I know that title probably sounds depressing, but it isn't. At least, not for me. I cribbed an old quote by O'Neill, "There is no present or future, just the past happening over and over again." Well, the truthfulness of that in regards to historical events, I will not debate at this moment. But, I must say, from what I've seen, in stories, at least, it's true.
Don't believe me?
Scenario #1: A young couple from waring families falls in love and must struggle to be together against seemingly impossible odds.
Obviously, I mean Romeo and Juliet. Except I really meant the myth about Pyramus and Thisbe. Or did I mean Troilous and Cressida? No, wait, I was thinking of The Wicked Books by Holder and Viguie.
Scenario #2: Pretty, spirited young miss becomes involved with a slightly older, highly attractive man, and through her love saves him from his dark past.
I'm not even going to play with you on this one. That's the plot of about a million romances whose names I couldn't even begin to list. And Twilight. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
So, this brings about the old question, what constitutes new and original anyway? For most stories, I'm sure there's something there that, when stripped to the bones, is really something we've all seen before.
But, for me, that's the key. You've got to strip it to the bones to see that. There should be enough new and interesting meat on the bones that it distinguishes itself from others of its kind.
Bear with me on what could be a disturbing metaphor, okay?
Human skeletons, by and large, look a lot alike. (Not that I've seen a bunch up close or anything like. I'm generalizing.) If you look at pictures of different human skulls, you'll always know, 'Hey, that's a human skull.' And, if I showed you five skeletons, you'd probably need a while to find the two that were exactly alike. (Ooh, an interesting, but slightly creepy, game to play at Halloween parties.)
But, not all people look alike. We're not even shaped alike, for all we've got similar bones. Some bones are longer some people. Some people have more muscles in certain areas. Our hair and eyes and all the little details come in different dimensions and colors. The details change.
It's the same with stories. To make an old story new, change things up. Elongate some bones and shrink others (change the basic framework to shift the focus to another aspect of the tale). Redistribute the muscle groups (change some big aspect, like POV or time and place, which can do a lot). Replace the hair and eyes (make the minor details way different. You can change the MCs personality and end up with a whole different seeming story.)
The past is happening over and over again. Why don't we always feel like it? Because it's a different looking history every time.
How do you feel about story repetition? Are these all just the same old story over and over again? What do you do to make your stories original?
Showing posts with label theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theory. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
Vicious Villians and Annoying Antagonists
During a discussion with an acquaintance about storytelling, the person always used the word villain when referring to the antagonist of the story. This rather bugged me, because I do not consider the words villain and antagonist to be synonymous.
According to dictionary.com, which of late I have elevated to the position of a minor deity...
villain: a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot.
antagonist: the adversary of the hero or protagonist of a drama or other literary work.
The difference that I read into those two definitions is that the villain must therefore possess a quality of evilness and maliciousness, whereas an antagonist could just be someone who's getting in the way or working against the MC and friends.
According to my definitions, a villain can be an antagonist, however an antagonist does not have to be a villain. Sort of like how a rectangle can be a square, but a square doesn't necessarily have to be a rectangle.
In my head, that's the difference between, say, Severus Snape and Lord Voldemort. Lord Voldemort, I think we can all agree, is the villain of the tale. He's evil, wicked, and out to cause pain and destruction for others. Very not nice guy. Snape, I'm sorry, Professor Snape, on the other hand, is just out there to screw with Harry and make his life a littler harder. He's not evil or malicious. He just doesn't like the MC and is interested in making things a bit harder for MC and friends. I'd classify him among the antagonists.
My current WIPs do not include villains, just antagonists. People, especially in actual reality, tend not to be evil in nature (I'm not ruling it out, but it's statistically uncommon), and they also tend not to commit acts of evil for kicks and giggles (again, I'm generalizing, because sadly, some people like doing acts of evil for giggles. But I like to imagine they aren't part of the same species as I.)
However, the world has no shortage of people who are interested in getting in people's way. Well, life wouldn't be life without people being interested in crushing your dreams and making your day a little rainier, would it? (Normally, I'd say something about that being character building, but we all had a parent who said things like that. It probably came somewhere after stories about walking to school ten miles up hill both ways.) Antagonists, in my mind, are more common in the Other Side bunch.
Do you tend to have villains or just antagonists? Do you think villain and antagonist are the same thing?
According to dictionary.com, which of late I have elevated to the position of a minor deity...
villain: a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot.
antagonist: the adversary of the hero or protagonist of a drama or other literary work.
The difference that I read into those two definitions is that the villain must therefore possess a quality of evilness and maliciousness, whereas an antagonist could just be someone who's getting in the way or working against the MC and friends.
