I just finished reading a book called Story by Robert McKee. It was quite an insightful book (though I have many criticisms of it which I will go into later). In the following passage, McKee describes the creation of an original character:

Like Dr. Frankenstien, we build characters out of parts found. A writer takes the analytical mind of his sister and peices it together with the comic wit of his friend, adds to that the cunning cruelty of a cat and the blind persistence of King Lear. We borrow bits and peices of humanity, raw chunks of imagination and observation wherever they’re found, assemble them into dimensions of contrafiction, then round them into creatures we call characters. (McKee, 386)

The way I described originality as integration of existing ideas (in an earlier post) is analogous to how McKee describes character creation as the integration of ideas in existing characters.

The implication of integrative thinking is twofold. It means that we can research and observe to create “original” products. However, it also means that our products are only as strong as the wealth of ideas at our disposal. We cannot hope to be “original” (in the integrative sense) if we do not explore, study and read a wide breadth of material. And I don’t just mean other forms of art, I mean all sorts of disciplines.

But how do we find time to study all sorts of disciplines? I read another book recently that was a collection of essays from the philosopher Lord Isaiah Berlin called The Power of Ideas. In an essay on general education, Berlin writes about studying in a way to maximize breadth without completely sacrificing depth and specialization. He writes that instead of simply trying to absorb material from other disciplines (like making a chemist memorize poetry, or making an artist list out famous physicists) we should focus on the methodologies of different disciplines.

Simply put, we should at the least know how various disciplines go about answering questions- and what questions they are most interested in answering. Economics, for example, is largely a question of allocation- they assume that resources are scarce and try to figure out the best way to distribute them fairly. Capitalism is born from the pursuit of this question. Capitalism also assumes that people generally make rational decision, and that more choice and more consumption is good. Psychologists and sociologists often have completely different assumption about human beings- that we are governed by irrational emotions, and that we are molded by society. Many political scientists assume humans are corrupted by power, hence a major question in political science is how to best distribute power.

My point is, that there is a vast reservoir of ideas out there, and our creativity will be severely limited if we live only within the assumptions and methodologies of our own particular specialization.

-Tom

HERE is a link to purchase or preview the book.

I’ve worked on this book for a long time, and I’m particularly proud of it. One of the wonderful things about making a picture book is the ability to get a whole story out there with a manageable work load.

Some spreads:

-Tom

So I am running a bit late with getting my picture book on sale. I’ve printed two copies and I’m still adjusting a few things. So I’ll have it up for sale soon- hopefully within two weeks.

On the left is the cover design. Contrary to what you may think, the cover is probably a fairly good way to judge a picture book.

;)

-Tom

Here are the 7 illustrations that are anticipated to be published in the 9th edition of “Asking the Right Questions” by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley. (click any of the images to enlarge)

Correlation is not Causation-

Trying to “win”: the wrong attitude toward argument-

Dichotomous Thinking-

Two methods of Critical Thinking-

Multiplicity of Causes-

Socratic Teaching-

Flaws of Personal Observation-

-Tom

I read a fairly interesting book over break called “The Anatomy of Story” written by John Truby. Truby’s book is a guide to preparing and writing an effective story.

Truby defines a story at first in a simple superficial way: The one line definition of a story: “A speaker tells a listener what someone did to get what he wanted and why.”

So the first question we might ask is, why is understanding story important? Well, I feel there is a tremendous reason that we should be interested in story (if we consider ourselves active citizens of the world):

Story is Argument:

Story can be viewed strictly as an argument. Every story can be viewed as some kind of argument (stories that try to avoid making an argument usually just make a very weak, confusing or insignificant arguments that no-one could disagree with- for ex: good is better than inexplicable evil) According to Truby, argument is typically articulated through the main character’s major flaw. So when arguing in story form, treat your main character as the guinea pig who succeeds based on your argument. For example, if you wish to say “cooperation is better than independence“, you might set up a situation in which your main character is a viciously independent person who must cooperate to succeed.

In the following sections I attempt to articulate some of the points Truby makes. Many of the concepts Truby describes are directly applicable to the lexicon used in critical thinking texts (such as “Asking the Right Questions”). I want to warn those of you who may decide to read the book that I am placing the terms into Truby’s mouth- he does not make the connections apparent in his book.

