How Subplots Enrich Your Story

Here's fresh insight that will refine your subplots and reinforce your story's main physical and psychological spines.

But first let's set the stage.

In other places I explain how a story's subplot can be devised and used to reinforce the Moral Premise of the story. In short, those explanations have focused on these traits:

1. Each subplot follows a particular character in their pursuit of a specific goal.

2. Each subplot has fewer dramatic beats than the story's physical spine.

3. The psychological arc of every character in every subplot lies someone along the arc between the opposing values anchored by the Moral Premise Statement.

For example, let's say we have a story titled HOT WATER. Our story's main plot (or physical spine) centers on a protagonist—an elderly but persistent widow—who battles a secretive landlord who refuses to provide more than 65/F of heat to the hot water heating system during the winter months.  The widow's goal of the main plot is to sue the landlord to reveal how much profit he's making by keeping the temperature at 65/F, and thus force him raise the temperature.

But the landlord's position is that his financial records are private, and he further argues the tenant agreement specifically states that the maximum temperature that he needs to provide tenants is 65/F, not a degree more.

Let's say the Moral Premise Statement for our story is:

Miracles Don't Just Happen, and Neither Do Story Hooks.

Story hooks are very much like miracles. But unlike miracles, your audience won't take the hook on faith. You have to explain it.

I have been working on a non-fiction book that has a couple of chapters that deal with the intersection of miracles and natural law. It occurred to me that miracles are very much like story hooks.

What's a Miracle?

A miracle can be defined as any unique physical phenomenon that defies natural explanation and which appears to have some benefit to a person or group of persons. That definition is an attempt to separate incidents of fate, or natural catastrophes that harm humanity (e.g. tsunami, tornadoes, or ...falling branches—like the one that totaled my wife's car yesterday in our driveway) from a similarly fascinating natural event that saves a person's life or prevents catastrophe. While a tornado may level a house we would not call it a miracle. But the baby that is carried by that same tornado to a field 2 miles away and set down without serious injury—

The view out my office. NOT a miracle, unless it can be fixed.

—that's a miracle!

And of those two events (the house leveling tornado or the tornado as baby transporter) which is the story hook?  The baby for sure.

My examination of miracles for this book I'm the editor of (in which I find myself at times rewriting the material), has revealed that there are many ways miracles can be naturally explained, although such explanations are nearly as miraculous and as fanciful as the event itself. The explanations involve unseen hierarchy of the nature's laws, the hierarchy of species, coincident of event timing, and the intersection of spacial and time dimensions beyond those which we normally perceive (3 of space and the point-dimension of time).

Miracles (and perhaps story hooks, too) seem to have two common components:

1. There is an instigation or incident from an outside trigger, and
2. After the outside trigger natural physical laws take over. 

In other words, the idea that a miracle violates or breaks natural laws is probably a false concept. It appears that the unusual event is the trigger, after which Natural Law dominates. (Ah! Now, I'm sure some of you would argue with that. Well, hold on, there's more but I can only type one finger at a time.)

Do Miracles and Hooks Break with Nature?

Now, as I just stated, people of religious faith will challenge me on ideological grounds that miracles do not violate or break a natural law. They will claim that unless there are miracles that defy nature they aren't miracles, and if there are no such nature-defying events then religious faith is dead...and since we can't have that, miracles must defy, violate, or break with nature.  (So much for the circular reasoning of ideology. I prefer evidence, else one could believe in anything....really.)

I'm not going to try to defend religious faith here (although I have it, and I do believe in miracles), but let's examine some ideas and see the story potential in each. My point is that miracles are a good way to conceptualize story hooks...and likewise your hooks should be/could be/must be miraculous...with an explanation of a sort. 

Are These Miracles? Could they be Hooks?

A dandelion growing in the middle of the desert? We'd call that a miracle, but it's an event that can be explained. The miracle here is that a dandelion seed got into the desert mud. After that inciting incident, natural law took over...when the conditions were right we have a blooming dandelion.

