Etiqueta: Robert McKee

  • Yet, it wasn’t that comical in comedy

    person in alien mask sitting in bed and reading book
    Photo by Lisa Fotios on Pexels.com

    MISUNDERSTOOD

    For centuries, the basis of comedy is the misunderstanding: a confused identity or the ignorance of the truth. That’s at least what I learnt with this video. At the time of the original entry in Spanish, I was indeed far for from getting into the comedy business in McKee’s book ( Story)…

    As usual ( now and then), I’m so lazy I can’t read much more than a paragraph, maybe three, of what I’m supposed to read; instead of snatching myself from IG scrolling down. Thus.

    NOT SPONTANEOUS

    From that POV, comedy is the least of the least of the least, spontaneous genre ( yep, the best of the best of the best in MIB). It requires a lot, certainly a good bunch, of practice and planning. To know what the audience does know and pretend not to; in order to give the reader the miracle of giving them what they believe is going to happen, in a different way.

    It is in that sense that I can’t trust McKee when he says comedy is pure genius. No. They’re microscopical tales warped according to a recipe my Ethics for design teacher called: the model of the process of design.

    STAND UP AND FICTION

    And as usual (again), I have gone and dipped my spoon in what seems foreign to writing fiction. The stand up. Why? Because someone in you…etc. etc., started with the best question about comedy.

    WHAT’S A JOKE?

    And here is where stand up and fiction writing meet half way. In stand up, you write a premise and an ending. Similar to something you know? Of course. Intro, development and climax. The difference seems to be, the development it’s very similar or the same as the intro in order to stablish a pattern. The intro is to paint the scenery. Build up the expectations. For the reader to anticipate one thing and another to happen. It also contains a bit of Agatha Christie, the false clue.

    For the moment we will focus in the math method of the three known data and the unknown in the extreme. We multiply the two known and divide by the lonely one… Maaaah

    THE RULE

    The rule is to have three elements. The two first stablish a pattern. The last one crashes the continuity.

    (And here I’m stealing from Rolo Sansó, Indeed I can be spicy but my funny is the irony and the involuntary, not comedy).

    One, two… spaghetti!

    That’s it. You have learnt how to cook spaghetti. I mean, comedy. You warm water in the microwave and pour it into the disposable cup with the noodles. You’ll get a sodium excess or gum plastic chicken flavour tale.

    Bad joke? I know. I told you. I’m good at irony. You can finish the joke by liking this entry. Enjoy racking your brains for comedy. Pasto kalo.

  • What we see, we covet

    photo of a person reaching out his hand
    Photo by Murilo Folgosi on Pexels.com

    The moment Hannibal lecter is giving Clarice Starling the crumbles to solve Jessica Bimmels murder —the very first Buffalo Bills murder; he says: We covet. And what do we start coveting but what we see every day?1

    ADAPTATION, THE VIRTUES OF ONE INTO THE VIRTUES OF THE OTHER

    Speaking about adaptation difficulties and the reasons why the book will never be the movie and viceversa in case it is well done and in case it isnt; but what I mean is that Robert McKee (Story) was speaking of something else when he mentions, as any of those ham smears in a ham sandwich sold in a poor street, something more interesting. At least for me, since you and I know better why them both HAVE to be different.

    McKee brings out (paragraph length) the cinematographic style of Flaubert at the same time Eisenstein, movie chap director, learnt to edit movies reading Charles Dickens. Shakespeare’s fluency dreaming about the apparition of the camera.

    ENVY

    So, this kind of battle, born from envy (I think); to try and get something narrated in the same way a different media can do it, in what McKee calls a challenge. The action and social interaction of the film in the novel. Something achieved by Camilleri. The relishing abyssal abysms of sub consciousness of novel into the screen. And here you might like to help me naming some movie that can do so.
    Maybe that’s why I have been watching movies (not really, just a lazy one who cant sit down in front of a computer for hours and hours). Good ones and terribly good ones to deactivate my brain in order to keep watching. Reading manhwa and webtoon where the clichés are the plot and characters go against their own nature to satisfy the wish of having the big dick guy into their pants. The kind of marvelous jewels.

    THUS WE COVET

    We covet what we see, what we listen too. We covet it in our craft and we go neck biting (in a literal sense) to kill characters and commit the most atrocious of crimes well told plot pro. Whats the last crime you committed?

