16 November 2024, Writing - part xxx869 Scene Outline, About Romantic Protagonist Characteristics, more about Courageous
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.
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.
2. Set of beliefs (morals and ideals) that are
different than normal culture or society’s.
3. Introspective
4. Power (skills and abilities) and leadership
that are outside of the normal society.
5. Melancholy
6. From the common and potentially the rural.
I love this story so I’ll tell it again. In the Victorian Era, the major plot for
almost every novel was “blood will out” or fate. Most specifically, blood will out is the plot
of Oliver Twist among almost every other novel. It is the idea that wealth and aristocracy
will always win over skill and the impoverished. The aristocracy and wealthy bought most of
the novels in that time, so it was a very popular trope and plot. If you pick up these novels, especially the less
classical ones today, you will find the scholarship students are always abused
and beaten by the wealthy and the aristocrats.
Generally, the aristocrats always look down on and gloat over their
power and birth, because it’s always about birth. Look at Bleak House, where the
protagonist can never succeed although skilled and capable or Olivier Twist where
the protagonist is really a born aristocrat and will succeed without any other characteristic. Even The Little Princess has this
basic cast—the wealthy Sara will end up resolving the telic flaw because she is
the wealthy Sara. Oh well, how did we
get out of this mess?
Well, the market for novels changed as the poor
and common got a little education. Funny
how when people have opportunities and reasonable calorie intake, especially
meat and protein, they begin to show enormous capability. The poor were unable to compete with the
aristocratic and wealthy when they were in a starvation culture. They were weaker, less intelligent, and
smaller. With the industrial revolution,
and the American revolution, that changed radically.
Aristocrats and the wealthy could not compete
with the common children, now scholarship students who got similar calories and
who were filled with hope and drive because of the new opportunities open to
them. This revolution really started in
the USA, but moved quickly to Europe and the UK. The real power of this drive in literature
was the advent of the modern Romantic protagonist.
In the Victorian Era, the protagonist was
aristocratic or wealthy and always going to succeed because “blood will
out.” In the Modern Era with the modern
Romantic protagonist, suddenly the common would make their way to the top and
hold it because they came from the common.
Their drive and skills would make them competitive and able to beat the
aristocrats and rich kids. This became
the basis for almost every novel and especially kid’s novel after the Victorian
Era. You can see it in some Victorian
Era writing like Robert Louis Stevenson.
Look at Treasure Island or Kidnapped. Most of Stevenson’s novels have Romantic
protagonists in the modern style. There
is more to this, and I’ll look at the characteristic in the Romantic
protagonist, next.
The history of the common basis for the Romantic
protagonist is very important, however, although from the common is an
important idea even today, the most important point about from the common is
zero to hero.
We can actually see zero to hero as a plot type
in Victorian and earlier literature, but “blood will out,” pretty much overcame
or overshadowed this very important idea.
From the common comes out of the idea of aristocracy and wealth—zero to
hero can be about anyone. We see zero to
hero in Sara Crew (A Little Princess) and in Oliver Twist. That’s not to say the Victorians saw the
same. It’s just that the idea of zero to
hero made sense to them and to the many impoverished readers of these
novels. However, everyone knew the
outcome—only the aristocratic or wealthy could be assured of success and being
a hero. Certainly, in the Victorian mind
only the aristocratic or wealthy could ever be a hero—then the common people
began to beat out the aristocratic and wealthy in school and industry. The world changed for the better. The zero to hero completely based on the common
person achieving, but something happened in the culture. We moved in the USA and many other nations
from a starvation culture to one where the average person could expect some
degree of wealth and success no matter what their birth. This happened first in the USA with the
ability to own property (real estate), but soon took over the first world. In fact, property ownership is a hallmark of
the first world. When the heroes were
able to have wealth and position, zero to hero suddenly makes much more sense
than from the common. However, I still
advise using from the common when it makes sense. The main point is this—your Romantic
protagonist must be zero at some point, their background usually doesn’t matter
much. A great example comes from Sara
Crew.
Now, Sara Crew is definitely not from the
common. She is set in a blood will out
plot, but she goes from hero to zero and then back again. Oliver Twist is the same. He starts at zero and becomes the hero. These are both blood will out plots, but the
authors saw the power in bringing their characters from zero to hero, and this
is the ultimate plot in every comedy novel.
Opps, I need to write about what is comedy and what is tragedy. That’s next.
What is comedy and what is tragedy? This used to be a very important question in studying
and teaching literature. It seems like
this isn’t taught well or at all anymore.
That’s very sad. These are very
simple terms. Comedy is a story where
the protagonist overcomes the telic flaw—basically, zero to hero. Tragedy is where the telic flaw overcomes the
protagonist—basically, hero to zero.
There you have every plot possible in any writing or any other
story. I’ll focus on comedy because
that’s generally what people want to read today. These are the kinds of novels I like to read
and to write.
So, this brings us to the basic zero to hero
plot. Even with blood will out or a fate
plot, the zero to hero plot is the basis for the entire plot. This is just how plots and excitement in
writing works. By the way, it works in
every kind of creative endeavor.
If we realize all comedy novels are based on the
zero to hero plot, this should make the development of the novel easy. You can start with any type of protagonist,
drive them or start them at zero and then build them to hero. That’s the way it works. The power of the historical Romantic
protagonist is that they begin at zero—they are part of the common.
What is the common? In the past, before about 1800 and even until
about 1900, the common was always the mass of humanity who were not
aristocratic or wealthy. The reason was
that until around 1800 in the USA and 1900 in the rest of the West, every
culture was a starvation culture. Only
the USA and Europe through capitalism and free markets as well as property
ownership moved out of starvation cultures an into a truly middle class society
where the greatest evidence of poverty is obesity. In the Western world, no one is
starving. In fact, as I noted, poverty
means obesity in the West which is an interesting problem in itself. By the way, the obesity isn’t because of bad
diets—its caused by too many calories. Too
much money and too little work and exercise.
Funny that.
