12 November 2025, Writing - part xxxx230 The Modern Protagonist: Common
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)
I’d like to get Ancient Light republished and
the other novels in this series published.
I’m afraid I’ll have to do it independently, but I don’t think I can
trust Amazon to do it.
I finally got a reasonable printed book
from Amazon for Centurion. This
was a relief, but I think I have about ten copies running around the house that
are all rejects, all printed, and all wrong.
I’m not sure where they get their training and formatting experience
from, but it isn’t in the Western world.
I accepted the current printed book
although there is still a small issue, but acceptable. The chapter pages should always be on the
right side and never on the left. Each
of my chapters start with a quote from the Psalms. That puts a Psalms on the right and they
started the chapter on the left. I’ll go
with that. That isn’t the normal way to
format, but it reduces page count and is acceptable. I still don’t think much of the Amazon
production or printing group. Here’s
what I think is going on.
I’ll repeat this for those who don’t
know. Many new writers are just so happy
to see their novels in print, they have no idea what they should be like. If you pull down a few professionally
published novels from your shelves, you will see what they should be like. This is how my novels, published by the
regular publisher Capstone and Oaktara did it for my novels. They were perfect, and I could tell. I’ve read thousands of novels in my
life. I read about a novel a day.
As I wrote, most younger authors aren’t
sure what to look for. Once you point it
out, they get it, but many times the excitement of seeing your novel in print
gets the better of you, plus if you aren’t certain about something, you are
less willing to fight to make it right.
Many of these new authors just accept the poor quality of the Amazon publications
for these reasons, and boy, have I seen some doozies.
If you get any of the post Guttenberg novels
or books in print from Amazon, you will see exactly what I’m writing
about. I bought one that was atrocious,
but it was a free book published in print.
What I mean by free book is that it is outside of the copyright for the
author and anyone can just print it or you can download it. I advise just getting the free books as files. You can get these books on iBooks from
Apple. I haven’t tried Kindle or another
other app just because, why. The free
books used to be in their own section, but now they are mixed in with the pay
books. Many of the free Guttenberg books
are republished for a charge. I have
bought some of these books, usually the ones that are not on Guttenberg yet. They are usually formatted well as a
eBook. They also usually have all the
original pictures and prints in them.
This makes them worth the 99 cents they cost. I usually try to buy collections if I’m
paying for these books.
What is it about these books—that is, why
aren’t they all for free on Guttenberg?
It’s just not yet. The Guttenberg
project has been taking books out of copyright and putting them into
files. The files are usually free, but
anyone who pulls the text in for a book out of copyright can sell it as they
desire. Guttenberg isn’t selling, and
don’t plan to in the future, however, not every book is equal and not every
book is available.
One of my favorite means of finding or
getting a novel is when I read about them in an earlier book. I then make a search for the title and the
author. Some books just haven’t made it
on Guttenberg yet. Some, as I wrote,
have been lost. They are likely in
someone’s library somewhere, but they just haven’t been rediscovered yet. Most people aren’t like me. I just love to read novels especially from
the late Victorian 1870s to the 1920s and around that period. The reason is that this is the real beginning
of the Romantic protagonist and plot.
Most novels in this period are written for American and British boys and
girls. They have varying types of
protagonists based on the writer and the times.
I should get a little into this by going back to some information about
writing and protagonists. I think we
should go there, next.
What happened in history to cause the
advent and publication of novels. This
is an important question in history.
When Guttenberg invented the printing press, the greatest and most
popular publications were the Bible and pamphlets about the Bible. The greatest and most prolific author of the
time was Martin Luther. Old Marty didn’t
make a penny because copyright laws hadn’t been invented to protect his
rights.
Really writing and publications remained
in the Biblical and scientific for a long time.
The great revolution in printing remained about God and the world until
1826. In 1826, the availability of
cotton paper made it possible to print books at a much lower cost than ever
before. The cost change was almost 10
times. This was about the same cost
change we saw for books with Guttenberg.
To be accurate the cost of a hand written book in current dollars at the
time of Guttenberg was about $50,000 per copy.
This is about the same cost of a hand written Torah scroll today. With the Guttenberg press, the cost of a book
went from $50,000 a copy to from $5,000 to $500 a copy. About a 10 to 100 time cost change.
Before 1826, the people of Europe began to
wear cotton underwear. This was caused
by the cotton revolution from India, Asia, and North America. Wool was right out for intimates and cotton
was the in thing. It’s not itchy and it
is much more comfortable especially under clothing. The cotton revolution began with the wealthy,
but the middle class and poor got quickly in on the game. People could buy used underwear, and they
did. By the 1800s cotton unmentionables
were making their way into the hands of paper makers in huge quantities. The rag pickers became a new industrial level
of employee. Mostly women who understood
fabrics and clothing, they sorted the cotton, silk, and wool—and checked
pockets.