We call the development of a human being in a mother's womb and its delivery, The Miracle of Birth, although biologists claim that it can all be explained...at least at some level. Frankly, science can explain very little about how it happens nor can they create a baby from scratch. That makes it a miracle....an everyday miracle, hey get that thumb out of your mouth, you want buck teeth? Why look at that thumb and those teeth...wanna explain either of those?

Aunt Millie being healed of some strange lung disease is one thing...we're not really sure if there was a misdiagnosis, or if some "miracle" drug actually worked, if if an angel visited her in the middle of the night. 

But how do we explain Splash, Jesus walking on water or healing the eyes of the blind, or Moses leading the Children of Israel through the Red Seat on dry land? The skeptic's easy explanation of the Bible miracles is that they're as real as Splash—they didn't actually happen. The person of faith, on the other-hand, is much like the avid story connoisseur...they believe, for there's something of value in the story and the belief. And a good hook or miracle can reveal truth in the story myth that follows.  (Where "myth" is the story vehicle, regardless of it's truth. J.R.R. Tolkien once told C.S. Lewis that the Jesus myth was a true myth worthy of belief. The Chronicles of Narnia were the result.) [Did you ever wonder why those British authors only used initials for their given names?]

Daryl Hannah in a mermaid suit, Morgan Freeman walking on water, or Jesus spitting on a man's eyes are all good hooks, aren't they? How can they be possible? We wonder, we're intrigued, we allow mystery and suspense to pile in...and we become engaged in the story...because of the miracle. We're hooked.  Most people of faith don't want an explanation of miracles (from the ancient past or present day.) But story mavens need something, and I think people of faith need something too, otherwise belief in anything, true or not, would be probable. 

In stories then, when we're presented with the hook, we want to know something about it, like where did it come from, or how does it work? It can't be the writer's convenience and just appear. We can't expect readers or audiences to buy into the ideology just because we said it is so. Even if we can't explain it perfectly, audiences expect us to give it some basis in logic, even if the logic is faulty.  

For example, in WHAT WOMEN WANT, Nick Marshall (Mel Gibson) has a bathroom accident with a hair dryer and a bathtub, that "allows" him to hear the thoughts of women he's near. At first this is just what playboy Nick would want. But then it turns into a curse. Nonetheless, the hook, or miracle is explained...at least enough so we can suspend disbelief. And of course it makes no sense, whatsoever. If anything like what happened to Nick happened to a real person, they'd be electrocuted dead. End of movie. 

So, it occurred to me, that some of the philosophical, logical, and scientific understandings of where real miracles come from would help us as storytellers come up with believable hooks. 

5 Rules for Miracles and Story Hooks

1. Miracles and hooks are at first unexplained phenomenal events, seeming impossibilities in the physical realm. But in reality, miracles and hooks do not actually violate Natural Law. C.S. Lewis writes in his book Miracles:

If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and in months later a child is born.

2. Miracles and hooks are not the same as events of fate or catastrophes which occur due to natural law of occurrences, but without moral purpose. Miracles and hooks are specific to a person or group of people with a moral purpose. That is, a miracle or a hook involves some intelligent, benevolent "person," or "force" that triggers the event.

"Everything in a successful story relates to the character arc described by the moral premise statement, including the hook, which describes the peculiar and person problem of our protagonist....Peter." (personal interview with Stan Williams) ...hey, I needed a quote...can't I quote myself even if I just made it up?

3. After the event is triggered, Natural Law takes over and all other things in the person's life or story transpire without additional miracles or hooks. Natural law is never violated, although the natural laws involved may be unknown.

Scientific discoveries reveal natural laws heretofore unknown which caused events that previously could only be described as unexplained phenomenal, or something God does in secret.  But even if we have some explanation for how the event occurred,  the phenomena's moral purpose defines it as a miracle.

4. The "person" or "force" behind the miracle or hook may be a representative of a higher order species that intervenes in the life of the lower species. 

