# Ever had your book compared to the Bible?



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

This was a 4-star on the third book in a series:

_"The writing style changes. it's like two different people are writing the story in chunks. I like one style better than the other. There are also grammar issues that can be distracting. Anyway, the story is feeling more and more like the Old Testament. Where West Texas is the Holy Land. Bishop is David. Alpha is Jerusalem. Skinnies were Philistines. Fort Bliss is Rome. Does this mean Bishop's child will be Jesus?"_

Huh? I'm not a biblical scholar, but... err... what did David have to do with Jerusalem? Philistines and Rome?

I guess having your book compared to the bible isn't a bad thing... is it?

But then again, doesn't the Christian Bible contain every plot line known to man?


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Actually, most religions have strong elements of the monomyth. As does The Matrix, Star Wars, Karate Kid, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Great Expectations, Dante's Inferno, Harry Potter, King Arthur, etc. All the same basic story. You have a protag who doesn't know what his true power is, who crosses a threshold with the help of supernatural aid (sometimes an older mentor), who must face trials on his road to achieve his quest, who faces death and is basically reborn (apotheosis), who is victorious and takes away a prize (enlightenment, a treasure, whatever), and who returns to his old world with new wisdom, changing it forever. One of the most lasting story structures of all time. So yes, your book probably does have a lot of the same elements, as it really is the greatest story ever told - over and over and over.


----------



## Michael Murray (Oct 31, 2011)

I heard that the author's of the Bible used a time machine to steal the plot of Battle Royale  .


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

I hadn't thought of it before, but perhaps the Bible does have every possible story line. Steven King is a master at writing about the fight between good and evil, for example: The Stand. For a writer, the Old Testament has far more interesting story lines than the new, and I have often wondered if Mr. King gets his ideas directly from it.

So, are all books about the fight between good and evil?


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Marti: I don't think that they're  necessarily a fight against good and evil so much as they are about a protagonist's struggle against long odds. Evil being the antithesis of good, but it could also be just anything that's opposite. In romance, for instance, you might have the structured girl who has to go outside her comfort zone to face trials in order to be with her opposite - the sloppy bad boy. He's not necessarily evil, nor is she necessarily good. But that polarization is required to create conflict, and tension, and the trials that she must face if she is to change herself and be reborn with whatever the prize is - a new awareness, or true love, or whatnot.

All epic stories are basically about the protagonist changing in some fundamental way, and returning to their old world with that new change coloring either that world, or their perception of it, forever. In adventure, as I said, Harry Potter is the same story as Star Wars as The Matrix as The Hunger Games. You can swap the character names, and the beats are basically the same. There's a reason for that. That structure is very old, and works. It resonates. The structure stays the same, but the circumstances and characters change. The Stand is the same story. It's all based on the monomyth. That's why when publishers or Hollywood says they want the same story, only different, they're trying to articulate that they want the same high notes and sense of conflict, rebirth and resolution - only with a different premise and characters.

It's not the only story structure, obviously, but it's one that works very well for "big" stories. Tolkien's Rings series and Hobbit series are the same story as The Matrix or Star Wars or Harry Potter. Once you realize that, it's both freeing, and claustrophobic, because it can seem formulaic, but the truth is that if you miss any of the beats, you'll disappoint readers, who consciously or not, want and expect the same beats - because they know how a "good" story "works" and they recognize when your story lacks those "good" elements.

As with all things, it is what it is. But understanding story structures like the monomyth enable one to grasp what common elements, archetypes and themes have worked since the dawn of time.


----------



## 31842 (Jan 11, 2011)

Someone left a review that the heavy Christian themes at the end of my book made her uncomfortable.  I wasn't aware of the Gospel According to Grimm, but, then again, I slept through a lot of Sunday school.


----------



## Ardin (Nov 1, 2012)

I think stories set in Texas have a strong Biblical atmosphere too for some reason.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Ardin said:


> I think stories set in Texas have a strong Biblical atmosphere too for some reason.


Well, it is God's country...


----------



## David Adams (Jan 2, 2012)

Oh yeah, heaps of times. 

It's been said that my books are wildly inconsistent, the first book is very different from later sequels, poorly researched, all the characters you care about die except the obvious super powered Gary Sue whose son saves the world, spoilers are everywhere, all the books contradict themselves and badly need editing.

This is why self publishing is bad, folks! Just anyone can write anything they want!


----------



## Harry Dewulf (Oct 4, 2010)

David Adams said:


> Oh yeah, heaps of times.
> 
> It's been said that my books are wildly inconsistent, the first book is very different from later sequels, poorly researched, all the characters you care about die except the obvious super powered Gary Sue whose son saves the world, spoilers are everywhere, all the books contradict themselves and badly need editing.
> 
> This is why self publishing is bad, folks! Just anyone can write anything they want!


Shooting fish in a barrel, David, but LIKE LIKE LIKE just the same.


----------



## wilsonharp (Jun 5, 2012)

Well, I haven't read your books yet, Joe. But you asked what David and Jerusalem had to do with each other.

