In Lieu of What Are You Reading
Dec. 17th, 2014 03:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxSometimes I'm less interested in books I've read than in random thoughts and analysis. This one is about excess--when it's good and when it's not.
There is a certain value in going one step too far in stories...sometimes.
I think it comes from a desire to protect beloved characters or maybe it's to protect ourselves when reading, but we resist certain story twists. However, sometimes pushing us out of our comfort zone makes a story better. It's not always best to heed the little voice inside screaming 'do not go there!' because sometimes 'going there' is exactly what is needed to stories and/or a character to the next level... when it is handled properly.
That's the real danger with 'going there'. Are you going to address it properly? Can you adequately explore and support the can of worms that you just opened?
I'll place Whedon/Noxon's "Seeing Red" as an example of opening a can of worms with little idea of what was going to happen as follow up or any idea of how to adequately address it. If you have no follow up to something, perhaps you should avoid the worm can in the first place. Otherwise, it's just exploitative. (On the other hand, in cases where there is adequate exploration of a worm can, the story is can be improved by it.)
Example of a worm can that should have been avoided in a story that I recently read was the inclusion of a suicide attempt by the book's hero. I know why the author did it. Like Whedon whacking a beloved protagonistfor the lulz for the emotional gut punch, some things are going to get an audience reaction no matter what. Killing a loved character can produce emotion in a climax whether or not the story itself is good (*glares at Whedon overusing this trope) In this case, revealing after a story climax, that the hero had tried to commit suicide (because of the story climax) literally caused me to gasp while reading. As far as shock and emotional impact goes: it worked. LIke gangbusters. And that's all well and good, but...
It's a worm can that should not have been opened, I think. It wasn't followed up properly and it exacerbated a problem with a secondary protagonist such that I stopped rooting for the secondary protagonist's journey because I was distracted by the primary protagonist's newly (belatedly) revealed issues.
The climax of the story had the secondary protagonist betray the primary protagonist... and I was okay with that. As a character flaw for #2, it worked. I understood why #2 did it. It was definitely a horrible judgement call on their part, but I could see addressing and forgiving it. It was an obstacle not unforgivable and it became the hook for the last part of the book when the secondary protagonist proceeded to make excuses for their betrayal that, while accurate, we're not quite adequate to have justified their choices. I was rooting for #2 to get perpective and to offer an adequate apology.
Then came the revelation of the primary protagonist having nearly committed suicide in the aftermath of the betrayal.
Worm can!!!
1) I'm uncomfortable blaming secondary protagonist for primary protagonist's suicide attempt. You can't hang that on someone --and primary protagonist had a lot more shit to deal with than the secondary protagonists betrayal. (Given everything that had happend to #1 in his lifetime, I did buy the suicide attempt. It really would not have been about #2's betrayal per se. The betrayal on top of a few other things was a catalyst and/or trigger but not the true cause. #1 had a lifetime of causes of emotional trauma, so #2's betrayal was far from the only issue at play, which brings me to...
2). A reunion of protagonists could not solve the underlying problems that would lead to a suicide attempt. The problem was bigger than that and would require more follow-up. So what I had been rooting for prior to that would, in fact, solve nothing. And yet...
3) While I cannot blame secondary protagonist for first's suicide attempt, it made me far more impatient and intolerant with second's downplaying of their betrayal during the climax. To be honest, I thought #1 had a legitimate reason to be angry when pointing out that it took the villain all of five minutes to undermine ALL of the second protagonist's trust in the first. Considering the difficulty the first had opening up about their past, to be so easily disbelieved about ALL OF IT after no more than than one conversation with the villain was indeed a real breech of hard-given trust.
The betrayal was where I thought going a step too far worked. Dealing with the fall out of lack of trust-- while uncomfotable--was good fodder for character development...
At least until the reveal of the suicide attempt that came in the aftermath.
That was when a good 'one step too far' became several steps too far. It split the story too close to the ending of the novel. As long as it was about #2 having betayed #1's trust and the need to rebuild trust, I knew what I was rooting for. And that alone was a huge enough obstacle to handle for the last 50-100 pages. Throwing in the suicide reveal with barely 20 pages left to go split the narrative. No longer was I simply rooting for #2 to admit to themselves the depth of their mistake without their making convenient excuses to themselves for their lack of trust (which was what I had been doing to that point). Now I was worried about a whole host of emotional trauma #1 must not have adequately dealt with if he had spiraled down to the point of contemplating suicide. Suddenly #2 lying to themselves simply felt trivial. Yeah, it's a flaw, but #1 has real truoubles! Clearly #1's problems were way bigger than I had realized if had he tried to commit suicide and there were only 20 pages to go after this revelation (And the ending didn't resolve them...but at least the epilogue didn't try to paint it as though all of his problems had been magically solved by the ending, either. Life was better, but he still had hang-ups and issues.)
It gets back to my 1,2,3 of issues with it. 1 being that you cannot hang someone else's suicide attempt on another person. The secondary protagonist screwed up and owed an apology (and some humility), but secondary protagonist's evolution was not going to solve first's emotional problems, so what I had been rooting for was rendered somewhat moot (yanking the rug out from under me with 20 pages to go) Also, a suicide attempt straight-up deserved more than 20 pages to resolve.
.... which is why the suicide attempt was a big ol' worm can. One that should not have been busted out without there being a plan to adequately address it.
