Symbolism and is it Bullshit?

"Some times a cigar is only a cigar."~Sigmund Frued

So what is symbolism and is it bullshit? The problem with symbolism is that it is very complex, comes in many forms or levels, and most English classes barely cover it* (and when they do they do so poorly).

Is It Bullshit
and if it was an effective symbol wouldn't we already get it and not have to read or think to find out what they mean?

No, here is why -

When we see the McDonald's Golden Arches we know that they stand for McDonald's a fast food franchise; but it also stands for Capitalism, Gluttony, American Obesity and Poor Health Standards, and/or Western Commercial Imperialism (if you're into that sort of thing). Now some might say this is just a logo and a far cry from the sort of subliminal messages that are supposed to be laden in literature; things like phallic swords drawn, cigars waving in peoples faces and such.

Yes, it is not the most obscure symbol but it is a start.  Everyone today may recognize all of the symbolism laden in a McDonald's sign but when people in a thousand years look back will they know it or will they have to look it up? Now that we have established that things can represent other things and that we don't always know what those things are, lets dive in.

(There are traditionally three levels of symbolism but I am going to give you four, because I am a Spinal Tap fan this list goes to zero†.)

Level 0
Not traditionally considered part of literary symbolism but there is an underlying strata of metaphor that we use ever day and I think it's really really cool.

This is the level people play at when they are being profound or trippy or just confusing. This level is so hardwired in that many people loose sight of the fact that these things are metaphors and not real. The economy doesn't really go up and down, it increased and decreases in total worth, no altitude involved. You don't take the moral high ground, you take a position that is more defensible because it is considered 'good'; correction you don't actually take a "position" anywhere either.

Nothing actually dies when you kill time. (Except a little bit of your soul and self respect)

We have an amazing ability to understand that two things are alike when they have no literal likeness. This is incredibly useful because we humans handle all sorts of complex ideas ever day and can simplify them down to manageable symbols usually comparing our concepts to physical motions, actions, feelings, or spatial relations that can be processed by our more primitive brain parts. It lets us make words that represent things and ideas, and it lets us make writing that represents words.

They key to understanding symbolism is not just to understand these connections between the symbol and what it points to; but to also understand that it is just a metaphor, not literal. "A map represents the land but you can't build a house on it," as the saying goes.  This level is so basic most people never think of it and that provides an opportunity for mind fucks both big and small as well as being the basis of a lot of the most memorable forms of magic in the fantasy genre.

Level 1 - Universal Symbols‡
What Adolf Bastion called Elementargedanken, "basic ideas". This is the most esoteric and least agreed upon level. This is the realm of people like Sigmund Frued and Carl Jung. There are numerous interpretations of which symbols reside here; too many and too involved to cover here. I will recommend if you are interested in researching this level the works of Joseph Campbell who not only is genius but describes them in terms of narrative and story.

The idea of Universal Symbols is that there are some elements in all places, in all mythology, in all storytelling that are so pervasive across the Earth, appearing in every culture and every time, that they must have an underlying meaning important to who and what we are as humans.

Even more debated than what these symbols are is the their cause. It could be that some concepts are simply experienced by everyone, the concept of 'Mother' for example is understood by everyone. Even if someone never knew their mother they still knew everyone elses mother, still saw the concept of a mother in the real world. Or these symbols could be part of how our brain is wired and that we naturally process the world around us into the same sorts of narratives.

Some hypotheses however have given this level a bit of a poor reputation; a universal subconscious where all our minds connect, or racial genetic memory of past events. This makes great SciFi but they are not the simplest and most plausible theories based on what we know of how the world works and until their is evidence to support them you may wish to avoid them in academic settings.

Level 2 - Cultural Symbols
Or "Volkgedanken", This is the level where symbols only mean something within the culture. Like the McDonald's sign mentioned above. Much of what you learn when reading the classics is this.  All of the cultural baggage that is tied up in Hamlet seeing a ghost that has changed between then and now, or why going to a nunnery is such an insult.

These symbols are specific to one culture and one time, a Guy Fawkes mask today (anonymous hax0r2) is not what a Guy Fawkes mask was 10 years ago (a bad ass freedom fighter), which is not what it was before V came out (some silly ritual about burning straw men), which all is only loosely to do with the pro Catholic rebellion against the English Parliament a long while ago.