In any case, before the modern era, the common
came from this group of impoverished and starving. This was the common. The great changes in nutrition for the
so-called working poor, brough millions into the competitive marketplace of the
middle class. The common began to take
scholarships and win the prizes in schools and universities. This resulted in the wealthy ensuring they
had no competition by creating government run schools. With government run education, the wealthy
could still send their children to private schools to get a real education
while the common suffered in the incompetent socialist institutions. It shouldn’t be a surprise that in the USA,
the first government controlled schools began in Massachusetts in the 1830s
while they started after 1900 in Britain.
By moving all the competition from the private to public institutions,
the wealthy and aristocratic could get rid of those pesky competitive common
people—plus the inferior education would ensure the common wouldn’t be able to
compete. This is the way it works
today. The wealthy and aristocratic
(politicians) would never send their child or children to the government
controlled schools. They always place
them in private and parochial. In fact,
about 20% of teachers place their children in the private and parochial school. In Britain, it is almost impossible for the common
to enter into a private school—the competition is too great and the lack of
learning too much to move from the British schools to either the Grammar or the
private.
So where are we?
In the modern era of writing, the favorite means of Romantic protagonist
development was from the common (and rural).
This means the normal not aristocratic and the poor. This was easy since it was most of the
population. Since most schools were all
private in the USA and Britain, the end result was pretty uniform, the common
student (our Romantic protagonist) would come in on a scholarship, work very
hard, take all the honors, and win the day.
This was easy as a zero to hero.
Today, this is more difficult.
I’ll get to that, next.
Really, from the common is not the same as it was
back in the day, and even in “the day,” the aspect of the society was changing
to make the common more common, but more like the previous world’s aristocrats
and wealthy.
What happened was capitalism and property ownership. The result was a common who was literally fat
and sassy—also the main market for our novels.
I don’t mean that as a pejorative, but rather as a characteristic. The average reader still sees themselves as
the middle class and common—very few think of themselves as aristocratic or
wealthy. Those that do, either hide it
or ignore it. Every read the Millionaire
Next Door? That is the new
America. Now, back to the common.
The entire reason I’m bringing up the above is
that this notion or idea of the common is still a viable approach to the Romantic
protagonist. You can develop zero to
hero plots from it, and I’ve given many examples in the past about how to make
this work. I’ll also add to that, from
the rural. Why from the rural?
The rural has been viewed historically as the most
common of common. Dorathy goes to the
big city. The British Romantic
protagonists go from their farms and villages up to town (London). Part of the power of the Romantic protagonist
that we will look at later is isolation which brings out their skills and
abilities. The rural is part of
this.
When I look at my Romantic protagonists (all my
protagonists), I see many are isolated and rural to begin with. This is part of the charm of the Romantic
protagonist. This is also part of the
pathos development of the Romantic protagonist.
It isn’t an accident that Rose is isolated and alone
in a rural and isolated environment. She
is almost a special case—a person so isolated that she doesn’t know the basics
of human interaction or normal human life.
This is a real structured and intentional use of zero to hero. The point being to start the Romantic protagonist
at the lowest zero possible. Why is this
a good idea?
I’ve been trying to make the point from the
beginning. I’ll finalize it here. When we read any comedy, the plot is zero to
hero. No matter the starting point of
the protagonist, we must move them to zero or start them at zero. The average and not so average reader loves a
protagonist who is from their background and position in life. Since almost every reader in the modern era
views themselves as the common or at least the middle class—the norm, they want
to see your protagonists come from this background, and the lower the
better. The average reader might have
never been hungry, abused, cold, in any terrible condition, but they can
imagine it. Your job is to make them a
protagonist who lives in these conditions, but who rises above them to success—zero
to hero.
So, as I recommend, you should begin your
protagonist at some zero. The best is
the common and the lowest state of the common that is possible. The rural can also play very well into this
equation, but a low end urbanite will work well. It’s more difficult to play the plot from a
suburban local, but possible. One of my
favorite novels about this is The Least of These about a child in a
suburban environment who is isolated, alone, and parentless. I used the idea for Nikita in my science
fiction novel Regia Anglorum from the protagonist, a Romantic protagonist
from that novel. In any case, part of
the power of the Romantic protagonist comes from this common and potentially
rural background because it is pathos building in the reader. That’s where we will go, next.
7. Pathos developed because the character does
not fit the cultural mold. From the
common.
Pathos is not characteristic of the Romantic
protagonist, but rather a reflection of the protagonist in the reader. Pathos is the correct or proper emotion
experienced by the reader as a result of the protagonist. Pathos is caused by the protagonist.
As an example, I’ll go back to my favorite from The
Little Princess. Sara Crew is hungry,
abused, and worn out. She is sent out into
the freezing British day to buy items from the market. On the way, she finds a coin, a sixpence, I believe. She begins to enter a bakery to buy hot cross
buns for herself, but sees a beggar girl on the stoop of the bakery and buys her
buns, but gives six of the seven to the beggar child.
I’m just giving a synopsis of the scene, but the emotional
response of the reader is intense. The
emotional response of the characters is not at all that same as the
reader. Sara is hungry, but happy. The shopkeeper is surprised but happy and
take in the beggar child. The beggar
child is happy to have some food. If
everyone is so happy, why is the reader breaking down in tears? That is pathos and properly developed
pathos. This is what a properly
developed Romantic protagonist gives us from the very beginning. The
characteristic of the Romantic protagonist is the development of this pathos,
so how do we do it? How do we make pathos
in the reader?
Sara Crew gives us great examples. I’ll move into the how to, next.
You always need and want to develop pathos in
your readers—that is what writing and art is all about. Yes, even in the visual arts, you want to
bring pathos into your readers—what is pathos?
Pathos is the appropriate emotional response from
your readers (viewers). I mentioned
viewers again because art and literature is only about building proper and
appropriate emotions in our readers (viewers).
Just remember, this all applies to viewers as well as readers.
Pathos is the proper emotional response. Bathos is the improper emotional response. In classical terms, pathos is the ridiculous to
the sublime, while bathos is from the sublime to the ridiculous. What this means is the reflection of the
suspension of disbelief in terms of emotions.