Building the Main Character:

Truby never explicitly uses the term “value conflict” but is essentially defining character and story in terms of, what I have learned to call: value conflicts. A value conflict results in two positive abstractions (values) being placed against each other, a common example is: Freedom vs. Security. The first piece of advice that Truby divulges is particularly interesting: He writes that many people try to start making their character by listing values and traits. For instance:

Protagonist “Jill”
1) Brave
2) Strong
3) Kind
4) Independent

Truby considers the above approach useless. His insight is very much in line with this idea of values: values mean almost nothing until they are placed up against other values. No one will say “bravery” is bad. But once we place it against “intelligence” we have a very nuanced and interesting argument forming. Perhaps a military general would prefer bravery over intelligence, but a researcher may prefer the opposite. The preferred value in a value conflict is called a value preference. What Truby suggests is the construction of a character web.

A character web is a chart of the possible characters in your story each compared and contrasted with the protagonist. In some sense, Truby asks us to create value conflicts while attributing the opposing values to other characters. So in this chart we might have our protagonist as “physically strong” while his friend (a secondary character) is “diplomatic”- by pairing up these characters we create the value conflict “physical strength over diplomacy”. Not only does this approach more clearly define your main character, but it also makes displaying these value conflicts in your story much easier. For instance, if we come to a part of the story where we wish to show that the protagonist holds the value preference “physical strength over diplomacy” we know that we must introduce the “diplomatic” character from our chart that holds the corresponding inverse value preference. Here is a mock character web:

1)Protagonist “Jill” and “Diplomatic Dave”
Physical Strength vs. Diplomacy

2)Protagonist “Jill” and “Clingy Clara”
Independence vs. Security

3)Protagonist “Jill” and “Asshole Andrew”
Kindness vs. Honesty

4)Protagonist “Jill” and “Cowardly Karly”
Bravery vs. Strategy

If you couldn’t tell, the fictitious author of the mock character web above obviously shares the value preferences of the main character… But the main character also needs to have a vital value preference (Or what we might call a Moral Principle) that would be considered a flaw by the story-teller. So if the Moral Argument (Truby’s term) in the story is based on a moral principle, such as: Cooperation over Independence, there might be a critical secondary character that would serve as the voice of this moral principle:

5)Protagonist “Jill” and “Friendly Fred”
Independence vs. Cooperation

This last value conflict represents what Truby calls the Weakness. I will attempt to explain weakness and other basic concepts of story in the next section.

The Seven Basic Steps to Story Structure:

On the cover of Truby’s book reads: “The Anatomy of Story, 22 steps to becoming a master story-teller.” Inside, however, Truby writes that the number “22″ is fairly arbitrary and is only a framework he created as a rough guideline. Truby claims that the 22 steps can be stripped down to seven rudimentary steps fairly integral to story-telling. I describe them in the following paragraphs:

1) Weakness and Need

The “weakness” is the major moral flaw present in the main character- it is the illustration of a poorly chosen central value preference. Truby argues that the weakness runs under the surface of a story (much like a value preference in any argument) and is not revealed until the protagonist discovers the flaw herself. Truby stresses that the weakness should be one that effects how the main character treats herself and others. He writes that in many stories, the main character merely has a psychological weakness that only effects how the protagonist treats herself. However, this distinction is not as necessary with the idea of the weakness being a Moral Principle- which inherently is a basis for how one interacts with the world.

The “need” is what Truby characterizes as the “lesson” of the story. It is the prescription that results from the outcome of the main character overcoming her weakness. The “need” would be phrased as such: Protagonist must overcome said weakness to live a more moral life.

In terms of values, the “need” would simply be the inverse of the allegedly flawed Moral Principle that the main character holds. So the “need” might now be phrased: Protagonist must discover that she holds a flawed moral principle [ex: Independence over Cooperation] and change it [to Cooperation over Independence] in order to live a more moral life.

For instance*:

In the film Dogville, the main character’s weakness is her total submission to the value preference: Collective Responsibility over Individual Responsibility. She needs to release her firm grip on this value preference so that she can hold others accountable for their actions- thereby living a more moral life (according to the filmmaker).

In A Christmas Carol, Scrooge’s weakness could be his commitment to the value preference: Thrift over Emotional Well-being. Scrooge needs to loosen his pockets so that he can learn the wonders of friendship.

In the short story The Lottery, the main-character’s weakness is that she goes along with the value preference: Tradition over Individual Freedom. The protagonist needs to change her mind (but unfortunately the town-folks’ mind, as well) in order to escape the consequences of the town’s tradition.

