If I had to define writing, but couldn't use technical terms, I would define writing as the use of choices to develop some problem(s) and the solution(s).
Choices abound in writing. And the reason choices exist is not because the author is indecisive, overwhelmed or under-prepared, but because they have control over EVERYTHING in their piece.
They control weather.
They control what a person looks like.
They control the forces of physics.
If it can exist in the story, the author has control over it. Also, the things not in the story they can also control by choosing to exclude them, but that's another discussion....
There can be an infinite number of decisions made in the course of story, no matter how long or short. Many decisions are contingent on other decisions, but the author retains a lot of variables should they need them.
Example: If you're writing a story set in 1920, there will not be DVDs or the Internet, unless you want to alter the technological and historical basis for your story.
Note the shift in color. The blue part of the sentence assumes a relative-Earth environment, following a timeline that parallels the author's existence. The red portion is the choice available to the author, as a demonstration of control. If the author wants to tweak things, they can.
Story generation, before words even fall onto pages, is a mental process. Thoughts come together first, and words follow. For me, those thoughts fall into two camps: Plot and Character.
Plot
A plot-based story establishes the conflict or problem-needing resolution as being greater than the characters. In Lord of The Rings, we open up with a historical perspective on ring creation and Sauron, and how the ring must be destroyed. This puts the problem to the front of the readers' minds and lets everything (characters, subplots, etc) be filtered through the question of "How are they going to solve the problem?"
A plot-driven story shifts the focus away from characters to do this. I do not mean that characters get no development, or that exposition outside of plot is missing, I mean that the bulk of focus is on the problem. There is a combination of elements at work here -- the problem is not just detailed to the Nth-degree but there exist implications and ramifications for the problem at multiple levels.
Example: Our story focuses on our car breaking down on the way to a job interview. From that summation we can see two potential focuses: The importance of the job interview (making the car a subplot) or the opposite - making the car more important (and the interview the subplot). Whichever I pick, I would not belabor the page with tons of description about the texture of the car components, nor would I detail the qualities of the shirt I'm wearing to the interview. To bloat the page with detail is NOT establishing plot. Instead, I narrate and craft the exposition to evoke the feelings of tension, anxiety and urgency.
Remember: Adding detail to the problem does not make the problem more "anything" other than detailed. It does not make it more urgent, more clear or more powerful. Only when you raise the stakes, heighten the emotional content and show the characters working towards a solution do you demonstrate that this problem is worth concern.
Character
Character-driven (or character-based) story succeeds or fail based on the strength of the connection the audience has with the character(s). Plot is not necessarily missing here (as we need a plot to tie all these characters together) but the filter and lens for the reader becomes "How will this character grow/mature over the course of this work, as they go through all these problems?"
In HBO's new series Treme, the emphasis is the characters. The characters are encountered in scene after scene where the action is mundane but the emotional impact, the weight, is felt in every part of any scene. It does not matter if the character is sweeping a floor, dancing down the street or at a barbecue, the audience is led to sympathize and connect with the characters no matter what they're specifically doing. This connection is not built through big action scenes (no a whole lot of swordfights, car chases and explosions in post-Katrina New Orleans) but rather through the motions, expressive body language and dialogue of the characters. Granted, television is a visual medium, so there is a need for things to seen. In written work that expression is handled in narration and exposition, and that is where audiences connect.
Again, it is not a matter of quantity of detail. The story does not advance very far if I know our hero has blue eyes. The story advances further when I know what those blue eyes are doing. Have they teared up over the death of their father? Have they hardened as revenge is sworn?
Remember: When you're writing character-driven stories, the emphasis is on what they do and how they do it. (If you find yourself focusing on "why" they do it, you're looking at plot). Plot doesn't oppose character, it is a matter of focus.
No matter the path you take, whether you focus on characters or on plot, you must understand that both have to exist for your story to be functional. If you have pages of character detail and history, but you don't have them doing something for a reason we can deduce, you don't have a story, you have a character sketch. If you have pages and pages establishing a crisis, complete with history and consequences, you don't have a story, you have a prologue to a story.
A character sketch needs something to do, some problem whereupon it may be applied. A prologue needs characters to advance the story both chronologically and thematically.
Don't confuse "good story" with "unique story"....but that's for my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment