When Parallel Worlds Collide . . .

Tags

A wie armageddon, Alan Dean Foster., Alien, authors, books, Christopher Nolan, concept, danirolli, essense, film, Game of Thrones, George R R Martin., heart, High Concept, I am Legend, imagery, Inception, Journey by Night, Jurassic Park, Kim Falconer, Michael Crichton, novels, originality, Oscar Wilde, premise, readers, Richard Matheson, Richard N. Goodwin, Star Wars, Supernatural Underground, tagline, The quiz Shoe, vibrations, what if, writing

A wie armageddon. by danirolli

This is a RE-blog from From my November post on the Supernatural Underground.

High concept: it can lead to a breakout novel or film.

Given that, it’s not hard to guess why writers want a clear concept at the core of their work, but pinning down exactly what that means can be challenging.

I’ve heard a lot of mini, fractured definitions, but every writer, and reader, knows what high concept is when they see it.

It a nutshell, it makes the story sing.

Still, that’s not a Webster definition.

According to Jeff Lyons, author of Anatomy of a Premise Line, high concept has:

• entertainment value
• originality
• uniqueness
• visual appeal
• emotional depth
• asks “what if”

Anatomy of a Premise Line:

High
level of entertainment value
High degree of originality
High level of uniqueness (different than original)
Highly visual
Possesses a clear emotional focus (root emotion)
Targets a broad, general audience, or a large niche market
Sparks a “what if” question – See more at:
http://www.scriptmag.com/features/story-talk-high-concept-yes-it-actually-means-something#sthash.LgUbQPEg.dpuf

You don’t have to slap your reader in the face with your concept – that’s best avoided – but the writer needs to know what it is, to stay on track. My favorite support for this is with the tagline – the short-short sentence or catchphrase that resonates with the story’s core values.

Condensing a novel or film to a tagline that reflects the richness of concept can be painstakingly difficult, but incredibly rewarding. Here are a few examples, some of which I am sure you will recognize.

When Parallel Worlds Collide . . . 

Journey by Night by Kim Falconer (the third book in my QE Series)

The last man on earth is not alone . . . 

I am Legend by Richard Matheson

Fifty million people watched, but no one saw a thing . . .
  
The Quiz Show based on Richard N. Goodwin’s memoir

In space, no one can hear you scream . . .

Alien by Alan Dean Foster 

Winter is coming . . .

Game of Thrones by George R R Martin

Your Mind is the scene of the crime . . .

Inception written, produced, and directed by Christopher Nolan

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away . . .

Star Wars (1977)

An adventure 65 million years in the making . . . 

Jurassic Park  by Michael Crichton

Everybody Loves Ernest… But Nobody’s Quite Sure Who He Really Is.  

The Importance of Being Ernest by Oscar Wilde (2002 film)

She has the power . . .

Lucy (2014)

One last chance for peace . . .

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes  (2014)

You can see that the tagline doesn’t include the full heart, essence, premise, design or images of the story, but if it has the same vibration, it will inspire readers to pick up the book (and writers to keep writing them). Once in the pages, or theater, the concept works invisibly behind the text and images to sweep the audience away.

What are some of your favorite film or novel concepts? Do the taglines reflect them?

I’d love to know what you’re working on now. Do you start with a tagline in mind? A core concept to keep you on track?

Feel free to share in the comments.

Continuity Conundrums with Mercruy Rx

Tags

anachronism, authors, Brad Pitt, Captain Jack Sparrow, Chamber of Secrets, Continuity, editing, editorial process, Edward, errors, film, film continuity, homeric nod, inconsistancy, Kim Falconer, Mercury retrograde, participation mystique, publishing, script director, speculatice fiction, storytellers, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Matrix, Troy, Twilight, typos, writing

… et idem
indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus

And yet I also become annoyed whenever the great Homer nods off. – Horace 23BCE

I posted this on the Supernatrual Underground the other day but didn’t mention the tie in with Mercury Rx. Of course we ‘nod’ more often then! How’s everyone going? Any conundrums?

The ‘Homeric Nod’, or continuity as we now call it, has been a problem for thousands of years. Some deliberate, most accidental, continuity is an age old challenge for storytellers everywhere.

I have a friend who teaches the ins and outs of continuity (known also as script direction). She’s brilliant, and no small fry, having been the ‘scripty’ on films as fabulous as The Matrix series, The Lord of the Rings (all three) and soon to be released, The Hobbit. I did tech support for a class she gave last week and I found film continuity not all that different from the issues a novelist faces. A lot of the techniques for catching these errors in film translate well for authors, and it does make a huge difference, having the continuity water tight.

Why?

Because unless it’s a comedy, seeing or reading an anachronism, inconsistency or error will jolt the reader/viewer out of the participation mystique of the story. Suddenly they are no longer ‘with’ the characters but back in the audience, scratching their heads because a jet just flew over ancient Troy. Oh boy. That’s almost as bad as Edward saying that Carlisle, in 1660, “actually found a coven of true vampires that lived hidden in the sewers of the city . . .” when said sewage system wouldn’t be built for another two hundred years. If the reader knows their history, it’s going to snap them out of ‘it’, and that’s definitely not the goal.

