Re: Bickham, _Scene and Structure_

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:45:18 GMT, Glenda P
<DELETECAPS.gj52am89@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>R. L. wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:29:22 -0600, "Patricia C. Wrede"
>> <pwrede6492@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>"R. L." <see-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:m396o1t62k5liquso1g1etu1vcitue8a8u@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:46:03 -0600, "Patricia C. Wrede"
>>>> <pwrede6492@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>[...]
>>>> What you were telling Catja about internalizations needing to be response
>>>> *to something* is one of his major points (under the clunky term
>>>> Stimulus/Internalization/Response), and he gives lots and lots of clear
>>>> short examples. I was riffing off that in the parody you and Catja
>>>> perversely liked, about the bat flickering the candle.
>>
>> Well, my parody was pretty far out, actually.
>>
>>
>>>See, this is the thing -- *every* time somebody who likes Bickham and finds
>>>him useful starts talking about how this or that is what he said and it
>>>sounds very reasonable, and I go looking for that bit in the book, it's not
>>>there.
>>
>> Fascinating!
>>
>>
>>> There's plenty of stuff about stimulus/internalization/response, but
>>>what *he* means by it is, near as I can tell, something completely
>>>different, or at least much more limited, than what the people who like him
>>>are getting out of it. His rather specialized meaning is certainly not what
>>>I meant when I was talking to Catja.
>>
>> Well, I don't have his books, I didn't like any of them enough to buy. So I
>> don't have one to quote offhand. But it would sure be worth putting some of
>> his Stimulus/Internalizaton/Response stuff and yours side by side, if I
>> can find some relevant excerpts from him online. Of course I may have
>> misunderstood yours. But I wouldn't call his advice on that 'specialized',
>> he said it's needed just about everywhere (and I agree, about SIRs).
>>
>I have a copy of _Scene and Structure_. Let's see if I can find a
>reasonably concise portion to quote. OK, it's going to have to be bits
>and pieces. All of this comes from Chapter 3, Structure in Microcosm:
>Cause and Effect.
>
>"Stimulus and response are cause and effect made more specific and
>immediate."
>
>" - Stimulus must be external--that is, action or dialogue, something
>that could be witnessed if the transaction were on the stage.
> - Response must also be external in the same way.
> - For every stimulus, you must show a response.
> - For every desired response, you must provide a stimulus.
> - Response usually must follow stimulus at once.
> - When response to stimulus is not logical on the surface, you must
>ordinarily explain it."

Ok, maybe someone could get me for applying this to Catja's
internalizations, since there it's the 'Response' that's too obvious to
bother to show.

What I got from Bickham was all of the above, applying to the whole 3-part
set, Stimulus/Internalization/Response. That they all had to more or less
be there (unless obvious) and in some 'grammatical' order.

Actually I'm sure he did say that about all three somewhere. I remember
quotes about 'a fact and a feeling in every sentence/paragraph/whatever'.
Also, he gave a lot of examples of the ordering. Sort of like dominoes, not
the ones that fall down[1] but the actual game, where the domino you put
out has to match the end of the one you're attaching it to. He said speech
should be answered with speech, action with action, emotion (body
langauge/internalization) with same.

Something like:

"Let's make up," Frank sneered, holding out his hand.
She struck down the hand. "I'll never see you again!" she pouted.
Laughing, Frank held out his hand again, with a 20-dollar bill in it.
"What, never?"
"Well, hardly ever."


>"[W]here the stimulus-response transaction is complicated, we must keep
>things clear for the reader by showing him the character's
>internalization--the feeling-thought process that goes between the
>stimulus and the response."
>
>"[S]imple transactions, of course, don't need an explanation...But the
>internalization process always takes place, and when things are
>complicated, you may need to remember that the pattern of every
>stimulus-response transaction--in deepest reality--is:
> STIMULUS-INTERNALIZATION-RESPONSE
>The rule being that you present the internalization to the reader...when
>necessary to make an otherwise superficially incredible transaction
>understandable and credible."
>
>Example:
>
>" (stimulus) 'Nancy,' the chairman said, 'we have decided to make you a
>vice president of the firm!'
> (response) 'Oh no!' Nancy said. 'How could I have such bad luck!'
>...
>What went wrong? Of course! The internalization that would explain
>Nancy's strange response has been omitted. (It's amazing how often
>writers assume that the transaction is clear when it is as puzzling as
>this one.)
>...
> (stimulus) 'Nancy,' the chairman said, 'we have decided to make you a
>vice president of the firm!'
> (internalization) Nancy reeled with shock. She had come to this
>meeting expecting a demotion. Instead, they were offering her the job
>she had always dreamed of. But only an hour ago she had signed on with
>Acme Co., and could not go back on that contract. Just when she had
>everything she had ever wanted in her grasp, she had to leave Zilch
>Corp.
> (response) 'Oh no!' Nancy said. 'How could I have such bad luck!'"


Well, Bickham gave some bad examples of this, because in TT Nancy should
have been Shown signing at Acme. I think it comes up in a lot of action
scenes, tho.... JAD's with the burning orc comes to mind, tho I'm vague on
specifics.



[1] especially fun at masquerades


--
RL at houseboatonstyx com (insert one 'the')

For some reason not seeing all the posts lately.
.