Thank you. Breaking down the 5 commandments and the object of desire in a scene and seeing how it's done and they interact together is immensely helpful, and very clarifying. I have read alot of books from you all, but have been struggling on how to apply what I had been reading, this is helping to resolve that.
Thank you Tim. Your explanations make the Storygrid concepts approachable and easier to understand, and most importantly, I feel I can apply the lessons covered after I listen to you. Hope you have a great day!
I always appreciate the application of theory to a masterwork - or really any work. It not only gives me a chance to see how you apply the information, but presents me with an opportunity to ask questions that may seem silly at first but build on a larger framework for understanding story.
I am surprised that you did not mention that Snoopy started his novel with the same exact words, 'It was a dark and stormy night.' I wonder if L'Engle penned them or copied them. I read at least the first book as a kid as many others had read it but I never finished the series. So I read the first few pages now but not as far as your review went. I understand what you mean by showing, not telling, but there are two types of telling. The most egregious is when the author tells the reader, like in 'She was angry.' But the second way to tell the reader is by using thoughts and that is what this author does. If the character thinks, 'Everyone is laughing at me. They think I am such a fool,' that is telling. Introspective adults think that way once they become acquainted with depression. But the average person thinks, 'That slop Mama threw on my plate tonight was horrible.' And Mama had made the kid's favourite dish in an effort to put him or her in a good mood. This is why psychologists have so much trouble getting to the truth with such people because they lie to themselves. They think they are angry with one thing when another is the cause. Better to show the character is angry and let the cause reveal itself slowly. We really don't need to know why the girl was angry, only that she was. Instead of her telling in her thoughts that everyone thinks her incompetent, show it with an action. She tries to open a tin can and can't get the can opener to bite, Her brother says it is alright, he's not hungry, but no, she's going to get that can open and feed her brother. That's showing. Asocial? Fine, she can swear, she can throw something, she can cry in frustration. But we see none of that anger at home, just in her thoughts. When people are angry, something always sets them off, even when nothing happens. So the author says one thing but shows another. The kid looks pretty calm on the outside to me.
I know, you're going to say that she wasn't really angry at the boys she attacked, which is a fair point. But the incident itself shows she was angry at the time but the thoughts say she is angry at the past. Generally a person is one or the other, not both. Let me put it another way, some people have a fast burning anger: they get angry quickly but they get over it quickly. Others have a slow burning anger: they are slow to anger but slow to calm down. She was fast to get angry but slow to calm down. Normally a kid who throws her books down and starts throwing punches is going to forget the whole thing by the time she gets home. It sounds like she won the fight; so why is she still angry? If she lost, she would be thinking either about avoiding them or getting even. It is also unusual for a kid her age to be so introspective. Thus, a fast to anger kid would be instantly upset with a can opener that did not work. By her actions, she lives in the present; by her thoughts, she lives in the past.
I got ahold of the audiobook, which is the device I use now for better sleep, and listened to the beginning again. What most are not teaching is that 'telling, not showing' is a tool authors use for misdirection. So, Meg's thoughts TELL us that she feels stupid and has started doing poorly in school. Granted, I was a boy and males are less intelligent than females, but I was not self-aware until around the age of 17. When this book was written, Freud was the hotter topic where I lived and abnormal psychology was the main topic in psychology. For Meg to have such deep insights about herself is SHOWing that she is very smart. Meg TELLs us she was angry at her classmates, events SHOW us that she was angry about the loss of her father. At that time, grief counselling was conducted by your local religious leader, who would drop by with some sort of charity and console the survivors with knowledge that their family member was in heaven or hell, as the circumstances dictated. Until I was hit by depression, I did not self-analyse the way Meg is. I would not have voiced such thoughts about my grades. My thoughts were about to do the homework now or not, figuring out the tasks, perhaps thoughts wandering but a person with good grades is not easily distracted. Since her grades had dropped, her thoughts are likely distracted by one thing, not multiple things. Considering the fight described in her thoughts, she has anger issues and it is likely that angry thoughts are what would distract her. She would not be thinking about dropping her books and rushing in, she would be thinking about the moment her fist landed on the boy's nose and the spurt of blood. She would be thinking of what she would do to him the next day whenever the opportunity arose. Her thoughts in the book are those of someone who does not drop her books and charge in but wishes they had the courage to do so. So, once again, the author is telling one thing, showing quite another.
Thank you. Breaking down the 5 commandments and the object of desire in a scene and seeing how it's done and they interact together is immensely helpful, and very clarifying. I have read alot of books from you all, but have been struggling on how to apply what I had been reading, this is helping to resolve that.
