The Anatomy of Story (20 page)

Throughout the middle of the story, the hero and the opponent come into increasing conflict, hence the converging structure. Through this conflict, a difference in values begins to emerge. So the theme starts to expand. Still, for most of a good story, the theme is largely hidden; it is quietly growing in the minds of the audience, and it will hit with full force at the end.

The convergent point of story structure is the battle, and right after that, the self-revelation and moral decision. In the battle, the audience sees not just which force but also which set of values is superior. The audience's understanding of the theme expands rapidly. At the self-revelation—especially if it's a moral self-revelation—the theme expands again. At the moral decision, it expands yet again. And because the theme has been expressed primarily through structure, it seems to emerge from the very soul of the audience, not to have been imposed on them like a tiresome sermon.

Let's look at how moral argument is expressed through structure over the course of the entire story, in detail, from beginning to end. We'll start with the basic strategy for expressing moral argument and then look at some variations.

Moral Argument: Basic Strategy

■ Values
The hero starts with a set of beliefs and values.

■ Moral Weakness
He is hurting others in some way at the beginning of the story. He is not evil but rather is acting from weakness or is unaware of the proper way to act toward others.

■ Moral Need
Based on his moral weakness, the hero must learn how to act properly toward others in order to grow and live a better life.

■ First Immoral Action
The hero almost immediately acts in some way that hurts others. This is evidence to the audience of the hero's basic moral flaw.

■ Desire
The hero comes up with a goal toward which all else is sacrificed. This goal leads him into direct conflict with an opponent who has a differing set of values but the same goal.
■ Drive
The hero and the opponent take a series of actions to reach the goal.

■
Immoral Actions
During the early and middle parts of the story, the hero is usually losing to the opponent. He becomes desperate. As a result, he starts taking immoral actions to win.
Criticism:
Other characters criticize the hero for the means he is taking.

Justification:
The hero tries to justify his actions. He may see the deeper truth and right of the situation by the end of the story, but not now.

■ Attack by Ally
The hero's closest friend makes a strong case that the hero's methods are wrong.

■ Obsessive Drive
Galvanized by new revelations about how to win,

the hero becomes obsessed with reaching the goal and will do almost anything to succeed.
■ Immoral Actions
The hero's immoral actions intensify.
Criticism:
Attacks by other characters grow as well.
Justification:
The hero vehemently defends his actions.

As the story proceeds, the differing values and ways of living in the world represented by the hero and the opponent become clear through action and dialogue. There are four places at the end of a story where the theme explodes in the mind of the audience: the battle, self-revelation, moral decision, and a structure step we haven't discussed yet, the thematic revelation.

■ Battle
The final conflict that decides the goal. Regardless of who wins, the audience learns which values and ideas are superior.
■ Final Action Against Opponent
The hero may make one last action—moral or immoral—against the opponent just before or during the battle.

■ Moral Self-Revelation
The crucible of the battle produces a self-revelation in the hero. The hero realizes that he has been wrong about himself and wrong toward others and realizes how to act properly toward others. Because the audience identifies with this character, the self-revelation drives the theme home with great power.

■ Moral Decision
The hero chooses between two courses of action, thus proving his moral self-revelation.

■ Thematic Revelation
In great storytelling, the theme achieves its greatest impact on the audience at the thematic revelation. The thematic revelation is not limited to the hero. Instead, it is an insight the audience has about how people in general should act and live in the world. This insight breaks the bounds of these particular characters and affects the audience where they live. With a thematic revelation, the audience sees the "total design" of the story, the full ramifications of what it means, on a much greater scale than just a few characters.

Note that a balance of power between hero and main opponent is important not just in character and plot but also in the moral argument. If the hero is too strong or too good, the opponent does not test him sufficiently to create moral mistakes. If the opposition is too strong and the hero too simple and unaware, the opponent becomes a spider, weaving a web from which the hero cannot hope to escape. The hero becomes a victim, and the opponent is perceived as evil.

Henry James's
Portrait of a, Lady,
though masterful in many ways, suffers from this imbalance of power, and the moral argument suffers with it. Isabel Archer is guilty of self-deception throughout, even when making her final moral decision to help Pansy, who can't be helped. This sweet but unaware woman faces a master schemer in Osmond, whose ability to weave the web is matched only by his willingness, even pleasure, in doing so.

MORAL ARGUMENT TECHNIQUE: BALANCE MORAL ARGUMENT WITH PLOT

T
he single biggest reason a story comes across as preachy is because there is an imbalance between moral argument and plot. You can express the moral argument through the story structure, sequence it perfectly, and highlight it with subtle moral dialogue. But if you don't have enough plot to support the moral argument, it will come crashing down as a sermonizing bore.

Plot, as you will see in Chapter 8, is an intricate choreography of actions by the hero and the opponents designed to surprise the audience. It

is this element of surprise, of magic, that floats the moral sequence and gives it its punch.

