posted
If you have been following the study group on beats, it seems clear we are looking at the problems and concerns of beats in a scene carried by dialogue with some degree of understanding.
But how many, how much of our stories ARE written that way?
How do beats figure in in THOSE stretches of text?
This is what first Dwight Swain and then his student Jack Bickham tried to bring some understanding to.
After the initial scene setting a scene -- in my understanding of what these two teachers and well published writers said -- you have a series of action-internalization-reaction units.
posted
This is from Bickham's mentor Swain on the same subject but couched a little different.
This was the first book on writing I ever found helpful.
TECHNIQUES OF THE SELLING WRITER published back in 1965 by Dwight Swain says on pages 54 – 56
There is a pattern to emotion. First, something motivates it. It could an action, a memory, dialogue – something.
Then, Swain says comes action. Finally, speech. He says “the secret lies in the order in which you present your material…the chronological order, so that one item follows exactly as they occur in point of time. Never is any doubt left as to which element comes first, or which is cause and which is effect.”
This is because – although people CAN do things simultaneously – in point of fact in novels they do them serially. The nature of the printed word demands that.
“Furthermore, any attempt to present simultaneity rather than sequence is bound to confuse the reader. “Why? “Because simultaneity obscures the cause-effect, motivation-reaction relationship that gives the story meaning to him [the reader].”
Down further, Swain admits that you do NOT always show both the action and the speech. Oftentimes speech alone or action alone is enough. But the writer should be aware of all three.
He says that a story is a succession of motivation-reaction units. (part of Bickham's action-internalization-reaction units)
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 03, 2009).]
posted
So if I have this correct, a passage like...
quote:"...so the killer used this on the victim before disposing the body?" he said, after picking up the blood stained knife on the floor.
...is wrong? I see this type of thing all the time. Dialog then an action tag to show what the character did while or before he/she spoke. Often it is awkward but sometimes it works.
posted
I don't think it's "wrong" as long as the reader knows what's going on. May not win any awards, but...
Posts: 840 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:"...so the killer used this on the victim before disposing the body?" he said, after picking up the blood stained knife on the floor.
The dialogue attribution is unneccessary, disruptive perhaps. Omitting unnecessary attribution is one of many purposes of "beats."
Omitting "he said" demonstrates that the action "beat" "after picking up the blood stained knife on the floor" is a potentially intrusive tell from being out of causal sequence. The gerund verb "picking" is another cue that suggests sentence recasting. Cause, picking up the knife. Effect, dialogue about "this" the knife. Aftereffect? blood splatter dripping from the knife? Perhaps depicting shaking the knife immediately after "this" as an assertive gesture for "internalization's" sake?
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 03, 2009).]
quote:He picked up the bloodstained knife off the floor. "So the killer used this on the victim before disposing the body?"
and
quote:"So the killer used this on the victim before disposing the body?" He picked up the bloodstained knife off the floor.
But neither advances the subject on this thread. They both could be done in the chronological order it was written in. (I am conceding the prose is god-awful poor.)
I believe arriki's discussion is maintaining an order of events while introducing dialog. I have read plenty of works (amatuer and pro) that have been done contray to thsi advice. I prefer a chronological accuracy in a prose. I have seen a lot of people that do not practise this. You'll see
"They said these things". While other stuff happened before it.
Here is an example from Snakes and Ladders by Paula R Stiles
quote:"Ah Jesus, it hurts, it hurts! What the hell am I doing back here!" He could not keep the pain and betrayal out of his voice.
Clearly the pain in his voice is there in and before the dialog. The beat afterward is a description of how the voice sounded. Mr Swain said...
quote:There is a pattern to emotion. First, something motivates it. It could an action, a memory, dialogue – something.
Then, Swain says comes action. Finally, speech.
Although the example I provided is not prefect it runs contray to what Swain says is correct. First we had the voice, then what motivated with the action of why it is so. Unless i am misunderstanding him (I believe I may be) Swain says the pain and betrayal in his voice should be before the speech. The order of events are not correct.
quote:This was the first book on writing I ever found helpful.
TECHNIQUES OF THE SELLING WRITER published back in 1965 by Dwight Swain says on pages 54 – 56
That book is wonderful, the Motivation-Reaction Units (MRUs) alone are a goldmine. My writing changed a lot by editing with that in mind.
I don't know exactly how many stories are written exactly that way but I've been paying attention to the stories I've found more vivid and most of them use the MRUs. However, they don't use MRUs always, it's not a rule, I've see it broken but it's always for a very good reason.
I believe someone posted a link to this site before and that's how I came across the Swain book in the first place. There are a lot of examples of the rewriting of passage using the MRU structure.
The MRU helped me, but keep in mind it doesn't operate alone. Not all in a story is an Motivation-Reaction Unit.
posted
For me, motivation is a big-picture principle. Causation too is a big-picture drama principle, but in causation's discrete parts, cause and effect, action and reaction, and its scope in either little picture or big picture application, there's clarity for me. Connotative meanings for motivation can be little picture, as in a barely perceptible stimulus, for example. Motivation, the noun, has some three dozen denotative synonyms, though.
I found Swain and Bickham's approach to causation somewhat narrow in scope, at least because their terminology is fuzzy to me from their usage of terms that apply in contrasting writing principles, more so probably because I'd been exposed to Aristotle and Freytag's take on causation principles first. Aristotle's Poetics locates a First Cause as the inciting motivation for a protagonist's actions and reactions. Then subsequent effects of a First Cause become further causes and, in turn, effects in their own rights until an ending resolves a First Cause's compelling forces.
