Many thanks
for all your patience while I was busy having my teeth drilled out . Hope you enjoyed
Thom’s rant last week and he didn't hurt your feelings too much. No matter how you felt it about, rest
assured... you were having more fun.
But enough
of my whining...
...whining
like a high speed drill on enamel...
This week I
said we’d talk about Robocop. The
original, not the remake. I haven’t seen
the remake yet, so I can’t comment on it.
Well, not in a non-nerdy, non-whiny way...
And we said
enough whining...
I wanted to
talk to you about a common problem that can lead to a lot of issues in a story,
no matter what the story is. It doesn’t
matter if I’m writing sci-fi (like Robocop), romance, horror, fantasy,
or an intense little character piece—this can kill my story. And, in a way, it’s something I’ve talked
about here before.
As it
happens, this issue’s been summed up by a few people in one simple
sentence. These are the eight worst
words a writer can hear. There’s no way
to put a positive spin on them.
What are
these deadly words...?
I don’t care what
happens to these people.
You’ve
probably heard that old chestnut about the tree falling in the forest. If there’s no one there to hear it, does it
still make a sound? Let me ask you
this—is Jason Voorhees still scary if no one’s in the forest for him to
kill? Is that candlelit dinner on the
rooftop still romantic when it’s just sitting there? Are explosions that action-packed if there’s
no one running away from them?
I’ve said
many, many, many times that my story depends on my characters. A good character has to be relatable, believable, and (on some level) likeable. If my characters are just thin, undeveloped
stereotypes, they’re just empty placeholders.
If spies are hunting Man #3, it doesn’t mean anything. If I tell you they’re after Bob, it’s a
little better, but not much. Once you
hear they’re after Jason Bourne, though, now this suddenly means something.
This is the
big problem with “starting with action.”
That was a storytelling mantra for years. “Start with action—don’t make us wait to be
interested.” It didn’t help that some
people misunderstood “action” to mean explosions rather than just “something happening”. Thing is, like I was
just saying, action is meaningless if I don’t know the stakes and I don’t care
about the characters. It might grab me
for a moment, but I need someone to latch on to, to identify with, to care
about.
Consider
this. I’m betting you’ve seen a
commercial or headline for the news sometime in the past couple of days. Odds are, with the extent of news coverage
and the way it leans toward the sensationalist—you’ve probably seen something
along the lines of “five dead in a house fire” or “two killed in shooting” or
something like that. Sound
familiar? You’ve probably seen at least
a dozen variations on this since New Year’s, yes?
How many of
these stories stuck with you? Can you
name any specifics from any of them? Can
you even remember when you saw them?
Odds are,
the reason you can’t is because you weren’t connected to them in any
way. The news was starting with the
events—the action—not with the people.
And it bored you.
It’s okay
to admit it’s boring. We can all be
awful people together.
There is no way I can make a story work if the reader doesn’t care about the characters. None. It doesn’t matter how amazing my futuristic predictions are, how clever my zombie origin is, how fantastic my descriptions are. If there aren’t any fleshed-out characters, it’s just trees falling in the forest.
There is no way I can make a story work if the reader doesn’t care about the characters. None. It doesn’t matter how amazing my futuristic predictions are, how clever my zombie origin is, how fantastic my descriptions are. If there aren’t any fleshed-out characters, it’s just trees falling in the forest.
Now, there
are a few exceptions to this, but they’re finesse things.
Many years
back, I read an interview with Paul Verhoeven about the original Robocop
(see, I told you we’d get back to it).
The journalist was questioning him about the extreme (at the time)
levels of violence in the film—most notably when Murphy is blown apart little
by little with shotguns until Clarence Boddiker gets bored and puts a bullet in
his head. How could Verhoeven justify
this?
It was
pretty easy, actually. As the director
explained, he only had two scenes with Murphy to establish him as a character
before killing him. Not much at
all. And while he did good things with these scenes, he realized that the death scene could be used, too, to
trick his audience a bit. By giving
Murphy a brutal, utterly nightmarish murder—the kind of death any decent person
wouldn’t wish on anyone—he immediately built sympathy for him. We don’t know much about Murphy when he dies,
but we know he sure as hell didn’t deserve that. It’s the same technique used by a lot of
horror stories, especially slashers and torture porn. We might not care about the specific
character, but we can identify on a basic human level and know this is an awful
thing.
Again,
though... it does take a little finesse.
I can maybe do this once or twice, tops. After that, my readers are
going to be numbed to that shock.
And then
they’re not going to care anymore.
So remember
to build great characters that your readers care about.
And then do
awful things to them.
Next time,
speaking of awful words... I wanted to rattle off a few more.
Until then,
go write.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete