying to figure out new or better ways to put action into a book. And we should give advice on techniques for doing this. Which we do.

Now, some people like emotions. I do. Authors are at least making good livings because they know the tricks for how to put emotions into a book. And we should be giving advice on that, even to writers who might want to use these techniques in their action books.

The first genre is called action stories. The second genre doesn't have a name. (I don't know how to talk about it. Any good ideas?) And to answer Cadence's question, my understanding of this unnamed genre helped me appreciate The Fault in Our Stars.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 28, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Some people like action. Presumably there is some author somewhere getting rich because he can put more or better action in a book than anyone else. And other authors are trying to figure out new or better ways to put action into a book. And we should give advice on techniques for doing this. Which we do.
> 
> Now, some people like emotions. I do. Authors are at least making good livings because they know the tricks for how to put emotions into a book. And we should be giving advice on that, even to writers who might want to use these techniques in their action books.
> 
> The first genre is called action stories. The second genre doesn't have a name. (I don't know how to talk about it. Any good ideas?) And to answer Cadence's question, my understanding of this unnamed genre helped me appreciate The Fault in Our Stars.



The second type of book has a name--it's called character driven fiction--and it is available in all genres. There is science fiction which focuses more on emotion than on action (plot) read _Flowers for Algernon_. There is horror which is character (emotion) based, read _The Haunting_. There are war novels which are character based, read _The Red Badge of Courage_. There are mysteries which are character based, read _The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_. _The Fault in Our Stars_ is not some new kind of fiction; it's a YA romance novel, there is no need to try and invent new terms to describe it.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 28, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Some people like action. Presumably there is some author somewhere getting rich because he can put more or better action in a book than anyone else. And other authors are trying to figure out new or better ways to put action into a book. And we should give advice on techniques for doing this. Which we do.
> 
> Now, some people like emotions. I do. Authors are at least making good livings because they know the tricks for how to put emotions into a book. And we should be giving advice on that, even to writers who might want to use these techniques in their action books.
> 
> The first genre is called action stories. The second genre doesn't have a name. (I don't know how to talk about it. Any good ideas?) And to answer Cadence's question, my understanding of this unnamed genre helped me appreciate The Fault in Our Stars.



To supplement what Terry D said... most books have a helping of both, just in different proportions. Genre has little to do with it--it's just a style of writing that focuses on characters and their emotional development.

_Starship Troopers_ has more focus on its character, Juan Rico, and his emotional state than it does action. To be fair, the book's main focus is on the obligations and duties of citizens in a society--but we as an audience see all of it colored through Rico's eyes; particularly its impact on him, and what makes him change his feelings on his own duties to his government.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 28, 2014)

> I meant to say, you will have to have such broad definitions for your words that you damage your framework. You argue that I should accept broad definitions. In order to talk about how to write well, I need to distinguish Hazel's clearly stated goal (like "I want to minimize the number of deaths I am responsible for.") from the goals she shares with the other 7 billion people on earth (like, she is not fond of pain).



In that case,  distinguish them with more useful terms. Redefining 'goal' to fit your theories will, as I've already said, distance yourself from agreement with fellow readers and writers.

One of the things Genette does in 'Narrative Discourse' (a beautiful nightmare of an essay of narratology) is set up the definitions for terms he uses throughout the essay and wants to use in further analysis. This takes hundreds, even thousands of words each time. Why? Because he doesn't want his terminology to be confused with someone else's. He distinguishes between 'narrative' and 'narration' and 'narrating' as three separate things, for example, which all connect with relationships to each other.

More useful terms, on this subject, might be 'explicit goal' and 'implicit goal'. The former is what the narrator makes the reader aware of, and there can definitely be lots of those. In fact, a main explicit goal (I need to save the princess) and be broken into smaller explicit goals (I need to get to the tower, I need to climb the tower, I need to get this badger off my head, etc.) as and when a character comes up against them. Each character usually has at least one explicit goal that helps us understand their motivation.

The latter, however, is what TFioS is full of. A character/narrator can be aware or not aware of an implicit goal, which is the struggle that exists within or beyond the more obvious struggles. The human mind often works like this: you give yourself clear goals, but the creation of those goals is dependant on something you don't dwell on. Why is our hero saving the princess? There's a reward, but we can tell that isn't it. His adolescent years show how he craved female attention - is this his one shot at finding love? Is he willing to admit that this is one last desperate attempt at getting laid?

It's a kind of offshoot from show/tell. Stories exist in layers; the more obvious goals are closer to the surface, while the deeper struggles lie beneath. The discovery of these is tantamount to the success of a literary novel, IMO.

