Try this: Sit down and write a story. No limits, you can write about anything.

Then try: Sit down and write a story that in some way has to do with “Restraint.” You can take it any way you want, it just has to be about the theme of Restraint in some way.

Powerful difference right? (Tell me if its not.)

My brain starts working on a whole different level with this technique. I don’t have to get caught up thinking about the infinite possibilities, instead I can focus on creating something in the context of the theme.

So if this works for you, use it often, but note, not all themes are created equal.

For a theme to work, I find it must have a metaphorical quality to it, it must present the territory of the creative work, rather than being merely a detail within the story.

For example, “obsession” is a great focusing theme, and it can be used to create many different creative works, where as “a salt shaker” is not. Yes I can put a salt shaker in a story, but it is unlikely a story could be defined by this theme. It would merely be an included detail and therefore not very helpful in focusing the creative process.

More examples:

• Monster is a detail. Monstrous is a focusing theme.
• Heart surgery is a detail. Death is a focusing theme.
• A penny is a detail. Luck is a focusing theme.

A good theme contains the context of a story within it, where a bad theme is just an included detail to a story.

Note that a good theme can become a bad theme if used incorrectly. For example, the color blue could be powerful if the creative work is centered around the emotion of sadness, but if blue is just the color of a coffee cup in the story, the effect is less useful.

I feel like I’ve talked disparagingly about Theme before, because they can encourage empty retelling of similar stories over and over, however, I think if you pick a good theme (as noted above) and then strive to express it in a unique and personal way, the results can be remarkably positive.

If you find yourself straying into generic territory, pick a theme that is difficult to link to cliched material. Instead of Envy, try “Tactile.”

Give it a shot, and post the results!

In the darkness of the lounge the mountain climber told me of the moment he died.

He had lost his grip and fallen backwards into empty air. He fell to his death. But in a snap moment, the rope caught him, and held him up against the sky like two fingers holding a pebble above an ocean.

He gazed down at the swirling clouds beneith, and clung to the rope with every bit of strength he had.

He took a deep breath, and focused his sight on the cliff. Slowly, he began pulling himself back towards the rock, centimeter by centimeter, inch by inch.

The nylon was patient. It held strong. It waited.

When the mountain climber had reached the top of the mountain he arrived with a realization. Ultimately it wasn’t the rope that had saved him.
“It was my grip!” He exclaimed in triumph. At that he grinned, patted my shoulder, and went back to his friends at the other side of the bar.
And I sat in thought.

2

Several weeks later, I walked by a man asleep. He sat on the sidewalk, back against a wall with a sign cradled in his arms. Scratched in the dull cardboard was some common plea for help. Something about being homeless; maybe traveling.

But I caught a glimpse of something. Curled between his fingers was a string of plastic beads, and at the end, a white cross, dangling in the air. His fist clung tight to the beads. Even in sleep he wouldn’t let go.
For some reason I thought of the mountain climber.

When a man hangs in the air, it isn’t the strength of the rope that holds him, it’s his grip.

Okay lets get to this.

Question: Why does this blake snyder beat sheet encourage me, while all other attempts to create a formula piss me off.

Answer: The Blake Snyder Beat Sheet strikes the right balance of specificity.

I’ve read books that talk about formula; on the 3rd page you make a character state the theme – boring generic shit, and it really doesn’t fit because you’re basically just forcing these elements in there. The audience looks at film and goes, yes you included all the right elements, and there is a story happening around them, bravo, bravo! No they look at the screen and go, why are there pieces of shit in my cereal. The moral of the story is, great cereal and great fertilizer do not create great cereal/fertilizer.

On the other hand, I’ve read books that go the other way and talk about arcs and theme. Theories that are so top down and overhead that all the characters look like ants. You can’t see what the hell they’re doing there, but somehow this is supposed to help you divine your story. It doesn’t help.

Both these ends of the spectrum inspire nothing from me.

But for some reason this beat sheet, is inspirational material. I feel like I can take any rough story idea that I want, put it next to this list, and the combination of the new story and the set structure would just spark ideas as if by magic.

This is the first thing I’ve read that made me think that story and structure can be separated. And because they can be separated, you are free. You can take a story, and give it several different structures. Or you can take a structure and apply it to several different stories. All with different awesome outcomes.