I guess I'm advocating that it's okay to go to uncomfortable places, but for goodness sakes when doing so, don't be exploitative about it. Some worm cans are quick to elicit an audience reaction, but it's insulting when that's ALL it's there for -- a quick way to elicit emotion but there for a much else.
There is a certain value in going one step too far in stories...sometimes.
I think it comes from a desire to protect beloved characters or maybe it's to protect ourselves when reading, but we resist certain story twists. However, sometimes pushing us out of our comfort zone makes a story better. It's not always best to heed the little voice inside screaming 'do not go there!' because sometimes 'going there' is exactly what is needed to stories and/or a character to the next level... when it is handled properly.
That's the real danger with 'going there'. Are you going to address it properly? Can you adequately explore and support the can of worms that you just opened?
I'll place Whedon/Noxon's "Seeing Red" as an example of opening a can of worms with little idea of what was going to happen as follow up or any idea of how to adequately address it. If you have no follow up to something, perhaps you should avoid the worm can in the first place. Otherwise, it's just exploitative. (On the other hand, in cases where there is adequate exploration of a worm can, the story is can be improved by it.)
Example of a worm can that should have been avoided in a story that I recently read was the inclusion of a suicide attempt by the book's hero. I know why the author did it. Like Whedon whacking a beloved protagonist
It's a worm can that should not have been opened, I think. It wasn't followed up properly and it exacerbated a problem with a secondary protagonist such that I stopped rooting for the secondary protagonist's journey because I was distracted by the primary protagonist's newly (belatedly) revealed issues.
The climax of the story had the secondary protagonist betray the primary protagonist... and I was okay with that. As a character flaw for #2, it worked. I understood why #2 did it. It was definitely a horrible judgement call on their part, but I could see addressing and forgiving it. It was an obstacle not unforgivable and it became the hook for the last part of the book when the secondary protagonist proceeded to make excuses for their betrayal that, while accurate, we're not quite adequate to have justified their choices. I was rooting for #2 to get perpective and to offer an adequate apology.
Then came the revelation of the primary protagonist having nearly committed suicide in the aftermath of the betrayal.
Worm can!!!
1) I'm uncomfortable blaming secondary protagonist for primary protagonist's suicide attempt. You can't hang that on someone --and primary protagonist had a lot more shit to deal with than the secondary protagonists betrayal. (Given everything that had happend to #1 in his lifetime, I did buy the suicide attempt. It really would not have been about #2's betrayal per se. The betrayal on top of a few other things was a catalyst and/or trigger but not the true cause. #1 had a lifetime of causes of emotional trauma, so #2's betrayal was far from the only issue at play, which brings me to...
2). A reunion of protagonists could not solve the underlying problems that would lead to a suicide attempt. The problem was bigger than that and would require more follow-up. So what I had been rooting for prior to that would, in fact, solve nothing. And yet...
3) While I cannot blame secondary protagonist for first's suicide attempt, it made me far more impatient and intolerant with second's downplaying of their betrayal during the climax. To be honest, I thought #1 had a legitimate reason to be angry when pointing out that it took the villain all of five minutes to undermine ALL of the second protagonist's trust in the first. Considering the difficulty the first had opening up about their past, to be so easily disbelieved about ALL OF IT after no more than than one conversation with the villain was indeed a real breech of hard-given trust.
The betrayal was where I thought going a step too far worked. Dealing with the fall out of lack of trust-- while uncomfotable--was good fodder for character development...
At least until the reveal of the suicide attempt that came in the aftermath.
That was when a good 'one step too far' became several steps too far. It split the story too close to the ending of the novel. As long as it was about #2 having betayed #1's trust and the need to rebuild trust, I knew what I was rooting for. And that alone was a huge enough obstacle to handle for the last 50-100 pages. Throwing in the suicide reveal with barely 20 pages left to go split the narrative. No longer was I simply rooting for #2 to admit to themselves the depth of their mistake without their making convenient excuses to themselves for their lack of trust (which was what I had been doing to that point). Now I was worried about a whole host of emotional trauma #1 must not have adequately dealt with if he had spiraled down to the point of contemplating suicide. Suddenly #2 lying to themselves simply felt trivial. Yeah, it's a flaw, but #1 has real truoubles! Clearly #1's problems were way bigger than I had realized if had he tried to commit suicide and there were only 20 pages to go after this revelation (And the ending didn't resolve them...but at least the epilogue didn't try to paint it as though all of his problems had been magically solved by the ending, either. Life was better, but he still had hang-ups and issues.)
It gets back to my 1,2,3 of issues with it. 1 being that you cannot hang someone else's suicide attempt on another person. The secondary protagonist screwed up and owed an apology (and some humility), but secondary protagonist's evolution was not going to solve first's emotional problems, so what I had been rooting for was rendered somewhat moot (yanking the rug out from under me with 20 pages to go) Also, a suicide attempt straight-up deserved more than 20 pages to resolve.
.... which is why the suicide attempt was a big ol' worm can. One that should not have been busted out without there being a plan to adequately address it.
I guess I'm advocating that it's okay to go to uncomfortable places, but for goodness sakes when doing so, don't be exploitative about it. Some worm cans are quick to elicit an audience reaction, but it's insulting when that's ALL it's there for -- a quick way to elicit emotion but there for a much else.