The author suspends the disbelief of the reader and produces a world and
a circumstance that might be impossible in the real world or even in a fantasy
world, but a circumstance that draws the reader into the world and into the
plot. The suspension of disbelief is
this power in writing that draws the readers in and makes the novel hard to put
down. This is what makes a reader read
and not stop. The reason we call this
the ridiculous is that many times the circumstances of the plot and story are
so impossible only the magic of the writer can make this happen. This is the real and true power of
words. We turn pictures into words and
convey them to the minds of our readers.
As I wrote, the power we want and need to wield is pathos.
Pathos means the reader is crying when they
should, laughing when they should, and angry when they should be. This is the sublime. Bathos is when in a very sad and emotional
scene in a book or movie, the audience breaks out into laughter. You see it occasionally in movies or
television. You see this a lot in modern
art. Instead of emotion, the viewer
laughs or snorts or just gives a puzzled look.
If you can’t understand it, you can’t properly reflect pathos. In fact, the only logical response is
bathos.
Now that I’ve explained it, I’ll give you some
ideas how to build it, next.
How to build pathos? Pathos is not a characteristic of the
protagonist or other character. Pathos
is a reaction by the reader to the protagonist or other character. However, the protagonist and characters are
used to make pathos in the reader. The
big question is how do we do this. I
like to start the characters in pathos conditions although Sara Crew is an
example of a character who is brought into pathos conditions—she goes from hero
to zero and then back again.
Starting in pathos is easy. All you need to do is create a situation for
the protagonist that places them in pathos conditions. What is a pathos condition? If we start our character in poverty where
they are hungry, sick, abused, cold, have to work hard as a child, and so
on. When you start the character out, if
you begin with the character in these circumstances, then you have them at zero
and the rest of the plot and storyline can be about the character moving from
that zero to the hero. What the hero
looks like is part of the design of the novel.
I made Rose this way.
Rose was a child who had been abandoned by her family
through the death of her father and grandparents. Her mother just left. Rose lived alone in an partially abandoned
house. It was a vacation home, on Rousay
Island in the Orkney Islands. She lived
without any modern conveniences, caught or foraged everything she ate, and
lived to read the many books in the attic of the house. That’s how Shiggy found her. Rose basically started at a zero, and then
Shiggy found her.
On the other hand, Shiggy had everything. She was a Ph.D. Had a position at Oxford. Was trained by multiple agencies under the
British MI structure. In this we have a
character at the peak of being a hero, but then we bring Shiggy down to zero in
the first chapter of the novel.
So the big deal is we need to bring the
protagonist to a zero—this begins the ability to make a character develop
pathos in a reader. I’ll explain why and
how this develops pathos, next.
If your character, your Romantic protagonist,
starts in a pathos developing situation such as hungry, abused, alone,
isolated, unloved, and all, this is like starting with a kitten video. Your readers begin loving and having feelings
for your character. Few people cannot
view a kitten video without feeling filled with warmth and interest in the
kitten. Few readers can observe a
characters who is impoverished and in terrible conditions without wanting to
help them. However, the author needs to
be very careful not to waste the power of the situation. How can you screw it up?
Now, you can write a very unlikeable character on
purpose, but usually the reason for placing a character at zero physically is
to build pathos from the beginning, however, the character can be so unlikeable
that the pathos conditions are wasted.
As I wrote, these characteristics can be intentional because you can
start with a haughty and mean impoverished person to drive them to a mental
zero. The main question, at the moment,
is what mental or emotional characteristics make a character unlikeable?
Perhaps it’s best to write about what makes a
character unlikeable. I’ll get to that,
next.
I’ve got way too many bread crumbs in this file—I
need to cut them back. Let’s go for what
makes a character not pathos developing.
I wrote that you can start the protagonist at zero by having them impoverished
and all, but you can ruin the character or perhaps place them in a situation where
they can be brought to a zero. So how
can we intentionally or unintentionally make a character unlikeable or not a
zero—let’s look at this.
The worst for readers is a character who can’t
and doesn’t want to read. Now, this type
of character is redeemable—if they learn to read and fall in love with
reading. However, a character who doesn’t
like to read and will not read, is a character who readers will hate—that’s
because readers love readers or at least those who want to read. This is one of the reasons Harry Potty is really
disliked by many readers—he doesn’t like to read or study. He is the antithesis of the kind of character
most readers love and enjoy. Plus, Harry
is irredeemable—he won’t change.
Other characteristics of the protagonist readers
love to hate is the haughty, the mean, the not very nice, the cruel, and so
on. You can start with a character who
is otherwise in sorry straights as a mean and haughty person. The problem here is you will likely need to
take them to a zero because of this situation.
This can make a great kind of novel—in fact, I’m contemplating just this
kind of character with Aine.
The mean and cruel character must definitely be adjusted
and fixed. As I noted you should just take
the character to zero and then build them back again. This is especially important for the
protagonist.
If you do have a protagonist who has unlikable or
non-Romantic characteristics, you must do something about these before you can
redeem them. For example, I’ve used the
common as an example. You can actually have
a Romantic protagonist who doesn’t come from the common—they could be aristocratic
or wealthy, but you need to take them to zero.
Taking an aristocrat to zero is pretty easy. Bradly in the Flavia de Luca novels does a
great job of this. Flavia de Luca is an impoverished
aristocrat—how can this be? She comes
from the aristocrats in the 1950s who had poured much of their livelihood and
valuables into the British war effort during World War Two, and the inheritance
and socialistic land and income taxes basically stole their estates out from
under them. She is an aristocrat
fighting to maintain and keep her property.
My character, Azure Rose is similar. Her father cheated the crown, so he went to
prison while she went to foster care and her estate was taken by the
crown. Azure Rose is really the Lady
Rose Wisheart, but she is as poor as a church mouse and is on scholarship to
her school. This is a great zero, and a
wonderful way to develop a Romantic protagonist. This is much harder to do with wealth. Usually, you have to take away the wealth to
get to the proper common for your Romantic protagonist. If you note, the loss of aristocracy and the
loss of wealth can produce wonderful pathos in your readers. The protagonist is upset by it, but the
readers are incised over it—usually.
This moves us to the next point of pathos—estranged. We’ll look at that, next.
8. 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.
Who doesn’t love little orphan Annie? Well actually, once you get to know her, you
kinda don’t. That’s an author killing
pathos—it’s like Harry Potty. Orphans
make great Romantic protagonists. In
fact almost any estranged child makes a great pathos developing protagonist—thus
Oliver Twist and David Copperfield. Then
there is Harry Potty. Harry Potty starts
out as a great pathos bearing character, then he becomes a wealthy aristocrat
who is the hero of the wizarding world before he’s taken a poop on his
own. This doesn’t totally ruin his
pathos development, but one of the most important qualities of the pathos
creating character is that their problems are not caused by them. A kid can’t fix the problem of a missing parent
for any reason. This is why the pathos in
this case is relationship based and not just existence based, but it’s pretty
much the same. Any child stuck in
poverty can’t usually change that situation in any way. Any child who is estranged from their family,
society, or culture can’t help or change this problem. The same is true to some degree for adults as
well as children, but adults and even certain types of children as less pathos
developing than others. The problem for
them is the perception of the reader.
This is why I mentioned Little Orphan Annie and Harry Potty
specifically. Little Orphan Annie is a
roust-about. She is an instigator, a
power child, a child who has learned to live in and with adversity. Annie of Green Gables is similar, although
the author did a little better job making her clutzy and ignorant enough that
you know she needs help. It really helps
Annie of Green Gables pathos that she was and is continually unwanted because
she is a girl on a farm. On the other
hand, Little Orphan Annie is wanted and loved from the beginning of her life
with Daddy Warbucks. The lesson here is
make your Romantic protagonist competent, but not competent enough to be alone
and isolated without any issues. What do
I mean by that?
Let’s look at Harry Potty. He starts perfectly as an unwanted,
estranged, and abused child. His parents
are dead. He lives with his horrid aunt,
uncle, and cousin. He is hated and
abused. He is also very incompetent with
few skills and really not abilities to make him shine. This is a very strong pathos generating
character. It’s especially powerful
because we know that he is a special child even though estranged and abandoned. This would be a great pathos developing
protagonist if the author could have kept the problems going, but she doesn’t. As soon as Harry gets a connection to the wizarding
world he goes from zero to hero in an instant and that’s basically the end of
his pathos developing power. This is
very important. I’ll explain more, next.
In pointing out how authors can submarine their own
pathos development, I’m giving you an example of how not to develop your characters. You definitely want to not take your
protagonist to hero before the climax of the novel. You can already see the Harry Potty problem
for what it is—he’s a hero before the middle of the first novel. Then we get a new plot that is tacked onto
the first. Plus, one of the most
irritating features of the first Harry Potty novel, and in fact, all the Harry
Potty novels is the deus ex machina of the reveal, well foreshadowed, that
Harry is the messiah. If you remember,
the Romantic protagonist is characterized by learning a skill and then working
and developing that skill by great, nearly inhuman effort to make that skill
the greatest in the worldview of the novel.
If you wanted to write a proper Harry Potty
character, you can make them special, not because they are a messiah, foreordained
to save the wizarding world, but rather a common regular human born with
magical powers who is put upon even in the wizarding world but who works overtime
to develop those magic skills and then succeeds because of them—wow, that sure
sounds like Hermione and not Harry. Funny
how their names both start with H, but Harry is also an inbreed prince and so
is Harry Potty. I would have made
Hermione the protagonist. She would have
been the muggle who became the greatest witch of her time—not the inbreed
prince who is a messiah.
In any case, Harry Potty starts as a very
potentially powerful protagonist and then turns into a hero mid-novel, and that’s
about it. The rest is just posturing and
scene writing in a general novel form.
Don’t get me wrong, the novels are okay, but they could have been so
much more. The lesson is to not ruin
your characters before they even have a chance to shine. The hero part needs to happen when the climax
occurs and never before. I’ve given a
negative example, let me provide a positive one from a Romantic protagonist
perspective. That’s next.
Note that we can and should start with a zero
protagonist, for a very strong Romantic protagonist. I mentioned poverty, hunger, and all. In my novel Dana-ana: Enchantment and the
Maiden, Dana-ana is the person whom everyone hates in school. She lives in a tar-papered shed on the bayou and
dumpster dives for food. In terms of
from the common and from the rural, she’s a great example, but did you notice
the other part of this pathos?
I started with the fact that everyone at school
hates her. The teachers, students, everyone
hates Dana-ana and for no real reason at all.
I do provide a reason. Her
clothing is crap, and she is always looking for a meal. The problem is that Dana-ana has some real
powers and a penchant for helping others.
I’ll leave it at that.
The main point I want to make is this estranged
relationship pathos. You can get there
with a Romantic protagonist in many ways.
I mentioned orphaned, missing a parent (you can get there lots of ways
too). I didn’t mention loss of love
(abandonment by a lover or spouse), hatred due to many factors, just plain
dislike, a jaded past—there are many things that can estrange the Romantic protagonist
from others, and this is just one of the features that drives an undercurrent in
really good works with a Romantic protagonist.
The Romantic protagonist is introspective and their
introspection should move to personal interactions. This gives us as authors fodder for all kinds
of scene and plot development. This is
one of the few factors that Rowling does give us in Harry Potty, but it’s not
well done. It’s also illogical. Harry comes to the wizarding world as royalty
and a celebrity, but he suddenly gains friends and not groupies. He suddenly has enemies not because of who he
is, but because of what he backs. Notice
that this is a great classical type idea, but not a modern one. Harry is at odds with his few enemies because
he is a good wizard who opposes the evil wizards. This is odd because what in the world is
going on in the wizarding world that celebrates evil and death. The death eater dudes are the bad guys—you’d
think that every person would be completely afraid. I would.
It’s like the Nazis are at the gates and sneaking into the world all
over again, and no one is doing anything about it. Looking at Britian today, perhaps Rowling was
right. My point is this. Our Romantic protagonist is and should be
estranged due to relationships. This
estrangement can be from everyone to from just specific people, but it is
usually based on who they are and not what they think or believe. That doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t provide
a characteristic like this—it’s okay to have a good character who opposes evil,
but that’s pretty basic. Even the most
evil and vile person on the globe will usually tell you they love good and
oppose evil. As the Catholic Church
advises, everyone thinks they are doing good even when they are evil (that’s actually
a pretty advanced theological idea).
