I don't know Conan. Note that there are different ways of engaging the reader. As a teen, you may be engaged by its Thematic or Emotional content. You like the fact that the story is about fighting, revenge, power, etc... You don't need to perceive the semantic content to like a story at the receiving end.

James Bond stories (at least the movies) are pretty crappy semantically the way I remember. Mystery stories also don't often have semantic ideas, and rely purely on the suspense. This is the difference between getting the thrill as you ride on a roller coaster, as opposed to the outgoing girl-next-door draging a nerd onto a roller coaster. You can tell that it is not about the roller coaster, but can you see what the meaning from this very small situation?

Quote: I usually prefer stories that wrench your guts, instead of those who leave you thinking and analysing long after what was the intended meaning of the author.

Semantic, Emotion, and Thematic contents are not tradeoffs of one another. For the same presentation, some audience may wrench their guts, some may leave thinking and analysing, and some may do both. Semantic contents in a story are usually presented subtly, although most of the time they are shown explicitly through dialogues. For the roller coaster example above, the content is not presented through dialogue. It is usually symbolic, figurative, or embedded in the story.

Quote: But when you want to convey MEANING, you simply do so by making it evident and simple. When you want to convey EMOTION, you go for the words that will convey images. For if you try to use emotion-creating images to convey MEANING, you end up loosing your readership on what they are reading, and come to wonder over the meaning, which is NOT what you should get in the end. You should get someone o says "it's brilliant" because, suddendly, they've understood it all, like in a mystery story. They shouldn't think it's brilliant because it's obscure (note the oxy-moron...).

The principle behind conveying meaning and emotion are the same, you do use symbols and images. You don't lose readership. Think Forest Gump. It has meaning and emotion. Think Romeo and Juliet again, it has meaning and emotion. There is a difference between presenting something seamlessly and being obscure. I guess it depends on how you read. The semantic idea of the story is usually seeded at the very beginning, like a thesis being introduced in the beginning of a paper. When you read a story there are three threads you are following. Just like the other two threads, the Semantic presentation has its own development and climax. In strong designs, the three threads are synchronized, such that the revelation of the semantic development coincides with the emotional and thematic climaxes. What this usually means, is that the villain represents a force in the semantic presentation. You are not just beating up the villain, you are declaring a view and rejecting the (corrupted) perspective. Don't you remember the situations where the hero beats the villain, and says something meaningful about why the villain fails? In order for that to work, the story needs to have developed the argument all along. The conflict has a meaning, arguments are explored, evaluated, and an understanding is achieved through the debate. This is certainly not the only way to presenting a semantic idea.

Quote: In my opinion, which I happen to share with myself, the reader should end your story with a feeling which can be anything BUT puzzlement. Pleasure, joy, sadness, hatred towards a character, sense of loss, anything but a sense of puzzlement towards what was your real meaning.

Two things. First, having a story with a thought provoking meaning certainly does not mean the story will end with a sense of puzzlement. Secondly, I don't see anything wrong with ending the story with a puzzle only the reader can judge. The example again is Rashomon. The plot ends in an ambivalent ending because each of the eyewitnesses had a different account of the crime. However, the meaning of the story is clear. Each of the individuals was hiding its own weaknesses and faults. And the semantic presentation further leaves the open-ended question of , "If that is true, what is trust? How does this view affect your view on trust?" (where the monk finds himself suddenly no longer trust the farmer for giving shelter for the abandoned baby, and is disgusted by his own presumption of evil intention on others.)

It is just like an essay where you end the paper with further questions.

Quote: Either it is plain, or it does not have it's place in there. Reflecting on what I just wrote, I come to think that maybe THAT was precisely what you were trying to lead me to...

But if THAT was where you were trying to get me to, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY SO? There was no use for damn long complicated words!! gaaaah!! :D

I have no clue what your assumptions are.

Quote: When you start adding meaning to facts, you forget about the stories, and start telling TALES and FABLES.

Designing a story with semantic goals is not like adding meaning to facts. I don't think you can say the result will be a fable. It is not uncommon that stories have meanings. Super Size Me has a meaning.

