20 October 2024, Writing - part xxx843 Scene Outline, About Romantic Protagonist Characteristics, Introspective and more of the Protagonist’s Helper
Announcement: I
still need a new publisher. However, I’ve taken the step to republish my
previously published novels. I’m starting with Centurion, and
we’ll see from there. Since previously published novels have little
chance of publication in the market (unless they are huge best sellers), I
might as well get those older novels back out. I’m going through Amazon Publishing,
and I’ll pass the information on to you.
Introduction: I wrote the
novel Aksinya: Enchantment and the Daemon. This was my 21st novel
and through this blog, I gave you the entire novel in installments that
included commentary on the writing. In the commentary, in addition to other
general information on writing, I explained, how the novel was constructed, the
metaphors and symbols in it, the writing techniques and tricks I used, and the
way I built the scenes. You can look back through this blog and read the entire
novel beginning with http://www.pilotlion.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-novel-part-3-girl-and-demon.html.
I’m using this novel as
an example of how I produce, market, and eventually (we hope) get a novel
published. I’ll keep you informed along the way.
Today’s Blog: To see the steps in
the publication process, visit my writing websites http://www.sisteroflight.com/.
The four plus two basic
rules I employ when writing:
1. Don’t confuse your readers.
2. Entertain your readers.
3. Ground your readers in the writing.
4. Don’t show (or tell) everything.
4a. Show what can be
seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted on the stage of the novel.
5. Immerse yourself in the world of your writing.
6. The initial scene is the most important scene.
These are the steps I use to write a novel
including the five discrete parts of a novel:
1. Design the initial scene
2. Develop a theme statement
(initial setting, protagonist, protagonist’s helper or antagonist, action
statement)
a. Research as required
b. Develop the initial
setting
c. Develop the characters
d. Identify the telic flaw
(internal and external)
3. Write the initial scene
(identify the output: implied setting, implied characters, implied action
movement)
4. Write the next scene(s)
to the climax (rising action)
5. Write the climax scene
6. Write the falling action
scene(s)
7. Write the dénouement
scene
I finished writing my 31st novel,
working title, Cassandra, potential title Cassandra:
Enchantment and the Warriors. The theme statement is: Deirdre and
Sorcha are redirected to French finishing school where they discover difficult
mysteries, people, and events.
I finished writing my 34th novel
(actually my 32nd completed novel), Seoirse, potential
title Seoirse: Enchantment and the Assignment. The theme
statement is: Seoirse is assigned to be Rose’s protector and helper at Monmouth
while Rose deals with five goddesses and schoolwork; unfortunately, Seoirse has
fallen in love with Rose.
Here is the cover
proposal for the third edition of Centurion:
|
Cover Proposal |
The most important scene
in any novel is the initial scene, but eventually, you have to move to the
rising action. I am continuing to write on my 30th novel,
working title Red Sonja. I finished my 29th novel,
working title Detective. I finished writing number 31,
working title Cassandra: Enchantment and the Warrior. I just
finished my 32nd novel and 33rd novel: Rose:
Enchantment and the Flower, and Seoirse: Enchantment and the
Assignment.
How to begin a novel. Number one thought,
we need an entertaining idea. I usually encapsulate such an idea with a
theme statement. Since I’m writing a new novel, we need a new theme
statement. Here is an initial cut.
For novel 30: Red Sonja, a Soviet spy,
infiltrates the X-plane programs at Edwards AFB as a test pilot’s
administrative clerk, learns about freedom, and is redeemed.
For Novel 32: Shiggy Tash finds a lost girl
in the isolated Scottish safe house her organization gives her for her latest
assignment: Rose Craigie has nothing, is alone, and needs someone or something
to rescue and acknowledge her as a human being.
For novel 33, Book girl:
Siobhàn Shaw is Morven McLean’s savior—they are both attending Kilgraston
School in Scotland when Morven loses everything, her wealth, position, and
friends, and Siobhàn Shaw is the only one left to befriend and help her
discover the one thing that might save Morven’s family and existence.
For novel 34: Seoirse is assigned to
be Rose’s protector and helper at Monmouth while Rose deals with five goddesses
and schoolwork; unfortunately, Seoirse has fallen in love with Rose.
For novel 35: Eoghan, a Scottish National
Park Authority Ranger, while handing a supernatural problem in Loch Lomond and
The Trossachs National Park discovers the crypt of Aine and accidentally
releases her into the world; Eoghan wants more from the world and Aine desires
a new life and perhaps love.
Here
is the scene development outline:
1.
Scene input (comes from the previous scene output or is an initial scene)
2.
Write the scene setting (place, time, stuff, and characters)
3.
Imagine the output, creative elements, plot, telic flaw resolution (climax) and
develop the tension and release.
4.
Write the scene using the output and creative elements to build the tension.
5.
Write the release
6.
Write the kicker
Today: Let me tell you a little about writing. Writing
isn’t so much a hobby, a career, or a pastime. Writing is a habit and an
obsession. We who love to write love to write.
If
you love to write, the problem is gaining the skills to write well. We
want to write well enough to have others enjoy our writing. This is
important. No one writes just for themselves the idea is absolutely
irrational and silly. I can prove why.
In
the first place, the purpose of writing is communication—that’s the only
purpose. Writing is the abstract communication of the mind through
symbols. As time goes by, we as writers gain more and better tools and
our readers gain more and better appreciation for those tools and skills—even
if they have no idea what they are.
We
are in the modern era. In this time, the action and dialog style along
with the push of technology forced novels into the form of third person, past
tense, action and dialog style, implying the future. This is the modern
style of the novel. I also showed how the end of literature created the
reflected worldview. We have three possible worldviews for a novel: the
real, the reflected, and the created. I choose to work in the reflected
worldview.
Why
don’t we go back to the basics and just writing a novel? I can tell you
what I do, and show you how I go about putting a novel together. We can
start with developing an idea then move into the details of the writing.
Ideas. We need ideas. Ideas allow us
to figure out the protagonist and the telic flaw. Ideas don’t come fully
armed from the mind of Zeus. We need to cultivate ideas.
1. Read novels.
2. Fill your mind with good
stuff—basically the stuff you want to write about.
3. Figure out what will
build ideas in your mind and what will kill ideas in your mind.