The cotton went into the hoppers for paper
making, and the rest to be reused as they could. These rag pickers were an entire class of
poor mostly youthful women who made pennies, but still enough to help support a
family. What went on in 1826 was that
the British Bible society found they could print Bibles for lower cost than
ever—approximately $25 to $50 a copy.
They got to $25 a copy if they excluded the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha had been included in every
Bible in Christendom from the beginning, but the BBS (British Bible Society)
cut it out to save on printing.
This resulted in almost every household in
the Western world owning a Bible. The
story gets even more interesting. All
this was due to people wearing cotton underwear. What a wonderful thing. How this became a revolution in novels is
next.
The revolution of the printing press made
printing affordable—well to a degree. We
saw that printing costs for books reduced from 10 to 100 times less cost. A similar event happened with the advent of
inexpensive cotton paper, the cost of books reduced by another 10 to 100
percent.
In the beginning of the Gutenberg era,
printers made a lot of money by publishing pamphlets that the average person
could buy. The average person could not
afford a book, but they could afford a pamphlet. In the 1800s, the average family could buy a
book, a Bible and Fox’s Book of Martyrs were the usual books owned by
the average family in the USA at the time.
The poor could buy penny novels.
I should mention that literacy was at a
high in Europe due to the Church and the desire of the people for education in
the time of Gutenberg. Literacy had
become a common part of the poor during the 1800s. There were no public schools or very few
public schools. Most children were
taught at home to read and write usually in a single day—that’s the report of
history. The average person found
reading and writing to be common and easy.
They poor as well as the wealthy and middle class strove for an education,
and an education didn’t mean just reading and writing or maths. An education meant multiple languages
especially Greek and Latin as well as historical and fictional reading. The reading, except were libraries began was
problematic for the poor. They had penny
novels.
I recommend you read some of the very
interesting writing from the Victorian Era about the poor and especially the
rag pickers. There were more authors
than Dickens writing about the impoverished in this time. The novels about the poor show the great
desire they had for learning and reading.
We know the rag pickers especially (they were young women) were a very
strong audience for the penny novels.
Almost all of the published fiction in the period was published by chapter
and section as a penny novel. They
weren’t novels, but serial parts of novels.
For example, Dickens, the Bronte Sisters, George Eliot’s writing were
all published in serial form as penny novels.
The readers would wait with great anticipation for the next
installment. The rag pickers and other
poor would wait for these and other pieces of the serials to be published and
they would buy them in droves. They read
them at lunch, in groups, at tea, after work, and all. The penny novel drove the literacy and the
education level of the poor to the point that they and their families pushed
their children into the private education that was available to them.
Education was something people always
wanted to some degree for their children, but even if it was in their budgets,
the ability to thrive and succeed was not guaranteed. I’ll explain some of that, next.
A little fact of life people tend to
misunderstand or forget is that generally the middle class did not want their
main children to pursue education. This was
true in the USA and especially in Europe.
Even though the USA was not by definition a starvation culture by the
beginning of the 1800s, Europe still was.
In the USA, especially during the Great Depression, the value of the
children’s labor was a much greater asset than their education. My own parents were encouraged to work on the
farm instead of go to school. They only
went to school because the backbreaking work of the farm was worse. At school they could apply their brains and
not necessarily their brawn. In Europe,
still in a near starvation culture due to socialism, the value of the child for
labor was still more important than their education. My parents parents would rather keep their
hands on the farm for the value they could produce at only the cost to feed and
house. Children, at the time, had
another idea—they wanted nothing to do with the hard labor of their
parents. My father did everything,
including going early to fight in World War II to get off the farm. To him, education was one of the means to
freedom—the military was the ultimate means to get out of picking cotton and
the other backbreaking work.
In addition, back in the good old days
when books were still relatively expensive and not as readily available as
today, children longed for them. They
used them for escapism and for entertainment.
Even in my generation, books were the ultimate entertainment. Everyone longed to read and could read. Those who couldn’t were indeed doomed to a
lack of education and entertainment. I
must say, the boob tube began to steal the entertainment sphere, but it was too
trite and stupid for most. You just
can’t be too entertained by Gilligan’s Island—not for long.
In any case, in the past children wanted
to go to school because that got them out of farm labor. The parents didn’t want them to go, except
the few, the wealthy, and the well educated who knew the future lay in the
hands of the well educated.
If you caught the main point between the
lines, you can see the children desired education to get off the farm now and
in the future. They also wanted the
entertainment education afforded them. I
need to explain a little about the educational divide, and why the sudden
advent of the Romantic protagonist in writing.
A little hint, it came directly out of the movement of poor children
into education—it also had little to do with compulsory education or the
reduction of agrarianism in society. That’s
next.
In the past, only the wealthy could get a
good education. Most of that education
was reading and the study of ancient languages and not what you imagine
education to be today. To understand
education I the past, it helps to read older Victorian and earlier
literature—then you will see.