    Spend the best of times coveting. Pasto kalo.

    1. Not a literal quote, it will consume too much time to go and fish the book from the bookshelf and it might not survive the process; it being a second hand copy. This is what I remember and stood there, some circumvolution of my brain at, as a life truth. We start to covet what we see every day and lack. ↩︎

  • And so comedy wasn’t a joke

    COMEDY’S FIRST REQUIREMENT?

    To be nice and fun ? No. To have a big complaint. About anything.

    COMPLAIN

    Is the river dirty? Make the Mork river almost solid enough to never sink in it. Do we dislike the snobish hat? Let’s have it punched out from a head.

    This is Robert McKee’s image of comedy. A frontal disappointed attack AGAINST anything that could be… Better. Anything the frustrated idealist of a writer hates.

    Comedy is there to have us, flex our brains and reflect in front of the mirror of denounce that quickly turns sour as drama and boring or cringey as documentaries (depending the person, remember not everyone likes the same stuff).

    Maybe these frustrated idealists should manage the chaos in their own rooms before criticizing. Maybe. Nuval Yoah Harari says we can believe in contradictory systems of ideas and it is in us to spot the contradictions since every single art work is based upon struggle. I would tell him the struggle is disappearing little by little but that is a different business.

    TENSION RELEASE, CHANGED WORLD

    According to Robert McKee, comedy is the way creators have to try and change the world at the same time the audience releases tension and that’s why critics hate it.

    You can’t positively criticize something that either makes us laugh or not…

    Such affirmation reminds me of a French movie I and my mother started watching in a bus [Serial (bad) weddings]. No further five minutes and the whole bus knew someone was laughing in the front seats… Unfortunately we started it half an hour from reaching destination; thus, I had to look it up later. It was in doing so that I found the most ridiculous critic I’ve read (104 million dollars raised in France).

    The critic suggested that given the fact the three Verneuil (originally Catholic) sisters had married each a Jew, an Arab and a Chinese; why wouldn’t the fourth arrive with a professional well bred Catholic Caucasian… woman?To me, it was pretty obvious. The problem was racism. There’s nothing worst than to derise someone who meets the requirements: male, good looking, Catholic, hard worker ( tough an actor) just because the guy’s skin is different. That and that the sisters plot against the marriage whilst the Verneuil couple falls out for being unable to get their children to do as supposed.

    A lesbian daughter certainly would be uncomfortable but not overwhelming. It can easily be dismissed as a phase by square minded audiences and wouldn’t embody the main problem since the other woman would still be… yes! A Caucasian woman.

    Concluding, comedy can and will be criticized so no, McKee is not quite right about that.

    POINTLESS SCENES?

    Comedies and dramas are different… Because in comedies, social institutions are plastic chicken hit attacked or because comedies are free from narrative rules?

    Let’s say it is because the rules are a bit more relaxed… If we believe what Robert McKee says about the Marx brothers’ movies. I have never watched any ( or I don’t remember watching any). Henceforth, I’ll have to take McKee up for his word, about 88.88% of the 90 minutes of the Marx brothers’ movies being pointless ( mathematics applied).

    Pointless in the sense Sarah Domet says; we shouldn’t bother with any scene which purpose in the story is not clear or fundamental to causality.

    Thus, the Marx brothers must be genial to sustain a movie with that little 11.12% of conventional narrative. Anyways, I think I have an idea about what stands for useless or pointless.

    In Love advice from the Duke of Hell, there’s a scene with a one eyed octopus pouring tea just about the Hell’s gates, unconnected to any other plot’s moment of importance. And it is delicious ( or was at the moment).

    That’s it about comedy for today. Pasto kalo.

  • Why to create adorable despicability? p2

    woman in a black costume with a cape and horns
    Photo by James Superschoolnews on Pexels.com

    Hence, how do we have our characters to be apart and different?

    In BL that’s easy. One of them is hetero and homophobic. Or the other is simply unaware due to being a narcissistic wrench; love here is not to turn hate into passion but total indifference into lust. And lust is easier to get through aphrodisiacs than love through attention and open ears. First happens conveniently in seconds, the last… I shrug.


    For hetero romcoms, such opposites come as ironic hateable comments that escalate into a twisted flirting. Asexuals… Well we can’t be integrated into scene in spite of being the TOTAL OPPOSITE of sexual people. How do you convince someone who believes garlic bread is better than sex (and sex is LAME[1]) to actually fuck? Love might do, but love won’t make your loins flutter. Love is boring in a very special way.

