Creating a Universe
by Jeremy dePrisco

I've been carefully observing some of the most popular forms of entertainment over the last few years. I've come to the conclusion that an artist must think about not only the immediate work in front of him, but how that work might create or fit into a unique universe that people will want to enter.

Take The Matrix for example. Besides the movies there are video games and on-line experiences. From the literary industry, we have Harry Potter, another example that has branched out to movies and various products. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are perfect examples as well, though it is doubtful even Lucas or Tolkien would have imagined how far their visions would go to create fully engrossing universes of games, toys, movies and web sites.

Being a huge fan of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, and witnessing my wife's fascination with Harry Potter (she started reading the 5th book the moment it arrived and finished it in a single weekend), I can understand the appeal of these universes. The trick seems to be in creating one - a conscious effort - something that doesn't happen by accident.

To have a successful universe - one that people are going to care enough about to purchase a piece of - some key elements are needed:

1. It has to be a universe - whether completely fantastic or based on reality. It has to be immersive and make you forget about your everyday life. As my friend Steve says, "It has to resemble ours in some aspects so that we want to live there for some reason, and have empathy for these characters."

2. It needs to have characters that are appealing (or unappealing) enough to want to learn more about.

3. It has to be visually appealing. All of the examples above, even in their earliest forms, struck the imagination with their visuals.

4. It has to be timeless. Multiple generations of people need to relate to the universe in their own way.

Universe:
"Universe" has several meanings. From Dictionary.com we have "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole." That may work for our Star Wars example, but I prefer another meaning listed:

"The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place." and "All created things viewed as constituting one system or whole; the whole body of things, or of phenomena."

So, "universe", in the context of this discussion, is a world or place, realm; real or imagined, not necessarily in relation to space exploration. Much has been made of the "Tolkien universe," a place where magic is real, where good and evil take the form of non-human Hobbits and Orcs. The Star Wars "universe" encompasses not only the space travel aspect of the sci-fi genre, but the universe of Star Wars is where principles like "The Force" operate. Without getting into all the components of storytelling, we are basically looking at characters, their environment, and the laws or rules of that environment, and the way everything interrelates.

Universes are places or things that pulls us in as readers, draw our ears in as listeners, and capture our eye as viewers. In the driest and coldest sense, it is a gimmick. In the grandest sense it is something that transcends age, race and nationality, making for a meaningful experience for all.

Steve asks, "Can a singer/songwriter create a Tolkien-like universe?!" I say they can. It can be argued, pejoratively at times, that many songwriters are in a universe of their own anyway. While that may be true, looking at their creative output, we could say that artists like Tom Waits with their vivid and often dark characters operate within a universe. There may or may not be any fantasy or sci-fi theme to the songwriter's universe, but the development and juxtaposition of characters and themes within songs can often form a picture for the listener.

Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is a good example of a mini-universe, partially based on 20th century political and military pressure. The characters in The Wall had the power to pull people into a rather complete world in itself.

A writer's universe may not be very unified (like Tolkien). Maybe the characters don't live in the same physical realm, but they represent universal emotions and attitudes. A song about a Negro slave could still fit into a songwriter's universe where a Leprechaun from Mars also resides. It's the totality of the work that is important.

Songwriters don't often continue a sustained relationship among characters and worlds created in songs. From album to album, things usually change. Writers with a definable style (like Waits), pull us in with their good writing, and that in itself creates their universe.

Appealing:
Maybe "appealing" isn't the right word. "Intriguing" or "enthralling" may be better. Something about it draws us in and makes us want to "have" a piece of it. Maybe the characters make us laugh. Maybe they make us feel better than them, maybe we admire them and reflect on our own existence. Or maybe they are just plain interesting. Whatever the case, the universe is attractive in some way, even if that attraction is grotesque in its appearance (Gollum).

Visuals:
When looking at musical universes, there may or may not be a visual component, but it is becoming increasingly necessary.

When most people hear Bach or Beethoven, they probably don't think of what Bach or Beethoven looked like. Music scholars and those who have watched movies or documentaries portraying these now-ancient artists might have a visual in mind, but for the most part, these composers are face-less. Compare that to the one-legged flute blowing of Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull or the tongue wagging of Gene Simmons of Kiss, and you have something quite different. Iron Maiden has their icon "Eddie". It makes me wonder if Mozart had an undead mascot in mind.

In the golden age of vinyl, album art and liner notes were important eye candy. In the 1980s, music videos changed the way music was perceived, making the band's image almost palpable even if they were not in the video itself. Now we also have web sites that offer all of the above as well as additional products and artist interaction. The web site is a portal to the artist's universe.

A group's stage show continues to play an important visual role in creating a universe for fans, audiences and, as they ultimately must be called, customers. And even after the stage is cleared, the universe, somehow, still exists; ready to be entered at another point (the next album, tour, book, etc.)

Of course, we could question whether or not it is good to have so much focus on the visual aspect of things when it comes to music, but it seems audiences want both a good product and a good solid image to go with it. One could argue that besides stage blood and computer graphics not much has changed since the 50 and 60s when some groups would perform in matching suits. The uniforms often complimented their choreographed movements helping to build the image further. And as Steve points out, these costumes and movements worked their way into the 70s with acts like Parliament Funkadelic, Alice Cooper and David Bowie.

The same image-consciousness of the 50s & 60s is still present today in the image-makers of the manufactured stars of American Idol? But can any of these image-makers create a universe that is compelling enough for us to buy into? And can we ask ourselves the question: who is creating universes these days? Is it the image-maker or the artist themselves? You could dress someone up and give them a guitar, but are they really going to create a universe as inspiring as Dark Side of the Moon? Even if the team of people manufacturing an image has a good concept, coming through another person it doesn't function the same way.

Timelessness:
We now find Hollywood making movies based on theme parks. This reverse engineering of entertainment is curious. It used to be that a movie (like Jurassic Park) would spawn the ride. That makes a bit more sense since the whole thing is (presumably) based on a writer's vision of a world (universe) where dinosaurs and humans coexist.

The new method from ride to movie may be nothing more than a marketing ploy to get people to attend a ride that otherwise doesn't have a universe connected with it, and therefore less marketing value. Hollywood has finally figured out that a movie is basically a 2-hour commercial (which product placement people have known for decades).

While rides have often-creative designers, artistic directors and even composers, should we trust them and their technicians instead of traditional writers and composers to generate ideas for our entertainment outside of the theme park?

It is the writer and composer who originate the bulk of the profit-driving material that other people (image-makers, graphic artists, marketing staff, advertising agents, etc) depend on. It is also the writer - the true writer - who develops the works that empower the mind to enter new places of thought and develop our inner meaning as people, something a glitzy CGI cartoon character mascot can never do.

So, as distracting as all the technology is, and as enticing as all of the product tie-ins might be, I would hope that true writers make it their responsibility to focus on their art and craft of writing. Good story and characters on a black and white page (whether in music or linguistic arts) are better than the quick fixes technology often offers. Someone has to think about this, or else we will be overcome by reality TV, manufactured pop stars and movies based on the theme park tilt-a-whirl tragedy of 2010.