Time to Write

Are people tired of the hero's journey formula?

The newest film version of "King Arthur" has flopped. Could it be that the audience is getting tired of scripts that use the hero's journey as a fill-in-the-blanks formula rather than just as an inspiration?

This is from theWrap.com:

"...for audiences to get intrigued by a modernized version of a classic tale, something new needs to be brought to the table.

King Arthur failed to do this, instead relying on an origin tale that deviates little from the classic Hero’s Journey formula. Critics panned the film for turning the Arthurian legend into a rote tale where Arthur spends his life on the streets before learning of his true identity and being pushed into leading a revolution against the traitorous relative who robbed him of his birthright. 'In true Joseph Campbell style, this reluctant hero refuses over and over before finally accepting his destiny,' wrote TheWrap’s Alonso Duralde."

I'm sure there are additional reasons why the film failed (for one, I'm not a fan of Guy Ritchie's kinetic directing), but I've felt for a while that a lot of films these days are so alike in structure that you feel like you've seen a film before even when you haven't.

In my writing workshops, I suggest that writers develop their story fully first, and then decide on the structure; many are taught to do it the other way around. They cram their story into the detailed 3-act structure or the hero's journey, and sometimes in the process lose what could have made their story unique.

That's not to say that the hero's journey can't still serve as the foundation of a screenplay or novel, just that it has to be done in a fresh way.

(for help writing your own book or screenplay, see my book, Your Writing Coach, published by Nicholas Brealey and available from Amazon or your other favorite bookseller.)

When book blurbs go bad

The text on the back of your book or the blurb that publishers put in ads or promotions for your book can influence people to buy...or not.

In a mailing I received today I found a couple of examples of blurbs that leave a lot to be desired. Surprisingly, the books are by successful authors, published by a major publisher (HarperCollins). Here's one, for Born Bad by Marnie Riches:

Manchester’s criminal underworld is shaken to the core when gang leader Paddy O’Brien is found bleeding by the poolside of his sprawling Bramshott mansion. So begins a fierce battle for the South Side, with the leading Manchester gangsters taking the law into their own hands - even when they have to play dirty to win...

Wait a minute, isn't taking the law into their own hands what gangsters do all the time? And is it rare for them to play dirty? I'm sure the book is better than this description.

Here's another one, for The Secret of Orchard Cottage by Alex Brown:

April Wilson is hoping to piece herself together after the loss of her husband with a visit to her elderly great aunt, Edith. Arriving in the rural idyll of Tindledale, Edith seems to have lost interest in her home and the surrounding orchard completely, desperate to find out what happened to her sister who disappeared during WWII.

As April begins to unravel the mystery of the missing Winnie with the help of the enigmatic Matt, she slowly feels things coming to life again - but can Orchard Cottage work its magic on her too?

The second sentence makes it sound like Edith, not Alex, arrives in the rural idyll of Tindlledale. It seems strange that Edith is just now getting around to wanting to find out what happened to her sister, who disappeared during WWII. Finally, if Orchard Cottage is where Edith lives, its magic hasn't worked very well, since the old lady has lost interest in everything. And if Orchard Cottage isn't where Edith lives, where is it?

I'm sure the book explains all of these, but if the blurb is confusing we probably won't bother to buy.

It's likely that these blurbs were written by a junior staffer, but I hope the authors are paying attention and make some changes. 

 

Unfortunate typos, and let's give the President a gold star

Everybody's material has typos, but some are more unfortunate than others.

WE TEACHES YOU HOW TO WRITE GOOD!

Here's a headline in an ad for a writing course offered by WritersLife.org: "How to Write Science Fiction & Fantasy Thats Your Reader's Will Love." 

In the text, it says, "As of this email we has 27 slots available..." 

I suspect they STILL have 27 slots available.

MAYBE THEY WERE RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

One from a Guardian play review: "LSD can bring about psychotic behaviour in those who have not taken it," is one of the many striking lies in the play..." 

It was later changed to "striking lines."

THE INSANELY RIDICULOUS WORDING OF CLICKBAIT HEADLINES, REVISITED

"Insanely" has been joined by "ridiculously" in clickbait headlines.

For instance, "14 Things Ridiculously Successful People Do Every Day." 

Insanely and variations are still popular, of course, as in, "The Insane Mistake Your Social Media Team is Making and How to Fix it" (et tu, Inc magazine?). 

Coming up fast: "game-changing."

HE MAKES UP WORDS (AS WELL AS "FACTS")!

Before you claim it, Mr. President, you didn't invent the term "game-changing" so don't even bother.

In a recent interview with The Economist, Trump mentioned that improving the economy required "priming the pump" by making tax cuts. 

TRUMP: "Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?"

THE ECONOMIST: "Priming the pump?"

TRUMP: "Yeah, have you heard it?"

ECONOMIST: "Yes."

TRUMP: "Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven't heard it. I mean, I just...[pauses to admire own brilliance]...I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It's what you have to do."

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary notes that "the phrase 'priming the pump' has been used to refer to government investment expenditures since at least 1933."

I say that's fake news! Let's give the President the gold star that he so obviously was fishing for because otherwise he gets very cranky.

What research tells us about (fictional) heroes and villains

Why do viewers like TV and movie protagonists who do bad things? For instance, Walter White from Breaking Bad, or Tony Soprano. Recent research at the University of Buffalo sheds some light on the matter and can be useful for anybody writing fiction.

Who the audience meets first plays a role. 

Science Daily reports that heroes were judged to be more heroic when they appeared after a villain and villains were judged to be more villainous when they appeared after a hero.

It's all relative

Lead researcher Matthew Grizzard said, "What's happening here is that we're not making isolated judgments about these characters using some objective standard of morality. We're constantly making comparisons about these characters and the forces they face."

That applies to Walter White, who gradually does worse and worse things--but he's also up against even worse people.

The show's creator, Vince Gilligan, has said he expected the audience to turn on Walter, but most of them stayed loyal to him. A friend of mine who has discussed the show with a lot of people told me that they split into either the Walter camp or the Jesse camp. 

A LITTLE GOOD GOES A LONG WAY (FOR THE BAD GUY)

Another interesting finding is that villains get more credit for any altruistic actions they perform than heroes do. If you want to make our villain character more three-dimensional, having them perform even a minor good act will help you achieve that.

(You'll find lots of useful information about creating great characters in my book, Your Writing Coach, available from Amazon or our other favorite bookseller.)