    So we rest upon self hate. Main character hates themselves so they can’t love but things get better… Like in 28 days. Also we disguise the wolf in sheep skin by having the violence and destruction to sleep in the same bed. Now that physical abuse is no longer in, manipulation and verbal abuse leave a track of CPTSD behind…

    And I’m using love for the sole reason that love is like weaponry. War is somehow a good way to make money in Wall Street without losing it to the minor fluctuation. Love is akin in terms of plot interest. It won’t lose 3 points out of the blue just because. Aromantic people and asexual people read romance and love it… Yet, it changes. I won’t say evolve cause some ideas of omegaverses are as new as the XXIIth century.

    Long ago, BL was filled with facing homophobe societies, parents disowning their kids because of liking dicks… No cancellation in power. Despite most of BL plots still coming from… Not gay friendly countries, now it pictures nonchalant friends[2] who accept and even demand the gay guy/gal to confess and be done with it; parents giving up in lieu of parental love… So much any mention to spanking Grey and no-one raises a brow. On screen.



    Which is why the double negation of the main character’s paradigm is not so easy to cement into foundation and our job to find it through research or playing goof…



    Waiting to be antagonized?! Don’t and like this nonsense! (For sure you have already done it since I’m quite annoying at asking). Have a wonderful time looking up how to negate the negation. Pasto kalo.

    [1] Remember some asexual are sex positive, I’m just enjoying depicting the worst case scenario! That in yaoi causes the story to crash and burn before there’s any smooth.

    [2] To tell you the truth, it ain’t as stupid to depict such plots since below the Dixie line homosexual/black people is still being dragged and tortured/ killed for liking pink or being openly » unusual»… And Europe sports cases of beaten people due to their origin/ sexuality/ colour. What the heck is white I wonder?

  • Why to create adorable despicability? p1

    woman in a black costume with a cape and horns
    Photo by James Superschoolnews on Pexels.com

    Not to confuse with Despicable me, though it is today’s case to speak the villain.

    Have you ever found yourself romping over the villain’s evilness? Maybe marveled in awe to their psychological depth, quite contrary to the cartoon drew hero, whose face is unchangeable. The hero who is an upstart karate’s tournament participant; against antagonists with training and training years of experience under their black belt…

    Telly, novel, comic or theatre play; without the despicable one, we have no interest. The antagonistic force is not obligated to be the big booty cheerleader @_&46:#4 the main character’s life. Such vanilla cream[1] cliché is too simple to speak of the force helping heroine [don’t confuse with the drug] from reaching her dreams — for not to say ambitions or undercover wishes (since it is more strawberry to say it like that within my super positive outburst of cutesy and I’m going to cringe myself).

    See, this thing of antagonistic forces pushed to the limit, raises tension. It’s the corn starch to give body to the plot gravy—bechamel ( no idea if bechamel needs corn starch but you get the idea, too expensive a recipe and lactose intolerant me uses corn starch for aubergine). Robert McKee [yes, that guy who teaches how to write movie scripts in Story] mentions to face main character against his opposing antonym. The double negative of her situation… Breaking the laws of grammar but not the laws of narrative… And that’s a bad joke, I know.

    EXPLAINED THROUGH STICKS AND CIRCLES[2]


    And not, this ain’t any funny drawing in which two circles are side aside a stick. This is a Mexican idiom to express «to explain thoroughly with graphic examples if needed».

    So, we have the classical boy meets girl. Both pair of parents hate the other… A family feud of death and bigotry. Yes, THAT PLOT. Ronald B. Tobias explains [20 master plots] how this is old and no longer possible… Times have changed and parents barely pay attention if you woe a goat, so long you woe something. Unless we talk Indian-Muslim characters, J—dorama [ドラマ] or K-durama [aha the Romanization should be ‘do’ but 드라마…] An Ukrainian girl and a Russian guy?[3].

    Hence, how do we have our characters to be apart and different?

    TO BE CONTINUED

    [1] In the original entry time, I was unable to cook the simplest rice whilst talking of cooking terms. Now I can. Yupi!

    [2] In the day I learnt such an expression is not used in South America. My Argentinean Korean learner colleague couldn’t misunderstand me more about Mozart and his sexuality when I said Mozart for me needed to be explained through sticks and circles —due to my ignorance. Or to say it better, Mozart for me, needs getting into the weeds of explanation before I even dare to start liking his craft.

