Still working steadily away on my outline. I’m only on Act II at the moment, which means I may not have time to complete Act III in the outline before NaNoWriMo begins. Since I’m still suffering from this awful cold and not feeling up to my usual weekend shenanigans I may as well just work on it, no?
I pondered McGuffins yesterday, from an exploration of Wikipedia’s narratology section which is fairly robust.
An Audience Surrogate seems especially useful for science fiction. Although I’m reading Stranger in a Strange Land right now by Robert Heinlein and I think he overuses it and makes some of the characters seem like idiots for asking stupid questions. It’s mostly a matter of presentation but if a character lives in a world and is familiar with their surroundings they wouldn’t ask silly questions. A good way to put it is that like any narratology device, the reader shouldn’t be aware of it.
There is also the Author Surrogate which displays the heavy handed idealism of the author. Ayn Rand and her ‘mover’ perfect heroes are an excellent example. I remember in The Fountainhead Howard Roark sits in his architect office, not advertising, not selling himself, simply waiting for the ideal customer to come to him because he refuses to compromise his work. Well I’m sorry but in the real world most people have to eat and provide for their families, so a guy with zero income just sitting in his place of business doing nothing waiting for the perfect opportunity doesn’t seem like much of an ideal, does it?
Let’s not even discuss the 70 page ‘money rant’ in Atlas Shrugged. I’ll merely say that it’s not in the author’s interest to preach to the reader, via their characters or otherwise.
On the bright side, she does portray the corruptive influence of society via ’2nd handers’ extremely well. Although most people do not fit entirely in the black & white, she grew up in communist Russia so I forgive her. And frightening enough, I have met a few Jim Taggarts in my lifetime.
Then there is Chekhov’s gun. A great example of this is found in the Preacher graphic novels. Throughout the series there are early displaced single pages with frames featuring new characters or events that don’t seem to be a part of the storyline… yet. They’re merely teasers. I’d rather call them plot teasers than Chekhov’s gun, wouldn’t you?
Of course every story needs a denouement.
I often like an epistolary novel even though I don’t have any plans to write one myself. It isn’t an all-or-nothing deal, as I seem to remember Bram Stoker’s Dracula featuring letters from Jonathon Harker although that wasn’t the only storytelling device used.
I can hardly forget my high school literature class with all its talk of foreshadowing. It’s interesting to consider the difference between it and Chekhov’s gun. Chekhov’s gun is merely a reference to something which will happen later, while foreshadowing seems to often involve more symbolism or flare on the part of the writer. I could be mistaken though, and surely it’s up to interpretation of the writer.
I don’t like meta references because they break the suspension of disbelief and destroy immersion.
I love the definition of Naturalistic Science Fiction. I wouldn’t not hesitate to plunk my main Quantum story and my NaNoWriMo sidestory under this umbrella.
The Plot Coupon is an interesting concept. Upon first glance it seems just like the McGuffin, although it doesn’t have to be a physical object. In the abstract it can be used as the author’s ‘checklist’ for preparing characters or events. “In order for event C to happen, event A and B must come about by the actions of characters X, Y, and Z.” In other words, the plot coupon can be used to enforce cause & effect for the author.
As Wikipedia mentions, one of my favorite Philip K. Dick short stories, Paycheck, is founded entirely upon plot coupons. In this case they also happen to be McGuffins.
There are many other elements of narratology, go check them out for yourself!
I don’t like characters asking stupid questions so the author can infodump either. A story seems so much more effective if the character is put in the middle of the action with the reader having to infer what the world is like–more room for the reader to use his imagination. And the author doesn’t have to resort to expository tactics.
hear hear. Tom Clancy might write real page-turners, but heaven forbid he get on a soapbox and start blathering away about some pet topic.
Although the bit in Sum of All Fears where he intimately details the effects of the dirty bomb going off in the stadium was a bravura sequence… other than that, his political asides I always found especially tiresome.
RC that’s a lovely catalogue of terminology and literary techniques. I suppose if I’m to join you for NaNoWriMo I should have some sort of outline ready myself :)
Sya, I’m trying to think of a positive example of Audience Surrogate.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to write it off entirely. Surely we learn a lot about characters and story from their dialogue.
When forced too hard it becomes stilted and wooden though. Seems to be a classic shtick of disaster movies like The Core or Deep Impact or Armageddon.
