Karen Woodward

Saturday, June 17

The Mummy (2017): A Review: Two Thumbs Up (Kinda)

The Mummy is cinematic cotton candy, sweetness and fluff that tastes good in the moment but doesn’t satisfy. That said, it’s only in comparison with the 1999 version that the movie falls flat. It's not a GREAT action movie—for that I'd recommend Edge of Tomorrow—but it was entertaining. Overall, I give The Mummy thumbs up.

Overview

It’s going to date me, but I saw the 1999 version of The Mummy in the theater and, ever since, it has been my high water mark for all monster movies.

The way I think of it, the 1999 version is primarily a love story and, only secondly, a horror story. That's my opinion! The writers (Stephen Sommers, Lloyd Fonvielle, Kevin Jarre) created two great stories—the main arc and the relationship arc—and seamlessly wove them together. In 2017 we have two stories but the relationship arc isn’t as robust. It’s more a story about power and what some will do to keep it than it is about love and the cost of forbidden love.

In a way, the 2017 version was about love twisted into lust for power. But that’s a very different thing.

** Spoiler Alert: If you haven’t seen the movie yet and you want to, don’t read any further! **

One of the ultimate expressions of one person’s love for another is to sacrifice their life. Lust for power leads to the opposite behavior and we consume even those we care most about. And, yes, there was some of that in the new movie. At the end Nick Morton kills himself and in so doing partially transforms into the god Set, becoming a monster. He does this because it’s the only way to bring the woman he loves back to life. He would rather transform into a monster than live in a world in which his love does not exist.

Personally, I found this act unmotivated. To turn yourself into a monster—a fate worse than death—so that you can bring someone back to life, you REALLY have to care about that other person! I didn’t feel the groundwork had been laid for this.

I thought Nick’s sacrifice was implausible

It is unclear why Nick has this kind of epic love for Jenny Halsey. Sure, he likes her. We’re told they had a great night together, but at the end of this epic night Nick steals a treasure map from Jenny thereby endangering her career. But that’s okay. That’s just the beginning of the story.

Later on Nick saves Jenny’s life at the cost of his own BUT Nick tells us, later, that he didn’t think he would die. But whatever. Let’s ignore that. Let’s accept that Nick loves Jenny. Still. I may be jaded, but just because one person loves another doesn’t mean they would condemn themselves to a fate worse than death to save the other’s life.

Show don’t tell

In the 1999 version of The Mummy there’s a scene which shows the viewer how much these two love each other. Rick and Evelyn have just survived a skirmish with Ardeth Bay and his minions. Rick takes Evelyn in his arms, concerned, looking at her wounds. Later on, as Rick teaches Evelyn to fight, they finish off a bottle of liquor. Evelyn is drunk and very charming.

Rick: Unlike your brother, I just don’t get you.
Evelyn: I know, you’re wondering, ‘What is a place like me doing in a girl like this?’
Rick (grinning): Yeah, something like that.

They chat some more then Evelyn says, “I may not be an adventurer, but I am proud of what I am.” Rick asks, “And what is that?” Eveln replies, “I am a LIBRARIAN,” and then (she really is very drunk) kneels in front of Rick and says, “I am going to kiss you Mr. O'Connell.”

Rick: Call me Rick.
Evelyn (smiling drunkenly): Rick.

Evelyn passes out, Rick catches her, and then kisses the air where he lips had been.

I’m not doing justice to the scene. It’s very sweet. The emotion comes across in the acting.

In any case, after that scene you know Evelyn and Rick are in love, you know they would do anything for each other. There was no scene (or series of scenes) in the 2017 version that convinced me that Nick and Jenny were in love. They liked each other, sure. Maybe they even loved each other. And, yes, they would save the other’s life if they could, but accept a fate worse than death? I’m not convinced!

The Curse of the Unexceptional

Arguably, the number one rule of storytelling is that for your audience to care what happens in your tale you need to create characters that are EXCEPTIONAL, exaggerated, memorable. Even Murdoch (Murdoch Mysteries) whose primary characteristic is that he’s exceedingly ordinary is SO ordinary that he becomes extraordinary.

Although as a supernatural creature Ahmanet had many exceptional qualities, her backstory was surprisingly ordinary. Yes she was evil, but it was the kind of evil we’re all too familiar with. She was ambitious. Very ambitious. When it became clear that the only way for her to become Pharaoh was to turn darkside and make a pact with Set, a pact that involved killing her father and infant half-brother, she didn’t bat an eye. So, yes, she’s evil but a lot of people are evil. I don’t say that lightly. It’s hideous. But, tragically, people kill their family and for much less than to become ruler of a kingdom.

In the 1999 version of The Mummy the High Priest Imhotep (the Mummy) didn’t choose a fate worse than death. He chose to RISK a fate worse than death in order to bring his beloved back from the dead. Which is believable given that her death was partly his fault!

And, yes, I do see the parallelism: At the beginning of the story Ahmanet chooses to become a monster because of avarice while Nick chooses to become a monster at the end of the story because of love. That's a nice touch, but, still, my feeling is that love wasn't a big theme of the movie and it suffered because of that.

What went wrong?

If I could sum it up I would say that the 2017 version of the movie lacked key moments, memorable scenes. Yes it had a few (I’ll talk about one, below) but not enough.

My guess is that a few great, key, moments were left on the cutting room floor, but it takes more than that to account for the difference between the two versions.

As I've been saying, I believe one of the fundamental differences between the two movies, the two stories, is one of focus. In 2017 the theme was life versus death/evil where in 1999 it was love versus death/evil. That’s a significant difference.

To illustrate my point let’s take a look at the very beginning of the movie, at the trailer. Granted, this is just one moment but it is a series of these moments strung together that make a movie memorable.

The beginning of the 1999 version of The Mummy

The 1999 version was a hopeful, thrilling, terrifying, story about naivety, love and adventure. It was about how love—even the High Priest’s forbidden love for the Pharaoh’s mistress—triumphed over death. It wasn’t that Imhotep was intrinsically evil, he just loved the wrong person.

In 2017 people are evil if they ... well, it’s not clear. And, really, that’s the fundamental problem with the movie. There’s a fuzziness about it that saps it of strength, of interest.

First, we don’t have the terrific scene that details some of the more gruesome aspects of the curse (the Hom Dai).

Recall that in the 1999 version we see the knives used to perform the rite laid out on the stone, we see Imhotep struggling, held by his captors. We see Imhotep's tongue pulled out of his mouth, we see the knife coming closer and closer. Imhotep’s eyes are wide and fixed on the blade as it descends.

JUST before the gruesome deed is done one of his captors steps in front of the camera but we hear Imhotep’s scream.

The next scene shows Imhotep being wrapped in strips of linen, his mouth sealed and his eyes closed. Then his struggling form is forced inside a sarcophagus.

But his tormentors are only getting started. They then pour insects—beetles—over him. We hear his muffled screams as the beetles race over his form, eating him alive.

Then the lid fastened and the sarcophagus is sealed with a special lock.

In a voice-over we’re told that the Mummy must remain sealed inside the sarcophagus, undead, and that if he ever gets out he will “arise a walking disease, a plague upon mankind, an unholy flesh eater with the strength of ages, power over the sand and the glory of invincibility!”

What can I say? It’s awesome!!

As we’re told this we watch the Mummy’s sarcophagus being buried beneath the sad. Then the camera pans up and we see the enormous statue of Set that is his tomb marker.

It was VERY dramatic! At that point I KNEW I would love the movie.

The beginning of the 2017 version of The Mummy

In the beginning of the 2017 version of The Mummy there’s no story of forbidden love, instead we get elderly knights chanting. Granted, their clothing suggests something Arthurian (at least, it did to me), which was interesting. We see a knight’s body being interred. His lifeless hands cradle a beautiful ruby that seems to burst into fire when the light catches it, almost as if it is alive.

The next scene shows the burial chamber being broken open by an enormous drilling machine.

Soon folks in hardhats and aggressively orange vests swarm over the site. These folks are then politely shooed away by Dr. Jeckell and his minions. Here’s the voice-over; it’s told from Dr. Jeckel’s perspective:

“The past cannot remain buried forever. In my lifetime I have unearthed many ancient mysteries. At last, this too reveals antiquities’ darkest secret. A secret erased from history and forgotten to time: Princess Ahmanet—beautiful, cunning, and ruthless.”