But do I think this blake snyder beat sheet is THE WAY to make films? No. But it points at this idea: you can take structure from whatever story you want, and apply it to your story to get a new way of telling a story.
Structure helps you think of where to take the story next. And you need that when working on a feature film. It’s either that or instincts. Relying on your own instincts to write a screenplay isn’t just wishful thinking, its lazy.

Unless it works – and that’s the real test of any theory.

And the question remains the same: Why couldn’t I accept my circumstance and make the most of the situation? I think that even then, I had a sense of higher purpose. That my life was not meant to be spent behind bars, and that anytime not spent actively pursuing this goal was time wasted. It seems silly to project these thoughts into the mind a child who can barely walk, but I suspect that feeling is the same I feel today.

This feeling calls me to sacrifice happiness for purpose. For something to give life meaning. A passion that I must devote my life to. And until I find whatever it is I seek, nothing else has any importance. Furthermore, I have the idea that once I’ve discovered this thing, everything will have been worth it, and my entire life leading up to that point will make sense.

This sounds pretty fantastic, but as I was pondering this, I had to ask myself:
Why is this so important to me?

Certainty, singular purpose, a motivating passion, what purpose does this ultimate serve? And the answer came back like this:

If you know what your purpose is, you don’t have to worry about making a bad decision, or wasting time. Your life has complete security, and you never doubt yourself ever again, you never have to experience the emotional ebb and flow of despair and hope, because you’ll live in a state of permanent happiness.

And of course that’s when I realized I’ve been going after something that can’t possibly offer what I’m looking for. And I already know this. People who have millions are still insecure that they may someday be cut off from their wealth. People who are doing what they absolutely love are confronted by the constant doubt that they are doing the right thing. It is natural to look for purpose, meaning, a central unifying point to our lives. But just having focus does not make insecurity and doubt vanish. There is no certainty, no total security, because inevitably we die. This occurs whether we find our exact purpose in life or not.

So stop striving for everything to make complete sense. Find a way to live confidently in an insecure world.

The most we can do is move towards meaning — after all, what else is there — but we must always keep our minds open and our focus, soft. Most of all, even as we look to the future we must prevent ourselves from withdrawing from the world.

Be open. Play with the other kids. Because what gives our lives meaning is just as likely to be found there as anywhere else.

Probably it’s an unconscious homage to Hunter Thompson, a man who made his life a testament to craziness and spontaneous behavior. And I don’t entirely understand why he’s a role model. I appreciate his priorities, but there seems something vaguely desperate in his fantastic lifestyle.  As if he felt that life on it’s own wasn’t really all that great, and required fantasy and fiction to make it interesting; at least tolerable.

And in the same way, I feel like there is something false behind these 3 words.  Something idealized.  Fantasized.  Hollow.  Can one bet their existence upon hallucination, hedonism, and death?  Or is this missing the point?

I just watched Tropa De Elite and was deconstructing from a story perspective, trying to really get at the process for creating such a story.

Okay I’ll assume you haven’t seen Tropa De Elite, so I’ll just say it’s the kind of story with several different character’s whose paths intertwine, morphing the characters and arriving at a shocking conclusion.  It’s a great story to deconstruct, because it has such a powerful structure.  Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, it’s time to do my favorite thing in the world.  Hate on the story-gurus.

Robert McKee

First we have Robert McKee.  He would probably say, that first the author had to figure out what kind of story he wanted to tell.  In this case, a story about a man changing into a monster.  Next you have to fit it in a specific environment.  In this case, an elite police squad in Brazil.

It’s at this point that I call bullshit.  No one can write a story in this backasswards manner.  At least I can’t.  For example, why the hell would you want to tell a story about a man changing into a monster?  To amuse yourself?  To win an award?  Cause it certainly can’t be because you’re at all interested in that idea. It’s so generic, and has been done so many times before, there would be no purpose.  And why the hell would it occur to you to set in Brazil?? That’s just random.

But lets assume that’s the case.  Well it still doesn’t make sense, because it doesn’t provide a good motivation for creating the story the way it is.  There is no way an author sat down to tell a story about a man changing into a monster and ended up with this complex narrative, set in such a dynamic backdrop, and involving so many interesting characters.  They’re just unnecessary.  If this is how stories really are made, then the really good films would be 15 minutes long, and anything that reached an hour would be full of unnecessary boring ass shit!  Okay I’m done here.  Next!