In any case, the Romantic protagonist is
estranged because of specific ideas and because of relationships. You can and should definitely have problems
and issues with other characters, but these should be more specific and very
driven. I’ll try to provide some
examples, next.
Here’s where we are. The Romantic protagonist and any protagonist
can be enhanced in terms of pathos development by making them a pathos
developing character. This pathos comes
from their situation of life and/or their situation of relationships. Usually, the situation of life is in some
degree of poverty and unhappiness. The situation
of relationships is related to this, and deals with abandonment and
estrangement that is not the fault of the protagonist.
Fault of the protagonist is a very important
idea. To build pathos the protagonist
must not ever be at fault for existing pathos situations. The protagonist can’t be at fault for failures
either—not moral or ethical ones. This
is the antithesis of the Romantic protagonist.
What does this mean?
The Romantic protagonist, to produce pathos can’t
be responsible for their own poverty and problems—this is why adults make situational
pathos difficult. We expect adults to be
able to figure out how to get a job and take care of themselves. In fact, the inability to take care of
themselves and to work hard is an impediment to pathos. However, you can build this into a great
pathos development if the person is held down by other external factors. For example, lack of education, lack of
knowledge, lack of training, physical restraint, situational restraint (evil
government or evil situations and power), cultural or social restraint and all.
An example of this is an isolated and abused
cultural group and the protagonist a person in this group. Adding in a relationship problem like being
an orphan or isolated from their own culture or society makes the situation of pathos
increase. I’ll give an example of this
from an Andre Norton novel. Her
protagonist was part of a refugee community on another planet. The protagonist was an orphan and worked the
streets for money and to survive. This
is an immediate pathos developing situation and relationships. This is a great and recurring means of
building the pathos of the protagonist from the beginning of the novel. You also want to retain this pathos through
the novel usually until the climax. I’ll
look at this, next.
I want to look at retaining pathos as an important
concept in your novels. There are two
types of pathos we are looking at here.
The first is the pathos that can be fixed or corrected; the second is the
pathos that can’t ever be corrected.
A pathos that can’t ever be corrected is the
death of a parent or a sibling. Any
death can’t be corrected in the normal sphere of any but a created worldview,
but death is pretty permanent. You can
play the “really didn’t die” card occasionally, but that won’t work more than a
few times in a singular novel. You might
get away with it more than once in a whole life of writing. In any case, let’s ignore the really didn’t
die idea for now and presume certain types of pathos correctly can’t be
fixed. You can resolve them all but you
can’t fix them. You can’t make them
right. Then there are other pathos ideas
and situations that can be fixed. For
example, poverty can be fixed. Hunger
can be fixed. Abuse can be stopped. One of the most important aspects of the Romantic
protagonist is they resolve or fix their own problems. They do this using the skill or skills they
discovered and developed.
If you notice, this is the real problem with
Harry Potty as a Romantic protagonist. All
his real problems, the real pathos developing ones, are suddenly and irrevocably
fixed, by his appointment to Hogwarts.
Yes, he has to go back in the summer, but the world has changed for
Harry. He is wealthy, acknowledged, an
aristocrat, a celebrity, has power, and gets a real room back in his uncle and
aunt’s house. In addition, although the
author brings more pathos development into Harry’s life, the novel really never
recovers from Harry’s salvation and redemption, not by his own skills, but by
fate. Harry was fated to a blood will
out redemption. How much more powerful
would it be if Harry had a protagonist’s helper to walk beside him and guide
him to the resolution of his problems?
As I wrote, the main power of a Romantic novel
and the Romantic protagonist is that they resolve their pathos issues through
their own power, their skill. They may
be aided by other characters or a protagonist’s helper or even an antagonist,
but this resolution should be connected to the climax and the resolution of the
telic flaw. That’s part of the power of
the Romantic.
For example, if a cold, hungry, and impoverished
protagonist uses his or her skills to get a job, get a place to stay, buy food,
and find a home—that is a great novel. As
an example, a Harry Potty who uses his magic to feed, house, and make money is
a much more compelling character to me.
Hermione is a much more compelling character as a hard working muggle
from a normal family who works harder than everyone else to be a great witch
and accepted in the wizarding world.
This is a much more compelling novel to me.
In any case, as you redeem your protagonist from
their pathos, don’t ruin the novel by lifting them out with any type of deus ex
machina. The deus ex of Harry Potty was
foreshadowed and predicted, but that doesn’t make it any better. It’s as if all the pathos was wiped out in a
single jerk of the god machine that made the world better for Harry. Remember, looks impossible until
inevitable. That’s our Romantic plot.
I guess I’ll move on to the next characteristic.
9. Overwhelming desire to change and grow—to
develop four and one.
This is perhaps one of the most important as well
as one of the most dear characteristics of the Romantic protagonist. It is also the drive for almost every
reader. How’s that?
Every reader, or at least those I know, are
driven people. They are driven to read
because that is entertaining to them, but part of the power of the reader, especially
today, is that they are the resilient and the successful. When less than 30% of the school aged
population can read at grade level, you know those who can read are the upper crust
of the educated population. Although it
is possible to succeed with little or less education, you certainly can’t be an
astronaut, a scientist, a doctor (of any kind), a CEO, a CFO, a politician
(well maybe). Look without reading
skills, much of the world is closed to you.
The power of the reader and the Romantic protagonist is resilience and desire
to change and grow. You can’t grow much
of you can’t understand where or to what you are growing, and without reading
and the proper materials, you have no idea where humanity started much less
where it is going.
By the way, this is one of the reasons I despise
Harry Potty as a protagonist so much. Harry
is much more interested in playing Quiddich than in reading or magic. It’s as if the most important skill in the
wizarding world isn’t his desire or his goal.
Notice that these are one and four of the Romantic protagonist’s
characteristics.
1. Some power or ability outside the norm of
society that the character develops to resolve the telic flaw.
4. Power (skills and abilities) and leadership
that are outside of the normal society.
If you remember, I called these some of the most important
characteristics of the Romantic protagonist.