Freytag builds on Aristotle's causation principles. He names a First Cause as an enciting [inciting] incident. He also locates a bidirectional flow in causation. His terms for causation's directions are influx and efflux. Obviously, influx comes from outside and flows inward, efflux comes from inside and flows outward. A First Cause or any cause can be an influxing or an effluxing stimulus. Examples of influxing causes come readily to mind. Efflux examples not as easily. The natural human condition is one area for insight. Hunger pangs can be an inciting cause, as can other kinds of sensations, pains or pleasures, longings, desires, needs, values, or ideals.
Delineating what logically comes first might digress into a semantic dilemma along the lines of what came first, the chicken or the egg. As far as story is concerned, a First Cause need not be an entire life story leading up to the moment when a life-altering circumstance arises. Just a point in time and causation at which a protagonist becomes aware of an inciting incident will do. For example, hunger pangs, do they arise because of an imposed lack of available nutrition. Or do they arise as an everyday routine consequence of lifestyle choice. The former has dramatic potential, the latter probably not.
The action-internalization-reaction formula is for me a cause-effect/cause-effect/cause-effect flow. A First Cause or follow-on causal action of sufficient magnitude causes an internal or external reaction effect, internalization or externalization then becomes an effect and causes an external or internal reaction effect, the external or internal reaction causes a follow-on effect, which, in turn, causes an effect, ad infinitum. Incorporate influx and efflux at each cause and effect and causal flow can become quite complex to depict, but read naturally and easily.
An example of a single cause having influx and efflux might be along the lines of an off-color comment that causes a recipient embarrasment. Note the collision of wills as a dramatic principle. Dissecting the full nature of the cause to begin with might be too complex for dramatic depiction, but say the parties have a history of contention, and the off-color remark is an accurate but personal dig that the recipient takes to heart.
Influxes and effluxes might occur seemingly simultaneously but must of writing's nature be depicted linearly: Causes, the history, the callousness of the remarker, the sensitivity of the recipient, the remark: Effects, an immediate, fleeting, involuntary, barely perceptible facial flush; maybe another autonomic bodily reaction, like a tightening of the stomach; a release of andrenaline triggers a flight-or-fight dissonance; an uttered epithet; a thrown punch, and so on.
Causation is just one of the several attributes of plot's movement. Causation flows horizontally, linearly, inexorably along with word flow. Tension flows vertically and varies geometrically, ideally in the form of a staircase rising to climax and falling to resolution. Antagonism flows perpendicular to causation and tension, as in antagonism's purpose and problem causation is perpendicular to opposition and compulsion, and empathy/sympathy and suspense. Unity, magnitude, logical flow, resonance, all these things in their parts and in their wholes contribute to the smallest picture and the largest picture in a story.
Maybe I simplify things but, so far, I haven't found the concept of "motivation" as Swain describes too confusing.
Extrinsic: "Motivation" is defined by Swain as anything external to the POV character. Motivation can be a baseball hitting you in the head or the imminent foreclosure of your house. "Reaction" is everything that goes on inside the POV character.
I say this because it seemed to me you confused the "noun Motivation" with "Swain's Motivation". That the dictionary lists more definitions for the noun doesn't have much to do with the concept as Swain uses it, except for the same name and a general same meaning.
But maybe I didn't understand you correctly, English is not my first language and your post stretched it a bit past its limits
posted
One of my bête noires with using "motivation" as Swain, et al, use it is that I don't perceive motivation as solely externally causal, in life or in drama. Effluxing causes are considerably rare as First Causes in drama, less rare in life, more common as follow-on causes, but not entirely absent in the opus of literature.
As an example, say I've got a genetic affliction. What caused it? Absolutely, some external stimulus, like I inherited it from my ancestors, but in a story its origin would at best be related in backstory, if what caused it is necessary to the story at all. The genetic affliction causes me to act at some point, and is conceivably all by itself a First Cause of a life-altering event.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 04, 2009).]
posted
Snapper said - I believe arriki's discussion is maintaining an order of events while introducing dialog.
No. My understanding is that the motivation-reaction unit applies to non-dialogue, also. It’s one of the ways you can edit for clarity. Granted, there are occasions when the writer WANTS a feeling of confusion, but those are rare.
And snapper said - Here is an example from Snakes and Ladders by Paula R Stiles quote: ________________________________________ "Ah Jesus, it hurts, it hurts! What the hell am I doing back here!" He could not keep the pain and betrayal out of his voice. ________________________________________
snapper:Clearly the pain in his voice is there in and before the dialog. The beat afterward is a description of how the voice sounded.
arriki:This may be more personal opinion but – to me – the pain is obvious from the dialogue. As for the betrayal – that isn’t at all obvious from the wording. In fact, the betrayal jerks me out of the flow because I’m just being told that. I don’t see it in the wording. Now that may be because we have such a small piece of the story.
Let’s try it this way.
"Ah Jesus, it hurts, it hurts! What the hell am I doing back here!" He could not keep the betrayal out of his voice. ________________________________________ It is hard to evaluate. However, to me it seems we’re really better off without the bit about keeping the pain and betrayal out. Adjust the wording so the betrayal is obvious and get on with the scene.
"Ah Jesus, it hurts, it hurts! Why the hell did you bring me back here?”
One of the big problems with writing is that there is no agreed upon vocabulary. Extrinsic, I fear you are using a telescope to look in a Petri dish.
We’re not talking about the big story, but the little tiny elements that make up the big story.
I see Swain and Bickham as pointing out that an action sets in motion a cascade of reactions -- each or most of which in turn become actions setting off more reactions.
Gol opened the door. He peered into the smoke-filled inn. He sneezed. He dragged out a greasy piece of cloth and wiped his nose. He walked in. The troll waitress came up to him. He brushed past her. Everyone at the bar fell silent. Gol walked across the room without saying anything. He opened the door to the innkeeper’s office. He went inside.