But I’ve sensed it in many other movies. Any time a character vocalizes the story plot or concept itself. It suggests an awareness that the characters might not necessarily have. It knocks them out of their role as a character IN the story and they become a temporary narrator.
I think it’s ok for explaining philosophical concepts, such as the mention of Occam’s razor in the movie Contact. I talk theory with people all the time so I don’t think it’s out of bounds for a character to explain a theory to another. It’s when they cross the line into revealing plot or the story itself that it becomes obvious as a crude expository tactic.
It also depends on the characters. In Contact, the characters are science-minded intellectuals so discussion of theory doesn’t seem so out of place, with the exception that Ellie Arroway is probably educated enough to know what Occam’s razor is without Palmer Joss having to tell her. I think it’s forgiveable though.
If the characters were 1950s sailors, or early 20th century miners crudin’ it up over lunch, or beer at the local pub after work it would surely be out of place.
Jack said:
“heaven forbid he get on a soapbox and start blathering away about some pet topic”
This is the problem I have with movies like American History X or the more recent movie Crash. Characters spit racial slurs as if it were the 1950s and they’re completely unaware of how socially uncacceptible ‘open’ racism is in our modern times. This lack of character’s awareness through racist dialogue cheapens the story in my opinion. It’s also completely unbelievable in American History X that two children can live around a racist father and then one day as teenagers suddenly make the conscious decision to be racist. I think almost everyone knows it doesn’t really work like that. Surely the childrens’ prejudice–learned from their father would be evident well before the teenager years–perhaps through clashes with children of other races in gradeschool. Hell, it’s not like a lightswitch. Yet it is often portrayed that way via cheap dialogue.
In the non-fiction title Hitler’s Scientists for example, it is explained that Hitler did not pursue military technology as aggressively as the Allies did (including the A-Bomb) because he felt Germany would not win due to technological trickery but on the “strength might of the German people.” So you see the core of his failures both as a person and a military strategist were based in his obsessive nationalism. It would be hard to write a fictional character like Hitler based on the legend of his monstrosity. The bad guy creating a ‘death machine’ that chews up millions is borderline unbelievable and smacks of the mustache-twirling villain stereotype.
If I were to write Hitler as a fictional character I would start with his beliefs and a really obvious-but-not-explored point; He saw himself and his philosophy as ‘right’ – surely there are millions of people in the world who are equally self-righteous about their beliefs and philosophy. Hitler’s story played out as fiction could easily take form in the plight of the common man. It was that ‘common man’ – the populous of Germany who lifted him to power. I think the role of the German people in electing Hitler is often overlooked or downplayed in favor of ‘the monster of the man’.
This is a shame, and in some ways downright deceitful. Nazism is more a case of “What if everyone believed that” or “what if everyone acted that way” than it is a case of one man single-handedly trying to ruin the world. So even in the purely historical sense, the portrayal of Hitler is not all that accurate. History is written by the victors. In the case of WWII you can be sure I’m glad of that, although I’m not entirely satisfied with the popular portrayals.
Have you seen Downfall yet? Hitler’s insanity has a human side. I think that’s very important to recognize, especially in writing villains.
I think you’d do well in writing a fictional Hitler by focusing on the man, not the monster. He will come out as a monster in the end anyway, but you will validate the characterization in the process rather than making him a cheap cardboard cutout.
The same is true for politics. Politics are merely conflicts of philosophy. The best way to infuse politics into a story is through conflict, which is good for a story anyway. I think it’s fine if you want to orient the conflict of a story around your beliefs, but do it by showing rather than telling.
Characters never tell you their darkest secrets, their bigotry, prejudice, or ‘immorality’ – they show it through their actions. If they talk about it, their speech and mannerisms lie. They dance around the topic, highlighting the positive of their beliefs while downplaying the negative. Smart characters, hell even stupid characters posess some sense of self-awareness. Most humans aren’t comfortable being perceived as villains. Either their convictions override the concern, or they will try to spin perception of them.
The same is true for politics. My main Quantum story has a great degree of politics, but rather than paint one as obviously right or obviously wrong by ranting and raving about it, I intend to focus on the spin or masterful PR tactics of the belief systems themselves. Villains are not without ideological defense. They believe they are right, and perhaps others or even the whole society agrees with them. There are often valid fears and sentiments behind ‘evil’ politics. It is merely the expression, method, or actions that are ‘wrong.’
In that sense, the story of every villain is a tragedy. Tragedy is dependent upon victims. So are politics.