    [3] No, I’m not using my poor taste here. I’m showing you how this antagonistic kind of force lies very far away from most of us… My country didn’t even go to the Korean war, officially.

  • Up to chapter 15: Why to discuss firsthand the obvious fact?

    Seamless lace floral pattern

    MOVIES ARE NOT THE SAME AS NOVELS

    Well, Mr. Robert McKee writes something in chapter 15 of Story (back then I had no idea) he should had long before.

    Movies are different to novels[1] — fortunately for me, the book has proved useful itself[2] in spite of this small truth.

    Is it clear? I mean, movies have actors and novels don’t — read it aloud in a smart alecky a… You know voice.  Not so much. The basics or narrative building up for both cases is not as clearly different as one could muster up[3]. The media is different, thus the techniques differ. However, narrative has its own particular ideas about herself.

    Hence fore, the differences are technical and related to the inherent possibilities and limitations of each media without excluding the only two possible outcomes: it is rather well done or badly done. And the reason how a good book can end up being a bad movie. The off voices, flashbacks and explanations should or should not be there according to such limitations and possibilities. The limitations are the key cues to use or not to use something. Yet, that’s not the important matter.

    PHILOSOPHY VS ACTION

    Whilst McKee says novels are the mental door to the character’s mind; which offers us the entrance to philosophical deranging, movies are to be PURE ACTION. [I never stood on my toes wondering when was he to mention this difference]. For Robert, this is so painfully obvious; the matter is not to be mentioned until he realizes he has to speak about adaptation. And only due to the difficulties of adapting and the need to expose his ideas or tips on it; otherwise he wouldn’t have mentioned it.

    I mean, such a difference is BASIC ENOUGH for us to notice… Such as the difference between reality and fiction… And for anyone who has watched The matrix, the difference is not so obvious. Not because we believe in the machines using us as batteries. BUT because we are aware of the things a mind can do. There’s schizophrenia out there [not to say Alz]. A mind can blurry the difference easily. We don’t know how the mind does REALLY WORK to claim reality and fiction are just plainly two separate things altogether just like that because it is obvious. Yes, it is obvious but only until someone does point it out and wonders. Lately there are historians wondering if History is truly a separated thing from narrative and discovering the Law is a pretty useful way of using narrative.


    WHY THE OBVIOUS HAS TO BE DISCUSSED PRIORLY




    Thus, such a basic obvious fact needs to be discussed in order for us to notice and not waste our time following tips or ideas just to discover later, we’re not aware of the media’s strengths and weaknesses.

    You don’t write a movie the same way you write a novel despite it being quite difficult not to learn how to, by reading novels when you’re a scriptwriter and watching movies as a novel writer. Movies envy novels and novels envy movies.



    The difference is the spotlight. Movies have spotlights for the main characters whilst they lack the inherent interest in the internal mechanisms of the mind a novel might have. And I won’t say HAS. Some novels are not at all exemplary in terms of elaborated thoughts. It’s impossible to compare the guy with a killing permit by her majesty to Milan Kundera. Kundera can pull a deux ex machine out and still leave us unsatisfiedly happy.

    Vice versa, I won’t say novels can’t be action. The thing is, we see the action in the movie. We don’t care about what’s going on internally by listening to the thinking since we SEE it (or listen to it) and believe we have access to the thinking through the actions. Novels are… for a different nation altogether. Yes, imagination. And for this difference, I think it is best you listen to Hilary Mantel in Adaptation than my nonsensing.

    Do you like nonsense? Share it, tear it apart, squeeze it, comment. This blog is not me alone. It features you too. Pasto kalo.



    The difference is the spotlight. Movies have spotlights for the main characters whilst they lack the inherent interest in the internal mechanisms of the mind a novel might have. And I won’t say HAS. Some novels are not at all exemplary in terms of elaborated thoughts. It’s impossible to compare the guy with a killing permit by her majesty to Milan Kundera. Kundera can pull a deux ex machine out and still leave us unsatisfiedly happy.

    Vice versa, I won’t say novels can’t be action. The thing is, we see the action in the movie. We don’t care about what’s going on internally by listening to the thinking since we SEE it (or listen to it) and believe we have access to the thinking through the actions. Novels are… for a different nation altogether. Yes, imagination. And for this difference, I think it is best you listen to Hilary Mantel in Adaptation than my nonsensing.