Thank you Tim. Your explanations make the Storygrid concepts approachable and easier to understand, and most importantly, I feel I can apply the lessons covered after I listen to you. Hope you have a great day!
I always appreciate the application of theory to a masterwork - or really any work. It not only gives me a chance to see how you apply the information, but presents me with an opportunity to ask questions that may seem silly at first but build on a larger framework for understanding story.
One of my favourite books 🎉❤️
LOVE THIS BOOK- on the third one of hers now. Read her book on writing called “Walking on Water” it’s very great!
Thank you! Very helpful.
Thank you!
Lol Tim, you look possessed in the thumbnail
I am surprised that you did not mention that Snoopy started his novel with the same exact words, 'It was a dark and stormy night.' I wonder if L'Engle penned them or copied them. I read at least the first book as a kid as many others had read it but I never finished the series. So I read the first few pages now but not as far as your review went. I understand what you mean by showing, not telling, but there are two types of telling. The most egregious is when the author tells the reader, like in 'She was angry.' But the second way to tell the reader is by using thoughts and that is what this author does. If the character thinks, 'Everyone is laughing at me. They think I am such a fool,' that is telling. Introspective adults think that way once they become acquainted with depression. But the average person thinks, 'That slop Mama threw on my plate tonight was horrible.' And Mama had made the kid's favourite dish in an effort to put him or her in a good mood. This is why psychologists have so much trouble getting to the truth with such people because they lie to themselves. They think they are angry with one thing when another is the cause. Better to show the character is angry and let the cause reveal itself slowly. We really don't need to know why the girl was angry, only that she was. Instead of her telling in her thoughts that everyone thinks her incompetent, show it with an action. She tries to open a tin can and can't get the can opener to bite, Her brother says it is alright, he's not hungry, but no, she's going to get that can open and feed her brother. That's showing. Asocial? Fine, she can swear, she can throw something, she can cry in frustration. But we see none of that anger at home, just in her thoughts. When people are angry, something always sets them off, even when nothing happens. So the author says one thing but shows another. The kid looks pretty calm on the outside to me.
I know, you're going to say that she wasn't really angry at the boys she attacked, which is a fair point. But the incident itself shows she was angry at the time but the thoughts say she is angry at the past. Generally a person is one or the other, not both. Let me put it another way, some people have a fast burning anger: they get angry quickly but they get over it quickly. Others have a slow burning anger: they are slow to anger but slow to calm down. She was fast to get angry but slow to calm down. Normally a kid who throws her books down and starts throwing punches is going to forget the whole thing by the time she gets home. It sounds like she won the fight; so why is she still angry? If she lost, she would be thinking either about avoiding them or getting even. It is also unusual for a kid her age to be so introspective. Thus, a fast to anger kid would be instantly upset with a can opener that did not work. By her actions, she lives in the present; by her thoughts, she lives in the past.
I got ahold of the audiobook, which is the device I use now for better sleep, and listened to the beginning again. What most are not teaching is that 'telling, not showing' is a tool authors use for misdirection. So, Meg's thoughts TELL us that she feels stupid and has started doing poorly in school. Granted, I was a boy and males are less intelligent than females, but I was not self-aware until around the age of 17. When this book was written, Freud was the hotter topic where I lived and abnormal psychology was the main topic in psychology. For Meg to have such deep insights about herself is SHOWing that she is very smart. Meg TELLs us she was angry at her classmates, events SHOW us that she was angry about the loss of her father. At that time, grief counselling was conducted by your local religious leader, who would drop by with some sort of charity and console the survivors with knowledge that their family member was in heaven or hell, as the circumstances dictated. Until I was hit by depression, I did not self-analyse the way Meg is. I would not have voiced such thoughts about my grades. My thoughts were about to do the homework now or not, figuring out the tasks, perhaps thoughts wandering but a person with good grades is not easily distracted. Since her grades had dropped, her thoughts are likely distracted by one thing, not multiple things. Considering the fight described in her thoughts, she has anger issues and it is likely that angry thoughts are what would distract her. She would not be thinking about dropping her books and rushing in, she would be thinking about the moment her fist landed on the boy's nose and the spurt of blood. She would be thinking of what she would do to him the next day whenever the opportunity arose. Her thoughts in the book are those of someone who does not drop her books and charge in but wishes they had the courage to do so. So, once again, the author is telling one thing, showing quite another.