Chapter 3: Structure In THe Microcosm - Cause and Effect

Most writers look at form and structure in the context of a whole book, and also
non structural elements such as theme.

You need to understand larger structures, but *first* you need to understand how
(KEY) the same structural principiles work at a 'line by line' level.

In this context, we talk about

a. cause and effect
b. stimulus and response. (_ seems to be the application of cause and effect
to the 'line-by-line level' - what happens within a scene to the viewpoint
character)

you need to master *this* first, before thinking in terms of bigger structural
elements. (_ JB takes a bottom up approach).

Cause and Effect

What does cause and effect / effect and response have to do with the structure of
fiction?

*everything*.

in real life, accident, luck, coincidience and ficiton have a major role in
determining 'how things work out' in a person's life (_ and struggles).

Bad things happen to good people for no good reason, and vice versa. Real life
doesn't make much sense.

Such things *can* also happen in fiction, but (KEY) Fiction must make more sense
than real life.

e.g: in real life, someone can fall ill for no good reason, for no apparent cause.

In fiction the character (_ at least the main character, can't be sick for no
reason) would need to be shown to have been depressed or stressed, than walking
into an office or some where people were already sick - before the reader would
find this plot development believable.

To restate this differently - in fiction effects (== (KEY) plot developments) *must
have causes*, and vice versa.

If a character falls ill in the story (_ and this is a plot development, if not why
mention it at all?) then there must be a cause ( a raging epidemic, a magical
attack, whatever) ,who is overstressed, depressed etc, suppressing immunity.

(KEY) Much of the plotting work from chapter to chapter deals with this kind of
(KEY) juggling of events (_ setting up cause-effect chains, spanning story time) so
that one (_plot) event logically leads to another. Writers sweat buckets to figure
out *how to motivate* (cause) Priscilla to open that door (effect, but it is also a
cause that leads to) and what happens next. (_ Here it seems that first the plot
events are decided, then the 'cause-effect' build up happens as a separate phase)

In real life, blind luck has to be accepted because it is just there. X just
happened, period, but the fiction writer demands more credibility, so, you the
writer, have to set up the story in such a way that every cause you put in (_
effectively every plot development, even specific conversations?) have effects down
the line, and for every effect in the plot, you have to figure out a cause to
make that happen (_ what then is the 'first cause'!!).

Once you are good at this, as a writer (_ the good news is that) you can make
almost anything happen in your story (_but otoh) you have to figure out what
(_chain of causes) causes the effect you want (_e.g: Tyrion killing Tywin!).

once you have the cause (_ c1) for an effect (_that you want, e1) figured out tthe
next plotting step is simple, you just have to ask yourself "now that that has
happened, what does, it, in turn cause to happen?" (Iow C1 causes E1 then E1
becomes C2, what is now E2?) (_ alternatively perhaps cycle through the 'NPC's and
PCs will react to the effect, each in their own ways, as in Apocalypse World)

This kind of cause-and-effect planning and story presentation

1. helps the reader suspend disbelief, but also
2. shows a world where everything isn't just chaos and chance, offering the
reader hope (_ unlike the real world!) and giving him the message that the reader
can seize control of his own life , and sometimes good efforts can actually pay
off.

Look at every turn in the story - very event (_ including conversations and
other interactionS) and make sure ther is a cause for it.

(KEY) look for causes on which you may not have followed up with, for resulting
events.

e.g: a student story in which there was a bad storm one night, but when the
sun rose, no effects of the storm were visible anywhere in the story. could be
minor e.g: leaves and a broken tree branch on the lawn, comments by a character or
two on the aftermath etc.

It can be done briefly, but *it has to be done*.

(_ might be a way to plug in Apocalypse World style 'clock' mechanism that moves np
characters and orgs along a track)

e.g: a student story in which hero and villain were together in a small
starship and the engines failed, with only one scap pod, ==> one would live the
other would die.

But *why* did the engines fail? Bad Luck! Notacceptable. fix == writer put in
brief segment showing the villain sabotaging it, which in turn need some vilalin
motivation (cause) as to why the villain thought it was a good idea. Fix == villain
*intended* only to slow the engines down, allowing his cronise to catch up

Important . Do NOT exhaust the reader with great details of cause effect prose. Can
be handled in a few words. The point *is* (KEY) Show the reader that author
inserted causes have effects, and author-desired effects can be seen to have causes
(_ also *every* plot event is a cause *and* an effect)

(step) Stimulus and Response

_basic idea == cause and effect at the sentence level.

in the story text, this is physical stimulus and response, which are cause and
effect made very concrete, functioning in the story in *this* instant - this punch
(stimulus) making the other man duck (response, or, this question (stimulus)
making the other person reply(response) at once, or *this* bolt of
lighting(stimulus) making Sally jump out of her shoes in fright (respones).