Most children were taught to read and
write at home. They also got basic
figures (maths) from their mothers and fathers too. We know from history and literature that most
children learned from tutors or their parents and reading was considered the
chore of a day. Literally, children
learned to read in a day. Any child who
could not learn to read the Bible in a day, was considered slow. Writing came later, but schools at the
elementary level were just uncommon and considered unnecessary except among the
middle class. The wealthy hired
governesses and tutors for their children and we see the governess concept used
in Europe and especially Britain well into the middle of the 20th
Century. I’m reading a book right now
about 1940s Britain and most of the children had governesses until they were
ready for boarding school.
In the USA things moved a little
differently. The lack of governesses,
most likely due to the dearth of lower middle class women who were sufficiently
educated. Because there weren’t enough
to go around the middle class families hired men and women to educate their
children in groups. This saved money and
relieved the mothers and fathers who were mainly agrarian and very busy on
their own farms. The middle class in
Britain were generally not farmers, they were tradesmen, bankers, and salesmen. The USA had a unique middle class filled with
farmers. The farmers in Europe until the
end of the Monarchy were mainly very poor—just like their feudal
ancestors.
In the USA the idea of getting a group of
children together for education wasn’t that new of an idea, but it was seen as
an effective and efficient means of education.
Public education and the government destruction of education had to wait
until the year 1836. In 1836, Boston
opened the first public school. That was
the last year education and literacy levels were high. They began decreasing the moment the
government got involved in education in the USA. In any case, the American and the boarding
school concepts were that children could be taught effectively and efficiently
in institutions. This isn’t necessarily
wrong, but individual tutoring and education is always much better than cattle
car learning in any classroom. However,
there was a different reason for communal education whether private or
public—that was facilities, socialization, and sport.
The ancient view of the gymnasium is that
the purpose for education is reading, memorization, and martial training. The city-state always needs men who can fight
to defend it. The idea of sport comes
directly out of the military and martial notion of training to be a great
warrior. Great warriors and citizens
need literacy and memorization. In the
past these went hand in hand. In any
case, individual tutoring could not achieve the martial vision of training
proper warriors. The public education
problem was one of the democratic ideal.
Public education means to produce good citizens and workers. It all depends on how you define this. A good citizen, in the sense of a republic is
one who is a warrior educated in freedom and able to determine his or her own
destiny. In the democratic ideal, the
good citizen and worker is complacent, a cog in the wheel, and doesn’t rock the
boat or the state. I’m a fan of the
republic and that view of education, therefore I don’t think a public education
can ever produce a truly educated person.
It will always seek to produce a cog and not a free person.
There is more to this education story in
history and about novels. We’ll get to
that, next.
If you look at the protagonists in the
Victorian novels, they are aristocrats and the wealthy. The reason is twofold. In the first place, most novels in the
Victorian Era were written for the wealthy and the nobility. This was changing relatively quicky due to
the paper and printing revolution, but I’ll get to that. The second reason was the problem of the
starvation culture that was the entire world due to feudalistic monarchies.
The Victorian protagonists were like
Oliver Twist and Sara Crew. They were children
of wealth who had somehow lost their wealth, but the major plot and protagonist
of the Victorian Era (and before) was blood will out. Blood will out, as a theme or plot means the
aristocratic or wealth-based background of the protagonist will show them as
smarter, better, and stronger than the common person.
The idea of blood will out did have a
reasoned basis in history. In starvation
cultures, which all the world was until the USA, the poor were typically
stupider and less strong due to malnutrition.
The aristocratic and wealthy were much smarter and stronger, not to
mention more beautiful, with better hair teeth, and nails, than the chronically
malnourished poor. This changed with the
USA first, which was the first nation to break the cycle of starvation and
chronic malnutrition for the average person.
If you wondered why the people of the USA are generally larger and
typically smarter than most of the rest of the world—that’s it. By the way, the reason the USA stopped being
a starvation culture is that it was the first nation in the world where the
average person could own land, most notably farmland. In Europe, the poor lived on farms and on
property owned by nobles and the wealthy—they didn’t own their own land. Until the great land revolutions beginning
around the 1800s in Europe, Europe was a starvation culture. The poor began to move to the cities and into
industry then too which led to better nutrition and less starvation.
So, the Victorian plot was blood will
out. Typically, the protagonist was
either doomed to penury, it they were originally poor (that’s Pip from Great
Expectations) or fated to wealth (that’s Sara Crew and Oliver Twist) if
they were originally wealthy. This began
to change, and as I wrote, the reason it began to change was first the change
in the number of middle and poor class readers, and second, the change from a
starvation culture to a much greater meritocracy. That’s next.
What happened in history to fundamentally
move the market for novels from the wealthy and the aristocratic to the poor
and middle class was a revolution in the poor.