4. Study.
5. Teach.
6. Make the catharsis.
7. Write.
The development of ideas is based on study and
research, but it is also based on creativity. Creativity is the
extrapolation of older ideas to form new ones or to present old ideas in a new
form. It is a reflection of something new created with ties to the
history, science, and logic (the intellect). Creativity requires
consuming, thinking, and producing.
If we have filled our mind with all kinds of
information and ideas, we are ready to become creative. Creativity means
the extrapolation of older ideas to form new ones or to present old ideas in a
new form. Literally, we are seeing the world in a new way, or actually,
we are seeing some part of the world in a new way.
The beginning of creativity is study and
effort. We can use this to extrapolate to creativity. In addition,
we need to look at recording ideas and working with ideas.
With that said, where should we go? Should
I delve into ideas and creativity again, or should we just move into the novel
again? Should I develop a new protagonist, which, we know, will result in
a new novel. I’ve got an idea, but it went stale. Let’s look at the
outline for a novel again:
1. The initial scene
2. The rising action scenes
3. The climax scene
4. The falling action
scene(s)
5. The dénouement scene(s)
Why not look at the most important building block
for a novel—the scene. When I first
started writing I had no idea about scenes.
The concept only struck me after writing about fifteen or so
novels. This is one of the very
important concepts that most writing and English teachers and professors don’t
know and can’t teach. As I’ve written
before, if you want an educated and trained teacher about novels, ask how many
they have had traditionally published—that’s the measure of success and, to a
degree, of knowledge. The knowledge
comes with the experience of writing and proven success.
Here
is the scene development outline:
1.
Scene input (comes from the previous scene output or is an initial scene)
2.
Write the scene setting (place, time, stuff, and characters)
3.
Imagine the output, creative elements, plot, telic flaw resolution (climax) and
develop the tension and release.
4.
Write the scene using the output and creative elements to build the tension.
5.
Write the release
6.
Write the kicker
I’m not sure if you can get simpler than this
outline to write a good scene. This
outline directs the writer in the proper way to design and write a scene. Let’s look at it again and in detail.
I already covered the ideas of scene input and
output as well as tied this to the tension and release in the scene. To repeat, every scene must be highly
entertaining. If you write a boring
scene, you will have a boring novel.
That’s a guarantee. Let’s not
have any boring scenes. In addition, if
you write from scene input to scene output, you can’t lose your way, and you
can’t get writer’s block. There is more
to this, but let’s go back to the beginning.
Let’s presume we have a scene input. This can be the initial scene or the output
from the previous scene. Step two is to
set the scene.
I write specifically that you should write the
scene setting. Even if you are lost, you
still must have a scene input from the output of the previous scene. It would be impossible for you not to have an
input. All you need to do now is set the
scene. That’s enough for me.
How do we set the scene? If this is scene two or greater, then you
might be starting with a scene or a place.
What you need to do is set it. If
necessary, set it again and then clean it up (edit out what you don’t
need). I always set the scene. This means, I ensure the reader knows the
when, where, what, and who are on the stage of the novel at the beginning of
the scene. This is critical to writing
the scene and not confusing your readers plus, setting the scene provides
everything, or nearly everything you need for scene design and
development. I will write this, you
don’t have to tell us everything, you need to show us what is on the stage of
the scene (novel). What can the reader
see, smell, feel, taste, and hear when the scene opens. You may increase the details of the
descriptions as you go along, but start with description. Yeah, use some of that writer’s brain to mix
it up a little, but for major (new) characters give us at least 300 words and
for minor (new) characters, give us 100 words.
Do the same for the places, stuff, and time. Show us when and where. I usually don’t start with the characters but
with the when and where. The when is the
most obvious as well as the conditions of the when: dark, stormy, bright,
sunlight, night, day, cloudy, raining, and all.
You must show us what the conditions, time, and season are. Perhaps the most awful writing, in my
opinion, is when I have no idea when and where we are in the description of the
scene. There are times when this is
appropriate. I’ll mention an example,
but show you how to handle this.
In my novel, Sorcha: Enchantment and the
Curse, Shiggy wakes in a room on a table.
She describes where she is and what she can see, but there is no
weather, no notion of time, or place—other than the room. That’s okay.
We are showing from the point of view (PoV) of the protagonist and
character. This is perfect, and this is
how we handle these circumstances. The
same is true for any other novel and scene.
Show us what the characters can see, hear, taste, feel, and smell. This is the fundamental of description. I’ll continue with more, next.
When we write any novel, here is my advice. In the first place, every scene will have a
Point of View (PoV). You can’t go
flipping this PoV all over the place in a scene. A good editor will never let you get away
with that, and a good publisher will reject it.
Now, here is a little controversial advice. I suggest not using first person. The first person PoV and style of writing has
produced some significant bestsellers, but I have some real problems with
it. In the first place, you can’t move
the PoV.
Part of the power of a great novel is the ability
of the writer to move the PoV around and still hold to a strong
protagonist. Yes, I also advise a single
protagonist. More than one just dilutes
the writing and the story. Yes, I
realize Martin has a bazillion protagonists in Thrones, but it’s simply
silly and overkill. He and you should
just write multiple novels. In any case,
I suggest third person, singular protagonist, past tense, implying the future or
at least implying the times of the novel.
We could also add to that list, showing style and Romantic
protagonist.
The entire reason I’m writing this is for the
scene. The real problem with the first
person is that it is all telling. You
don’t want to move to the omniscient voice in any writing, but in third person,
you can provide a description from the PoV of any character and still ring true
with a single romantic protagonist. In
fact, you can write the entire novel from the PoV of another character and
still have a Romantic protagonist—Wuthering Heights is just that kid of
novel. I’m not really a fan of Wuthering
Heights as an example of good writing technique, but it shows that this
concept of PoV from another character with a separate protagonist is
possible—and a Romantic protagonist at that.
When you begin your novel, you need to determine
the person, tense, and a few other details.
For most, the concept of the person of the text is
self-determining. The author just starts
writing in a specific person and that’s that.
The tense should always be past tense, while dialog is present tense and
moving as necessary for the specifics of the dialog.
Let me explain even better why I advise against
using the first person—except in some very key types of novels. In every novel, the protagonist becomes the center-point
is not the focus of the novel. In my
opinion, the only time you should use the first person tense is when the
protagonist is the focus and the most important person in the context of the
place. For example, the king, queen,
prince regent, or crown princess. In a
republic, the president, in a parliamentary system, the prime minister, in a
tyranny, the dictator, and so on. If the
character of the person is the prime mover and focus of the worldview and the
novel, then by all means write in the first person. This is exactly what I did for part of The
End of Honor. Lyral Neuterra was the
crown princess whose death led to the Human Galactic War, thus her portion of
the novel is in the first person. This
is a slightly experimental novel because she isn’t the protagonist, but she is
the focus of the novel.
