Fuel for Writing: Stealing the Hat.
Most writers have heard the old formula when it comes to fiction.
Put your character up a tree, throw a bunch of rocks at him, and then get him out of the tree.
How succinct and clever. And void of creativity.
All right, I know I am not being totally fair. The message behind this metaphor is legitimate in most cases. It’s a quaint yet straightforward way of informing writers (especially new ones), that something must be at risk in a story. Something has to be solved, or pursued. You must have someone in an understandable predicament at the center of the narrative. All of this is useful advice, and it’s not my intention to belittle it.
Yet be honest. Isn’t it a bit obtuse? If one new to writing fiction isn’t thinking metaphorically, does the old “dude in a tree” thing ignite any immediate realization as to how to proceed? I say no.
I prefer the lesser known advice to steal someone’s hat.
Start with a character wearing his favorite hat. Then within the first paragraph, take the hat away from them somehow. Have him try to get the hat back. Make sure he fails three times for three different reasons. Then (for the sake of the exercise) make sure in the end, he has the hat back.
Now we have both a metaphor and a prompt, whereas the tree/rocks thing is just metaphor. Okay, one could indeed write a story that was literally about a guy in a tree getting pelted with rocks. But that is quite limiting, if one opts to avoid being surreal. A person losing a hat and getting it back both serves as a reminder of the author’s job, as well as a tangible perimeter within which an tentative author can proceed in unlimited ways to tell a story.
It’s not about hats, of course. The hat is just the mcguffin. The point here is merely to make use of something that both educates the writer and invites him to create, all at the same time. Something that an author can relate to no matter how many times they go back to it. (One reason something as universal and flexible as a hat works so well here.)
Now, this isn’t the most creative, mind-bending prompt you are going to see. That is part of its effectiveness, however. Fiction can be daunting, even for seasoned writers. It can be down right paralyzing for new writers. And while the trippy prompts with a dozen requirements do serve a purpose and can be a lot of fun to work on, the clean simplicity of “stealing the hat” may be of more use when the goal is to just get the basic gears turning.
And don’t think it’s just for new writers. No matter how experienced a writer is, sometimes they need to just practice the mechanics without trying to get fancy. Much like simulated games thrown by baseball pitchers, “stealing the hat” isn’t the real deal. A huge market for stories about losing hats is not likely to materialize. But within the privacy of your own writing space, you go through all of the most important steps of your craft when you do this.
Of course unlike throwing a simulated game, something you create while “stealing the hat” may indeed lead to something great in its own right.
How Sprout Gets It Right, and How Writers Can Too.
I don’t watch Sprout much. (Surprise.) Until this weekend it was just something I would pass through while channel surfing, stopping on it for a minute or two on occasion due to the oddness of the visual.
Yet my sister and her daughter (my niece, of course) spent this weekend here. My niece is nine months old and quite ahead of the intellectual curve in most categories. She is often enraptured by the programming featured on Sprout, and this weekend the television in the living room was tuned into that channel for large blocks of time. And for the first time, I got a sense of some of the programming. I discovered how beneficial it could be…for me.
Yes, me.
Obviously, without my niece being present, I wouldn’t be spending much time watching the likes of “Noodle and Doodle”, “The Super Sproutlet Show”, or “The Wiggles”. Yet as a writer, I try to give credence to anything that both makes use of as well as encourages creativity in others. While much of what one sees on Sprout is in fact educational in a traditional sense, (shapes, numbers, and letters are all covered at various times), the entire focus of the programming is the expansion of young minds in a less direct but more powerful way-development and encouragement of imagination. It is in this mission that the true genius and nobility of Sprout, (and other child oriented television) lie. It is this that speaks to the writer in me.
If you’ve never seen these channels, I encourage you to take some time to watch them, even if you don’t have children. Yes, I am serious. You don’t have to announce that you’re doing it, and of course you need not watch hours upon hours of it. But if you have free time, and are secure enough in your adulthood, tune in and carefully observe what the show is doing, and how it’s doing it. You’ll notice several recurring elements which are not directly related to “book” learning:
–Asking questions of the viewers.
–Characters talking openly about feelings and ideas.
–Solving of everyday problems.