    Do you like nonsense? Share it, tear it apart, squeeze it, comment. This blog is not me alone. It features you too. Pasto kalo.

    [1] What can I do if I live under a mushroom? It’s not my fault the guy writes a book as if everybody does know he is a famous script writer or script writing teacher. I’ve never seen his name on any credits. I usually pay attention when the credits have the phrase «Based in the book Y by J’ in case the book is any good.

    [2] Specially when writing new entries for this nonsense of a blog

    [3] The usual division in three acts, dialogues, the «show never tell» rule, focalization through POV, information manipulation…

    Cuentos escritos a máquina Uno para cada mes

  • Why to show ONLY the tip of the iceberg when writing?

    hand holding cup of vanilla ice cream
    Photo by DS stories on Pexels.com

    CHARACTERS DRIVE THE PLOT

    In the line of sharing the same idea about writing, Sarah Domet (90 days to your novel) and Chuck Wending think the characters are the makers of the plot and its primary source. The smartphone’s Android (or whatever the name your smartphone system has[1]).

    A well defined character will jump out from page and do unexpected. Memorable things.

    <<Style and tone and voice reflect your character’s intellect, personality, and mood. Even setting is determined in large part by your character. Where does he or she choose to live? What do her home and surroundings say about her? Does her bedroom have black lights and psychedelic posters or ornately framed original artwork and a bowl of cinnamon potpourri? These decisions are reflective of character, too>>

    Sarah Domet, Day 3 in 90 days to your novel.

    WHO DISAGREES?

    As usual, there’s the one who might not agree with the idea. Patricia Higsmith [last entry about Mermaids in the Sahara], would advice us adding disparity to make our plot more complex and exotic (this last one word, exotic, is my own way to make it sound like the Caribbean instead of a holiday toasting yourself in your own roof).

    In Domet’s point of view, it is personality which has them living and going, choosing and reacting to situations and in Highsmith’s; it is the environment which forces them ladies to scream, to semi quote something Martk Twain supposedly said and only semi quote since I’m more interested in quoting Hemingway (though I’m not a fan of him):

    “If a writer of prose knows enough about what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows, and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of the iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. The writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing.”

    Ernest Hemingway

    That’s interesting but never absolute. Some stories never tell themselves completely to us. They like to keep the mystery or we might strip them out of it in our inexperience. And stories, they choose their writer the same way cats choose.

    TO BE CONTINUED

    [1] …. I know Android has different versions and I know that smartphone in particular has its own controller but sincerely speaking, that smartphone is a serious case of over narrative. Narrative moves the world. But it also should be limited by something and that something starts with my negative to paint it as the wonder. It is, yes, a great smartphone but not the only great one. I respect much more Chinese brands doing their thing for a lot less money. And yes, they’re the menace of the market but who can blame them? They were forced to buy opium… Are we being forced to buy anything?

  • ¡Al ataque mis valientes! Ah, que era un chiste


    ¿El primer requisito de la comedia? Tener algo en contra de la sociedad o algún grupo en particular.

    ¿El río está sucio? Digamos que el río Mork es casi sólido. ¿Nos disgusta el uso snob de los sombreros? Hagamos burla de ellos sacándolos de una cabeza completamente abollados. Al menos, esto es lo que es la comedia para Robert McKee. Un ataque frontal y desencantado pero con mucha salsa picosita que nos distrae de la decepción del idealista frustrado que la escribió, hacia aquellas cosas que algún sujeto —ya mencionado; desearía que fueran mejores pero no lo serán nunca…

    O tal vez, la comedia nos hace reflexionar mejor de lo que reflexionamos jamás ante un artículo de denuncia/drama sensible y cursi (veo dramas coreanos…no puedo arrojar la primera piedra). También, podría darse el caso que estos idealistas frustrados primero deberían dejar su cuarto prístino e impecable antes de meterse a salvadores del mundo. Si uno no puede mantener un ecosistema tan frágil como un dormitorio —con un escritorio a rebosar de cachivaches…es que no puede pretender hacerse cargo de las finanzas del mundo libre o de su ecología.