So, in writing and developing a novel, we first
need to determine the tense, the person, and then the other details—or perhaps
start with those details and then apply the person and tense. I’ll get to that, we are all about writing
scenes.
Whatever person you decide for the Point of View
(PoV) of the novel, I recommend third person and you should always go with past
tense in narration and action and present tense (moving to the proper tense for
the conversation) in dialog. If you have
questions about this you need to realize that this is the foundation of modern
writing. I guess I should go through the
history of fiction (novels) again. Let’s
go.
The first novel in the English language is
usually considered Robinson Caruso by Daniel Defoe. There are older novels in other languages notably
the first ever novel, Genji in Japanese and Don Quixote in
Spanish. All these novels’ titles should
tell you something about early novels—they are names of their protagonist. What is interesting about Robinson Caruso is
that it is written in first person. The
reason for this is that it is put together as a journal and the first person
fits this journal style. In addition,
because it is a journal style, the implication is that the events happened in
the past and are being recorded and recollected. This is shown with the past tense. Because of this, for most all novels, the
past tense has become the standard for writing fiction. You will occasionally find a novel in present
tense, and I’ve never heard of one in the future tense. In most cases, any of these novels are not
best sellers, or classics, and not successful.
The implication of time (past, present, or future) of most writing comes
not from the tense but from the setting.
For most writers and writing, the past tense
makes sense. However, the implication of
time in the setting (past, present, or future) are all choices of the topic and
the style of the writing. For example, Robinson
Caruso implies the past because it appears to be a recording in a journal
of events that happened in the past.
I’ll make the assertion that you will find in most early novels, they
are all mostly journal style, implying the past, in the first person, and past
tense. This is what you will find with
all three of Danial Defoe’s novels and many of his somewhat
contemporaries. You will also find this
to be true of the non-novels from slightly earlier in English literature. I’ll move on the what happened in these
aspects of English literature, next.
So, the earliest novels in English were first
person, journal style, implying the past.
What happened next? Novels moved
from the journal style to the narrative style, and with that change came a
great change in person. The narrative
style fits perfectly and is the natural style of the third person, and the
third person took the stage in almost all novel writing from then on. We rarely see the first person in novels
again until the end of the twentieth century.
We’ll eventually get to this, but the first person doesn’t work at all
with the narrative style. We’ll have to
wait for a new style of literature.
In any case, from the advent of the novel in
English, we get a pretty gradual and yet quick change from journal style to
narrative style and with this a move from the first person to the third
person. This lasted into the Victorian
Era, but not much past it.
We do move through various movements in writing
and most specifically the Romanic style or really the Romantic
protagonist. This movement and change in
literature was critically important and then died out in the Victorian
Era. This is very important to us now,
so I’ll explain it, next.
The Victorian Era was a high point of literature,
but a low point for humanity. The reason
was the decline of the Romantic protagonist and the rise of the aristocratic
protagonist. Most specifically, this was
the fate or blood will out plot.
Now, the fate or blood will out plot had been
around since the beginning of literature, but the Victorian aristocracy and
society saw the Romantic idea that the common man was as great and capable as
the noble, that they had to do something to save it. The result in the UK was the fate or blood
will out plot. The protagonists roll
like dogs in this type of plot, just look at every Dickens’ novel that was ever
published, except perhaps A Christmas Carol, and even that one has
touches of it. Look at the seminal
novels, Oliver Twist with a noble child accidentally born into
penury. In a Romantic novel, the
protagonist would climb out of poverty by the skin of his own teeth—in Oliver
Twist, blood will out, so the protagonist is found and taken out of the
riffraff back to aristocracy. Likewise,
David Copperfield and most notably, Bleak House show what happens when
the poor get their comeuppance and are dashed back to poverty. It’s not just Dickens.
Many of the great ladies of the Era show similar
appeals to blood will out or fate. The
main point of blood will out is that aristocracy and wealth will always
overcome the poor and common. What is
interesting about this is that the Romantic Era just before the Victorian was
all about the common and the special, not blood or wealth, becoming great
through hard work. This was the American
Dream, which by the way ended the nobility, aristocracy, and poverty. The Victorians were overcome by the new
Romantic Era in literature. This Era
isn’t called Romantic, but it is.
In this new Romantic Era, we see the common man
and woman achieving and beating the nobility and wealth at their own game. The protagonists move from the blooded to the
common. The poor scholarship students
are the heroes and the nobility are suddenly the antagonists and vile
characters. The change was quick and
reflected society and culture as well as literature. The common people could read and wanted to
see themselves as the valiant winners, and so they were—that was the American
Deam that became the world’s dream. This
concept of the Romantic protagonist is very important for writers to
understand, I’ll move into that next.
The Modern Era from about 1905 or so on, the end
of the Victorian Era goes by a host of names and appellations. I call it the new Romantic Era or just the
Romantic Era because in my mind, only the great Romantic novels, that is novels
with Romantic protagonists are worth reading.
As I wrote, the Victorian Era of writing ended with the realization that
the market was no longer the aristocracy and the wealthy—it was the common
person, and that common person was not just buying novels, they were writing
them and showing up all the nobility and wealthy. The era of the common man and the American
dream had taken over literature.
This new Romantic Era was in some ways similar to
the past one, but in some ways peculiar as well. The Romantic protagonist took the forefront
in most of these new novels, and this protagonist was the one that people
loved. You can read many of the Modern
Era novels, but you won’t love their characters or their protagonists. I mean, of course, Hemmingway, Falkner,
Steinbeck, and the whole host of modern realist that everyone pretty much hates
to read, but that get billed by the literatcy as great authors. Still, for every one of these novels, ten
from ERB (Edgar Rice Burroughs), Andre Norton, Robert Heinlein, Frank Herbert,
Jack Vance, Alexi Panishin, plus many others is purchased and read. I’ll go further, even with some of the greats
of the Victorian Era, the throwback, or throw forward Robert Louis Stevenson is
still more popular than many other Victorian authors—the reason is that he was
an early advocate for the Romantic protagonist and the Romantic plot. He was the vanguard for the Romantic movement
that swept literature at the beginning and through the Twentieth Century.
