The Seven Basic Plots

[MikeKardec]

As long as I'm giving mini reviews and critiques of books about writing, here's another one.

Christopher Booker's The Seven Basic Plots is an amazing and somewhat controversial piece of work. He tracks the evolution of story through the development of human culture. From The Epic of Gilgamesh to Terminator II and beyond; looking at the presentation of history as an aspect of how our mind's process story as reality. It's is a highly valuable tool in understanding writing, either as a writer or a reader. As a writer and editor I have found it to be unsurpassed.

BUT ...

Although it is written in very plain language it's a hefty tome. I described it to some of my friends as "a career." Booker's position on MANY subjects (certain psychological theories and much else) must be accepted as a given or the thing would have to be much longer and would take forever to make any point at all. You may not agree with all of it, but agreement is meaningless; you read a book like this for what YOU get out of it, not slavishly accepting everything we assume the author may have intended.

I find that the value in a work like this is in what it makes me THINK, not whether it is empirically "right" or not. This book made me think A LOT. I developed my own theories, I felt my mind had been opened in remarkable ways. Not all of those ways were because I agreed with him. If you don't push back even a little your mind is not utterly engaged.

It is at times somewhat arrogantly worded (though I'm not sure it was always intentional); he discusses some works commenting that they are "flawed," meaning they do not fit his model ... his assumption seems to be that this model of the historic development of literature is utterly correct and perfect in every way rather than an interesting yet not utterly consistent pattern in the general flow of literature. Averaged over 10,000 years, I think if you capture the "flow" you are doing pretty good, and he is definitely doing pretty good. If you accept that he is saying that the "flawed" works are simply outliers to his theory and press on you can learn a lot. He has what may be seen as a "traditional" point of view regarding literature and other subjects but in a work about the evolution of storytelling from the virtual beginning of time, tradition counts for quite a bit.

He makes some good points, some feel like moralizing ... some are possibly legitimately moralizing. Again, it doesn't matter, the events he notes are significant no matter what value you put on them. Much of his discussion of "Waiting For Godot" MAY have been criticism as it emerged from his word processor (or typewriter!) however, I could EASILY read it as commending the play for brilliantly identifying issues at large in the culture at the time ... his point is clear but his opinion is not ... and MY opinion (high praise for Godot) was built entirely on his observations. Regardless of the author's intention, be it Booker or Beckett, the theory tells us something.

There are places where the examination falls short, again there must be or this work, which took 30 years to complete, would remain perpetually unfinished. He fails to take into consideration the fact that much of the work he discusses prior to the Romantic Period was not "commercial writing;" the author wasn't working for a paycheck, a fact that motivates many writers to put out work that isn't as completely "cooked" as material that they have revisited several times over a decade or so. Movies are examined but an aspect never discussed (by this author or most members of the entertainment press) is the influence of several levels of creative executives all submitting both intelligent and idiotic ideas to the writers ... ideas that cannot be ignored (because these executives are the final authority at the studio).

Also not considered (and most important!) is the fact that many of the more traditional stories discussed in this book were told for many years before being written down, then were told more times and written down again and again. Each time they dipped into the well of the unconscious, becoming more and more distilled ... this is very different than a modern novel which is often written over a limited time frame, rewritten over a more limited time frame and then rushed into print. The modern work runs the risk of being less purely refined than a work in existence hundreds or thousands of years before it's modern incarnation. It is slightly possible that someday in the far future the recent film version of Beowolf will be considered 'the original,' it certainly has many of the features of 'classical' literature. However, it is a distinct, wonderful, and inaccurate reworking of what we know to be the story ... and the TRUE original might have been very different yet.

All that said, The Seven Basic Plots is a great work. It is SO good that no one needs to agree with its every point for it to be the learning experience of a lifetime. This book's successes and failures are simply food for yet MORE creative thought. It's a big book with small type but if you have the time and an open mind you too can read it, learn from it, agree and disagree with it.

It is not a How-To sort of book but it has informed how I did what I do for nearly 20 years and I refer to it constantly as I work on new and different projects.

 

[belfastboy]

As long as I'm giving mini reviews and critiques of books about writing, here's another one.

Christopher Booker's The Seven Basic Plots is an amazing and somewhat controversial piece of work. He tracks the evolution of story through the development of human culture. From The Epic of Gilgamesh to Terminator II and beyond; looking at the presentation of history as an aspect of how our mind's process story as reality. It's is a highly valuable tool in understanding writing, either as a writer or a reader. As a writer and editor I have found it to be unsurpassed.

BUT ...

Although it is written in very plain language it's a hefty tome. I described it to some of my friends as "a career." Booker's position on MANY subjects (certain psychological theories and much else) must be accepted as a given or the thing would have to be much longer and would take forever to make any point at all. You may not agree with all of it, but agreement is meaningless; you read a book like this for what YOU get out of it, not slavishly accepting everything we assume the author may have intended.

I find that the value in a work like this is in what it makes me THINK, not whether it is empirically "right" or not. This book made me think A LOT. I developed my own theories, I felt my mind had been opened in remarkable ways. Not all of those ways were because I agreed with him. If you don't push back even a little your mind is not utterly engaged.