According to my definitions, a villain can be an antagonist, however an antagonist does not have to be a villain. Sort of like how a rectangle can be a square, but a square doesn't necessarily have to be a rectangle.
In my head, that's the difference between, say, Severus Snape and Lord Voldemort. Lord Voldemort, I think we can all agree, is the villain of the tale. He's evil, wicked, and out to cause pain and destruction for others. Very not nice guy. Snape, I'm sorry, Professor Snape, on the other hand, is just out there to screw with Harry and make his life a littler harder. He's not evil or malicious. He just doesn't like the MC and is interested in making things a bit harder for MC and friends. I'd classify him among the antagonists.
My current WIPs do not include villains, just antagonists. People, especially in actual reality, tend not to be evil in nature (I'm not ruling it out, but it's statistically uncommon), and they also tend not to commit acts of evil for kicks and giggles (again, I'm generalizing, because sadly, some people like doing acts of evil for giggles. But I like to imagine they aren't part of the same species as I.)
However, the world has no shortage of people who are interested in getting in people's way. Well, life wouldn't be life without people being interested in crushing your dreams and making your day a little rainier, would it? (Normally, I'd say something about that being character building, but we all had a parent who said things like that. It probably came somewhere after stories about walking to school ten miles up hill both ways.) Antagonists, in my mind, are more common in the Other Side bunch.
Do you tend to have villains or just antagonists? Do you think villain and antagonist are the same thing?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Most Important Thing
Have you ever seen the movie Secret Window with Johnny Depp? I admit, I'm a huge fan of Mr. Depp, and I think he'd very good in this. And, he gets one of my favorite lines in the movie. (No, slash that, I think he has all of my favorite lines of the movie.)
See, Johnny Depp plays Mort Rainey, an author. I'm going to skip over all the parts related to plot so as not to spoil anything, but at one point Mort explains his views on endings: "You know, the only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story, the ending. And this one... is very good. This one's perfect." (If you want to hear Mr. Depp deliver the lines -- and I think everyone should, click here to watch the last scene. If you wish to avoid references to things that occur in the movie, watch only that which occurs in the time slow 1:25 - 1:45.)
I concur with Mr. Mort Rainey. The end, in my mind, is the most important part.
Now, I'm not going to claim that beginnings are not important. (That would be silly. That's when you establish everything and hook your reader.) And I am not about to claim that middles are allowed to be rubbish or that no one cares about them. (That would foolish. Middles are were everyone spends most of their time. They are arguably the largest portion of the book. They have to be good. If they weren't worth reading, then no one would get to the ending.) But I do think that what you really need is, what you absolutely cannot get by without is a very good ending.
Do you know why?
Because in the beginning, they can put the book down. They don't have to get started at all, if they don't want to. And while that might be unfortunate for you, as a writer, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and not everyone was going to like you anyway.
In the middle, they can not like you. They can put the book down, take breaks, or simply give it up. None of those things are particularly good for you, the author, but they are not the worst things. After all, even if the middle, one is not necessarily committed. Promises have not always been made.
But the ending. If they've made the ending, they deserve to having something good. You owe it to the reader. You promised them that you weren't going to blow it. And if you do, they'll upset, and deservedly so.
See, I view reading as a partnership. The writer, by presenting this book to you, has made assurances of its worth and general goodness. The reader, by reading, has made assurances of interest and openness to the events of the story. If you give them a bad ending, you're not holding up your end. You gave them a good most of the story (good work, you), and they got invested, just the way you'd always hoped. Now if the ending is bad, they're going to want to throw the book against the wall. And, even worse for you, they might never read anything you write ever again. And, even worse, they might convince others not to read your work either.
Why?
Because you reneged on the deal. Bad. The reader expected a satisfying ending, and they deserve it. And you should give it to them.
Now, I'm not saying that it has to be a happy ending, though we know I love those. I am, however, saying that it should wrap things up, at least most things. If it leaves all sorts of things hanging out there, that's not finishing, that's stopping. That's not the same.
Someone should make it out alive. (Yes, we've heard me say this before.) Why do I say that? Because if every single person the reader has been following throughout the book dies, then you're gonna have to take a few pages to explain to the reader why anything you just wrote matters. And, trust me, if no one is alive to be impacted, that's a hard things to do.
The ending should be foreseeable and physically possible. I do not mean that you have to make it obvious -- that would be much less fun. However, the reader should have a snowball's shot in hell of understanding how it all happened. For example, if it's a murder mystery, don't make the doer some person the reader's never heard of and the weapon and motive should have been something the reader could recognize. Otherwise, why'd you bother bringing them along for the ride?