Starting in the USA, the starvation culture of the world began to be
pushed back by capitalism caused by land ownership. In Europe, the movement of the poor into
industry moved them from starvation to nutrition. The end result was a once impoverished class
that now could stand on even ground with the wealthy and the noble. This meritocracy was terrible for the wealthy
and the noble. Where once the rich and
the aristocratic were smarter and stronger due to their nutrition, the poor
were no longer malnourished. They could
compete on a similar level and the wealthy soon learned the poor at a similar intelligence
and strength had a much greater motivation to succeed. Success in education meant an end to back
breaking work and the beginnings of absolute success. In the USA, this was called the American
Dream. In the rest of the world, this
became the dream of the poor—success.
We see this great change in literature as
the Victorian Era petered out. The
protagonists went from Oliver Twist and Sara Crew with their blood will out
plots to a zero to hero plot and the common person or child in a classic
Romantic protagonist. The protagonists
were suddenly not wealthy and noble—they were the poor scholarship student who
excelled due to hard work and skills.
Even in the middle class this type of protagonist held sway because the
poor had become the middle class. They
were no longer starving, and they were the market for all these new novels.
Remember the rag pickers? They were the audience for the penny
novels. They read everything they could,
and one of the great plots and themes in these novels was success. It was success for the wealthy and noble, but
no matter, the rag pickers thought they had some hope for success—and they
did. With nutrition, their children
could compete on the same level as the wealthy and noble. Those rag pickers still read, and their
children read, and their children’s children read. The wealthy and aristocratic found themselves
as the antagonists being displaced by the upstart poor. The poor took all the scholarships and the
awards. The entire world changed.
Do I need to point out that the number of
poor well exceeded the wealthy and noble?
The poor as a market was the market.
The market went from supporting the few who could purchase books to the
now many who could purchase books. This
was the modern revolution in novels and novel writing. It started as printing available to the poor
and ended up with the Romantic protagonist.
The Romantic protagonist in the Modern Era comes from the common. This was a mutual movement of the culture,
society, and people. The result was a
host of novels for the regular people that celebrated the ascent of the common
and the poor into the middle class and into the upper classes. This was the American Dream applied to
literature, and it made the world and writing a much better place.
I should explain about the Romantic
protagonist again. That’s next.
I really should call the Romantic
protagonist the Modern protagonist. The
reason is that there is a defined Romantic Era in literature which is defined
by the Romantic protagonist, but not necessarily the Romantic plot. The modern protagonist and plot just happen
to align nearly perfectly with the classical Romantic protagonist and plot, the
literary world just doesn’t happen to like that fact. In fact, the modern literary world is
enamored of hateful and ugly protagonists—it doesn’t like the classical Romantic
protagonist because they are the protagonists we love. I should likely go back to the basics of good
novels to explain this a little.
A great novel is the revelation of the
protagonist. Yes, yes, we usually think
that a great novel has a great plot and theme and all that jazz, but that’s not
necessarily true. Many great novels have
some pretty benign and stinky plots, but they are considered classics and great
novels none-the-less. What makes a novel
great, for most readers is that they love the protagonist.
Now, when I write “love the protagonist,”
I mean that in a very specific way. In
simplistic terms, we usually think that many readers want to be like the
protagonist or live their lives like the protagonist, but we know that isn’t
really true either. Many protagonists go
through literal hell to resolve the telic flaws of their novel. Most readers don’t really want to go through
the horror and dangers, or make the decisions of their beloved and favorite
protagonists. They do live vicariously
through the protagonist, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they would trade
places.
What we love about the protagonist is the things,
events, and experiences they overcome to survive and resolve the telic flaw of
the novel. We don’t necessarily love the
telic flaw resolution, the plot, and we don’t necessarily fall in love with the
theme, but we fall in love with the protagonist.
One of my favorite protagonists for this
example is Sara Crew. Sara Crew is the
protagonist from A Little Princess.
She is the little rich girl who is also personable, kind, and
smart. She loses everything when her
beloved father dies in India, and she is stuck as a servant in the boarding
school where he placed her. Sara Crew is
a lovely girl before her loss. When she
goes from hero to zero, she is still a little princess. When she encounters the horrible conditions
of a Victorian servant, she shows pluck and kindness. She is a perfect person and character. Even her sadness and anger at her conditions
are lovable. We love her because of who
she is and because of what she does. We
love her decisions and actions because we understand her decisions and we
generally agree with them. That’s really
the secret of a lovable protagonist. If
the reader understands their actions and motivations—and agrees with them, we
pretty much love that character. This is
especially true of characters who are not the absolute norm. In other words, in our world, we normally
know people like us. Those who are
fighting to achieve greatness or just position in the world for example, the less
privileged, less educated, less skilled, and all, are easy to love when they do
achieve. Sara Crew is the example of a “blood
will out” plot, but we love her, especially when she loses everything and still
acts like a princess. Her steadfast
strength in the face of adversary, shows her personality as a protagonist and a
character. She is the kind of person we
want to be on a fundamental level, but we really do not want to experience a
life like hers. We don’t want to start
as a princess and have to face a life as an impoverished child at the mercy of
the adults in a boarding school. We do
love the resolution of her telic flaw, the loss of her father and wealth, but it
isn’t the plot that really intrigues us—it is Sara Crew. The plot and plot resolution is almost a deus
ex machina, a god machine (an unreasonable and unlikely resolution). We don’t love A Little Princess for
the plot. We love A Little Princess
for the protagonist, and we would like to see more about her—except the
resolved telic flaw of A Little Princess makes that impossible. The author would have to take her back to
zero again—an impossible feat in this context.