As we can see, big name authors with major publishing houses are not exempt from these problems. Did anyone catch in Chamber of Secrets where Dumbledore tells Harry that Lord Voldemort is the last remaining ancestor of Salazar Slytherin. Sure JKR meant descendant but why didn’t the editorial process, and the author, pick that up? (It’s been corrected in later print runs, something film editors can’t do!) Readers are very good at spotting such things and a lot of subsequent print run corrections are due to them writing in. Don’t be shy. Your authors appreciate it!

Usually novelists have more control over continuity than script directors on a film set.  What writer, for example, would have gorgeous Captain Jack Sparrow about to say something mouth-watering-witty with the ticky-tag on his bandanna showing? Novelists aren’t dependent on air traffic, sound artists, make up or wardrobe to get it right. But we do end up being all of the above and more when it comes to the final product – a book in the reader’s hands. When the  ‘poor continuity’ hammer falls; it falls squarely on the author’s head. It’s not like we haven’t had a chance to make corrections.

 Publishing houses may differ slightly but the editorial process looks something like this:

1) Author hands in manuscript

2) Editor makes general comments

3) Author applies suggestions

4) Editor rereads and may return with more suggestions or send on to the structural editor

5) Structural editor edits the entire ms for form, structure, consistency, meaning,  grammar, spelling, context, you name it

6) Ms returns to author to approve or reject suggested changes or rewrite scenes

7) Ms goes to copy editor who edits for grammar and spelling mostly but also consistency, meaning and clarity.

8) Ms returns to author to put in changes/rework

9) Ms goes to proofreaders where one to six proofreaders mark errors and make comments. All the comments from various proofreaders are then transcribed onto one manuscript which the publishing editor reviews. At HarperCollins Aus, this would then result in a phone call (sometimes lasting hours) where the question marks and quirks and ‘ifs’ are discussed with the author. The editor puts in agreed changes.

10) The ms then goes to typesetting and the resulting ‘fourth pages’ are sent to the author to proof.

11) The author catches any errors and shoots the ms back to the publisher (This process is repeated with third, and second pages until they are down to the first pages complete with the dedication, acknowledgements and copyright info.)

12) The author checks those first pages and returns to editor (the turn around time become increasingly shorter with each of these steps)

13) Ms is off to print. Yay!

It’s not a haphazard process, yet still mistakes appear. My friend the script director says that in film, it’s often down to the editing process where they have better shot, even with an inconsistency. They’ll take acting over continuity every time.

How about you, readers? Have you ever loved a book but wanted to throw it across the room because of the mistakes or typos? I bet this writer (below) wishes he’d had a copy editor on board! O. M. G #14!

Vampire Evolution Revisited

Tags

art, beast, Blood, books, Bram Stoker, danger, devil, erotic, evil, film, growth of consciousness, Kim Falconer, L J Smith, like attracts like, love, monsters, Nosferatu, relationship, shadow, Stephenie Myer, Sun, symbol, True, Vampire Diaries, vampire evolution, Vampires

The Vampire Diaries 2012

I’m not officially back until tomorrow but I wanted to re-post my thoughts on the evolution of vampires in film and literature today. It was sparked by a conversation at GVU on the notion of ‘if we can imagine it, it can exist‘. Vampires and LOA? How does the recent surge of popularity (very ‘Neptune’ for those curious) fit into deliberate creation? If like attracts like, why do we like them so much? Whatever the reasons, our attraction is not only increasing, it’s changing.

Take the 1930’s for example. Nobody dreamed of hot sex with Nosferatu, nobody I know, anyway. But Eric Northman? The Salvatore brothers? Edward? That’s a whole different story. So what happened in the decades between Bram Stoker’s fear and loathing to our modern-day infatuations? How different now are the denizens of the night and why did they get that way?

Nosferatu – 1922

The curious thing is, aside from increased hotness, the basic tenets of these creatures are the same. Vampires are still a blood drinking, super strong, fast and intelligent predatory species who generally find humans beneath them. They have a hunger and lust that’s hard to control; and plenty of necks still snap. Bodies are drained of blood.

Yet, we are swooning for them. Head over heels! What gives? Some say that vampires have always had an erotic quality and that film and TV have simply amped this up by putting a new face on an old ‘devil’. The claim is our art and stories have changed the image of the vampire over time, from ‘pure evil’ to dangerous erotic to heroic heartthrob. But is it really the media that is changing social concepts, or is it the other way around?

I vote for the other way around. To me, the evolution of the vampire is not simply a trend generated by contemporary literature and film. These new images aren’t responsible for the shifting views of society; rather they are a reflection of them. And here we get to the crux. As our perception of Self changes, our monsters must change as well. Ultimately, the evolution of the vampire reflects the evolution of the human soul.

The vampire as a representation of our inner darkness was once powerful beyond control, a force of nature we could not reckon with. Now we dialog with these creatures, are intimate with them and in the case of LJ Smith, Stephenie Meyer and other authors, we walk with them in the daylight (the sun is a symbol of consciousness).

Originally, the vampire had no soul—‘In this chest beats no heart,’ Bram Stoker’s Dracula says, but now that’s changing. We are learning compassion for the beast within, and because of that, the beast is free, sometimes, to love us back. In this way, our new relationship with the vampire reflects the growth of human consciousness and our ability to love the darker aspects of ourselves and others.

What do you think? How have vampires changed for you as readers, viewers of film and writers?

I’d love to hear your thoughts!

This article appeared originally in Supernatural Underground Nov 16, 2011