2) Desire

Desire is the superficial goal the character wants to achieve. Truby makes an interesting distinction between desire and need. Desire is the what the main character wants on the surface- what the audience thinks the story is about (when in actuality the story is about the Moral Principle within the main character’s need).

For instance:

In Dogville the main character’s desire is to escape the mafia and the police.

In A Christmas Carol, the main character’s desire is to escape his ghosts.

In The Lottery, the main character’s desire is to escape death by stoning.

3) Opponent

The opponent in a story is the character competing with the protagonist. The opponent should be the character (or group of characters) best suited to constantly and relentlessly attack the protagonist’s weakness; done in such a way that the protagonist must overcome their weakness or fail. Truby uses the term opponent because he sees a large mistake in most stories as making this character a “villain” (-a character that looks evil, and does “evil” things). Truby argues that in a good story, the villain is not evil, he/she just opposes the main character. Truby also makes a very important insight: The opponent should not simply wish to stop the protagonist, the opponent should have desires that cross the protagonist’s; and Truby argues that ideally the opponent would be competing for the same thing as the protagonist. The opponent should also be human- and by this Truby means, the opponent has to be able to learn.

Much like a written argument, making a story in which the opponent is pure evil is setting up a straw-man. A good story, like a good article, will illuminate the opposition in the most positive way- otherwise no-one will identify the moral argument because they will not be able to understand the opponent.

For example:

In Dogville, the opponent is the protagonist‘s lover. He appeals to the main-character’s value preference so that she considers him a victim of society.

In A Christmas Carol, the opponents are himself in the past, present, and future. The ghosts personify Scrooge’s inspection of his deep seeded value preference.

In The Lottery, the opponent is the town leader, representing the whole of the town-folk. The stringently obeyed tradition of the town bodes ill for the main character and causes her to question the value preference that put her in the situation.

4) Plan

Truby writes that the protagonist should establish some semblance of a plan or strategy to attain the desired goal. Otherwise, the audience does not know why the character does what he/she is doing. The audience should never be utterly in the dark about the central character’s decisions, it prevents them from understanding the main-character’s value preferences.

I feel drawn to making an analogy with paper-writing: Like a table of contents in a book, or an explanation at the beginning of a paper that tells the reader what will be covered, a map must be available to the audience of a story (not of the plot- in which mystery facilitates drama- but of the main character’s thought process).

5) Battle

The ultimate conflict between the protagonist and the opponent. It decides who reaches his/her goal. The battle can be articulated in infinitely varying methods- from physical to psychological to whatever. The whole story builds up to this moment- it is at this moment that the main character must overcome her incorrectly held value-preference or fail.

6) Self-Revelation

The main character goes through a very difficult struggle during the battle, and as a result sees her weakness. Truby describes this process as “strip[ing] away the facade [she] has lived behind” and argues that the process of stripping her facade should be the most difficult obstacle the protagonist faces in the story. As a result of going through this self deconstruction the heroine gains new insight and reveals her insight by her actions leading to and from the moment of introspection.

Truby argues that in good stories the opponent has a self-revelation at the same time that the protagonist does. The opponent’s insight must be related and intertwined with the main character’s insight- both insights pointing the audience toward the moral argument behind the story.

Good examples of these types of stories are actually romantic comedies. While they often do not deal with subject matter that is very piercing- they do establish the opponent (the love interest) as a learning human. Often times, both the main character and the opponent must learn and change in order to treat each other morally.

7) New Equilibrium

At the end of the story, a state of normality is regained. The only major difference being that now the protagonist has either evolved or devolved as a result of changing a flawed value preference. If the protagonist cannot realize her flaw, or is unable to deal with her flaw, she falls and is defeated (allowing the audience to learn from her mistake instead). If the protagonist has her revelation in time, she “wins” and is able to find a way to live in a more ethically able way (the audience shares in her success and in her moral revelation).

There are a few interesting methods Truby describes as lubricants for the seven-step story process. I will attempt to describe a few of these methods in the next section.

* The examples I use are not exact, there is much more nuance and many exceptions and variations to stories that Truby goes into in his book. Many stories have multiple opponents and protagonists, changing desires, missing or multiple plans and battles. I am merely outlining a basic structure.

Other Interesting Elements of Story:

Symbols:

Truby explains symbols in a way that I found very insightful. Usually we think of symbols as the weird (seemingly unintentional) re-occurring objects that our 5th-grade english teachers placed an infuriating amount of importance on memorizing.