Syd Field

Next we have Syd Field, who seems to believe that the point of a screenplay is the end.  The ending is what decides everything that comes before it, and without it, all of the buildup means nothing. To write a screenplay in this way, you’d have to start at the end, and add on elements until you reached the beginning.

Again this is crap.  I’d say anyone who really knows their ending, or thinks it is the whole point of the story, is going to write the most boring, contrived screenplay ever, and the only point of any scene will be to lead the audience to the next scene and the next and the next, until they get to the final scene, in which they are so shocked by the beautiful ending that they choke on their popcorn and die of euphoria and kernel asphyxiation.  Writing this way would never cause someone to create the nuanced twists and turns of Tropa De Elite.  After all, you’re just trying to get to the end right?

An Alternative

So what then?  Well, now allow me to unveil my ultimate theory on story creation.  I used to believe writing was all about the emotional moment, but in that case films would simply be a series of vignettes, every scene trying to capture something new.  But this doesn’t necessitate a plot line of any kind.  So here is my revised theory:

First you find a world that interests you, then you find what makes that world unique, then you explore emotional moments that bring out the contradictions and contrasts of the world you’re exploring. From this perspective, the creative choices in Tropa De Elite start to make sense.  The authors got deep into their subject matter, found out what made it unique, and pinned down that struggle into a single plot line punctuated by emotional moments between characters on the outskirts of that world.

The meaning of the story is discovered in the environment, not before the environment is created.  The ending is simply the culmination of the events, and the completion of the intertwining of events.  It allows us to see everything that has happened in perspective, to really get our hands around the thing, but it is not the whole point.

I’m getting really worked up here.  I should really write a screenplay.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/view/

Okay here’s my thoughts:

On Drone Attacks

I had never thought about the people who pilot the drones in Pakistan.  That is seriously fucked up.  And while it’s great that we’re developing technologies that prevent our people from getting killed, I can’t see the end result as anything good.  In conventional warfare these would be great tools, but we’re using them for, going into neighborhoods half a world a way, spying on and killing the residents, it’s going to accomplish the opposite effect we’re looking for.  Great, we can precisely target a single terrorist and take them out without endangering a single American.  But we are endangering all the civilians in those areas, and all at the push of a button.  By some guy in a cubical in Las Vegas.  I imagine how I’d feel if that happened here.  If another nation decided to enforce it’s law in my country, and they didn’t even have to send people to do it.  There’s not even anyone to complain to, or to look in the eye, to plead with, to fight.  Where does all that helplessness get directed?  Do you just go about your day?  Or do you feel outrage, frustration, and anger?  Isn’t this exactly the opposite reaction we want?

On Video Games as Social Experiences

I dropped my video game addiction before World of Warcraft, but I still remember the pattern.  Inches from the screen, not blinking, not smiling, not flinching.  No emotion, just instincts, flicks of the wrist, and short sighs and stretches every death.  Night time is a clever illusion.  From around 9pm – 4am the sky never changes, so when the first bit of sun comes up, and that sickening feeling of “oh my god I am so tired and I spent the whole night playing games” hits, it’s already too late.  In my memory the social games were the worst.  Games where you are just running around killing people can only keep you going for so long, but if a game actually encourages you to forge friendships with your pixelated kill-buddies?  Forget it.  Social gaming is to death match as crack is to PBR.  That’s how I have always seen it.  However, this video talks about Second Life and World of Warcraft as if there is something redeeming to spending 18 hours a week of your life building relationships with people in an imaginary world.  I’m not so sure.  That sounds like giving up on First Life.  Maybe if I was completely locked down with a corporate job that I knew I’d be at for the next 30 years of my life I might allow myself to get that involved with a game again.  Surely that beats a crack addiction.  But from where I’m sitting, anything is better than a virtual experience.  And you’re kidding yourself if you think a conversation online is the same as in person.  It’s the same thing as unmanned drone warfare.  Where there is no human contact there is no risk and there is nothing human to be communicated.  And speaking of which, Second Life is a sloppy mess of culture placed in a blender and melted to a thick brown ooze.  That’s the problem with these virtual communities, there is no restriction on what can be built, so there is no identity, no culture, no roots.  People flit around between personalities and loyalties.  After all, you can be whoever you want, nothing is at stake, no one will ever confront you.  These are thin, superficial interactions, in a fantasy land of no correlation to the real world.  It has no meaning.  And there is no amount of time that’s worth spending on something meaningless.