The main mark of this movement was the Romantic
protagonist. If you wondered why you
loved the protagonists of your youthful reading, look no further than
this. Indeed, I point to all if not most
protagonists who are loved as this type of protagonist, and you can see them
all through the previous and this centuries protagonists. The only problem today is the rise of the
wimpy, pimply, failure protagonist, of whom, Harry Potty is a great
example. Still loved and lovable, but
really an anti-Romantic protagonist in a Romantic protagonist wrapper. I think this is pretty funny, but we are
seeing more and more of these wimpy protagonists, and I think it will be the
potential death of a whole generation of writing. We need more Romantic protagonists, not
less. I guess I should explain about the
Romantic protagonist, next.
Unfortunately, there are too many presuppositions
and presumptions to call the Modern Era of writing the Romantic Era number
two. I’d like to, however, because most
successful modern writing is Romantic.
The protagonist is Romantic and the plot is Romantic. The few successful works in the Realistic Era
are just throwaways with little of the power of enduring popularity of the early
Romantics or the Victorian Era. People
will still be reading Ivanhoe until the end of the English language, and
the Bronte Sisters and Dickens will still be around when no one reads
Hemmingway or Steinbeck because they are boring and miss the entire point of
writing—entertainment.
Many of the Realist novels are boring. They script and show the underbelly of life
that most of us know is dark, lost, and unimportant to human reality. They are also ironic since, except for the
highly entertaining and enlightening Down and Out in Paris and London by
Goerge Orwell, the other realists produced works, not about what they
experienced, but what they observed. The
observation is cute, but how can you know what the bird is thinking by bird
watching. You gotta be a bird to
understand a bird. Orwell lived the life
he wrote about and showed us a world that he found disgusting. So disgusting, he rose above it just like we
should expect everyone in the same circumstance to do.
So, where are we?
I want to explain to you the most successful type of protagonist and the
most successful type of plot. If you can
reproduce this type of protagonist and plot in your own work, you will have
succeeded in entertaining your readers.
I can assure you, at least from the protagonist and plot
standpoint. There are other factors in
writing. With that written, let me get
to the Romantic protagonist, next.
The Romantic protagonist is the protagonist you
love to love, and you love to read about.
I’ll mention this as a prologue—novels are not just about the
protagonist, the antagonist, the telic flaw, the plot, and the resolution of
the telic flaw in the climax. Novels are
the revelation of the protagonist.
I imagined for a long time, as I was taught, that
the novel was the revelation of the plot, but writing novels and reading many
many novels has led me to better thinking.
You can and I’m certain have read novels with a
terrible, or better written, weak climax, but you loved the novel and the
protagonist. My prepublication readers
have stated they never wanted the novel to end.
It wasn’t the plot or necessarily the telic flaw that influenced their
enthusiasm—they were excited and enthused and loved the protagonist. As a writer, I find this true as well.
I find that I love my protagonists. I and my readers love them so much, that when
I give them an adversarial or an antagonistic role in another novel, my readers
get a little irritated with me. I
realize their feelings, but what is funny is that I write the same character in
the other novels, its just that they aren’t the protagonist and they aren’t the
Romantic protagonist anymore—their actions, emotions, and reactions are the
same, they are just not able to show their minds anymore to the readers. Without knowing the mind of your Romantic
protagonist, their actions many times become harsh and ill advised, but they
were the same responses and actions as before.
They just lack some context from the previous novel.
This context is specifically, showing the mind of
the Romantic protagonist. This is one of
the main and key features of the Romantic protagonist, and one that we love
about them. Their actions and reactions
by expression of their minds is what makes us love them. That’s not the only characteristic of the
Romantic protagonist, but it’s perhaps the most important one. I’ll give you the whole list, next.
Here's my official list of the characteristics of
the Romantic protagonist.
1. Some power or ability outside the norm of
society that the character develops to resolve the telic flaw.
2. Set of beliefs (morals and ideals) that are
different than normal culture or society’s.
3. Courageous
4. Power (skills and abilities) and leadership
that are outside of the normal society.
5. Introspective
6. Travel plot
7. Melancholy
8. Overwhelming desire to change and grow—to
develop four and one.
9. Pathos developed because the character does
not fit the cultural mold. From the
common.
10. Regret when they can’t follow their own moral
compass.
11. Self-criticism when they can’t follow their
own moral compass.
12. Pathos bearing because he or she is estranged
from family or normal society by death, exclusion for some reason, or
self-isolation due to three above.
13. From the common and potentially the rural.
14. Love interest
I can’t remember where I got this list, but I
think I did source it when I originally blogged it. The main point is you can trust this list—it
is a usable list for the development of any Romantic protagonist, and it’s a
pretty inclusive list. I should willow
it down a little because although it’s a conclusive list, it is not an
exclusive list. In other words, if a
Romantic protagonist doesn’t have every listed characteristic, that doesn’t
make them not a Romantic protagonist.
You can have a perfect Romantic protagonist who doesn’t have an active
love interest. The Romantic protagonist
should in some way desire and potentially seek a love interest, but it’s not a
full on requirement.
They don’t have to be from the common—that’s
almost a heresy in a Romantic protagonist, but an author can cut down the
Romantic protagonist to bring them to the common, and that counts. Being from the common is a main
characteristic of the classical Romantic protagonist, but if you drive your
character from wealth or from nobility to the common, or make their nobility or
wealth the common, you can have a Romantic protagonist who is technically not
from the common.
These are just examples. What I should do is go through the list and
explain them as well as give examples.
This will help you understand the Romantic protagonist better and help
show why it is an ideal for most novels and most novelists. I’ll also try to give it some historical
context, but that’s, next.
Do you remember the protagonist’s you loved or
still love? I do. When I was younger and my entire free time,
or most of it, was spent in reading novels, I had novels I would read and
reread. Many I read once a year. Some I just have to read every now and then
because I love them, and I get great ideas for my writing from them. If I look back at the novels and the
protagonist’s I love, they are all Romantic protagonists. A few are not, and those few are very close
to being Romantic protagonists. For example,
Sara Crew is a great protagonist but not really a full on Romantic
protagonist. I think this may be the
best book written in the Victorian Era.
Heidi may be the best novel ever written exclusively for children, and
Heidi is a Romantic protagonist. It came
from the Victorian Era but was a Swiss novel.