As Dr. Jeckell speaks we see the princess spar with a man as her father, the Pharaoh, looks on approvingly.

“Sole heir to the throne of Egypt, the pharaoh’s kingdom would one day be hers to rule without mercy or fear and she would be worshiped as a living god.”

My opinion: They missed an opportunity. They’re TELLING us the princess is cunning and ruthless, but all they’ve SHOWN us is her sparring with someone. Perhaps if she’d killed her sparring partner, or perhaps if instead of sparring with someone if she’d tortured them for information and then broken her word to the unfortunate sap and killed him anyway ... well, that would have been pretty ruthless! As it is, we’ll have to take Dr. Jeckell’s word for it.

Back to the voice-over:

“The pharaoh had a son, the boy, now, would inherit her destiny and Ahmanet understood that power was not given, it had to be taken. Now in revenge, she made a choice to embrace evil. Set, the god of death, they made a pact. A pact that would unleash darkness itself.”

As we hear this, something suggestive of a mummy (we only see its silhouette) limps up to the princess and presents her with a dagger sporting a brilliant red ruby in the hilt. As Princess Ahmanet grasps the hilt of the dagger she begins to transform. Tattoos radiate out from the dagger, covering her naked, shapely, form.

Dr. Jekyll tells us: “Ahmanet was reborn a monster.”

We see Ahmanet kill her father and his newborn son.

Voice-over: “Yet the pact was not complete. She vowed to bring the demon into our world, in the body of a mortal man. Together, they would take their vengeance on humanity.”

Here’s part of what I don’t understand: What vengeance? I looked up the word just to be sure and here’s the definition, “punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.” What injury? What wrong? That her father had a child?!! Anyway, moving on ...

Before the princess is able to complete the ritual she is shot with darts and pinned to the ground. In the next scene we see her form swaddled in linen bandages.

Voice-over: “For her sins Ahmanet was mummified alive.”

We have a close up on the princesses’ linen-wrapped face as she is placed in the sarcophagus. Then—and I thought this was brilliant—we see the lid of the sarcophagus from the point of view of Ahmanet. We see it descend toward us. Just before the lid slides into place we have an extreme closeup of her wide, terrified, eyes and, as the lid is fastened and she is condemned to eternal darkness, we hear her haunting scream: Nooooo!!!!

I thought that was very effective. That was a memorable moment.

Voice over: The body, carried far from Egypt. There she would remain, condemned to eternal darkness. But death is a doorway and the past cannot remain buried forever.

Comparison and Summary

As you can see, the openings of the two versions of the movie say it all. The opening of the 1999 version set up all the dominos in the trailer. We met the High Priest before he was cursed. We saw his passion, his love for Anck Su Namun, someone who was forbidden to him. We saw the lengths to which he’d go to be with her, to keep her in his life. We were told WHY the Mummy must be kept in his grave and we were told what would happen if he got out, what his powers would be.

The 1999 version was hideous and horrifying. It was about love and death and the possibility of love being so strong it could survive death.

In this article I’ve argued that the 2017 version doesn’t have the same horrific moments and that it’s not as sharply focused. Granted, I’ve only watched the 2017 version once (when it comes out on DVD I’ll watch it a few more times!), but what I got from it was that, “Evil is real and it’s coming for you.” Which is a perfectly good theme for a horror movie (and a reason why I’m giving the movie a thumbs up), BUT it’s not a great theme for The Mummy.

The 1999 Mummy had a LOT of great moments, the 2017 Mummy had a few—thus my positive rating—but not enough.

To sum up:

The first movie (1999) is a love story, the other (2017) is more an invocation of evil. Which isn’t to say it’s a bad movie! It’s a DIFFERENT movie. As I said at the beginning of this article, I found it entertaining.

On Writing Well has been praised for its sound advice, its clarity and the warmth of its style. It is a book for everybody who wants to learn how to write or who needs to do some writing to get through the day, as almost everybody does in the age of e-mail and the Internet. Whether you want to write about people or places, science and technology, business, sports, the arts or about yourself in the increasingly popular memoir genre, On Writing Well offers you fundamental principles as well as the insights of a distinguished writer and teacher. With more than a million copies sole, this volume has stood the test of time and remains a valuable resource for writers and would-be writers.

Monday, June 12

Character Creation: Kinds of Characters

Have you ever had the experience of a character coming to life? And, no, I’m not talking about an alienesque situation where something green and slimy explodes from your chest! Though sometimes creating a character can FEEL that painful.

Kinds of Characters

Do characters have an existence independent of the writer? Should they dictate their own actions? OR are characters mere figments of our imaginations? As Scrooge said, an “undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato”? Do they have no agency of their own, do they have no power to dictate their own natures?

As you might imagine, every writer I’ve read on this subject seems to have a different perspective. For example, Lee Child is of the opinion that, strictly speaking, characters don’t exist. They don’t have desires or interests, only writers and readers do. Sure, we talk about our characters MOTIVATIONS and GOALS but that’s just how we construct the illusion of agency.

The following is from a masterclass Lee Child gave:

Forget character, forget all that stuff, what you do to create suspense is you ask or you imply a question at the beginning and then you don't answer it until the end.

What I said about character leads me on to the type of thing which is something that drives me crazy. I've often heard it said, "On every page one of the characters must want something.”

And to me that shades toward a fundamental misunderstanding of what we're doing because the characters are not real. Okay? They don't exist. They are not capable of wanting anything or needing anything or being interested in anything. They are made up.

If you’d like to read more about Lee Child’s views on character see my post, Characterization Or Plot: Which Is Most Important To Readers?, especially the comments.

Others—notably Thomas Harris—feel that their characters are as real as flesh-and-blood people.

In Forward to a Fatal Interview Thomas Harris talks about discovering Dr. Hannibal Lecter. It was as if his character took on a life of his own, Harris was merely a shadow observing the characters as they lived their lives. In this sense, he was more like a transcriptionist than a director. He writes (I’ve omitted ellipses for the sake of readability):

I found that I could leave Chilton in the cabin with the lights on and look back at him from the dark. I was invisible then, out there in the dark, the way I am invisible to my characters when I'm in a room with them and they are deciding their fates with little or no help from me.

Graham was tense and I could smell fear on him. I thought Dr. Lecter was asleep and I jumped when he recognized Will Graham by scent without opening his eyes.

I was enjoying my usual immunity while working, my invisibility to Chilton and Graham and the staff, but I was not comfortable in the presence of Dr. Lecter, not sure at all that the doctor could not see me.

In the Middle with You

Like most writers, I’m somewhere in-between Lee Child and Thomas Harris. There are times when I feel as though my characters have seized the reigns and all I have to do is watch them, listen to them. I feel that I’m a ghost in a scene unfolding before my mind’s eye.

Other times it can seem as though a character is opaque to me, especially early on. At those times I’m much more like Lee Child. To get past this, to push on, I’ll look at characters I love (generally, characters in the same genre I’m writing), list their relevant properties, and brainstorm.

WINNER OF THE NEBULA AWARD FOR BEST NOVEL • Naomi Novik, author of the New York Times bestselling and critically acclaimed Temeraire novels, introduces a bold new world rooted in folk stories and legends, as elemental as a Grimm fairy tale.

Thursday, June 8

Outlining a Murder Mystery

This article is part three of How to Write a Book (Part One, Part Two). Today I take the theory I laid out in my previous two posts (especially the last) and create an outline.

5a. Murder in Meadowmead: Example Outline

Murder in Meadowmead is a story I’ve been writing through a series of blog posts. Why? To give others—especially beginning writers who have never written a book—an idea of ONE WAY this can be done.

If you look at what I’ve created, below, and realize you do things differently, that’s fine! Do whatever works for you. But if you’ve never written a book and wonder how someone else does things, read on. When I was younger I didn’t have anyone’s shoulder to peek over. In those days I wanted to learn how someone took ideas (and goals and hopes and fears) and spun them into a tale.

I’m not saying what follows is the ‘right’ way (there’s no one right way!) to write a story and it’s certainly NOT the only way. But if this helps you, awesome!

By the way, this post continues a series I began on How to Write a Murderously Good Mystery: The Major Characters.

a1. ACT ONE (25%)

a1.1. The Ordinary World

The ordinary world represents the detective’s—Alex’s—life before the adventure (for more on Alex see Let's Make a Detective!). This is his starting point (for more on story structure see: The Structure of a Great Story). The setting should be designed to show readers who he is (the paintings he's chosen to display on the wall, his liquor cabinet, whether he keeps a journal, whether he displays pictures of family and friends, etc.