    La comedia es aquello que nos hace falta para librarnos de las tensiones mientras que sus creadores buscan cambiar el mundo. Según McKee, los críticos odian la comedia porque es imposible criticarla. O nos reímos o no nos reímos…y eso me recuerda el caso Dios mío pero que te hemos hecho.

    Que es una película que mi madre y yo empezamos a ver en un autobús . No llevábamos ni cinco minutos cuando todo el autobús ya sabía que alguien se carcajeaba en los asientos delanteros…por desgracia la comenzamos a una media hora o así de llegar a destino. Al buscarla más tarde para terminar de verla, me encontré con una de las críticas más ridículas que he leído (104 millones de dólares recaudados en su país de origen).

    El crítico decía que ya vistos a ello y puesto que las hermanas…Verneuil se habían casado con un judío, un árabe y un chino siendo hijas de franceses católicos. ¿Por qué no la cuarta hermana hubiera llegado con alguien blanco, católico, de buena familia y con una profesión pero mujer lesbiana para rematar?

    Para mí la respuesta era fácil, toda la historia tenía como idea controladora el racismo y no hay nada más racista que despreciar a alguien católico, bien parecido y trabajador (aunque actor) solo porque no tiene el mismo color que uno. Así que…sí, la comedia puede verse criticada.

    ¿Qué hace diferente a la comedia del drama? Además de ser un ataque a golpes de pollo de hule a las instituciones sociales… ¿Está excluida de las reglas de la narración? No del todo. La diferencia está en que es más relajada en cuanto a las escenas inútiles.

    ¿Te acuerdas lo que dice Sarah Domet con respecto a las escenas? Por si no lo recuerdas; ninguna escena de la cual no sepas cuál es su propósito dentro de tu historia, deberá ser eliminada desde antes de escribir la historia. No se pierde el tiempo con ellas.

    En la comedia…esa regla no aplica como guillotina. Al menos no con el 88.88% de la historia; matemáticas aplicadas (regla de tres) a 90 minutos de película de los hermanos Marx según lo cuenta McKee. Yo nunca…pongamos que él nunca es condicional porque no recuerdo, he visto una película de los hermanos Marx así que no lo sé.

    Tendría que ser algo muy pero muy genial para sobrevivir con solo ese 11.11% restante de narrativa convencional. Por otra parte, tengo una idea de que se trata esto de las escenas sin ningún propósito. En Love advice from the Duke of Hell, hay escenas que no tienen ninguna relación en concreto con la trama y sin embargo, son deliciosas. Un pulpo gigante de un solo ojo sirviendo el té a las puertas del infierno está fuera de conexión con cualquier momento del resto de la trama.

    Eso es todo sobre la comedia según McKee. Pasto kalo. Se feliz.

  • Estilo de vida: te volverás un mentiroso

    Sí, así es como no se ve un escritor…

    Literalmente. Palabra. Aunque no en tus relaciones más cercanas. Tampoco te convertirás en un ser despreciable que mienta por razones personales como: ganar un caso en la corte, alcanzar un escaño en el senado o re-estructurar la deuda financiera de una empresa tocando fondos de pensiones; jurando que no existe otro modo.

    Más bien, vas a mentir a lo largo del día…o mejor dicho, a lo largo de tu historia.

    Puesto que tu misión, si decides aceptarla, consiste en: HACERNOS CREER. Viene con el oficio.

    Y mentir, necesita imaginación.

    Cómo sabes, la imaginación consiste en ver lo que no está allí, según la hermosa definición de Monte Wildhorn, el personaje escritor de la película The Magic of Belle Isle. Robert McKee menciona que debes hacer que las personas manden al diablo su incredulidad y te presten atención usando la empatía. No importa si es una historia realista o de fantasía, en el momento en el que alguien se pregunte cómo está construida la historia la credibilidad se va por el caño y con la credibilidad se va la empatía.

    Mentir es, en palabras de Kinsey Millhone aunque no abriré una cita pues esto viene de memoria y mi memoria (como todas las memorias humanas) es falible. Para ser convincente al mentir se debe contar tres cuartas partes de la verdad y el restante, del embuste.

    Wendig indica que es conducir al lector dándole tres hecho comprobables con un cuarto hecho probable o posible según los datos anteriores.

    Lo que nos lleva al terreno más apasionante de la escritura: la investigación…¿o será la parte menos interesante?