We love the protagonist, but we can’t have her any more. Perhaps the author could have given us
another Sara Crew novel in a setting where she is more of an adult, but that
wasn’t really the forte of the author. A
Pride and Prejudice style novel of Sara Crew’s social fall and resurgence
might be an interesting read, but as I wrote, her author wasn’t really into
those novels. The innocence of the
youthful Sara Crew made her the beloved protagonist she was.
Now, this is a good segue into a
discussion about the Victorian and earlier protagonist as compared to the
modern (and what is technically a Romantic) protagonist. That’s next.
If you remember, I wrote that the
Victorian Era protagonists were characterized by “blood will out,” plots and
themes. They were aristocrats and the
wealthy because the aristocrats and the wealthy were those who could afford
books—they were the market, but with the paper revolution, that changed
radically.
The paper revolution which was also part
of the industrial revolution and the cotton cloth piece of that improvement in
history resulted in poor who were intelligent and strong enough to compete
against the wealthy and noble. The
children of the poor learned to read and began to get the scholarships in
education especially higher education.
They began to beat out the wealthy and the aristocrats. In the Victorian novels, the poor were almost
always the antagonists and the cheeky students who unfairly competed against
their betters. They were beaten down by
the better looking, more athletic, and more intellectual rich. These Victorian authors made fun of the
plight of the poor in schools and their efforts to compete. The American dream and the change in the
markets changed this radically.
At the beginning of the Twentieth Century
(1900), the poor began to become a competitive and much larger market for book
sales. They also began to take over many
scholarship positions and displace the wealthy and noble in schools. This resulted in a great change in the
protagonists of the Twentieth Century.
Instead of the wealthy and noble, the new protagonists became the intellectual
poor. They began to take the awards away
from the wealthy and noble. The wealthy
and noble began to become the antagonist foils to the poor who bested
them. You can see this in the youth
literature of the time, but it is less evident in the modern adult novels.
The concept of the American dream began to
become imbedded in the novel, and the result as well as the marker of this
change was the modern (Romantic) protagonist.
This protagonist notably came from the common and rural. They discovered their special skill or skills
and applied themselves diligently to succeed.
This idea of skills and diligent work is evident in many novels. Especially interesting is the trope of the hard
working who can beat the simply skilled because of their hard work. This isn’t exactly the Romantic protagonist,
but is an interesting beginning.
As I wrote before, this idea of the modern
(Romantic) protagonist creates a powerful and easily loved protagonist. Who doesn’t love a protagonist who discovers
their special skill (magic, reading, education, speaking, music, dance,
athletics, writing, etc.) and then applies themselves diligently and with
greater work than anyone else to succeed and achieve. The plot becomes a zero to hero, which is the
basis for almost every comedy plot in the modern era. Every other plot falls under the zero to hero. I can’t imagine a comedy plot that
doesn’t. The basis for every comedy is
zero to hero. The basis for every
tragedy is hero to zero. There are some
few variations for example, Sara Crew is hero to zero to hero, but the basis for
the comedy plot is there.
Perhaps I should go over the basics of the
Romantic protagonist again. I think this
is one of the most important ideas in writing.
I recommend starting with a great Romantic protagonist to write any
novel. Let’s look at that, next.
What makes a Romantic (modern) protagonist
anyway? Here’s my list:
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 and self-criticism when they can’t
follow their own moral compass.
Why melancholy?
Well, the pathos as well as the regret cause much of the melancholy our
introspective modern protagonist feels.
So there you have melancholy and regret.
Actually, I want to reassure you, the modern or
Romantic protagonist does not run around with a continual frown on his or her
face. They are not filled with constant
regret, however, they are like most modern people. They regret and are introspective about their
lives and where the think they have failed.
Not everything is a failure, but remember, the modern plot that goes
along with our modern protagonist makes the telic flaw resolution look
impossible until it is inevitable. This
means there is plenty of time and potential for regret.
This regret is appropriate regret as opposed to
most of the regret the modern person feels.
The modern person should feel this regret and should be introspective
about this regret, but many times they don’t.
So what is this regret and what makes it different than perhaps normal
regret.
As I wrote, the modern protagonist is
introspective and melancholy when they can’t follow their own moral compass. This doesn’t mean they are immoral or act
immorally, this means their very lofty ideals and desires can be thwarted by
their lack of ability or lack of discipline.