In real life, we may see people do things for no apparent immediate reason
(something happens without a cause/stimulus). i.e we witness a response/action
without a stimulus e.g - someone bursting into tears during a casual conversation
(for a cause we can't see).

In real life, we can also find stimulus (for which we'd expect a response),
generating no response at all. John might say "I feel terribly depressed" ( a
strong response) and Jane might respond as if John didn't say anything at all.

Such responses without stimuli or stimuli without responses, happen in real life
all the time. This is true for larger cause-and-effect elements of fiction - they
can be violated in real life all the time, things can happen for no reason,
incredible things can happen with no response.

But *as writers*, we constantly *struggle* to make our fiction credible. Because
readers can at any point of time stop believing our story (_ and we have to
constantly struggle against that)

(KEY) even in the simplest transactions in fiction, we must always remember

1. stimulus (KEY) must be external, where external = action or dialogue,
something you can seen if the transaction were on stage.
2. Similarly response must be witnessable (_external) in the same way.
3. For every stimulus you must show a response
4. For every desired response, you must show a stimulus.
5. Response must usually follow stimulus *at once* (_ for MRU's?)
6. When response to stimulus is *not logical on the surface*, you must
ordinarily explain it.

e.g: If you have "Joe threw the ball to Sam" you *must* show Sam's response e.g:
"Sam caught it" or "Sam dropped it", or "Sam didn't see the ball coming and it hit
him on the nose"

How can this be messed up?

e.g (_ Stimulus ) Joe threw the ball to Sam
"Sure is a nice day" Sam said

Some can say that this is fine, Sam must have caught the ball.
But (KEY) many readers will *not* assume this and a tiny trickle begins in his mind
- what happened to the goal?

Fix such slips by (KEY) showing the completion of the stimulus (_ an explicit
response to the stimulus).

e.f:
(Stimulus) Joe threw the ball to Sam
(Response) Sam caught it "Sure is a nice day to play catch!"

this shows a valid response . But , be aware, by responding to Joe's action, by

catching the ball, Sam completes the stimulus response transactions, *but*
simultaneously initiates a new one. What does John do now(That sam has caught the
ball and responded verbally)?

another example of response without evident stimulus

Mary walked into the party
"Oh, no!" Julie groaned, and ran for the exit
What is wrong == Mary's walking into the party must somehow be intended as a
stimulus for Julie's fast exit. (_ but this is not visible to the reader and so( we
have to give her a better clearer reason for doing -a better stimulus.

Easily fixed in several ways

Mary walked into the party w earing a strapless blue gown

"Oh no!" Julie - ** wearing an identical dress ** - groaned, and ran for the
exit

Of such simple 'fixes' is credible fiction made.

Alternatively we can build the stimulus/motive via *background information*.e.c:

Julie's purchase of her blue strapless gown, the importance of the party to her,
and the lurking terror of looking anything like archrival Mary at the party.

(KEY) If the writer had given this background shortly before the stimulus response
transaction, it might have been okay as first written.

The point to be amplified is - if something is to be a stimulus it must clearly be

a stimulus (?). And it must happen right now (_ as close as possible to the
stimulus preceding it)

Argument :- for the reader, if the writer showed some strong stimulus, and the
other character takes hours or days to react.

(Stimulus)"I am sorry Frank, your mother just died"

(Respones) Six hours later Frank fainted from shock.

This would be a perfectly believable response, it hadn't taken all that time.

Three ways to mess up stimulus-response transactions

1. You can show a stimulus and then show no external response (or perhasp one
that doesn't fit or doesn't make sense)
2. you can show a character response, when no stimulus (or no credible one) for
it has been shown;
3. put so much story time between stimulus and response that the logical
relationship between the two events is no longer evident.

Alternative/step

There are stimulus response transactions which would make sense (KEY) *if* we
knew what the receiving character thought and felt before responding. In such
situations we show the character's (KEY )internalization the feeling+thought
process that goes between the stimulus and the response.

If we think about this, even the most obvious stimulus-response transaction

requires some internal messaging in the mind, and body of the receiver of the
stimulus.