Level 3 - Personal Symbols
(Sorry couldn't find the cool german word for this =[ )
Personal symbols are the symbols that appeal to me, or you, or your teacher. Lets begin this section with a short rant...

If you are like me and have experienced the mixed blessing of the American higher education system then you have experienced the Personal Symbol level because in order to pass an English class you had to figure out what your teachers personal symbol was and then explain why everything was somehow related to it. The reason many people feel symbolism is bullshit is because all the symbolism they had to regurgitate WAS in fact BULLSHIT. No seriously, if you really think the Bible was trying to be about the Marxist dialectic or Shakespeare was exploring the changing role of feminism in the post modern life…

just give up,
at every thing;
...

Now, there is a cool side to this too. If someone finds meaningful personal symbolism in a piece of art that only makes the art better for them. Many personal symbols are layered on top of the lower levels which they tap into. A great piece of art can use the lower levels to be open enough to appeal to a wide variety of personal symbols (which is why great pieces keep getting reinterpreted by lousy college essays). And in a reverse, personal symbols used well can be added into your art to reach back towards the more universal symbol and it's wider audience.

For example; ants where a personal symbol of Salvador Dali based on a childhood experience with a dead bat. Most people seeing his painting don't see what he saw, they put their own meaning onto them, the personal is recast again and again. So long as the symbol stays open for reinterpretation it is a vibrant addition to any art piece.

Grey Areas
These levels are themselves a metaphor, things are often not so cut and dry. For example; the universal meaning of rainy weather, light, or darkness could be placed somewhere between 0 and 1.

There are many themes and stories that occur independently all over the world but only once a culture has developed a certain technological level (agriculture brings myths of gods who die and become their staple crop), or only cultures in certain terrains or regions (tropical areas have more life/death cycles and sacrifice themes; the norther regions and desserts had more war cults and hyper masculinity). These lay between the universal and the cultural.

Where do you place a personal twist on a cultural symbol?  Some one who hates the flag that was on their fathers casket, sees McDonald's as wonderful because it was the best their family could afford as a child, or hates the trapping of the religion they where raised in? These cultural themes become personal ones.

But What About...
How everything is supposed to be a penis and loving your mom?
That was Sigmund Freud who...

A) is very poorly represented today in only his most headline grabbing misinterpred fashion

and

B) had lots of issues (see: personal symbols) that he projected onto everyone else (see: claimed where universal).


* - At least in Amerrrica
† - Also a fan of 0, the most ground brakingly important number in the world.
‡ - To those who ask how we can know this level is real, people like Jung and Campbell spent their whole life studying cultures from all around the world and saw commonalities. No seriously these guys went and learned a shit ton about the world, and can lay it out pretty simply and clearly.  The basic premiss though is that there must be a root cause for why everyone in the world developed the concept of a lightning wielding sky father and not one developed the peach cobbler wielding god of

Shape of a Story - Dramatica

Plot by Fours

The book Dramatica (which I must admit I have only skimmed but it looks interesting and is on my to read short list*) describes the Shape of a Story in 4 parts... multiplied by some complications.

The basic story, it say, has four sign posts. These are very similar to the margins between Aristotle's three act story which I covered last week. The four signposts are-

1: The inciting incident
2: The complication
3: The climax
4: The resolution

but that isn't all. In Dramatica the whole plot follows these four signposts, but the main characters own growth also has four signposts that parallel the main stories. Also the "Impact Character" (the next to main character; whoever is most entangled with him be it the Villain, Lover, Mentor, Friend, or Whatever) also follows their own four signposts. Aaaaalllsssooo, the relationship between the main character and the impact character has it's four signposts. Got that? here

1: Overall Story
2: Main Character
3: Impact Character
4: Relationship between Main and Impact Characters

Last each signpost of those (4x4 = 16) sixteen signposts we have already covered has a mini arch of four signposts for a total of (4x4x4 = 64) sixty four signposts. make each a chapter wiggle that a bit so the story makes sense and doesn't just jump to the next signpost haphazardly and you have the structure of a novel ready set. Enjoy


* give me a break, I'm going in numerical order and 4 came up really quickly =/

Shape of a Story - Aristotle and Johakyu

Through out history many metaphors have been used to map a story. Almost all of these have had two things in common, being a visual metaphor allowing me to use lots of imgs and all of them breaking the story into some fixed number of stages allowing me to post them numerically. (YEAH FOR ORDER!)