It's usually better to add to a broad term than try to narrow the term itself.



> The second genre doesn't have a name. (I don't know how to talk about it. Any good ideas?) And to answer Cadence's question, my understanding of this unnamed genre helped me appreciate The Fault in Our Stars.



Wait  - you don't how to talk about something, and yet you have 'understanding' of it which helps you appreciate a novel? Doesn't make sense.

Sectioning literature into action and emotion is also incredibly limiting. All stories thrive on both, to different extents, in one way or another. All action is emotional. All emotion is active.

A more useful distinction might be between 'tragedy' and 'comedy' and the wonderful land of 'tragicomedy'. Those are clear genres. 'Action' and 'emotion' are too unclear to be of use to a learning writer. You'd have to expand on each immeasurably and you'd still have immeasurable confusion and overlap. As said above, finding what the story is 'driven' by is also more useful and commonly considered by readers and writers.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 28, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> You actually want to talk about this? I am happy.
> 
> You define "goal" in such a way that all people have goals. I think even trees. They have a million goals, right? So then there is no need to give them a goal? Right.



Pardon me for responding to a reply directed at another. But,.. 

A "goal" for a character in a story only exists to be opposed in some way. When you find opposition to that goal or barriers that must be overcome, you find "Conflict" and conflict is one of the single best points of interest for a Reader to be drawn to. When you find those barriers presenting significant dangers and risks or find that failing to obtain the goal presents significant problems, some even life-threatening, or obtaining the goal represents something internally significant to a well-developed character, you find "Drama."

Even stories that do not have significant "Goals" present in them use goals to drive the story forward and to hook the Reader. They're sometimes simple, sometimes humorous, but they're almost always there. Something as simple as stringing the Reader along as the character seeks out the "goal" of asking someone out on a date is good enough to drive an entire story full of other events that are much more pronounced than the "goal" that serves to drive the story. Exceptions to this sort of structure do exist, like episodic pieces or a "day in the life" sort of story, where the story is constructed of many small goals being pursued and their obstacles overcome or not.



> Next. I have constantly been focusing on the MC's stated goal. Conscious goal. If you say that desires and preferences can be goals (We all have the goal of eliminating death), then you are changing the word around so it isn't meaningful.



One thing we can't do is to confuse "goals" with simple desires or even a character's natural urges. None of these matter in a story in regards to "Goals" unless they are_ opposed_ or present a significant challenge, which assumes opposition/barriers and resulting Conflict.

In "The Lord of the Rings", Sam wants to help his friend, Frodo, whom he cares for very much. This is *not* a Goal, _in and of itself_. In order for it to be a literary "Goal", it must be opposed. There must be a barrier set in place that the character must overcome. Once those conditions are met, then it becomes a "Goal." Sam's "Goal" to help Frodo does not become a "Goal" until Sam must overcome obstacles in order to accomplish it. Once those obstacles are in place, then Sam's desire becomes a "Goal."

Similarly, a character that is pursuing their relationship with their mother, friend or even an idea or concept and how they feel about it is not a "Goal" until some opposition, barrier or other difficulty opposes it in the story. That opposition may be as simple as the inconvenience of having to drive to the grocery store or as complex as a World War.



> That's kind of what I am trying to say -- we have these really useful words that we need to describe good writing, and when they don't work, we shouldn't change them.



I'm not sure what you mean, here. But, I will say that in order to discuss something with anyone, you both must draw from a shared well of ideas and recognized concepts. If you're discussing literary "Goals", you have to both be referring to the same thing or must agree upon how it is basically defined.



> Same problem with theme. Hazel has a relationship with her mother. Is that a theme of mothers? Daughters? Mother-daughter relationships?



Just because someone has a "relationship" there is no implied "Theme" present. It's the consequences of that relationship that are important. A "relationship" is only half of a Theme and isn't developed fully as one until it is purposefully explored.

Take the movie "Parenthood" as an example. (I often use popular movies in examples due to the fact that they're more likely to be recognized.)

Obviously, the relationships that are being focused on in this movie deal with parents and children. Is that a "theme?" _No_, it is not. In fact, there are many different effects of this relationship being explored and there are many consequences, both good and bad, being exampled in the movie. The movie is a blend of escapades and drama, episodic moments that all come together to create a "theme" without anything directly being evidence of a "Theme." There is no one event in that movie that tells the viewer "this is the theme" until the very end, when wisdom comes from the mouth of a doddering old grandmother, who had largely been ignored by the much "wiser" and more capable younger members of the family. By this point in the movie, the family has been plunged through difficulty after difficulty. Relationships have been strained and the parent characters in the movie, as well as the audience, have been put through trying emotional times.