Now, do some or all of these actions lead to reactions?
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 05, 2009).]
quote:I see Swain and Bickham as pointing out that an action sets in motion a cascade of reactions -- each or most of which in turn become actions setting off more reactions.
More or less the way I see it too, arriki.
It sounds simple when you put it like that but when you see those chains of Motivation-Reaction units have to form Scenes and Sequels, it gets tricker. I'm still working on the Motivation-Reaction and the Scene-Sequel structure myself because it's impossible for me to assimilate all the tools the book gives you. I'll stick to that until it comes naturally.
Now, about the example. The problem I see here is that some of your examples are reactions, not motivations.
"Gol opened the door" sounds like a reaction, not a motivation, if Gol is the POV character. Reaction is everything the character feels, does and thinks. In this case, Gol opened the door because he learned in the last chapter that he needed to speak with the innkeeper. Same with "He sneezed", "He dragged out a greasy piece of cloth and wiped his nose" - both are reactions to the smoke (which is external and objective, as all motivations should be, I think).
I need to read the book again, though. MRUs are pesky.
A motivation that could lead to a reaction in your examples is, to me:
"Everyone at the bar fell silent" (external and objective)
But you included a reaction to this motivation in your example: "Gol walked across the room without saying anything".
Here you chose the middle "stage" of a reaction, 'the action' and left out the rest. Swain says that the natural order of a reaction is first feeling, second action (movement, speech), third thought. And you can cut any part when you write as long as you keep them in order. If a tiger jumps at you in a dark alley, you don't first think "Oh, a tiger. Wonder what the hell a tiger is doing in New York" then call 911 and say "oh darn, a tiger!" and then feel a rush of adrenaline and hide behind a dumpster.
Nature doesn't work that way. If it did, we'd be extinct.
In practice, I've found that knowing what a MRU is helps me edit but confronted with a text I haven't written, it's not easy to distinguish Motivation from Reaction and see where the pattern is wrong.
quote:One of the big problems with writing is that there is no agreed upon vocabulary. Extrinsic, I fear you are using a telescope to look in a Petri dish.
Have no fear on my account. Though I've heard similar before and didn't, don't find it applicable.
There are schools of writing thought (literary theory) that tend towards being devotional cults, have been, always will be I imagine, probably beginning millenia ago with Aristotle and his Poetics: Structuralists, answered by Russian Formalists and Western Formalists, answered by New Criticism, answered by Post-Structuralists, answered by Deconstructionists, and so on, and a host of other schools in different approaches: Historicist, Feminist, Marxist, Post-Colonialist, Aesthetist, American Pragmatist, and on and on.
New Criticism in addition to a structurally textual theory, examines an implicit moral angle and in some cases a religious one. Different schools of literary theory place varying emphasis on writing and reading, textual structure, artistic qualities, human conditions, and on and on.
I place Swain, et al, in a structuralist-styled school largely for "relying on the assumption of an intertextual 'order of words' and universality of certain structural types." [Wikipedia: Literary Theory] Me, I place myself closest to the Post-Structuralist camp, but ride on as an outlier open to and striving to accept all the schools.
Swain and Bickham, et al, leave me stranded hithchiking on a dark back country road at night in the middle of my journey without a ride to carry me forward. But there's an Eco-criticismist way shack beside the road where I can rest my head until daybreak.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 05, 2009).]
posted
I’ve gotten lost in this example. I was trying to show M-R units. The first two paragraphs do do that, I think. But what about the rest? What are they? Could the little scene be improved by turning it all into MR units?
The inn wasn’t closed. It was, in fact, very much active. A bunch of dragons huddled munching fire thorn outside with their handlers while the troll nobility enjoyed themselves inside. Angrily Gol slammed open the door and stood looking into the smoke-filled main room. The troll waitress grabbed a menu and headed for him. He shoved past her with a grunt. Everyone looked up. Some even laid down their dinner knives. Gol kept his eyes fixed on the office door on the far side as he strode across the room. When he reached the door, he turned around. Gol bared his teeth at the other patrons. Everyone suddenly became engrossed in their meals. The low hum of conversations recommenced.
Kathleen -- why are you editing this? It's not a story but an exercise to look at a particular technique of writing.
Could you put it back, please? [This message has been edited by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (edited September 07, 2009).]
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 07, 2009).]
posted
This is also an exercise NOT A STORY. The 13 line rule should not apply.
Now on page 81 of TECHNIQUES OF THE SELLING WRITER by Swain, Swain has an example of what he means by M-R units.
I’m going to try and write a similar set of narrative passages for us to tear apart here. His isn’t great lit and mine won’t be either. But is this what he means and how does he mean it?
MOTIVATION Two huge dragons homed in on Kyla from the pass, narrowing her lead on the ground as their wings beat furiously.
REACTION Hero changed his raygun from stun to full power kill.
MOTIVATION The alien girl burst out from the underbrush, the dragons splitting up to herd her away from the trees.
REACTION Tight-lipped, Hero took aim and sent a blast of energy at the dragon nearest the girl.
MOTIVATION The dragon screamed as the ray burned through its right wing. The beast fell back to the ground in a writhing tangle of wings, tail, and fiery breath.
REACTION Firing up his jet pack, Hero swooped in front of the other dragon and grabbed Kyla by her parka. Together they rose upward ahead of the dragon, heading for the silver spaceship hovering above the lake.
MOTIVATION The crackling of dragon scales and the roar of the serpent’s anger increased along with the heat of its savage breath. The fires surged hotter and hotter with every wing beat.