A miracle to a nutritive plant could be triggered by a brute sentient animal. A miracle to a brut sentient animal maybe triggered by a rational person.  A miracle or hook to a rational person would be triggered by a supernatural entity. In each case, the higher species reaches down into the environment of the lower species to trigger an event. For both agents, in both species, no natural law is broken, although the lower species may not understand the natural law which the higher species invokes. 

For example, a young girl folds her laundry and puts 12 pairs of socks in her drawer. The next morning there are only 9, her three favorite pair of red socks are missing. She wonders if she counted wrong. But then a few days later a miracle occurs and the three missing pairs show up again, in the drawer, perfectly in place. She takes one pair out to put it on, and low and behold she discovers a second miracle, the holes in the heels of the socks have been mended. How did this happen? Well, you guessed it, a higher order species paid her a visit...her mother.

5.  "Persons," and "forces" can trigger miracles by operating in extra dimensions of time and space beyond the 3 dimensions of space and 1 point of time humanity normally experiences. Science fiction is always playing with time and other dimensions. If we're to consider some of the theories surrounding Quantum String Theory we have as  many as 10 dimensions to play with, and all we need is a 4th for Jesus to walk through walls, or for Bruce Nolan (Jim Carey) to hear the prayers that God hears and to walk on water.

Conclusion

So, the next time you're trying to think up a hook, think instead of a miracle. That impossibility that through your craft you make reasonable. 

The Hero's Arc - SAVING PRIVATE RYAN

SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (1998)

STEVEN SPIELBERG - Director
ROBERT RODAT - Writer
TOM HANKS - Captain Miller
TOM SIZEMORE - Sergeant Horvath
EDWARD BURNS - Pvt. Reiben
BARRY PEPPER - Pvt. Jackson
ADAM GOLDBERG - Pvt. Mellish
VIN DIESEL - Pvt. Caparzo
GIOVANNI RIBISI - T-4 Medic Wade
JEREMY DAVIES - Corporal Upham
MATT DAMON - Pvt. Ryan

Heroes have arcs. They change. But they don't change like protagonists.

In a brief post on Nov 5, 2016, with the assistance of Christopher Vogler, I explain the difference between a Hero and a Protagonist. I promised to write a bit more about that topic by examining SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (SPR) and Capt. James Miller's (TOM HANKS) arc. In SPR Miller is the hero not the protagonist.

To most viewers it will not appear that Capt. Miller changes. If we compare Miller to a common protagonist, I would agree that he does not change...much.

From the Hero and  Protagonist post here's the relevant comparison.

A. The protagonist will start off with an obvious weakness or vice that (in a redemptive story) for example, will arc toward the polar opposite strength or virtue.  

B. By comparison, a hero, at the story's beginning, will almost epitomize a strength or virtue, but have a subtle flaw, which, in the course of the story will arc in the same direction, not the polar opposite. That is, the hero will find a way to increase his strength and deepen his virtue. 

In both cases (the protagonist and the hero) the Moment of Grace (the story's mid-point scene) will clearly fulcrum around the hero's motivational challenge. We might normally ask (for SPR's story question): "Will Captain Miller successfully rescue Pvt. Ryan?" But the question at SPR's Moment of Grace is refined: "Will Captain Miller successfully rescue Pvt. Ryan for the right reason?"

Doing the right thing for the wrong reason, is sometimes the story question in tales about heroes. One of the best known stories that deals with this theme is T.S. Elliot's play, "Murder in the Cathedral" that portrays the assassination of Archbishop Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170.  It's fairly clear form the beginning that Becket is going to be murdered. The question remains, however, if he will seek it for the glory of martyrdom (a sin), or allow himself to be killed for what is morally right.

Captain Miller, while not seeking martyrdom, believes from the beginning that the mission (to save Pvt. Ryan's life) is NOT worth the lives of the 8 men he takes with him. And yet, Miller is a good soldier, although he has already lost over 90 men under his command in the 3 days since they landed on Omaha, Beach.