The ending is what I read books for. While I care about how they get there (in the stories I read, that is often the part that changes), I expect a good resolution. Otherwise, I might just throw your book against the wall.
Tell me, how do you feel about endings? What do you find to be the most important part? Do you share my fandom of Johnny Depp?
See, Johnny Depp plays Mort Rainey, an author. I'm going to skip over all the parts related to plot so as not to spoil anything, but at one point Mort explains his views on endings: "You know, the only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story, the ending. And this one... is very good. This one's perfect." (If you want to hear Mr. Depp deliver the lines -- and I think everyone should, click here to watch the last scene. If you wish to avoid references to things that occur in the movie, watch only that which occurs in the time slow 1:25 - 1:45.)
I concur with Mr. Mort Rainey. The end, in my mind, is the most important part.
Now, I'm not going to claim that beginnings are not important. (That would be silly. That's when you establish everything and hook your reader.) And I am not about to claim that middles are allowed to be rubbish or that no one cares about them. (That would foolish. Middles are were everyone spends most of their time. They are arguably the largest portion of the book. They have to be good. If they weren't worth reading, then no one would get to the ending.) But I do think that what you really need is, what you absolutely cannot get by without is a very good ending.
Do you know why?
Because in the beginning, they can put the book down. They don't have to get started at all, if they don't want to. And while that might be unfortunate for you, as a writer, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and not everyone was going to like you anyway.
In the middle, they can not like you. They can put the book down, take breaks, or simply give it up. None of those things are particularly good for you, the author, but they are not the worst things. After all, even if the middle, one is not necessarily committed. Promises have not always been made.
But the ending. If they've made the ending, they deserve to having something good. You owe it to the reader. You promised them that you weren't going to blow it. And if you do, they'll upset, and deservedly so.
See, I view reading as a partnership. The writer, by presenting this book to you, has made assurances of its worth and general goodness. The reader, by reading, has made assurances of interest and openness to the events of the story. If you give them a bad ending, you're not holding up your end. You gave them a good most of the story (good work, you), and they got invested, just the way you'd always hoped. Now if the ending is bad, they're going to want to throw the book against the wall. And, even worse for you, they might never read anything you write ever again. And, even worse, they might convince others not to read your work either.
Why?
Because you reneged on the deal. Bad. The reader expected a satisfying ending, and they deserve it. And you should give it to them.
Now, I'm not saying that it has to be a happy ending, though we know I love those. I am, however, saying that it should wrap things up, at least most things. If it leaves all sorts of things hanging out there, that's not finishing, that's stopping. That's not the same.
Someone should make it out alive. (Yes, we've heard me say this before.) Why do I say that? Because if every single person the reader has been following throughout the book dies, then you're gonna have to take a few pages to explain to the reader why anything you just wrote matters. And, trust me, if no one is alive to be impacted, that's a hard things to do.
The ending should be foreseeable and physically possible. I do not mean that you have to make it obvious -- that would be much less fun. However, the reader should have a snowball's shot in hell of understanding how it all happened. For example, if it's a murder mystery, don't make the doer some person the reader's never heard of and the weapon and motive should have been something the reader could recognize. Otherwise, why'd you bother bringing them along for the ride?
The ending is what I read books for. While I care about how they get there (in the stories I read, that is often the part that changes), I expect a good resolution. Otherwise, I might just throw your book against the wall.
Tell me, how do you feel about endings? What do you find to be the most important part? Do you share my fandom of Johnny Depp?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
New Theory
Okay, I officially have a new theory of the universe. Here it is: the whinging helps.
Yesterday, I whined about my first draft. I can admit that my frustration was mostly tied to the fact that the words aren't coming as easily as they used to, so this is feeling more like work these days, so minor things get less of my patience.
But last night -- post whinging -- I had this amazing surge and I ended up writing about 1000 words without breaking a sweat. It was unbelievable.
So, my new theory is that the whinging helps. Now, I'm not talking about constant complaining of ranting about every little thing, but sometimes just getting the annoying things off your chest frees up some qi and gets the creative juices flowing again. I endorse venting.
So, for today, what's your pet peeve? What is frustrating you at the moment?
Yesterday, I whined about my first draft. I can admit that my frustration was mostly tied to the fact that the words aren't coming as easily as they used to, so this is feeling more like work these days, so minor things get less of my patience.
But last night -- post whinging -- I had this amazing surge and I ended up writing about 1000 words without breaking a sweat. It was unbelievable.
So, my new theory is that the whinging helps. Now, I'm not talking about constant complaining of ranting about every little thing, but sometimes just getting the annoying things off your chest frees up some qi and gets the creative juices flowing again. I endorse venting.
So, for today, what's your pet peeve? What is frustrating you at the moment?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