–“Visiting” characters during the show who live in different types of places, with different cultures.
–Encouragement of viewers to create and to share things.
–Appropriate optimism.
–Zest for living.
And the best part? All of these concepts are presented through the telling of stories.
Now by stories, I don’t just mean when a host sits down to read a book, or when they cut away to a cartoon episode. I mean that almost all concepts that are explored are done via the structure of a story, whether it is being presented directly as a story or not. (In fact, it is usually not labelled as such.) Whether the host of a program must find her missing shoe, or the character in another segment meets a new friend, the situations and concepts a program wants a young person to explore are presented as stories to be consumed.
There are no mundane parts to a show on Sprout. No pipe laying or navel gazing. Every minute is filled with something that engages the viewer in a story. In the use of imagination. Though we writers may not be able to duplicate this formula exactly in our own work, (unless we write for children’s TV), we can take something away from all of this. Namely, that places like Sprout have a luxury that we think we don’t have; they can pursue and share the fantastical 24/7. Wall-to-wall magical story telling, and firing up of imaginations, while still being 100% faithful to life and truth. (If you ignore the talking animals.)
The mind of a child knows no natural cynicism. No duplicity. It exists to absorb not only information, but wonder. Sprout plays to this, and makes no apologies for it. And it works. Even when the story itself doesn’t involve “magic” per say, the concept of presenting the story is infused with a sense of the magical.
So what can we as writers learn from this? What I come away with is that just because our themes mature, our character’s obstacles are more complex, and their worries are greater doesn’t mean that adult writers should steer clear of full-on engagement of our readers’ sense of awe at the universes we create for them. Like the hosts on Sprout, we can share our ideas and our adventures with exuberance. Even if tragic themes are explored in our work, we need not jettison that appeal to wonder in our readers.
We get caught in the trap of believing that our writing must be more intellectual. Tricky. Socially relevant. Thick and complex. That it must somehow upend the very nature of what it means to exist as a human being. That it has to shock, disgust, offend in order to be powerful. And perhaps in certain situations those concepts have their place. (Though I’m on the fence with that.) Yet to me, if we write good fiction, such high minded intentions should never come at the expense of unabashed immersion in fantasy and imagination, even if our stories are not of the fantasy genre.
Don’t be fooled into thinking that just because you and your readers are adults, that awe and magic must be abandoned in order to assure quality or even significance. In the end, an effective use of magic in some form or another may be the most important factor in inspiring people of all ages to look at you, and, like kids watching Sprout, make the greatest of requests: “Tell me a story.”
Intervention?
Scintilla’s Last Day Prompt: Talk about a time when you intervened. What prompted you? Did you regret it?
Don’t worry. I do have an example of my intervening which I will share. But I felt the need to address a few things beforehand.
To begin with, the very concept of my intervening is a tricky one. I rarely do it. That is to say I will step in between two other parties and interrupt the flow of their interaction only in a few specific types of circumstances.
For example, I will do so if everything I have observed leads me to conclude that someone’s life/health is in grave risk. I will also do so if it has become clear to me that someone who is unable to defend or speak for themselves is being in some manner grossly mistreated. Finally, I will intervene if I have determined beyond reasonable doubt that one or more parties is acting in any way from a position of severe mental impairment.
Thankfully, I have not encountered these circumstances in my life.
The threshold is somewhat lower if I and the other party have a deep relationship. That is to say I may step in when someone I love is behaving in a way that I find troublesome, even if not destructive or dangerous. But even then only if I believe that I have a unique opportunity to point out to them the perceived error of their ways.
In other words, it takes a lot of conditions for me to intervene between two parties without being asked. (If I am asked, that is mediating, and not intervening.) I suppose it is because deep down I believe that people ought to be allowed to live as they best determine they must. As well as a reluctance on my part to think I know better than anyone else what is going on. It happens, but not without deep thought or obvious immediate need.
Therefore when I do intervene, it can be quite taxing to me emotionally, and sometimes even physically.
My example of intervening therefore is not especially dramatic in its own right. It is noteworthy, however, because of how much it took for me personally to do so.