When David became King of Israel (and the story of THAT is a fascinating tale), he decided to conquer Jerusalem, which was a fortified city held by the Jebusites, enemies of Israel. They were right in the middle of Israel, but they bragged that the city could be held by a single blind man. David found an access way into the city through the water system and led his soldiers in that way. Once Jerusalem was taken, he changed the capital of Israel to that city. The city was nicknamed 'The City of David' because of his boldness.


----------



## Darren Wearmouth (Jan 28, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Well, it is God's country...


I'll give you God's country, it doesn't infringe on the copyright of Yorkshire being God's county...


----------



## Ashy (Jul 2, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Huh? I'm not a biblical scholar, but... err... what did David have to do with Jerusalem? Philistines and Rome?


wilsonharp is spot on...

David was king of the Israelites. He lived in Jerusalem and ruled over Judah for 33 years (he lived and ruled from Hebron for 7 yerars of his reign). Remember _Bashebagate_? That went down in Jerusalem. 
David fought the Philistines often - Goliath was a Philistine, for instance (Goliath came from Gath, which was a Philistine city-state).

Not sure what the connection between David and Rome might be, however - there's a fair amount of water under those two bridges. 

HTH!


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

Russell, this is why you are a much better writer than I. I don't know, nor do I care about the "structure" of a story. I have the freedom of writing what I want without all the rules, except spelling and punctuation, of course. Thankfully, I have an editor who knows all that stuff. 

I fear my books would become cookie-cutters and just like a thousand other books on the market if I tried to follow all the rules. I am wrong, certainly, but it seems to work for me.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Marti: It's a question of perspective. Structure isn't "rules." It's a map of what works in terms of beats. That's all it is. Some structures work better than others. It's not coincidence that the best loved stories of all time tend to have the same basic structure. One either learns those structures so one can make them work for you, or one ignores them, preferring to try to reinvent wheels. Both approaches are fine. But one has a much higher success probability, if you look at what sells.

I prefer to think of structure as a basic story flow diagram, and then it gives me a starting point and a blueprint to ensure I'm hitting all the beats. I can choose to ignore one or two, but at least I know I've made that choice, and it's not that I didn't include them because I had no idea that they existed. I used to have no idea about any of this, but I noticed that when I hit a wall with plotting, I invariably contrived a way of making the story more interesting by inserting something that heightened the tension. What I noticed when I studied story structure was that I was instinctively doing what the established structures already had mapped out. There is a reason that every journey involves a point where there's no way back for the protag, only forward. There's a reason that he's not sure who he can trust. There's a reason that he initially isn't thrilled with the idea of embarking on the journey. A reason he's tempted at some point and almost gives in to it. These are all contrivances that resonate with us as humans, which is why religions all follow that rough pattern, as do our books and movies.

Three act structure is useful, and is another way or describing the same basic approach. In act one, you establish who the characters are, what the situation is that demands that they embark on their quest (be it finding a mate, or a treasure, or a ring, or heaven, or whatever), who will act as their mentor (if you use that device, which most do, be it the wise old aunt or the wizard or the Sensei or Morpheus or whatnot). Typically at the end of act one, you have the protag crossing a threshold that he can't return from - he can only go forward. In the Matrix it's taking the red pill. In romance, it might be where the two ill-suited lovers move in, or she finds out she's pregnant, or decides she's in love. Point is there's a threshold that changes the protag's reality, after which he/she must move forward, as the old reality is no longer an option. Act two is usually the trials and tribulations, temptation, crisis, etc., usually ending with the protag getting what they were after, and with it, a transformation of some sort. Act three is the denouement and the return of the protag to the old reality, struggling with meshing the new, transformed protag with the old reality. In other words, it's generally where we see what the point of the whole shooting match was.

If you don't know these phases exist, you might cut the story off at around the end of act two, and your readers will complain about the ending not feeling resolved. Because they've heard stories their entire life, and they know the good ones always resolve. So when yours doesn't, they don't like it as much. It's why every Disney cartoon movie seems to end with a wedding. It's why the Hurt Locker has the protag returning to his old reality (combat) after learning what he really is made of after returning home. It's why Slumdog Millionaire has the protag followed not just winning the show, but after, where he's changed, and realized important things about life and himself. That transformation, and more importantly the effect of the transformation on the protag's reality, or his perception of reality, is the key to the satisfying ending. If you don't understand that, you might be inclined to skip that bit. Which you can. But now that you understand why it works, you sort of do so understanding the risk of skipping the part readers find resolution in. 

For me, structure is like a roadmap. I want to go to NY. I'm in LA. Structure allows me to plot a course that gets me there as efficiently as possible. Now, one could say that's limiting and formulaic, and that you want the freedom to meander wherever your heart takes you, and that's fine. But with structure, at least you can evaluate whether you're getting closer, or further away, from your destination. I don't view it as limiting so much as a tool for creating better stories. There's no one structure everyone should use, but I believe you should learn about the basic structures of stories so that you are forearmed with more choices. It's like vocabulary. The more words you know, the better you should be able to express yourself with the exact meaning you're after. The more limited your vocabulary, the less efficient your expression will be. That doesn't mean you need to use a gazillion words. But it helps if you know a gazillion so you can select the absolute right one to get across the nuance you want.