Three Part Structure
"'ολον δε εστιν το εχον αρχην και μεσον και τελευτην"
"A whole is what has a beginning and middle and end"
~Aristotle

The oldest metaphor for the shape of a story is Aristotle's three act story. Generally only briefly mentioned in literature courses and ignored by writers entirely because it really doesn't help much to say a story has a beginning, middle, and end. It's like saying a line* is two points and everything in between; duh.

A quick google image search showed me that most representations of the three act story try to force more complex structures on to it to make more sense out of it and then arbitrary draw two lines and call it a three act story because that is what the course syllabus says. (did I mention I hate English courses ಠ_ಠ  )**






(img1: the three act story... in four acts| img2: three acts of math class with (count them) 4 parts | img3: oh look its mountain climbing again and the three acts are written in at the bottom with nearly no relation to the chart)***


The three act story was never really meant to be held up as a real metaphor for the shape of a story, it was a small comment by Aristotle in an otherwise great work. However the 3 act story is important because it inspired the later theories I will be going into, but there is one interesting fact in the three act story that I would like to call attention too which is the gaps between the acts. The pivotal turning points in the three act story, are the single take-away that I think is worth learning.

Between the Setup and the Quest is the heroes decision to go on the quest. The important moment where Luke looks at the burning remains of his home and family and says, "well fuck, lets go kick some empire ass old man." (what Lucas can ruin it and I can't?) If your hero doesn't have a point where he makes this decision then the story is not challenging enough to the hero who is probably a Marry Sue.

Between the Quest and the Conclusion lies the climax, the moment where the hero gets the skills, magic sword, triforce, or whatever and the tables turn, he starts winning. If you don't have this then your character was either not challenged enough to begin with, or only won by chance and didn't earn their victory. Either way their was probably no growth as a character. Calling the moment where a character gains power the climax and not the final show down with the boss might seem odd but this is because modern cinema has shied away from characters who grow for cardboard action heroes who just have to fight their way to the final fight of fightyness where they can finally, um, fight.

To give you some examples; this turning point is when the Rebel Alliance gets the Death Star's schematics. This is when Harry gets the sword of Gryffindor (in Deathly Hollows) learns how to destroy the Horcrux, reunites with Ron and stops moping in a tent (finally, thank god). This is just about every single power up in Link to the Past (the mirror was probably supposed to be the big turning point but for me it was the grappling hook, that thing was awesome)****

Johakyu
Jo - Beginning
Ha - Breaking/Scattering
Kyu - Rapid/Urgent

A similar three part structure comes from Japanese Noh Theater and depicts the same three stages. In Jo, the stage is set the characters are introduced including their setting and goals. The world is simple but the elements introduced are not in accord but neither have they clashed yet.

In Ha these different elements interact, conflicting and combining to seek a balanced state. This is the rising action of the story, the characters now interact and fight out their differences.

When a combination is found that will eventually result in harmony or resolution Kyu begins and the characters carry out their plans to the conclusion. Whether this harmony is the beautiful ending of a song, the final battle to defeat evil, or the tragic ending that clears away all of the players. This is the part where the die is cast, the hero is resolute, and the world is set on course to be restored to whatever status quo was disrupted at the beginning.

*line segment, stop bitchin math peeps (why are you here anyway?)
**also did I mention I love emoticons.
***we will be coming back to the mountain metaphor later, don't worry it comes from somewhere
****Multiple Climaxes, not just a myth ^_o

Show don't Tell - A Review

Any Questions?

Happy Mothers' Day

Hey, galumphing isnt a real word!

"He took his viral sword in hand:
long time the Manxwoman foe he sought!"

riiiiiiight, I'll let the reader interpret that as they wish.

For even weirder spell checking take a look at this.

Here Player Player Player

or
Please Dear God Follow the Story; pt2 - Incentives

Finishing my level grinding in the gaming world without agro'ing to many trolls. I am going to expound about how to incentivise you're players to follow you're plot. This is not as simple a thing as it sounds because the whole point of a game is free will, a trait that generally just gets in the way.











Default Incentives
First there are the two incentives of last resort, Nothing and Death.

1. Death: If you don't advance you die. Think pong if you didn't move you're paddle. This is effective and an excellent motivator for the player but you MUST remember to have some signifier that shows the player how much time he has left.