Further, something about Alex—his mannerisms, his behavior or how he looks—should be exaggerated; memorable.

Perhaps I’ll start the story by having Alex pack his belongings in preparation for his move to Meadowmead. He needs opposition, so perhaps Alex has a friend who thinks he’s nuts for moving. Or ... no. Not a friend; Alex doesn’t have close attachments. It’s his lawyer; he’s there to either pick something up or drop something off.

“Why are you moving there? And don't talk to me about that awful restaurant your mother-in-law left you. Where the hell IS Meadowmead, I’ve never heard of it! I’m sure they roll up the sidewalks at 9 pm. No restaurants, no entertainment, what the hell are you going to do? Stay home and READ?!” Robert said.

It’s a good question. WHY would Alex move from a gorgeous apartment in Manhattan, one overlooking Central Park, to a sleepy town hardly anyone has heard of? Why THAT town as opposed to another? Is Alex looking for something? If so, what? What is drawing him?

Or is Alex running away from something? Perhaps memories of his late wife? (He and his late wife lived in his Manhattan apartment. They moved in after their honeymoon. They lived there for one glorious year before she died—I’m not 100% sure how she died, but I’m pretty sure her death was thought to be an accident.)

I think I’ll incorporate flashbacks. Alex is walking around his apartment looking at pictures of himself and his late wife in happier times. In one they’re holding hands, screaming at the top of their lungs as they bungie jump off a cliff; it was their honeymoon and Alex had never been that scared in his life. As he looks at the picture he smiles and turns away from Robert to wipe a tear from his eye.

“I’ll have everything packed up and sent on,” Robert said.

Alex shook his head. “No. Just pack it up and store it.”

“Everything? You don’t want anything sent on? Not even your clothes?”

Alex shakes his head and leaves.

a1.1 Revision Notes:

Robert needs a goal, something he wants in the scene. As it is, there’s no friction. What is Alex giving up by moving? What is he gaining?

I think I’ll make Robert an older man, a friend of Alex’s parents. He wants Alex to take charge of the family business. He sees Alex’s move to Meadowmead as him running away, as cowardice. Alex needs to have a definite, concrete, goal in moving to Meadowmead. He may not share this with Robert, but he should allude to it.

a1.2. Inciting Incident: What is the Inciting Incident?

The Inciting Incident is where the world of the story changes. It is BECAUSE of the Inciting Incident that the protagonist receives a Call to Adventure (if these terms are unfamiliar, see my post A Story Structure in Three Acts).

I think I’ll make the Inciting Incident MYSTERIOUS. At twilight a strange older man rushes down the sidewalk and staggers into Alex. Apologies are exchanged.

“I have to go,” the other says, breathless, his watery fish-like eyes darting everywhere at once.

“Is someone chasing you?” Alex asks, glancing around. The street is empty.

The two exchange a look, a glance. Alex thinks, This man is terrified.

There’s something familiar about this apparent stranger, Alex feels he’s seen him before, perhaps a long while ago. “Do we know each other?” Alex asks, frowning. The man tears himself away and rushes on.

Shaken, Alex puts his hands in his pockets. Nestled in his right hand pocket is a small package. Some instinct keeps him from reacting. Alex finishes his shopping and walks home, careful not to betray any excitement. Only when he is safely in his apartment away from prying eyes does he reach into his pocket, take out the package and examine it. (I don’t yet know what’s inside, but it should be something that shatters the detective’s old world. Perhaps he learns something about his wife or her family.)

a1.2. Revision Notes:

This scene needs to go first! THIS (the package and the events surrounding Alex acquiring it) is the Inciting Incident and it’s how I’ll open the book. This is why Alex decides to move to Meadowmead. (I discover, later in this post, that the package contained information about his wife’s death, information that convinces Alex that her passing wasn’t an accident.)

a1.3. Call to Adventure: What draws the protagonist into the quest?

The Inciting Incident changed the world; it has shattered the protagonist’s status quo. The Call to Adventure is the protagonist reacting to that change.

There are two arcs, two storylines, that intimately concern the protagonist: the INNER ARC and the OUTER/EXTERNAL ARC. The external arc is the murder mystery. The internal arc is about Alex facing his demons and trying to track down and punish those responsible for his wife’s death. Each of these has an Inciting Incident.

a1.3. External Arc

Alex’s late wife’s brother, Ben, comes to Alex and asks him to figure out who murdered his friend. Sure, he has an ulterior motive, but this is the reason he gives (I go over the sidekick in the post Let’s Create a Sidekick!). Alex initially refuses because he never was close to Maria’s brother—the man had never liked him, never thought he was good enough for his sister—also it really doesn’t look like there’s a case.

NOTE: The External Arc doesn't begin until Act Two, I mention it here only because we're talking about the Call to Adventure.

a1.3. Internal Arc

Alex wants revenge for his wife’s death. He is sure there’s something in the town that can help him figure out who killed his wife.

NOTE ABOUT THE PACKAGE: This is what was in the package! Evidence that his wife’s death wasn’t an accident, evidence she was killed and that the answer to who killed her can be found in Meadowmead. I think the package contained a USB flash drive.

A waiter/manager at his restaurant, someone who has been there for ages will act as Alex’s mentor. Perhaps she knows tarot. She gets Alex to reconsider by giving him information that connects his late wife’s family up to whatever the package was, whatever drew Alex to Meadowmead. Also, this woman talks to him about his wife, what she was like as a child. She talks about his wife’s mother, her family. Perhaps she also gives him something of Martha’s or Martha’s mothers. Perhaps he also has a dream that night. In any case, he changes his mind and begins to investigate with the brother.

a1.4. Journey to the Special World: What mini-quest takes the protagonist from the Ordinary World into the Special World of the Adventure?

Often the Special World is in a different physical location. For instance, in Star Wars Luke left his home planet of Tatooine and headed off to join the Rebel Alliance. In my example story the Special World is the small, sleepy, town of Meadowmead, especially those parts of the town associated with Alex's late wife’s family.

a1.4. Internal Arc

The quest that takes Alex from the Ordinary World (Manhattan) to the Special World (Meadowmead) of the Adventure will have to do with the mysterious package. Alex will need to risk something and he will need to get something.

Perhaps, after Alex unwraps the package, he will set up a meeting with the messenger who gave him the package. The messenger is either killed while they’re meeting or just before and Alex finds his body. Perhaps there’s something on the body that provides Alex a clue. Perhaps the older man has the same tattoo as his wife, or a similar medallion.

Also, there should be a point of no return either here or at the midpoint. Alex should have to make a conscious decision to continue with his quest despite the cost, the stakes (and the cost/stakes must be spelled out before he makes his decision).

a2. ACT TWO (26 to 75%)

Show the protagonist discovering the Special World of the Adventure. There should be tests and trials as well as fun and games. The Special World is starkly different from the Ordinary World—inside out and upside down.

a2.1. External Arc

Because of what Alex learns about the package, because of his experience finding the messenger dead, because of his conversation with the manager over at Absinthe Cafe, Alex decides to help Ben (his late wife’s brother) investigate the death of his friend. At this point Alex accepts the Call to Adventure.

Perhaps Ben is a detective on the force. He tells Alex that his investigation isn’t going anywhere and he wants a fresh pair of eyes. His sister always said she had never met anyone as smart as Alex, that if Ben ever had a crime he couldn’t solve he should get Alex to help. Ben is trying to butter up Alex but it kinda works.

a2.1. Internal Arc

Alex remembers his wife in a certain way. She was intelligent with a quick smile and a kind heart. She was an open book, brimming with passion for life. As Alex explores the town, talks to people who knew Maria, he forms a very different image of his late wife. The people of the town know Maria as someone brilliant but sad, withdrawn and even a wee bit scary. One thing they all agree on is that she was very determined. Once she decided to do something nothing could stop her.

a2.2. Trials: What challenges does the protagonist have adjusting to the Special World?

a2.2. External Arc

Alex needs to interview those who saw the victim last, discover what their alibi’s are, what their potential motive would be, and so on. If Ben is attached to the police in some way this could be useful, otherwise Alex will have to get creative.