We get an opportunity to understand Capt. Miller's attitude early in Act 2 (at 41 minutes). As the men are walking through the countryside, they gripe -- indirectly -- about the orders they've been given. They discuss the senseless purpose of their mission—"for the sake of a mother." Griping is what solider's do. But Miller is a Captain for a reason. He says, "Reiben, pay attention. This is the way to gripe! Continue, Jackson." At which Pvt. Jackson (BARRY PEPPER), the sniper in the group, gripes (about their mission) in a very high-minded, hopeful way.

JACKSON: What I mean, sir, if you put me and this rifle within one mile of Adolf Hitler with a clear line of sight, sir... Pack your bags, fellas. War's over.

Then we get to the heart of what Miller is thinking. Notice the subtext. The dialogue is not on the nose. It's good script writing, and for reasons like this example, Robert Rodat's screenplay was nominated for an an Oscar.

REIBEN: So, Captain, what about you?
You don't gripe at all? 

MILLER: I don't gripe to you, Reiben. I'm a captain. There's a chain of command. Gripes go up, not down. You gripe to me, I gripe to my superiors and so on. I don't gripe to you or in front of you.

REIBEN: I'm sorry, sir, but, uh...Let's say you weren't a captain. What would you say then?

MILLER: Well, in that case, I'd say this is an excellent mission, sir, with an extremely valuable objective, sir,
worthy of my best efforts, sir. Moreover...l feel heartfelt sorrow for the mother of Private James Ryan and will lay down my life and the lives of my men, especially you, Reiben, to ease her suffering.

A  moment after a few of the men sarcastically congratulate their Captain for his clever answer, there is a THUNDER CLAP, and a FLASH OF LIGHTING.  These are alerts to the audience to pay attention...for what Miller has just described sarcastically, will indeed be the case of his mindset at the end. It is a foreshadowing of Miller's arc.

Before we're half through, another of his men's lives is taken. And why he is killed is important, for it underscores the moral premise of the story. For not taking the mission seriously and disobeying orders,  Pvt. Caparzo (VIN DIESEL) opens himself to sniper fire. For a moment he ignores their mission and does something he deemed more noble — ironically trying to save the life of a village family's daughter. Caparzo believes saving this young girl's life is more important than saving Pvt. Ryan's life. And for that mistake Caparzo is picked off by a sniper and dies.

NOTE the experience here that Miller and his men learn from: Children of parents are important. The mother and father had asked for the soldiers to take their daughter to the better protected village up the road. This is exactly the same thing they've been asked to do by General Marshal, for Pvt. Ryan. They don't see this immediately, but it adds to the subtle evidence of the argument for the audience. If you're willing to die for a young girl, why not a brave soldier?

There are other moments about such relationships. One instance is Miller's discussion with Captain Hamill (TED DANSON) who also has a brother in the war and understands the importance of Miller's mission. Hamill tries to encourage Miller of the mission's importance. But Miller is silent, unconvinced.

At 1:05 into the  film we come to Captain Miller's MOMENT OF GRACE. You're going to see how he changes, not by changing his value system, but by reinforcing his willingness to follow orders. As a leader of men in a war, Miller has done a suburb job up to this point, but his mind is about to be changed...and he will become more deeply committed to saving Pvt. Ryan as will the rest of his men.

The Moment of Grace scene occurs moments after Miller talks with Hamill and Pvt. Caparzo is killed. The men are holed up for the night in an abandoned church. Some men sleep, Jackson copies a blood stained letter that Caparzo had written to his parents. (Note by this action how Jackson shows that he understands the important relationship between son and parents.)  Before he died, Caparzo asked Jackson to copy the letter on clean paper, because Caparzo's blood is on the original...which would be a great shock to Caparzo's mother.

In the Moment of Grace scene, the dialogue and visuals, although they seems to bounce off the walls, are really about ONE THING...the relationship of the men to their parents...and how much the parents care for their children, and how much the children (these men) care for their parents, and how Miller has to embrace that reality of Natural Law. ALSO NOTE: Don't miss the analogy of Capt. Miller as the "parent" for the men in his squad.