Simple transactions, don't need this extra step. e.g: Joe throwing the ball and
Sam's catching it. Whether we show it or not, the internalization process always
take place. When things get complicated, we need to remember that the stimulus
response transaction is actually
stimulus --> internalization --> response. (KEY) When necessary, expose the
internalization to the reader.

Consider
(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!"

Assuming that Nancy is a normal ambitious go-getting central figure, this response
does not make sense, given the context. The reader would get puzzled, and stop
believing in the story.

What went wrong? The internalization (== inner dialogue?) that would explain
Nancy's strange response was omitted. we put it back (clumsily, but whatever works)
to get

(Stimulus) "Nancy," the chairman said, " we have decided to make you a vice
president of the firm"
(internalization) Nancy reeled with shock (_ note emotion first, then go
into b/g exposition), She had come to the 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 AcmeCo and could not go back on that contract.
(Response ) "Oh no!" Nancy said "How could I have such bad luck!"

Note: it is sometimes possible that you the author might *want* the reader to be
shocked and puzzled for a moment. You might want to create a surprisin or even
bizarre stimulus-response transaction as a means ofcreating curiosity and/or
suspense for ther reader, planning to explain the internalization a few paragraphs
or pages later. THis is fine but is an advanced technique, and when so used does
not obviate the idea that internalization and response ordinarily should be
presented to the reader in their natural order. Writing them out of order can
create problems.

Another simple example

Joe trned after hearing the gunshot.
Grammatically correct, but stimulus and response are in reverse order.
Better is,
Hearing the shot, Joe turned.

you can't write modern fiction scenes unless you understand and practice proper
cause and effect. (_ here cause and effect come in the form of proper sequencing
of stimulus and response at the "scene in the present" level)

you can't link scenes together unless you understand the principle (_ fine but what
about flashbacks? is a flashback an extended version of internalizations).

you can't create a cohesive plot for your story untill you see the underlying
dynamic of cause and effect, which is at the heart of making your scenes not only
link, but also *build* with the kind of momentum and suspense that keeps readers
worried, and fascinated.

A lengthy example which uses the stimulus and response technique just discussed,
but in a more sophisticated way.

elided.

Look carefully at your own wriitng. Check carfully to make sure that you are
providing causes for desired effects, showing the effects of causes already in your
copy (_ and internalizations). Look too at your smallest stimulus-response
transactions.

Checklist (_ while reviewing your story?)

1. do you supply a(_n external) response for every stimulus?
2. for every response, do you provide an *external* immediate stimulus?
 3. In complicated transactions, have you provided the reader with an
explanatory internalization?
4. Are the parts presented in correct textbook order except when you *want* to
create confusion?

Stimulus and response must (KEY) be physical and on stage, in the story *now*,
something that can be seen or heard or otherwise perceived by the audience.

Example of wrong usage by non physicality of stimulus or response

1. Having been angry the last few days (intended stimulus, but internal, so
doesn't work) John punched Sam (external response)
the cause for John hitting Sam is *not* "on stage". It was background
that had been going on for quite some time. Joe *was* motivated by anger (- from
past events) to hit Sam. But that does not (KEY) explain physically why he hit him
right then and there. There is not immediate, physical, exteranl stimulus.

2. Rick hit Bill. Bill was surprised.

Bills surprise is also internal. Not an external action or speech or whatever.

In the given long example,

1. Nearly all (stimulus-response) transactions are presented in normal order.
2. Every transaction is completed - i.e every stimulus brings on a response.
3. Internalization is caused by a stimulus. It doesn't "just happen" (But Ned
Starks dream in prison "just happens" and leads on to a conversation with Varys)
4. internalizaiton comes in the proper place- after a stimulus, and before a
response
5. When transactions are presented out of their normal order, the effect on the
reader is one of confusion.

When you find foggy logic or get a bit confused in trying to repair obivously
flawed transactions, try to think of cause as bakground (_so internalizations?
previous chapters plot points? ) or previously decided (_ == shown before)
motivation, and effect as the possibly complicated results of such background or
motivation.

stimulus as something more immediate, in terms of time, and always something

visible in the outside world - words, actions, etc. an response as also *immediate*
and physical, and *internalization* is the (_ mental/emotional) process that goes
on inside the reciever once the stimulus has been received, and *before* whatever
response follows.

(_ so it seems here Bickham is saying that causes can be from bacgrounds, previous
plot points etc, and effects are possibly complex results of such causes, but
stimulus and response, while having the same sequential relation as cause and
effect, are very scene based, and physical/visible, with internalization sometimes
providing the connective tissue between stimulus and response).