Quote: Anyway, if you want to have a story about a theme, then it is because you are interested in this theme. I am not interested in themes, on the whole. I am more interested in people acting. Doubting. Suffering from choices and actions. Failing. Or only partially succeeding. Now you know what I like to write about, YOU tell me what the probable semantic content of my stories are.

In another thread you talked about dreams. Do you interpret them or just leave them as is? If you don't interpret them, it should be quite obvious that the same ideas will permeate through your perspective and writing. For example, what are you doubting in life? What is the cause of this doubt? What are the views other have on your doubt? How do you reject their solutions so that you can keep a losing streak? Why is the losing streak prefered? What is it hiding? In what ways does the character not want the failures explained?

The semantic idea seems to be about how sometimes you have exerted 110% but you still don't get what you want. Related questions include "is hardwork pays off just a myth?" "What are the real differences between those who succeed and those who fail?" "What can you learn from the situation?" "Is this futile to try?" "What is it that drives someone to try again and again despite failures?"

For the story I would probably write about a group of average married guys sitting at the bar, talking about their discontents failures and misfortunes. Kind of jaded, beaten, and uninspired. They are just kind of hanging on, reacting to various problems in life, don't really know what they want in life anymore. Then something happens to bring them together. What happens:

Dictionary: [Ictus, Pasterization, Spokesman]

Ictus: A sudden seizure
Pasterization: the process of heating to kill microorganisms that could cause disease
Spokesman: A man who speaks on behalf of another or others.

1 min inference:

One of the failing guys turns out to be a writer called Dave. One night while the guys are still drinking, Dave has a seizure and dies. The guys are listed as his only 'family'. One day the guys go to his apartment to clean up, and discover an unfinished story and script that Dave has been writing. The story is about the very group of guys, in a tone that is equally humorous, touching and sarcastic. The guys thought maybe they should finish it. They work on it, but of course there are more problems and disappointments in life and the group of guys eventually parted.

This leaves many years later, a daughter of one of the guys discovered the manuscript. She had hardly got to know her father, and did not have a good impression about him. She read the manuscript, and was touched by what her father really thought about her and her mother. She realized that there were five more of the manuscripts from the other guys, and decided to deliver them back to their families.

Quote: Original post by Fournicolas
Forgive me for insisting, SnS, but I don't think your definition fits in the least the story that is told. It can be seen as a morale, or maybe a lesson to be learned from that experience, but it is NOT the intended meaning of the tale. Or else I should go and read it again, just in case...

My evidence:

The prologue describes this situation:

Quote: ...A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whole misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove

Then in the last scene the prince sums up:

Quote: Where be these enemies? Capulet! Montague!
See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,
That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.
And I for winking at your discords too
Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish'd.

And then Lord Capulet calles Romeo and Juliet "poor sacrifices of our emnity."

Thus my conclusion: 'Grudge causes children(symbolic of the future) to be destroyed.'

And there is evidence that their death put an end to Capulet and Montague's private war, yes? if so, I just can't place it.

If it DID put an end to it, then the sacrifice was intended to do so, and is not "pointless".

If it did NOT put an end to it, then it is derivative meaning. Romeo and Juliet have been living their own private life and adventure, and just because they were linked to other characters, they had an importance on what happened next. Or maybe they did not, since the private war does not end there. Or so I believe. By the way, does the word "Vendetta" exist in english?

The word vendetta does exist in english, although what's going on in romeo and juliet is not a vendetta (a single mission of revenge), but more like a family feud.

There is definitely evidence that the deaths stop the feud, so no it's not a pointless sacrifice, but certainly not the best way the feud could have been ended either.

Quote: CAPULET

O brother Montague, give me thy hand:
This is my daughter's jointure, for no more
Can I demand.

MONTAGUE

But I can give thee more:
For I will raise her statue in pure gold;
That while Verona by that name is known,
There shall no figure at such rate be set
As that of true and faithful Juliet.

CAPULET

As rich shall Romeo's by his lady's lie;
Poor sacrifices of our enmity!