[video=youtube;w1h_hmdVJAc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1h_hmdVJAc[/video]

If any audience members weren't already aware of the "Theme" of the movie, the grandmother character restates it, eloquently, in this scene.

In this story, the mere presence of a relationship is not a Theme. It's what happens in the events surrounding the relationship and how the characters react to or feel about those that dictate the "Theme."

There's a popular Aesop's Fable called "The Scorpion and the Frog" that is a "Parable" - a story with an implied meaning or "theme."



> The Scorpion and the Frog
> 
> A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the  scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The  frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion  says, "Because if I do, I will die too."    The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of  paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"           Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."


Is the "Theme" of this parable "Scorpions riding Frogs?" No. The "Theme" is that there are some people you just can't change, it's in their _nature_ to be the way they are.


> As I see it, one of the characteristics of this genre is talking about specific people -- how does Hazel relate to her mother?



The consequences of how Hazel relates to her mother or the feelings derived from that or how that impacts events in the story or why Hazel relates to her mother in certain ways... Those are the components that help define the "Theme." It's not just that she "relates to her mother" that is a "Theme."



> If you let "anything" be a theme, then you just have a pronoun that doesn't mean anything.



Themes are specific. Anything can be evidence of or can help build a "Theme." But, a "Theme" isn't "Anything." You may be painting with too broad a brush when seeking to define "Theme."


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 28, 2014)

When is a goal not a goal?

In an *action story*, the MC has a goal. Sometimes, the MC discovers that the goal is not the real goal, such as the bad guys really being the good guys and vice versa. Very rarely is this the MC's fault, usually he was giving wrong information from someone he trusts.

She runs out of gas, decides to walk through the cemetery to get gas at the busy street beyond. If this is a *horror story*, the reader knows that this is not a real goal, it's just a plot device. It might be a wise choice, but she will regret it. The reader is not reading to find out if she gets gas for her car.

She decides she wants to be in a relationship with Tom. If this is a *romance*, the reader probably already knows that Bill is the right guy for her. We will, over the next 200 pages, hear over and over again why she should be with Tom, which we know are not meant to persuade the reader. We don't read to find out if she achieves her goal, we read to find out if she gets the real goal.

She has a job working in complete isolation for a month. If this is an action story, that's a plot device. If this is a horror story, something will happen to her while she is working alone. If this is in the *genre without a name*, it probably signals some underlying psycho-social-emotional problem. She will slowly become aware of her problem, admit it, and (happy resolution) deal with it. So this false goal is a hook.

Isn't that _interesting_? In each genre, there are conventions, forming understandings between the author and the reader. My experience is that, if a work is in a genre the reader doesn't understand, the work fails for that reader. Isn't this just Writing 101? Well, except for the genre without a name. Anyway, that's one or two or three reasons why I want to call it a genre.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 28, 2014)

Did I lose focus on the last example? Sorry. Better -- The MC's stated goal is to graduate from high school early and get early acceptance to college, because she wants to leave town. I reader, immediately see this, not as a real goal, but as signaling some underlying psych-social-emotional problem. Because it's in the genre with no name.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 28, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Because it's in the genre with no name.



Further discussion seems pointless. Wow!


----------



## Bishop (Oct 28, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Did I lose focus on the last example? Sorry. Better -- The MC's stated goal is to graduate from high school early and get early acceptance to college, because she wants to leave town. I reader, immediately see this, not as a real goal, but as signaling some underlying psych-social-emotional problem. Because it's in the genre with no name.



If she wants to do it, it's a goal. Regardless of ANY reason.

And it's in a genre with a name. It's a young adult romance.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 28, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> When is a goal not a goal?
> 
> In an *action story*, the MC has a goal. Sometimes, the MC discovers that the goal is not the real goal, such as the bad guys really being the good guys and vice versa. Very rarely is this the MC's fault, usually he was giving wrong information from someone he trusts.



In this case, the MC's goal is still real, but the MC's expectations surrounding that Goal are what have been turned on their head.  The MC wanted to overcome the bad guys, right? That the bad guys actually turned out to be the good guys does not change the MC's goal, it only changes its focus and the expectations that logically follow it.



> She runs out of gas, decides to walk through the cemetery to get gas at the busy street beyond. If this is a *horror story*, the reader knows that this is not a real goal, it's just a plot device. It might be a wise choice, but she will regret it. The reader is not reading to find out if she gets gas for her car.



That this is a plot device that is used to move the story forward does not preclude that walk to the gas-station in order to procure some gasoline from being a "Goal." More importantly, it's a Goal because there are obstacles present - She must overcome "the walk to the gas-station" in order to achieve her goal.

Many stories use such plot devices, but that doesn't preclude them from being true goals with obstacles and barriers that must be overcome.

In "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", what was the overarching "goal" of Ferris Bueller? Not to get caught playing hookey from school, right? And, to have some fun, right? That was a true goal, but that wasn't what the story was about. Still, even though the story wasn't about Ferris avoiding discovery, that was still a true "Goal" and it served to drive portions of the story.



> She decides she wants to be in a relationship with Tom. If this is a *romance*, the reader probably already knows that Bill is the right guy for her. We will, over the next 200 pages, hear over and over again why she should be with Tom, which we know are not meant to persuade the reader. We don't read to find out if she achieves her goal, we read to find out if she gets the real goal.



You can not identify a "Goal" in hindsight. The Goal is whatever the character thinks it is or whatever the story presents it as. That the Goal turns out to be immaterial, meaningless, or actually harmful when it was thought to be beneficial is entirely irrelevant.

For instance, in your outline, the Goal is have a relationship with "Tom." It doesn't matter what the Reader thinks. In fact, a romance writer is going to love picturing their Readers screaming at the top of their lungs _"NOOO! She should go after Bill! Bill's the right guy for her! She shouldn't be chasing after Tom! ZOMGZ IT'S AGONIZING AND I HAVE TO TURN THE PAGE AGAIN!"_  That the character didn't realize that their Goal wasn't Bill, but was, instead, "love", is a revelation that is brought into the light when they realize that Tom is the right one for them. But, it was still a true Goal, even though it was "false" in some way.



> ..So this false goal is a hook...



Yes, exactly so - A false Goal can often be a "hook" in order to draw the Reader in. But, that doesn't mean it is any less of a "Goal" nor should it be treated as such. The only reason, after all, it's recognized as a legitimate Goal, no matter its falseness, is because it's being opposed in some way. That's all that matters.



> Isn't that _interesting_? In each genre, there are conventions, forming understandings between the author and the reader. My experience is that, if a work is in a genre the reader doesn't understand, the work fails for that reader. Isn't this just Writing 101? Well, except for the genre without a name. Anyway, that's one or two or three reasons why I want to call it a genre.



A writer, a good writer, writes to their audience. If I'm writing a Science Fiction story, I'm writing primarily to Science Fiction Readers. I know that when they read the back-cover-copy, they're going to want to see certain things. I'd be happy to oblige them, since I like those things to. If I'm writing a Fantasy story, I know that the Readers are going to have certain expectations. I want to fulfill those and I want them to be able to know that they are filled by what's in the back-cover-copy. (ie: Blurb, some call it.)

Readers generally gravitate towards a genre. A Reader doesn't usually just pick up "any" book. They pick up books that sound interesting to them or have elements in the story that they have enjoyed in the past. Gradually, they tend to focus on certain genres that they find most enjoyable. That doesn't mean that they don't step out of their comfort zone, but they do tend to stay within a fairly narrow selection. It is very unlikely that a Reader will step into a genre that they "don't understand." But, what if they did? What if a Literary Fiction Reader picked up a Pulp Fantasy story? What then? Well, it is hoped that the writer has written the story well enough that anyone could enjoy it, not just Pulp Fantasy fans.

The writer is the one responsible for whether or not a book is successful with its Readers, not the genre or the Reader.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 29, 2014)

> When is a goal not a goal?



When it's a jar?

I think the reader has to decide this for themselves. Some may see goals where others don't. We all create the character sin our head differently; so why not their goals?

One reader cannot speak for them all; what we try to find is common ground, either through authorial intent or the coincidence of the prose. Everyone knows that the goal of the Rebels in The New Hope is to destroy the death star at the end - but what's Luke's personal goal as he flies through that trench? That must be up to the reader, depending on how they've interpreted the events that have occurred so far. The differences of characterization in this sense - through motivation, which is the driving force behind all aspects of character - are what make stories so much fun in so many ways for so many people.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 29, 2014)

Terry D said:


> The second type of book has a name--it's called character driven fiction--and it is available in all genres. There is science fiction which focuses more on emotion than on action (plot) read _Flowers for Algernon_. There is horror which is character (emotion) based, read _The Haunting_. There are war novels which are character based, read _The Red Badge of Courage_. There are mysteries which are character based, read _The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_. _The Fault in Our Stars_ is not some new kind of fiction; it's a YA romance novel, there is no need to try and invent new terms to describe it.



I feel like I'm coming back from Africa, telling you about elephants, and you are telling me they can be classified as large horses with long noses.