REACTION Hero dropped the girl, turned, and fired the last charge from his raygun straight into the dragon’s eyes. Without looking to see if he’d killed the beast, he dived to catch the falling girl.
MOTIVATION The dragon beat its wings frantically, its neck winding every way around, blindly searching for its prey.
The scene continues, Swain informs us. Your character and the reader live through the rising action.
Now did I capture the idea Swain was trying to get across. AND, how should we look at scenes in view of this? What is the difference between Swain’s Motivations and his Reactions? What can we learn from this?
How does this differ from my little scene with Gol?
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 07, 2009).]
This is a much better example because it's an action scene, arriki
However, and please don't take this the wrong way, you left out the most important part: feeling. The example didn't make me feel anything, it was just an account of 'who did what' but not if the broke a sweat doing it.
---- MOTIVATION Two huge dragons homed in on Kyla from the pass, narrowing her lead on the ground as their wings beat furiously.
REACTION Hero changed his raygun from stun to full power kill. ---
So, Kyla might be charred to a crisp any second now but the Hero never gets nervous or curses or screams or something. If I were the Hero, I'd be feeling something right about here. I might feel pissed at Kyla for being so reckless, or pissed at myself for bringing her along. I might mutter "Always getting in the way this girl is going to kill me dead". I might run a very quick check of what my options are (very, very quick because it's an action scene and you don't think much but you do think) and then do my best to save her.
I feel the scene this way, I get inside the character's head.
In this scene, Hero just turns a dial on his raygun. No emotion. No fun.
I can tell when there's no emotion because it doesn't seem written in POV. If you read the scene, there could be a third person there and he or she be describing the scene from behind the safety of a big rock.
--- Two huge dragons homed in on Kyla from the pass, narrowing her lead on the ground as their wings beat furiously. ---
'As'. It means something happened at the same time some other thing happened. I wrote a lot of 'as's before I read Swain. Even though in real life there are a lot of things happening at the same time, writing is linear - it's not like real life. As MRUs go, that 'as' should be cut and the action rewritten so that one thing happens after another. In this case I think it's better but there are moments where this 'guideline' should be broken. But there's not guideline to know when.
About this compared to the scene with Gol, I feel it lacks the same thing: feeling. MRUs help you describe actions-reactions vividly, but part of a reaction is feeling. Swain says you're writing fiction to create a powerful emotional experience. To do that, you have to make your readers feel what the character is feeling. And you can't do that, in my opinion, if you can't tell which character is the POV character.
I'm going to add an example from The Horse Whisperer because I think it's easier to study MRUs if you have a passage that has been carefully thought out.
I hope this is legal, if not La Gran Jefa will axe it.
--- "Pilgrim, com on! Move!" In the off stillness of the moment before Gulliver [another horse] hit them, Grace knew there was more to the roar in her head than the rushing of blood. That snowplow wasn't out on the highway. It was too loud for that. It was somewhere nearer. The thought vaporized by the shuddering impact of Gulliver's hindquarters. He bulldozed into them, hitting Pilgrim's shoulder and sining him around. Grace felt herself being lifted out of her saddle, whiplashed up the slope. And had one hand not found the rump of the other horse she would've fallen then as Judith fell. But she stayed on, wrapping a fist onto Pilgrim's silky mane as he slid down the slope beneath her. Gulliver and Judith were past her now and she watched her friend being flung like a discarded doll across the horses's rear.... ---
Here there's feeling. To me. Others will think it's poor writing, or not interesting. But it made me be on that horse, so this is when, for me, a passive verb won't matter because I'm living it.
[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited September 08, 2009).]
posted
Nicole said - you left out the most important part: feeling.
arriki: I went through Swain's example.
I used the exact wording - tight-lipped -- that was all the emotion Swain used.
Now I wonder why that was.
You are right about the "as" in mine. I goofed on that.
If you have a copy of the book or anyone else does, check on page 81 (in my edition) and see if you can see why the lack of emotion.
There were a couple of spots in his example of "..." - could that mean places where the emotional stuff would have been only he had stripped the example down to the two elements he wanted to showcase? Is that what's going on?
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 08, 2009).]
posted
Okay, let me see if I'm on the same page you are. I won't even try to give my take on your questions (both very juicy) if I'm not sure we are looking at the same thing.
Is this the example you are referring to:
--- Now, with a roar, the red Jag picked up speed, careening recklessly as it hurtled down the drive and out onto the highway.
Stiff-lipped, Brad turned from the window and ground out his cigarette. ---
I can't find another example with 'tight-lipped' on it. This one is in 'Chapter 3: Plain Facts About Feelings', under the subtitle 'Writing the M-R Unit'.
[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited September 08, 2009).]
posted
No. It's right near the end of the chapter PLAIN FACTS ABOUT FEELINGS
The example begins -- Motivation Hot for the kill, two huge beetles bore down upon Kyla....
In my copy, it runs the entire page.
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 08, 2009).]
Odd, how the chapter is about feelings and that 's what is left out on purpose (?) of the example of motivation-reaction.
Suppose we forge ahead assuming that he deliberately left the feelings out in order to emphasize the MR stuff.
Let's hop over to Bickham's action-internalization-response which seems to be built on Swain's MR units. In Bickham's SCENE AND STRUCTURE - his chapter in my edition is #3, STRUCTURE IN MICROCOSM: CAUSE AND EFFECT. Sounds like it's on the same subject, doesn't it?
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 09, 2009).]
posted
Page 15 of Bickham's SCENE AND STRUCTURE lists 6 "simple"(!) rules.
1 - Stimulus must be external, that is, action or dialogue, something that could be witnesses if the transaction were on a stage.