For example, we defined the modern protagonist as having an overwhelming
desire to change or grow. We also noted
they have a very strong desire to grow their skills. When they can’t, they usually see this as a
moral issue. Oriental characters take
this as a question of discipline as do many modern protagonists. In the past, as well in many modern
protagonist, this was seen in western literature as a problem of faith. Just look at the Star Bores characters. Their faith in the Force was the feature that
caused their success or failure. This is
more than a religious idea, but a moral compass can be seen explicitly as a question
of faith and belief.
The moral compass of the protagonist drives their
existence and actions. This is what
makes them the way they are. When they
can’t succeed, they see that as a failure to follow their ideals and
beliefs. This can be subtle or
overt. That’s what I need to write
about, next.
I like to play a more subtle protagonist and
regret than an overt regret. What does
that mean? We have lots of opportunity
for the protagonist to fail in achieving the telic flaw resolution. There are overt failures and subtle
failures. The overt failures are ones
that are very direct and specific. For
example, if your character must enter college and fails miserably at his or her
tests, that’s an overt failure. On the
other hand, I like more subtle failures.
For example, if there is some threat of the protagonist not an overt
failure. For example, the protagonist needs
to pass the test to get into college.
The protagonist needs some special help with study and work. The protagonist must find someone to help
them. The protagonist works hard to
discover a person who can help. There is
some problems and failures but eventually the protagonist discovers someone to
help them. The protagonist works hard
under the threat of failure of the test.
When the protagonist takes the test, they succeed well and can enter the
college. This is more subtle form of
regret. The development of the plot is
based on the possibility of failure but the protagonist’s goal is to find someone
to help them learn.
Can you use overt failure? Oh baby you can. I like building an overt failure into a good
Romantic plot. If the writer has some
method to pull the protagonist out of the mire of failure, this can drive a
great novel. The failure of an important
test might be difficult to recover from.
I’d advise producing a historically based situation or a logically based
situation that can get your protagonist into the running. For example, the classic method is the protagonist
is a stand-in for the school. They just
missed the cutoff for the school, but something propels them over the
line. This is a great method of
developing the plot for this type of idea and novel. There are others, but I’m not expressing
plots as much as providing some examples for overt and subtle failures that
result in regret. You can have your
protagonist wallow in regret for a long time in these situations until them
have eventual success. I’ll get into
more of this, next.
Is regret an overall characteristic or a specific
characteristic? In other words, should
be base a plot on regret as a major part of our novel, or is the regret only a
partial feature, like an intermittent feeling affecting our protagonist.
I’ll bring up Menolly from Dragonsong. In this novel, the regret of Menolly not
being about to use her harpering skills and her regret of being a girl and not
a boy are an overall characteristic of the protagonist and the novel. I think the regret over being a girl is
overblown, but the regret of not being able to play her music is indeed a great
overall regret that drives the plots and the telic flaw resolution of the
novel. In this case, the regret is a
powerful and immediate factor in the novel.
In this case, regret works well as an overall theme in the novel.
I’ll now bring up one of my novels, Rose: Enchantment
and the Flower. Rose really has very
few regrets at all. She is learning
about her moral compass and defining it.
If anything, her major regret is her house and property. She desires it deeply and that motivates her
more than anything. The regret she feels
is regret for her place and property. As
I noted, Rose is learning her skills and her own moral compass. This is a continual, but very specific regret
for her.
I’ll bring up Seoirse from Seoirse: Enchantment
and the Assignment. Seoirse’s source
of regret is Rose. He loves Rose and
wants to please her. She has become his
moral compass, and he has a great need to win her love, and please her as she figures
out how to control five very dangerous goddess girls. The regret is constant because he angers and
occasionally opposes Rose. Also, many
times, Seoirse doesn’t fully understand the effect he has on her. This is part of the mystery and secrets in
the novel. The regret isn’t so much an
overall regret like Menolly encounters, but a specific one fitted into the
plots.
I’m not sure I helped as much as I should have
about regret. Regret can be overall,
like Menolly encounters, or it can be more specific as I have with Rose and
Seoirse. What it shouldn’t be is
nonexistent. In the Victorian Era
characters many times their regret comes with caveats. We either see zero regret for actions and not
following the moral compass or regrets based on properly following their moral
compass and that negatively affecting others.
I bring into play Pride and Prejudice. In this very Victorian novel, the character
all follow their moral compass based on the culture and society—the problem is
their moral compass is broken and their actions and words cause not great harm,
but distinct cultural problems for themselves and others. The moral of the novel isn’t to disparage the
culture, but the correction of the problems caused by the culture. The modern or Romantic protagonist would have
rebelled when possible to remake the culture in his or her moral compass. That’s one of the great powers of the modern
protagonist. Their influence moves
others.
My two novels about Rose cover this well. Rose must discover how to move and motivate
others, others who are very powerful and dangerous, to become proper ladies—all
in the mold that Rose desires. Rose has
a good moral compass—one she develops within the novels.