The first chapter of _The Red Badge of Courage_ is emotionally austere. To be fair to Crane, I think he is trying for realism, not emotions. Here, the main character is leaving home for the army, probably the most emotional part of the chapter, and a scene with huge potential. His mother gives an unemotional sililoquy, then we read...




> He had, of course, been impatient under the ordeal of this speech. It had not been quite what he expected, and he had borne it with an air of irritation. He departed feeling vague relief.Still, when he had looked back from the gate, he had seen his mother kneeling among the potato parings. Her brown face, upraised, was stained with tears, and her spare form was quivering. He bowed his head and went on, feeling suddenly ashamed of his purposes.




These are all shallow tells. Don't we encourage writers in this forum to do better than this?
The start is an emotional desert.



> The cold passed reluctantly from the earth, and the retiring fogs revealed an army stretched out on the hills, resting. As the landscape changed from brown to green, the army awakened, and began to tremble with eagerness at the noise of rumors. It cast its eyes upon the roads, which were growing from long troughs of liquid mud to proper thoroughfares. A river, amber-tinted in the shadow of its banks, purled at the army's feet; and at night, when the stream had become of a sorrowful blackness, one could see across it the red, eyelike gleam of hostile camp-fires set in the low brows of distant hills.



In contrast



> Late in the winter of my 17th year, my mother decided I was depressed, presumably because I rarely left the house, spent quite a lot of time in bed, read the same book over and over, ate infrequently, and devoted quite a bit of my abundant free time to thinking about death.



Conflict with her mother. Potential psycho-social-emotional issues. There's a lot happening here.

Yes, I know _The Red Badge of Courage_ might have some emotional scenes later on, though I have no confidence in Crane.

Don't most people agree that Flowers for Algernon (the book) is great content but not that well written? Isn't the woman who actually has the Dragon Tattoo portrayed as emotionless?


----------



## Bishop (Oct 29, 2014)

Those scenes might not say "she was sad" but there's a lot of emotion there. It's just showing, not telling. I feel a lot more emotion when I see the image of tears streaking her face, rather than "she decided I was depressed." One is action, visible, artistic and in motion... the other is just a summation.

The shallow tells mean a lot more to me, because I can empathize better, I can see their depth.


----------



## InstituteMan (Oct 29, 2014)

Bishop said:


> Those scenes might not say "she was sad" but there's a lot of emotion there. It's just showing, not telling. I feel a lot more emotion when I see the image of tears streaking her face, rather than "she decided I was depressed." One is action, visible, artistic and in motion... the other is just a summation.



Yep, what Bishop said. I personally get a better emotional feel for a character from the details of their acts than I do from what is going on in their heads. I also don't trust what's going on in their heads very much. Others are different in this, I think. 

For me, though, even small actions speak louder than words. For example, I have tried to show affection between a couple by describing them working together in the kitchen. If a couple is not so happy with one another, I would have the dirty dishes pile up as each retreats to different parts of the house. I try not to go into the details of their emotional state as such, but I do try to describe the acts that show their emotional state. 

There may be something gendered about my approach--there are stereotypes about guys not wanting to talk about their emotions, certainly--but it's really about describing the emotions in a way that makes sense to me. I mean, in the story examples, who does the dishes is irrelevant to anything but the emotional aspect of the plot. Still, if you want a lot of explicit emotional descriptions you will be disappointed.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 29, 2014)

Instituteman, think about this. He's leaving for war. His mother basically just found out he enlisted. You are going to write this as an unemotional sililoquy from her where he doesn't talk? You talk about interaction -- where's the interaction?

Is she angry at him for enlisting? Is she disappointed? We know that she is sad that her son is going to war and has tears in her eyes. Don't most mothers show more emotion for their children going to college?

You can imagine that she is having the same feelings you would have if you were a mother and your son was leaving to be in the civil war. Except you are not a mother. And more important, you are not her. So you learn nothing, about mothers, about her, about mothers watching their son's go to war. You end up with whatever you started with.

Why is she sad? Is she worried about him dying? Is he worried about the type of person he will become or the experiences he will have? Or is she just sad because she misses him?

And, again, I gave the most emotional part of the first chapter. The emotion is mostly in the scene -- a son going off to war. Crane puts you in the scene (his realism), and then sets you adrift.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 29, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> I feel like I'm coming back from Africa, telling you about elephants, and you are telling me they can be classified as large horses with long noses.