PRINCE

A glooming peace this morning with it brings;

I believe that the story is not primarily about romeo and juliet's private lives and adventure, but instead about the fight between the two families. Some evidence for this is that the prologue has 4 lines describing the two families and their fight before romeo and juliet are even mentioned. And when Tybalt is killed he curses, "A pox a' both your houses!" not "A pox on romeo and juliet." The prince and the friar, who deliver most of the narration of the play, both point to the feud as the big problem, not the individual characters.

ha!! you're right there!! I had completely forgotten that!! I was so concentrated on the characters, that i had erased their surroundings from my memory...

But, stubborn as I am, I maintain (for there is no other way of going) that the war between Montague and Capulet was NOT what remained after the story. It was the incredible strength of their love, and their stupid deaths.

By the way Vendetta, originally, is a Corsican word meaning something along "Vengeance", and is a private war... In fact, the best definition I could give you is the way a Corsican defined it for me:
"I hate him, because his great-grand-father killed my great-grand-father's donkey. Or maybe it was the other way around, I don't know. But I DO know that ever since our families have been fighting each others. And I hate him."

Reflecting, it's more like BLIND vengeance. And a Vendetta is also a Corsican folding knife, of a special shape. probably named after its use though.

Since I've been trying to get some work done on my novel's plot the past few days (after surviving the hell of moving), I thought I'd dredge up this thread and post an update here.

I put a new big markerboard of my wall and put what I know of my plot outline on it. (Using a 3-act structure). I decided that I basically know what's going on in the first 2 acts, it's only act 3 and the climax that would be about the characters participating in a wargame/tournament/whatever to win the right to be an official clan. I also realized that act three should be about the 4 characters demonstrating that they are a family, and a good symbolic way to do this would be some sneaky plan involving creating, protecting, and hatching an egg, because what would be more tangible evidence that they are a family than if they are raising a child? Reminds me of a juvie fantasy novel I read a long time ago about a kid who steals a dragon's egg and has to carry it around until it hatches. Just like parenting the dragon hatchling showed the kid's becoming an adult, being a father would complete Ravennin's dream of beind a Dominion (clanleader, husband, and father).

Besides a child, act 3 should somehow make Lieann start being famous/respected for his intelligence and strategic ability, because that's the part of Lieann's dream that hasn't been fulfilled yet by the end of act 2 (when they decide to be a family). Similarly, Merru needs the plot to provide him an opportunity to defend his family, and maybe to become a teacher, since becoming that would be a nice completion to his personal growth.

Eh, just thinking out loud... Man I wish I had a friend who wrote the same kind of stuff I do.

Is this sounding suspiciously akin to Orson Scott Card's Ender's Strategy, or is it just me?

Not that it buggers me, don't you think that, it is one hell of a good book. but maybe the war academy constant contest may be something to look upon. What is the difference between what you are intending to write, and what Card wrote is that the main character, even though he is the actual leader of his group, has to manage to remain a loner in Card's novel, whereas he is trying to create bonds in yours. Somehow, in a war context, Card's choice seems the most logical to me. You can only lead your group to death ONLY IF you love your group, and don't love your soldiers individually. Knowing that your friends are about to die probably don't make you feel all the better for sending them to certain death.

Therefore this whole "war academy"+"love binding" thing in your novel seems highly difficult to grasp for me. But again, that may be only because I am stubborn and rational. Love NEVER acts in rational ways. Stories about soldiers of both genders falling in love while at war or during formation must be aplenty. They don't even need to be of different genders, in fact.

And the egg thing is one great idea. Only I would handle it differently, I supose. I gather from what you wrote previously that it takes BOTH genders to get an egg, even if if DOES NOT take both to hatch and mature the baby dragon. So let's assume that, either Lieann IS a female instead of a Beta Male (which would simplify the coming of an egg in the story), or that Lieann is SO obsessed by the fact of getting an egg that he's prepared to lie to everyone. I don't know how the physical contact goes for your dragons, but I suppose that, at one point, Ravennin MUST be aware that Lieann is NOT a girl, right? He can't just pretend it poses him no problem to see a male hatch...