Obviously the number of suspects you have is completely up to you. I’m going with 4 and here’s why. One of the suspects will be killed at roughly the 2/3 point leaving 3, which is fine. That’s still enough choice to make things suspenseful. The fewer suspects I have the less planning I’ll have to do. It’s that old adage: KISS (Keep It Simple, Silly).

As part of the trials the detective will go to each of the suspects and try to suss out whether they have means, method and opportunity. Also, the detective will likely have to consult at least one expert to help interpret the evidence or confirm a theory.

a2.2 Internal Arc

Alex has trouble finding out about his late wife. Alex has trouble getting folks to talk to him, even about the weather! Those few who do talk refuse to give him any information about Maria or her family. Alex has to employ a variety of techniques to get information (bribing people with food, free meals, doing favors, perhaps even a little blackmail).

He starts off by hiring someone to investigate the elderly man who gave him the package (see the Inciting Incident). That leads to other sources of information, other people to question. One person he wants to speak with is his father-in-law; Alex suspects this man is linked to his wife’s death, but he’s not sure how. Or perhaps Alex THINKS he knows how he just wants to hear him admit it.

a2.3. Approach the cave: What crisis compels the protagonist to confront the antagonist at the midpoint?

a2.3. External Arc & Internal Arc

Something that Alex came across, some evidence/information, has shed light on his wife’s death. It has given Alex a link between his wife’s so-called accident and her family.

a2.4. Midpoint: What happens at the confrontation? Does the protagonist win or lose? Do they acquire any information?

a2.4. External and Internal Arc

At the midpoint the protagonist finds out something, some information, that is critical to the case. I think that perhaps this is when Alex finds out the central role Maria’s father plays in the cabal.

Alex confronts Maria’s father, a man who has never liked him. Alex believes the father is behind his wife’s death. Maria’s father says that IF anyone was the cause of her death then that person was Alex. Maria left the family because of Alex and NO ONE leaves the family. She had been warned.

Something that the father says triggers a memory, something about the murder Alex is investigating, but he can’t pin it down. It’s like having something on the tip of your tongue ...

a2.5. Bonding

After the midpoint there’s usually a time of bonding. The protagonist gets together with his allies (so far that’s only Alex, Ben and maybe his manager at Absinthe Cafe) and discusses what happened at the midpoint.

In any case, they have dinner at Alex’s restaurant and discuss the case. They probably interact with a few other characters from the town.

a2.6. The First Plan

As part of bonding, a plan is cooked up. You could make this part a bit humorous. Have it that the group thinks a character, call him Hank, is the murderer. They’re all set to bring him in. They go to Hank’s office and then ... find him dead.

a2.6. Complication: Something goes very wrong and complicates the protagonist’s quest, what happens?

Hank’s death is the first complication.

a2.6. More complications: Events keep going wrong. What happens?

Alex is arrested for the second murder. He’s been framed. As soon as Alex arrived at the location of the second murder police, etc., arrive. There is no REAL evidence of Alex’s guilt, the cabal has no real evidence, they are just trying to intimidate him.

Ben posts bail.

a2.7. All Hope is Lost: What happens at the All Hope is Lost point?

The cabal makes it look like Alex has violated his bail, either that or they trick him into doing something that violates his bail. He’s thrown back into jail. Perhaps someone comes to try and kill him but Alex defends himself.

It looks as though the cabal has won and Alex is finished. No matter what he does, the cabal will be one step ahead. If they want him to rot in jail, then Alex will rot in jail. If they want to frame him for murder then he’ll go down for murder.

a3. ACT THREE (76 to 100%)

In general terms, here’s what’s happening in the third act: All subplots have been closed out or will soon be closed out. The detective knows the identity of the murderer and events are pushing the protagonist toward the big reveal.

The way I’m thinking about it (and keep in mind this is early days) The internal and external arcs don’t exactly merge, but Alex now knows what he’s got to do on both counts.

a3.1. Race to the Finish: How does the protagonist get her mojo back and get back on track?

At the beginning of the third act Alex thinks the cabal killed the second victim. (We know this is incorrect, it was Lydia Morton.)

Something happens that gives Alex the epiphany he needs to solve the case. (The thing that was niggling at him when he confronted his late wife’s father at the midpoint is now made clear.) He realizes his anger, his hate, for the cabal has been blinding him. The cabal didn’t have anything to do with the second victim. As soon as he realizes that, he realizes who killed both victims.

Although Alex now knows the identity of the murderer he doesn’t have enough evidence to prove his suspicion.

a3.2. The Second Plan

Alex realizes that the cabal either has the proof he needs for his theory or is suppressing it. Further, the cabal is working against him (mostly) because

a) The murderer, Lydia, is a member of one of the founding families and they protect their own.
b) The cabal doesn’t like Alex. The cabal doesn’t seriously think Alex will be able to hurt them in any significant way, but accept that he could make things more difficult for them.

Alex’s plan is to get leverage on the cabal so that, at the very least, they’ll stop blocking his attempts to get the evidence he needs to bring the murderer to justice. Let’s say there is something specific, some object—perhaps a piece of paper or a section of surveillance video—Alex needs to get his hands on. He tries to hire someone (perhaps he knew people in Manhattan) but they all refuse once they realize the target is the cabal.

a3.3. First Complication

Note: There doesn’t HAVE to be three complications, though that is a good number because two are generally similar (though the stakes are raised each time) while the third is different and much more dire.

Alex tries to get what he needs from the cabal and fails.

I think this story needs a strong antagonist other than the cabal and the murderer. Perhaps the police chief or the mayor? Someone with power, someone who could really hurt the detective. Let’s say we’ve got someone like this in the story. They foil the detective’s attempt to get what he needs AND, on top of this, he lands back in jail. (Or perhaps now he’s thrown into one of the cabal’s private jails.)

a3.4. Second Complication

I think Alex needs a mysterious benefactor, a kind of mentor character. We might not find out who this person is in the first book.

Did Alex get what he needed from the cabal? No BUT Alex’s benefactor intervenes and he’s released. This was a one-time-only intervention. (In order for this not to be an instance of deus ex machina I’ll have to retroactively insert this character into the story, starting at the beginning. Perhaps this person helped Alex figure out what was in the package he received at the beginning of the story, the thing that became the Inciting Incident.)

Alex’s benefactor helps him get out of jail BUT this raises the stakes for Alex. Perhaps his sidekick—Ben—is assaulted or kidnapped or in some way put in danger. Further, Ben was in the process of getting critical evidence.

a3.5. Third Complication

Alex goes to the cabal to either blackmail them or offer them something they can’t refuse. Perhaps Alex says he’ll withdraw from everything, he’ll leave town, if they return Ben unharmed.

The cabal is shielding the murderer, Lydia, because of her family connections (perhaps they’re also scared of what she could tell Alex about their organization). The cabal catch Alex off-guard. They aren’t easily manipulated. Alex’s late wife’s father makes Alex a surprising offer. In exchange for giving Alex what he needs to solve the murder he’ll owe his father-in-law a favor.

a3.6. Climax: What happens at the climax? Does the protagonist win and, if so, how?

Since this is a murder mystery it’s no surprise what happens at the climax! This is the Big Reveal.

Since this post is quite long enough I think I’ll save the various kinds of reveals for later!

a3.7. Wrap up: What happens to the major characters?

I'm not going to worry about this until the rest of my outline is more developed.

General Observations

I find it fascinating how a story comes together. I started off with no idea about a mysterious package, the idea just came to me. Then I realized the package contained evidence that Alex’s wife didn’t die a natural death, that she was helped off this mortal coil. That information combined with hints about Meadowmead was enough to get Alex to move to a small town he never knew existed a week ago.

I suspect I’ll talk more about this in subsequent posts, but notice that when I started off the story I had NO IDEA how it would start. I’ve talked to other writers and that’s normal! So don’t stress about the first few paragraphs of your story, about that first scene, until AFTER you have a solid first draft (not a Zero Draft, a first draft). Sketch out the bare bones of your story and then flesh things out as you go.

SIDEKICK. One thing I need to develop further is Ben’s role in the story. Rather than doing that now, I’m going to publish this post and fill in the gaps later.

Renowned Hollywood story expert Michael Hauge’s Six Step Success Story formula gives your potential clients and buyers the emotional experience of success—and will move them to take action.

Tuesday, June 6

How to Write a Book, Part Two

This article is part two of How to Write a Book.