These are external characteristics the protagonist can develop. Unlike introspection and melancholy which are
general characteristics of the person and the writing, these two are part of
the internal motivation of the protagonist that makes them be exactly what they
are.
You could have a magical wizard Romantic protagonist
who isn’t very introspective or melancholy, but you could never really have a Romantic
protagonist who doesn’t have some power outside of the norm of society (magic) and
powers and leadership outside of the norm of society. We do see these in Harry, but not
directly. In other words, although Harry
Potty is the athletically skilled Quiddich player, we don’t really see him as a
leader or a master magician. Those just
magically happen because he is the messiah and blood will out. Listen, this isn’t the kind of character most
readers are looking for.
Do you remember, I wrote that most readers are
not the kids people pick first in schoolyard games of any kind. The readers are more interested in reading
and study than in sport. In some ways they
hate sport. That’s not to say you won’t
find great readers in sport or great sports people who love to read, it’s just
unusual, and moany readers still resent it.
I’m just writing to you that a more compelling character fits the Romantic
protagonist characteristics because they are readers and studiers and not
necessarily sportsmen or women. Think of
really powerful Romantic protagonists and their skills and abilities. Think of what your readers would want in a
protagonist. Yes, they want physical
skills, but more than that, they way knowledge and desire for knowledge—especially
in the special power of skills that are their providence. Look at Menolly from Dragonsong.
Menolly is a great songstress. She came from a society that has little
reading material and much more music.
She is a reader, but her skill is in music and as a songstress. This is her power. She isn’t a weakling—in fact, she’s an
accomplished runner and a strong person, but she acquired these skills due to
her music more than due to any other diligence.
There is the point.
Readers will accept a character who develops
their additional physical skills as a result of their special skills or power. That makes sense. It is a reason to stop reading, if just for a
little to work on some other skill or ability.
It’s like having to stop reading a novel to study math or history. It’s part of the territory. This is especially true if the physical skill
is connected to the special skill. I’ll
look at that, next.
The popularity of Harry Potty convinces me that
readers are really interested in protagonists with a special and unusual
skill. I also really enjoy these types
of novels, but until the advent of magic realism as a genre, this entire idea
was caught in the fantasy (which is magic realism, by the way) and science fiction
genres. It wasn’t as popular until Harry
let it free. Now, the world is filled with
these very special characters, and I love it, as long as they are Romantic
protagonists.
This very unusual and special skill and character
has been the focus of my writing about the Romantic protagonist, but that was
mainly to make a point and focus the argument and the advice. This is also the major type of Romantic
protagonists we see in modern writing, fantasy and science fiction. However, the skill can be physical and not
unusual in the sense of fantasy and science fiction. It doesn’t have to be magical or psionic or anything
outside of normal human design or development.
I love to bring in the reflected worldview which
includes all the unusual and interesting, to me, but look at Menolly in Dragonsong. She is a musician and songstress. Indeed, she is the greatest in her generation
and in her world. That’s the special
skill, but her story could be told in a real worldview novel. I’d say it wouldn’t be quite as entertaining
and exciting, but it could be done. The
special skill or skills of the Romantic protagonist can be physical as well as
mental.
I will note this, readers are not completely into
characters whose skills are wholly based in the physical. This is a real problem with developing a
protagonist with purely physical skills.
We could call that audience limiting, unless the author does something
to make their skills appealing and based in the mind and especially in reading
and study. Reading and study are what
appeal to readers. That’s why magic and
psionics are so appealing in this regard—they are connected directly to reading
and study. That’s also what makes Hermione
such an appealing character as compared to Harry Potty. In fact, here is a little piece of
observation about Hogwarts Legacy, the game.
Most of the game is about learning the spells and learning the skills to
use those spells as well as the skills to get around the magic world. There is some physical activity, but most of
these are also about skills as opposed to full on physical abilities. It might have been interesting to have
Quiddich play in the game, but the game creators actually went out of their way
to get rid of this aspect of play in the game.
Games aren’t that far from novels in terms of interest and play.
So, what’s the point? I think you can design and develop excellent
Romantic protagonists whose skills are not so unusual and that are based in the
physical—you just have to be cautious to connect them to reading and study as
much as possible. In other words, you
could easily have an athletically based Romantic protagonist or a leadership
based Romantic protagonist as their major skill but it must be connected to
reading or study in some way. The
reading and study are the connections to the audience. In this way, Harry Potty could have been even
more powerful if Harry had learned his special Quiddich skills through study or
reading with hard work and dedication, however, that’s not what happened.
If you remember, Harry was born to his position of
seeker and skill in Quiddich as a connection to his aristocracy. It was exactly like one of the Victorian
aristocrats being born to polo with unbelievable skills from the moment he
touched a horse. The same was for Harry. He didn’t have to work at his broom or seeker
skills, they came naturally to him. This
is exactly what you don’t want to do in your novels. This is a real novel killer in my opinion. Harry may be the greatest bestseller in
history, but it isn’t the best novel or story, in my opinion. Let’s connect this to the overwhelming desire
to change and grow, next.
The driving characteristic of the Romantic
protagonist is this overwhelming desire to change and grow. This is what turns his or her skill into the
power that allows them to overcome the telic flaw of the novel, but that also
lifts them from the common to the hero. This
is what connects traits one and four together as well as the other traits. This overwhelming desire to grow and change
is really the main characteristic of the Romantic protagonist, and this is the
promised capability that leads to success.
This is basically what we call the American
Dream, but you can call it whatever you want—it’s the characteristic that
allows some to build businesses and industry to the level of spectacular
success. It’s the presumed characteristic
of the free market and a free society which allows the common to become the
president or a billionaire or both.
However, the Romantic protagonist success is usually much less obvious
than that.
The kind of success we observe in most Romantic
protagonists is not negative to their popularity or their bottom line, but it
is usually the success of the intellect.
Although the closest we get to intellect in this list of characteristics
is introspective and melancholy, I think the concept of the intellect within the
idea of the Romantic protagonist is obvious.