    Por lo pronto, lávense las manos al regresar a casa y tóquense la cara lo menos posible. Hoy me parece que la cuarentena está causando estragos en mí. De por sí no salgo más que una vez a la semana…mentira…mentira…dos veces. Una para las compras de la alacena y la otra para ir a clase de costura.

    La clase de costura es no sólo el club en dónde hablo con personas que comparten mi gusto por la ropa sino el mini-lab donde escucho cómo hablan y se comunican las personas y donde aprendí a perseverar hasta terminar una prenda…digo cuento. Las dos cosas. Primero fue una prenda y luego me dije…bueno sí puedo terminar una prenda completa en dos meses cosiendo tres horas a la semana…¿por qué no escribir una novela?

  • Plagia # 10: El personaje, el elemento adictivo

    Plagia # 10: El personaje, el elemento adictivo

    ¿Adictivo? Si,  adictivo. Chuck Wendig resume el personaje de la forma más deliciosa posible. Los llama droga.


    ¿Y cómo cocinar/elaborar/manufacturar este opiáceo maravilloso?
    Pues hay varias formas. No las conozco todas y es posible que no tenga la menor idea de como hacerlo.  Lo que planeo hacer es describir las que he visto o leído. Dependerá de ti aplicarlas lo mejor posible.

    Si buscas ser dibujante de cómic es posible hayas visto una forma de crearlos en algún manga. La  más sencilla. Que consiste en hacer de tu personaje un tipo. ¿Tipo? Si, para los japoneses,  chinos y coreanos (por si no lees manga/mahnwa/manhua) la personalidad está determinada por el tipo de sangre y por si la persona es masoquista o sádica.


    Los mangakas en ocasiones incluyen un apartado donde explican (si el personaje asiste o no a la escuela es relevante): tipo de sangre,  comida favorita,  cumpleaños,  materia favorita en la escuela,  marca de ropa, mascota, chat-rooms que frecuentan,  nivel de sadismo o masoquismo.

    Lo que en realidad resulta un tanto vacuo según Ronald B. Tobias, pues un tipo no es un personaje,  al citar a F. Scott Fitzgerald:

    “Begin with an individual and you find that you have created a type,” –Empieza con un individuo y te encontrarás con que has creado un tipo – “begin with a type and you find that you have created—nothing.” –empieza con un tipo y te econtrarás con que has creado…nada.

    En mi opinión desautorizada,  el personaje es algo que resulta CONTRADICTORIO.
    Algo así como los ogros según Shrek. En apariencia sencillamente gruñones y violentos pero con muchas capas por debajo. Y cuando las arrancas descubres la complejidad bajo ellas.

    Hablando de la complejidad, Wendig dice debe aparecer conforme vas avanzando en la historia y no antes.  El personaje debe ser engañosamente simple al principio.

    Tanto él como Libbie Hawker y Cathy Birch concuerdan que un personaje debe tener sus bemoles o fallas . No puede ser perfecto…o a lo mejor si. Casi. No por nada la serie de Eggnoid (a mi parecer se pueden aprender dos o tres cosas sobre escribir analizando las fallas de otros así como sus aciertos ) es popular en estos momentos en Webtoon. Del mismo modo que James Bond fue vigente durante un tiempo, siempre igual. Explotando nuestra admiración e imaginación frente a un ideal que nos resulta imposible cumplir en nuestra propia piel; pero que se queda con la chica guapa de turno o con el super galán de alma hermosa para toda la vida (si esos existieran nadie leería este tipo de cosas ni vería doramas coreanos…y lo digo por experiencia) .

    Sin embargo,  Robert McKee habla de la complejidad y evolución del personaje como algo que nos mantendrá atentos y convertirá una película en algo más que un simple estreno  veraniego. Es Kinsie Millhone (Sue Grafton.  El alfabeto del crimen) conduciendo un vocho que parece un cuarto adolescente y  comiendo comida chatarra pero entrenando diligentemente su cuerpo con toda la disciplina de la que es incapaz para limpiar su auto.  Sólo porque debe escapar constantemente de los tipos malos.
    Ahora si,  para finalizar el post de hoy. Aunque es posible que la solución de Cathy Birch (una tabla de 10×10 casillas) te resulte engorrosa pues a veces el hámster no da para mucho. Sin embargo a mi me ha resultado útil para saber cómo funciona un personaje determinado. En especial un maldito vampiro que se rehúsa a decir palabra.  Pero esa… la publico la próxima vez.