2. Figure out how many words you can write a day.

As you write your Zero Draft you’ll also get an idea for how many words you can write in a day. You want to shoot for a SUSTAINABLE amount. Writing a book isn’t a sprint, it’s a marathon.

NaNoWriMo is wonderful practice for writing everyday. It doesn’t matter if you can write 50,000 words a month, but trying helps you get in touch with your inner writer and figure out your average word output.

If you can’t write every day, that’s fine! Perhaps you have an insane schedule conceived in the depths of hell and can only write once a week. That's okay! All you’re trying to do at this point is figure out how many words you can write over a certain time period.

3. Create a story outline.

Don’t worry if you don’t know how the story ends (the Climax) or what the middle bits are (Midpoint Crisis) or even what sets all these events in motion (the Inciting Incident). That’s what we’re going to work on now.

Take what you know about the story and:

a) Internal: build on your understanding of the story, and

b) External: shape the basic story outline so it fits the structure of your chosen genre.

Before we think any more about (a) or (b), though, let’s talk about suspense.

3a. A note about suspense.

I’m interested in writing stories that entertain. Not everyone is! And that’s fine. But I love a rousing, suspenseful, tale. Since these kind of stories are what I love to read it’s natural that they’re also what I love to write.

Another thing: It’s MUCH more difficult to sell books that aren’t entertaining. Yes, there are folks who read and enjoy stories that do not have even the faintest smidgeon of suspense—I’ve met them!—but that’s not my audience.

When I write these posts I’m writing to those who, like me, want to craft stories that entertain.

3b. Begin at the end.

When I create an outline for a story I begin at the end.

Sounds perverse, doesn’t it?! But—especially if you’re writing something with the element of surprise—it makes sense to start with what we KNOW and then work out what needs to happen for us to get there.

For example, let’s say you know that Bob Boisterous murdered Sally Soffit with an experimental drug because Sally was going to get the promotion Bob coveted.

Means: Experimental drug
Motive: Bob wants the promotion
Opportunity: Bob says he was taping a podcast in his private studio when the murder occurred—and it seems as though he’s telling the truth.

You know Bob has to get caught which means he has to make a mistake. Let’s say Bob put the poison in Sally’s coffee. When she tasted the coffee she cringed and said, “Someone put sugar in this,” but drank it anyway because she was caffeine deprived and in a hurry.

The killer didn’t know Sally would tell anyone her coffee was too sweet or that the person she told would remember it. When the dregs of Sally’s coffee is analyzed it seems to only contain coffee because the killer switched the cups.

Our detective thinks Bob’s behavior is fishy. Bob hated Sally (and vice versa) and Bob’s grief seems false. If he had nothing to do with her death, the detective feels he wouldn’t be as intent on hiding his true feelings.

Also, the victim’s comment about the sweetness of the coffee (Sally NEVER used sugar) is enough to make our intrepid detective suspicious. Further, the detective knows of a poison that would act on the victim in a way consistent with what the coroner told him about the body.

The murderer was counting on the death being put down to natural causes—the victim had a heart condition and the effects of the poison looked like cardiac failure.

You get the idea. Everything is much easier once you know where you’re going. Because of this you can save a LOT of time.

3c. Complete your outline.

At this point you don’t have to know every last little thing about the plot but try to have something down for the main points. Keep in mind that your outline isn’t written in stone! It can and will change as you write.

Even if your outline has gaps it helps to have the bones of the story written down. You’ll be able to see which parts are missing. A well-defined, concrete, problem is much easier to solve than a nebulous ill-defined one.

ACT ONE (25%)
(This is the Ordinary World. Describe it as you introduce your characters IN ACTION. Give them an initial problem to solve, setbacks, etc.)
Inciting Incident: What is the Inciting Incident?
Call to Adventure: What draws the protagonist into the quest?
Journey to the Special World: What mini-quest takes the protagonist from the Ordinary World into the Special World of the Adventure?

ACT TWO (26 to 75%)
(Introduce the Special World of the Adventure. It should be starkly different from the Ordinary World, inside out and upside down.)
Trials: What challenges does the protagonist have adjusting to the Special World?
Approach the cave: What crisis compels the protagonist to confront the antagonist at the midpoint?
Midpoint: What happens at the confrontation? Does the protagonist win or lose? Do they acquire any information?
Complication: Something goes very wrong and complicates the protagonist’s quest, what happens?
More complications: Events keep going wrong. What happens?
All Hope is Lost: What happens at the All Hope is Lost point?

ACT THREE (76 to 100%)
(All subplots have been closed out or will soon be closed out. We’re concentrating on the hero’s quest, racing toward the finish line.)
Race to the Finish: How does the protagonist get his/her mojo back and get back on track?
Climax: What happens at the climax? Does the protagonist win and, if so, how?
Wrap up: What happens to the major characters?

You don’t need to answer these questions in any detail at this point. This will just give you the big points, the turning points.

Now we have an outline. Granted, this outline will vary depending on the kind of genre you’re writing for, but you’ve got the bare-bones done. High-five!

4. Decide how long you want your finished manuscript to be.

Now figure out how your story fits into, or onto, your outline. When I think of this step I think of pulling a dress (your story) over a mannequin (the outline).

I’m not going to fib, this step is a bit of a dark art. Let’s start by deciding how long we want the finished manuscript to be.

If you’re writing a fantasy you might want to shoot for 90,000 to 100,000 words or, if you’re writing a romance, you might want to keep your word count closer to 60,000 or 70,000. It’s my experience that mysteries range from anything between 60,000 to 85,000 words.

Let’s say you decide to shoot for around 80,000 words and use a three act structure.

Act 1: 20,000 words.
Inciting Incident (5%): 4,000
Call to Adventure (10%): 8,000
Journey to the Special World (20%): 16,000

Act 2: 40,000 words.
Trials (26%): 20,800
Approach the cave (40%): 32,000
Midpoint (50%): 40,000
Complication (55%): 44,000
More complications (60%): 48,000
All Hope is Lost (70%): 56,000

Act 3: 20,000 words.
Race to the Finish (76%): 60,800
Climax (90%): 72,000
Wrap up (98%): 78,400

Of course you might not want to use three acts, perhaps you’d prefer four or five or even six! All the major points (Inciting Incident, Call to Adventure, etc.) will be the same. Also, keep in mind that at the end of each act, a major event should occur which spins the hero’s journey (the through-line) in a different direction and increases the stakes.

As far as what happens in each act you’ll want to adapt it to the genre you’re writing in. For instance, here’s a five act structure for a murder mystery.

5. Write your first draft.

Congratulations! You’ve got an outline. Sure, there are gaps but you’re getting the feel for the general shape of the story, the major moments. Now let’s see what we can do about filling in the missing bits.

For example, there’s 4,000 words between the Inciting Incident and the Call to Adventure. One thing that can help get you through the gaps are scenes and sequels.

I’m putting together an example outline for Murder in Meadowmead. I’ll try to finish that up today and publish it tomorrow (Wednesday).

That’s it! I’ll talk to you again tomorrow. In the meantime, good writing!

While writers might disagree over showing versus telling or plotting versus pantsing, none would argue this: If you want to write strong fiction, you must make your readers feel. The reader's experience must be an emotional journey of its own, one as involving as your characters' struggles, discoveries, and triumphs are for you.

Readers can simply read a novel...or they can experience it. The Emotional Craft of Fiction shows you how to make that happen.

Friday, June 2

How to Write a Book

The question I’ve been asked more than any other is, “How can I write a book?” Here's my attempt at an answer. Please keep in mind this is just ONE WAY to write a book not the only way.

How to write a book

Neil Gaiman once said—and I’m paraphrasing—that each time he writes a book it’s a different process. I think there’s a lot of truth to that. Each book is different, each book presents its own challenges and its own rewards. But if you’ve never written a book and would like to take a peek at how I TRY to do it, read on.

1. Write a Zero Draft

You’ve heard of discovery writers. A discover writer doesn’t have preconceived notions about the content or shape of their story (though they may have an idea, or a few ideas). They write by the seat of their pants, discovering where the story takes them.

(For more about what a Zero Draft is see: The Zero Draft: How To Beat Writer’s Block.)

My Zero Drafts are strange amalgams of discovery writing and conscious plotting, heavy on the discovery. (If you’re curious about how I go about getting ahold of a character, see my posts Let's Make a Detective! and Let's Create a Sidekick!.)