On Focus

One thing I might possibly be able to attribute to our world of constant distraction is my lack of focus.  The internet allows me to switch up my focus so often that I don’t even have time to realize I’m not actually getting anywhere.  The instinct of instant gratification causes my brain to shoot off in all directions as soon it has the slightest whim.  Now the question is, given the option of instant gratification, or restricted possibilities, what being would choose the latter?  No one.  Technology has given us, for the first time, this choice.  And we can use it to be eternally distracted by possibilities, or to sit down and focus our selves on the things that really matter.  However I think we are all at a disadvantage, because by nature we’ve been drawn to distraction.  By now it’s been conditioned in us.  For myself, any time I have an idle moment, I find my fingers directing me to nytimes.com, or digg.com.  The real joke is that I hate the articles at digg.com, and I don’t read anything but headlines from nytimes.com.  This must be what the opposite of Buddism is.  Instead of being absorbed in a moment of conscious silence, we are pulled into a constant stream of distraction.  I’m not sure my western brain can even take meditation.  How am I supposed to check my gmail when I’m focusing exclusively on my breath?  What?  Thats the point??  What the hell is that supposed to mean??

Stories work the same way. While it is important to have characters with dramatic need whom give the story focus and interest, do not shy from creating characters whose inclinations which aren’t as strong. These are the characters who can provide unexpected turns in a story which otherwise might be too obvious.

“THEY’LL NEVER TAKE… OUR FREEDOM!!!”

What follows is a brutal battle that destroys your homeland, results in countless casualties but you manage to eek out a victory that causes the enemy to retreat. Horray! Victory is ours! Roll credits.

Oh my god, shut the fuck up. It’s modern conventional warfare.  There is no way you can win against a superior force in this way. Let’s assume that the battle that unfolded in Avatar is realistic (it’s not. If it was they’d have the capability of dropping a bomb from higher than 50 feet off the ground, and it would be a real bomb not a bunch of UPS packages but whatever), what’s the logical next step that would occur here? You caused this army to retreat, using a surprise attack and a lot of luck. And where have they retreated to? Their homes, which you have absolutely no ability to threaten. So what happens next?

Retaliation!

The occupying force was motivated by financial incentives which exist in the resources located in your home. Violence would only work if the conflict costs more than the profit to be made from it. It wouldn’t be too costly. They wouldn’t even need troops, just missiles and bombs. And you’ve just slaughtered thousands of troops, providing easy propaganda for them to avoid any public relations issues. Their hands are completely untied. Prepare for annihilation.

From the Navi perspective violence just isn’t practical. Let’s reexamine their goals:

They want to protect their land, nature, and their people. By undertaking violent action, they have lost a significant number of their own, and had their most sacred lands permanently destroyed or damaged by the invading force. This could have all been avoided.

So am I saying they should just roll over and let their land be taken? Absolutely, if they’re concerned with protecting their own interests. But instead, Jake Sully, douche bag that he is, gives a rousing speech which encourages them to instead seek revenge and punishment rather than a positive end. As a result, their land is destroyed further, via a completely avoidable attack on their true sacred land. Land which only becomes a threat to the invading force after it is used as a staging ground for a retaliatory act.

Finally they achieve their goal of making the enemy retreat as a result of heavy casualties. Which will later on result in further devastating attacks on their land and people. The inevitable result being that there will be nothing left worth defending, and the Navi will have their priorities reduced to merely surviving.
The end.

Now this isn’t really a critique of Avatar, it’s a film, it’s not trying to be completely realistic, it’s just presenting the audience with a graspable, conventional plot. What’s fascinating is how easily our culture eats up a story which basically says, “Violence works, so long as you’re passionate enough about your cause.”

It’s pretty obvious to me that in this scenario, violence most certainly does not work. It provides revenge and punishment, but it doesn’t serve the goals of the Na’vi, and it’s just not effective.

So, what would work?

1 • Understand the enemy

2 • Avoid creating an opportunity for the enemy

3 • Avoid unnecessary loss.

4 • Apply pressure.