2 - Response must also be external in the same way.
3 - For every stimulus, you must show a response.
4 - For every desired response, you must provide a stimulus.
5 - Response usually must follow stimulus AT ONCE.
6 - When response to stimulus is not logical on the surface, you must ordinarily explain it.
Bickham goes on (page 17) to introduce what he terms "internalization" into the MR unit or, in his terms, stimulus-response unit.
He explains how simple tranactions don't need an explanation but when the response is not obvious -- internalzation becomes necessary. So, for Bickham, the MR unit becomes the stimulus-internalization-response unit with the middle part not always needed.
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 09, 2009).]
posted
Sounds like the internalization in Brickham is the same as the reaction in Swain, only he adds a name to one of the parts of the reaction. 'Internalization' would be the 'thought part' of a reaction.
My copy doesn't have that example. But in my copy he uses a similar example in which the reaction is devoid of feeling. Not two pages later he rewrites the same example to add feeling. I don't know what went on in your copy. But maybe it's something like that?
I'm not a type of person who would get hung up on an example, though. The book made sense even if I can't explain why your example was so lacking in feeling. I'm just beginning to understand Swain so anything that doesn't make sense at first I cut out and go 'lalalala' until I understand him better and can judge him better.
quote:How do we handle them? It's not like there is a sentence by sentence form. You group your narrative by topic? Or by some sort of function?
Maybe I'm thick and there's something I'm missing but Bickham sounds exactly like Swain. After reading the rules my brain never formulated the question 'how to I use these rules?' because I already use them. Bickham's rules sound like a complex and disorderly way of describing a very strange MR unit.
It might be because I'm reading them out of context, though.
Arriki, wouldn't it be more useful to quote a published novel and dissect it? I do that all the time and it makes my brain hurt so it must be useful.
posted
Yes, it would be, but we can't because of copyright.
What I'd like to accomplish here is to get this business clarified for myself and people brave enough to post as well as anybody lurking (are there any?).
I kind of KNOW this and yet I sort of don't.
If I'm writing a long narrative or narrative heavy scene, what are Bickham and Swain trying to explain to me?
I need to group stuff into those three categories? In the order in which they happen?
posted
This is very awkward prose but it is revealing to me the problems I'm wrestling with trying to implement the simple MR units. Not that I'm saying anything is wrong, but I have these questions that I cannot answer - yet.
First, let’s look at the Gol exercise as MR units
Motivation (Bickham, action?) The inn wasn’t closed. It was, in fact, very much active. A bunch of dragons huddled munching fire thorn outside with their handlers while the troll nobility enjoyed themselves inside.
Reaction (Bickham, response) Angrily Gol slammed open the door and stood looking into the smoke-filled main room.
Motivation The troll waitress grabbed a menu and headed for him.
Reaction He shoved past her with a grunt.
Motivation Everyone looked up. Some even laid down their dinner knives.
Reaction Gol kept his eyes fixed on the office door on the far side as he strode across the room.
[Now here is where I “feel” unsure. Is this next bit, part of the above reaction, or is it the start of a totally new set of MRs? One from Gol’s perspective? As in --]
Motivation When he reached the door, he turned around. Gol bared his teeth at the other patrons.
Reaction Everyone suddenly became engrossed in their meals. The low hum of conversations recommenced.
Motivation Gol surveyed the room.
Reaction No one was watching him.
Motivation He knocked once and, without waiting for an invitation, entered the office.
What do you guys think? Because – when we add in Bickham’s internalizations, things are going to get more complicated. Aren’t they?
Motivation (Bickham, action?) The inn wasn’t closed. It was, in fact, very much active. A bunch of dragons huddled munching fire thorn outside with their handlers while the troll nobility enjoyed themselves inside.
Internalization Idiots thought Gol, I had to come all the way here on foot because of THEIR rules.
Reaction (Bickham, response) Angrily he slammed open the door and stood looking into the smoke-filled main room.
Motivation The troll waitress grabbed a menu and headed for him.
posted
Is anyone still interested in this subject?
I know it's difficult to do when we can't look at published text -- at least at more than snippets -- to watch MR units in action. Yet MR units can make a lot of difference in our writing. I know that I don't fully understand them. I need people to discuss them with.
posted
It occurs to me that a wealth of open source, fair use material in the public domain is available at Project Gutenberg. Excerpts extracted for writing study and analysis purposes fit their terms of use, so long as properly sourced, cited, and attributed.
To get to the heart of the extensive Gutenberg content, they categorize their collection by "Bookshelf," ie, Science Fiction, Mystery, Fantasy, Horror, etc. Albeit their content is dated due to having passed out of copyright and into the public domain; a great deal of it is from a subjective narrator narrative point of view as was fashionable before the late 19th Century rise of the Modernist literary movement. Gutenberg is nonetheless a treasure trove of story material for discussing and studying writing methods and techniques.
One story in particular that might be worth looking at for the Swain, et al, features is O. Henry's "Gift of the Magi." The story has an overarching big picture MRU and also demonstrates the action-internalization-reaction flow through a singular event in four thousand words. Of course, in the small parts the same flows are also apparent. In the little picture and the big picture, O. Henry's application of causation is noteworthy.
The first two paragraphs of "Gift of the Magi;"
"One dollar and eighty-seven cents. That was all. And sixty cents of it was in pennies. Pennies saved one and two at a time by bulldozing the grocer and the vegetable man and the butcher until one's cheeks burned with the silent imputation of parsimony that such close dealing implied. Three times Della counted it. One dollar and eighty-seven cents. And the next day would be Christmas.