I've edited a transcription from "Springfield! Springfield! (movie script website) for this MOG scene. I will interrupt it from time-to-time with comments to point out how the events and dialogue in the scene change Miller's attitude about the mission.  I have also broken up scene into sub-scenes, which I will denote with hyphen separators. (I've left nothing out.)  Each section represents a propositional statement (or premise statement in the argument) that Capt. Miller needs to believe in his heart what he sarcastically intoned to his men minutes earlier in their discussion about griping.  Remember, he said:

MILLER: ...this is an excellent mission, sir, with an extremely valuable objective, sir, worthy of my best efforts, sir. Moreover...l feel heartfelt sorrow for the mother of Private James Ryan and will lay down my life and the lives of my men...

Of course, this is exactly what Miller comes to believe in this scene, which the DVD labels "CHOICES."

-------------------------------------
Scene Begins

Miller's hands shakes uncontrollably.

HORVATH: What's with your hand?

MILLER: l don't know. It started when they brought us down for embarkation. It comes and goes. 

Although Miller TELLS us that his hand was shaking at embarkation (and we do see a moment of it after he's landed on the beach), we SEE it in the close up of the shot that begins this scene. Spielberg and Rodat SHOW us that there is something inside Miller that is unsure of their mission. At no time does Miller say, "I'm nervous and unsure about the invasion but also Saving Pvt. Ryan."

HORVATH: You may have to get yourself a new job. This one doesn't seem to agree with you any more.

The "job" here refers both to Miller's occupation as a soldier, and their current mission. NOTE the subtext.

----------------------------------------

(Miller chuckles) 

HORVATH:What? (beat) What? 

MILLER: Nothing. What was the name of that kid at Anzio? He was always walking around on his hands, and singing that song about the man on the flying trapeze? 

HORVATH: Yeah, Vecchio. 

MILLER: He was a goofy kid. Remember he used to pee 'V' on everybody's jacket, for Vecchio.

HORVATH: For victory. 

MILLER: Vecchio. He was so short. Wasn't he a midget? How did he become a Ranger? 

HORVATH: Got shot in the foot once. 

MILLER: He could walk faster on his hands. He could run faster on his hands than... (trails off.) (Beat) Vecchio. (Beat) Caparzo.

Miller reflects.

We, with Miller, reflect too...about how similar Vecchio is to Caparzo. They are both Rangers. Miller as a "parent" is grieving the memory of both. Both got shot. Both find a place in Miller's heart...something he is not supposed to allow to happen. He is not suppose to "care" for his men, even someone as crazy as Vecchio. (Remember this: Miller does not respect Vecchio; he can't understand how Vecchio became a Ranger.) That Miller does care for his men....like a mom cares for her children causes a problem for him. How can he lead his children to their death if he cares for them? (As we'll see in a moment, these jocular comments about Vecchio are poignant. Don't cast them aside as filler. Nothing in a good movie is filler. )

We're beginning to see some conflict in Miller over this dilemma. So, what does Miller do? He rehearses what he's been taught by his superiors. He vocalizes the paradox that he is struggling with. He can't shake it off. 

-------------------------------------

MILLER (cont): You see, when...you end up killing one of your men, you tell yourself it happened so you could save the lives of two or three or 10 others. Maybe a hundred others. Do you know how many men l've lost under my command? 

HORVATH: How many? 

MILLER: 94. (beat) (quiet sarcasm) But that means I've saved the lives of 10 times that many, doesn't it? Maybe even 20, right? 20 times as many? And that's how simple it is. That's how you--rationalize making the choice between the mission and the men. 

HORVATH: Except this time, this mission is a man. 

Thus we see that Miller's mission conflict with everything he's been taught about leading men...don't care for them so much. Do not worry if they are killed. Carry on. BUT RYAN must not die. Miller's mission is to bring him back alive.