The word reader or study isn’t in the list either, but I argue that
these are primary characteristics of the Romantic protagonist. The main point, however, is that you could
potentially have a character incapable of these successes and yet capable of
becoming and thriving as a Romantic protagonist. It might be more difficult and especially the
writing. This is why the Romantic
protagonist took some time to come into the lexicon of novels and writing because
certain types of societies and cultures (those deigned around freedom and free
markets) make the Romantic protagonist possible.
Ultimately, the concept of the person who is
common that is not wealthy or an aristocrat becoming someone, making loads of
money, and gaining a position of power is not possible under socialism, a monarchy,
or in a tyranny. Only in a free society
can a person rise from the common to positions of wealth and power. This is the characteristic of the world, at
least the Western and free world that made the Romantic protagonist
possible. Such a character is impossible
in most other cultures and many other societies. This is why I wrote my novel, Escape from
Freedom.
In Escape from Freedom, the Romantic
protagonist, Scott, works to escape the nation of Freedom, where only the party
members are free. His protagonist’s
helper, Reb, desires freedom more than life.
She is willing to do anything to achieve true freedom.
You can’t have a novel like this under any tyrannical
structure where there is no freedom to compare the tyranny to. I’ll move on to regret, next.
10. Regret when they can’t follow their own moral
compass.
Now we are getting into the smaller details of a
Romantic protagonist. These are characteristics
although lesser and of lesser importance.
Regret comes directly out of introspection and to some degree,
melancholy. In other words, if the
author has a problem with this question: what is the source of the
introspection and melancholy of the Romantic protagonist? The simple answer is regret when they can’t follow
their own moral compass. Usually the
protagonist’s helper is the Jimny Cricket reminding the Romantic protagonist of
their problem.
All of this is supposed to be a positive and not
a negative. The reflection of regret is
supposed to enlighten and move the Romantic protagonist to extend and increase
their own efforts toward self-improvement and the development of skills and
their power to resolve the telic flaw.
For example, we know the Romantic protagonist is
an unwilling leader. They would not lead
at all except they realize their movement or their people or whatever their
force needs them. In this regard Harry
Potty really fulfills the Romantic protagonist trope. Harry doesn’t want to be a leader, but if you
notice, he does nothing to build or improve his leadership skills—he’s a
messiah and an aristocrat (as well as wealthy).
He, from a fated or blood will out standpoint doesn’t need regret,
introspection, melancholy, or even any effort to end up as the hero and the leader. This is not how a Romantic protagonist is
supposed to work.
The Romantic protagonist realizes their potential
as a leader and that people want to follow them—for their skill or ability or power
that is greater than others in humanity (or at least the worldview of the
novel). This need leads to regret and
introspection as well as melancholy because the Romantic protagonist realizes
they are a leader but they really don’t want to lead. The regret forces them as a person to continue
to improve their skills and power not because they want to really be a better
leader but because the focus of their leadership is their skill or power. They still don’t want to lead or be a leader,
they want to be the best ever to not disappoint their following and followers. The Romantic protagonist is always on a precipice
of independence while wanting to make a real difference in the world. Their power is always the force that resolves
the telic flaw, but that power is also the characteristic that draws others to
them and makes them a leader.
You might ask, how can this be? This comes directly out of the idea that readers
as intellectuals have about leadership.
Leadership, in the minds of readers, who are intellectuals by definition,
is a skill related to the power or skills of the individual not a separate trained
ability. That’s not to say it isn’t
possible to have a Romantic protagonist who embodies leadership as a power or a
skill. However, the reader automatically
is inclined to think a person at the peak of some skill or ability is the
leader. For example, the chief scientist
for a subject or on a project. That
person, based solely on their skills and abilities should naturally be the best
leader. That’s the basic setup for a
Romantic protagonist.
Now, the rest of us knows that’s crap, but this
is how many think about leadership. In
fact, we know that leadership is a skill in itself and a potential power for a
Romantic protagonist. Regert however is
a powerful tool that allows the Romantic protagonist to improve just as the
previous overwhelming desire to improve.
Self-criticism is also part of this regret. We’ll look at that, next.
11. Self-criticism when they can’t follow their
own moral compass.
Yes, all of these later characteristics are
wrapped up in introspection and melancholy.
Even if you never intended to include them, they should be sneaking
around in the background. What you don’t
see with a Romantic protagonist is regret applied to others or
other-criticism. The problems of the world
for the Romantic protagonists are problems to resolve and not problems to just
rail against. This is an important and new,
in the sense of the current discussion, idea about the protagonist.
One of the worst types of modern protagonists is
the weak wimp who casts dispersion on his or her fellows and society then sits
in a sulk without any action. The actual
and powerful Romantic protagonist (as an idea) sees a problem and acts on
it. The example is Sara Crew and the hot
cross buns. She wants food so badly she
can taste it, but she gives up her bounty to feed an even hungrier child. She really is a little princess. Or, Menolly who runs away to live on her own
in spite of the danger of thread-fall, censor, or isolation. These are real aspects of self-criticism.
The Romantic protagonist (Sara Crew isn’t, but
she’s a good example) is self-critical and solves the problem in the world his or
herself. They do not, as the non-Romantic
Harry Potty does in criticizing and railing against his friends and compatriots.
This is the opposite of a Romantic protagonist. Many modern protagonist’s have this
problem. Many might be redeemed, but
most cannot.
For example, many modern protagonists rail
against the man, the system, the government, the business, the culture, this -ism,
that -ism. The Romantic protagonist
resolves deep-seated and difficult problems of all types, they don’t rail
against them. They aren’t like a Steinbeck
novel set with political speeches of worthless drivel, or the silly end of the Angry
Raison (The Grapes of Wrath).
Perhaps the worst and least accurate modern historical novel next to In
Dubious Battle. Romantic
protagonists don’t spout political ideas dubious or other—they act on their
ideas and ideals, and that’s the reason for self-criticism. They remove obstacles to their success from
within themselves. This is some of the
most powerful writing about the Romantic protagonist and ideals of the Romantic
protagonist. I’ll look at this, next.
Let’s go back to the real protagonist in most
Western literature. The real protagonist
whether Romantic or not is a person who succeeds through their own power and
actions. The Romantic protagonist just
happens to give us their thoughts and mind.
We see through introspection, the power of the Romantic protagonist as
they remove their mental and emotional obstacles to success (the resolution of
the telic flaw). This is perhaps the
most important point of all literature.
Now, you can have a protagonist who is beaten
down by society and the culture, but that kind of person is a protagonist in a
tragedy. They are defeated by the telic flaw
of the novel. This isn’t what will sell
novels. This isn’t what the market or
readers really want. They also don’t
want whiney wimps who proselytize about how unfair the world is. We all know the world is unfair. That’s the natural state of the world. It's unfair for everyone. In fact, when it is made more fair, so-called,
for some, the others suffer. Just look
at the communists and socialists—there is a reason for the starvation and -isms
involved when capital redistributionist get in charge of the national pocketbook. Soon no one has anything.
People want to read about Clarence Thomases
overcoming poverty and racism to become the greatest judge in the USA. They want to read about Thomas Sowell and Walter
Willaims, perhaps the greatest economists in the modern era. They want to read about all the great men and
woman who rise up from poverty and abuse and succeed—and they especially want
to know the internal workings of their hearts and minds. They want to know how their minds work and
how they programed themselves to overcome the obstacles in their minds.
The real difference between the unsuccessful and the
successful, readers know, is their mental strength and their mental
abilities. I say this a little tongue in
cheek because we all know there is more to the story, but as I’ve written,
readers think that the world is all about reading and study. That means mind and soul. The ability to use the mind for success. This is why the Romantic protagonist appeals
so strongly to the modern reader.
This power of self-criticism is what the Romantic
protagonist uses to overcome the internal obstacles they have to success. The Romantic protagonist isn’t railing
against the man or the system, they are overcoming the obstacles in their own
mind that prevent success. This is
exactly what makes these novels so popular and exciting to modern readers.
The modern reader believes rightly or wrongly
that their mind is the only impediment to their success. They are like Ronald Reagan and That
Printer of Udell's, the book he read as a child that inspired his life and
his decisions to run for president.
Now, as we write, we need to design our Romantic
protagonist as a great example of the person who overcomes their telic flaw, or
better said the telic flaw through their mental strength as well as their other
skills and powers. The mental strength
and especially their self-criticism is the driver of their power and
skills. We see it in their
introspection, melancholy, and regret as an aspect of self-criticism. This is the mind of the Romantic protagonist. We’ll move on to courageous which is the
result of their self-criticism, next.
12. Courageous
Don’t you hate the coward protagonists. If you remember one of the most interesting
novels of the nineteenth Century, The Red Badge of Courage. This novel has a Romantic protagonist who’s telic
flaw and personal telic flaw is lack of courage. The self-criticism, introspection, melancholy,
and regret are all powerful motivators that make the Romantic protagonist
change and become a man of courage.
This was one of the most popular novels for
education in most of the twentieth century only falling out of favor with the bad
education ideals and ideas of the late twentieth century. It is one of the most powerful novels about
courage and the main characteristics of the Romantic protagonist and mature
humans that has been written. It’s almost
a verboten concept today—that a normal person might give their lives for others
and for their nation. That was a common
idea of most moral and ethical societies especially in the civilized
world. It is an idea born of
Christianity and Western morality but it is also an ideal of the East and of
other cultures, but mostly those with some kind of moral backing. Christianity tends to be that very strong moral
backing.
Now, back to the point, the courageous protagonist
is the type of protagonist who appeals to most readers. Even if a reader considers themselves to be a
coward, they fervently believe they would be courageous under the appropriate
circumstances. This may or may not be
true, and is usually unproven, but there is hope. The person who has thought about and considered
a path of courage might possibly engage an event or crisis with courage, but no
matter what they do with and in their life, they never want to hear about a
protagonist who remains a coward. That’s
just like a protagonist who never learns to read. You can start a novel with a protagonist who can’t
read, but if they remain illiterate, this will only irritate your reader. You can start with a character who doesn’t
like reading, but they need to learn to read and learn to love reading—or at
least accept it.
An example is Heidi. Heidi starts learning from Peter that reading
is too difficult, but over the entire novel, she learns to read and learns to
love reading. She teaches Peter how to
read and if not to love reading at least not to hate reading. The reader sees this as the most perfect type
of novel and story. The same is true of
the protagonist who learns courage.
Usually, we don’t address this issue as directly
as Stephen Crane in The Red Badge of Courage, but this is an important
point for a novel. I’ll explain that,
next.
I’ll confess to reading Emma M. Lion. The reason I mention it isn’t because it is
one of the greatest books I’ve read—it’s because of the characteristics of the
protagonist. Don’t get me wrong, Emma is
a fun and good book, or set of books, actually.
The book is good and a modern throwback to the very old and initial
journalistic style of writing. The books
are actually a journal. The writing is
okay for a journal style. It could be
better, but there is a lot of telling in the sense of a journal, which isn’t
completely bad. Here’s what I really
like about the novel—Emma M. Lion loves books and a huge plot in the novel is
her poverty and her hard work to get books.
At the end of each journal, the author lists the books in Emma’s library. Since this is the age of the high cost but
new lowest cost in history for books, Emma saves and spends or gets as gifts
books, some incomplete. This is the
reality of books in the Victorian age, and a wonderful focus for a novel. This goes directly to what I wrote before to
you about what readers like. Even with
these novels’ issues, most readers will love the protagonist because of her
love for and devotion to books. What is interesting
is that she hasn’t figured out the idea to write for a living, but I’m up to
the fifth or sixth book. In any case,
Emma Lion is a great protagonist mostly because she loves books. There is more to this, but about the Romantic
protagonist characteristics of Emma, I’m still deciding. I think she may be, but I’m waiting for her
power to show itself. At the moment, she
just seems like a highly lovable and interesting protagonist. She is courageous and powerful in her own
way, but shows over and over some great historical truths of the Era and the
times. I’d like more, but the
journalistic style does get in the way of the plot and novel. That’s a creative observation, but it might
have made her novel sellable where another more modern style might not
have.
I recommend Emma M. Lion’s journals. They are fun, but not really as powerful as I’d
like from a writer’s standpoint. The
main power is the protagonist loves books and books is a major plot point.
More on courage, next.
13. Travel plot
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
No comments:
Post a Comment