2. Nothing: Nothing happens until the player furthers the plot. If you where told, "Go to the castle of Darkumbrashine and slay Gilgal Murderkrieg, then no amount of any other action will further the plot until that is done.

The biggest pitfall to this approach is that you have to make VERY VERY VERY clear what that next action is.


Incentives with Nuance
Now the carrots that let you draw you're player along more willingly.

1. Achievements: There is a whole art and science to achievements that when used properly TURNS MORTALS INTO YOU'RE WILLING SLAVES! I'm not going to cover it all here but a few pointers are;

• Achievements keep people playing longer than they otherwise would.
• Great Achievements are difficult goals people will work hard (see: love you long time) to attain.
• Lesser Achievements are there to make people hungry for the Great Achievements. Pride in past achievements is nice and all but what you the game designer want is the player to crave the next more.

Of course achievements are not just an in game achievement but any reward that the player receives. Levels, gear, or even the bragging right to say, "I did Y in X time," are all achievements of a kind. However they must be a palpable thing that people can easily understand and appreciate, that is why high scores were so poor a motivator to most people; no one cares if they get one number or another, to them it was all the same.

2. Quests: The bread and butter of story, you simply tell the player what to do. "Go slay GilGore Murderkrieg VonKillingstein in the dungeon beneath Castle Blackpool Darknessberg." A good quest needs three things,

• clear instructions, (obtained from the peaks of Mt. To-Thepoint)
• a reward for doing it, (found in the swamp of 1337 1007 xors)
• a reason why it needs to be done, (seek this in the town of Giveafig)

3. Mystery: Last we come to mystery, possibly the most powerful motivator to man kind. The way mystery is built is by telling the player there is something to see/know/understand but not telling them what it is.

If for example you use any of the deterrents I mentioned in the last post, let the player see something beyond the wall that wets their appetite. For example the barriers in Link to the Past, someday you know you will be able to move them but for now you can only wonder what that little path you see may lead too. Even walls that will never be passed can give glimpses of the future, look at Portal and the many locked rooms with info videos playing, the recordings of from the past of how things lead to where you are, the scrolling on the wall hinting to more than the tests you run.  All things you yourself can never participate in but that make you curios for a plot beyond a mad AI.

Have NPC's hold conversations while the player eaves drops, these characters need not spell out who "The Boss" is, they already know. They are just having a casual conversation and the player must pick up the pieces.

Now there are two ways mysteries are often done, making the reader/player feel dumb* and making him feel smart. I recommend making him feel dumb* it is more sophisticated and actually an easier approach in games, making a player feel smart while highly affective in books is harder in a game and quite frankly infuriates me (even more so since I have to admit it still works on me.)

To make a reader feel smart one makes all of the information available and easy to deduce and then build drama off of the fact that the characters can't deduce it. If you ever read a book and went, "oh god why don't you just see the answer and we could be done by now!" then the book was making you feel smart. I say book because it's hard to pull off in a game.  I can think of no game that has done it without removing the players free will; this is because if you see the solution to the game early than you would naturally just finish the game early.

To make the reader feel dumb* one give lots of information (often so much they can't tell what is important and what isn't) and then the "detective" reveals conclusions based off of a deep almost prescient knowledge of human nature. (watch early columbo some time, the guy basically is all knowing and he just spends the episode gathering the proof). If you are ever left thinking, "If only I was a better judge of deception I would have known the butler wasn't the killer he was mearly hiding that he was the victims brother, and the senator Bob Bobberson didn't seem to have anything to gain by the death but I should have seen that he was BeeBee the silent partner in the company. It all makes sense now!" Then the writer is making you feel dumb*.

Last I shall mention to important little tips for making mystery:

• Layout all of the information before making the conclusion. No one hates a mystery solved with, "oh btw the crime lab says Gilgore Murderkrieg did it, next case." or "ah but I didn't tell you about these papers I found at the beginning but kept secret from everyone, even the reader." I am looking straight at you Aurthur Conan Doyle, (-_-) straight at you.
• Explain everything by the end. The death of a mystery happens when the reader/player says, "This writer is just making it up as he goes. I bet even he doesn't know why any of this happened!"

*Note: feeling dumb does not imply you are dumb. Generally the highest class of mysteries make their reader feel dumb because people who like to feel dumb are the kind of people who keep challenging themselves, it's a sign that your smart enough to put your brain to the really hard work while the stories that make the reader feel smart are catering to those who don't want to think as hard.