She is wearing white: It’s her virginity!

Look a Dove: Peace!

There is an “A” on her chest…

Truby describes the use of symbols in a way I found much more interesting: Symbols are any “thing” that the storyteller attaches to an emotion. It can be a color, a series of notes, an object, a character, a voice… anything the storyteller wants. Their utility is tremendous. Think of a storyteller employing a symbol like a pavlovian bell. The storyteller produces food and rings a bell. The audience salivates. Soon, the storyteller merely rings the bell, and the audience still spews forth bubbling saliva.

A good example is in the film Jaws, where the all-too familiar quickening notes- “baaah-dump…. baahh-dump” soon terrify the audience without the need for any shark to be visible.

In The Matrix, the virtual world is represented with green hues while the real world is desaturated blues. The audience soon only needs to see the hues on-screen to have the feeling they are no longer in the real world.

There are symbols that exist outside of stories that can be employed (like the “dove” or the color white) but these symbols are dangerous to use because they are ambiguous. Maybe a good analogy would be thinking of symbols like ambiguous words. You can attempt to use a word like “justice” or “spirituality” or “true love” in a paper, but you run the enormous risk of everyone having different concepts of these words. So to be a more effective writer, you might create another version of the word with a subscript (like “true love1“) that will serve as a symbol for the definition you outline at the beginning of your paper or story.

Story World:

An interesting insight Truby makes is that (much like the opponent should be the character best suited for taking advantage of the protagonist’s weakness) the environment should be specifically created to relentlessly put pressure on the main character’s weakness. This way, the character’s weakness (her flawed value preference) becomes the pivotal element in the story.

Drama:

Truby describes that a crucial element in the plot is the act of revealing new information. Truby argues that in order to build drama and interest, a story must reveal new information exponentially in frequency and in magnitude. So in a good story, Truby argues that every new bit of information is progressively more important and more frequently occurring- spiraling upward to the climax (battle) of the story.

I hope this post is helpful. PLEASE do not hesitate to ask for clarification or anything. I have tried to cram a lot into this post and I realize that it may not be very clear.

-Tom

In the coming semester I will be working on a series of illustrations/cartoons possibly appearing in the next version of a book called Asking the Right Questions. It is quite an interesting book- written by one of my professors: Dr. M. Neil Browne.

The following sketches are based on subject matter within the book.

1) Sponge Learning vs. Panning for Gold Learning

2) Teaching with Questions

3) Critical Thinking Etiquette

4) Attitude toward debate: Winning Vs. Furthering Understanding

5) Descriptive Arguments and Prescriptive Arguments

What are your impressions? Feel free to give me any feedback, ideas/changes etc…
-Tom

There is one particular story in Stories of Mr. Keuner that I want to put up here. I wrote about Bertolt Brecht’s book of short stories in an earlier post, but I forgot to mention one of my favorites:

Mr. Keuner and his niece’s drawing

Mr. Keuner looked at the drawing his little niece had made. It depicted a hen flying over a farmyard. “Tell me, why does your hen have three legs?” asked Mr. Keuner. “Hens can’t fly, of course,” said the little artist, “and so I needed a third leg to give it a lift.”

“I’m glad I asked,” said Mr. Keuner.

There is something quite breathtaking about the way children think. I often find that when I am speaking to a child, my brain has moments of complete upheaval- a very healthy exercise I believe. The last toddler I spoke with told me she was a horse. I asked her what kind of animal I was- she told me she didn’t know. I offered a suggestion: how about a raccoon? She told me that I could not be a raccoon, because horses are allergic to raccoons and, obviously, she wasn’t having allergic reactions.

After that she proceeded to bludgeon me with a pillow.

-Tom

So I have this tattered copy of “Scary Stories” by Alvin Schwartz. I’ve had the thing since I was very young, and to this day it grips me with fear.

I don’t recall ever actually reading it… (maybe one or two stories, but I thought they were boring- for very young children).

The reason the book is so memorable (and the reason I am writing a post about it) is decidedly due to a man from St. Paul, Minnesota. His name is Stephen Gammell… and he terrifies me. I think the first time I opened the book (probably in Kindergarten) I turned to the page below and curled up into a ball.

But despite not having the courage to open the book again, the small toddler version of me bought the damn book- so that I could take it home and be too scared to open it there.