There was clearly nothing to do but flop down on the shabby little couch and howl. So Della did it. Which instigates the moral reflection that life is made up of sobs, sniffles, and smiles, with sniffles predominating."
posted
Well, the noise has died down a bit. (Motivation) So maybe I can add something to the conversation. (Reaction)
I have not read either book but I think I can piece together what is going on but what the teacher wrote on the board (survived a semster of calculus this way. Couldn't afford the text book)
quote:1) Motivation (Bickham, action?) The inn wasn’t closed. It was, in fact, very much active. A bunch of dragons huddled munching fire thorn outside with their handlers while the troll nobility enjoyed themselves inside.
No issue here, although what the motivation is not so clear at this point. More of an observation which slides this toward an internalization description.
quote:2) Internalization Idiots thought Gol, I had to come all the way here on foot because of THEIR rules.
No issue
quote:3) Reaction (Bickham, response) Angrily he slammed open the door and stood looking into the smoke-filled main room.
The first half of the sentence is indeed a reaction but teh second part is not. In fact, looking into the smoke-filled main room is the strongest motivating fact of the rest of the scene.
quote:4) Motivation The troll waitress grabbed a menu and headed for him.
Time to raise my hand. Whose motivation is this? This is written in a 3rd person perspective. The waitress grabbing a menu is a reaction to his reaction.
quote:5) Internalization Like I could afford to eat here.
No problem
quote:6) Reaction Gol shoved past her with a grunt.
I can't help but to feel that these literary generalizations are just that, generalizations of a basic prose. They are too vague of an explanation but too restrictive as a rule. I would consider #3 a reaction/motivation #4 to be a motivation-reaction and #5 a internalization-reaction. In fact, #5 and #6 are married reactions to the waitress (I think they should be flipped, it would help the beat of the entire scene).
I suspect that the whole idea of MR - while quite accurate and useful - is something that I do not fully grasp. Unfortunately both Swain and Bickham died before I understood enough to form the questions to ask them. Which leaves me with posing them here.
Is my Gol snippet even a scene? The only goal is his wanting to go in that room.
As snapper implies, how do we group words/sentences/paragraphs even (?) into motivations and reactions? Internalizations SEEM easier.
Whose motivations? Whose reactions? Always from the pov? Or is there some sliding around about that?
Finally, what distinct elements ARE there in text? Static description of setting Dialogue Description of actions Internalizations Beats Information ??? what else ???
Then, what of all of those make up MR units? Are the rest "things" to enhance MR units?
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 16, 2009).]
posted
Having not read the book, I wonder what the application of all this stuff is. I think most of us do our scenes in this manner unconsciously because it's the way we experience the real world.
What, if any, practical application does breaking down these "action internalization reaction" parts have?
What does the book say you should do once you identify them? Re-order them? Make sure they are always in that order?
Just trying to glean some action from all this theory.
posted
I find that I get the MRU from Swain, I can distinguish them maybe 70% of the times. But, to me, mixing Bickham with Swain muddles both. Just a suggestion that might or might not be taken into consideration: we could pick one model and try to understand it and then pick another one and try to understand that one.
Maybe it's just me but mixing both seems like trying to understand too much, too soon.
quote:What does the book say you should do once you identify them? Re-order them? Make sure they are always in that order?
In Swain, Motivation-Reaction Units follow a pattern. Motivation is always external and reaction has three parts that go in order (feeling, action, speech). This is where I get a bit confused, you can see that in one of my earlier posts I added thought at the end. I checked the book this time. You can cut any of them, but always try to keep them in order. You can cut feeling and keep action and speech. As always, there are exceptions.
So, to somewhat answer alliedfive's, question you try to revise your manuscript and rewrite the parts when a character seems to react to nothing, or reacts out of order or where motivation is confusing or meaningless, and so on and so forth.
Swains MR units are not vague, although they might seem to be if you just look at this thread. To me they're not restrictive, they're freeing. I write however I want and then make it clearer by using the MRUs. And no, they don't always have to follow the patter, you can do whatever you want as long as it helps your reader see your scene clearly. I've seen two reactions in a row, for example. And it was Tom Clancy that wrote them. And they worked like a charm.
As I newbie though, I stick to them as often as I can because I'm not Tom Clancy.
quote:Whose motivations? Whose reactions? Always from the pov?
Always in POV. Motivations are always external to the POV character. If you like to headhop Swain is not for you. If the POV can't see something then he can't react to it so he shouldn't.
Say in a scene you can have two characters but only one POV, say Beanie. Rupert is not the POV character in this scene so everything he does -even if it is reacting to Beanies accusations- will be classified as a motivation to Beanie. Beanie is the center of it all.
quote:Is my Gol snippet even a scene? The only goal is his wanting to go in that room.
It could be the beginning of a scene. As you said, the goal is there. It's the proper Swain way to start a scene. But for that snippet to become a scene you need "conflict" and "disaster", in that order.
I found the Scene structure works really well for me. It made my brain hurt trying to write scenes like that but I ended up with a character in a lot more trouble. It's hard to find "disasters" of increasing importance.
quote:As snapper implies, how do we group words/sentences/paragraphs even (?) into motivations and reactions? Internalizations SEEM easier.
I hit Enter when I switch from Motivation to Reaction. I learned it from Randy Ingermanson (same guy that wrote that article I liked to). Works for me. Makes sense to me. But like I said, you might find 2 reactions in a row in an action scene that do not merit an Enter.
quote:Then, what of all of those make up MR units? Are the rest "things" to enhance MR units?
I don't understand this. What other "things"? 0_o
[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited September 16, 2009).]
posted
Finally, what distinct elements ARE there in text? Static description of setting Can this be a motivation? Can it NOT be a motivation? Dialogue – this obviously can be either a motivation or a reaction. Is there any way dialogue can opt to NOT be either one?