That said, when I’m in discovery mode, I try not to consciously think too much about the structure of my story; I brainstorm.

But everyone’s different. Some folks like to dictate their ideas, their musings, into a recorder (if you don’t want to buy a voice recorder there are some decent apps—Android; Apple—that do basically the same thing).

Free writing. After you've practiced free writing for a while you'll get a feel for what works best for you. Myself, I find it works best if I put on my favorite tunes, curl up in my office chair with my writing journal and write longhand.

1a. Do not censor yourself.

Some folks refer to the Zero Draft as a ‘vomit draft.’ Gross, right? But that’s what it’s supposed to be! The Zero Draft is a safe place. Don’t censor yourself, don’t question your ideas, write them down. Remember, no one but you is EVER going to see your Zero Draft.

1b. Ideas, not words.

In a Zero Draft it isn’t the words that's important, it's the IDEAS.

After all, YOU have to discover the story before anything you write will make sense. You have to call the events of the story, as well as the characters, to life within you. If you haven't gotten ahold of the ideas how can anything you write evoke them? At least, that’s my take on it!

I find that the act of writing often works as a kind of invocation. And, ultimately, I think that’s what a zero draft is. It's an invitation to your characters to come to life and do interesting, scandalous, things in the settings, the playgrounds, you create for them.

1c. How long should your Zero Draft be?

The Zero Draft can be any length you like, regardless of how long you want your finished manuscript to be.

As I said, above, the purpose of the rough draft is to call your story into existence, to form that first connection with it. Here’s what I’ve found:

The shorter your Zero Draft is the better.

The Zero Draft will be a bit of a mess (after all, it is a vomit draft!) so short is good; less mess to wade through. Also, keep in mind that the Zero Draft is just a beginning. Your understanding of your characters, your understanding of your overall story, will change over time. Your names for them will change, their desires will change, their childhood peccadilloes will change, their connections to other characters will change.

Next Post: In my next post in this series I'll talk about creating a story outline. Stay tuned!

Tuesday, May 30

When Life Strikes: Writing through the Unexpected

Today I want to talk about what to do when life derails your plans.

Life derailed me yesterday! I planned to work on my book in the morning, visit my dentist in the early afternoon, write a blog post and publish it before dinner.

Well. At least I had a productive morning before everything fell apart. It turns out my dentist moved his office across town without telling me! Good to know.

SO. What to do? I made a slightly panicked phone call and a sympathetic receptionist pushed my appointment forward an hour. Great!

Not so much. It would have been great but it took me an HOUR AND A HALF to walk to the new location and then I had to wait for another hour!!

That’s a lot of lost writing time! I had to accept I wasn’t going to be able to write and publish my blog post. It was too complex, too long. I wouldn’t be able to complete it in time.

Which got me thinking about, first, how writers can try to plan for downtown in order to minimize the disruption and, second, how to minimize damage after something throws our meticulously arranged schedules into disarray.

3 Strategies to Help You Stay on Track When Your Schedule Is Thrown to the Dogs

Here’s how I try and plan for disaster.

1. Do not panic! Breathe. Remind yourself that life happens.

Some folks are optimists, others are pessimists. Optimists might he happier but pessimists are seldom surprised.

Still, life happens. Disruption occurs. It's okay. Really. You'll get through it. Realize that you'll look back on this in a few hours or a few days and be able to shrug it off.

It may seem corny or odd, but I highly recommend practicing some sort of relaxation technique such as meditation, a technique you can call on in times of high stress. It helps.

2. In the morning make a list.

2a. Write down the most important thing you want to accomplish today.

If there’s something that absolutely MUST get done, then there’s no thinking involved, just write it down. I like to draw a little box beside the item so I can tick it off when I’ve accomplished it. There’s something fulfilling about seeing a ticked box, but that might just be me!

2b. Write down the second most important thing you want to accomplish today, then stop.

Don’t write down anything else. Or, if you like (I find it can help ease anxiety) you can write down everything you’d like to get done today BUT make sure this list is distinct from your ‘must-do’ list.

The things you MUST do today are the first and second tasks you wrote down. That’s it. BUT if something unexpected comes up and destroys your carefully planned schedule, you already know the single most important thing you need to accomplish. Don’t worry about the second most important, let that go.

2c. Always work on the most important item first.

I know that’s so obvious it seems silly to write it down, but still. It’s important. The first item on your list is the most important so make that your priority.

Sometimes I’ll complete tasks on my list quickly, in which case I make a new list. (But that rarely happens!)

A word of warning: Sometimes a task will be complex. In this case it’s important to break it down into smaller bits, each of which can be completed in a few hours. For instance, writing a book is a huge task that becomes doable when broken down into smaller bits.

3. Pad your schedule.

If you think a task will take you 30 minutes to accomplish, schedule 45. Even if you get through the task in 30 minutes there’s going to be other tasks that will take twice as long. Also—as I found out yesterday—one’s best laid plans are often completely derailed.

I should have given myself more of a margin for error. If I had I would have completed a rough draft of my post BEFORE I left for the dentist and would have suffered only a minor delay. So! Lesson learnt (hopefully).

The idea is that your day will have been successful and productive even if you only get that most important thing accomplished.

That’s it for today. I’d love to hear your strategies for avoiding and recovering from disaster!

John Wayne Cleaver is dangerous, and he knows it.

He's spent his life doing his best not to live up to his potential.

He's obsessed with serial killers, but really doesn't want to become one. So for his own sake, and the safety of those around him, he lives by rigid rules he's written for himself, practicing normal life as if it were a private religion that could save him from damnation.

Dead bodies are normal to John. He likes them, actually. They don't demand or expect the empathy he's unable to offer. Perhaps that's what gives him the objectivity to recognize that there's something different about the body the police have just found behind the Wash-n-Dry Laundromat---and to appreciate what that difference means.

Friday, May 26

Writing a Murder Mystery: The First Victim

The first murder victim is unique.

Of course talking about a first victim assumes there will be more than one murder victim. True. But, these days, most murder mysteries DO include more than one victim.

And, honestly, I think it’s easier to structure a murder mystery that has more than one murder. I’ll talk more about story structure later on in this series. (By the way, this post is part of a series on How to Write a Murder Mystery.)

Note: I've included this material in my book: How to Write a Murderously Good Mystery: The Major Characters.

3 Things That Make the First Victim Special

1. The first victim brings the detective into the story.

The discovery of the first victim’s body CREATES the Inciting Incident. Regardless of the murderer’s motives, the first victim summons the detective and in this sense they are the reason for everything.

2. Usually, the relationship between the killer and the first victim ties the victims and the suspects together.

In traditional murder mysteries, killers kill for a reason. They have a motive. Since, often, the first victim is the only one the murderer intended to kill, the second, third, etc., victims are killed to tie up loose ends. In this sense, the killer’s motive for dispatching the first victim is either directly or indirectly responsible for all the other deaths.

3. Since the murderer is trying to tie up loose ends, subsequent murders are often more spontaneous than premeditated.

Often, the second and subsequent murders are committed because something went wrong with the first and the murderer is forced to improvise. Or if the first killing was a crime of passion—in other words, there was no plan, the killing was not at all premeditated—the subsequent murders would be done to cover the murderer’s tracks and so could be sloppy and rushed. And THIS—this lack of finesse—could itself be a clue.

Other factors:

The murderer plans for multiple victims rather than just one.

Granted, it isn’t always the case that the murderer begins his crime spree only intending to kill one person. Sometimes the murderer has a list of people who he feels either did him wrong or who harmed someone he loves. Or perhaps the murderer has a goal and to reach this goal he will have to kill more than one person.

A classic example of this often has to do with a tontine. With a tontine, a number of people contribute to a fund. As each of them die the fund grows larger. When the second to last person dies the final survivor controls the remaining capital. This provided the motive for no end of murders—at least in stories!

Also, although it didn’t have anything to do with a tontine, Agatha Christie’s most popular novel—And Then There Were None—features a murderer who intended to kill absolutely everyone, the entire cast of characters!

In this case the first murder victim isn’t as important, though the detective won’t know that. In this case sometimes the murderer intends the first murder to be a distraction. For instance, in Agatha Christie’s Murder Three Act Tragedy the first murder is a trial run. The murderer had nothing against the first victim—in fact, the first victim was randomly chosen!—he was simply testing out his murder method.