I suppose that is enough about regret—you can see
that this is a very potent and powerful means of theme and plot development in
this type of novel. I’ll move onto the next type of pathos for the modern protagonist,
that’s next.
11. 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.
Some of the characteristics that make out modern
or Romantic protagonist a great protagonist also isolate his or her from
society. Now, the isolation is usually limited
to certain groups or individuals, but can be similar to the isolation of Jesus
from his people and village or general society.
The isolation of the protagonist is usually more specific but a similar
pathos—some is developed pathos and some is a set pathos. What’s the difference?
A set pathos is what comes with the
protagonist. In this case, this usually
means unplanned or uncontrolled isolation from family or normal society through
some means—I listed death, exclusion, and self-isolation due to courageous. What this means is usually that the
protagonist is an orphan. Loss of one’s
parents is a typical and a great pathos developing method for the development
of the protagonist. This was a very
typical and well used method in Victorian writing. We see it in Oliver Twist where the
parents have died. We see it in A
Little Princess where the mother has died and then the father. It’s all thought Victorian writing, and is
both a testament to the times and culture as well as a classic means of
producing pathos from the beginning of the character development. Since being an orphan is much less common
today, this stands as a great pathos development means, but I will warn you—some
ideas will dilute this terribly.
It's never the child’s fault, but divorce,
remarriage, and the blended families of the modern world don’t produce much
pathos. The problem is a lack of sympathy
and too common of knowledge. The lack of
sympathy comes from readers who lived with these truths in their lives as well
as the common knowledge that if they can survive and prosper, so can the
protagonist. I don’t recommend using
them to develop pathos—that is don’t use divorce, remarriage, or the blended
family as a pathos developer. It is
better to keep it clean with death of a parent or both parents. This provides pathos without any
judgement. Plus, it is unusual enough
today to be a real heart jerker. Death
is the way to go for set pathos. Now to
the developed pathos. I’ll look at exclusion
and self-isolation, next.
Yes, the life of the modern or Romantic
protagonist engenders exclusion and self-isolation. This usually comes from their moral compass, skills,
rural isolation, and cultural mores. Dragonsinger
is a great example of this. I’m
rereading the two very good example novels: Dragonsong and Dragonsinger
just for fun, but also for review. In
the second novel, Menolly is isolated from her peers in the aristocracy because
of her rural background. Her manners and
mores are different. Her approach to
life is different, and you can attribute all of this to her growing up in a
rural and backward place. This is
exclusion based on her background and it’s a great pathos. How can you not feel for a child who is equal
if not higher rank than others but excluded because of who she is. The second part of her exclusion comes from
her skills.
Menolly is exceedingly skilled as a musician. She is excluded by her peers in the Harper
Hold as well as her peers in rank. The
women of rank exclude her because she is a musician and the Harpers (some of
them) exclude her because she is a girl with skills equal to or better than
theirs. Not everyone excludes her, but
there is enough pressure that it drives the narrative of the novel.
Self-isolation was more of a feature of the first
novel; Dragonsong. In this novel,
Menolly self-isolates by running away from her hold and home to live holdless
because she was prevented from playing and singing. She further self-isolates once she is rescued
but because she doesn’t want to be sent back to her hold.
Exclusion and self-isolation develop pathos in
our readers because they feel for the protagonist. They want the protagonist to succeed, but
they see the reasons for the exclusion and self-isolation. This is both a plot and a technique in the
development of the storyline for this type of protagonist. When you put all the pathos together, you get
really leaky readers—they can’t help themselves. I should look at the normal protagonist from
the standpoint of exclusion and self-isolation.
That’s next.
Pathos development due to exclusion and
self-isolation as well as due to death or estrangement is common for the normal
protagonist and a feature of many Victorian Era novels, however, there is a
real difference between the modern or Romantic protagonist and the Victorian or
normal protagonist.
We see some real interesting self-isolation and
exclusion with characters such as Sara Crew in A Little Princess and
Oliver Twist from the novel of the same name, but look closely at these characters
and their exclusion. Both are excluded,
not for their common or rural backgrounds but rather for their aristocratic and
privileged actions. They are excluded
because they are acting in the capacity of wealth and privilege even when they
are not wealthy or privileged (or presumed to not be wealthy or
privileged). The message is clear about
these and almost every Victorian (and normal) protagonist. They are better and more highly born,
therefore they are still privileged.
All the little exclusionary stuff is turned on
its head. For example, the girls at the
boarding school love Sara Crew’s stories and story recounting until she loses
her wealth and station. Then her stories
become simply the silly hallucinations of the poor and misguided. Only those sensitive to the innate privilege of
Sara, who are a servant and a less than bright child still recognize the skills
of the protagonist.
Notice that this is a Victorian theme I haven’t
written about much and that is the open eyes of the innocent. In a modern protagonist, the intelligent and
perceptive can detect the more obvious and powerful skills of the
protagonist. In the Victorian and normal
protagonist, the innocent and subservient can.