Description of actions – either a motivation or a reaction always. Is this the heart of story? Is everything in text there to support the cascade of descriptions of actions and dialogue?
Internalizations – are there for what purpose? To explain those actions/reactions that are not obvious?
Beats – supports for the cascades of actions. They give a sense of solidity to the setting or a pause at the change of topic?
Information – supports for the cascades? So we know why or how or when things happen”
??? what else ??? If we had a good scene to color here, how many colors would we need to account for all the words?
Then, what of all of those make up MR units? Are the rest (static descriptions of setting, beats, information) "things" to enhance MR units?
extrinsic, could you find us a well-written scene in public domain that we could look at?
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 16, 2009).]
posted
Here's one fairly new story, all things considered, The Door Through Space, a 1961 Ace Books novel by Marion Zimmer Bradley that the copyright apparently lapsed on without renewal.
The first chapter is one scene that incorporates Swain's, et al, MRUs, AIRs, Scene and Sequel, and more.
Here's the first five paragraphs, about a quarter of the chapter/scene depicted, that also demonstrate those causal flows in the Little Picture sense.
quote:Beyond the spaceport gates, the men of the Kharsa were hunting down a thief. I heard the shrill cries, the pad-padding of feet in strides just a little too long and loping to be human, raising echoes all down the dark and dusty streets leading up to the main square.
But the square itself lay empty in the crimson noon of Wolf. Overhead the dim red ember of Phi Coronis, Wolf's old and dying sun, gave out a pale and heatless light. The pair of Spaceforce guards at the gates, wearing the black leathers of the Terran Empire, shockers holstered at their belts, were drowsing under the arched gateway where the star-and-rocket emblem proclaimed the domain of Terra. One of them, a snub-nosed youngster only a few weeks out from Earth, cocked an inquisitive ear at the cries and scuffling feet, then jerked his head at me.
"Hey, Cargill, you can talk their lingo. What's going on out there?"
I stepped out past the gateway to listen. There was still no one to be seen in the square. It lay white and windswept, a barricade of emptiness; to one side the spaceport and the white skyscraper of the Terran Headquarters, and at the other side, the clutter of low buildings, the street-shrine, the little spaceport cafe smelling of coffee and jaco, and the dark opening mouths of streets that rambled down into the Kharsa—the old town, the native quarter. But I was alone in the square with the shrill cries—closer now, raising echoes from the enclosing walls—and the loping of many feet down one of the dirty streets.
Then I saw him running, dodging, a hail of stones flying round his head; someone or something small and cloaked and agile. Behind him the still-faceless mob howled and threw stones. I could not yet understand the cries; but they were out for blood, and I knew it.
Me, I don't examine these passages in the same ways as Swain, et al. I scrutinize them in terms of fiction-writing modes and how they flow causally, logically, plausibly. Sensation being a preeminent fiction-writing mode that drives causation, internally and externally. ---- It's worth noting in general that most sensation relative to fiction-writing modes at large comes from external sources that cause internal actions and reactions, like introspection or recollection, but that some of the less common in fiction but more common in real life sensations are based on internal causes from proprioception, "the reception of stimuli produced within the organism." Webster's 11th Collegiate. Hunger pangs, toothaches, headaches, backaches, longing for companionship, and so on, are examples of internal stimuli that originate internally.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 17, 2009).]
posted
Nicole - not for nothing. Sometimes I just have to restate things to see if I got them right. Did I?
Posts: 1580 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, arriki. I didn't understand what you were doing in your last post. Now I do.
quote:Finally, what distinct elements ARE there in text? Static description of setting Can this be a motivation? Can it NOT be a motivation? Dialogue – this obviously can be either a motivation or a reaction. Is there any way dialogue can opt to NOT be either one?
I've said it many times in this thread: motivation is anything external to the POV character. This is all you need to know. Does it happen outside the character's body? If yes, then it's motivation. Extrinsic's toothache example is something I hadn't considered. It's something internal that isn't a reaction.
But, I don't care about this. I'm particular about what I discuss about writing. Pondering this doesn't seem useful to me since it detracts from the most important lessons about MRUs. I'm a new at this so I focus on the basics first, never on the gray areas.
I might be wrong, of course.
So, MOTIVATION can be setting (a bird flying free above the treetops / A couple fighting in a hospital waiting room / your character noticing a postage stamp from 1945 as it rolls down the street, carried by a breeze), dialogue (a child tugging at your pant's leg and saying "Daddy, I gotta go weewee" / Your character hears a conversation), action (a mugger shoves your character against a wall, cracks one of his/her ribs with a baseball bat and steals his/her backpack).
quote:If we had a good scene to color here, how many colors would we need to account for all the words?
Here we differ. I only need two colors: red for motivation, turquoise for reaction. All the rest seems like a lot of hair-splitting to me, it wouldn't help me when writing or when revising. I work well with categories but not with the complete atomization of all the possible elements of SOMETHING (such as a piece of writing).
[This message has been edited by Nicole (edited September 17, 2009).]
How much can we post and diddle around with looking at MR units and other things from stories that are in the public domain or at least out of copyright like the snippet from THE DOOR THROUGH SPACE?
I'm NOT advocating lo-o-ong excerpts. But how about a page or two, enough to include a whole scene or sequel? Fair use for study purposes.
posted
If you're absolutely certain it's in the public domain, you can certaily quote more than 13 lines. I'd hate to fill the forum up with such stuff, though, so please keep things as short as possible. I understand the need to post enough for discussion purposes, so let's just base it on the honor system, okay?