Ivanhoe is perhaps the foremost and greatest Romantic protagonist
written in the Romantic Era by Sir Walter Scott.
After and near the end of the Victorian Era, we
get the modern Era with a whole host of Romantic protagonists from the
Victorian writer, Robet Louis Stevenson to Edgar Rice Burroughs. Stevenson and Burroughs are just two of the
trailblazers writing with Romantic protagonist and beginning the Romantic
Plot.
In the Twentieth Century, you just can’t get away
from the Romantic protagonist or plot.
All or most all the novels you love and the protagonists you love are
Romantic. I’ll mention just one of the
most popular in modern history and that is Harry Potty. I’m not a total fan of Harry’s because he
isn’t a full-on Romantic protagonist. He
is close to a Romantic protagonist. I
think Rowlings should have made Hermione the protagonist of her novels—she is a
real Romantic protagonist, but Harry is a messiah in a messiah plot, and the
type of modern protagonist many of us love to hate. I’ll get to that too.
The main point is that all readers want to love
and fall in love with a great protagonist.
I don’t mean romance type love. I
mean the type of love you would give to a besty or a respected comrade. The kind of love that brings you back to read
and reread a novel. So, what makes a
protagonist this kind of loveable, and how do we do it? That’s next.
The best way to look at the Romantic protagonist
might be to just look at the characteristics and examples of them. Let’s just start with the list and see what
makes the Romantic protagonist so special.
1. Some power or ability outside the norm of
society that the character develops to resolve the telic flaw.
This is perhaps the most important characteristic
of the Romantic protagonist. Look at Oliver
Twist or David Copperfield. These are
two classic Victorian Protagonists.
Oliver is a fated/blood will out protagonist, and David is a fated/blood
will out protagonist. Neither has any
special ability or skill other than their birth. Oliver was born from wealth and aristocracy
while David was born of poverty and immorality.
You know from their birth that David will fail and Oliver will succeed
not based on anything either does.
That’s the story of Oliver and David in a paragraph. Now, let’s look at a Romantic or a
semi-Romantic protagonist.
Sara Crew is a Victorian protagonist. She is born to wealth and fated through blood
to succeed. She does have some special
skills mainly the ability to lead and attract others with her storytelling and
her imagination. Because she is a
Victorian protagonist, we know that she will succeed even without her skills,
but we still love her for it. She is a
transitioning protagonist to the Romantic.
Let’s look at a Romantic Era Romantic
protagonist, Ivanhoe. Ivanhoe is born of
wealth and aristocracy, but he is not assured to succeed just as Richard the
Lionheart is not assured to succeed.
Ivanhoe is not fated. He will
succeed because he is the gentlest, most proficient, and most honorable knight
in Christendom. His success is assured
not because of his birth but because of his honor. As I noted, his special skills are all
related to being a knight, and he is a great knight.
Moving to the Modern Era, let’s look at a modern
Romantic protagonist. I’ll put up Tarzan
as the first. Tarzan has the skills of
the primitive man as well as the intellect of the modern man. We are writing about the book and not the
movies. In the movies, he’s always a man
who is half a savage. In the book, he is
a modern man skilled in the arts and whiles of the primitive. He succeeds because of this. There is a lot packed in this, but he is not
assured to succeed because of his birth but because of his skills and
tenacity. A little further along, my
favorite Romantic protagonist example is Menoly from Dragonsong. Her special skill is music and especially
writing music and lyrics. She succeeds,
not because of birth, but because of her skills.
I’ll finish these examples with Harry Potty. Harry Potty is a semi-Romantic protagonist
just like Sare Crew. He is assured to
succeed because of birth. He is the
messiah and chosen one—the boy who lived, when everyone else died. His life and abilities are not so much due to
his skills as much as his birth. This is
a full on Victorian type protagonist. I
call him a semi-Romantic protagonist because certain characteristic do overlap
the Romantic, but not enough. He has
magical powers, but not those he develops with tenacity and hard work. Hermione is the witch/wizard who works and
reads day and night to hone her skills.
Harry would rather be out playing Quiditch or just messing around. There is no skill involved with Harry. He is fated and has all the skills he
needs. Because of this, we don’t love
him nearly as much as we love many other actual Romantic protagonists—like Paul
Atreides.
Paul Atreides is a true Romantic
protagonist. You can’t help but love him
as a character. He is skilled in the
ways of the Atreides and also skilled in the ways of the Freemen. Although he seems to come supernaturally by
these skills, the novel shows you, they come from his ingenuity and study. He is an aristocrat, but his success is not
assured because of his birth. He is a
messiah, but a messiah who builds his own success. These key differences are huge in the play of
these novels, Dune and Harry Potty.
I’ll get more into this characteristic, next.
The skill is the defining characteristic of the
Romantic protagonist. In the earliest
novels with a Romantic protagonist, this skill was knowledge, intelligence,
leadership, or management. The main point
of this skills was that the Romantic protagonist discovered it and developed it
through hard work and study until it became the peak capability within the
world of the novel. It might not be the
top in the world, it could be, but it was always sufficient to overcome the
telic flaw.
So, as an example, the early Romantic
protagonists might discover in school they were skilled at building
knowledge. They worked harder and for
longer hours than everyone else in the school to develop this newly discovered
skill. They took all the awards but only
after hard work and hard knocks.
Usually, the acquiring of the skill was part of the storyline and the
final proof of acquisition only a point in the novel itself. This skill development and skill discovery
are key components in the plot and storylines of most Romantic novels. In some cases, the skill realization is a
main plot point. For example, Ivanhoe
discovered and developed his skills as a knight in the Crusades, but few know
him when he returns to England. The
revelation of the Romantic protagonist’s existing skills is a major and
exciting part of the novel. His skills
and abilities are already developed, but the entertainment for the reader is to
see them revealed. This is another
method of Romantic character development and revelation.
In other novels, Tarzan, for example, we see the
Romantic protagonist not so much discover, but rather develop his skills in the
tutelage of the Great Apes. His real
discovery of skills becomes when he finds his parent’s house and begins to
teach himself how to read the books there.
This is very akin to the modern idea of the Romantic protagonist because
the discovery of this intuitive intellectual skill is truly unique and truly
miraculous. The idea of the miraculous
or unique skill is peculiar to the Romantic protagonist. You can see the beginnings of this in the
first Harry Potty novel. He discovers the
skill of magic. This is they type of
wonderful skill discovery that really excites readers, and has been a mainstay
of Romantic novels from the beginning.