It is at times somewhat arrogantly worded (though I'm not sure it was always intentional); he discusses some works commenting that they are "flawed," meaning they do not fit his model ... his assumption seems to be that this model of the historic development of literature is utterly correct and perfect in every way rather than an interesting yet not utterly consistent pattern in the general flow of literature. Averaged over 10,000 years, I think if you capture the "flow" you are doing pretty good, and he is definitely doing pretty good. If you accept that he is saying that the "flawed" works are simply outliers to his theory and press on you can learn a lot. He has what may be seen as a "traditional" point of view regarding literature and other subjects but in a work about the evolution of storytelling from the virtual beginning of time, tradition counts for quite a bit.

He makes some good points, some feel like moralizing ... some are possibly legitimately moralizing. Again, it doesn't matter, the events he notes are significant no matter what value you put on them. Much of his discussion of "Waiting For Godot" MAY have been criticism as it emerged from his word processor (or typewriter!) however, I could EASILY read it as commending the play for brilliantly identifying issues at large in the culture at the time ... his point is clear but his opinion is not ... and MY opinion (high praise for Godot) was built entirely on his observations. Regardless of the author's intention, be it Booker or Beckett, the theory tells us something.

There are places where the examination falls short, again there must be or this work, which took 30 years to complete, would remain perpetually unfinished. He fails to take into consideration the fact that much of the work he discusses prior to the Romantic Period was not "commercial writing;" the author wasn't working for a paycheck, a fact that motivates many writers to put out work that isn't as completely "cooked" as material that they have revisited several times over a decade or so. Movies are examined but an aspect never discussed (by this author or most members of the entertainment press) is the influence of several levels of creative executives all submitting both intelligent and idiotic ideas to the writers ... ideas that cannot be ignored (because these executives are the final authority at the studio).

Also not considered (and most important!) is the fact that many of the more traditional stories discussed in this book were told for many years before being written down, then were told more times and written down again and again. Each time they dipped into the well of the unconscious, becoming more and more distilled ... this is very different than a modern novel which is often written over a limited time frame, rewritten over a more limited time frame and then rushed into print. The modern work runs the risk of being less purely refined than a work in existence hundreds or thousands of years before it's modern incarnation. It is slightly possible that someday in the far future the recent film version of Beowolf will be considered 'the original,' it certainly has many of the features of 'classical' literature. However, it is a distinct, wonderful, and inaccurate reworking of what we know to be the story ... and the TRUE original might have been very different yet.

All that said, The Seven Basic Plots is a great work. It is SO good that no one needs to agree with its every point for it to be the learning experience of a lifetime. This book's successes and failures are simply food for yet MORE creative thought. It's a big book with small type but if you have the time and an open mind you too can read it, learn from it, agree and disagree with it.

It is not a How-To sort of book but it has informed how I did what I do for nearly 20 years and I refer to it constantly as I work on new and different projects.

Thank you Mike for another of your stellar postings. I am between projects and will pick this book up, read or at least start to read before I start my next.

 

[MikeKardec]

I wish I'd thought of this as I was writing the above:

The book is sort of like the archeology of story, how the psychology of story has evolved from the days when human challenges were mostly external 'til today when they are often internal. At the same time it is a vastly convenient way of looking at Plot or Genre. He defines the "Comedy Plot" as one that while not necessarily funny has certain elements, such as a rebellion against harsh father figure, hidden identities and is about the father figure and the hero coming to an understanding.

Comedy and tragedy are more sophisticated "plots" than say, "overcoming the monster" (the oldest plot; the monster standing in for the unpredictable aspects of nature). Comedy and tragedy reflect civilization's effect on man, they are about getting along with difficult people and understanding our enemies or those we consider evil ... understanding

It's really WILD when you discover that you wrote stories that exactly fit these parameters (unconsciously) and then found yourself reading and learning about them. Highly convincing that these things are hard wired into our brains or lurk in the collective unconscious. I remember having a story conference where I referred to a script I was working on as a "comedy" and scaring the heck out of the producers, who thought they were going to end up paying a madman to write their quite dramatic Western. But as we talked I convinced them that all the traditional (as in Greek/Shakespearean) elements of a comedy were hidden in our story and we would be making a better film if we were aware of them.*

"Tragedy" is also a "plot" or genre he examines. In his classical definition it is not a story that is sad but any story told from the point of view of the villain. Macbeth would be a good example. These stories always have a traditional hero who is the opposition to the tragic protagonist of the story. This would be Macduff in Macbeth.

If you use Breaking Bad as an example, I believe it erred in not having Hank (the DEA agent brother in law) end Walter's life or career. Walter White is an absolutely classic tragic protagonist as in seduced by the dark side. His opposition is Hank who, though introduced as a buffoon, is slowly revealed to be brave and honest and vulnerable and caring. That slow reveal invests you heavily in Hank, you love him because you were allowed to discover he's a good guy (which a tragedy gives you time to do because the "hero" is not the protagonist). Therefore the ultimate "obligatory scene" in Breaking Bad is Hank triumphing over "Heisenberg" (Walter) the faceless drug king pin he has been chasing for years.

That insight comes from reading The Seven Basic Plots. Breaking Bad is not covered in it (The Seven Basic Plots having been completed prior to the series being made) but it definitely informed my thinking about the show and taught me how to look at that sort of story in a clearer way.

* Don't try this at home! Saying ANYTHING odd to a film producer or executive is like taking your life in your hands. Chances are they 1) won't let you explain before they decide to fire you, 2) will define your explanation as MORE reason to not bother to listen to you, ie. you become a guy who "thinks too much" and therefore can't be trusted, or makes them feel stupid (they usually aren't but they are ALWAYS afraid someone will think they are). I was young and naive and have learned my lesson. I now remain sphinx-like when around those in power. I shut up and let the work I do speak for itself.