MILLER: This Ryan better be worth it. He'd better go home
and cure some disease or invent a longer-lasting light bulb or something. I wouldn't trade 10 Ryans for one Vecchio or one Caparzo.

NOTE: Do you see Miller's attitude, which is now expressed not just on the nose, but on Miller's sleeve?  Miller does not believe in this mission, and he's not willing to give his life for Ryan. Miller considers crazy Vecchio (a man who should not have been a Ranger) more important and Ryan.

HORVATH: Amen.

And his men clearly feel the same way.

-------------------------------------

(Miller's hand shakes.) 

MILLER: Look. There it goes again. 

HORVATH: Sir...are you all right? 

MILLER: Look, we're gonna move out in two hours. Why don't you get some sleep?

Interpretation: "Don't start caring for me, Horvath. It's against our constitution as soldiers."

CUT TO one of the men sleeping soundly.

PVT. REIBEN: I don't know how he does it. 

SOLIDER 1: What's that? 

PVT. REIBEN: Falls asleep like that. Look at him. He's lights-out the minute his head's down. 

SOLIDER 2: Clear conscience. 

The shot of the soldier sleeping is reminiscent of a child sleeping, safe in his bed at home. The men looking over him subliminally reminds us of parents...a mother...looking in on her child.

SOLIDER 3: What's that saying? 'If God's on our side, who's on theirs?' 

CORPORAL UPHAM: 'If God be for us, who could be against us?' 

SOLIDER 3: Yeah, what did I say?

MEDIC WADE (transcribing Caparzo's letter): Well, actually, the trick to falling asleep is trying to stay awake. 

ANOTHER: How is that, Wade? 

MEDIC WADE: My mother was an intern, she worked late nights, slept through the day, so the only time we got to talk was when she'd get home. So I used to lie in my bed and try to stay awake, but it never worked 'cause the harder I tried, the faster I'd fall asleep.

More mother-child remembrances...and Miller hears all this.

PVT. REIBEN: That wouldn't have mattered in my house. My ma would've shook me awake, chatted till dawn. That woman was never too tired to talk.

ANOTHER: Probably the only time she could get a word in.

PVT. REIBEN: Funny thing is, sometimes she'd come home early, and I'd pretend to be asleep. 

ANOTHER: Who? You...your mom? 

PVT. REIBEN: (ZOOM IN) Yeah. She'd stand in the doorway
looking at me. And I'd just keep my eyes shut. I knew she just wanted to find out about my day, that she came home early... just to talk to me. (tears) And I still wouldn't move. l'd still pretend to just be asleep. I don't know why I did that. 

This line by Reiben is significant to the director because we see a very slow zoom in on Reiben as he delivers it, tears come into his eyes, and the filmmakers milk the moment for every frame of emotion. It's the love of a son for a mother, and the love of the mother for a son. NOTE: Contrast this moment with the ridicule we heard earlier in the griping scene when the guys griped about getting Ryan back "for the sake of a mother." Their attitude now, in this moment of grace is pivoted 180 degrees.  Will Miller also shift? Will the hero change?

-------------------------------------

(silence - contemplation) 

MILLER: We only got a couple hours. Go to sleep.

This line is instructive for two reasons: (a) it reminds us that Miller is paying attention, and (b) he's uncomfortable with the topic and wants it to end.

But the filmmakers are not done. Miller is not yet convinced. So, we pile on more evidence for the argument that Miller needs to be willing to risk his life for Ryan, and truly believe the mission is important.

CORPORAL UPHAM: Captain? Sir? 

MILLER: Corporal?  How you doin' there? You all right?

CORPORAL UPHAM: Yeah, I think this is all good for me, sir. 

MILLER: Really? How is that? 

CORPORAL UPHAM: (quiet reflection): 'War educates the senses, calls into action the will, perfects the physical constitution, brings men into such swift and close collision in critical moments that man measures man.' 