You can really see this in Oliver Twist where the thieving boys and the virtuous
whore can see his goodness and potential while the evil Sikes and others only
see the use of Oliver’s aristocratic looks and behavior as a means of more
theft.
So, what do we do with the modern protagonist in
terms of exclusion and self-isolation? The
most powerful means is the great reveal.
I like to accomplish this through the entire novel with the revelation
of the protagonist. The protagonist
doesn’t change as much as the information of the protagonist is revealed to the
reader and to the characters. We can’t
forget the characters.
The readers might have some knowledge of the
protagonist, but that doesn’t mean the world does. It is less effective to keep secrets in the hands
and minds of the characters, but a little reflection and investigation from
these characters that the readers are party to is a great means of developing tension
and release, especially in the scenes.
The normal protagonist is more of a sideline to the skills and
abilities. They bring great strength and
character to the protagonist, but that’s about all.
Sara Crew shows us this. If you note, she has some amazing story telling
and making skills that do play in the telic flaw resolution, but they simply
enhance the resolution, they don’t provide the actual resolution. On the other hand, with a modern protagonist,
those same skills would have or should have provided the means of the telic
flaw resolution. This wouldn’t work well
in the fate will out or blood will out plot of the Victorian protagonist, but
it is a typical resolution for a modern protagonist. For example, if we cast Sara as a modern
protagonist, she would use her story development skills to become a great
writer or author and her skills and abilities would have pulled her out of
poverty and the boarding school. Isn’t
that similar to the modern protagonist Anne of Green Gables whose writing
skills eventually resolve the telic flaw. Or at least it has a profound effect on the
telic flaw resolution.
The exclusion and self-isolation of the
protagonist is an important characteristic of the modern protagonist. This is also an important characteristic of
the normal protagonist, but the point for both is pathos development. The difference in these types of protagonist
is the reasons for the exclusion and self-isolation as well as the skills of
the modern protagonist. The skills are
what matter, and one of the chief and most important origins of these skills
and the character as will is the common and the rural. I’ll look at that, next.
12. From the common and potentially the rural.
This may be the most important historical factor
about the modern and Romantic protagonist.
Historically, this was a characteristic directly in response to the Victorian
Era protagonist. Almost all the
successful Victorian Era protagonists were wealthy or aristocratic. Even the negative protagonist, Scrooge was
wealthy and to some degree from wealth. Was
Scrooge fated to salvation and redemption because of his wealth and position? It sure seems to be the case—that’s what Marley
told him. In any case, we see the normal
protagonist and specifically the Victorian protagonist—those who are successful
are all wealthy or aristocratic—blood will out is the plot.
And for thousands of years, this was true. Until the Industrial Age (and America), the average
poor or rural person was less intelligent, shorter, smaller, less strong, and
less able—why? The answer is easy, just
look at any modern starvation culture.
Those who get plenty of protein and carbohydrates are more able—more intelligent,
taller, stronger, better looking, healthier—you name it, they got it. This is a fact that is true of all animals,
but especially humans.
As America (first) and Britain (second) began to
move out of a starvation culture, mainly because of capitalism and land
ownership by the poor, the wealthy and aristocratic were no longer the
smartest, tallest, best looking, and most able.
Suddenly, the rural and the poor began to equal them in ability. This might have been one of the greatest
triumphs in the history of humankind.
The poor finally got enough calories to compete with the top few.
When this happened in history, definitely in
America around the beginning of the 1800s and in Britain by about the beginning
of the 1900s, the sudden influx of the able poor, led by the rural poor became a
new challenge to the wealthy and aristocratic.
All the protagonists (and their authors) who had been wealthy and
aristocratic and who looked down on the rural and poor had a come to Jesus
experience with the book market.
The new (modern) protagonist was no longer the
wealthy and aristocratic who were stronger, smarter, taller, and better looking,
and who looked down on the poor scholarship students trying to make their way
in the academy and schools. Now, the scholarship
students were the ones who were winning the awards, the gold, the advanced
scholarships, and the places of honor.
The world of the wealthy and aristocratic had begun to change. We hear about the new rich and the new
wealthy and the capitalists who ran the engine of industry. Their children are capable and athletic, and
the old wealth and aristocrats are suddenly relegated to the ash heap of history. In fact, they become the antagonists and the
bad folks in the modern novel. This
image fills novels, then plays, then movies, and is a trope in children’s
cartoons to this day. The aristocratic and
wealthy were no longer the protagonists and zero to hero as a plot and theme
just put the final nail in their coffin.
Then what about the common and rural as a modern protagonist? That’s next.
13. Love interest
What I should do in this iteration of the
Romantic protagonist is to make some remarks and observations about how they
are different than other types of protagonists.
Most specifically, reflecting on the pre-Victorian (which is also mainly
Romantic), the realist, modern, and general.
Perhaps the idea of what protagonists look like historically and in
literature. That’s next.
There’s more.
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