No. What you are doing is telling me that a wonderful animal, let's say a rhinoceros, is actually a heretofore unknown mythological creature like unicorn. I know what a rhinoceros is, and an elephant too. Just like I know what character driven fiction is about. But you go ahead and invent your own fantasy literary worlds with characters who have no goals and books with no themes and genres which can't be named.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 29, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Instituteman, think about this. He's leaving for war. His mother basically just found out he enlisted. You are going to write this as an unemotional sililoquy from her where he doesn't talk? You talk about interaction -- where's the interaction?
> 
> Is she angry at him for enlisting? Is she disappointed? We know that she is sad that her son is going to war and has tears in her eyes. Don't most mothers show more emotion for their children going to college?
> 
> ...



Ambiguity can be a powerful thing. 

Interaction is not the end-all-be-all. Sometimes, not talking says a lot more. What kind of mother says nothing to a son leaving for war? Maybe a pacifist. Or someone who just doesn't want her son to die, and resents him for risking it.

Let me put it another way...

I hate the show Everybody Loves Raymond. It's awful, promotes ridiculous stereotypes and only has one funny character. But in one episode, the mother--a known busybody--begins sabotaging her police officer son's application to the FBI. She does things that seem promoting, talking up her son to the interviewer, but in doing so is ruining professional progress and appearances of her son, who gets pissed at her for it. We, as an audience assume she's just being a busybody, meddling where she doesn't belong in a misguided effort to help her son.

But eventually, she meets with the FBI interviewer, who asks her, point blank, why she's doing what she's doing, and she breaks into tears and talks about how her son was supposed to retire. How after 20 years of being on the streets, she expected him to finally be safe so she could sleep at night. A strangely good episode of a terrible show, but the point is... by not having it said, by not having a direct confrontation, that real motivation for her goals is hidden deeper and thus the character is more vulnerable. She won't tell her son the truth (and if I remember correctly, she never actually does), that she's unable to bear him being in a profession that puts him at risk. 

Never once does anyone say "she's sad". All we see are those tears and her saying "He was supposed to retire!" And we KNOW how she really feels.


----------



## InstituteMan (Oct 29, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> Instituteman, think about this. He's leaving for war. His mother basically just found out he enlisted. You are going to write this as an unemotional sililoquy from her where he doesn't talk? You talk about interaction -- where's the interaction?
> 
> Is she angry at him for enlisting? Is she disappointed? We know that she is sad that her son is going to war and has tears in her eyes. Don't most mothers show more emotion for their children going to college?
> 
> ...



It's been too long since I read The Red Badge of Courage for me to really speak to your points, Emma, but I can tell you that my wife didn't bust out any emotional speeches or anything when our daughter left for college. We did, however freeze her a couple weeks worth of food (her dorm has a kitchen and a deep freeze). Different families have different approaches. I feel more love when my wife makes an unexpected apple pie than when she tells me she tells me she loves me. 

If a character in a book professes love, or even spends a lot of time thinking about being I love, I suspect a con. The same applies to other emotions, positive or negative. Actions matter to me, even small ones.


----------



## Bishop (Oct 29, 2014)

Also, if you want to see ambiguity and understated emotion in the absolute best example I can think of? Watch "The Thing" (the John Carpenter one from the 80s, not the crappy new one). No one says how they feel. And yet the atmosphere bleeds through, and we see their emotions in their faces.

A good example in fiction? I mentioned _Starship Troopers_ before. Again, no one talks about emotion at all; but it's there. And you can see it in how they act, how they speak. _Ender's Game_ is another example. We see some of Ender's emotions, but everyone else is nothing but surface appearance; you see them act and talk, but you know how they feel. You breathe with the empathy of their actions.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 29, 2014)

Bishop said:


> Ambiguity can be a powerful thing.



And really bad -- try getting a good score when the judge misunderstands what is happening in your story. The mother's response is, I think, not a part of the emotional plot, so you can interpret it however you want and Crane won't care. When you are telling an emotional story, ambiguity in emotions can be as deadly as ambiguity for important events in an action plot. (Imagine we do not know what war Crane is talking about, we do not know if the main character is male or female, or we cannot tell if he has yet been in a battle.)


----------



## InstituteMan (Oct 29, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> And really bad -- try getting a good score when the judge misunderstands what is happening in your story. The mother's response is, I think, not a part of the emotional plot, so you can interpret it however you want and Crane won't care. When you are telling an emotional story, ambiguity in emotions can be as deadly as ambiguity for important events in an action plot.



I dunno about others, but my own emotions are plenty ambiguous most of the time. I also don't see much upside to writing for a score these days, even if I'm entering a contest.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 30, 2014)

You are talking about these wonderful ways of showing emotions, which Crane didn't use.