MILLER: Yeah, well, I guess that's Emerson's way of finding the bright side. 

CORPORAL UPHAM: You know Emerson, sir? 

MILLER: I know some. 

CORPORAL UPHAM: So where are you from, Captain? What'd you do before the war? 

MILLER:  What's the pool up to? 

CORPORAL UPHAM: (taken back) You know, I think it's around 300, sir. 

MILLER: Well, when it gets up to 500, I'll give you the answers and we'll split the money. How about that? 

CORPORAL UPHAM: : Well, sir, I feel it's my duty under your command to suggest we wait until it gets to a thousand, sir.

MILLER: What if we don't live that long? 

CORPORAL UPHAM:  500? 

MILLER: 500 would be good, yeah. 

CORPORAL UPHAM: Yes, sir. 

MILLER: Yeah. Get some sleep, Corporal.

CORPORAL UPHAM: Yes, sir.

Those are the last spoken lines in the scene. But it continues for another 40 seconds as Miller walks off by himself and thinks, we suppose about Emerson's lines. Miller has to decide:

• If war will educate his sensitivities.
• If he can exercise his will, and not just those of his commanders.
• If he has the physical disposition to do what is right for the right reasons.
• If when critical decisions have to be made swiftly in close combat, he will measure up to his ideal of a man.

The camera zooms in and the swift light of explosions that bring sudden death illuminate his profile.

During the rest of the film, we see example of example of how Miller and his men come to see their mission with renewed dedication. There is no more griping, and many of them men give their lives willingly for the cause.

In the end, Miller willingly gives up his life to protect Ryan, acting out the sarcastic description early in Act 2.. As he lays dying on the bridge approach Miller tells Ryan: "Earn this! Earn this!" 

At the end of the movie,  an elderly Pvt. James Ryan comes to the graveyard at Omaha Beach to pay his respects to Captain Miller. He finds Miller's marker, and with tears in his eyes, the humble man, who probably didn't cure a disease or invent a longer lasting light bulb, delivers this soliloquy to Miller's grave:

OLDER RYAN: My family is with me today. They wanted to come with me. To be honest with you, I wasn't sure how I'd feel coming back here. Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. And I've tried to live my life the best I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I've earned what all of you have done for me.

Ryan's elderly wife, joined by their children, come up behind him, and tenderly grasps his shoulder. She sees he's been crying.

RYAN'S WIFE: James? 

OLDER RYAN: Tell me I've led a good life. 

RYAN'S WIFE: What? 

OLDER RYAN: Tell me I'm a good man. 

RYAN'S WIFE: You are.

NOTE: That although Pvt. Ryan (MATT DAMON) and his elder self Older James Ryan (HARRISON YOUNG) take up very little screen time, Ryan's life also has an arc...a hero's arc. At the bridge PVT. RYAN refuses to go with Miller and leave his platoon who guard the bridge. When the Germans show up and Miller is shot, Ryan experiences his Moment of Grace. Before he dies, Miller pleas with Ryan: Earn this. Earn this.

And evidently Ryan has earned it. Indeed it seems clear that Ryan has, everyday of his life, relived that Moment of Gerace on the bridge, and rededicated his life to strengthen the virtues for which Miller died. 

Therefore, the moral premise for SAVING PRIVATE RYAN seems to be:

Griping about one's mission in life, leads to questionable manhood and purpose; but

Devotion to one's mission in life, leads a man to a good and purposeful life.

Please know that your comments are welcome. 

You'll find a great deal of good instruction and come closer to mastering your storytelling skills by making use of my on-line Storycraft Training. Housed at Vimeo's VOD site, it can be accessed from http://storycrafttraining.blogspot.com/  Your rental or purchase of the training helps to fund my continued research and writing of essays like this. 

May your writing continue to Vanquish Fear, and Bestow Hope.

Stan Williams

This picture has nothing to do with this post, but I have admired this man all my adult life. It was fabulous to meet him and help introduce him at a film conference in Los Angeles a few years back.