Wrap Up

I’ve found that in many murder mystery stories, the second, third, and so on, murders usually are a response to factors that unfold AFTER the initial crime.

Often, though not always.

Sometimes the murderer intends to kill two or more people, though even in these cases additional murders can occur as plans unravel and the murderer, panicked, tries to tie up loose ends.

Whatever the case, the murderer is changed by the first murder. He or she is now a different person. This can be shown in a number of ways. After this, the stakes are higher, they wonder if the police suspect them, their stress levels increase. Depending on how good the murderer is at dealing with stress, this could lead to them making mistakes, blurting out information they should have kept quiet about, or doing something rash because they're driven by fear.

In my next post I'll talk more about how to create a murder victim.

Every post I pick something I believe in and recommend it. This serves two purposes. I want to share what I like with you, and, if you click the link and buy anything over at Amazon within the next 24 hours, Amazon puts a few cents in my tip jar at no cost to you. So, if you click the link, thank you! If not, that’s okay too. I’m thrilled and honored you’ve visited my blog and read my post.

Today I’m recommending a book, a murder mystery, I’ve read a number of times. Each time I discovered something new and valuable! I’m talking about Agatha Christie’s most popular murder mystery: And Then There Were None.

From the blurb: “The world's best-selling mystery with over 100 million copies sold! / Ten people, each with something to hide and something to fear, are invited to a lonely mansion on Indian Island by a host who, surprisingly, fails to appear. On the island they are cut off from everything but each other and the inescapable shadows of their own past lives. One by one, the guests share the darkest secrets of their wicked pasts. And one by one, they die…”

Wednesday, May 24

The M.I.C.E. Quotient and Mystery Stories

In a murder mystery the detective is usually the protagonist, but not always. For example, in the TV show Lucifer the detective’s sidekick is the main character. Today I want to talk about this delightful inversion of formula with reference to the M.I.C.E. Quotient.

Note: I've included this material in my book: How to Write a Murderously Good Mystery: The Major Characters.

Lucifer and the M.I.C.E. Quotient

Before we get into this material let’s do a quick review of M.I.C.E. (For a more in-depth discussion listen to the podcast: Writing Excuses 6.10)

M.I.C.E. is a way to manage the various subplots in your story. It stands for Milieu, Idea, Character, and Event. Each of these refers to a kind of story. Let’s do a quick review:

(BTW, I’ve discussed M.I.C.E. before: The Mysteries of Outlining and Nesting MICE: Creating Killer Stories and The MICE Quotient: How to Structure Your Story.)

A Quick review of the M.I.C.E. Quotient (Milieu, Idea, Character, Event)

Milieu

“The milieu includes all the physical locations that are used—one city or many cities, one building or many buildings, a street, a bus, a farm, a clearing in the woods—with all the sights, smells, and sounds that come with the territory. The milieu also includes the culture—the customs, laws, social roles, and public expectations that limit and illuminate all that a character thinks and feels and says and does.” [1]

“The structure of the pure milieu story is simple: Get a character to the setting that the story is about, and then devise reasons for her to move through the world of the story, showing the reader all the interesting physical and social details of the milieu. When you've shown everything you want the reader to see, bring the character home.”[1]

Begins: When the character enters a particular physical setting/location.
Ends: When the character returns from the physical setting/location.

Idea

“The idea story has a simple structure. A problem or question is posed at the beginning of the story, and at the end of the tale the answer is revealed. Murder mysteries use this structure: Someone is found murdered, and the rest of the story is devoted to discovering who did it, why, and how.”[1]

Begins: With the posing of a question.
Ends: When the question is answered.

Character

“The character story is about a person trying to change his role in life. It begins at the point when the main character finds his present situation intolerable and sets out to change; it ends when the character either finds a new role, willingly returns to the old one, or despairs of improving his lot.”[1]

Begins: When the protagonist finds his or her situation intolerable and sets out to change it.
Ends: When the protagonist either finds a) a new role, b) willingly returns to the old one, or c) despairs of improving his lot.

Event

“Every story is an event story in the sense that from time to time something happens that has causes and results. But the story in which the events are the central concern follows a particular pattern: The world is somehow out of order—call it imbalance, injustice, breakdown, evil, decay, disease—and the story is about the effort to restore the old order or establish a new one. / The event story structure is simple: It begins when the main characters become involved in the effort to heal the world's disease, and ends when they either accomplish their goal or utterly fail to do so.”[1]

Begins: When the main characters become involved in the effort to prevent the disaster.
Ends: When the main characters succeed or fail.

Using M.I.C.E

A novel length story (80,000 words or so) often has all four kinds of stories (Milieu, Idea, Character, and Event) nested within each other. The uppermost, 'umbrella' story will be the main story arc. The first subplot (the B-story) will often have to do with the protagonist’s love interest or, more generally, it will be about a relationship the protagonist forms with another character.

So, for instance, a murder mystery might look like this:

Main arc: Idea story
->begin B-story (first subplot): Character story
-->begin C-story (second subplot): Event story
--->begin D-story (third subplot): Milieu story

Closing out:
--->end/resolve D-story.
-->end/resolve C-story.
->end/resolve B-story.
end/resolve A-story/main arc.

M.I.C.E. gives us a way of managing subplots by helping to expose the bones, the skeleton, of a story. In this sense, M.I.C.E. makes it easier to organize any story, but especially long complex ones with many nested subplots.

First, subplots/arcs need to be closed out in the same order they are introduced.

Second, the question that begins an arc, that spins one up, needs to be answered before that arc can be closed.

Third, it works best if the resolution of one subplot feeds into the closure, the resolution, of the next subplot (and/or the main arc).

Okay! I spent longer on M.I.C.E. than I'd intended, but it's a terrific tool to have in your writer's toolbox so I think that's fine. Moving on!

Lucifer (the TV show)

With M.I.C.E. in mind, let’s take a look at Lucifer[wikipedia].

Currently I’m watching the second season. It’s a light comedy populated with interesting, unique, quirky characters. The general structure of an episode is this:

A body is found which leads to the IDEA question: What is the identity of the murderer?

First subplot: This is often a CHARACTER story but it can also be another IDEA story.

For example, in season two episode eight, the main story, the wrapper, is an IDEA story: Who killed Maddie Howard?

This leads directly into the first subplot which is another IDEA story. For example, Lucifer has recognized that Maddie was killed with Azrael’s blade, a magical weapon. This is very bad news because this blade, when used by a human, will drive them to kill over trivial matters (e.g., leaving the toilet seat up, not taking out the garbage, etc.).

The goal (first subplot): Get Azrael’s blade back. So the question for the first subplot is: Will Lucifer get the blade back?

A brief digression ...

Every episode the characters active in that episode each have a story (a subplot) associated with them. Of course the main character's story isn't a subplot, it's the main plot. This is the story that is onscreen, that we—viewers—see played out. For the secondary characters, though, their stories often play out largely offscreen. It's only when their personal stories intersect with the main character's, with Lucifer's, that they come 'on-screen,' that viewers become aware of them.

I thought I'd mention that; it's a slightly different way of looking at exactly the same thing. (It's like this for written stories as well.)

I want to mention one more thing before we get back to the main thread of discussion ...

I've mentioned that each character with significant screentime has a story/subplot associated with them. Each of these subplots can be viewed as either a Milieu story, an Idea story, a Character story or an Event story. For example, Lucifer’s mom (played by the talented Tricia Helfer) is trying to change her role in life. This is why she released Azrael’s blade into the world. She was hoping to get the attention of her ex-husband (i.e., God!) through misbehaving. So, for this subplot to be wrapped up Lucifer’s mom has to either:

a) Find a new role.
b) Willingly return to the old role.
c) Despair and give up.

Further, the mother's subplot is intimately tied into the main arc because the mother finds a new role by hatching a new plot which sends the show off in another direction AND increases the stakes.

Back to the Episode

But the mother isn’t the main character in the inner plot, Lucifer is. So (as I see it) the first subplot is an IDEA story which revolves around the question of whether Lucifer will get the magical blade back.

Midway through Lucifer discovers the first murderer’s name: Duncan. But this doesn't close out the first/main story arc—if it did, that would be a problem—because now someone else has the blade and bodies are continuing to accumulate. All that has happened is that the question for the main arc has been changed/twisted: Who is the new murderer? And the stakes have increased. Now many were killed as opposed to just one.