Let's look at
The Verdict as
an example of the basic strategy of moral argument in a story.

T
he
V
erdict

(novel by Barry C. Reed, 1980; screenplay by David Mamet, 1982)
■ Hero's Beliefs and Values
At first, Frank values alcohol, money, and expediency.

■ Moral Weakness
Addicted to alcohol and with no self-respect or prospects for the future, Frank will do anything for money.

■  Moral Need
To act with justice toward others instead of using them for money.

■ First Immoral Action
Frank invades a funeral, pretending to be a friend of the dead man in order to get business.

■ Desire
To win his legal case at trial and so collect the damages his clients need to start a new life.

■ Drive
Frank takes a number of actions to get an expert doctor to testify for his side.

■ Immoral Action
Frank reassures the victim's sister, Sally, and circles possible settlement amounts of $200,000 and $250,000 on paper. Frank intends to settle the case so that he can take one third of the money without doing anything.
Criticism:
None.

Justification:
Frank's an alcoholic who has lost all self-respect along with his sense of justice and morality. He figures, why not get the sure money now instead of gambling on winning at trial?
■ Attack by Ally
The main attack by the ally is provided not by fellow attorney Mickey but by Frank's clients. When they learn he has turned down the settlement without consulting them, they accuse him of being incompetent and immoral.

Justification:
Frank tells them he will get them far more by fighting the case in court than by taking the offer. Although he defends himself based on money, the real reason he turns down the settlement is that he wants to see that justice is done.

■ 
Obsessive Drive
He is determined to find the nurse who was in the operating room.

■ Immoral Action
Frank tricks a woman into talking about the nurse, who won't testify for the other side.

Criticism
: None.

Justification:
Frank feels he must find the nurse in order to win his case.
■ Immoral Action
Frank breaks open the woman's mailbox to find out the phone number of the nurse.
Criticism:
None. Frank does this in secret.

Justification:
This is Frank's only chance to win a case he knows is right.

■ Immoral Action
Frank punches Laura, his girlfriend, when he finds out she was hired by the other side to feed them information about Frank's case.

Criticism:
Laura offers no criticism because she is so filled with guilt of her own.

Justification:
Frank loves this woman and feels she has betrayed him totally.

■ Battle
Frank questions Dr. Towler about when the patient ate. The nurse, Kaitlin, testifies that the victim ate not at nine but one hour before admittance. She says that Dr. Towler failed to read the admittance form and told her to change the 1 to a 9 or he'd fire her. Opposing attorney Concannon reads precedent on the inadmittance of a copy. The judge agrees and also disallows the nurse's entire testimony.

■ Final Action Against Opponent
Frank does nothing immoral during the trial. He simply presents his case in a strong and crafty way.

■ Moral Self-Revelation
Fairly early in the story, Frank sees his client, the victim, who is in a vegetative state, and he knows he must act with justice or he is lost forever.

■ Moral Decision
Frank risks his share of the money by refusing the bishop's settlement offer and by taking the case to trial so that justice can be done.

■ Thematic Revelation
Only if we act with justice can our lives be saved.

The Verdict
is a textbook example of how to use moral argument in a story, with one notable exception, and that exception is instructive. The

hero has a strung moral self-revelation when he realizes what has been done to his client: two doctors put her into a coma, and he was willing to turn his back on her for money. He makes a moral decision when he then turns down the settlement money so that he can fight for justice at trial, even though he may never make a dime.

However, the self-revelation and decision occur only twenty-five minutes into the story. This diminishes the power of the moral argument because from that point on, the hero's moral jeopardy has been removed. The audience still enjoys the suspense of whether the hero will win the case or not. After all, Frank is a shaky lawyer with an addiction to alcohol. But they know that Frank has learned to act with justice and is doing so.

The moral argument is most powerful when it is most dramatic. That means, among other things, holding off the hero's moral self-revelation and decision until as close to the end of the story as possible. Keep the question "Will the hero do the right thing, and will he do it in time?" in the back of the audience's mind for as much of the story as you can.

The Iliad

(by Homer)

The moral argument of the
Iliad
uses the basic strategy of the hero's slow decline and then rise at the self-revelation. But the
Iliad
makes an important variation by working through this sequence twice.

The first sequence of decline and rise happens over the first three-quarters of the story. The hero, Achilles, starts off justified in his anger at his main opponent, Agamemnon, for taking the woman he has rightfully won. But his excessive pride (his moral weakness) has pushed him to act immorally, going too far in response, by withholding his services in battle. As a result, many of his fellow soldiers die.

Throughout the early and middle parts of the story, Achilles becomes even more unjustified in his anger and more selfish in his actions. Then, realizing his guilt when his friend Patroklos dies, he reconciles with Agamemnon and returns to the fight. This is his first self-revelation and moral decision.