From this first assumption, to the second: If Lieann IS male and Ravennin KNOWS about that, either they were planning to have babies log before they even tried to have sex, in which Ravennin discovers Lieann to be a male, which would explain why Ravennin accepts so readily the egg, but NOT why the others do, or maybe, second option, which I think is just the best for you:

Lieann fled from his original group with the egg of someone else, just in time to meet the others, before their "gang of four" forms. The desire to be a "mother" was so strong in his Beta brain that he stole the egg and fled with it. (Maybe a mental disorder?) Later the love between him and Ravennin develops, and Lieann introduces Ravennin to his new responsibility(egg). Note that this can only be posible if physical differentiation between a female and a beta male is difficult enough for Liean to stand the part. The logical explanation of all this is that Lieann did not tell Ravennin that he was male, and that love sprang al the same between them. Only at the moment to have sex does he discover that "she" is a "he", which should logically rebuke him for quite a while, and bring your group almost to dissolution, since internal communication should be not only limited, but also agressive. Then only Ravennin understands his love and his position as Dominion, accepts to share this egg with another male he loves, and use all the resources his group can provide to hatch it.

If Lieann is male enough for it to be visually evident, or any other sense you wish to make it plain to, then the egg problem becomes another problem.

If the goal of the "contest" is to come out of it with a youngling, then four males can only do so by stealing an egg. There is no other way. Why four males would want to win the contest knowing that there is no way for them to survive after that as a group is a mystery. Maybe stealing other eggs or destroying them is a normal part of the contest, because it is a normal part of the dragon's life cycle? Maybe it is good for gene mixing? Therefore all males tribes could survive, and all females (amazones) ones would too? Dunno. seems suspicious to me. But maybe Lieann's strategic abilities precisely lie in always knowing how to get that egg?

What about that? Every group that is sent in Academy's contest goes in with ONE egg. The winning group, the one which is to become a Clan, is to come out with ALL the younglings hatched and most of the discarded shells, in proof of his personal hatching. This way, even the most unusual groups can be accepted as fit to survive. And this group of four IS very unusual. But how many groups and eggs should there be to make it acceptable? How many members should the original groups be composed of?

On a second thought, this will probably NOT be interesting for you, since you are NOT interested in showing the fights, but more the linking of the group...

Damn! I wish I could make it easier for you...

Don't feel bad, you're helping more than anyone else is. I find it really interesting to look at my characters and worldbuilding from your perspective - while it's not the solution to my problems, it does provide me with surprising different ways of considering things which may inspire me to come up with my own solution. :)

For example, I read your post late last night, and was laying in bed thinking about the dilemma of getting an egg when none of the characters are female, and I came up with the crazy 4am thought, "Wouldn't it be convenient if instead of a female they could just get the territory they're trying to win pregnant? That would be more dramatic too, because it would combine the too separate goals into one big one..." Then I blinked and realized this made no sense. BUT! It reminded me of _HeartMate_, a fantasy romance novel where there are magical clans, each with their own territory (a manor house), and the magical 'heart' of the territory is a room called the HouseHeart which is magically attuned to the essence of the clan. Being in this room makes clan members relax and heal faster, and is where children would be hidden if the house were attacked or there was a tornador or blizzard or something.

So when applied to my worldbuilding, a room like this would logically be the nesting room, where the clan's future would be nurtured. (Also reminds me of Anne McCaffrey's dragon hatching grounds, the most 'magical' place in her sci-fi setting and such a powerful archetype that teens write fanfiction set there every year despite the threats of McCaffrey's lawyers.) Anyway, this nesting room, being associated with nurturing and healing, would logically go with the character Attranath. Not Lieann, who is much more an advisor-to-the-king type than a mother type. So maybe Attranath's role in act 3 would be to use his loyalty/faith to create/magically attune this nesting room to the essence of the clan, and possibly protect an egg there. Lieann, OTOH, should be earning his fame and respect for his strategic abilities by being a visible, taunting figure to the clan's political opponents, orchestrating these opponents' sneaky crushing defeat.

That still doesn't answer the question of where the heck they can get an egg from. Ravennin has a big sister, so they could get one of her eggs, but that wouldn't really be satisfying. The point, psychologically, of ending a romance with a baby is to show that the pair of lovers who have chosen each other and struggled against lots of opposition to be together becoming unified genetically in the child, and perpetuating their family into the future through that child. So really there ought to be at least two eggs, one for Merru and Lieann, and one for Ravennin and Attranath, so even making Lieann female (which I wouldn't do because it would make the first two acts of the plot come unravelled) wouldn't solve the problem; I'd have to make Lieann AND Attranath female, which is not at all what I want to do.