Eventually the last wielder of the blade is tracked down: Dan Espinoza, Chloe’s ex-husband and someone who is definitely NOT Lucifer’s biggest fan. Lucifer disarms Dan and recovers the blade, thus closing out the main arc.

The Sidekick as Protagonist

One of the most interesting things about Lucifer is that in terms of the murder mystery arc, Lucifer is the detective's sidekick! Lucifer does what sidekicks do and unwittingly gives the detective the 'ah-ha' clue.

Also, when working with Chloe/the detective, Lucifer is usually not intellectually committed to solving the murder; he's busy with his own concerns. He doesn't notice much at the crime scene—not because he can't or he's dim—because he simply doesn't care (which is actually a core trait of the character).

Lucifer's story arc over the course of the episode usually is an IDEA story; specifically, it's a mystery of some sort, though often not a MURDER mystery. Though Lucifer's story arc will be closely related to the primary murder in some way.

Conclusion

M.I.C.E. is a terrific way of helping writers sort through their subplots/arcs. It helps to keep things from getting all tangled up like unruly balls of yarn.

If you want to write a detective story but have fallen in love with your sidekick it’s okay to make the detective’s sidekick your protagonist! The key is to give them their own arc, one distinct from but related to the murder.

Notes:

1. Elements of Fiction Writing, by Orson Scott Card

Every post I pick something I believe in and recommend it. This serves two purposes. I want to share what I like with you, and, if you click the link and buy anything over at Amazon within the next 24 hours, Amazon puts a few cents in my tip jar at no cost to you. So, if you click the link, thank you! If not, that’s okay too. I’m thrilled and honored you’ve visited my blog and read my post.

Today I’m recommending a book I’ve read MANY times: Orson Scott Card’s Elements of Fiction Writing - Characters & Viewpoint.

From the blurb: “Award-winning author Orson Scott Card explains in depth the techniques of inventing, developing and presenting characters, plus handling viewpoint in novels and short stories. With specific examples, he spells out your narrative options—the choices you'll make in creating fictional people so "real" that readers will feel they know them like members of their own families.”

Saturday, May 20

Differences between Murder Mystery and Fantasy Stories

As I mentioned in my last post, I’ve recently read Deborah Chester’s excellent book, “The Fantasy Fiction Formula.”

Inevitably, I started to think about the differences between the fantasy genre and the murder mystery genre.

Note: I've included this material in my book: How to Write a Murderously Good Mystery: The Major Characters.

5 Differences between a Fantasy and a Murder Mystery

1. The Protagonist’s Goal

Murder mystery. The main (external) goal of the detective is always to identify—to unmask—the murderer. Let me repeat that: The protagonist’s main goal in each and every murder mystery regardless of subgenre is to identify the murderer.

Fantasy. The main goal of the protagonist can be just about anything. Save the kingdom, rescue the princess, find the lost gems of Icondria, destroy the One Ring, and so on.

2. The Visibility of the Antagonist

Murder mystery. In a murder mystery, although the antagonist is (usually) onstage from the very beginning, he or she is hiding. They are masked. After all, discovering the identity of the murderer is the entire point of a whodunit!

Fantasy. In a fantasy story it’s usually clear, at least in broad terms, who the antagonist is from the start of the story. For example, consider Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. Yes, we don’t know that Saruman has been corrupted until later on, but for the most part we know who the good characters are and who the bad characters are. On the other hand, in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Voldemort is the Big Bad but Professor Quirrell is the hidden antagonist. One of the terrific things about Rowling’s novels—I think it’s one of the things that made them so popular—is the mystery element.

By the way, if you want to read more about the difference between the Big Bad and the nemesis, see: Character Types And The Five-Bad Band.

3. Conflict Characters

Which leads to yet another difference between murder mysteries and other stories: the conflict character. (For more on this see: Writing a Murder Mystery: The Conflict Character.)

As you’ll recall, the main function of the antagonist is to oppose the protagonist, oppose his or her goal, and in so doing supply continuing, escalating, conflict. Since the antagonist/murderer in a murder mystery is hidden, cloaked, disguised, we need other characters to help create this conflict.

Although all stories have characters, characters who aren’t the antagonist, who help create conflict in a murder mystery there is often ONE character who has a story-long antagonistic arc with the detective, an arc that helps complicate the main storyline and increase the conflict. This is what I think of as the conflict character.

For instance, consider Sherlock starring Benedict Cumberbatch. Though Lestrade takes on a number of roles, he often acts as a conflict character. Other conflict characters are Anderson and Sgt. Sally Donovan. Even Mycroft, when he’s not being a mentor, often steps into this role. (Of course the Moriarty episodes are an exception.)

4. The Missing Mentor

In a fantasy or action-adventure the hero often starts out as a wet-behind-the-ears innocent and, through his adventures, ends as a seasoned, experienced, hero. One of the characters that helps the protagonist begin/complete his journey is the mentor. (Think Star Wars.)

In a murder mystery the protagonist’s arc IS from ignorance to knowledge—namely, ignorance of the murderer’s identity to knowledge of the murderer’s identity. And, yes, in murder mysteries there is often a character—sometimes the sidekick—who he goes to for inspiration. But, generally speaking, the mentor isn’t of the ‘wise elder’ variety. If the sidekick acts as mentor often the crucial clue—what I like to call the ‘ah-ha’ clue—is given unconsciously.

5. A Minor Arc

The detective often has a more-or-less minor problem at the beginning of the story. Perhaps he hasn’t had an interesting case for a few days. Perhaps—this often happens in Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple stories—the detective has been having the devil of a time finding a reliable person to help her around the house.

But this arc—though it spans the entire story—is a minor one. In Deborah Chester’s terminology, it’s a plate; a question put into play (Will the detective find a case deserving of his great intellect? Will lovely Miss Marple find someone who doesn’t break her prize china on a regular basis?)

But, again, this is a minor question that doesn’t involve a great deal of growth (or any growth!) on the part of the detective.

I bring this up in part to underscore the fact that many detective’s don’t have a mentor. Rather THEY are the wise old man or woman. When inspiration is needed often their sidekick supplies it without realizing it.

In this sense the detective in a whodunit is a bit like James Bond. Though Mr. Bond might have a relatively minor lesson to learn—something along the lines of: Don’t always trust blonds with long shapely legs!—there is relatively little character growth and audiences are fine with that!

One more thing ...

Is vs Ought

So far I’ve talked about the way many murder mysteries ARE, but is this how they SHOULD be? Or, better, is this the way they MUST be? After all, the genre has changed quite a bit over the years. (The POV character used to be the sidekick, the Watson. The detective was the focal character. Today this setup strikes many writers as counterintuitive.) Perhaps our protagonists, our brilliant detectives, should go on more of a personal journey?

Well, sometimes they do! Consider the Wallander novels by Henning Mankell. These books are deep, angst ridden, and beautiful. What they are NOT are cozys! Cozy’s are LIGHT entertainment. Part of the reason they are light entertainment is that the protagonist doesn’t do a whole lot of soul searching and—unless you’re one of the unfortunate victims—not a lot of tragic things happen. That’s one reason folks (myself included) love to read a good cozy!

I guess what I’m trying to say is this: Sure, you could write a murder mystery where the protagonist has an arc more like a fantasy or action-adventure but it wouldn’t be what the average reader of a cozy is expecting.

The Truth to be Uncovered

One thing is sure, there needs to be a truth the detective must WORK FOR over the course of the novel. And he needs setbacks. He needs to be tricked by the murderer once or twice.

That’s it! My next post will be about the first victim and what makes them unique. Stay tuned! Have a terrific weekend and good writing!

Every post I pick something I believe in and recommend it. This serves two purposes. I want to share what I like with you, and, if you click the link and buy anything over at Amazon within the next 24 hours, Amazon puts a few cents in my tip jar at no cost to you. So, if you click the link, thank you! If not, that’s okay too. I’m thrilled and honored you’ve visited my blog and read my post.

The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings (the Hobbit / the Fellowship of the Ring / the Two Towers / The Return Of The King), by J.R.R. Tolkien.

You've likely seen this clip from Stephen Colbert's and James Franco Tolkien Showdown (Parts 1 and 2), but I thought I would include it here because it always makes me laugh. I am in awe of that man's knowledge of Tolkien lore. Actually, I'm in awe of his memory full stop!

Pages