Eventually, I did open the book again. And found the illustrations still terrified me. But I also found that the illustrations were magnificent. Here are a few more of Stephen Gammell’s drawings:

This next character appears in multiple pages throughout the book. I’m not sure if there is some particular significance to him, but here he is eating some bloody looking cereal:

I am very intrigued by the way strands of goop seem to stretch off of every mark. The drawings become very tangible- like I might get some on me if I brushed my hand over them…

Stephen Gammell has had illustrations in a number of other books. He won the Caldecott Medal for his work in “Song and Dance Man” by Karen Ackerman. I highly recommend checking out some of his other works (They aren’t all so gruesome).

Sweet dreams,
-Tom

This post is spurred by a recent post about Czech Animator Jiri Trnka on Animation-treasures 2 by Hans Bacher (Where I graciously made a mess of the comments board :-/). In any case- as some of you may or may not know, I am from the Czech Republic. Not only that, but I am hoping to return sometime (from my current home in Ohio) to attend graduate school in animation. Czech Rep. has a very rich history in animation and art, and I thought I’d post something today about one of my favorite illustrators.

The man’s name is Petr Sis (Peh-tur Seess)- in english he is “Peter”- and he is a children’s book author (among many other things). Born in 1949, Sis lived through some of the less favorably remembered times of Czechoslovakia (mainly Soviet occupation), but he managed to lead quite an extraordinary life (and still does). Sis’ work ranges from awarded films to major book illustrations and Sis has appeared in several major publications. (Read more about Petr here)

Anyway, I just wanted to share some images from his books, which I always found quite captivating:

I find Sis’ graphical style quite magical. It certainly has something to do with growing up with his books- but I think Petr’s work is well worth some examination.

Until next time,

-Tom

I’d like to devote one post to J. Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith was Havard professor in econ. During his lifetime he was a tremendously influential economist and wrote a multitude of books. He was famous for poking and prying at the classical economics thought. From his quotes he appears to have been ruthlessly satirical (or just plain ruthless) about various things he found absurd:

Few can believe that suffering, especially by others, is in vain. Anything that is disagreeable must surely have beneficial economic effects.

I came across a similar idea last year when reading “The European Dream” by Jeremy Rifkin. Rifkin discussed the application of the GNP and how it was not necessarily a measure of the “good” of a society. Rifkin made his point by claiming that the GNP goes up due to any economic activity; Activity that might otherwise reflect poorly on a society- such as building thousands of prisons.

Essentially we are looking at the assumption that more money/consumption = happiness/goodness

Galbraith challenged econ assumptions, and probably ran into problems that generated the following quotes:

Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof

I react to what is necessary. I would like to eschew any formula. There are some things where the government is absolutely inevitable, which we cannot get along without comprehensive state action. But there are many things — producing consumer goods, producing a wide range of entertainment, producing a wide level of cultural activity — where the market system, which independent activity is also important, so I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I’m for that. Where the government is necessary, I’m for that. I’m deeply suspicious of somebody who says, “I’m in favor of privatization,” or, “I’m deeply in favor of public ownership.” I’m in favor of whatever works in the particular case

There’s a certain part of the contented majority who love anybody who is worth a billion dollars.

Kenneth Galbraith, however, insisted that uncomfortable questions be asked despite the difficulty with which people change their mind- despite the dichotomies of people’s thought or the particular disposition of the majority:

In all life one should comfort the afflicted, but verily, also, one should afflict the comfortable, and especially when they are comfortably, contentedly, even happily wrong.

People are the common denominator of progress. So… no improvement is possible with unimproved people, and advance is certain when people are liberated and educated. It would be wrong to dismiss the importance of roads, railroads, power plants, mills, and the other familiar furniture of economic development. … But we are coming to realize … that there is a certain sterility in economic monuments that stand alone in a sea of illiteracy. Conquest of illiteracy comes first.

Much literary criticism comes from people for whom extreme specialization is a cover for either grave cerebral inadequacy or terminal laziness, the latter being a much cherished aspect of academic freedom.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

Galbraith also had a very scathing ironic humor to many of his sayings, this next quote (in a humorous twist on a familiar Socratic quote) appears to refer to the certitude with which economists flaunt their knowledge:

One of the greatest pieces of economic wisdom is to know what you do not know.

And finally, I’d like to end with a quote that I found sums up the whole theme of the current “market system” :

By all but the pathologically romantic, it is now recognized that this is not the age of the small man.