I use structure as a tool to build, not as a rigid rule to follow. I find that certain structures lend themselves well to certain types of stories, and that by varying the characters and situations/settings, I can craft more compelling stories that hit all the right notes with readers. Of course that's not the only way to do it. There are a million ways. It's just the way I've found works best. And BTW, if you want to get picked up by Hollywood, if you are missing some beats because you don't know they even exist, you'll get passed over pretty quickly - because Hollywood, like publishers, want the same story that sold big time after time after time - only different. What they mean when they say that is that they want something that hits all the notes that have come to be present in every blockbuster stretching back as far as man has been telling stories. Structure allows you to map that out and make more informed choices. That's all.


----------



## brie.mcgill (Jun 5, 2013)

I would be *really* tempted to comment, "OH MY GOD"


----------



## philstern (Mar 14, 2011)

People have said a lot of things about The Bull Years, but I can assure you that no one has ever compared it to the Bible.


----------



## Ardin (Nov 1, 2012)

Russell, could you recommend a book on monomyth structure?
I've been listening to John Truby lessons and he talks about the myth structure a lot and I'd love a good book on it.


----------



## ThomasCardin (Mar 18, 2013)

Yup. In one review of the second book of my Gifts of Vorallon trilogy, City of Thunder, it earned this accolade:

"...This builds up to a wicked battle between Lorace and the demon lord. Ephesians 6:12 states, “We do not fight against the flesh and blood, but against…the rulers of darkness and spiritual hosts of wickedness.” It is unknown if Cardin was inspired by that verse, but this is a great representation of it as far as fantasy/fiction books go." - Adelaide Metzger

This caught me out of the blue. I had thought I stayed away from any implicit biblical scenes - I do not even use the words "good" and "evil" in the entire trilogy. That's not to say things are steeped in spirituality, and light vs darkness, but its expressly not a christian myth--I would not know where to begin.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Being compared to the Bible is quite a compliment, whether the reviewer meant it that way or not, and regardless of what the reviewed thinks. A great deal of classic literature cannot be understood properly without a solid working knowledge of the Bible (which calls into question how literature is taught these days in school, but that's a different topic). Shakespeare is the poster child for that, but the list includes everyone from Milton, Dickens, Tolstoy, Thackeray, etc, etc. Heck, even Tolkien.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Ardin: Sure. Go to the creator of the structure: Joseph Campbell's seminal, The Hero With a Thousand Faces. For a more abbreviated version of it, the Wiki article on Joseph Campbell's Monomyth isn't bad, in that it covers the basic highlights of the structure. 

It's just one structure, of course, but one I find fascinating since so many successful films and novels adhere to it so closely. Obviously, too much of a good thing can stymie creativity, but it's an interesting lens with which to examine story structure.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

I read the Bible. Starts with a lot of infodump and world building.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2013)

You mean clunky, overweight, and a tad on the dry side?  No, not yet.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> It's just one structure, of course, but one I find fascinating since so many successful films and novels adhere to it so closely. Obviously, too much of a good thing can stymie creativity, but it's an interesting lens with which to examine story structure.


Yep.

Interesting: a lot of these guys are orphans and live far, far from the center of power.

Privet Drive is Tatooine is Sir Ector's castle (actually more of a walled farm) is the Shire.

And someone has to convince them to take up their, ahem, manifest destiny.

You are (can be) a wizard, Harry.
You are (can be) a Jedi Knight, Luke.
You are (can be) a king, Arthur.
You are (can be) the Ring Bearer, Frodo.

The convincing is done by one of the cousins, Dumbledore, the older Obi One Kenobi, Merlin or Gandalf.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> Quote from: blakebooks on Today at 12:06:52 PM
> 
> It's just one structure, of course, but one I find fascinating since so many successful films and novels adhere to it so closely. Obviously, too much of a good thing can stymie creativity, but it's an interesting lens with which to examine story structure.
> 
> ...


And the oracle in The Matrix, convincing whatshisname that he is The One.

I have to admit that in all these stories, I always wonder why Dumbledore, Obi, Merlin, Gandalf or the oracle don't just do it themselves since they already know everything.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

A popular adaptation of Joseph Campbell's work for screenwriters is "The Writers Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers" by Christopher Vogler.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Diane: Yup. It was originally a memo at Disney for its screenwriters, and was later expanded to become a book. Which itself is rather fascinating. My only problem with the monomyth idea is when it is regarded as the only good or valid structure, to the exclusion of all others. It's a good one, but by no means the only one.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Gastien and the Bible?  Well, it is omniscient...


----------



## Harry Dewulf (Oct 4, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> You are (can be) a wizard, Harry.


response #32:

"People keep telling me this but I don't even own an owl."


----------