Yes, it is possible his mother was crying only because she would miss his help on the farm. In this case, the absence of emotion would be interesting. But not to the people who expect that, who are going to be the only ones who understand her crying that way.

Again, I am claiming that there are authors who try to put a lot of emotions in books, and readers who like that. To say that those books are in the same category as The Red Badge of Courage seems wrong to me -- the authors don't write anything like Crane; the readers would probably not read past the first paragraph.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 30, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> You are talking about these wonderful ways of showing emotions, which Crane didn't use.
> 
> Yes, it is possible his mother was crying only because she would miss his help on the farm. In this case, the absence of emotion would be interesting. But not to the people who expect that, who are going to be the only ones who understand her crying that way....



I haven't read "The Red Badge of Courage" in quite awhile. I took a look at the first chapter and just wanted to note something:

Henry's mother is alone. One thing we have to remember is that every hand was needed on a farm. Henry's mother is shown milking a cow, with several other cows waiting to be milked, when Henry returns from enlisting. She's shown peeling potatoes, alone, when Henry looks at her. She's knit him several pairs of socks and has given him a whole jar of jam. Perhaps "Kingly" gifts, given her status. She tells him to send back the socks that need darning, if he should get a hole in them, but is that a hollow offering? Henry is leaving to go off on his grand adventure, leaving his mother alone on her farm, perhaps to die... Why is she crying? For the love of her son? Surely. For the uncertainty of her own future, now that the war has taken him? Surely. In rage against this injustice? Probably so. Released only thirty years after the American Civil War, readers would have understood the difficulties Henry's mother would have faced in his absence.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 30, 2014)

Green can describe how Hazel has to always be attached to something to help her breath. That triggers an emotion in you. You might also empathize (or not), leading to another emotional reaction.

But the powerful stuff is trying to hijack your mind and make you feel like Hazel does. Yes, there are subtle shows, which an author will use. But that mostly means crawling inside her mind and tell the reader what she is thinking and feeling. (And, I will add, then trying to write as powerfully as possible.)

So we get a lot of first person, and present tense often works well. Green is writing from Hazel's perspective, so he can do shows in her head.

If you want to imagine your own emotions for the character -- you are not a reader in this unnamed genre.

There is a lot of fascinating discussions here. I tried to move the discussion of themes to a new thread.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 31, 2014)

I started reading a book that was not particularly well-written but seemed to master this genre. Last night, near the end -- the end of the book and the end of this discussion -- I stopped seeing the problems in that book and instead saw only the beauty. Maybe this discussion helped _me _appreciate my own genre.

Unless people have questions or I somehow am struck with much higher quality ideas, I will stop posting here. I carefully read what everyone said, I almost always thought of responses (even if I did not post them), and I appreciated and learned every post. Thank you everyone. And all of that includes Terry D.

Some interesting but more general topics came up. I will try starting threads for them.


----------



## Mutimir (Nov 1, 2014)

I can't believe there is a discussion about _A Fault in Our Stars _​like it's something unique and special. Now that's irony.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 1, 2014)

Mutimir said:


> I can't believe there is a discussion about _A Fault in Our Stars _â€‹like it's something unique and special. Now that's irony.



I was trying to describe my genre and using _The Fault in Our Stars_ as an example. There are unusual features of that book, from the genre perspective, which created advantages in the discussion -- and disadvantages. (I would love a discussion about that book, just start a different thread)


----------



## Jeko (Nov 1, 2014)

> _I can't believe there is a discussion about __A Fault in Our Stars â€‹like it's something unique and special._



Every story is something unique and special. Some may be more special, yes, but TFioS works as a relevant example to modern readerships.


----------



## Mutimir (Nov 1, 2014)

I haven't read the book so you can lambaste me for that. However, after reading the Wiki (LOL) I can give you a glimpse of how I see it. Simply put I believe the story goal is Gus becoming romantically closer to Hazel. There are barriers thrown in there to distance the two characters like fear of loss, cancer, hopelessness, fate, Hazel's family, etc. In the end I think Gus achieved his goal.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 1, 2014)

> However, after reading the Wiki (LOL) I can give you a glimpse of how I see it. Simply put I believe the story goal is Gus becoming romantically closer to Hazel. There are barriers thrown in there to distance the two characters like fear of loss, cancer, hopelessness, fate, Hazel's family, etc. In the end I think Gus achieved his goal.



