>>> Item number 33459 from WRITERS LOG9407B --- (181 records) ---- <<< Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 18:35:01 JST Reply-To: WRITERS Sender: WRITERS From: Mike Barker Subject: TECH: Psychological Depth in Stories (was: What is a story?) or: How Can A Story Convey Internal Struggles Hi, all. Michael Heacock raised an interesting point which I have been pondering. It wasn't really central to his discussion, but noting his concern with portraying psychological depth and techniques of writing, I started to think about just what part the old theme of "man against himself" has in writing, and how the "standard techniques" present that struggle. Grant me a thousand words or so (a picture and a half?) to pound that point into the dust? [since I suspect many of you are still recovering from an extended weekend, you may postpone reactions for a while. I hope you enjoyed the 4th--and brought back memories of fireworks and hot buttered corn and all that jazz!] I suppose I should start by noting that many discussions of literature attempt to loosely divide the set of possible conflicts into three major groups--man against himself, man against man, and man against nature (the book where I learned these wasn't up to modern standards--please feel free to change man into homo sap or whatever nonsexist term you prefer, and correct other sexual references as needed). So I start with the recognition that psychological struggles--man against himself--are a very common playground for writers. In most cases, they use a variety of techniques to play out their plots. Perhaps one of the most common is "projecting" the internal struggle onto external life, sometimes even converting the whole internal conflict into an "external" one. For example, Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde (sp?), most or all of Shakespeare's plays, Dracula, and many, many other "oldies" and even some "newies" clearly use the tired-and-true techniques as backdrops for this oldest play of old--man struggling with himself (check out the Bible and other ancient historical sources--cripes, even the mythologies are very little more than "external" projections of man's struggle with himself). [or perhaps our best analogies and metaphors for what's going on inside are built from those outside ourselves? which one is the mirror, which the image?] On considering the matter carefully, I'm not at all sure that there is any kind of story that does not involve the struggle of an individual to understand and deal with him or herself. Even the purest adventure-action story usually involves at least some minor (and often rather major!) internal struggle by one or more of the characters trying to deal with personality flaws, fear, hatred, etc. There are a number of "plotting systems" that focus on identifying a "critical flaw" (or similar personality trait or problem), developing the conflict and rising tension to aggravate and display that internal problem, and then using a shift, reversal, or other method of resolving the external and internal conflict that has been constructed. Since these systems focus on the purely internal as the driving force underlying the entire plot construction and selection, it seems obvious that these are quite focused on internal struggles--even when the result is a hard-bitten detective madly chasing cares and dodging Freudian slips as they close in on the suspects... Let's see--some of those old tired-and-true techniques: Mystery--the presentation of parts and clues in an order which "teases" the reader into reading, then reveals the "hidden secret"--while it has obvious uses in almost any kind of writing, its appeal to the reader and challenge to the intellect seem peculiarly appropriate as a component of writing that deals with psychological conflicts and truths. After all, the depths of the mind (and especially those quirks of the unconscious, right and left brain, and other intrigues of the psychological world) are perhaps the most resistant of mysteries even to those of us who live with one all of our lives. We may be the foremost experts on that mind--and how mysterious it is! [which is one of the delightful dilemmas of life--I must chose, yet I know precisely how little I know! and I thrash onward, struggling with that limited self I know too well...] Suspense--the deliberate delaying of closure to maintain interest--also seems quite well-suited to writing that deals with internal thoughts, desires, and drives. After all, the tool is rooted in those desires and needs, and--when used to direct and heighten interest, or even in twisted ways to frustrate and mislead the reader--is one of the most psychological of writers' tricks. Pandora, Love, Dilemma, Revenge...most of the old "tricks of the trade" seem rooted rather solidly in psychological caprice. The proper study of man is man--and seemingly that's what the writers have been up to for a long, long time. Resolutions--lord, that's an on-going discussion. Join the confusion. For the nonce, let me just note that Randy's point about the basic need being the reader's psychological closure (versus resolving the conflict) is extraordinarily good (if I can ever pin it down enough to use it). Randy also made the excellent point that the end of the story and the resolution of the story are not at all identical, and can occur in various combinations (e.g. resolution before end, coincident, and resolution well after end). [points freely translated by me--if there are errors, they are mine] [I have several files from Randy and Chris which I am still mulling over dealing with "endings" and "resolutions" and such fine points.] I think Michael's point that most resolutions are not truly final may also provide some enlightenment for our continuing discussion. Let me see - a quick checklist: scenes - character, dialogue, action, setting avoid narrative summaries - the narrator speaks show, don't tell let character emerge through action, reaction, and dialogue limit flashbacks, analysis, and history don't use dialogue or interior monologues to feed info to your reader introduce us to the character through how they act and talk 3rd person, past tense - except when 1st or omniscient or others do a better job make dialogue show emotion, don't tell us kill -ly adverbs -- use the right verb! not "He wondered..." -- use "Why did he..." (more natural) use beats -- little actions between dialogue lines short paragraphs, scenes, and speeches avoid repetition watch proportion and balance avoid cliches hum--seems as though these old techniques are focused on bringing out character--that hidden psychological beast, with all its claws and varied furs, that hides beneath the external details and reveals itself in such maddeningly incomplete and fragmentary glimpses. Admittedly, it is not as simple and easy as sliding into the brain of the person might be--but most of us aren't telepaths anyway, and find even "stream-of-consciousness" writing to be relatively unfamiliar, not at all similar to the babbling brook that runs inside our cranium in the instants when we are not occupied with various disturbances outside and inside our skin. Even when I look at attempts like Georges Polti's to categorize the various fragments out of which we "build" plots (or stories), the focus is on internal drives--sometimes being played out in the outside world--and the psychological thrashing of those conflicts. Polti makes a point of stating that one of the key ways to vary the basic building blocks of his 32 plot elements is to "collapse" two or more of his "essential characters" into a single person who embodies the inherent conflict and characteristics of those multiple "actors." I'd argue that one of the ways we can most easily display an internal struggle is to separate out the actors and give them at least fictional independence to "show off" their dispositions... Perhaps this whole discussion really belongs with our recent notation that the writer's and readers' emotions are involved and "touched" by truly great writing. While not overtly identical, in the same way it might be said that part of the basic plot in great writing is always a human struggle with him/herself--coming face-to-face with the fact of our individual humanity in one guise or another, accepting it, and learning to deal with it in some way (note that being defeated by it is one way to deal with it--not perhaps the currently accepted mode, but quite common in older tragedies). I did want to thank Michael for his quote: - "Once upon a time, a man complained that the shoes he was trying on were - much too tight. To which the seller replied: `You have no right to - complain unless you yourself can make a better shoe.' So the man went - out and found himself a better shoemaker..." --Pierre Elliott Trudeau-- - Canadian Prime Minister (1968-1979, 1980-1984) Interesting quote. As I read it, it is talking to the craftsperson about making sure the product fits the customer--or in our terms, that the writing suits the audience. Who is your audience? What do they expect? Nasty questions that cut to the core of writing... thoughtfully, tink