I previously wrote about
“stealing”
characters. In that
essay, I described
several
characters
from popular
fiction
and how they might be seen as variations on the same character template. I suggested that a
writer
can modify and reimagine existing characters to create new ones. Actually, I think that is probably how most
characters are born, even if the authors aren’t consciously aware of it.
Similarly,
plots
can be “stolen.” Some have suggested
that there are a very limited number of plots, so in a sense all writers are
stealing from a small pool. On the other
hand, there is a lot more to a story than just the plot, so it may not
matter. Let me illustrate the idea with
some examples.
The plot is well known. Ebenezer
Scrooge begins as a miser. On a certain
Christmas Eve,
he is confronted by the ghost of his former
business
partner and three spirits who represent Christmases
past,
present and
future. The
visions they show
him convince Scrooge that his single-minded pursuit of
money
has deprived him of life. He awakes
Christmas morning as a new man committed to
relating
to his fellow man and putting his money to use.
Let’s reverse Scrooge. Make him
an extremely generous person instead of a miser. In that case, he might be something like
George Bailey. Bailey, played by
Jimmy Stewart,
was the generous man at the heart of
It’s a Wonderful Life. His dream is to travel the world. Instead, he delays his dream again and again
to help his
neighbors,
his
brother,
and eventually his own
wife
and
children. It comes to a head when a mistake by his
uncle
brings imminent ruin to the savings and loan George runs. Faced with ruin,
George sees himself as an utter failure.
He contemplates suicide in hopes that his insurance policy will rescue
his
family
from financial ruin.
At this point, he receives a spiritual visit like Ebenezer. In this case it is a single spirit, an angel
named
Clarence. Like the Christmas ghosts, Clarence shows
George a vision. This is also an
inversion of Dickens’ tale. Instead of
showing him a
history
of missed opportunities and blindness to the needs of others, Clarence reveals
an alternate world in which George and his generous acts did not exist. His brother is dead. His wife is a frightened spinster (it’s hard
to believe
Donna
Reed would have been overlooked by the
marriageable
men of
Bedford
Falls even holed up in the library with her glasses on). The people are mired in
poverty because
he hadn’t been there to fight for access to
credit
so they could build homes and businesses.
The town is under the thumb of the miserly landlord
Mr. Potter,
himself a type of unreformed Scrooge.
Like Scrooge, George is changed by his vision. He sees that his life is worth something and
that his sacrifices bought him a lot of
love. In the end, returned from his walk in the
dark alternate universe, that love is displayed by a return of generosity from
his many friends that saves him.
These beloved stories don’t have the same plot. However, one is a variation or alteration of
the plot of the other. This plot
archetype doesn’t have to be so serious.
Topper, either the book by
Thorne Smith
or the
movie
starring
Cary
Grant, is an example of this plot
played
for laughs.
Cosmo Topper
is a banker. He is bored with his
job. He is somewhat alienated from his wife who clings
to respectability. He has money and
status, even what might have been considered a good marriage in a time when
such relationships were as much about business as love, but he has no fun and
it is wearing on him.
The ghosts are a piece of work, too.
George
and
Marion
Kerby are a
wealthy
couple who die in a car accident.
Instead of shuffling off to the afterlife, they find themselves stuck on
earth. They have never done something
substantive, either good or bad, in their entirely frivolous lives. They decide to fix the situation by helping
their old friend Topper.
In this case, all the major characters are a type of Scrooge. Topper has let his job, money, and status
keep him from a life of fun and serious connection. The Kerbys had so little meaningful
connection to other people that they neither helped nor harmed another soul. Even Topper’s wife
Clara has
sacrificed intimacy in her marriage to focus on social climbing.
So Topper is visited by spirits like Scrooge and Bailey. Instead of taking a serious look at life, it
is presents a screwball
comedy. The Kerbys drag Topper into all kind of
risqué situations he would normally not get into. Misunderstandings abound and Topper is
embarrassed repeatedly. The ghosts are have
good intentions, but they are not very competent. Topper feigns irritation at the hijinks, but
in his heart is having a ball and doesn’t want the haunting to end. Clara feels humiliated by all the trouble
Topper is getting into, but fear of losing him to a wild life reminds her of
how much she loves him.
Through a series of screwy events, the characters undergo a
Scrooge-like change. The Toppers loosen
up and rekindle their love. They
discover that their intimacy as a couple is more important than jobs, wealth or
status, though they don’t have to completely give up those things. The Kerbys take responsibility for themselves
and their actions. They finally put
Topper’s needs ahead of their own and do something substantively good, opening
the doors of
heaven.
You can probably see that these stories are related by more than
similarities in plot. They have a common
theme. All of these stories are about connecting to
others in relationships. Bailey is a
little different from the others in that he starts out blind to all the good
that has resulted from his seemingly humble touching of the lives of
others. Scrooge, the Toppers and the
Kerbys are isolated for various reasons, mostly of their own making, and need
to discover that relating to others is the main thing.