But, that's the neat thing about writing science fiction and fantasy - with the right bit of technology or magic, the impossible becomes possible. (And I still haven't decided whether this is going to be a fantasy story or a science fiction story. :/ ) In fantasy, one of the underlying principles of magic seems to be that if the characters want something badly enough or believe in it faithfully enough, they will magically get what they want. So perhaps the eggs could be magically created, although it would have to be handled carefully to not seem contrived. In science fiction, OTOH, the moral is more that human ingenuity can make astonishing things happen. So perhaps Lieann and Merru could do a little research and creatively twist some existing piece of technology to be able to create an egg from two males' DNA. Somehow that doesn't seem as dramatic as doing it magically... :/

It occurrs to me that if I really want spaceships and computers but everything else works better as fantasy, I could always have magic spaceships and computers like in Melissa Scott's _The Roads of Heaven_. Feels kind of like cheating though. Hmm...

I know this is not exactly what was planned in the beginning, but...

Is there any reason that your dragon eggs have to be made the "natural" way? I mean, Dragons, usually, are highly magical creatures. Let's suppose thgat Ravennin is still a highly powerful mage, although he did not knew it from the beginning of the story, kind of like when I was supposing a duel of totems, remember? Well, now, what if the Egg Hatching was a magical process of bonding two OR MORE people's will and body into something new and different?

Let's take this as a premise. It sounds promising so far, although not much has been written.

Let's say that the "clans" are competting to show their "eggs" to the judges or referees. The egg can be anything, it doesn't even have to be something alive. But in the end, those that can create life from this "egg" bonding spell are those that are the most likely to act as a family, right? This is exactly like having a baby, but without the sexual intercourse, because everything happens in the mind. Convenient, eh? for a group of men...

Anyway.

Let's say that the OTHER groups have their own shaman, or whatever you choose to call them, and each discards one or more member in order to create the "most perfect" egg they can get, out of the mind and bodies of the remaining members. Our four characters now have a reason to get together. They are still hoping to get into a clan. Plus the adaptability becomes a premium quality. But adaptability can only be outcast from a group that does not care about it, but will rather focus on size, or strength, or speed, or any physical attribute, because it is a mind thing.

Maybe love is the only element that can create a living totemic egg? Maybe by being in love, they can create life during this bonding process, and create a totemic representation of the clan that is alive? Maybe this is uncanny, because it doesn't happen often, and again, when it does, only when some element that does NOT belong to this group gets thrown into the milkshake?

Honestly, I think you've got something to dig, there, but I can't find my words right.

Something hit me like lightning!!

All the others are striving for physical attributes!! That must mean something in terms of physical opposition, right? I mean, maybe this is just a way to get back to the spiritual duels, right? Then, what if THIS group could create a "tamer" totem? Kind of like the "virgin", in that "Virgin and the Unicorn" tapestry? They will be so loving that no totem will be willing to attack them, but the most hatred-filled, and then the other totems that have been tamed will come around helping? Maybe this contest of wills and totems is the regular way of choosing the "king" or whatever supreme authority there is? Then they would win this authority and officialy become one in the eyes of the others, because of love and compassion, not because of physical attributes?

Bit of a sissy, right? Bah, was worth trying something...

Ooh, the dragons' eggs are usually created by magic? Interesting! Although, why have males and females and prejudice against homosexuality then? Or did you mean that the dragons normally unite several individuals to magically create something, and in the case of this particular group of characters they create an egg, a child of them all? That's a neat idea too. Maybe they are trying to magically create something else but accidently create the egg instead at the beginning of act three, then have to carry it around/hide it/keep it warm/defend it until the climax, when it hatches?

Oooh, that has lots of potential! ^_^ I'm going to contemplate all the possibilities of this and see what else I can come up with. Like, how does this fit in with the idea of Attranath magically establishing a room as the heart of their clan? How would a normal clan of dragons with some female members establish a new clan/create an egg? How are the egg and the clan heart room related to forcing society to overcome its prejudice and accept the 4 characters as a family?