Some years ago one of my best friends, (I will call her Stacy here) was having issues with one of her other best friends. (I will call her Janice.) I was familiar and friendly with Janice, but not intimate or deeply connected. Friends on Facebook with both Stacy and Janice at this time, their interactions were visible to me on my feed.
After a time, Janice started to ignore the messages and questions Stacy put on her wall. Understandably, this upset Stacy, and she would occasionally tell me so. I had no reason to believe that what she said about Janice was untrue, and I shared her frustration at the situation. I knew I would feel very much the same in her shoes. But as I said, it wasn’t, strictly speaking, my affair because I had not been asked to render any kind of assistance.
After a few weeks, though, I became concerned, because I thought Stacy was pushing a little too hard against the silence. I sympathized, but I also feared that she might be at the stage where she was doing more harm than good. I know how upset Stacy would be if Janice never spoke to her again. So after much thought on the matter, I called Stacy. (If I opt to make a phone call, you already know something of importance is involved…but I digress.)
Everything I told Stacy was prefaced with, “I am only saying what I am about to say because I love you,” and those sort of things. Truly, this was more for my own sake than for hers, because she respects and appreciates anything that comes from a place of honesty and concern. It was a heavy sense of emotional trespassing that made me feel the need to apologize first.
Yet I had concluded she would be more hurt by the damage she was on the verge of doing to her friendship with Janice, than she could be by my admonitions. So I told her that based on what I had seen between the two of them on Facebook, she was, in my opinion, going overboard, and that perhaps a few weeks of silence from her would go farther in healing the developing rift than trying to engage at the level she had been engaging. I ending by saying I felt it was my duty as her friend to tell her this.
And of course Stacy was fine with me having said these things. In fact she appreciated me taking the time and the effort to say them. (She being aware how difficult it is for me to do such things.) She conceded I may have been right. And though she didn’t go totally dark on Janice, her comments, at least her public ones, significantly decreased. I learned a few weeks later that the two of them were talking again, all be it tentatively. As far as I know, they are still friends today.
While I am not sure if my intervening accomplished any good in the situation, or even if it prevented any more “bad” from entering the situation, I don’t regret having done so. Nor am I proud of it. I just did what I felt was best. I can’t say that I would never be proud of myself for a moment of intervention, but this wasn’t it. Indeed I think most such moments are more like changing a child’s diaper. You don’t regret it, nor do you enjoy it. You’d much rather not have to do so, but you are equally aware that you have no choice. A decent person cannot allow a child to lay around in a dirty diaper. So, you change it.
Should I have intervened on more occasions in my life? Is my reluctance to do so a result of a general respect for the privacy and competence of others, or of a desire to avoid conflict when possible? Can it be a combination of both of these things? Should I consider myself blessed that I have not yet had much need to intervene in some serious matter, or should I wonder what it says about me that I have rarely seen the need? I can’t say. But I ask myself these questions more often than you might think.
*****
(So ends Scintilla. I started it later than most due to this new site having not been launched yet. I am grateful however for the chance to participate in the few days I was around. It helped start my new site off with a bang, and hopefully gained me a few new friends and followers. I hope those who tuned in for my Scintilla commentaries will continue to check in to TyUnglebower.com for new content, roughly twice a week. Until then, thanks for following my abbreviated Scintilla experience. —T.U)
Pet Peeves.
Scintilla Day 10: Pet peeves. We’ve all got ’em. What are yours? Write about a time when you experienced one so vividly that we all join your army of defiance.
I’ll just say to start off that the whole “army of defiance” thing may be a bit much. Plus, there have been no particular incidents of my pet peeves that were worse than the others. It is an accumulative effect over a lifetime.
And I certainly have more than three of them. But here are the three most frustrating, as well as most common. All three contain are some combination of laziness and inaccuracy. In other words, my pet peeves are things that wouldn’t have to happen, with just a little more thought on the part of the perpetrators.
1) Improper use of AD.
AD is short for Anno Domini. Latin. The best translation being “In the year of our Lord.” In this case, reference to Jesus of Nazereth, so the term originated from a Christian perspective, and many people now prefer the more secular designation for time, CE (for “common era”.) Yet AD is still utilized frequently to indicate a year in which something happened, the birth of Jesus of Nazereth being the focal point. Hence, “in the year of our Lord, 724.” Or, “AD 724”.
I see AD utilized this way, (aka the correct way) only about a third of the time. Instead we usually see, “724 AD.” Which would mean, “724 in the year of our Lord“. That sounds nonsensical and illiterate. Probably because that’s exactly what it is.
This is made worse by the fact that institutions that should know better do so. Like the damn History Channel! Yes, even before it became a reality show cesspool and was instead actually focused on history, this network’s original programming would routinely include the improper use of the AD designation, and it always made me ill.
If you don’t want to use it for religious reasons, fine. But if those reasons don’t bother you, and you prefer AD over CE, get it right, please.
2) The “Queen of England”
There is no Queen of England. There has in fact been no monarch of England since April of 1707, when the Acts of Union combined both the Parliaments and the Monarchies of England and Scotland. At that point, the United Kingdom was formed. Today the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the full title of that country. And Queen Elizabeth II is therefore the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
While simply calling her Queen of the United Kingdom is still correct, calling her the Queen of England is not.
England is a constituent nation of this United Kingdom. Though much of what we think of when we think of the United Kingdom is in fact within the boundaries of England, (Windsor Castle, the Tower of London, Stonehenge), the Monarchy itself is not limited to England.
Several things fry me about this common incorrectness. To begin with, as with my first pet peeve, legitimate authorities who ought to know better are guilty of perpetuating this inaccuracy. Respected journalists. Government officials. It isn’t that difficult to say “United Kingdom”, so why do they insist upon not doing so? Even if it were difficult to say, it would be correct, and “England” would not be.
Secondly, and perhaps worse; what I mention here has been true for more than three hundred years! Nobody alive, and indeed the grandparents of nobody alive existed the last time England had its own crown. So why this is even an issue is beyond me.
I understand there are many cultural frictions in the United Kingdom in regards to constituent nations and parliamentary autonomy and all of that. That is their affair, of course. But until such time as they change it, Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom.
3) General Consensus.
Redundancy is a general pet peeve of mine anyway. But there is something about this one that is even more irksome.
Webster’s defines consensus as, “a general agreement”. Which means the term “general consensus” is referring to a “general, general consensus.” Or, to put it another way, it is ridiculous.
Incorrect (Though very common): The general consensus seems to be that he ought to be fired.
Correct (But seen less and less): The consensus seems to be that he ought to be fired.
Again, the definition of the word is not mysterious. So I am baffled as to why this is any more acceptable than say, “a soaking wetness”.
**
Like I said, I have many other pet peeves that I have discussed before. But the general consensus here in March of 2012 AD is that the worst are those that involve reference to the Queen of England.
23 Characters
Day Nine Scintilla Prompt: Write a list of 23.
That sounded simple enough at first. Until I realized my first few ideas would require quite a bit more time than I have to come up with 23 entries. Then I thought I had a winner-23 songs I’ve always wanted to sing live. Once I started that list though, 23 was soon quite confining.
Yet I stayed with the stage theme, and decided to list 23 characters I have played on stage as an actor. Two things to remember about this list:
1) It’s not exhaustive. In fact I made a specific effort to only include characters who had some kind of name. (Not all of them do.) Some of them are from the same play, even.
2) It is in no particular order. Not most loved, or most difficult. Not even the order in which I played them. I intentionally made the list for the most part random, so the names would speak for themselves, and not as my resume.
I provide no background on any of these characters. I just list them, and let you determine what they may refer to. Some you will probably recognize, and know right away what play they came from. Others you may have no idea about, and have to look up. And a few may leave you asking, “Wait, what?” But hopefully all of them as a list will entertain.
And so, here they are. Twenty-three named characters I have portrayed on stage so far:
-Peter Bailey
-Walter Mitty
-Justin Waverly
-Nick Sakarian
-Fred Phelps
-“Elvis”
-Orlas
-Vince Fontaine
-Lord Longville
-Tom Jenkins
-Prince Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany
-Aaron McKinney
-Ebeneezer Scrooge
-John F. Kennedy
-Yorick
-Sergeant Duffy
-Thomas Putnam
-Nick Cristano
-Hamlet
-Bob Cratchit
-Friar Laurence
-Leon Trotsky
-“Ty Unglebower”