For example, The Sword in the Stone by T.H. White, where Arthur
pulls the sword from the stone.
Other examples of this type of skill discovery
are Andre Norton’s many novel trope of the discovery of psionic skills or
magical skills. She was a leading science
fiction author with these types of Romantic protagonists and event. I want to emphasize, the discovery,
development, or realization of the skill or skills is the main point and main
revelation of the Romantic protagonist.
This makes for an entertaining and exciting novel in almost every
case. I’ll write more about this, next.
The Romantic protagonist either comes with the
skills intact or discovers them and develops them. I think the discovery and development route is
perhaps the most entertaining and most exciting for our readers. In fact, in most Romantic protagonist type
novels, even when the skills already exist in the protagonist, the development
and sometimes discovery of them becomes a very important part of the plot—for
example, Dune or Dragonsinger.
In both of these novels, the Romantic protagonist has honed their skills
prior to the beginning of the novel, but they begin using their skills as well
as discovering new ones, and that drives the novels. Funny that these are science fiction and
fantasy novels—take your pick.
Science fiction and fantasy are modern genres
that tend to drive the Romantic protagonist and the Romantic plot. The reason for this is the genre itself as
well as the readers. I’ll pull another
Romantic protagonist example from the well that is Flavia deLuca. She is the ten year old heroine of some adult
mystery fiction. Flavia is skilled in
Chemistry. We get snippets of how she
gained her skill, but it’s through some telling and dialog. Mostly telling since the novels are written
in the first person. We see, in this
way, how she discovered and developed her skill in Chemistry. The main point I want to make is that using
the skill can be a great page turner, but I want to reemphasize that discovery
of the skill and development is perhaps the most entertaining means of revealing
the Romantic protagonist. Let’s use
Andre Norton as an example.
Many of Andre Norton’s novel are about Romantic
protagonists who discover their skills in magic or psionics and then work hard
to develop them. In many cases, the
protagonist discovers their skill and doesn’t really develop it well. The power of this type of plot is the
indeterminate and unexpected use of the skill.
I prefer the protagonist able to grasp and fully develop the skill, but
that is a specific type of plot and concept.
I recommend this. I think I need
to give a good example of this type of Romantic protagonist and skill discovery
and development. I’ll do this, next.
You have four general ways to go with a Romantic
protagonist: skill discovery, skill development, skill use, or any combination
of these. I think the most effective is
the skill discovery and development, so I’ll spend a little time on it. We mostly saw examples of skill usage,
however, the skill discovery and development followed by use is one of the most
effective means of writing this type of novel.
Now, to be clear, skills or a skill is just a
characteristic of the Romantic protagonist.
It’s like any characteristic of any protagonist, but what makes it
important to the novel and to the protagonist is that the existence of this
skill makes the telic flaw resolution possible.
To explain how the discovery, development, and
use end up with a great novel, I’ll use two examples: Harry Potty and my
character Essie.
Harry Potty is not a full on Romantic
protagonist, but the author uses many of the ideas we find in Romantic writing
to build her character. We see him
discover his magic in stages. This is
good, but then suddenly anti-climactic as instead of more and direct personal
discovery, he gets an invitation to Hogwarts, the magic school.
On the other hand, my Romantic character Essie is
a mystery from the beginning. She is
being taught by Mrs. Lyons and the priest and his wife in the local
church. Essie is drawn to music, but has
problems trying to read it and produce it on a keyboard or the organ, until
Sorcha appears. Sorcha encourages Essie
to just play, and boy Essie can just play.
Essie can play anything and especially what she calls the music of the
Fae. When Essie goes to her lessons the
next day, Mrs. Lyons encourages her to just play the piece her teacher want her
to play but in the same way her teacher played it in church and without looking
at the music. The result is that Essie
can play anything she has heard—perfectly.
This is her skill. In the novel,
she develops and then uses this skill indirectly to result in the telic flaw
resolution. Through music as a skill, we
learn about Essie and her world. I can’t
provide the full impact of the discovery of her skills and then the development
without actually quoting the novel, but I think you get the idea.
If I were writing a Harry Potty type novel, I’d
provide some event that forced him to recognize his skill well before he was
invited to wizard school. I’d have him
working into the late night hours learning to use magic. I’d have him reading and studying to discover
this amazing skill. The novel could be
built up and drawn out much better and with a full on Romantic
protagonist. I think it would make it a
much better novel. In the main, a Harry
Potty who really loves and works hard a magic is better than one who is a
messiah aristocrat who mystically can ride a broom better than everyone else,
but then barely uses his broom skills to resolve any but one small part of the
first novel’s telic flaw. You can write
better than that, but great writing isn’t the only factor in bestsellers. Let’s move on to belief, next.
2. Set of beliefs (morals and ideals) that are
different than normal culture or society’s.
This was never that confusing, but I suspect in
the nihilism era it’s very difficult to understand. In the past, the Romantic protagonist, when
they expressed a belief, it was usually purely rational as opposed to
supernatural or spiritual. That was just
the reaction to the Victorian Era and the idea that superstition was a driving
force against human needs and desires.
There is a lot wrapped into this, so I should get to it.
In the Victorian Era, the traditional view of Christian
religion prevailed while the growth and birth of science and technology build a
new and powerful bridgehead into human thought.
The concept of religion and technology or science could live equally in
the minds and hearts of the Victorians, but that was the balance. We see it today in the steampunk view of the Victorians—a
mixture of the old and the new. The idea
of beliefs was going through a similar process.
The continued rise of empiricism as opposed to faith gave a false
impression that the Romantic protagonist rejected faith. This isn’t true at all, but as the idea of
the Romantic protagonist built in the popular mind and any thought of religion
was squeezed out of literature and especially novels, the Romantic protagonist
moved into the modern ear as a skeptic.
His or her belief system was based on the empirical and the rational and
not on faith or tradition.
This focus of the Romantic protagonist was great
because it caused a real revolution toward science and away from not-science. Is it any surprise that the Romantic protagonist
came into their own in science fiction and fantasy?
You should be able to see that faith in
empiricism and science is akin to belief, because everything is not empiricism
and science. If you need me to explain
this, I will. Math, emotions, thoughts,
magic, psionics, imagination are all non-empiricist and not provable with
science or the scientific method. In
addition, the spiritual and supernatural all fall into this category. It would be pretty funny to have a Romantic
protagonist with magic or psionic skills who didn’t believe in the supernatural
or spiritual—that’s because magic and the idea of psionics has both feet in these
camps.