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the case of Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Door Through Space, Gutenberg's representation is sufficient to indicate that the story is in the public domain. I've done further due dilligence, though. I checked the Copyright Office online database and didn't uncover an active copyright. Seven other unique publishers have released new paper editions with unique ISBNs of the novel since 2007 under compilation copyrights somewhat similar to Gutenberg's compilation copyright.
A compilation copyright doesn't extend copyright to an original story with a lapsed or expired copyright, only the new, original work incorporated into the publication along with the public domain work.
So I conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that anyone anywhere can publish that story itself in part or whole in any medium at any time in good faith that there are no rights infringements.
Of course, all proper sourcing and citing and attribution are still necessary to avoid any appearance of plagiarism.
Fair use of the story for study or review allows excerpting, seeing as how Gutenberg, BiblioBazaar, and other new publishers of the story expressly allow reproduction for those purposes and otherwise cannot by law expressly prohibit such uses anyway, as some publications still under copyright can.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited September 18, 2009).]
posted
Well, let me word that a little differently, then, arriki. Instead of you being absolutely certain that something is in the public domain, how about you being absolutely willing to take responsibility if it isn't?
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...I trust extrinsic's research enough I'll go with THE DOOR THROUGH SPACE. I have the actual 1961 edition (bought new back then) to copy from.
Besides, I'm not planning to excerpt an entire chapter. Enough to see the MR units and other things at work -- that's all.
posted
I'm inclined to apply the "life-plus-seventy-years" rule---Marion Zimmer Bradley hasn't been dead for that long, so I'd assume it's still under copyright. (My Ace Double is somewhat later that 1961.)
Why not try H. P. Lovecraft or Robert E. Howard or Stanley G. Weinbaum? They've all been dead for more than seventy years---and of the first two, that's why there are several new editions of their work out recently.
They tell me most of H. Beam Piper's stuff has lapsed into public domain---or at least everything he published during his lifetime---so that's available.
posted
In the U.S., 28 years copyright term under copyright law in place at the time of publication for works published between 1923 and 1963 if the U.S. copyright wasn't renewed by year's end the year of expiration.
The Door Through Space doubled with A. Bertram Chandler's Rendezvous on a Lost World was first published by Ace in 1961, rereleased in 1972, and singled in 1979. The 1972 and 1979 editions' copyright page repeats the 1961 copyright, according to ISFDB. My research and the research of at least eight other independent publishers indicates as much as humanly possible that the copyright expired in 1989 without renewal.
Up though the middle of the 20th Century, publishers typically owned copyrights because they registered them in their names. I expect that a miscommunication occurred between Ace and Ms. Bradley about who was responsible for renewing the copyright to the novel. It's happened to more than a few books, novels, short stories, and articles, sad as it is that an author loses rights by oversight.
Regardless, for study and review purposes, excerpts from the novel can be used, published as long as they're not for profit and the publisher doesn't expressly prohibit unauthorized reproduction for those uses. Except in this particular situation, being in the public domain, anyone can republish it in whole or in part for profit. However, with six print, one digital, and one audio book publication already on the market, what's the point?
posted
Okay, let's go first with the initial snippet. This is the opening of the novel. That may mean it is different from normal passages. Maybe not.
Here is the snippet -- THE DOOR THROUGH SPACE by Marion Zimmer Bradley ACE books 1961 pages 5-6
Beyond the spaceport gates, the men of the Kharsa were hunting down a thief. I heard the shrill cries, the pad-padding of feet in strides just a little too long and loping to be human, raising echoes all down the dark and dusty streets leading up to the main square.
But the square itself lay empty in the crimson noon of Wolf. Overhead the dim red ember of Phi Coronis, Wolf's old and dying sun, gave out a pale and heatless light. The pair of Spaceforce guards at the gates, wearing the black leathers of the Terran Empire, shockers holstered at their belts, were drowsing under the arched gateway where the star-and-rocket emblem proclaimed the domain of Terra. One of them, a snub-nosed youngster only a few weeks out from Earth, cocked an inquisitive ear at the cries and scuffling feet, then jerked his head at me. Now, is all of this motivation? Or can we sift out some plain setting from the motivation text?
"Hey, Cargill, you can talk their lingo. What's going on out there?" This IS motivation, right?
I stepped out past the gateway to listen.And this is reaction to that motivation. Then, what is what follows? Is it some form in thought/internalization or more reaction? A return to story scene setting? There was still no one to be seen in the square. It lay white and windswept, a barricade of emptiness; to one side the spaceport and the white skyscraper of the Terran Headquarters, and at the other side, the clutter of low buildings, the street-shrine, the little spaceport cafe smelling of coffee and jaco, and the dark opening mouths of streets that rambled down into the Kharsa—the old town, the native quarter. Then here we leave the static description to find another reaction? Part of that first reaction continued? Or some sort of combination response-motivation in one sentence? with the information that the cries were closer. But I was alone in the square with the shrill cries—closer now, raising echoes from the enclosing walls—and the loping of many feet down one of the dirty streets.
Then I saw him running, dodging, a hail of stones flying round his head; someone or something small and cloaked and agile. Behind him the still-faceless mob howled and threw stones. I could not yet understand the cries; but they were out for blood, and I knew it. Is this entire paragraph a motivation or part of the last paragraph's motivation? Or two separate motivations in a row?
MR units in actual use are not quite as obvious as exercises meant to display them. It's why I wanted to examine more text.
I give up. HOW do you make italics here? Thanks, William. After several attempts, I think I finally got the italics down. [This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 20, 2009).]
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 20, 2009).]
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 20, 2009).]
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 20, 2009).]
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited September 21, 2009).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