The idea of the novel, IMO, is to take that simplistic perspective and mess about with so much you'll question the whole genre of romantic fiction altogether. At least, that was one of the effects the book had on me.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 6, 2014)

Terry D said:


> As to whether Green had a theme(s) in mind, the following is from an interview in Real Simple Magazine:
> 
> Q. * Did you mean to have one of the major themes in the book center around the “human condition of man”? Regardless of what these young people were going through, they still remained “human”: living life, loving, feeling, thinking, laughing, dreaming, reacting, and playfully taking revenge, if need be. The human spirit is a wonderful and amazing thing and you reminded us of that so beautifully. Thank you!*
> 
> ...



I had several reasons for avoiding this, like repression and worrying it was more about the book than the topic.

"_* I hoped the story could show that disability does not prevent you from being fully part of the human adventure."
*_
Well, Hazel never went to high school. A scene with her one and only friend at the start of the book shows how she basically can't get along with normal kids her age. She'll never have children. She thinks about things differently. She knows she gets things other kids don't because of her cancer perks. She can climb the stairs in the Anne Frank house, but that's the limit of her physical capacity.

In short, she's different. If Green was actively pursuing the theme that she was fully a part of the human adventure, then he failed and he's a really bad writer.

Does Hazel or Augustus say this? No. Is it true of the other cancer survivors, like the boy who dies at 12? No. Is there anyone in the book who would agree with this? Yes, probably Augustus's parents, who are disparaged for clinging to platitudes. Van Houten's response would be "bullshit", and he is portrayed as saying the truth and expressing what Hazel feels.

Of course, Green just said he "hoped" that, not that it was a theme. And "fully a part of the human adventure" is a little vague to me. And maybe it was just an interview and a throwaway line.

She has sex with Gus. That could show something, except it's only once and obviously a fluke thing that easily could have not happened.

I am not sure what you want me to do about things like showing that sick kids are entirely alive and entirely human. I don't even know what those mean. Not stated, cliches are disparaged in the book, etc.

Thanks for the challenge.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 6, 2014)

Take it up with Green.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 6, 2014)

Terry D said:


> Take it up with Green.



It seems easier to contact the president. We will have to think for ourselves on this.

For one book, I read the back cover (after reading the book) and went GACK! Thinking about it later, the back cover was written in terms of goals, which to me completely missed the beauty of the book. The book itself was great -- the girl is doing the usual whiny teenager angst until you realize her father is manic-depressed and the whole family is dysfunctionally wrapped around him. The backcover said the book was about her father wanting her to enter a contest and she not wanting to be in it.

If they can get the backcover wrong, I don't think we pay that much attention to a perhaps off-hand comment by John Green.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 6, 2014)

EmmaSohan said:


> I don't think we pay that much attention to a perhaps off-hand comment by John Green.



I doubt John Green is the type of person to make an off-hand comment about his process. He seems to take his writing very seriously.



			
				EmmaSohan said:
			
		

> In short, she's different. If Green was actively pursuing the theme that she was fully a part of the human adventure, then he failed and he's a really bad writer.



Being different doesn't automatically prevent someone from being a part of the human adventure.

Even with her illness, Hazel experiences the miracle of life in her own unique way. She struggles. She journeys. She loves. She lives. 

That was, essentially, the point of it all. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Nov 6, 2014)

That makes sense. Ignore the author's own statements about his book (expressed in at least three interviews I've.read) in favor of an interpretation skewed to your own agenda. I don't care about the back cover. Green didn't write that.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 7, 2014)

> In short, she's different. If Green was actively pursuing the theme that she was fully a part of the human adventure, then he failed and he's a really bad writer.



It's more to do with the fact that you've failed to access the idea. Most readers have.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 7, 2014)

Was the girl with the asshole tumor fully a part of the human adventure? If all you have to do is struggle, journey, love, and live, I guess she gets 3 out of 4. But even a snail gets that high of score. And of course dogs get the full score.

I did not mean to say that people do not take meaning from the book. What I meant to say was that, in the genre I am trying to describe, the author presents just individual people. It is not easy to make a theme about cancer kids if your book just has two. All we learn is what their lives are like. And they are fictional.

Another book has a teen with macular degeneration. We learn what her world is like. But do we learn what all teens with macular degeneration experience? Another book has a teen dealing with her manic-depressive father. Certainly we learn from that, but what? You might think that the authors make some general point at the end that readers are supposed to use as the take-home message. But they (usually) don't. They are content to let the story tell itself.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 8, 2014)

> What I meant to say was that, in the genre I am trying to describe, the author presents just individual people.



What I'm saying is that making up such a genre is as good as making up a new language. You might think it's cool, but no-one will know what you mean.

We've already heard enough from the author himself to discount every point you're making, so I'm not going to stress that any more. Instead, I suggest you try to appreciate the novel from multiple perspectives, to help you access the literary gold you've mostly missed out on.


----------