I’ll have to mention C.S. Lewis again because he
is the premier writer on the subject of the supernatural and the modern
world. The moment a writer brings up
magic or psionics or any other subject that deals with ideas not provable
through empiricism, in other words, not science based, they must deal with the
concept of miracles versus science. In
other words, even if they don’t touch the ideas directly, they have moved into
the world of the supernatural and God.
In the past, this wasn’t really a problem. The Romantic protagonist had a set of beliefs
of the traditional mixed with the scientific.
This was what everyone thought however, the main point of the Romantic protagonist
is that their belief structure was science and rationalism even while using
magic, other skills, or psionics. The
idea you got from them and their authors was some type of rejection of the status
quo and an embrace of the modern. This
is true. The Romantic protagonist was
and is a rational thinker who doesn’t reject the traditional as much as they
grasp the modern and progressive.
However, in this era this has changed to some degree and given us as
writers greater latitude with the beliefs and ideas of the Romantic protagonist. I’ll look at this, next.
Look at the description of this section on belief:
set of beliefs (morals and ideals) that are different than normal culture or
society’s. In the Victorian Era and
Modern Era as we moved to the Romatntic protagonist as the protagonist of
choice, the answer to this question was always the beliefs of the Romantic
protagonist were in opposition to the moralizing the Christianity of the
Victorians. The Romantic protagonist was
a secularist if the question even came up.
Today, secularism is the belief of the culture and society—the Romantic
protagonist must either not refer to their belief structure or they must have a
set of beliefs that are not secular.
Now, about not bringing up the beliefs of the
protagonist. The problem with pesky
beliefs is that they come out in everything we do—that is through showing. The morals and ethics of the protagonist will
come out no matter what you try to do, and because part of the importance of
the Romantic protagonist is that the author shows their mind or thoughts, it is
impossible not to touch on these subjects.
Still, you can skirt them the way early writers did. They provided their Romantic protagonists
with an ethical and moral background based in secular thought. That can work. I’m of the opinion that writers should
reflect the real world in their writing.
In the Victorian Era when everyone went to church on Sunday and everyone
was pretty much or a like mind on religion, ethics, and morals, the Romantic
protagonist with a secular basis made some sense. They were opposing blind belief without
introspection.
Today, I’m of the opinion that our Romatntic
protagonists should have a strong core belief based in their religion or at
least traditional religion. The reasons
are many, but I’ll outline them here for you.
In the first place, to be “different” than the normal cultural and social
means the Romantic protagonist should oppose the current secular
worldview. Way too many protagonist and
novels are filled to the brim with the secular worldview—I suggest something a
little different. In addition, since Emanual
Kant, the not God can’t exist, so even though the modern world has no clue both
science in the Big Bang and philosophy in Emanual Kant have proven there must
be a God—your Romantic protagonist might as well be an actual pragmatist and go
for it. In addition, since most modern
Romantic protagonists are into magic or psionics, you need some type of miracle
or magical system to be driven by the belief structure of your
protagonist. I recommend basing your
Romantic protagonist’s belief in some traditional structure. I use orthodox Christianity because my
settings are usually Britian, Greece, and France. If figure I might as well use the reflected
worldview to the full extent in designing my Romantic protagonists. A little doubt is okay and I’m not
recommending a religious basis for the novel—I just think a strong religious
basis makes for a great reflected worldview.
It’s amazing what dwells in the history of humankind.
I’ll move on from belief, but I noticed the order
of the characteristics is a little off.
I should be writing about introspection, and I’ll swap that with
courageous for the moment. The reason is
that introspection is more important as a characteristic. I may have to move some others around. For now, we’ll move to introspection, next.
3. Introspective
The introspective nature of the Romantic
protagonist gives us insight into the
mind of the protagonist while explaining the why of the protagonist’s actions. If you want a great example of this, just
look at Hamlet by Shakespeare. Hamlet
is an excellent example of the introspective protagonist, but not necessarily a
Romantic protagonist. What makes Hamlet
a perfect example for us is that the author shows everything and tells
nothing.
Remember, show and don’t tell. In a play, you can only show—unless the
narrator tells us something about the play or the protagonist, there is no
telling. This should be a perfect
example to you as a writer about how to show the mind of the protagonist through
dialog and without any telling. If
Shakespeare can do it, you can do it.
We want to show the mind and thoughts of the
Romantic protagonist because this endears the protagonist to the reader. Literally, when the reader understands the
actions of the protagonist and understands their mind and thoughts, they usually
fall in love with the protagonist—in a literary sense. When we understand others, and especially
when we feel their thoughts are rational and reasonable, we usually accept them
and their actions. On the other hand,
when we find a persons thoughts irrational and unreasonable, we hate them
more. I point to the definitely evil
minds of many antiheroes as well as the depraved minds of criminals. This is one of the reasons I don’t like or
use antiheroes. I’m completely in favor
of misunderstood or improperly persecuted protagonists, but not irrational,
evil, or unreasonable ones. In fact,
part of the power of the Romantic protagonist is that they are misunderstood,
but through showing their minds, we approve their thoughts and actions.
What better plot is there than the illicitly prosecuted
protagonist when they are guilty of nothing or when they are guilty of doing
right and are being accused of wrong.
This is the cusp of the Romantic protagonist. Now, the ways we use as authors to show the
mind of the protagonist are critical skills in our writing. I mentioned the main way which is dialog—that’s
what Shakespeare used. There are other
methods that enable dialog and especially the deep type of dialog we want for
our Romantic protagonist. Perhaps I should
look at the basics of dialog, next.
The basics of dialog:
1. Greetings
2. Introductions
3. Small
talk
4. Big
talk
5. Farewells
All human dialog follows this basic outline. In some cases, introductions can be omitted,
but this is only when the participants know each other and have been introduced
to the readers. This is very important. By the way, if you conversations don’t follow
this outline, you aren’t communicating with humans, just say’n.
The main point in writing dialog is to get to the
big talk—that is the important talk. The
important talk is the deep and instructive as well as complex conversations
that usually reveal the mind of the protagonist as well as potentially other
characters.
As I noted, the main point of the Romantic
protagonist is to get to the point where we show the mind of the
protagonist. Let’s hope that isn’t small
talk. The mind of the protagonist should
be complex and entertaining. Or let’s say,
we hope the mind of the protagonist is complex and entertaining. We just need to get the protagonist to the
big talk. There might be other
characters who need to get to the big talk too, but especially for the
protagonist, we can’t tell, we much show.
The way we show the mind of the protagonist is exactly the same as
Shakespeare did—through dialog.
Now, if you follow the dialog outline, you can
get your characters to the big talk, but just what is the big talk?
The big talk is where the character expresses their
mind, thoughts, and heart. We shouldn’t
say their unguarded mind, heart, and thoughts, but part and pieces of it. No one in real life just vomits out
everything on their mind—not sane people.
The protagonist must be sane, or should be sane. The main point is we need to get the characters
and specifically the protagonist to the point where they can show us their mind
by personally telling us what they are thinking. As I noted, this is not completely unguarded. However, there is a way to bring the protagonist
mind as close as possible to the reader—the means is the protagonist’s
helper. I’ll get to this, next.
I’m a real fan of the protagonist’s helper. In popular literature and movies, the
protagonist’s helper is known as the sidekick.
However, this is a simplistic misnomer which pushes the comic attributes
of the protagonist’s helper as opposed to the very important quality of
allowing the reader to see the mind of the protagonist.
The main point of the protagonist’s helper is to
allow the Romantic protagonist to show their mind through deep dialog. The protagonist’s helper can be a friend to
the protagonist, but they can also be an manager, an associate, a love
interest, a secretary, an employee, a commander, a leader, a trainer or a trainee,
they can be anyone in the life of the protagonist who is close, somewhat intimate,
and able to listen and communicate at an equal or significant level with the
protagonist.
The protagonist’s helper should be a person
matched appropriately to the personality of the Romantic protagonist—and I don’t
mean in an accommodating sense. I routinely
use protagonist’s helpers in my novels, and I find them to be entertaining,
helpful, and powerful in the context of the novel. I’ve developed protagonist’s helpers for all
kinds of Romantic protagonist’s. Some
are manipulative and interested in love or maybe power, like Rose. Some are overpowered by their protagonist’s helper
and beaten mentally and physically into submission, like Shiggy (I mean that tongue
in cheek). Some are working with self-conscious
and quiet but conniving protagonist’s helpers like Aksinya. The types and personalities of the protagonist’s
helper is as varied as the Romantic protagonist. Their power is that they allow the Romatntic
protagonist to speak their mind in dialog.
To provide this service, the protagonist’s helper
needs to be close and intimate with the protagonist. I’m not sure how much more I need to describe
or explain this, but I’ll plan to, next.
About the protagonist’s helper—the most effective
protagonist’s helper is the close friend who can advise the Romantic
protagonist. This becomes especially important
when we look at the other characteristics of the Romantic protagonist. The reason is that the protagonist’s helper
doesn’t just bring out the mind of the protagonist, he or she also reminds the protagonist
of their purpose, and when they don’t meet their own goals and moral compass.
This is the real power of the protagonist’s
helper—the ability to criticize and aid the Romantic protagonist in meeting
their goals. If you remember, in modern writing,
we show and don’t tell. The way we show
the mind of the protagonist is through their words in dialog. The sounding board needs to be someone they
trust and love—the protagonist’s helper is that sounding board. This closeness allows the Romantic
protagonist to say their mind and test ideas and their thoughts. This, in turn, allows the writer to show the
mind of the protagonist.
You might ask why this is so important? Let me tell you a little story. One of my prepublication readers asked why
some of my characters (the protagonists) from other novels seemed so harsh in other
or newer novels. I said, the characters
hadn’t changed at all—what changed was the introspection allowed and needed by
the Romantic protagonist. This is part
of the power of the Romantic protagonist and one of the reasons we love them so
much.
The ability to show the internal workings of the mind
of the protagonist allows this introspection and lets the reader see how and
what the protagonist is thinking. This
makes many of their actions completely understandable and rational. When we take away the introspection and knowing
the mind of the character, suddenly their actions become brusk and not
justifiable. I mention specifically
Lumiere the protagonist of my novels Shadow of Light and Shadow of
Darkness. She is a ruthless
character, but when the reader sees the inmost working of her brain with the
strong lack of confidence she has, her actions become notably good and
rational. On the other hand, when
Lumiere must confront her daughter who has significant personal issues, Lumiere’s
approach and treatment seem callous and unkind.
As I wrote, Lumiere hates herself and hates what her daughter appears to
have become. This drives her, but
without the ability to know the mind of Lumiere, we have no perspective except
from the point of view (PoV) of her daughter Klava. Since we see Klava’s mind as well as her
issues, we know what Klava is going through.
Because of this, we forgive Klava, but not necessarily Lumiere.
I think this kind of power in a novel is
amazing. It brings into true relief the
mind and heart of the protagonist. It
makes us love the protagonist.
Unfortunately, it also makes us accept sometimes unhappy or perhaps less
appropriate actions and behavior. This
is the nature of the Romantic and the Romantic protagonist.
I’m done beating this subject, but there is still
more that you can build from this. Try
writing a protagonist’s helper and see if it doesn’t improve your writing and
almost any novel. I’ll moder on to
power, next.
4. Power (skills and abilities) and leadership
that are outside of the normal society.
5. Courageous
6. Travel plot
7. Melancholy
8. Overwhelming desire to change and grow—to
develop four and one.
9. Pathos developed because the character does
not fit the cultural mold. From the
common.
10. Regret when they can’t follow their own moral
compass.
11. Self-criticism when they can’t follow their
own moral compass.
12. Pathos bearing because he or she is estranged
from family or normal society by death, exclusion for some reason, or
self-isolation due to three above.
13. From the common and potentially the rural.
14. Love interest
I want to write another book based on Rose and
Seoirse, and the topic will be the raising of Ceridwen—at least that’s my
plan. Before I get to that, I want to write another novel about
dependency as a theme. We shall see.
More
tomorrow.
For more information, you can visit my author site http://www.ldalford.com/, and my individual novel
websites:
http://www.ancientlight.com/
http://www.aegyptnovel.com/
http://www.centurionnovel.com
http://www.thesecondmission.com/
http://www.theendofhonor.com/
http://www.thefoxshonor.com
http://www.aseasonofhonor.com
fiction, theme, plot, story, storyline, character development,
scene, setting, conversation, novel, book, writing, information, study,
marketing, tension, release, creative, idea, logic
No comments:
Post a Comment